MH370 and Inmarsat
Some points of issue about INMARSAT.
Consider the very first one. We are told that it is a Private company. Go ahead and set yourself up a private company and then ask for DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY on ANY level!
Those Inmarsat arcs we keep being shown are bullshit! At very best, if it can determine the correct distance from the satellite, it can ONLY do it and say “the position of the plane was within this circumference (i.e.360degrees)”. There is no way that the satellite can verify that the distance corresponds to just two arcs.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make representations to those organisations whose representatives enjoy immunity in the United Kingdom that they should none the less obey the laws of the United Kingdom.
I am always prepared, if necessary, to take up specific allegations of misuse of immunity, but I am not currently aware of any allegations relating to international organisations.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will seek to change the titles to statutory instruments which grant diplomatic immunity from “international immunities and privileges” to their previous title of “diplomatic and international immunities and privileges”.
No. Virtually all instruments made under this heading relate to international organisations and confer immunities which are very much more limited than those accorded to diplomatic missions. I agree, therefore, with the view of the editor of the Index to467WGovernment Orders that the heading should begin with the word “international” rather than “diplomatic” as that is the word the majority of users would be likely to turn to when seeking information on these organisations from the index.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will list those international European or other organisations any or all of whose repressentatives in the United Kingdom are accorded immunity; how many representatives of each such organisation, how many persons employed by such organisations, and how many members of the families of such persons enjoy such immunity; and what is the extent of such immunity in each such case.
Listed below are the organisations to which the representatives of member States have limited immunity when they are in the United Kingdom on official business related to the work of the organisations. Only a few such representatives come here from time to time, since much of the work in connection with these organisations is handled by diplomatic missions in London.
Those organisations marked with an asterisk in the list employ a total of 1,129 persons in the United Kingdom, who have immunity only in repect of their official acts. The head officers of 11 of those organisations have additional immunity comparable to that of diplomatic agents. Members of the families of all such staff—including the head officers—have no immunity.
Those organisations without an asterisk employ no staff in the United Kingdom, but staff who may occasionally visit the United Kingdom on official business would have immunity only in respect of their official acts. * Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO)
- * International Wheat Council (IWC)
- * International Coffee Organisation (ICO)
- * International Sugar Organisation (ISO)
- * Eurocontrol
- Caribbean Development Bank (CDB)
- European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN)
- International Hydrographic Organisation (IHO)
- * International Tin Council (ITC)
- Interim Commission for the International Trade Organisation (ICITO)
- International Institute for the Management of Technology (IIMT)
- Asian Development Bank (ADB)
- Customs Co-operation Council (CCC)
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory
- International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
- * North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)
- Organisation for European Co-operation and Development (OECD)
- World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
- * United Nations, International Court of Justice, and UN Specialised Agencies
- * European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF)
- * International Cocoa Organisation (ICCO)
- * International Whaling Commission (IWC)
- * Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
- International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
- International Monetary Fund (IMF)
- European Patent Office (EPO)
- * International Rubber Study Group (IRSG)
- European Space Agency (ESA)
- * International Lead and Zinc Study Group (ILZSG)
- International Telecommunications Satellite Organisation (INTELSAT)
- * International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund
- * Oslo and Paris Commissions
- * International Maritime Satellite Organisation (INMARSAT)
- * Commission of the European Communities
- * Council of Europe
- * European Investment Bank
- * European Parliament
- * Joint European Torus
- * International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
- * International Finance Corporation (IFC)
- International Development Association (IDA)
- * Western European Union (WEU)
- International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)
- African Development Fund
Have you ever noticed that, due to weather conditions, noise in your TV satellite reception can get pretty bad? And you’re not moving at 500 miles an hour! So, think about the affect of atmospheric conditions on a “ping” which is produced by a transmitter in an aeroplane and the signal is such that it is a diffuse, omnidirectional wave/frequency. It is not a directional, coherent, satellite tracking ping which determines the precise position of the aircraft in relation to the satellite and orients a dish to beam a coherent, laser-like pulse to the satellite. It is a low power, diffuse pulse. The amount of noise/interference which is probably inherent in such a signal will be such that it will be very difficult for Inmarsat to provide any form of useful triangulation to locate a point on the earth from where that ping came from.
While, if you read the following, you will note that Inmarsat has a pretty poor record in relation to even proper advision of alerts. False alerts (false flags!) all over the shop.
Maritime Distress and Safety Systems
§Mr. NorrisThe United Kingdom monitors the effectiveness of the global maritime distress and safety system by maintaining a record of distress calls received by our search and rescue authorities and their response. One outcome of this has been the identification of an unacceptable level of false alerts. This has been brought to the attention of the International Maritime Organisation.
§Mr. NorrisThe introduction of the global maritime distress and safety system was thoroughly discussed with representative bodies of the ship owners and seafarers at all stages of its development. The implementation of the requirements and their effectiveness is discussed at the Maritime Radio Advisory Committee where these organisations are fully represented.
Maritime False Alarms
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many false alarms have been registered in the past 12 months on the global maritime distress and safety systems; and what was the estimated cost of the false alarms.
During the year 1 October 1993 to 30 September 1994 HM Coastguard recorded a total of 956 false alerts within the global maritime distress and safety systems attributed toInternational Maritime Satellite (INMARSAT)343Satellite Aided Position Indicating Systems (COSPAS/SARSAT)511Medium Frequency Radio Digital Selective Calling (MFDSC)102
The estimated cost to the Coastguard Agency based on an average of two man hours to deal with each false alert is £17,016 for the year 1 October 1993, to 30 September 1993.
Think about a mobile phone base station. There are thousands of base stations spread across the country. Your mobile can be tracked to the specific base station footprint (or cell) that you are in but, without GPS, it cannot tell you exactly how close in or far you are from the base station antenna itself and it cannot say at which radius angle within the 360degree cell coverage, you are located on.
Well, what you have with Inmarsat in this case, is ONE SINGLE BASE STATION with a cell size as you can see on the map above.