My theory is this: if the SDU was rebooted while the plane was still under primary radar coverage, it would have been possible to calibrate the motion of the plane with the Inmarsat data. It would be apparent that a plane traveling north would generate BFO values that implied it was going south.
My theory is this: if the SDU was rebooted while the plane was still under primary radar coverage, it would have been possible to calibrate the motion of the plane with the Inmarsat data. It would be apparent that a plane traveling north would generate BFO values that implied it was going south.
If on the other hand if the perps waited a long time to rebooted the SDU, there would have been a long enough gap that the Inmarsat data wouldn't make it as clear where the plane supposedly went in the southern Indian Ocean. I think the perps wanted investigators to think they knew where the plane went, so they would keep talking about it. They wanted to create maximum distraction and bafflement.
@jeffwise : That's clever. If I understand you correctly, you mean that looking at it from the perspective of stage magic, rebooting the SDU before leaving radar coverage would give away the magic trick, right? Because the southern route implied by the spoofed BFO data would be belied by the radar data showing MH370 travelling to the north. That is what you are saying, right?
Of course there are 2 inherent assumptions here:
• the BFO data was spoofed
• the perpetrator knew about the BFO/BTO data
What about the mainline theory (vanishing into the SIO) ?
Can you think of a reason for deferring the SDU reboot until after leaving radar coverage in this case as well ?
I don't think the reboot of the SDU (or shutting it off in the first place, for that matter) makes any sense in the context of a pilot hijack. People are trying to jury rig explanations because they've convinced themselves that Zaharie must have done it, so he must have had a reason for isolating the left AC bus, but I just don't think any of them hold water.
@jeffwise : I have suicidal thoughts since a couple of years, so I am speaking from a practical point of view. If I were to leave this world, I would not ever want to be found (which is not as easy as it sounds). So I can very much relate to the idea of taking a plane and disappear into the great vastness of the sea, where my body won't ever be found. Of course, I wouldn't take other lives in the process, but as for the rest, I completely get the idea. So to me, turning off SDU, XPNDR, ACARS, etc. is perfectly logical. If I had the necessary knowledge, I would certainly do that.
Anyway, I think your argument ("if the SDU was rebooted while the plane was still under primary radar coverage, it would have been possible to calibrate the motion of the plane with the Inmarsat data") applies to both theories: the BFO spoofing theory and the mainline theory, because in both cases the perpetrator didn't want to be found.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that, we don't want to lose you! I'll defer to your intution, but I think that you're mixing up apples and oranges when you refer to "SDU, XPNDR, ACARS..." It makes sense to turn off the transponder, ACARS, IFE, and all of that. Those are easy to do and can be done normally. Turning off the SDU is an entirely different category and, again, doesn't provide any benefit (at least a good one that I've heard anyone propose). What you're left with is a guy who was supposedly trying to be sneaky and very sophisticated about his knowledge of the wiring of the plane but wound up messing with it in a way that didn't assist his plan.
We don't need to go around and around about this forever -- you either think the SDU reboot is fishy, or you don't. I get that you don't and that's fine.
@jeffwise : thanks for your empathy. I'll try to stick around.
Oh, I find the loss and reboot of the SDU super-fishy!
I just explore all possible avenues, since I am this rare kind of animal who isn't married to any pet-theory.
I think the strength of your theory resides in explaining a lot of strange factors (like the SDU reboot) and I give you enormous credit for that.
On the flipside, why can't you agree but keep saying hat turning off the SDU "provides no good benefit" ? I have asked you lots of times, but I don't think you ever answered this question:
In the mainline theory, depowering the SDU prevents transmission of the ACARS logoff message (which would have been definite proof of nefarious action) thus sparing the perpetrator and his family the shame of being exposed as a proven mass-murderer. This is certainly a good argument, no ? Can't we agree on this, too ?
"wound up messing with it in a way that didn't assist his plan" --> well, it seems to have worked for over a decade now. And this despite the Inmarsat data which he could not have anticipated, right ?
You ask if I think it's a good argument that isolating the left AC bus would be a worthwhile thing to do for the sake of not sending an ACARS logoff message. First of all, I don't think you mean ACARS logoff, I think you mean logoff from the Inmarsat satellite. Second, I don't understand what difference that would make. It's quite clear that the plane was deliberately diverted and the electrical equipment switched off through intentional act. And if a person really wanted to turn off a piece of equipment, I'm sure that any 777 pilot would tell you that they would simply pull the relevant circuit breaker.
• Re: "they would simply pull the relevant circuit breaker":
SATCOM/SDU doesn't have a circuit breaker in the cockpit, only in the E&E bay. (Hence your theory about the Russian or the Ukrainians entering the E&E bay, no ?)
• Re: "It's quite clear that the plane was deliberately diverted and the electrical equipment switched off through intentional act."
I agree. But where is the irrefutable evidence for that? Because there is no definitive proof, there are still a lot of people believing in an accident scenario (some malfunction causing loss of communication, hypoxia, disorientation, and ghost flight in the end). A logoff message would be 100% proof of an intentional act. That's why it makes a huge difference for us investigators and for the perpetrator.
• With the regards to the logoff message, your comment shows me that apparently I still don't fully understand it.
Deselecting SATCOM as an ACARS communications channel via the CDU apparently does not generate a logoff message according to Mick Gilbert:
But if this is true, then why was the SDU depowered ?
And how do we even know that the SDU was depowered ?
I always thought that we know because no ACARS messages were received after IGARI *and* no ACARS logoff message was received either. I thought this told us that the SATCOM must have been depowered.
But if this isn't true, then how do we even know that the SATCOM/SDU had lost power ?
I am confused right now and would be very thankful if you could sort this out (in case you have the technical knowledge).
You wrote, "But if this is true, then why was the SDU depowered?" Exactly. This is why I say there's no benefit to depowering the SDU, or logging off it for that matter. As for how we know it was depowered, it has to do (as I recall) with the BFO characteristics of the first ping, which suggest that the oscillator had cooled.
One thing I think is worth emphasizing is that there is no such thing as "logging off ACARS." The issue is logging off of Inmarsat.
You wrote: « As for how we know it [the SDU] was depowered, it has to do (as I recall) with the BFO characteristics of the first ping, which suggest that the oscillator had cooled. »
« Why was the first BFO logged at 18:25:27 virtually perfect when it was a random power up value (and discarded as such by Holland)? Valid questions that no one has a credible answer for. »
Unless you have further insights, I'll try to ask over on the IG board and will let you know, what I am able to find out.
The SDU shutdown/reboot is the crux and at the very heart of the entire mystery. Therefore we must get to the bottom of this on a technical level.
Peter thank you. I appreciate your deep level of interest and attention to the mystery. I feel like you need a project! Maybe after nailing down all the technical details of what happened you could make a table of all the different explanations that people have made to the reboot, and then do an assessment of whether they are feasible or make logical sense from the perspective of someone who is motivated to achieve a particular goal.
My theory is this: if the SDU was rebooted while the plane was still under primary radar coverage, it would have been possible to calibrate the motion of the plane with the Inmarsat data. It would be apparent that a plane traveling north would generate BFO values that implied it was going south.
If on the other hand if the perps waited a long time to rebooted the SDU, there would have been a long enough gap that the Inmarsat data wouldn't make it as clear where the plane supposedly went in the southern Indian Ocean. I think the perps wanted investigators to think they knew where the plane went, so they would keep talking about it. They wanted to create maximum distraction and bafflement.
@jeffwise : That's clever. If I understand you correctly, you mean that looking at it from the perspective of stage magic, rebooting the SDU before leaving radar coverage would give away the magic trick, right? Because the southern route implied by the spoofed BFO data would be belied by the radar data showing MH370 travelling to the north. That is what you are saying, right?
Of course there are 2 inherent assumptions here:
• the BFO data was spoofed
• the perpetrator knew about the BFO/BTO data
What about the mainline theory (vanishing into the SIO) ?
Can you think of a reason for deferring the SDU reboot until after leaving radar coverage in this case as well ?
I don't think the reboot of the SDU (or shutting it off in the first place, for that matter) makes any sense in the context of a pilot hijack. People are trying to jury rig explanations because they've convinced themselves that Zaharie must have done it, so he must have had a reason for isolating the left AC bus, but I just don't think any of them hold water.
@jeffwise : I have suicidal thoughts since a couple of years, so I am speaking from a practical point of view. If I were to leave this world, I would not ever want to be found (which is not as easy as it sounds). So I can very much relate to the idea of taking a plane and disappear into the great vastness of the sea, where my body won't ever be found. Of course, I wouldn't take other lives in the process, but as for the rest, I completely get the idea. So to me, turning off SDU, XPNDR, ACARS, etc. is perfectly logical. If I had the necessary knowledge, I would certainly do that.
Anyway, I think your argument ("if the SDU was rebooted while the plane was still under primary radar coverage, it would have been possible to calibrate the motion of the plane with the Inmarsat data") applies to both theories: the BFO spoofing theory and the mainline theory, because in both cases the perpetrator didn't want to be found.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that, we don't want to lose you! I'll defer to your intution, but I think that you're mixing up apples and oranges when you refer to "SDU, XPNDR, ACARS..." It makes sense to turn off the transponder, ACARS, IFE, and all of that. Those are easy to do and can be done normally. Turning off the SDU is an entirely different category and, again, doesn't provide any benefit (at least a good one that I've heard anyone propose). What you're left with is a guy who was supposedly trying to be sneaky and very sophisticated about his knowledge of the wiring of the plane but wound up messing with it in a way that didn't assist his plan.
We don't need to go around and around about this forever -- you either think the SDU reboot is fishy, or you don't. I get that you don't and that's fine.
Re: "the SDU reboot is fishy"
The late Dennis Workman agreed with you that the SDU reboot stinks:
https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/10/12/simulator-data-from-computer-of-mh370-captain-part-1/#comment-7978
Smart guy, sorry to lose him.
@jeffwise : thanks for your empathy. I'll try to stick around.
Oh, I find the loss and reboot of the SDU super-fishy!
I just explore all possible avenues, since I am this rare kind of animal who isn't married to any pet-theory.
I think the strength of your theory resides in explaining a lot of strange factors (like the SDU reboot) and I give you enormous credit for that.
On the flipside, why can't you agree but keep saying hat turning off the SDU "provides no good benefit" ? I have asked you lots of times, but I don't think you ever answered this question:
In the mainline theory, depowering the SDU prevents transmission of the ACARS logoff message (which would have been definite proof of nefarious action) thus sparing the perpetrator and his family the shame of being exposed as a proven mass-murderer. This is certainly a good argument, no ? Can't we agree on this, too ?
"wound up messing with it in a way that didn't assist his plan" --> well, it seems to have worked for over a decade now. And this despite the Inmarsat data which he could not have anticipated, right ?
You ask if I think it's a good argument that isolating the left AC bus would be a worthwhile thing to do for the sake of not sending an ACARS logoff message. First of all, I don't think you mean ACARS logoff, I think you mean logoff from the Inmarsat satellite. Second, I don't understand what difference that would make. It's quite clear that the plane was deliberately diverted and the electrical equipment switched off through intentional act. And if a person really wanted to turn off a piece of equipment, I'm sure that any 777 pilot would tell you that they would simply pull the relevant circuit breaker.
@jeffwise :
• Re: "they would simply pull the relevant circuit breaker":
SATCOM/SDU doesn't have a circuit breaker in the cockpit, only in the E&E bay. (Hence your theory about the Russian or the Ukrainians entering the E&E bay, no ?)
• Re: "It's quite clear that the plane was deliberately diverted and the electrical equipment switched off through intentional act."
I agree. But where is the irrefutable evidence for that? Because there is no definitive proof, there are still a lot of people believing in an accident scenario (some malfunction causing loss of communication, hypoxia, disorientation, and ghost flight in the end). A logoff message would be 100% proof of an intentional act. That's why it makes a huge difference for us investigators and for the perpetrator.
• With the regards to the logoff message, your comment shows me that apparently I still don't fully understand it.
Deselecting SATCOM as an ACARS communications channel via the CDU apparently does not generate a logoff message according to Mick Gilbert:
https://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/10/12/simulator-data-from-computer-of-mh370-captain-part-1/#comment-8000
But if this is true, then why was the SDU depowered ?
And how do we even know that the SDU was depowered ?
I always thought that we know because no ACARS messages were received after IGARI *and* no ACARS logoff message was received either. I thought this told us that the SATCOM must have been depowered.
But if this isn't true, then how do we even know that the SATCOM/SDU had lost power ?
I am confused right now and would be very thankful if you could sort this out (in case you have the technical knowledge).
You wrote, "But if this is true, then why was the SDU depowered?" Exactly. This is why I say there's no benefit to depowering the SDU, or logging off it for that matter. As for how we know it was depowered, it has to do (as I recall) with the BFO characteristics of the first ping, which suggest that the oscillator had cooled.
One thing I think is worth emphasizing is that there is no such thing as "logging off ACARS." The issue is logging off of Inmarsat.
@jeffwise : thanks.
You wrote: « As for how we know it [the SDU] was depowered, it has to do (as I recall) with the BFO characteristics of the first ping, which suggest that the oscillator had cooled. »
In the link above ( https://www.deepdivemh370.com/p/30-a-777-pilot-weighs-in/comment/80543018 ) Dennis Workman said exact the opposite, namely that the first BFO value was perfect, suggesting that the oscillator had not cooled and thus the SDU had not been depowered:
« Why was the first BFO logged at 18:25:27 virtually perfect when it was a random power up value (and discarded as such by Holland)? Valid questions that no one has a credible answer for. »
Unless you have further insights, I'll try to ask over on the IG board and will let you know, what I am able to find out.
The SDU shutdown/reboot is the crux and at the very heart of the entire mystery. Therefore we must get to the bottom of this on a technical level.
Peter thank you. I appreciate your deep level of interest and attention to the mystery. I feel like you need a project! Maybe after nailing down all the technical details of what happened you could make a table of all the different explanations that people have made to the reboot, and then do an assessment of whether they are feasible or make logical sense from the perspective of someone who is motivated to achieve a particular goal.