In an earlier post I described research conducted at the GEOMAR-Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research in Kiel which suggested that, based on reverse-drift analysis of the Rénion flaperon, its starting point most likely lay in the tropical latitudes of the southern Indian Ocean, far north of the current seabed search area.
Today the same scientists published an update of their research, with a press release available here and the full report here. The upshot can be seen in the chart above, which shows the probability distribution of where the piece likely began its journey to Réunion island. Once again the authors have concluded that the greater part of the probability (98.7 %) lies far north of the seabed search area, shown as a white rectangle. The study’s authors suggest that their results might justify a shift of the search area:
The Australian search authorities are aware of this report. “Whether or not these new results will be used to facilitate the last few months of the ongoing search for MH370 is not clear,” Arne Biastoch summarizes.
One of the refinements included in the new study is that while the authors continued to assume that there was no direct wind effect on the flaperon (it being presumed to be floating essentially flush with the surface), they have included for the first time an effect called Stokes Drift, which results from wind-generated waves:
“In our recent calculations we included more physical processes in order to simulate the drift more realistically,” Prof. Biastoch explains. “In particular the drift induced by wind generated ocean waves is now included,” Biastoch continues. “Even though we use state-of-the-art modelling systems, representing the ocean currents in the Indian Ocean quite well, all simulations naturally contain limitations. Our investigation is one important piece of the puzzle in finding MH370.”
As a result of the new calculations the possible source region of the flaperon was refined, and “While it is shifted a bit southward from the initial study done last September, our basic result that most particles originate from a region north of the current search area remains unchanged,” states Dr. Durgadoo.
So should Australian search officials call a halt to the current search and relocate its ships further north? Actually, I don’t think they should. If the GEOMAR scientists are correct and MH370 did crash into the ocean west of Exmouth, the plane must have been following a low and curving trajectory of the kind that is not supported by any simple autopilot mode. That is to say, the plane would have been either conscious control the entire time or flying along a series of arbitrary user-defined waypoints.
The latter seems extraordinarily unlikely. First, we would have to surmise that whoever was in control of the plane decided to fly a basically random path, and to choose a cumbersome way of doing so, entering by hand pairs of latitude-longitude coordinates. This would be bizarre behavior, to say the least. Furthermore, as explained in the DSTG report issued last December, it is extremely unlikely that a randomly chosen set of slow segments would happen to match the ping rings. Instead, random sequences are only likely to match if they conform to a fast-and-straight flight to the south: in other words, if they end up in the current search area.
The former is problematic for the same reasons, and for an additional one as well. If the plane was under conscious control until the bitter end, then we cannot assume that, as in the unpiloted scenario, it spiraled into the sea once its fuel ran out. Instead, the conscious pilot might have chose to hold it into a glide far beyond the seventh arc. We have no reasonable expectation, therefore, that a narrow search along the seventh arc would yield the wreckage.
I couldn’t figure it out but assumed it was me
@Dave Brough
A picture near the search area:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/37312554?source=wapi&referrer=kh.google.com
@Susie: ” I have a suspicion that ‘calm’ conditions in the SIO would still involve the sort of wave magnitude that would make a controlled ditch extremely challenging.”
Any ditching or landing with all engines flamed out is certainly challenging. The challenge lies in correct energy management and flare, to arrive at the surface with the lowest possible vertical speed and the correct attitude (wings level, slightly nose-up but not too much). The pilot cannot do much about seastate, it is what it is. The recommendation is to land parallel to the swell, on top of a wave.
@Gysbreght.
You saw the picture I linked from 34S 100E?
The SIO is like a lake on a wind-stil-morning here. A perfect surface to ditch a plane on..
@Ge Rijn, The insane thing about any ditching scenario is that it presumes that someone would go through this enormous, murderous plot in order to vanish without a trace, with the plane sinking in one piece down to the bottom, and yet — having staked everything on pulling off this rather miraculous feat of piloting, what reasonable expectation would the pilot have that the plane would sink? After all, with the wing tanks empty, you’ve got an awful lot of flotation. If this was the pilot’s plan, he certainly would have read up on the “Miracle of the Hudson” and known that that plane remained afloat (though partially submerged) even though it had just taken off and its fuel tanks were full.
@jeffwise: The scenario I’ve been suggesting for consideration is that the person at the controls late in the game was not the one who “would go through this enormous, murderous plot in order to vanish without a trace, with the plane sinking in one piece down to the bottom, …”, but someone else.
Victor, here’s a link to my FOIA complaint:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xytik56xnuoh00a/merged.pdf?dl=0
Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai:
“We are confident of finding the main wreckage (of the aircraft) and this is an important mission for us to continue looking for (Flight) MH370 because we need to find the answer (behind the disappearance).”
http://www.thesundaily.my/node/366997
Why the confidence? He seems to want to extend the search. Perhaps it delays release of the Final Report and provides more time for interest to wane? Perhaps he knows that Australia wants to pull the plug and it makes Australia seem like the bad guys and the Malaysia the good guys?
Ge Rijn,
In addition to Jeff’s comment, why would a mad pilot wait till the flameout of the second engine? 50 km do not make much difference in the SIO, while having power would certainly be advantageous.
Also, 34S is a bit too far from the 7th arc at 100E. I do support 100E as the second most likely crash location after 38S site, but for the other reason: mechanical/electrical failure.
@Bruce Lamon. Excellent. We should all try to draw attention to this filing and the failure of the NTSB to follow FOIA protocol for the release of radar data.
Victor,
“Why the confidence?”
Because politicians are always confident. Imagine what would happen if he said he was not confident.
That photo looks fake.
You cant preplan a scenario like that anyhow to sink a giant plane without it breaking uppon impact.
@Oleksandr: If a politician suspects they are on the wrong side of an issue, they typically soften, not harden, their language before the inevitable arrives. The ATSB has already done this. The fact that Malaysia is still expressing confidence I believe is so that it appears that Malaysia wants to continue the search and Australia does not. It’s all for domestic consumption.
@VictorI
Hopefully Liow Tiong Lai has deep pockets, then. I think his expression of optimism might be intended principally for Chinese ears.
@Rob: Well, I think it plays well in both Malaysia and China.
@VictorI: ” The ATSB has already done this.”
So the ATSB is run by politicians? That’s bad news indeed.
@Gysbreght: If you are the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB, you are politically astute, even though not elected. Preservation and growth of your budget demands it.
After each piece of debris is found, the pattern of behavior is to confirm the debris is part of MH370, declare that the timing and location of the discovery are consistent with drift models, and then offer nothing else.
******
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia said Friday the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 will not be shifted after the discoveries of five pieces of debris in the western Indian Ocean.
The government this week had confirmed the last two pieces, found in South Africa and Rodrigues Island off Mauritius, are “almost certainly” from the Boeing 777 that disappeared mysteriously more than two years ago.
Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said the discoveries aligned with the modeling pattern established by experts of where debris would drift from a crash in the southern Indian Ocean. He said the 120,000 square kilometers search area, west of Australia, will be completed before authorities decide whether to further extend the hunt.
“We won’t shift the search area. From the debris found, it actually confirms that our search area is the right area looking at the drift pattern,” Liow said.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8e6810aa37a74fbd90c230a189c20d1a/malaysia-says-search-area-flight-370-will-not-shift
@VictorI, And the media doesn’t seem to mind at all.
@Trond. @Jeff Wise @Oleksandr
The photo is not fake. Check it on Google and zoom in on the area with ‘pictures’ enabled.
I posted it just to show also the SIO surface could be calm as a lake perfect for ditching.
@Oleksandr. A mad pilot/hijacker could wait to flame out maybe, but a sane calculating pilot/hijacker won’t imo. He would integrate it in its plan, flame out the moment and place he chooses to crash/ditch in a place he chooses.
The anomalys around the 5th arc and the last Sat/phone call suggest a possible turn to the left/cq East with maybe a descent that was initialysed earlier.
With ending fuel supply somewhere between the 6th and 7th arc the plane could have glided another 100 miles plus, to the east or anywhere else. I suppose to the south/east for thats where the last data point to.
[Jeff wise.
Yes I know. It´s quite imaginable. Maybe more than your planting/hypothesis.
But staying to ´facts´ till now someone must have been in control on the plane all along.
All those miraculous flight manouvres can not be explained without a pilot in control imo. Give an auto pilot mode who can perform this kind of flying, no one has so far.
Motive stays open. But in any know suicide pilot case I know of, mental/personal and/or revenche motives where involved.
And with empthy tanks and valves and maybe some doors open the plane would sink anyway pretty soon within an hour or so I guess.
He would sure would have studied the Hudson ditching I agree, and also what to avoid.
@Gysbreght
“@jeffwise: The scenario I’ve been suggesting for consideration is that the person at the controls late in the game was not the one who “would go through this enormous, murderous plot in order to vanish without a trace, with the plane sinking in one piece down to the bottom, …”, but someone else.”
yupp, very possible, maybe even not the qualified pilot
@Ge Rijn: What are “The anomalys around the 5th arc” ?
Have we considered the possibility that a good guy took the plane to the SIO?
If it had nuclear/bio/chemical weaponry (or a threat of), then the pilot could have deliberately put the plane as far as possible from civilization. This could have happened at the FMT or in stages if there were struggles going on. It would explain why a pilot would go to the trouble of ditching so far away, perhaps hoping he was being tracked and a rescue would await.
Knowing that by communicating an issue like this would most likely lead to a shoot down, the SIO might not look so unattractive after all.
@VictorI Further to the path calculations.
Although I understand from back when this was first circulating that the BFO’s were not clear cut I had been lead to believe they indicated a southerly direction at 19:40 onwards and then by 22:40 a significant change of direction had taken place to produce an easterly flightpath consistent with a turn at the Cocos Island waypoint and finally a northeasterly flightpath by the time the plane was at 00:11 which would be consistent with a turn towards a more northerly direction at the Christmas Island waypoint and a heading towards IPKON.
From Mr Bailey:
Debris confirms MH370 crash zone in Indian Ocean
BYRON BAILEY THE AUSTRALIANMAY 14, 2016 12:00AM
Time is running out for the search vessels to locate MH370 before the search is terminated next month after enormous cost to the Australian taxpayer.
We know the plane is in the southern Indian Ocean. Generally, airline pilots and other genuine aviation experts believe captain Zaharie Shah hijacked his own Boeing 777 in a planned suicide mission.
Self-appointed armchair experts are often referred to as “aviation experts” by broadcasters, rather than the aviation consultants they actually are. Such people express opinions that may sound plausible to the non-pilot fraternity but are often rubbish.
This search appears to have been conducted in the wrong area, based on the Australian Transport Safety Bureau unresponsive pilot scenario. Yet we know from the National Geographic recent Air Crash Investigations documentary, which held Shah responsible, that only three minutes elapsed from when he said goodnight to Kuala Lumpur air traffic control to when he disappeared electronically and turned southwest.
If there was no pilot involvement the aircraft just would have flown itself to the programmed destination of Beijing. It was still under control 90 minutes later when it turned south just north of Sumatra.
If, as generally believed, Shah was trying to hide the aircraft in as remote a location as possible to hide his crime then he would endeavour to fly as far as possible before the fuel ran out. As an experienced Boeing 777 captain, this is how I would manage this. Fly at long-range cruise speed mach 0.83 at as high an altitude as possible for maximum range. As the first engine flamed out due to fuel starvation I would start a slow-speed descent at 220 knots indicated airspeed with the second engine at idle. Just before second engine flame-out, I would select flap while still having hydraulic pressure to ensure my sea impact speed would not be so severe as to cause massive amounts of debris. Passing 5000 feet and flying on limited flight control hydraulic pressure from the automatically deployed air driven generator I would turn into wind and try to judge a ditching at low speed so that the aircraft would not break up into pieces. This speed would be still in the order of 250km/h or greater.
I recently was well out to sea and observed how big the sea state can be, with very large waves in a 50km/h wind. In the latitudes south of 40 degrees the winds and sea state is even greater.
Some pieces of debris — confirmed as coming from MH370 — have been turning up. The first was a right flaperon that I suspect was due to the right engine being shorn off, as they are designed to do, in a heavy impact with the sea.
Later an associated piece turned up, also from the area immediately behind the right engine. And then a piece from the horizontal stabiliser (tailplane) leading edge, which also would support the shearing off of the right engine. The weakest part of the fuselage is at the juncture of the body and the wing. It appears to me that during the ditching the aircraft broke at this juncture and this is generally, depending on the seating configuration, where the partition between business class and economy occurs, so some panelling was dislodged.
All this does not answer the question of why the ATSB did not listen to experts who would have placed the search area at least 400km farther south and west. That is why MH370 has not been found.
Byron Bailey, a veteran commercial pilot with more than 45 years’ experience and 26,000 flying hours, is a former RAAF fighter pilot and trainer, and was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years, during which he flew the same model Boeing 777 passenger jet as Malaysia Airlines MH370.
@StevanG When the CVR is finally retrieved, I expect passenger activity will be heard. It’s conceivable a passenger tried to execute water landing as a last chance effort.
Liow: “We won’t shift the search area. From the debris found, it actually confirms that our search area is the right area looking at the drift pattern”
AND
Bailey: “We know the plane is in the southern Indian Ocean.”
False, and false. All we really know is that:
1) 5 bits of debris have been found south of the equator – each with made-for-tv identifying characteristics,
2) All bits found north of the equator were immediately ruled out due to incompatibility with an Arc7 impact (with the remaining items trumpeted as VALIDATING an Arc7 impact; circular logic, anyone?),
3) the results of what should have been extensive testing and analysis of each bit’s buoyancy and biota have been suppressed, denying drift experts the chance to help find the plane, and
4) more than ever, absence of debris on Oz shorelines COUNTER-indicates the current search box, yet
5) at every stage, the tendency of the debris to corroborate the current search box has been demonstrably OVERSTATED by officials
Odds ‘n sods: Jeff has eloquently pre-butted Mr. Bailey’s oddly confident views on the supposed perp, and the debris record to date seems to counter-indicate his “400km SW” suggestion even more emphatically than it does the current search box.
He could be correct, but sitting behind the yoke of an airplane for 26,000 hours makes you an expert in piloting an aircraft, not an expert investigator with any special psychological perceptions. Perhaps this guy can also conjure the nature and whereabouts of the ‘missing cargo’.
@Brock
“and the debris record to date seems to counter-indicate his “400km SW” suggestion even more emphatically than it does the current search box.”
Yes, but people have a lot of skin in that game (current search box) – ATSB, DTSG, our own IG, Cole, Ullich,…the list goes on and on. It is game over (from the very beginning in my view) for the “consensus” SIO. Unfortunately, it is a case of too late with too little. Strong personalities can dominate any undertaking. The “science” is actually very simple, but the practitioners have not been honest relative to how much the current search area relies on assumptions. I fault them deeply for that.
Frankly, I am burned out, and more than a bit frustrated. Have been for some time now. I do not see any closure occurring any time soon.
About a ditching, to me anyone planning that did not have crash concealment as his objective, or else he had not thought it through.
The risks to a concealment in a calm-to-moderate seas ditching include the possibility that if damage was minimal and the aircraft floated it would risk spotting by satellite or any ship in the vicinity. Even if damage proved substantial there still could be large floating components left floating for a while and spotted, fuel tanks providing flotation.
Besides, engine noise and a low flying/gliding aircraft would also risk being noticed by shipping.
Would it not be more logical to await a rough day, with plenty of haze and sea mist and wind noise and dive the plane after a glide? Yes a lot of wreckage but small, buoyancy-damaged, ideally a long drift to shore and with wind noise concealing the impact; and wind and breaking waves concealing and dispersing flotsam. It is unlikely a deliberating pilot would be aware of BTO data or its future interpretation so he would assume that searchers would have nothing to go on, barring satellite observation of large components.
As an extension, the next logical step for the same reasons would be to elect night time to do it.
The conclusion I come to is that if someone planned for a daylight ditching, particularly around the tropics, either he did not have hiding the crash site in mind, or was not thinking straight.
The alternative explanation for a ditching is that it was spontaneous.
@VictorI Further to the path calculations.
It has been suggested that the plane could have landed at the Christmas Island airfield.
It is not difficult to imagine why Shah would not have landed there.
Even if he wanted to it would not be easy to put a plane down on the island after a traumatic flight from hell, the early morning gloom, probably no lights on the runway, thunderstorms overhead and low cloud.
The alternative would be to head to one of a number of decent airfields on the large island of Java which is just to the North.
It was mentioned on this site much earlier that the objective was to come round below Sumatra with a landing at Bandung.
If this was the case then he nearly made it.
A ditching on the 7th arc would have the plane in the water off the Java coast just some 60 to 70nm from the Bandung airfield.
Regarding the ‘authentic/authorised” debris.
Like Brock states, the debris seems too good to be true, almost “made to order” and the way the full analysis of the debris is being withheld stinks also …… as though incompatible with the current official line of thinking …
So, could this deliberately planted debris have been place to disprove the current search location? Like Jeff states – the debris was planted ineptly – so ineptly is it perhaps a calling card by a different faction ? A warning -we know what you did (with the plane) and we have the evidence to torment you – perhaps even a blackmail attempt in progress? Crazy idea I know, but very little makes sense here ……..
@GortoZ
Given the incredulous state of the debris, I was originally thinking along similar lines.
Meanwhile, this sort of activity is the order of the day:
http://www.cnet.com/news/germany-russia-hacked-our-legislature/
@Gysbreght.
On the anomaly around the 5th arc. As I understood it, data changes there suggest a change in attitude of the plane which could suggest a turn to the left (East).
As I misunderstood I gladly be corrected.
@David.
In my view Duncan Steel has an interesting article on avoiding detection as much as possible. The plane flew in the dark until sunrise in that SIO area. It disappeared not long after sunrise there. The route does not cross any landmass, is not covered by radar.
In the area are no flight routes or main shipping lanes. I guess it’s not a fishing area also.
It’s way to far of any coast to be heard or seen by anyone. The risk of detection while sinking even if this took a few hours was very small imo. Nobody at that time was looking for a vanished MH370 certainly not in that area. They spent almost two weeks searching around Malaysia first before even considering/knowing the possibility of the SIO.
Imo if the objective was to let the plane vanisch this area is (one of) the best you could choose that was reachable for the plane.
Here the Duncan Steel article:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2601
@David
As I see it, he didn’t have the luxury of choosing the sea state in advance. He was tied to carry this out on one particular day ie 8th March, for several reasons; He was making a political statement that to be effective, had to be linked with the Andwar court verdict of the previous day. He had a relatively inexperienced co-pilot on a redeye flight to Beijing with a plane carrying mostly Chinese passengers (to maximize the embarrassment of the Malaysian government) Like it or not, China is now the dominant political and military player in the region, and the Mslaysian economy is heavily dependent on Chinese tourism.
Can you imagine him asking the met guys to check out weather conditions for S39, E88 at 00:20 UTC? No, neither can I – that would truly have been a giveaway.
He had to take pot luck with the sea state on arrival. He needed daylight in order to make a carefully controlled ditching that would be forceful enough to make the plane fill quickly with water, but not enough to make the a/c break up on impact, leaving a tell tale debris field.
And the parts recovered so far, all point to a carefully controlled ditching, flaps extended, right hand-down impact, door 1R stoved-in in the process in order to promote rapid sinking.
And how could anyone have had the nous to carefully pre-select and then plant these parts? Parts that so cleverly point to a controlled ditching? The idea is simply laughable
@Ge Rijn: “As I understood it, data changes there suggest a change in attitude of the plane which could suggest a turn to the left (East).”
A turn direction can only be deduced from the BTO and BFO data. There is no anomaly in those, so it’s still a mystery which anomaly you are referring to.
@Gysbrecht
I revere again to an article of Duncan Steel.
It suggests a route change around 23:00 for the BFO trend changes there (his words which I take for granted).
If not right I’ll gladly hear.
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2321
@Ge Rijn: It’s rubbish. Without major changes in track or speed one would expect a smooth progression of BFO with time. There is no law that the BFO’s should lie on a straight line. Besides, they talk of the 00:11 BFO value, i.e. the 6th arc.
@Gysbreght.
He is stating; ‘..the BFO trend suggests that Route Dicontinuity occured after 23:00 (the mean channel BFO is below the trend).
Is this rubbisch? Or did I misunderstood?
Ge Rijn,
Re: “On the anomaly around the 5th arc. As I understood it, data changes there suggest a change in attitude of the plane which could suggest a turn to the left (East).”
There is no anomaly in the data at the 5th ring. As a matter of fact I stopped reading Duncan’s blog for a year or so, because most of his recent publications fall into a garbage category, only aimed to defend the 38S thesis.
@Ge Rijn: If you want to see a ‘break in the BFO trend line’, I would place it at 76900 seconds (21:21:40 UTC).
Ge Rijn,
“The photo is not fake. Check it on Google and zoom in on the area with ‘pictures’ enabled.”
– You need to remember that these images are often inappropriately placed. Who knows where it was really taken.
– Such a calm weather at the “roaring 40th” is rather exceptional and certainly unpredictable.
(Although I dont like to provide information which is not directly
applicable to the purpose of this forum, I stumbled across this
breaking news on something called the Sarawak Report, which draws
on goings on in the Singaporean Criminal Courts, to allege that the
source of the US$681 million that ‘appeared’ in the Malaysian PM’s
bank account, was not an anonymous Saudi Royal, but rather from an
alleged fraudster who seems to have improperly removed it from the
Malaysian Pension Fund.)
http://www.sarawakreport.org/2016/05/forgery-and-deception-1mdbs-network-of-money-launderers-unravels/#disqus_thread
Re: the airframe shredding
If the a/c concertinaed, the interior fragment would have been impacted by forward material, and bent it backwards. Probably the decorative foil would be badly damaged, but it was not.
The interior fragment was obviously bent forwards by something hitting it from behind, perhaps aided by several 80 kg objects that were not strapped down for some reason.
Also, the fragment looks like it experienced a strong torque from left to right, but if you look at the very top of the object, there is a little metal tab that is bent forward from the right to the left, indicating a two-step process for the detachment: (1) there was the initial strong deceleration and hard slamming to the right, followed by (2) an impact from right to left that tore off the top part of the bulkhead, accounting for the tab bent from right to left. (2) would be consistent with the 1R door imploding (and the emergency slide possibly deploying).
The doors on a 777 can implode. It’s happened before, at least once, maybe twice: cf. the Asiana crash at San Francisco: the 4L door was stoved in striking the passenger seated at 42A, causing a fatality. Also, the photos I’ve seen of the right side of the wrecked plane do not show the 2R door. It could have also imploded, or else it was melted off by the engine fire. I haven’t been able to determine which yet.
The other thing that happened with Asiana is that the 1R and 2R emergency slides deployed accidently to the inside of the aircraft, thus injuring and temporarily trapping the flight attendants sitting in the adjacent jump seats.
Consequently, it is certainly possible for the 1R door to have imploded while leaving the rest of the airframe more or less intact. This would also explain why we haven’t seen a lot more interior debris.
Certainly, the interior fragment points to an extremely violent event, but it also points to what I call a “medium energy” crash: it was not a picture-perfect, Sully-style, Hudson River landing, but it was also not Silk Air either.
As for Jeff’s surmise that a pilot could not expect the aircraft to sink because of the Hudson River landing, it should be pointed out that the aircraft did in fact sink. Those people were damned lucky to have been brought off in time. The water in the back was knee deep within a minute or two. At any rate, I figure the mental calculation would have gone something like (a) if I survive the landing, I can always take steps to insure that it sinks–like opening a door; or (b) if I don’t survive, it’s gonna sink for sure anyways.
As for Rob’s surmise that the pilot intentionally dipped the right wing in, that doesn’t make sense IMHO. He would have known that the Hudson River aircraft sank, despite being “picture perfect”, and the main idea would be to minimize debris at all costs. Also, this was going to be his very last act of piloting, he would have been proud of his piloting skills, probably had practiced ditching in simulators, and he would have wanted to see if he could pull it off. That he didn’t or couldn’t is not surprising.
Re: the sea state at the time, I have heard it was relatively calm with swells 1 to 2 meters high. Not a storm, but not glass either.
Bottom line: he glided past the 7th arc, attempted a ditching, but probably came in a little too nose-high, the right wing tip caught a wave, causing a strong roll to the right; meanwhile the left wing would still be providing lift, until the a/c was virtually 90 degrees to the water, the right wing would have acted as a hammer handle, with the nose of the plane being the hammer head, 1R door imploded, aircraft sank, case closed…
Just looked through the latest Duncan Steel gyration. Rolling my eyes. ANYTHING but a hijack please! The best drift analysis I have seen is not Brock McEwen’s, but was posted here by M Pat, based on actual drifting buoys, rather than numerical simulations based on questionable assumptions. The reason more debris has not been found in Australia, is because even in M Pat’s study, only ~4% of the buoys in the study made it Australia. If the initial population of debris is as high as Duncan Steel says (like 10,000 objects), then yes, it is surprising that nothing has turned up in Australia. But if the initial population was <100, then it is not at all surprising that nothing has turned up.
And anyways, do we know for sure that the towlette package was not from MH370? No, we do not. The recommendation to move the search area further north before clearing the area to the south of the main search box is highly irresponsible IMHO.
@Ge Rijn: To explain what I meant at 7:00 AM this morning:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4ryfirdwc405qlj/IMG_0466.JPG?dl=0
According to figure 3 of Victor Iannello’s article about questions regarding radar, the NOK at the Lido Hotel on 21 March 2014 were shown a graphic of the flight, with the a/c near Penang at about 2am. That’s the official time according to Malaysia and China, who both utilize the same UTC+8 time zone.
So, when the China Times reported a faint radio mayday distress call at 2:43am, they surely mean 2:43am Malaysian & Chinese time.
If so, then the alleged faint SOS at 2:43am occurred a few minutes after the FMT and 1st SatPhone call, ie ghost-flight did not begin until after the FMT, 1st SatPhone call, and 18:43 UTC.
@all
not so much polite action done by Ukrainians against journos searching for truth
https://www.rt.com/news/342724-journalists-data-leak-ukraine/
Newest comments from Dolan.
“If we eliminate the entire 120,000sq km zone, we have eliminated the hypothesis … that there was no control inputs at the end of flight.” Mr Dolan said. “At this point an alternative hypothesis would need to be considered. Since we eliminate the hypothesis of no control inputs, then we look at the ways in which there was control, which would include a controlled ditching or a glide.”
10:23 GMT (RT)
“Ukrainian website shut down after leaking journalists’ data, ‘new to come’ – adviser
An adviser for the Interior Minister of Ukraine said he regretted that a website that this week released information on more than 4,000 journalists from around the world accredited by the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) has announced it was shutting down. Zoryan Shkiryak also said that new similar websites could appear. The website, Mirotvorets (Peacekeeper) said earlier on Friday the shutting down comes “taking into consideration the reaction that the publication of the list of journalists has caused,” TASS reported. The closure has been also demanded by Ukraine’s Human Rights Commissioner Valeria Lutkovskaya and the EU, the website said.”