The search for MH370..where it’s all gone wrong.

© By Paul Howard 2016

This is an opinion article based not just on data but an absence of data. That may appear a ridiculous method of deducing anything but much has been achieved in science by studying the gaps.

The leak of the home simulator data, although misleading, has finally given me an explanation of why nothing seemed to fit.

Below is an image from and link to Dr Bobby Ulich’s work ( it’s dynamic & the image is a snapshot in time). I must emphasise that he has applied huge effort and have no doubt that his calculations are exact. I believe his only error to be his assumptions and as a true scientist, his work has specified exactly what those assumptions are.

I consider his work to be methodical, accurate and among the best of any third party working on the MH370 problem.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUTDlfTUNTZDVxb3c/view?pref=2&pli=1

What makes Dr Bobby’s work so special, is that peculiar series of turns equating to a strange dithering from last military contact to waypoint SANOB. In order to understand the significance of this we need to recap the information we have and realise that we’re working with limited information. It falls into three certain categories;

1. Radar

2. Satellite signals

3. Debris

The turns Dr Bobby describe seem to link the first two but do they?

From what we’ve been told the aircraft turned at IGARI tracked across Malaysia, turned again 6nm south of Penang then tracked north westerly up the Straits of Malacca to a point abeam waypoint MEKAR at 1822.

Dr Bobby calculates it then does an “S” series of turns to intersect the 1825:27 arc, continues to SANOB and then Final Major Turn to continue a straight track into the Southern Indian Ocean.

Can we believe that the real aircraft actually did this? My answer is no but it’s not the calculation that’s wrong, which brings me back to absence of data.

The assumption for this is last military contact at 1822 and that all the radar data is correct.

How do we know it’s correct? We don’t. None of us have seen raw radar data and my own previous analysis casts doubt on radar returns after 1752.

That is the gap. From 1752 to 1825 there is no data.

To determine if this is correct we need to return to the radar information provided by the Interim Factual 2015 and compare it with the earliest information we were given about radar. The following is the pertinent information drawn from my own radar analysis. http://www.paulhowardplays.com/blog/mh370-radar-track-what-did-they-see

The less circulated Lido slide (from presentation 21st or 22nd March 2014) but with the important 2nd radial to Perak Island. From that I could calculate distance/speed between the two radials and compare that to speed of the overall official track. 540kts ! Impossible for a B777. Also note the difference between the two 0222/1822 positions. So where was last Military radar contact ?

To check plotting accuracy, Butterworth AB is quoted so I used the standard AIP co-ordinates of WMKB (image below)

For comparison, we come to the 2015 Interim Factual Report.

The last position on the EVA plot (right) is 6nm south of Penang at 1752:35 UTC and (left) is the description of Military tracking from there. The detail from the Lido slides is absent, no description of the gap in the trace and the most definitive information (a purported screenshot from radar) didn't make it into the Interim Factual. All we have is that very vague description after 1752. Why haven't Malaysia provided an EVA plot from 1752 to 1822 ?

If they recorded MH370 on Civil/Military primary radar (PSR) the only way to determine that is by elimination of known traffic. There was no statement to that effect in the 2015 Interim Factual Report. Without that basic procedure there is a likelihood that the track was another aircraft and not 9M-MRO (MH370). Standard radar separation is 5 minutes/30nms(subject to equipment & local procedure) Which means the gap between 1721 and 1730 could have been filled by two aircraft. My own judgement concludes that if they had it on radar at all, it was only until 6nms south of Penang at 1752 UTC.

At this point it's important to read what the Australian Defence Science & Technology Group (working closely with ATSB) have to say about the radar track.

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/855/bok%253A978-981-10-0379-0.pdf

Rather than go cross-eyed from having to read the whole gobbledygook, I'll refer to the salient points.

Chapter 4Aircraft Prior Based on PrimaryRadar Data

“The radar data contains regular estimatesof latitude, longitude and altitude at 10 s intervals from 16:42:27 to 18:01:49.A singleadditional latitude and longitude position was reported at 18:22:12. Figure 4.1 showsthe radar data overlaid on a map. Under radar coverage, the aircraft turned sharplyat approximately 17:24, crossed over Malaysia, and then turned to the North-Westat 17:53”.

“10 second intervals from 1642 to 1801”. How does that compare to 2015 Interim Factual ? 1721 to 1730- gap. 1736 to 1741-gap 1744 to 1747-gap 1748 to 1751-gap.Then most importantly, according to DSTG; “A single additional latitude and longitude position was reported at 18:22:12”

So according to DSTG, after 1801, nothing and just a single point at 1822. To return to my own plotting from the Lido slide, where was this single point at 1822 ?A single point at 1822, possibly not even an aircraft, processing errors, weather, many factors can cause a single return.I think it would be pretty fair to say that radar is in doubt and anything after 1752 is extremely dubious.

If the authorities had no data from 1752 to 1825, how did they link radar to 1st ping arc? How did they even determine a direction of flight ? They didn’t do it the way Dr Bobby has done it for one very good reason. They were in possession of information which he wasn’t, the home flight simulator data. The other question which needs asking is; did Dr Bobby independently calculate a turn south into SIO from Burst Frequency Offset or did he just follow the crowd ?

ATSB have been very careful to specify that the simulator data is not relevant to the search area and that they have used satellite data only. Not the whole truth. They've been careful to contextually make that statement with regard to the end of flight scenario and avoided comment on the initial stage of the track. Outspokenly arguing about end of flight scenarios diverts attention from the beginning of the track and that is where focus should be.

The whole search has been based on the premise that the aircraft tracked directly to FMT north of Sumatra and continued into the SIO. Does the Satellite data show that? Not according to Dr Bobby it doesn’t. Furthermore even Inmarsat themselves couldn’t definitively conclude a track into the SIO and the current search area.

“The spike in the measured data at 18:28 is not fully understood and was originally ascribed to a possible manoeuvre of the aircraft: although it could be related to frequency changes during the logon sequence described in Section 3.3.”

Link to Journal of Navigation paper: http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/NAV/NAV68_01/S037346331400068Xa.pdf&code=858791bc8f6a44775695a37a3d8fa71f

*Also note my Appendix 1&2 (below)

The only way the ATSB could make the assumption for a north-westerly flight up the Straits of Malacca with an acute angle turn into the Indian Ocean is with extra information. The information they had, couldn't on its own, have been sufficient to commit to a submarine search in the SIO which leaves us with this;

Original image from RMP report P24/24

Before having a good look at the home simulator data however, the dynamic and context of information relating to the search should be re-visited. What statements have ATSB made about the simulator data ?

From ATSB “Correcting the record”; https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/correcting-the-record/

“the simulator information shows only the possibility of planning. It does not reveal what happened on the night of its disappearance nor where the aircraft is located.”

“Possibility of planning” At this stage it doesn’t matter what you or I believe about the home simulator data, it only matters what ATSB believed and from that we can be certain that they believed there was a possibility of planning. Planning for what ? What else but a suicide mission up the Straits of Malacca with a sharp turn into the SIO ?

Let’s further examine the situational dynamic. From the very early days there were rumours that the captain's flight simulator had data which planned a suicide mission into the SIO but we hadn’t seen anything to confirm that. Malaysia made statements that there was nothing sinister in the data and repeated that in Interim Factual. However ATSB have never made a statement of denial, they've left it to Malaysia.

ATSB have always denied an investigative role and claim they were only responsible for the search and yet they are investigating the flap section recovered from Pemba Island. If the simulator wasn’t related to the search, why have they stated that it shows a possibility of planning? Why didn't they just refer any questions regarding the sim data back to Malaysia ? Apart from Malaysia, JIT and ATSB, who else was involved in investigating MH370? The Independent Group. The question which needs to be asked is just how independent are they? They've admitted sharing information with ATSB, all that need be established is mutuality.

Two members of the Independent Group were involved with the selective leak of the data and one alleged former member was responsible for the leak to New York Magazine and authored the article. The involvement of the two silent members extends at very least to confirming that the data was genuine and that they had seen it.

How long had the IG known about the data and how did it influence their assumptions? Draw your own conclusion from this statement by Jeff Wise (from his blog)

My 1st (*lonely) analysis of the home simulator data was published in my blog 9th August 2016 and six days ahead of the IG Preliminary Analysis published 15th August, despite *twelve names credited and the extra time they had to work with (pre-leak).

http://www.paulhowardplays.com/blog/proof-that-capt-z-shah-did-not-plan-turn-into-sio

Now to the data itself and I’ll present it in reverse order for a good reason.(because that's the way the IG have done it)

We can safely assume that two members of the IG have known about the data for some time but their analysis of it was only released 15th August. They had plenty of time to conduct an analysis but didn’t do so until well after New York Magazine published (22nd July) and Jeff Wise had selectively used it to incriminate the captain.

The IG Preliminary Assessment here; http://www.duncansteel.com/

Para 3 and associated Fig 1 “The coordinates, if all from one simulation run, suggest the departure of a B777- 200LR aircraft from Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA), a flight up the Malacca Strait, a turn to the south, and a termination in the Southern Indian Ocean near 45S 104E. This path is shown as a black line in Figure 1.”

This from Le Monde 12th August, who claim to have seen the full report and a further 65 page secret report;

“The report's authors say they are not able to establish that these coordinates belong to a single flight.”

So what have the IG done? Without a single piece of linking information they’ve drawn a path in exactly the same way a child joins the dots, only they’ve made it black so it doesn’t stand out quite so much as Jeff Wise’s blatant incrimination but the insinuation is there.

Let me be clear, there is no path, only a list of 6 random data points.

Para 4. “A path connecting the turn and the final coordinates, when extrapolated further as a great circle, aligns with airfields servicing the McMurdo Station in Antarctica, which may have been chosen as the destination in the simulation. This extrapolation is also indicated in Figure 1”

There is no alignment. Because a line drawn in Google Earth small scale appears to align, doesn't mean it does, it is an illusory image providing a false misconception. On IG scale, two points appear as one. Below is a comparison of scale including the detailed information for RMP points 4 and 5. Also take note of the AGL figure conveniently dismissed by the IG.

What the IG have also failed to mention is that McMurdo is nestled against the base of Mt Erebus. Why did they not mention that ? Could it be because they’re suggesting that an FSX simulation must land somewhere? It hasn’t occurred to them that Mt Erebus is a scenic opportunity for a flyby nor have they mentioned a scenery addon called Orbx. The 1st thing any sim user does after adding scenery, is a flyby to see how good it is and that doesn’t require a flight. Slewing is much quicker. It's not a real aircraft, it does not need to land, a quick scenic flight can end by pressing Esc key !

Para 5. “Within the Shadow Copy Set, there were two additional coordinates that were recovered for an aircraft parked at KLIA. No other coordinates recovered from the Shadow Copy Set, if there were any, were included in the RMP report.”

A comparative indication of the lack of depth of the IG “Preliminary Assessment” from my own analysis(below) published 9th August contained this detail of the only KLIA co-ordinate given at the time (including heading), which for the benefit of the IG, as we are talking aviation, is WMKK . The IG haven't attempted to explain the 70' altitude at Sim 6 so I will. MSFS gives a choice of parking stand or runway end for commencement of flight. Default altimeter setting is 1013,QNH is air pressure reduced to mean sea level. WMKK has an elevation of 70' Above Mean Sea Level.

Para 6. “Although we cannot determine that the six points (see Table 1) are all from a single flight simulation run, the alignments of the points and the progressive depletion in fuel level, leading to an unpowered descent from an altitude of 37,600 feet down to 4,000 feet over a short distance, suggest the coordinates may well be related to the same flight simulation.”

Total nonsense with a complete disregard for the facts and an over-eager agenda to subtly influence people either unable or unwilling to examine the data in detail. This is the position (below) of point 3 from the RMP report. The numbering of my position 3 hasn’t been altered from the original RMP report and relates directly to their numbering system not the “translated” and massaged table from the IG. My addition of airway overlays is to give an indication of the relationship to the surrounding airspace and not to arbitrarily draw a meaningless line into the SIO. The heading and altitude information I’ve included, the extra data from the report I haven’t because it’s impossible to do it accurately without specific knowledge of the aircraft model add-on. Another inaccurate assumption is that these points were from a B777. We don’t know what model aircraft created these points and the model can affect the data to a huge extent, even to the point of reversing the values. Microsoft FSX is a base platform and the data conventions can be and are changed by 3rd party developers. We know that a Posky PSS B777 was used and that model can only be used in the previous version of MSFS, FS9. Again there has been an assumption that FSX was the platform but it could have been FS9 and that would change the data presentation.

You can see from the original Royal Malaysian Police report (below) that at point 3 there is a bank value. I omitted it from my analysis because it's an unknown. The only information which appeared in my own analysis were headings, lat/longs and altitudes because the other information is yet to be determined. Depending on 3rd party add-on software there is a distinct possibility that the bank is right not left as IG have guessed and number value doesn't necessarily equate to a 20 degree bank in a normal aircraft. It refers to variation from the data set related to a specific aircraft model which is unknown. Sim 3 (above) is heading only, wind offset is unknown as is roll-out heading and there is nothing to indicate a turn towards SIO.

Below (left) is the table from the original RMP document. The IG tampered and “translated” table (right) To make it easier to compare I've renumbered the IG table to original RMP numbering above the columns.

6 1 2 3 4 5

1. Latitude/longitude. Why did IG change from deg/min/sec to decimal ? Are they unable to plot from a standard format? Is there an error possibility in the translation ? Yes. There is no need to change any of the original data except to confuse, obfuscate and make it difficult for anyone to check their work. They've given no worksheet to show how their information was derived.

2. Altitude/AGL. The IG omission of AGL is a major attempt to mislead from the original report and to try to force- fit satellite data. Even RMP highlighted with ??? and every point except 5 has a max difference from altitude of only 3'. IG have effectively lied to suit an agenda. I'm sure they'll make the excuse of a mistake which only leaves incompetence.

3. Pitch. Absent without leave.

4. Bank. Also AWOL

5. Heading. They don't even know what variation is loaded in the sim, bet they used 2014 but hey guess what? MS FSX might not have updated from FS9 which was 2004 ! That's apart from a heading NOT being a TRACK so extending it to anywhere is another piece of IG fiction.

6. *Ground speed. All RMP speeds are quoted feet per sec,There's no RMP figure I can divide by 60 for fpm & again for fph & divide again by 6080 to give knots that looks anything like the IG figures.

7. *Vertical speed. There's no RMP figure I can divide by 60 to give an IG fpm result.

8. Turn rate. Expressed how? RMP give specific units, IG just give a number and that's fictional without specific aircraft model.

9. Fuel. MSFS is not a real aircraft it can refuel at any time by use of shift+ F keys. But as the IG haven't a clue about MSFS, I'll also explain that shift + F can be remapped to any key combination.

*Two apparent errors, divide versus multiply.

The two errors in my work have been pointed out to me in no uncertain terms by the Independent Group. I haven't edited them out of this article because I'm not trying to hide anything. My point about the IG Preliminary Assessment has actually been vindicated by my own errors. They provided no worksheet and expected us to figure what they'd done and take their word that they were 100% correct as they repeatedly assert but where is the proof.

I admit I did rush my reply and the reason I did so was because of the assertions they made in their descriptive paragraphs. Inferences come at the end of data presentations, not before and I maintain my assertion that because they described a path before proving that it existed, they were deliberately attempting to infer a planned path with it's obvious connotation. Let's not forget that the 1st analysis of simulator data was mine and the only argument the IG could make against it, was bank at point 3(RMP). Notice that in their preliminary assessment, bank is absent so they had no argument against my 1st analysis whatsoever ! Another point to note, because IG have renumbered, in subsequent discussion who is to know what point is being discussed?

An interesting quote about the home simulator data:

- Dr Dr. Amirudin Abdul Wahab is the CEO of CyberSecurity Malaysia

- by email - he confirmed (PRESUMABLY to ABC - PM) that:

- it was his organisation that examined the captain's computer

- at the request of Malaysia Police

- denied US-FBI did analysis

- His VERDICT =

- thousands of co-ordinates are "default positions" in the sim program

- hundreds of routes are also defaults in the sim program

- analysis of data provided "no conclusive evidence" that captain flew a "suicide mission".

Credit @Ventus_45 via http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to-think-of-it-as-a-criminal-act?pid=4982#pid4982

Conclusion.

I think I've shown that the IG have produced a preliminary assessment of the home simulator data which is misleading at the very least, particularly as they've displayed a path with no data to indicate there is one. Not only is there nothing sinister in the home simulator data, there's nothing that even resembles the scenario of MH370. But this shows that both ATSB & the IG thought there was “possibility of planning” and used it to fill the data gaps and base their assumptions and calculations on information from what is effectively a toy which they didn't understand. It explains the double talk from ATSB and the IG because neither can say outright that they blame the pilot. To do so would be a public relations disaster with questions too embarrassing to answer, so rather than say it outright, they prefer inference and innuendo and hope that the idea of pilot suicide will percolate sufficiently as an excuse for a failed search. It'll be fiction, it won't be what happened but it's what the press will tell the public and they will tell their children and another myth will be born.

What is so startlingly amazing is that somebody at Royal Malaysian Police drew a line between two unrelated points and a $100M + search has been based on it ever since. Not surface debris, not real calculation but a series of guesses which were added to a line drawn by a Malaysian cop. Will they admit it ?

Is my conclusion helpful? Will it help find the aircraft or is it just a criticism of the authorities and the Independent Group ? I'm firmly convinced that the only way this aircraft can be found, is by continuing revision and analysis of the existing data. That includes Inmarsat. Appendix 1 and 2 (below) show the complexity of the system and the potential for error. Only by acknowledging where errors and false assumptions have occurred is there any possibility of progression. It must be understood that from the outset there was so little data, that to embark on a submarine search was a brave and possibly foolhardy mission. Historically, there is a very fine line between the two.

Personally I wouldn't have done it. Once the ULB batteries had expired and there was no chance of receiving any transmission from the aircraft, I would have continued air and surface search but would not have embarked on a submarine search. I was confounded by expressions of confidence by the authorities because from my own understanding, I thought the chances of success were slim.

Of course there are further questions but I won't be asking them, my work on this missing aircraft is now complete.

Appendix 1

The MITEQ documents below provide an insight into the Inmarsat system and to highlight the error factors associated with two ground stations. Worth noting is the difference between that and ATSB's explanation.

https://miteq.com/docs/20TEC.PDF

https://miteq.com/docs/23TEC.PDF

Appendix 2

(MITEQ)

Appendix 3

(ATSB)

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5668327/ae2014054_mh370__search_areas_30jul2015.pdf