MH370 Radar track. What did they see?

19/4/2015

DCA (Malaysia) Interim report here; http://mh370.mot.gov.my/

Having perused its 584 pages, my immediate impression is the poor presentation of information. A large proportion of the report contains nothing more than copies of regulations which should have been appendices and not haphazardly scattered throughout the body of the report.
Pertinent information is obscured by the format and presentation, specifically the radar and ATC transcripts.
Before analysing the report, it’s important to return to earlier information presented by the Malaysian Govt. and what we were led to believe to provide a comparison with what has been officially released 12 months later.

12th March 2014 press conference by Hishammuddin Hussein ( Min. of Transport & Defence ) (8 page PDF)

Four days after disappearance, HH is stating 0215 MYT as last radar contact of any kind, civil or mil.

This is important because according to the Interim Report, 0130 was the time it was picked up by terminal PSR at Kota Bharu NOT the time it disappeared. It dropped off radar at 0121 and all subsequent radar targets are UNIDENTIFIED.

Twice he’s repeated 7215 which I assume is transcript error, zero two one five sounds similar to seven two one five. So on the 12th March HH is definitively stating 0215 as last radar contact and he’s repeated it three times. The only other number that could be is a squawk. I’ve checked and it’s a Bangkok domestic. Also we have “plate level 295,200 NW of Penang”. Supposedly FL 295 but we see later what that is.

Remember this is FOUR days after the event and HH should have the facts to hand.

This is vitally important in determining what was seen. NOTHING was seen in real time. ALL radar is from recordings and NOT anecdotal from individual operators. Recordings are able to be very specific about one thing, POSITION and that is exactly what’s missing from the Interim Report. Why?

22nd March 2014 Presentation to relatives at the Beijing Lido hotel.

The now infamous photos. The 295R200 when compared to HH’s transcript above becomes obvious that 295 is a radial not a flight level. Secondly when plotting that radial it ends 40nm NE of the position shown in the photo.
I couldn’t make that mistake if I tried. A radar monitor used to play back a recording is similar to a normal PC. It has a mouse and a menu and you just extend from Butterworth and it gives the exact position. There is no magnetic variation so the operator didn’t even have to add or subtract anything to get the right bearing. The picture is what I would expect to see from a civil SSR not a military PSR and it’s that which alerted my suspicions initially. When the 2nd pic became available I was able to plot the two bearings and measure the distance between which gave me a speed of 350 KTS. If it slowed to 350KTS in that distance, the speed over the rest of the distance becomes impossibly high. So we now know the labels were rubbish.

Then we have the time of last trace. 0222 not 0215 as stated by HH on the 12th March. This supposed screenshot of the actual radar trace would appear to be evidence of what they saw on radar but inexplicably the most specific factual evidence of what was seen on radar has been omitted from the latest Interim report. Instead we have this;

8th March 2015 Excerpts from Interim Report Factual Information

Can you see anything west of Penang? I certainly can’t. The resolution of these is so poor that I can barely read it. What I can read is that the identifying ‘P” numbers don’t match the numbers on the following images from the report.

Now the really fascinating reading is in the text of the Interim Report. (Easier to read by r.clicking)

I’ve transferred that information on to my own plot as best I can and remember my comment earlier, the one definitive piece of information which can be derived from a radar recording is position and that is exactly the information which is missing. Time is the second definitive. Headings and heights are subject to many variables. I don’t believe heights are measurable from a Terminal Approach PSR. I personally have been involved with altitude trials prior to the introduction of reduced vertical separation. It can’t be measured from a single fixed radar head. Calculation from a second head is so inaccurate that errors of thousands of feet are possible.(Edit 27/4 Yet again I've missed something obvious and that's the heights. Because a trace went close to the KB overhead, heights are calculable by measuring the length of "non-track" & comparing it to the known "dead zone".It's not as accurate as flying directly overhead but could give a reasonable estimate.)

The absence of definitive information west of Penang is a major telling point for the veracity of the Beijing Lido photo. The information on it has not been included in the Interim report for one very good reason; it was fake. I think that they showed a screenshot of what was probably EK343 and a Penang outbound joining at VAMPI.
If it wasn’t fake why haven’t they at least included an Eva plot for that section of track?
Let’s examine the text to determine exactly what they’re telling us. All the information with precise speeds, headings and height information are within the 60NM Kota Bharu radius. Everything outside that circle is sourced from “military” at KLATCC. That’s it, no specific radar heads, just KLATCC

Return to what we’ve been historically told about radar. It turned at IGARI, it descended to low level to avoid radar, it was corroborated by Thai military. All of that is complete and utter bullshit.
From the report no other country saw anything on radar after IGARI and the Malaysian plot doesn't start until 1730.
The only specific radar they’ll admit to is a recording from Kota Bharu Terminal Approach PSR, in other words nothing outside the blue circle.

Notice the proximity to B219 and M765 both of which have lateral limits of 20 NMS. That track is on the air routes and research will show that it’s possibly another aeroplane and not MH370.
(Edit 2/4. Allowing for plotting errors because LAT/LON not given, between 1730 and 1744, I make a speed of 483.47 kts, which could be any big twin. Substantially slower than the speeds quoted in the report.)
Ask this simple question; if they were prepared to show an actual screenshot of the track, why has the final report not given us exhaustive detail including other screenshots ?
(Edit 11/4 Sometimes I could kick myself for not spotting the obvious. If known traffic was eliminated from the unidentified radar trace, a list must have been compiled.Why was a list of known traffic not included in the report? A simple list would have been sufficient without full FPL details but no, it's not there. I didn't even see a statement saying they'd eliminated known traffic)

If you believe they deliberately faked the Lido screenshot then I can assure you that the images of plots in the last report can also be faked. ATC simulators have the ability to run a fictional aircraft which is indistinguishable from a real aircraft to an experienced air traffic controller. They can run historic flights using any date or time they choose.
12 months of fruitless searching in the SIO is no surprise to me. 22 years of ATC experience tells me that MH370 was NOT seen on radar after it disappeared at IGARI.
Not by Malaysia, not by anybody. (Edit 19/4 I'm going to qualify that statement by saying they might have "something" but the report is so devoid of specifics that it's impossible to know what.)

Compare the above Thailand Radar to an email I received from the exalted and not to be questioned IG

I suppose I should be grateful that he bothered to reply to a lowly ATC pleb such as myself. Given the load of bollocks in comparison to what has been officially released four months later, it's time for the IG to stop kissing ATSB's backside and start doing some actual investigation. That may sound harsh but given the content of the email and the fact that IG calculations are based on blind acceptance of a clearly flawed radar track, I'm going to forgive myself. I also haven't had the cheek to ask for money to fund my tools.

For the benefit of those whose only source of information is CNN or PPRuNe, it needs to be pointed out that nowhere in the report is there mention of any air-ground communication after IGARI other than satellite handshakes and two attempted satellite phone calls.

NO CO-PILOT CELLPHONE CALLS.

25 Comments

Brock McEwen

1/4/2015 06:01:52

Good work, Paul. Agree hard evidence MH370 ever flew west is scant, indeed.

Not sure if you're familiar with my work, but it seems to complement yours:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72ZkNWN1U5bklEbTA/view?usp=sharing

I am intensely interested in the April 14 CNN "confirmation" by "US officials" that the co-pilot's cell phone pinged a Telco tower. I agree with you that no such contact occurred - so why did these US officials confirm that it did?

I've tried - so far without success - to reach out to CNN, to see whether they stand by their reporting. Have you done any research on that story specifically?

Paul

1/4/2015 07:01:25

Thanks Brock, I've read your work and support your efforts.
There are two.US involved bits of information which are still hanging in my opinion. The cellphone and the Utapau mayday.
I still think it strange that CT would publish such a story without some basis of fact.
I've researched neither in the hope that some hard evidence will surface.
My focus from the beginning was to pin down definitive radar info.
I do appreciate the work done by the IG and it's far in advance of my capabilities but without definitive knowledge after IGARI, a crash site can't be determined within hundreds of miles.

I personally don't feel I can do much more but if what I've written even slightly alters attitudes then together with your much larger contribution we may discover what really happened.

Simon Gunson

3/4/2015 15:34:33

What the 2015 Interim report omits all mention of in their (alleged) radar transcript is the previous claim that MH370 overflew Pelau Perak at 18:02 UTC. If you measure that distance from 6nm south of Penang to Pelau Perak, you get 85nm covered in just ten minutes. That's a whopping Groundspeed of 510 knots!

A Boeing 777 (with a VMO of 330 knots at sea level) could not perform this 510kt miracle below 33,000 feet, yet Air Marshall Monthon Sutchukorn declared on 17 March 2014 in the Bangkok Post that Thai military radar at Hat Yai did not see MH370 fly west from IGARI.

How could both Thai and Indonesian Primary radar miss an aircraft over Penang at 33,000 feet?

Paul

3/4/2015 16:35:08

510 is certainly fast and by using the met from the report of a NE wind of 15kts a quick mental calculation would be about 506 kts TAS which is possible but 25kts faster than normal.

The who would have seen what scenario is always open but it matters not the potential radar coverage, it's was anyone watching.
At 2am radar not necessarily asleep but not watching screens.
We never did with no expected traffic. Watching an empty screen is more boring than watching paint dry. All coms were switched from headset to speakers so that if anything called, we could wander over to the sector to answer it. Our tapes were on three hour loops I think (I never had an incident to find out !)

So you see by the time HCM & KLATCC had finally figured that it was missing, it may have transited with nobody seeing it and all tapes wiped.
Having eliminated all possible traffic from the Kota Bharu trace, that might have been it.By extending that across Sumatra to 1st ping arc, it's a possible track and I suggested that back in June here;

http://www.paulhowardplays.com/uploads/1/6/5/6/16569546/5202721_orig.jpg

Our parallel work seems to have finally been proven by the Interim Report and I hope will change attitudes sufficiently to ensure that only factual information and not assumptions are carried forward into the search. Possibly last sight was Penang and
the vexing part is that they would fake a screenshot to lead us all up the Malacca Straits.My opinion is that all military radar is BS because they've given us nothing to support it.

Simon Gunson link

18/4/2015 09:46:07

Paul my understanding is that primary radar antennae have a TBO of 2,500 hours so that the military of many countries simply switch them on for training and leave radar switched off at all other times to conserve their service lives.

I would not be as generous as you suggesting they were switched on, but not watched.

What I detect is they were clueless hunting off the coats of Vietnam when the British AAIB came pounding on their door demanding that Malaysia listen to the INMARSAT data. Once Malaysia accepted what INMARSAT claimed RMAF invented a radar sighting to hide their embarrassment.

What is even more bizarre is that the 2015 interim report embellishes and increases the original lies with more claims. The more claims they make the easier it is to disprove them.

The minimum altitude between Penang and Pelau Perak of +33,000ft is an obvious point which I doubt they even considered when drafting this huge document.

I have not pored over the Interim report Paul so thank you for pointing out for me the Report also mentions, "From the report no other country saw anything on radar after IGARI"

This is a nail in the coffin for an aircraft that had to be flying at high altitude. It is obvious to any objective thinker that MH370 never flew through the Straits.

Paul

3/4/2015 17:16:47

I appear to have contradicted myself and need to make clear that I've always thought that information was too sparse to pinpoint a single area. The sat pings seem to indicate SIO but SCS was where it disappeared and the subject of press reports which were hard to verify. Let's not forget that the 7th arc is in the SCS and there is sufficient debate about BFO to be wary of it.
I'm getting tired of saying it but one last time, Malaysia should have been looking in SCS while Australia searched SIO.

Kevil

12/4/2015 19:10:42

On the page 29 of the Factual Information is the Figure 1.1F - Primary Radar Targets (track), plotted by AAT using EVA & Plotter 01.01-27 (From Take-off). On the upper supposed return red route with multiple gaps are marked four targets (the numbers are hardly to read and couldn't be correct as the image is blurred)

Figure 1.1F:
http://2i.cz/2i/i/5529a8b1/782dc197a8c73faecfdd63ffb03e155a/b2091c36e5.f.jpg

P1738
17:30:37:02
0476

P1793
17:30:56:90
0501

P1605
17:41:01:62
0694

P1812
17:51:44:38
0609

3th value (row) e.g. 0476 is the speed of the target in knots. The maximum speed of the Boeing 777-200ER is 512 knots. Even when I add the tail wind speed 15-20 knots the speed of two last targets, 0694 and 0609 knots, is well beyond the maximum speed of the aircraft. That's why I do not think the supposed return red route with multiple gaps can represent the flight of MH370.

Paul

13/4/2015 02:30:00

I should add that I'm not qualified to make judgments on 777 speeds other than normal TAS & ground speed which is what i worked with.
IAS capabilities & automatics are a pilots specialty & a pilot opinion is required for what is or isn't possible.

Simon Gunson link

18/4/2015 10:13:42

Kevil thank you for alerting me as I just can't be bothered reading pages and pages of Bullsh** so thank you.

From IGARI to 6nm south of Penang not counting the track required for a turn is 202nm. To cover that distance in 31 minutes requires an average 6.516nm per minute or 391knots.

Therefore your brilliant observation that they cite a radar return of 476 knots is yet further proof that this is false manufactured evidence.

For MH370 to have managed 694 knots approaching Penang not only defies the laws of physics, but also implies a dive. 694kt TAS is greater than Mach 1.0 at sea level. In fact it is greater than Mach 1.1 at any altitude!

For MH370 to cover the next 85nm to Pelau Perak requires a Groundspeed of 510kt (perhaps 506kt TAS as Paul notes) and an altitude of not less than 33,000 feet. So how do they maintain MH370 dived approaching Penang yet miraculously covered the next distance in just ten minutes at +33,000ft?

So what the 2015 "Factual Information report is claiming is that MH370 flew supersonic between IGARI and Penang yet took 31 minutes to cover 202nm.

I don't call that factual.

In an emergency descent the B777 has a VNE of 330knots.

Paul

13/4/2015 00:08:41

Hi Kevil, I had difficulty reading the boxes you refer to and because the numbers seemed so high I didn't even consider them.

I noted the GS from the text of;
1736 to 1736.40 494-525 kts
1739.59 529 kts

Those are spot speeds which seem to have a maximum of 40 seconds of trace which I don't believe is long enough to determine a speed.I'd want at least 2 minutes of trace to be certain speed was correct. The spot speeds are also a lot higher than the average I calculated between 1730 and 1744 of 483 kts GS.

The top speed of a 777 in this event is debatable. There are those who believe it was a pilot or hijacker in control, I'm not one of them but hypothetically, a maniac at the controls could fly faster than Boeing safe limits & I don't think anyone really knows what speed above those limits could cause major damage (mach 1 obviously being an absolute limit).
There are many variables which can cause a pop up trace to appear on primary radar and I don't think 40 seconds is enough to determine that it's even an aircraft.

Simon Gunson

18/4/2015 10:18:41

I think you are being too generous Paul. Even assuming a GS of 525knots why did it take 31 minutes to cover 202nm at 525kt?

Why if true that it was flying so fast, was it not spotted by radar at Hat Yai, since those speeds are not possible below 35,000ft.

At some point Paul, any rational person has to conclude this Factual Information 2015 Report is actually a work of fiction.

Paul

18/4/2015 22:20:38

Simon I don't know that I've been generous, more that I'm trying to understand how Malaysia (and by implication ATSB) could make the claims they have.
For some time I've been swinging between cover up or cock up and am still uncertain which.
I need to clarify one point and that is the "speed" in the boxes which Kevil pointed out. I initially dismissed them as speeds because of the "0694" and although Kevil thinks they're speeds, I don't. I'm unfamiliar with the plotter so have no idea what those numbers are.
In looking at Bobby Ulich's contrail claim, I might have uncovered the reason for some of the inconsistencies of the radar. I think they've been giving us what they saw without applying error factors.
Primary radar becomes more inaccurate with range. A radar screen has a map overlay and although the target appears to be at a certain position on the screen, it's not necessarily the same position geographically. For example when they said VAMPI-MEKAR, that might be what was showing on screen but at that range the geographical position could be miles away.This might explain why speeds are nonsensical.
I'm still being "generous" but to Malaysia. ATSB & the JIT had no excuse for not clarifying.
Also the Interim Report was the worst excuse for an aviation document that I've ever seen & I have to wonder why the JIT didn't advise them how to write a proper report.

Kevil

19/4/2015 01:13:25

Hi Paul,

Have a look at the discussion http://jeffwise.net/2015/03/07/new-york-how-crazy-am-i-to-think-i-actually-know-where-that-malaysia-airlines-plane-is/comment-page-18/#comments

and download the Excel table made by @orion.

The average speed of Gap 1-3 is 585,01 knots. The average speed of Seg 1-4 is 516,24 knots.

It doesn’t make any sense that it is the same aircraft flying route Seg 1-4 with Gap 1-3. The speed difference Seg/Gap is 68,77 knots.

Picture 1.1F, page 29 of the Factual Information.

Note the comment from @Peter Norton:

@Kevil:
hats off. What a discovery you made there!! quite surprising that this was not spotted earlier on by someone.

As others said they were reading different numbers, I would like to confirm that I am reading the same numbers as you, Kevil:

17:30:37:02 –> 0476
17:30:56:90 –> 0501
17:41:01:62 –> 0694
17:51:44:38 –> 0609

Paul

19/4/2015 01:44:36

Hi Kevil, I've read it & don't think those numbers are speeds. Unless someone has experience with that plotter & can confirm, then I'll stick with what I've already said.

Simon Gunson

19/4/2015 11:15:42

Kevil is correct except 17:41 speed was 0594

17:19:45:49 –> 0473
17:30:37:02 –> 0476
17:30:56:90 –> 0501
17:41:01:62 –> 0594
17:51:44:38 –> 0509

Maximum speed of Boeing 772 is published as 0.87M or 575 statute miles per hour (499kt)

To fly B772 at 594kt with VMO of 330kt requires altitude of 40,000ft and exceeds Mach 1.0

Interesting question arises... If distance IGARI to 6nm south of Penang was just 202nm why did it take 31 minutes if GS was so fast?

Simon Gunson

19/4/2015 11:06:48

On Twitter, Vivion McMahon pointed out (I think correctly that speed in box was 594kts rather than 694kts.

Even accepting this it also seems to exceed MMO of 0.87 Mach. I have attempted to chart the True Airspeed and it still appears to exceed Mach 1.0 and requires altitude of 40,000 feet.

The nub is this, if MH370 flew between 33,000ft and 40,000ft radar at Hat Yai and Lhokseumwae should have seen this.

My belief is cover-up following a cock-up. I truly believe their military radar was not even turned on at time and after INMARSAT persuaded Malaysian Govt that satellite data suggested flight south from Aceh, RMAF issued a fake radar sighting to corroborate and justify abandoning Sth China Sea search. I think the 2015 report embellishes the original RMAF lies. Officialdom in Malaysia has been known to falsify information on many other issues.

As to whether the 0694 (or 0594) is an airspeed, check the box at IGARI showing last steady airspeed (from transponder) of 0473 kt.

Kevil is quite correct that these are airspeed figures in knots

Paul

19/4/2015 11:58:42

Simon, if one figure is out in a series, it casts doubt on the whole series. Even 594 is ridiculous, mach1 @ FL350 is about 550 kts TAS.
If the numbers were kilometres then the the first numbers are far too slow.
An assumption has been made that they're speeds and I don't concede assumptions without further proof. I also won't concede any "analysis" of that image because the definition is too poor. Without specific knowledge of Sestri Eva plotter, it's guessing.

Consider this, the Lido photo was analyzed by the IG and they then claimed it was genuine and have been basing their calculations on it ever since. I will not go down the same road with this very poor image, particularly as it's so far removed from original radar source. I don't know how they transferred raw radar data to produce that plot and because and in my opinion the whole thing is meaningless without source material to confirm it, I don't think there's anything to be achieved by focusing on it.
You've admitted you haven't read the report; "can't be bothered reading pages and pages of Bullsh**". I have read it and dismissed that image in favour of what I considered to be more important information. I plotted between 1730 and 1744 and have an average speed of 483 TAS give or take due plotting errors.
Simon I'm requesting that before you come here again that you take the trouble to read my previous replies so I don't have to repeat myself.

Simon Gunson

20/4/2015 01:23:10

"Simon, if one figure is out in a series, it casts doubt on the whole series."

Yes of course but in the image on page 29 it shows the known progress of MH370 to IGARI at 473 knots.

Then it gives an additional target with alleged speeds of up to 594kts. Nobody disputes the known flight towards IGARI as this was confirmed by Transponder.

What is now called into doubt is any notion that this second track was MH370 flying west from IGARI

Paul

20/4/2015 03:06:08

Yes Simon exactly and that's what I've been saying in my earliest blogs from June last year. They haven't proven to our satisfaction that it even went west after IGARI. The radar information has been contradictory from day one.

If you go back to the comments of this blog;

http://www.paulhowardplays.com/blog/mh370-final-update

and check out the conversation I had with Ron Black, you'll see the difficulty we had in determining that it even went west at all.

I don't know who Ron is but take note of his comment that people involved in the investigation were uncertain of the turn back.

So with radar we're no further ahead then we were a year ago. That's not to say that it didn't go west because the sat pings show that it did and I've said before for reasons explained that it could have transited without being seen by anybody. They might have had something on radar but the Interim Report has given insufficient to prove it.

Simon Gunson

20/4/2015 03:46:34

I had some contact with Ron Black on Google+ in discussions with Chris Goodfellow. That goes back a while now so I can't accurately recall what he said.

Of course it is very subjective what to believe once you have discarded the Straits Detour. Personally I discarded the Straits detour about a week into the disappearance, because I could not reconcile apparent decompression, pilot incapacity and the alleged manouveres. They could not all be true. I elected to reject the Straits detour but I do not dismiss the satellite data out of hand.

Rather I believe the satellite handshake data has been misunderstood and the subject of false base assumptions.

I reject the last known confirmed location was at MEKAR. I still think it flew south, but from Vietnam as a ghost flight.

Obviously people hold different views but i place more faith in 300+ floating objects spotted by satellite in March 2014 south of 44S,90E.

Today I discovered that Sovereign wealth fund Khazanah which PM Najib Razak heads was involved with funding Willis Malaysia to arrange Insurance for the entire MAS fleet. It raises questions whether a huge sales commission for the insurance went into private pockets and whether those private interests also abused their position in Government to mislead the search investigation?

Paul

20/4/2015 13:15:09

Simon on here I'm happy for anyone to express their opinion,subjective or objective but in the search for truth I will challenge and question information about which I have doubts.

Correct me if wrong but I believe you think it returned from Vietnam based on reported r/t from either MH88 or JAL750.

I need to clarify what may be misconceptions of those transmissions. To my knowledge what was reported was "mumbling and static", there was no callsign or identifying information.
There are many reasons for what may have been heard and based on my experience the most likely is a double transmission. HCM put out a call asking other aircraft to relay to MH370 therefore causing a peak of r/t contact easily causing a double transmission from other a/c within range. Two a/c talking at once causes "mumbling and static".

Kevil

27/4/2015 10:40:02

Can anyone comment this? Why does MH370 Satellite data disagree with track after take off? http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/3933/why-does-mh370-satellite-data-disagree-with-track-after-take-off

Anne

7/8/2015 07:15:56

"Edit 11/4 ....Why was a list of known traffic not included in the report? A simple list would have been sufficient without full FPL details but no, it's not there. I didn't even see a statement saying they'd eliminated known traffic."

Exactly. One possibility it raises is the MAS disappearance was inconvenient for some unrelated reason.

Maybe its as simple as saving political faces for not acting on what they were told that morning. Maybe its another plane or other planes someone didn't wanted noticed.

Whatever the reason, initially the Thai AF, Air Force was as relatively forthcoming as the Malaysian AF was at the beginning.
Athough the original article is behind a pay wall, the Bangkok Post published in an English language lesson some of the early statements the Thai Air Force made to its Thai journalists about the Thai radar readings.

“The air force’s radar stations in Surat Thani, Phuket and Songkhla’s Hat Yai received some signals that need to be verified by both the Aeronautical Radio of Thailand Co and Malaysian radars
radars to check whether they are the same,” ACM Prajin said.

“A plane made a U-turn before flying to the north of Kuala Lumpur and Butterworth army base in Malaysia before vanishing,’’ the air force chief said."

URL: http://www.bangkokpost.com/learning/learning-from-news/400641/missing-mh370-a-thai-connection

The passage is headed "Air force says radar spotted missing jet.
It begins at a point nearly of 2/3 way into the lesson.

Paul

7/8/2015 07:58:50

There are so many contradictions between press & official reports(& within those reports) that it's hard to know where to begin. The only thing I felt I could work on with any degree of certainty were the official reports by Malaysia & ATSB.

The official track across the Malaysian peninsular clearly infringes Thai airspace & although delegated to Malaysia, Thai ownership indicates to me that they should have produced a report per ICAO regs. The same applies at IGARI, transcripts show that HCM thought it reached BITOD (HCM airspace) also requiring a report from them.

Without publicly released reports from Vietnam & Thailand, we're left in the position of trying to reconcile press versus official statements.
The Reunion flaperon indicates 9M crossed Malaysia but the exact track may never be known without finding the aircraft.

I'll make one further comment & that's about the ATSB released drift model. It's an absolute effing joke not worthy of a primary school project. Any drift model has to include wind because consistent wind causes its own currents & what they've produced is IMO an absolute sham.

Anne

7/8/2015 22:17:35

Your map is very interesting and you're right to stick to whats official, whether its credible and authoritative or not, to the extent it's possible to do so. Also a erratum on my part. After reading your reply I located the original article about the early Malaysian AF remarks. If only via Google Translate, its clear the Malay AF was not as forthcoming as undisclosed sources of a Malay journalist at a March 9 or 10 official press conference. The article is here:
http://www2.bharian.com.my/articles/Adaisyaratpesawatberpatahbalik/Article/

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

MH370 Radar track. What did they see?

Leave a Reply.

Archives

MH370 Radar track. What did they see?

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Start your own free website