And the Analysts Still Don't Get It

Many people have contributed to the analytics relative to the disappearance of MH370 more than a year ago. Of course, the ATSB team and the IG are generally recognized as the arbiters of analytical integrity.

What is still not recognized by the IG and ASTB (the A-Team), despite relentless prodding on my part and the part of others, is that the Inmarsat data, BTO and BFO, cannot be used to determine the aircraft terminus. The aircraft terminus must be inferred by other means. These means include motive/intent, plausible landing location or intended location, and the lack of residual physical evidence (debris or the aircraft itself).  The terminus is, of course, bounded by the requirement that it be on the final BTO arc and within the fuel range of the aircraft. When the postulated terminus is selected, then the ensemble of BTO and BFO data can then be used to infer how the aircraft was flown to that terminus - the flight path. The conceptual difference in the highlighted text above is not that subtle. It is hard to understand how skilled practitioners are seemingly incapable of internalizing the distinction.

The A-Team continues to insist on a Southern Indian Ocean (SIO) terminus. When their flight dynamics (fixed auto pilot settings) are challenged they respond with "that is how the aircraft is normally flown". Further prodding often results in their use of the terms Occam's Razor, degrees of freedom, highest probability,... all of which are inapplicable to the present problem statement. The SIO hypothesis simply lacks motive and physical evidence. It does have the virtue of minimizing the BTO and BFO residuals (residuals in this context refers to the deviations, however small, from the BFO and BTO data). Of course, these residuals are calculated relative to a fixed auto pilot mode, so in that sense they are self-referential.

After the prolonged and expensive SIO search has been completed (completed in this context refers to searching the priority area established by the A-Team) and nothing has been found, it will be necessary to decide what, if anything, should now be done. This decision point is being approached rapidly. It can only be hoped that if continued searching is decided upon, that the analytics are revisited by a B-Team that has the proper perspective relative to the usefulness and applicability of the Inmarsat data.

Then we have the spoofing theory of Mr. Jeff Wise. I acknowledge that Wise has gone about postulating a terminus using the correct logical flow - on the last BTO arc, a possible landing place, and the ability to conceal the aircraft. He then addresses the BFO inconsistency with a spoof postulate. I don't believe a spoof is necessary, and that a flight path could be constructed to his terminus without a spoof. The lack of motive/intent associated with his terminus has discouraged me from expending the time and energy necessary to investigate a "spoofless" flight path.

It is abundantly clear, that the flow of news relative to MH370 is slowing dramatically. People are already referring to the "good for science" benefits associated with scanning the depths of the SIO. I hope that MH370 is not abandoned by the parties who can authorize additional search funding, but that is certainly a possible outcome.