May 12th, 2014
08:25 PM ET

Did Inmarsat data point Flight 370 searchers in wrong direction?

Back to discuss the validity of the Inmarsat data that originally pointed Flight 370 searchers to the southern Indian Ocean are CNN aviation analysts Miles O'Brien and Arthur Rosenberg, and CNN safety analyst David Soucie.

Filed under: Uncategorized
soundoff (38 Responses)
  1. Steven

    One big point in this case is "Why Australia give not their Radar data which they should have?"
    Even with their claim to catch a Cessna starting or landing at East Timor.
    MH370 should for more than 1000Km in the coverage of Jindalee...
    and i would suggest the US will drive a similar Radar technique on Diego Garcia...
    So think again, please!

    May 31, 2014 at 12:43 pm | Reply
    • Adam

      If Australia had anything contradictory from Jindalee, why would the country be bearing the cost of a $90 million search in the wrong spot. Once again the conspiracy theories don't pass basic tests of rationality.

      June 4, 2014 at 8:50 pm | Reply
  2. DownSideofFame

    We have been, and public informant ....that the Malaysian government....we're releasing lies...( walls and more...)
    Posted in comments of, who were and why.... Investigation tapes, false interpretation s. OF... experts mathematics
    Wrong answers and more...timing, flight patterns ....soaring feet, climbing up and down...public releases, as they happen before , Malaysian and Leaders of...u heard it here before key releases as to, truths...heard it here first ,before the headlines.. ( there walls ) we climb ,over them...DownSideofFame with Michael Adams contracts24@yahoo.com

    May 27, 2014 at 11:53 am | Reply
  3. dwayne

    I pray that never happens to me, because look how the entire investigation started. These are regular people which has no meaning in the eyes of the malaysian government and other countries. These people are not thei world leaders mother's, father's sisters or brothers so why should they care. The investigation was of the keystone cops. Pure flop. If it was me or someone smart I would have demanded the data be shared the first week the plane was reported missing. by the UN. Everyone who had contact with the pilot, engineer, mechanic and the malaysian Govt. would be investigated and followed. I would investigate the malaysian government to see what country or countries, they have been dealing with, the passengers could be on a slave trade or a labor camp by now. The best agents are in the movies. real life is very scary. I pray for their families and the people on board and pray they are found and the criminals brought to justice.

    May 27, 2014 at 9:54 am | Reply
  4. Steve

    The most parsimonious explanation for the disappearance of this plane is a sudden catastrophic event at or near its last verifiable location (place of last voice communication). This ending would explain why no maydays were sent, why no cell phones were ever turned on, and why no black boxes or other evidence have ever been found at other locations. The day after the crash, Chinese observers reported large pieces of debris in the south China Sea from satellite photos, but these were quickly ignored as the search moved elsewhere. Had the search concentrated more in the south China Sea, I think they would have picked up debris and found the black boxes. The reports from the oil rig and fisherman were too quickly dismissed as well. I hope it can still be found, wherever it is.

    May 27, 2014 at 7:16 am | Reply
    • Adam

      Except that explanation doesn't remotely tally with the facts.
      We have the plane on radar traveling back across the Malay Peninsula, and we have it transmitting to the satellite for another seven hours.
      You are welcome to search the south China sea if you want. Why you would have authorities waste tens of millions of dollars when they know the plane can't possibly be there is another issue.

      All the conspiracy butters will be proven wrong at some point in the next 12 months. But sorry folks, that is how long it takes to search a large area of four kilometer deep water without any signal to track.

      May 28, 2014 at 7:49 pm | Reply
  5. smita bhatnagar

    Give a thought to what Bajc said that it was 'curious' some thing so small as releasing the data is only released now. Why did they take so long to release the data? Am not one for conspiracy theories but in a day where almost all our movements are monitored its been almost 3 months and no debris has been found .Stranger still. It must be heart wrenching for the families and friends. The world at large has ask questions and demand answers to make the skies safe for all of us.

    May 27, 2014 at 3:37 am | Reply
  6. Chris

    Why has no-one flown the exact route MH370 took from takeoff to where it supposedly went down or landed?

    May 27, 2014 at 3:03 am | Reply
    • tamooj

      1. How do you know that various search planes haven't done this? 2. Because unless they wanted it to be a one-way trip they would run out of fuel. 3. Also, what would this prove? Any debris would have long since sank or drifted away.

      May 27, 2014 at 3:23 pm | Reply
    • Adam

      Err, they don't know where it went diwn, that's y'know why they are still looking for it. The plane was last tracked on primary radar around Aceh in Indonesia and appears from there to have steered to the middle of the Indian ocean. None of which was within legion of its original flight path.

      And even traveling to the point it was last on secondary radar, no you would not run out of fuel. That was about an hour in to a seven hour flight,

      May 28, 2014 at 8:00 pm | Reply
  7. Gabriel

    There was a prophecy by a senior prophet TB JOSHUA of SCOAN Nigeria since july 2013 about the malaysian plane will be missing. After the confirmation in march on the 15 march in saturday live service in the church he said the plane has sank into the deep waters of the sea and by now the particles will be floating. May the souls of passangers rest in peace.

    May 27, 2014 at 2:36 am | Reply
  8. WhereruMh370

    Good New: i am not going to release anything till i am sure i have something to release

    May 21, 2014 at 11:16 pm | Reply
    • giggig24

      yes,especially if a HOAX was introduced.

      May 22, 2014 at 10:16 pm | Reply
  9. Dave

    It's obvious that the aircraft never impacted the water after all this time or there would be floating debris found somewhere. My theory is the guy on the oil rig did see what he reported. I believe there was a flash fire that likely came from the lithium ion batteries in the cargo area that could have been seen from great distances which resulted in a rapid decompression and instant death to the passengers and crew. The aircraft then flew by itself eiher by autopilot or frozen controls until it impacted land somewhere. If the Malaysian Air Force really did track the flight coming back over Malaysia I would check the remote areas of North Sumatra especially near higher mountain elevations or it went into a remote area of Vietnam or Cambodia. I think the Immersa data is unreliable and this is why they won't release it all.

    May 21, 2014 at 4:17 pm | Reply
    • Cassandra Niemczyk

      Thank you for taking us back to one of the possible eyewitness accounts. I have gone back to these accounts again and again, and I could not figure out why they were dismissed so easily by the Malaysian government. The account of the oil rig worker struck me as being especially credible. Also, the testimony of the fishermen off the coast of Malaysia merits our attention. One time many years ago I saw a low-flying passenger jet from O'Hare skirt the rooftops of our condo complex. You do not easily forget an image like that because it is so unusual. I wish that somebody would go back to the eyewitnesses and ask for more information. For example, I would like to know the heading of the aircraft from the perspective of the fishermen.

      May 22, 2014 at 2:03 pm | Reply
      • Adam

        Eyewitnesses are invariably the LEAST reliable data in any air crash investigation. They're invariably not making it up but they get crucial data very wrong. Things are remembered often at the wrong time and in the wrong order. Often planes are seen "flaming to the ground" that in fact caught fire on impact. On the other hand, we have the RADAR AND SATELLITE data, which is hard evidence that contradicts all the eyewitness accounts as being events that could relate to the plane.

        May 24, 2014 at 12:44 pm | Reply
        • Donna

          Since that data is not available for dispute or independent verification and countries lie about their radar capabilities, let's just wait and see, but since this "hard data" produced jack zip, I would certainly like to see a rehash of all the eye witness accounts that bit the dust and were never explored.

          May 25, 2014 at 4:42 pm | Reply
          • Adam

            The hard data got us four discrete signals from something at the bottom of the emptry Indian ocean that just happened to be the same frequently as a black box pinger and which all ceased around the time a black box's battery would have died.

            You would need to be certifiably insane to be searching anywhere else.

            May 28, 2014 at 8:03 pm | Reply
        • David

          Agree with your point, "getting crucial details wrong" would be material when trying to clarify across multiple similar scenarios. However in this case, we believed the plane to be heading in one direction from "the data" we were given, and eyewitnesses see it going another. The disparity seems large, and warrants more attention. Very true that they may get some details wrong, but their testimony will give another direction (geographical and analytical) to the search which cannot and SHOULD not be ignored. Unless of course someone is trying to hide something...

          May 27, 2014 at 7:21 am | Reply
          • Adam

            Theyewitnesses have absolutely no way of correlating anything they saw that night with MH370. I might have seen a flash in the sky over Antarctica that night, but only third party evidence can tell me it wasn't MH370.

            And the radar and satellite data does precisely that.

            May 28, 2014 at 8:07 pm | Reply
    • Tot

      For your hypothesis to be correct, not just 1 but 2 pieces of vital information (some might go as far as calling them irrefutable evidences) must be dismissed as completely false:

      1- The Inmarsat "handshake" data, and associated calculations;

      as well as,

      2- The pings (with the correct frequency) detected in the southern Indian ocean, roughly where the Inmarsat data suggested that it had gone down.

      May 27, 2014 at 1:19 am | Reply
  10. charles epperson

    I hope that the Malaysian Officials also insist that those pings supposedly coming from the FDR and CVR be published to confirm that the pings are at 37.5 Khz, pings every 1.6 seconds and compare the tones to an official FDR for comparison. Further are those ping being being powered by a battery? If so, how did they (batteries) get into the Indian Ocean and why do they have such a longevity?

    May 20, 2014 at 9:28 am | Reply
    • Adam

      The 'black boxes' are both equipped with battery powered transponders. They are like built into each unit, they are long life batteries and you don't need much power at all to generate radio signals

      May 20, 2014 at 10:14 am | Reply
      • charles epperson

        I understand the black boxes are powered by batteries. If MH370 has one FDR and CVR, that accounts for 2 pings, assuming the aircraft is on the bottom of the Indian Ocean. What is causing the other 2 pings and why are they so far apart? What other device can you think of that emits a ping every 1.6 seconds, on 37.5 Khz and has the same tone as a FDR and CVR?

        May 21, 2014 at 12:10 pm | Reply
        • Adam

          I'm not 100% sure what question you're asking, you seem to be suggesting there are four things down there emitting signals, and I don't know where you are getting that from. Terminology here is possibly causing confusion. A 'ping' is an individual transmission from an individual signal source (FDR or CVR), you seem to be using 'ping' and 'signal source' interchangably.

          They haven't found 4 individual pings. They have intercepted the signal from an unknown source 4 times (these 'events' often consisted of a series of pings). Once that happens, then you start the process of elimination. But the signal was already dying by the time they got the equipment out there. If they'd been out there in the first, rather than the fourth week of the search we'd have a much clearer picture.

          You seem to be thinking each intercept is a case of "found a box over here!" Which is totally not how it works. You get a signal and you have to try and follow that signal to the source, which is a mighty imprecise science even when the source batteries aren't dying. They've intercepted the signal from one or other of the black boxes (usually found in close proximity) four times and have to use imprecise maths and guesswork to do the rest.

          And I guess the other point is that if you have four signal sources down there, then it's a bit weird that all four would stop emitting at around the same time as you'd expect the black box batteries to go dead.

          May 21, 2014 at 1:03 pm | Reply
    • WhereruMh370

      i am sitting here thinking and hoping Malaysia official can tell me where you are at this present moment-how old you are and what date you were born and what ever little secret about yourself that we the world would love to know about.......be4 my batteries go flat and i can't do a ping any more and ever again...hehehehehehehehehehehe

      May 21, 2014 at 11:24 pm | Reply
  11. Trader4

    Inmarsat did not just say MH370 could have turned north or south. They compared the sat data
    from both the north path and the south path. They even compared it to 777 taking similar routes.
    The MH370 data matched closely with the southern route and not at all with the northern one.
    From that the conclusion was that it had to have gone south. US intelligence also said the
    same thing, even before Inmarsat. I agree that Malaysia should release everything Inmarsat has
    so it can be vetted. Apparently NTSB, FAA, Boeing, Australia's investigators, etc are comfortable
    with the analysis. But to start tearing apart the best analysis we have at this point based not
    on what we know, but what we don't know, isn't productive.

    As for the Geo Resonance image, it could be anything. Again has anyone even vetted that
    at all? At some point it's probably worth sending something over to take a better look. But
    if you keep shifting resources thousands of miles to chase anything and everything, how
    productive is that?

    May 20, 2014 at 9:14 am | Reply
    • flgovcand_gig

      Oil greeders (ab-)use their warplanes to assert authority over open waters,one gets engaged ,seeks shelter aside MH370 as flying human shield.....mishap ...collision/shootdown.. the rest is botched cover ups for 8 weeks now. 2 main reasons to assert this : 1)airspeed on the return flight SW-bound Mach 1.8 or higher,impossible for a B777 2) Capt Shah makes a MAYDAY CALL in good english , not like the faker on 02.43 , Capt Shah hit resp.was shot at 1 1/2 hrs before,if alive ,he would have made his MAYDAY CALL IN ENGLISH , NOT CHINESE/VIETNAMESE

      May 20, 2014 at 6:46 pm | Reply
      • Adam

        This really is completely ridiculous. Firstly, no mayday was ever received from the plane. Secondly, English is the international common language for aviation communications, thirdly and following from that Mayday is the internationally acknowledged distress signal. No pilot of any nationality would ever use any other word or phrase. Fourthly, why would a MALAYSIAN pilot speak either Chinese or Vietnamese?

        May 21, 2014 at 3:40 pm | Reply
      • tamooj

        Ludicrous ramblings.Shave with Occam's Razor or Hitchen's Razor every day. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

        May 27, 2014 at 3:29 pm | Reply
  12. Chilidog


    GeoResonance shysters are just trying to generate publicity for the company.

    May 19, 2014 at 3:53 pm | Reply
    • tamooj

      Agreed. They are just crystal-age geomancer scammers looking for lots of website hits (which, sadly, they got). Fracking parasites.

      May 27, 2014 at 3:33 pm | Reply
  13. Ginny

    Of course they are searching in the wrong place. Geo Resonance had excellent pictures, reports on metals found in the photo images – very good, hard facts that should be sending ships and sonar out to where they reported. But Malaysia and Australia 'dismissed the evidence' as having nothing to do with the plane. Now how could they decide that without even going there to look?? They don't want anyone else to find it – they want to pretend that THEY are right and no one else. Inmarsat only said the plane could have turned "north or south" – it never gave a conclusive answer. That was done by 'investigators' – who chose the wrong answer. Maybe they don't want anyone to look 'north' to the middle east.

    May 16, 2014 at 4:00 pm | Reply
    • Jake KIndred

      What became of the Geo Resonance search ? I thought I had read that 2 ships were sent. I have not heard anything since then.

      May 19, 2014 at 2:40 pm | Reply
    • Linda

      I have been thinking about the same thing this whole time. They showed the 2 arcs the plane could have taken, they picked one, They also knew that if they chose the northern route, there would be a lot less cooperation from the countries in that direction to try and find it.

      May 20, 2014 at 6:38 am | Reply
      • Adam

        If it went north then it crashed on land. (In central asia, not the middle east – these are arcs, not straight lines)You wouldn't need much help finding it. The northern arc was inconsistent with other aspects of the calculations

        May 20, 2014 at 1:20 pm | Reply
        • tamooj

          Correct – the doppler shift showed it was moving further South, not North, and all of the Northern arc is extensively covered and closely monitored by professional air search radars, unlike the very laize-faire approach of the Malasian military.

          May 27, 2014 at 3:32 pm | Reply
      • Adam

        Also, the radar data shows whoever hijacked the flight was flying to avoid Indonesian airspace and had flown low to avoid detection. Why would they then decide they wanted to fly across several heavily militarised countries, whose governments have the sorts of reputation that they would shoot first, ask later?
        Whoever was piloting this thing did not want to be detected. No logic for them going north.

        May 20, 2014 at 1:28 pm | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.