After a day in port in Fremantle, Australia, to refuel and resupply, Armada 7806 is headed back to the MH370 search area. Based on an average speed of around 10 knots, it should reach there around 02:30 UTC on March 11.
There is a sign that this phase of the search will be shorter than expected: Armada 7806 is self-reporting through Automatic Identification System (AIS) marine tracking that its destination is Cape Town, South Africa. As this is considerably further from the search area than Fremantle, it would make no sense to travel to Cape Town and then return to the search area. A leg to Cape Town would also limit the time that Armada 7806 could spend in the search area, as the port-to-port time is typically less than four weeks.
So why might Armada 7806 be returning to Cape Town after visiting the search area. I offer three possibilities:
- During the last phase, something resembling a debris field was detected. If so, Armada 7806 might travel to this spot, launch one or more AUVs, and get better data, including possibly images. After a short time gathering this data, it might travel to Cape Town before it is reassigned a new mission. Another vessel with ROV capability would then be assigned to better document the debris field and perhaps recover some wreckage.
- There are ongoing contractual issues between OI and Malaysia and the search will be cut short even if no debris field is detected.
- The AIS destination is not correct, either due to an error or due to misdirection.
With the recent announcement by Malaysia saying that the search contract with Ocean Infinity is approved and the signing is imminent, it reduces the probability of (2). Once the contract is signed, we can almost completely eliminate this possibility.
If (3) is correct, we would expect that Armada 7806 would remain in the area for a number of weeks to collect more data and then return to Fremantle. If (1) is correct, the time in the search area will be short. So the length of time that Armada 7806 remains in the search area will tell us a lot.
It is difficult to assign relative probabilities to these three scenarios. Perhaps it is confirmation bias that I believe that (1) is most probable. In any event, we’ll know more in the coming days.
Steep Slope
We can zoom into where Armada 7806 is headed to see why this area might be interesting. Presently (and this could change), Armada 7806’s course is towards a steep slope that was searched with AUVs during the last phase of this search. This steep slope also lies within the areas scanned previously by GO Phoenix using a towfish during the ATSB-managed part of the previous search effort. Parts of this slope were also previously scanned by Ocean Infinity with the vessel Seabed Constructor and its team of seven AUVs. A return to this area once again highlights the difficulty in scanning terrain with steep slopes and other uneven topography, even with AUVs.
The part of the steep slope that seems to be the target is part of the same slope that we designated the High Priority Search Area (HPSA), but further south along that slope. At the time we identified the HPSA, we were not aware that so much more of the slope was not adequately scanned during OI’s last search. If the debris field is truly along this slope, our recommendation to fill-in the low quality data near the 7th arc before extending outwards from the arc was accurate. We said:
As the a) final BFO values, b) the lack of IFE log-on, and c) the end-of-flight simulations all suggest an impact close to the 7th arc, a high priority should be to scan the areas closest to the 7th arc that were either never scanned or have low quality data before searching new areas further from the 7th arc. However, with pilot inputs, it is possible that MH370 glided after fuel exhaustion beyond the areas that were previously scanned. Therefore, searching wider along the 7th arc should also be part of the search plan if areas closer to the 7th arc are unsuccessful in locating the debris field...A steep slope to the south of where UGIB predicts MH370 crossed the 7th arc happens to lie along the extended path of the reconstructed route, and much of this slope remains unscanned. For this reason, the unscanned area surrounding S34.52 E93.84 should be designated a High Priority Search Area.
Although we are speculating about what might take place next based on very limited information, the next several days could prove to be very interesting.
Tags: AUV, debris field, MH370, Ocean Infinity, sonar, subsea
In any case, the data on the arrival of Armada78 06 in Cape Town on March 24 cannot correspond to reality. And considering that Jakarta was originally chosen on March 6, it seems that this is really not true. I am sure that the AIS data is essentially misleading, but I cannot understand the reason for such a step on the part of the OI, because everyone is watching their actual route, and not the destination from AIS, it would be more logical then to simply disable AIS.
Besides, isn’t OI hoping to recoup financial losses and investments partly through wreckage and black box recovery services? Given that there are problems with the search contract, Malaysia will not be able to pay for the recovery of the wreckage if successful.
I wanted to say Malaysia will pay for lifting services anyway, not “not be able to pay”, it was a typo.
@Mick Gilbert
@sk999
As I recall, Martyn Smith only said that he saw an aircraft crossing the path of EK407. I don’t think he said it was flying North-South, as assumed by some. Given EK407 was tracking North-West, the other aircraft could have been tracking South-West or thereabouts. If that were the case and the encounter occurred somewhere around MUTMI, the other aircraft could have been US military heading to Diego Garcia. The notion that it was a P-8 Poseidon retracing the route of MH370 seems more than a little far-fetched.
@Victor. Supposing the Cape Town destination and arrival on 24th or thereabouts are indeed the intention, it looks likely that this stop would be very short.
That would suggest high confidence in a find. the intention not being for further searching but just confirmation by camera.
The total time for that could be very brief depending on how long it took Southampton processing to confirm the ID.
While speculative I put this as currently the best fit.
@David. In this case, what would be the scenario if the find is not confirmed? Will they give up the search and still go to Cape Town across the Indian Ocean? Or will they change their destination back to Fremantle in this case?
@Edward. I would imagine the latter.
Noticed Armada 7806 has course change of 10° to port on new heading of 250°. Now seem to be targeting SE corner of Blelly-Marchand #MH370 search zone ~200 NM to go @ 11 kts ~18 hrs with ETA ~0400Z on 11 March 2025.
https://www.mh370-caption.net/index.php/armada-tracking/
@Ben John: I agree there has been a definite change in course towards the southwestern tip of the proposed search area to the southeast of the 7th arc. This is in the vicinity of the Blely-Marchand hotspot.
I don’t see the logic of searching new areas for a short period of time and returning to Cape Town. There has been no change in AIS destination.
Perhaps Armada 7806 is truly heading towards Cape Town with no stops in the search area. That might indicate that (1) the debris field was already found and follow-up work is expected with a ship with an ROV, or (2) the contractual issues could not be overcome and the search is over before the debris field has been identified. Of course, it’s also possible that the AIS destination is meaningless and the plan is to continue working the new areas.
@all,
Thanks @Victor
GPS Visualiser calculates ‘great circle’ course to Cape Town from current location has initial heading of ~245° for 6660 NM so Armada 7806 could still have a short stopover soon in MH370 search area.
https://gpsvisualizer.com/calculators
@all, correction ~245° for ~3660 NM (not 6660 NM) to Cape Town
@Mick
I want to say I have a hard time believing US military would fly thru active flight path without TCAS, but OK that just happened here. On 8-March EK407 was on-time, so it was daily normal air traffic.
As an aside, we just had an incident at DCA where numerous aircraft landing one morning got TA or RA alerts on TCAS. No announced cause so far, according to one YouTuber, could be drones, birds, but unknown right now.
@victor of course we hope (1) is true but (2) seems more likely. They already clearly did some work before the contract was signed, there is a limit to how much free stuff a commercial company will do. Of course if one wanted to put pressure on Malaysia to actually sign the contract then announcing your destination as Cape Town while swinging just South of the search zone might be the best tool you have left in the locker.
@vodkaferret: That’s a reasonable assessment.
@Ben John: One complication about a great circle path towards Cape Town is it might take you into the “roaring 40s”. Traveling west towards the search area before turning towards Cape Town avoids some of those rough waters, even if adds some distance.
@Victor
Yes, didn’t think of that as roaring 40s are worth avoiding. They would need to be even more careful with their fuel usage if on longer northerly route to Cape Town.
If indeed OI found something on the last search, wouldn’t the imaging be downloaded already and wouldn’t we know? In other words, it certainly seems plausible that they hit on something from the last search, but it would seem to me that the world would know if that happened already; is that incorrect and if so why?
Separately, has the IG or Victor offered possible reasons for the SDU logon at 18:25? As I understand it, this would not have taken place merely to use autopilot. So I’m curious what the purpose would be to do this given that the same person had previously flipped it off to avoid detection. If this has been discussed elsewhere and people can link I would appreciate that.
Personal opinion of someone who has been sailing in these latitudes. 40S isn’t a sharp cut-off and wind/sea-state is really weather system dependent. I don’t think they would be worried about passage-making a little south of 40 degrees as long as it didn’t take them into the track of a deep low. Judging from their course, I concur that they are most likely headed to Blely-Marchand zone. But if a contract is not signed by then, who knows? Maybe all bets would be off.
Did they change course even further south and miss the search area? Wasn’t it my imagination? If it didn’t seem like it, then I have one question left, “What was that?”
@BRC No, right now the OI only has processed data from the AUV, but no visual evidence. Therefore, even they themselves cannot be sure that they have found it now. That’s why I’m talking about the meaninglessness of Cape Town. Because they just checked one place and right now they can skip the next search zone, which is very close, although they can stop and search in at least one more of this zone. I keep saying that this is very strange and I don’t see any logical explanation for what we know.
@All,
Update: “Armada 78 06” at 10T1958Z 35°34.7’S 94°38.1’E Hdg 250.6°T Spd 10.3KTS.
CMG From 10T0710Z 34°48.5’S 93°13.2’E = 250.3°T Dist 135NM.
At this time – 10T2031Z, the AIS destination of Cape Town seems to be the current intention.
@Barry C. Really? https://www.mh370-caption.net/index.php/armada-tracking/
With search likely resuming in a few hours, they have obviously eliminated much more seabed! Even if the Aircraft crashed at high speed there will be large pieces of machined parts that likely survived relatively intact,such as Undercarriage/Gear parts,engine cores,Stabiliser jacks ,flap jacks and powered control servos. Plus many more heavy items. I would say the engines and undercarriages if found will be close to one another.
@paul smithson,
Okay Paul, I should’ve kept my comments to myself. Agreed, 36°S 93°E is probably the ‘ace’ card.
@Andrew
@TBill
Andrew, yes, I agree. On the basis that we are dealing with an obviously poorly recollected event with somewhat imprecise details, the “crossing” traffic could have been tracking anywhere from say 145° – 270°. That introduces a wide range of non-MH370 options, everything from commercial traffic out of south-east Asia to either western Australia or southern Africa, to military traffic to Diego Garcia.
But of course, one particular source seems to employ a snap-to-MH370 default function when it comes to this sort of thing.
Bill, when Captain Smith states,
“I don’t remember if there was a TCAS display, there was certainly no Traffic Alert (TA) or Resolution Advisory (RA) given.“,
that should not be taken as meaning that the crossing traffic did not have an active transponder/TCAS.
Andrew can probably expand on this (or correct me if I have it wrong), but TCAS will only provide a Traffic Alert under quite specific conditions, one of which being a forecast breach of vertical separation margins between the two aircraft. If the vertical separation was more than 850 feet, and there was no vertical closure, depending on the range closure rate, the two aircraft can pass relatively close to one another without a TA being triggered.
Just because Captain Smith doesn’t recall a TA does not mean that the crossing traffic did not have an active transponder.
@Mick Gilbert, @Andrew: One airline captain told me that on that part of the flight, the lights on the flight deck were probably not dimmed, in which case it would be difficult to make visual contact with traffic without first seeing the traffic on the MAP display.
@David: Yes, if the search resumes in areas not yet searched, it means the areas searched during the previous phase did not yield a debris field. However, if the search does not resume and Armada 7806 continues on to Cape Town, the results from the last phase would be in question, i.e., we would have to ask, “Did the search not resume due to contractual issues, or because the debris field was already detected?”
@Victor
In the introduction of this discussion thread, on X-twitter also, etc., the 78-06 ship’s path with its location pins are clearly based on GoogleEarth formatted data created by CAPTION for the tracking. There is a one-to-one correspondence between your image and our data (cf https://www.mh370-caption.net/wp-content/uploads/Overlay-VI-78-06-path-from-CAPTION-data-with-CAPTION-area.jpg).
Usually, the scientific tradition is to cite the source.
Thank you for adding a tag « www.MH370-CAPTION.net » on each image you produce with our data like in the image above.
In addition, in the introduction of this discussion thread, our Blelly/Marchand area is illustrated as a tiny spot only. In our report, we recommend a zone which should be fully depicted on the foreground of your images to respect the genesis of our recommendation which seeded in your mind the possibility of a piloted flight till the end with a final glide.
The UGIB report, which includes a non-piloted aircraft and a spiral dive, mentions a flight level of FL195 at Arc 7. Tables from Boeing indicate 50 to 60 Nm for the glide. At Arc 6 the report mentions FL390 which would lead to 125 Nm if the glide started there. On our side, we have estimated in our report that in our trajectory the glide would be about 70 Nm max. Obviously, you chose 70 Nm for including our area. Consequently, I invite you to clearly indicate our recommended area in its full extent like illustrated in the link above.
Thank you in advance. Have a good day 🙂
The extrapolation of 78-06’s path is now at 50 Nm from our recommended area… will they scan? or simply cross?… http://www.mh370-caption.net/index.php/armada-tracking/
@TBill,
Do acquaint yourself with the concepts of ‘Operation of State Aircraft’ and conducting flight with ‘Due Regard’.
USN P-8A Poseidons are well known for rarely operating with functioning Mode-S or ADS-B. The P-8A avionics equippage includes what is most easily described as an airborne Mode-S interrogator as part of its ISR capability. This will also provide its flight crew with awareness of other proximate aircraft. US DoD has issued mandates that aircraft should not use ADS-B Out so as to not be tracked via the likes of Flightradar24, etc.
@Victor. To clarify, more than one David posting here.
@Mick Gilbert
@TBill
I agree Mick, the absence of a TA or RA does not automatically mean the intruder had no TCAS. TCAS will only issue an advisory or warning if both the vertical separation AND range closure rate thresholds are breached. The relative altitude threshold for a TA is 850 ft (as you mentioned), at all altitudes up to 42,000 ft. The range closure rate is expressed as time-to-go to closest point of approach, otherwise known as the range tau. At the altitudes in question, the range tau for a TA is 48 seconds. If, for example, the two aircraft were crossing at 90 degrees and closing at 490 knots, a TA would not be issued unless they were within about 6.5 NM and 850 ft.
@Victor
RE: “One airline captain told me that on that part of the flight, the lights on the flight deck were probably not dimmed, in which case it would be difficult to make visual contact with traffic without first seeing the traffic on the MAP display.”
Yes, very true.
@Jean-Luc Marchand: You are correct that the data I plotted was from the CAPTION site. If you want me to provide the source of the data in images, please provide the marine tracking data that was YOUR source so the citation is correct. I didn’t see the source on your page or I would have included it.
As for the claim that our 70 NM glide path was based on the Blelly-Marchand hotspot, that is complete rubbish. Your colleague made the same claim last year. This was discussed in an email to you last year on March 21, 2024. I wrote:
***
Jean-Luc,
I hope all is well.
It has come to my attention that Patrick Blelly is accusing the IG of changing its predictions of the POI for MH370 based on his work predicting a glide after fuel exhaustion. This is a crazy accusation. Even before we published the UGIB 2020 analysis with search recommendations, we defined an area that included a possibility of a glide. For instance, this figure is from a blog article from February 2020 Search Recommendation for MH370’s Debris Field « MH370 and Other Investigations (radiantphysics.com)
From that blog article: To define the search area near the LEP, three cases were considered, each with an associated search area. The highest priority search area, A1, of 6,719 NM2 (23,050 km2), assumes there were no pilot inputs after fuel exhaustion. The search area of next highest priority, A2, encompasses 6,300 NM2 (22,000 km2), and assumes there was a glide towards the south after fuel exhaustion. The lowest priority, A3, is the controlled glide in an arbitrary direction with an area of around 48,400 NM2 (166,000 km2).
Our recommendation has been to first complete the search close to the 7th arc in areas that were missed due to equipment issues or challenging terrain. If the debris field is not found, search wide of the arc, first starting on an area south of our predicted crossing at S34.2342° E93.7875°, but expanding that to include the possibility of a longer glide.
If somebody asks me to define a small area for a search, I point them to this article, which includes about 30.5 km2 of seabed surrounding S34.53° E93.84° that was never scanned. But this is a recommendation, not a prediction. Anybody that believes that they can predict the location of the POI with high certainty is fooling themselves and fooling others. That’s why any search prediction has to include uncertainty analyses and broader areas to search.
A High Priority Area to Search for MH370 « MH370 and Other Investigations (radiantphysics.com)
As you might imagine, I don’t like being accused of something that is false. I assure you that any of our recommendations were made independent of any work by either you, Patrick Blelly, CAPTIO, CAPTION, or any related person or entity.
Regards,
Victor
***
After you received my email, Patrick Blelly sent me an email in which he said he apologized. I won’t include the entire email without his permission, but he did say:
First, please accept my apologies if I have ever offended you. I’m sorry for this, which is far from being my intention!
…
So I hope this clarifies my position, which was not at all any accusation of any kind, and I wish you all the best for your work.
***
What I found quite ironic is that for years you and your colleagues were emphatic about searching a site close to Christmas Island while UGIB was promoting crossing the arc between 34S and 35S. If anybody has copied anybody, it is YOU that has benefited from OUR work, simply based on the chronological order of reports and the 3000+ km shift to an area closer to UGIB 2020.
@David: Yes. I’m sorry about the confusion. Would you mind going by “David F”?
@Andrew
As I understand it, it was a moonless night, and apparently clear of clouds at those altitudes in that area at that time.
So, presumably the stars were clearly visible in the visual hemisphere around the aircraft.
6.5nm is less than 40,000 feet.
I live in Sydney, and regularly observe the strobes of Emirates and Qatar and MAS and on occasions other airline aircraft overflying YSSY at FL330 and above, going to New Zealand, late at night, through my windows, with the room lights on inside.
Are you seriously suggesting that the pilots of an aircraft would not notice the strobes of an aircraft crossing in front of them, for many seconds, with those strobes moving in relation to the background stars, which are, for all intents and purposes, stationary in their field of view in that timeframe, even with the cockpit lights on ?
If that were truly the case, there would be no point in having strobes in the first place.
@Jean-Luc Marchand: Relative to sharing data, as you understand, this blog has been where MANY data sets have been released to the public, including civilian radar data, ADS-B tracking data, the unredacted Inmarsat logs, the unredacted ACARS Message Logs, the Boeing end-of-flight simulation data, the pilot’s simulator data, and the CSIRO particle drift trajectories. I made those data sets available so other investigators could use the data for their own analyses, which they have done. I’ve never asked for attribution because I didn’t generate those data sets.
If you want to restrict the use of data that you didn’t generate but are making available to the public, you should say so.
@ventus45
It’s one thing to “notice the strobes” of another aircraft at night, quite another to determine if that aircraft is at or close to your own level or likely to become proximate traffic.
@Andrew: That was the other point the airline pilot made to me. He said that it’s very difficult to determine if the lights from an aircraft are at the same level. Rather, at some point, you have to “trust the system”.
@Victor
Absolutely. It’s notoriously difficult to determine range and relative altitude from a set of flashing lights at night.
Andrew writes: “It’s notoriously difficult to determine range and relative altitude from a set of flashing lights at night.”
True, unless you have the right equipment. Here’s a strobe that I detected at night and was able to determine range and altitude with no problem. I even derived the track angle and speed:
http://das.sdss.org/sdssmosaic/run-5381/mosaic-115-124/5381/3/g_0120.gif
The “lens” of the camera had a focal length of 12500 mm, so the image of the aircraft light was horribly out of focus. That (plus the pixels size of the camera) gets us the range. I also knew the elevation of the pointing of the camera, so that gets us the elevation. There is a slight gap in the trails at the bottom of the image – that gives the ground speed (too complicated to explain here.)
Admittedly, as far as I know,such equipment is not standard on an Airbus A380.
@sk999
Perhaps I should have qualified that statement with: “…using the human sense of sight alone.”
@Victor. Thanks. No problem.
Following my 10th Mar 2:39am and 3:59am, drawn from your first possibility, given now the course change perhaps announcement of a successful ID has been deferred to Malaysia’s pleasure, the trip to Fremantle proving to be in preparation for the for the voyage west.
However no sign of a replacement with or without ROV.
Contractual delays would be the second-to-worst prompting of a direct trip since cranking up a restart would cost another part of this search season, as OI will of course know. The worst would be abandonment of the search.
However given Oliver Plunkett’s determination to search-to-success and Malaysia’s appointment of NTSB and ATSB reps, neither of these worst cases seem likely, to me.
Quite a tease.
@Barry Carlson,
Cape Town ?
Armada 78 06 has arrived about 70nm south of the previous search area. The vessel slowed down over the past few hours as it approached. That may mean they are stopping, or perhaps they are just playing with the minds of observers. There’s plenty of energy being expended in this blog and elsewhere speculating on Ocean Infinity thingies.
I still think there was something significant about Armada’s rush to Fremantle, following what seems an inordinately short inicial search period. Although there was a weather system involved early on, Armada continued apace even after it rounded Rottnest Island and continued south along the Perth coastline. Those 2 extra knots involve a significant fuel penalty.
@Victor
Likewise, we are eager to help and provide information to all.
All credits are there… they had been placed at the bottom right of the image. Please recheck, you can find “VesselFinder” just below the same corner.
The creation of the image and kml file is Mr Trise’s effort, credits to him 🙂
Armada 78-06 passed in the South of the zone proposed by OI in 2024. The ship does not appear to slow down … instead she speeded up heading at 252°!
https://www.mh370-caption.net/index.php/armada-tracking/
@Jean-Luc Marchand – CAPTION So the OI has canceled the search for this season? There is no other way to interpret it.
@All,
Update: “Armada 78 06” at 11T0748Z 36°14.4’S 92°19.2’E Hdg 255.8°T Spd 10.4KTS. Wind 190°T/15KTS Sea 3.1m.
CMG From 10T1958Z 35°34.7’S 94°38.1’E = 250.6°T. Dist 120NM.
At this time – 11T0851Z, the AIS destination of Cape Town seems to be the current intention.
@all, Big News!
Not sure if this important news report translated from Malay will change Armada 7806’s current destination & heading to Cape Town? (posted on Twitter/X by Kaye Russell (@elizanow1) – https://t.co/bbqD35hQAl
Contract for company to carry out MH370 search operation being finalized
By Hafeezzur Muzamir – Malaysia – March 11, 2025 12:28 PM
WANGSA MAJU, March 11: The government is finalising contracts with teams or companies involved in the third search operation for Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH370.
Transport Minister Anthony Loke reiterated that the government remains committed to searching for the airliner that disappeared en route to Beijing almost 11 years ago.
“We will inform you of the progress after the contract is signed. It’s not that it’s not happening, it’s just that we are finalizing the contract,” he said.
He said this at a press conference after conducting a working visit to the Wangsa Maju branch of PUSPAKOM, here, today.
Previously, MOT announced that the government had agreed to accept a proposal from a company from the United Kingdom (UK), Ocean Infinity, to restart search operations in a new area of approximately 15,000 square kilometres (km) in the southern Indian Ocean.
According to MOT, the decision is in line with the Cabinet decision on December 13 last year.
MOT explained that the operation will be carried out based on the principle of “no find, no fee,” which means that no payment will be made unless the aircraft wreckage is found. – TVS.
https://t.co/bbqD35hQAl
Nothing new in Loke’s comments.
‘Commenting on the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, he [Loke] said the government is in the final stages of concluding a search contract with Ocean Infinity (United Kingdom).
“When we sign (the search contract), we will make an announcement,“ he said.‘
@Jean-Luc Marchand said: The creation of the image and kml file is Mr Trise’s effort, credits to him.
After your statement wanting credit for releasing marine tracking data to the public and your insane accusation that Bobby and I copied your work, I won’t ever use any data set from your group again. I won’t even READ anything you publish. However, if you release a data set, you should explicitly state what the conditions for use are.
Again, I have no conditions for the many data sets I have released, and many investigators have made good use of them, which is what I wanted.
Concerning ‘Cape Town’
First, an assumption for vessel endurance, fuel/crew rotations/stores: 28 days.
Therefore, absent any other constraints Armada 78 06 must reach port, somewhere, by 2025-04-03.
Voyage times, present position to:
Cape Town – 16 days, 3700NM,
Durban – 14 days, 3200NM,
Port Loius – 10 days, 2200NM,
AMC/Henderson – 5 days.
Latest possible departure from search site to a port can be counted back from 3rd April.
The latest vessel position/progress report at 2025-03-11T0931Z shows there is still work to be done revisiting previous towfish tracklines and areas where data is deemed to be of inadequate quality.
Given the current speed of 78 06 it appears the lurch is recommencing at 2025-03-11 10:00Z -36.257, 92.198 1.2kts, 207°
Thanks @Don, that’s very useful to know. Is the “28 days” a firm maximum?
It looks like Armada 7806 is filling in data from the last OI search that was missing or of poor quality.
@Victor Iannello Yes, we can say that they listened to you and now, in the absence of a contract, they are checking the last possible locations of MH370 inside the 7th arc.
@Edward: I’m not sure what the strategy is and what’s going on behind the scenes, including the reason for the change in course.
@Jean-Luc Marchand – CAPTION,
As the primary author of the drift paper by Ulich and Iannello (2023) and the satellite data analysis paper by Ulich, Godfrey, Iannello, and Banks (2020), I can attest that nothing in those papers was driven by or taken from your publications. This includes the 70 NM glide distance I used in defining Search Area 2 in UI (2023). This radius was selected by me based on being ½ of our estimated maximum glide range of 140 NM, which is listed in Section 8.6 of UGIB (2020) and repeated in Section 17.1 in UI (2023).
I’m going to ask this admittedly tangentially-related question once more in hopes someone can direct me: has anyone discussed what the purpose(s) might have been for the 18:25 reboot? And if so, does anyone have a link to share? Thanks all.
@BRS
There could be many reasons for SATCOM reboot. As you may or may not know, there is no ON/OFF switch for the SATCOM in the the cockpit. Therefore you have to take down at least one whole electronic circuit (LEFT BUS) to depower the SATCOM. Some observers (eg; Jean Luc et al) postulate all aircraft power was cut for the diversion phase to 18:22. Flying more than an hour without key systems powered is problematic.
Jeff Wise is the main advocate who makes an issue of this. We are asked to believe that Jeff Wise is smart enough to know what ZS strategy would have been, and then we asked to accept that power-up of aircraft systems is not what ZS would have dome, therefore Russia is to blame.
@BRS,
Circa 18:24 UTC, one hour after the PF diverted MH370 and about 3 minutes (or 25 NM) past the maximum military radar range from Penang, two events occurred nearly simultaneously. The SDU was re-powered and a right lateral offset was initiated off airway N571. In my opinion that SDU start-up signaled the restoration of power to the Left Main AC bus, returning the aircraft to its normal power configuration and thereby providing maximum redundancy in case of a future equipment malfunction. As I recall, this topic was extensively discussed on this blog some years ago. Others may be able to provide specific links.
@TBill @DrB thank you both. @DrB, are you positing that the person in control essentially figured “I don’t need to be in stealth mode anymore so I’m going to resume flying the a/c the way I know how best?” If so, I suppose that makes sense. It does seem a bit odd that someone flying to their death would care about this, but I suppose this has logic to it. I just have always been troubled as to WHY the left ac bus would’ve been turned back on given my understanding that the CVR could’ve been repowered (and therefore overwritten) in other ways without needing to reboot and that overwriting the CVR would be the only noteworthy function gained by rebooting. Am I understanding this correctly? I have experience with air and mass disaster litigation but do not remotely have the science chops of others here, so I appreciate the responses and everyone’s patience.