3 ms·

MH370 disappearance: Goodfellow's theory about fire and Langkawi is wrong.

31 points by acjohnson55 13y ago

pedalpete 13y ago
Can somebody explain to me how "pings narrowed the location of MH370 at that moment to one of two arcs"? If a ping is picked up, shouldn't it be somewhat definitive of where it came from?
- tim333 13y ago
  The satellite just recorded the time the signal took to get from it to earth and back. That gives you a circular arc of places. The interesting bit in the article is to scroll down to "GOODFELLOW REBUTTAL...Interesting analysis of my analysis." in the comments.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Not really. Let's look at what is generally known: 1. We may if we are lucky know the time in transit. 2. We may know the signal strength. Unless you have the same signal being intercepted by multiple (minimum number is 3) satellites, you can't triangulate. From a single satellite, you can probably extrapolate from either of these to some extent the location, however you can't do this with any precision beyond a full circle arc. A good parallel might be earthquake detection and the location of an epicenter. Both these involve tracing a location based on the strength of weakening waves reaching detectors. To locate an epicenter, you need detection of the earthquake by three independent detections. One gives you very little information. Two gives you a line of possibilities. Only with three do you get a chance to determine exactly where the waves originated from. Now if you know signal strength, and you have two detections, you know it is somewhere in a line based on signal strength, but you can trace it to two more precise possibilities if you have time in transit. Based on the information we have it sounds like they must have two satellites picking up on the signal and comparing times in transit.
- tomkarlo 13y ago
  It seems similar to how GPS is used to find location - you only know the distance from each satellite, not the direction. Contact with one satellite places you on an arc (or circle), two sats put you on one of the two spots where the arc around each intersects, and three isolates your position to a single intersection of three arcs at established distances from each satellite. (And four gives you altitude.)
- LoganCale 13y ago
  There's only one satellite, so they only have (as far as we know) the delay time between sending out the ping and hearing a response to determine distance from satellite to aircraft, with no ability to triangulate the position as something like GPS (which uses many satellites) would do. So they can figure out a large curve around the satellite's position, and the aircraft could have been at any point (within the limits of its fuel capacity) when it sent out that final ping.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Distance alone should give you a full circle, but remember you also have processing time which is significant. If they have two possible arcs, this suggests that the same ping was heard by two satellites (and no more), and that these are the places where the difference in time that the satellites heard the pings would work for both satellites. You have basically three intersecting spheres (one is the earth and the other is based on the satellites' light cones). They all meet in two locations. If you had a third satellite, you should be able to determine which of the two locations was right.
    - hatbert 13y ago
      You're misunderstanding. There is a single circle, which people are calling two arc. That is because they know the airplane can't fly more than a certain distance from its last known position (this reduces the circle to an arc) and because they know where the airplane isn't from radar data (that breaks the one arc into two pieces, which happen to be roughly the same size).
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    GPS relies on extremely precise timing as well, and extremely precise knowledge of the orbits of the satellites. If you have 10 millisecond timing on signals that narrows things down to a 3000km range of distances.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
The theory was obviously wrong even when it was on the front page of HN two days ago: 1. It does not account for course changes made after the initial diversion from the flight path. 2. It does not account for the final known location of the aircraft along the infamous "arc" off of Australia and Kazakhstan. The popularity of the theory was and remains puzzling.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  Indeed. It's been so far very clear that the simple accident or suicide scenarii were a little too simple to explain all the data that was gathered so far.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    And for this matter, it was no simple hijacking either.
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      A simple bungled hijacking is very much a possibility.
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        Flying into the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night with no transponder never to be seen again? If it is a bungled hijacking it is still not a simple "take me to this airport or I will start killing people" case.
        alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        "Take me to an airport in Australia, fly low over Malaysia and circumnavigate Indonesia to avoid radar. Disable all tracking tools so that the authorities don't shoot us down. I'm wearing a suicide vest so you must follow my orders." Then the plane runs out of fuel in the ocean.
checker659 13y ago
As far as the trajectory is concerned, isn't going near Maldives just about right (let's not forget about map projection and the shape of the earth).
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  Just about right for what?
scott27 13y ago
My problem with Goodfellow's theory, and what really makes this disappearance so intriguing, is that they never found any wreckage anywhere. I would figure with the plane crashing in the ocean somewhere(which would be the most likely scenario in Goodfellow's theory) I would figure they would find SOMETHING by now considering how many resources are being poured into this search.
- tim333 13y ago
  In Goodfellow's hypothesis the wreckage will be found west of the Maldives shortly. It wouldn't have been found up to now because they have been searching in the wrong places. I have not been blown away by the Malaysians efficiency in doing the search and analysis.
United857 13y ago
Any onboard fire fast and strong enough to suddenly disable the crew would almost certainly also bring the plane down in short order, rather than letting it fly on for hours (as the supposed satellite data shows). See Swissair Flight 111 and ValuJet Flight 592 as past examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592
- leoc 13y ago
  It might be possible to find a Goldilocks explanation. Maybe a smaller fire, located in the cockpit, which the crew eventually extinguish only to find that the cockpit instrumentation is destroyed? Or maybe which they successfully extinguish, but only after both pilots are unconscious from smoke inhalation, and no-one else knows how to fly or use the radios? Sounds a bit contrived, but this is an unusual situtation.
marshray 13y ago
Sure he's an experienced pilot, but he doesn't seem to have access to any better information than the rest of us. There are plenty of other aviation experts and informed amateurs doing equally interesting analysis and speculation. So what did Goodfellow do so right to get everyone buzzing about "his" theory?
truantbuick 13y ago
There's something that particularly bothers me about Goodfellow's article. He condescends about crazy theories while making ridiculous assumption after ridiculous assumption while acting very authoritative about each one. Just because his theory is less "sexy" (it doesn't involve hijacking or terrorists or suicide) doesn't make it any more valid. I'm appreciative of commentary that urges a more prudent approach, not a condescending and equally implausible theory that happens to be boring.
jmpeax 13y ago
Half of the article is an ad hominem style attack against Goodfellow. It would be nice if it was 50% shorter, with only real content. Wise up Jeff.
erddojo 13y ago
I absolutely think a fire theory would be valid, after all the plane was carrying a large load of lithium batteries. However, that's precisely the factor that calls Goodfellow's fire theory into question (for me). If a fire broke out that was strong enough to disable comms and/or knock out pilots, then it was strong enough to set off those batteries. No way the plane flew seven more hours in that scenario. Even if the fire was contained to the cabin and there wasn't a pilot left to fly the plane, someone at some point in those seven hours would've found a cell signal to call for help. Unless, of course, there was no 7 hours and that satellite ping was for another plane. In that case, I'm thinking is the plane would've gone down soon after the transponder went off and the wreckage would've been found by now. Personally, I have no clue what happened to this plane.

31 points by acjohnson55 13y ago

Can somebody explain to me how "pings narrowed the location of MH370 at that moment to one of two arcs"? If a ping is picked up, shouldn't it be somewhat definitive of where it came from?

tim333 13y ago
The satellite just recorded the time the signal took to get from it to earth and back. That gives you a circular arc of places. The interesting bit in the article is to scroll down to "GOODFELLOW REBUTTAL...Interesting analysis of my analysis." in the comments.
einhverfr 13y ago
Not really. Let's look at what is generally known: 1. We may if we are lucky know the time in transit. 2. We may know the signal strength. Unless you have the same signal being intercepted by multiple (minimum number is 3) satellites, you can't triangulate. From a single satellite, you can probably extrapolate from either of these to some extent the location, however you can't do this with any precision beyond a full circle arc. A good parallel might be earthquake detection and the location of an epicenter. Both these involve tracing a location based on the strength of weakening waves reaching detectors. To locate an epicenter, you need detection of the earthquake by three independent detections. One gives you very little information. Two gives you a line of possibilities. Only with three do you get a chance to determine exactly where the waves originated from. Now if you know signal strength, and you have two detections, you know it is somewhere in a line based on signal strength, but you can trace it to two more precise possibilities if you have time in transit. Based on the information we have it sounds like they must have two satellites picking up on the signal and comparing times in transit.
tomkarlo 13y ago
It seems similar to how GPS is used to find location - you only know the distance from each satellite, not the direction. Contact with one satellite places you on an arc (or circle), two sats put you on one of the two spots where the arc around each intersects, and three isolates your position to a single intersection of three arcs at established distances from each satellite. (And four gives you altitude.)
LoganCale 13y ago
There's only one satellite, so they only have (as far as we know) the delay time between sending out the ping and hearing a response to determine distance from satellite to aircraft, with no ability to triangulate the position as something like GPS (which uses many satellites) would do. So they can figure out a large curve around the satellite's position, and the aircraft could have been at any point (within the limits of its fuel capacity) when it sent out that final ping.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Distance alone should give you a full circle, but remember you also have processing time which is significant. If they have two possible arcs, this suggests that the same ping was heard by two satellites (and no more), and that these are the places where the difference in time that the satellites heard the pings would work for both satellites. You have basically three intersecting spheres (one is the earth and the other is based on the satellites' light cones). They all meet in two locations. If you had a third satellite, you should be able to determine which of the two locations was right.
  - hatbert 13y ago
    You're misunderstanding. There is a single circle, which people are calling two arc. That is because they know the airplane can't fly more than a certain distance from its last known position (this reduces the circle to an arc) and because they know where the airplane isn't from radar data (that breaks the one arc into two pieces, which happen to be roughly the same size).
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  GPS relies on extremely precise timing as well, and extremely precise knowledge of the orbits of the satellites. If you have 10 millisecond timing on signals that narrows things down to a 3000km range of distances.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

The theory was obviously wrong even when it was on the front page of HN two days ago: 1. It does not account for course changes made after the initial diversion from the flight path. 2. It does not account for the final known location of the aircraft along the infamous "arc" off of Australia and Kazakhstan. The popularity of the theory was and remains puzzling.

ekianjo 13y ago
Indeed. It's been so far very clear that the simple accident or suicide scenarii were a little too simple to explain all the data that was gathered so far.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  And for this matter, it was no simple hijacking either.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    A simple bungled hijacking is very much a possibility.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      Flying into the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night with no transponder never to be seen again? If it is a bungled hijacking it is still not a simple "take me to this airport or I will start killing people" case.
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        "Take me to an airport in Australia, fly low over Malaysia and circumnavigate Indonesia to avoid radar. Disable all tracking tools so that the authorities don't shoot us down. I'm wearing a suicide vest so you must follow my orders." Then the plane runs out of fuel in the ocean.

checker659 13y ago

As far as the trajectory is concerned, isn't going near Maldives just about right (let's not forget about map projection and the shape of the earth).

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Just about right for what?

scott27 13y ago

My problem with Goodfellow's theory, and what really makes this disappearance so intriguing, is that they never found any wreckage anywhere. I would figure with the plane crashing in the ocean somewhere(which would be the most likely scenario in Goodfellow's theory) I would figure they would find SOMETHING by now considering how many resources are being poured into this search.

tim333 13y ago
In Goodfellow's hypothesis the wreckage will be found west of the Maldives shortly. It wouldn't have been found up to now because they have been searching in the wrong places. I have not been blown away by the Malaysians efficiency in doing the search and analysis.

United857 13y ago

Any onboard fire fast and strong enough to suddenly disable the crew would almost certainly also bring the plane down in short order, rather than letting it fly on for hours (as the supposed satellite data shows). See Swissair Flight 111 and ValuJet Flight 592 as past examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissair_Flight_111 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592

leoc 13y ago
It might be possible to find a Goldilocks explanation. Maybe a smaller fire, located in the cockpit, which the crew eventually extinguish only to find that the cockpit instrumentation is destroyed? Or maybe which they successfully extinguish, but only after both pilots are unconscious from smoke inhalation, and no-one else knows how to fly or use the radios? Sounds a bit contrived, but this is an unusual situtation.

marshray 13y ago

Sure he's an experienced pilot, but he doesn't seem to have access to any better information than the rest of us. There are plenty of other aviation experts and informed amateurs doing equally interesting analysis and speculation. So what did Goodfellow do so right to get everyone buzzing about "his" theory?

truantbuick 13y ago

There's something that particularly bothers me about Goodfellow's article. He condescends about crazy theories while making ridiculous assumption after ridiculous assumption while acting very authoritative about each one. Just because his theory is less "sexy" (it doesn't involve hijacking or terrorists or suicide) doesn't make it any more valid. I'm appreciative of commentary that urges a more prudent approach, not a condescending and equally implausible theory that happens to be boring.

jmpeax 13y ago

Half of the article is an ad hominem style attack against Goodfellow. It would be nice if it was 50% shorter, with only real content. Wise up Jeff.

erddojo 13y ago

I absolutely think a fire theory would be valid, after all the plane was carrying a large load of lithium batteries. However, that's precisely the factor that calls Goodfellow's fire theory into question (for me). If a fire broke out that was strong enough to disable comms and/or knock out pilots, then it was strong enough to set off those batteries. No way the plane flew seven more hours in that scenario. Even if the fire was contained to the cabin and there wasn't a pilot left to fly the plane, someone at some point in those seven hours would've found a cell signal to call for help. Unless, of course, there was no 7 hours and that satellite ping was for another plane. In that case, I'm thinking is the plane would've gone down soon after the transponder went off and the wreckage would've been found by now. Personally, I have no clue what happened to this plane.