About the New MH370 Search — UPDATED

The Economist has just published an article about Ocean Infinity with the headline: “A fantastical ship has set out to seek Malaysian Airlines flight 370.” The piece reports that “Contracts have yet to be signed, but Oliver Plunkett, Ocean Infinity’s boss, has decided to go ahead anyway…”

I was emailing earlier today with Mark Antelme of Celicourt Communications, who handles public relations for Ocean Infinity, and he says that “without a contract we’re not going to conduct a search. That said, we are very hopeful of the contract being awarded soon (which is why the vessel is where it is).”

UPDATE 1/12: I don’t like to substantially change a piece after I put it up, and don’t think I have done so before, because it feels like rewriting history, but in this case I have heavily revised this piece to reflect the fact that most of my concerns about the Economist piece were either fixed or were rendered moot by subsequent events, and leaving it up in its original form was causing psychic trauma for the author of the Economist piece, Hal Hodson. Whether or not Ocean Infinity was sincere about its claim that it would carry out the search without a contract, the contract has been signed, and so the road to a second seabed search is open.

I still take issue with the with this final sentence:

“As the oceans are watched with ever closer scrutiny, from space and the depths, it is increasingly difficult for anything to get lost in the first place.”

It’s important that the world not overlook the fact  that things are vanishing without a trace at an accelerating pace. In 2016, an Antonov An-32 belonging to the Indian Air Force disappeared over the Bay of Bengal; less than two months ago, the Argentinian sub San Juan went missing during a training exercise. We should perhaps try to figure out what made these things happen before getting too smug about them not happening again.

UPDATE 1/2: Shortly after I posted the above, the ship headed out to sea and  is currently (21:49 GMT, 2 Jan 2018) on a heading of 147. I’ll seek clarification from Mark Antelme about the discrepancy between what he told me and what Plunkett apparently told the Economist.

I’d like to add that I also take exception to this statement:

“Seabed Constructor is the most advanced civilian survey vessel on the planet today. If its array of technology cannot find MH370, then it is likely that nothing will, and that the mystery of MH370 may never be solved.”

If Seabed Constructor looks for the plane in the designated search area and fails to find it, that will be due to the fact that the plane is not in the designated search area, not because the technology is lacking in some way. Indeed, as I’ve written in earlier posts, there are many good reasons to doubt that the designated search area is correct.

UPDATE 2: I’ve just heard back from Mark Antelme. Regarding the Economist quote, “Contracts have yet to be signed, but Oliver Plunkett, Ocean Infinity’s boss, has decided to go ahead anyway…” he writes, “…in getting the vessel in position… is how it should be read. I think that’s consistent with our exchange.”

In other words, the company is clearly signaling that it will NOT conduct the seabed search until it has the contract nailed down with Malaysia. However, it apparently is going to position the ship so that it can be in place in the event that that happens.

This makes sense from the perspective of wanting to make the most of a limited search season, but it would seem a rather terrible strategy from a negotiating perspective. Leasing the ship and crew and getting it into position means an outlay of a significant amount of money, so by the time they arrive on station the company will have a strong incentive not to walk away from the table, no matter what terms Malaysia offers.

Of course, all of this is academic if the airplane is not in the search area, since in that case Ocean Infinity would not get paid anyway. An analysis conducted by Australian scientists during the official seabed search calculated that there was effectively a zero percent chance that the plane could have come to rest where the planned search is going to focus.

UPDATE 3: [3 Jan 2018, 10:00 GMT] The Economist’s story has escaped into the broader media ecosystem, with a number of mainstream publications, including The Guardian, picking up a story by the Australian Associated Press which states that “the search for MH370 is back on with the ship Seabed Constructor sailing from Durban today for the search area.” Perth Now has its own story. Both seem to be repeating the Economist’s claim without having done any additional reporting.

A check of Marine Traffic shows that Seabed Constructor has spent the last nine hours holding position 30 nautical miles off the coast of South Africa.

Since I’ve identified a number of inaccuracies in the original article, let me restate what is the core issue here. A lot of people have been waiting a long time for Ocean Infinity to sign the contract with Malaysia and officially restart the search. The Economist is reporting that both of these things have happened. Ocean Infinity’s spokesman tells me that they have not.

Indeed, I find it hard to believe that either of these things could have happened without either Ocean Infinity or the Malaysian government releasing a statement.

Thus, the Economist has reported a major development that appears not to have occurred.





249 thoughts on “About the New MH370 Search — UPDATED”

  1. Victor Iannello writes on his blog:

    “A phugoid would not develop such a strong vertical acceleration.”

    Well, that statement doesn’t appear to be correct. I noted earlier that the four trajectories in an abnormal electrical configuration (7, 8, 9, and 10) all ended in a steep spiral dive and “recorded descent rates that equalled or exceeded values derived from the final SATCOM transmission. Similarly, the increase in descent rates across an 8 second period (as per the two final BFO values) equalled or exceeded those derived from the SATCOM transmissions.”

    The only scenario outside this group that met those criteria was number 3. That trajectory maintained a very large radius throughout so it did not end in a steep spiral. The final southbound half-loop of that trajectory has a strange shape, closer to a polygon than to a circle. The length of the ‘facets’ of that polygon is about 10 km, which could correspond to the period of a phugoid. But again, that ‘faceted’ pattern is apparent only in the final half-loop and not in the early stages of the trajectory.

  2. @MichaelJohn

    “On 23 November 1996, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 (a Boeing 767-260ER), ditched in the Indian Ocean near Comoros after being hijacked and running out of fuel, killing 125 of the 175 passengers and crew on board.

    What a terrible yet heroic read. I’m amazed anyone survived. Shows just what a pilot would do to try and save all onboard.

  3. @Jeff Wise: “How is “abnormal electrical configuration” defined?”

    ATSB’s Update of 2 November 2016, first bullet on page 14:

    “In an electrical configuration where the loss of engine power from one engine resulted in the loss of autopilot (AP), the aircraft descended in both clockwise and anti-clockwise directions.”

  4. Ok. It descended in both clockwise & anti clockwise directions. Just so I can get my head around this point. How long would it take approx for the aircraft to impact the surface of the water? I’m trying to work out how it descended in both directions…

    2nd question. Modern day aircraft are made from a lot of lightweight composite materials. Whilst I can accept that the aircraft broke into small pieces we should surely be seeing more identifiable pieces washing ashore. The Indian Ocean is big but it is land locked on all sides with small islands in the middle. Are we saying that all those thousands of composite pieces have now either sunk or are still washing around in a Gyre? Is that feasible?

    Laura: Yes. Although I keep banging on about it because it is the only aircraft in modern history that has performed anything close to a successful ditch & even then it hit a reef. Makes me wonder how it would have landed if it hadn’t have it that reef… Not the place to discuss that here.

    Whilst I’m talking of banging on… How about SA295 that allegedly came down pretty hard & they didn’t have a clue where it did land initially due to a confusing dialogue between plane & control tower. However the debris from SA295 was being found far & wife & that was without MSM making people aware. So I’m not buying the hard impact angle. Either the debris was planted or the aircraft ditched.

  5. https://youtu.be/N7IXFXh7K6g

    That’s the news report from the time SA295 went down. It shows the surface wreckage that washed ashore. My point being is that even after an high impact collision debris like this should have still washed ashore. As you can see all is easily recognisable.

  6. @Michael John
    I would say main stream belief is somewhat divided on the “lack” of MH370 debris. One leading hypothesis is that there was a lot of debris which explains why Blaine Gibson as a private could just go and find a lot of it. The less likely but somewhat popular theory is a ditching of some kind, so it sunk.

  7. Who wants to believe either a suicidal maniac wants to crash a plane in the middle of the ocean killing all on board or even the thought of an aircraft suffering some mysterious technical fault that can cause this to happen. A hero pilot who for whatever reason manages to ditch the aircraft….. Although we still have no idea what happened to him or everyone else on board.

    Well. When it comes to Mh370 only 1 thing makes sense. And that is that no matter which way you look at it nothing makes sense. We are all praying for a miracle, even me & I’m an Atheist. Fingers crossed OI finds Mh370 & brings this whole thing to an head. Although like nobody knew what caused the fire aboard SA295. We may never know what really happened aboard Mh370.

  8. Whilst nothing new it seems OI has finally got round to releasing an Official Statement about the new search:

    Ocean Infinity, the technology company specializing in collecting high resolution geophysical seabed data, confirms that its proposal to continue the search for the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 has been accepted by the Government of Malaysia.

    Ocean Infinity’s search will focus initially on the zone identified by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The vessel, Seabed Constructor, is now close to the search area, which will enable work to commence imminently. The project is expected to last for 90 days.

    Ocean Infinity will take on the economic risk of the renewed search, only receiving payment if the aircraft wreckage is located.

    Commenting on today’s announcement, Ocean Infinity’s CEO, Oliver Plunkett said:

    “We are pleased that our offer to continue the search for missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 has been accepted by the Government of Malaysia, who I would like to thank for giving us the opportunity. Whilst there can be no guarantees of locating the aircraft, we believe our system of multiple autonomous vehicles working simultaneously is well suited to the task at hand. I wish our team the best of luck in their endeavors and sincerely hope that we will be able to play a part in providing some answers to the many people affected by this tragedy.”

    Ocean Infinity can use up to eight Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), capable of operating in water depths from 5 meters to 6,000 meters. The AUVs are “free flying”, which means they will not be tethered to the offshore vessel during operations. The ability to operate untethered independent missions allows the AUVs to go deeper and collect higher quality data, making this technology ideal for the search.

    The AUVs will be equipped with side scan sonar, multi-beam echosounder, sub-bottom profiler, HD camera, conductivity/temperature/depth sensor, self-compensating magnetometer, synthetic aperture sonar and a turbidity sensor.

    Further announcements will be made in due course”

  9. @Michael John

    “Who wants to believe either a suicidal maniac wants to crash a plane in the middle of the ocean killing all on board or even the thought of an aircraft suffering some mysterious technical fault that can cause this to happen.”

    it was a failed attempt to bring the plane to australian territory, the only mystery to me is why it failed, technical(because of tampering with plane electronics) or “human” reasons

    anything else just doesn’t make any sense from psychological POV

  10. @Gysbreght. Descent details.
    The report of the November 2016 First Principles Review said, “Results from recent simulations showed high rates of descent broadly consistent with the BFO analysis.

    The 2016 simulations included the 10 “additional scenarios” of the November 2016 Search and Debris Update. Either the Review’s participants took it that some of these were typical of the scenarios that could be expected and those ‘some’ were consistent with the descents derived from the BFOs and their timings, or else there were other 2016 simulations which have gone unmentioned.

    The simulation of the 10 “additional scenarios” looks more to have been for completeness, the last dot point on page 8 of the Search and Debris Analysis Update indicating that they did not exceed desirable search width. Thus if the Review statement is to be taken literally there were other recent simulations.

    Either way though, because we do not have the details of how the consistency conclusion was arrived at by the ATSB/Boeing/SSWG and cannot figure it out using flight dynamics how that could be, without a pilot, that does not mean the conclusion necessarily is invalid.

    Responding to your other post about 4 outer flap pivot points, I attach a diagram of the mechanism. You will see the pivot link rotates about a bottom fixed point relative to the aircraft as does the flaperon, via its hinge arm rotating around its hinge point.

    The flap also rotates forward a little around its upper hinge point, increasing the pivot arm rotation compared to the flaperon hinge arm’s for the same flap/flaperon aerofoil rotation. That increases the traverse aft a little for the flap, in comparison, though the character of the rearwards-with-downwards movement remains the same between them.

    Assuming this is what you were addressing.


  11. @David: Thanks for your reply. You wrote:

    “The simulation of the 10 “additional scenarios” looks more to have been for completeness, the last dot point on page 8 of the Search and Debris Analysis Update indicating that they did not exceed desirable search width. Thus if the Review statement is to be taken literally there were other recent simulations.”
    That is pure speculation. I asked the ATSB to indicate for each of the bullet points on pages 13and 14 of the Update the trajectories referred to. Their reply leave no doubt at all that the bullet points are based on the 10 simulations and nothing else. The bullet point on page 8 is about the mathematical relation between BFO and rate of descent without consideration of any scenario.

    Regarding the flap mechanism I simply pointed out that the flap support is a four-bar linkage that defines the flap motion in terms of translation and rotation. Perhaps that is more evident if you ignore the ballscrew actuator. The flaperon rotates about a single pivot located some distance below the wing.

  12. Since today’s discussion has been rather quiet, a few more words about trajectory no. 3, which BTW was one of the two that exceeded the simulation database and therefore should be treated with caution.

    A phugoid is defined as the cyclic longitudinal motion of an airplane at constant angle of attack after a disturbance. The period is equal to π*√2*V/g where V=true airspeed and g=acceleration of gravity, in consistent units. The distance travelled in one period is then 10 km for V=289 kt TAS.

    Like Victor Iannello, I too would have thought that a phugoid would not develop such a strong vertical acceleration. The condition specified by the ATSB for the simulation must have been pretty extreme, but all they are willing to say about those conditions is “Reasonable values were selected for the aircraft’s speed, fuel, electrical configuration and altitude, along with the turbulence level”. What is ‘reasonable’? Why that secrecy about choices made by the ATSB? A phugoid starts with an upset in pitch. What upset was introduced in the similation two-thirds down in the descent after the final SATCOM transmissions?

  13. What was the speed Mh370 was estimated to have collided with the Ocean at? Or is that not known….

  14. @Gysbreght. Yes I made clear (“looks like”) my remark was speculative. As to it being ‘pure’, I take it you mean high quality. Thank you.

    You say, “Their reply leave no doubt at all that the bullet points are based on the 10 simulations and nothing else.”

    Fair enough. My theme still stands. If collectively at an exchange-of-views gathering they reckon those descents are persuasive of consistency with the final BFOs; and since they have explained why they cannot release the data behind that collective assessment, I go along with that. That is unless it can be demonstrated as wrong, as distinct from questionable.

    As to the flaperon hinge depth, the flap depth to its pivot arm fixed point is similar. I hope you could access my diagram.

    @SteveBarrett. I have had no other indication it does not work and have accessed it elsewhere without difficulty If you can get your e-mail address to me through Jeff’s good offices I will send it directly to you.

  15. It pains me to validate this wretched exchange on VI’s blog with a comment but it needs clarification.

    The often practiced pontifical disdain in and of itself has become tedious, when criticism does not adhere to facts it translates to pitiful.

    I will take a sanctimonious page from their book as I clarify the unfounded attacks.

    Jeff questioned Mr. Durban’s “Contacts have yet to be signed but Oliver Plunkett, Ocean Infinity’s boss, has decided to go ahead anyway…”

    He also quoted Cellicort Communications, “without a contract we’re not going to conduct a search. That said, we are very hopeful of the contract being awarded soon…”

    This is exactly what happened as the contract with it’s terms was publicly released today. The author of the piece in The Economist has asked Jeff to “consider removing or updating this post”.

    Which of the 2 statements has been proven accurate, Jeff’s quote from Cellicort or Mr. Hodson’s quote from Mr. Plunkett? It’s not rocket science people.

    Jeff has nothing to retract. If some of the enlightened are so keen to pretentiously post comments, perhaps they can add accuracy to their repertoire.

  16. @David

    I don’t have drop box installed on my phone and tried a direct download which worked but couldn’t open the file with my default PDF app. I’ll try a laptop instead or install drop box.

    Thanks though.

  17. Did the TV show LOST inspire the hijacking & disappearance of MH370?
    Previously, I suggested that MH370 was hijacked and made to disappear by Russia for the following reason(s):
    – signal Moscow’s resolve in it’s conflict with the West over Crimea & Ukraine
    – distract attention of the world from the invasion of Crimea
    – create a potentially new crisis in the S.China sea that distracts the attention of USA, thus preventing it from focussing it’s attention in East Europe

    In my previous postings, I pointed out that the planning involved in selecting and successfully hijacking a B777 would have taken an extended period of time, and intended to be deployed during a specific time window. Therefore, the hijacking and disappearance of a civilian airliner originally could have been part of a packaged solution to counter negative media publicity arising from an unanticipated terrorist event or civilian uprising threatening to disrupt the Sochi Olympics in Feb 2014.

    I also suggested that the inspiration for the disappearance of MH370 may have come from the success of 9/11 ‘inside job’ conspiracy theories promoted by Russia Today(RT) among a diverse and global audience on TV, YouTube, and Social Media since 2005, and was part of the overall HYBRID WAR strategy of Russia that sought to counter the superiority of conventional forces of USA/NATO with assymetric warfare tactics.

    There is a second line of evidence which supports the idea that there was a global audience ready to be distracted by the disappearance of a civilian airliner.

    The TV show LOST which aired on ABC in the USA was one of the most popular cult TV series starting from 2004 to 2010. The plot revolves around a civilian airliner that crash lands onto a tropical island in the Pacific, leaving behind a few survivors from diverse backgrounds. It was this combination of Survivor meets Castaway, along with a diverse cast that made the show an instant hit. The show was also hugely popular around the world dubbed into many languages.

    Hatched as a half-baked kernel of an idea by an ABC executive on his way out the door, the show became a gargantuan worldwide success just a few months later. The timing was fortuitous. Lost debuted just as social media was entering adulthood, and the show became the quintessential 21st century viewing experience….

    The show’s complex plot and cavernous mythology made it ideal for those fans from all over the world to investigate together and write about on the internet….

    Lost, more than any other show before or since, was a vast emotional and intellectual investment. People actually put their lives into it. People
    were hurt when the ending didn’t live up to their impossible expectations….

    Lost was the show that made you want to feel a part of something, and a lot of that was because of how incredible its timing was during an era of remarkable technological innovation. If it happened a few years earlier, it probably wouldn’t have been nearly as big of a hit. There were global shows before Lost, and there were community-driven shows before Lost, but there were no shows with truly global communities before Lost.


    LOST was popular in RUSSIA & UKRAINE, and was broadcast on Sunday night at primetime on public broadcast channels. It even inspired a Russian spinoff show in 2012 titled ‘Island of the unwanted’.


    The plan to distract the world with the disappearance of a civilian airliner was not hatched in isolation in the absence of any evidence of a ready audience.
    – RT’s continued coverage of ‘9/11 inside job’ conspiracy theories found a ready and large audience from 2005 onwards
    – the TV show LOST created a global audience that relished the plot of an unresolved mystery of a crash-landed airline in a lost tropical island

  18. Was Mikhail Lesin (former media advisor to Putin) wacked because he was about to reveal Russia Today (RT)’s inner workings to the FBI?
    Mikhail Lesin was a close advisor to the Russian president in all matters related to media. He was appointed by Yeltsin, then helped Putin come to power by manipulating the Russia media. He also consolidated Russian media, thus forcing it to become a mouthpiece of the Kremlin.

    He died under suspicious circumstances Nov 5, 2015 in Washington DC.

    He stepped down as the head of the media subsidiary of Russia’s natural gas giant, Gazprom, after little more than a year in a job that had thrust him back into the center of the Kremlin’s efforts to shape its image ahead of the Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014…


    Vladimir Putin’s former media czar was murdered in Washington, DC, on the eve of a planned meeting with the US Justice Department, according to two FBI agents whose assertions cast new doubts on the US government’s official explanation of his death….

    In another previously unreported revelation, the two FBI agents said it was the Department of Justice that paid for the hotel room where Lesin died. DOJ officials had invited the Russian to Washington to interview him about the inner workings of RT, the Kremlin-funded network that Lesin founded, they said.


    The timeline of the DoJ’s investigation into RT’s ‘inner workings’ doesn’t suggest that it had anything to do with the Trump-Russia collusion allegations. So was the meeting to discuss RT’s inner workings a pretense to discuss other more secret matters?
    Possible issues for discussion:
    – corruption in Russia/Sochi Olympics/Kremlin
    – who’s who in organizing security activities in Sochi 2014
    – who could have ordered the planning of the hijacking of MH370

  19. @David: “As to the flaperon hinge depth, the flap depth to its pivot arm fixed point is similar.”

    Maybe, but the length of the flap pivot link would have to increase by about 60% to rotate the flap about a single pivot. Not sure what the argument is about, I only mentioned that it’s a 4-bar mechanism.

  20. For those who believe that the BFOs in the last SATCOM transmission are ironclad evidence that the airplane was in a rapid and accelerated descent, an interesting footnote in Dr. Holland’s recent paper on those BFOs:

    “The conclusions regarding descent rate have been made taking into account BFO noise bounds, all reasonably feasible ground tracks and speeds, and possible OCXO warm-up drift. It has been implicitly assumed that there were no otherwise unknown factors that could have affected the last two BFOs.

    (my bolding)

  21. @CliffG, All very interesting observations and ideas. Obviously many people find it hard to swallow a connection between the Russians and MH370. I found it very interesting, in the recently released Fusion GPS testimony, that Christopher Steele received the very same kind of skepticism when he brought news to the FBI and to media outlets like the New York Times that Trump had forged troubling ties to the Kremlin. The idea seemed so outlandish at the time that it must have seemed easier and safer to reject it out of hand as being “conspiracy theory.”

    The fact that much of the Republican party is trying to get away with pretending that it’s all still just conspiracy theory shows how persistent this narrow vision can be.

  22. @Hal, Your article clearly implied that Ocean Infinity intended to go ahead without a contract, indeed had set sail for the designated area to do so, which was not the case. It had left port to sail to a test area off the coast and wait for the negotiations to be concluded. So I don’t see anything to correct on my part.

    By the way, I see that the part about internet signals has been changed, so kudos for that.

    Just so you know, I’m the guy who calls people out for MH370 stuff and gets called a dick for it, so really, don’t feel like I’ve singled you out for particular mistreatment.

  23. @Dan Richter
    Interesting image. By 19:40 most paths have MH370 just north or northeast of ISBIX, and I do see vertical trail at 9 oclock torwards the edge, but you’d need to overlay onto SkyVector. If you had earlier time like 1840 we could try to find UAE343 close to MH370 as a way to see if we could see anything at all.

  24. @TBill
    Unfortunately I don’t think they have more pictures available. You can check it at http://satellite.nsmc.org.cn/PortalSite/Data/Satellite.aspx, DATA, DOWNLOAD, FY-3C(B, A), VIRR or MERSI, check all (product), select date from to March 7, 2014 leave time 0 to 23:59:59 and type the area you are interested in e.g IGARI 7 0, 103 0, 104 0, 6 0 (North, West, East, South), you can click Refresh to see selected area on the small map (move slider and click arrows) and click Search. You can Quick View to see small picture and coordinates and select it for download (you need to register for free) as HDF file. To be able to display HDF file install SAGA – System for Automated Geoscientific Analyses, run saga_gui.exe, Open the HDF file, check all layers, Okay, on the data grids tree double click small icon (or select New) next to 01.EV_Emissive (VIRR) and you get the picture. By right click on the data tree you can Save As Image to TIF. When the HDF picture (FY-3x MERSI) has 4 channels, you need to select, Geoprocessing, Visualization, Grid, RGB Composite, In Grid system select 1; 8192x x 8000y (MERSI) resolution and for Red, Green & Blue assign HDF channels 3, 2 &1. Hope this helps.

  25. Hal Hodson,

    Many thanks for your article on Seabed Constructor and MH370, and in particular the fact that you took the time to spend two days on board the ship in Durban, talking to crew and execs including Oliver. The ship has now left port, but hopefully you can keep us informed as to what is happening on board – in the Southern Indian Ocean, lines of communcation can be quite thin.

  26. Southern most western end of the reachable (fuel / time) arc, ie, around 40 south 88 east, looks like everything goes north and stays there in multiple gyres for a long time. nothing goes anywhere east. Consistent ? with what we know ? Puts the assertions that anything south of 38 should have hit WA coast in a different light perhaps ?

  27. @Dan Richter
    Re: the IR sat image
    You are correct I do not immediately see any trace of MH370 in that photo. But we would need to know from someone with experience if aircraft and/or contrails can be seen with this type of image. If it is contrails we are expecting to see, they do not always form depending on many factors. It could be interesting data with development.

  28. @Jeff.

    I got that video (above) from here:

    Note the date: 28th March 2014.

    It is strange.

    The article says that AMSA has / had an existing MOU with CSIRO for technical assistance in conducting SAR at sea. It suggest that this animation was called for, and delivered under that MOU.

    Moreover, the position of the two lines (north south) of virtual drifters, seems to coincide with the now long forgotten “NTSB twin paths / tracks” possible end longitudes.

    Note that this was still whilest AMSA was still in command of the search, before the formation of the JACC, before Huston was appointed to be the public face of the JACC search, and before Chief Commissioner of the ATSB Martin Dolan so unserimoniously disposed of AMSA’s head John Young.

    CSIRO’s early drift modelling for AMSA seems to suggest one thing, but it seems to have changed from then on, when they were working for ATSB.

  29. @Micheal John

    People who only judge the Adrift-site on the yellow duck I don’t even consider discussing with. Go on trolling while it suites you.
    State of affaires won’t be affected by it.
    A new search is on its way and no one is going to stop it.

  30. @Ge Rijn

    Ah, you seem to have this silly & childish view of who I am in your head. There are many people in the Mh370 spectrum including the families whom know me. They know I’m not a Troll. So I have no idea why you keep saying I am…

  31. David posted on VI’s blog:

    “All we are left with are the BFOs without, to me, any independent confirmation as to why they should be taken as valid, I at least then being left with the conjecture that IF there were representative simulations they would validate the BFOs. In other words the basis the search width looks to be more an act of faith than demonstrable.”

    Well said, David!

    As Dr Holland says in his paper on BFO’s:
    “It has been implicitly assumed that there were no otherwise unknown factors that could have affected the last two BFOs.”

  32. I don’t think anybody would question the data at all of it had been a constant stream of data from start to finish. The fact that the SDU was disrupted (For want of a better word) we have no way of knowing how true the last portion of the data set is.

    So indeed the 7th ARC search is an act of faith. An assumption based on the Data provided by the SDU to be without corruption. The failure of the 1st search throws that faith onto shaky ground & I suspect of the new search by OI also fails that faith may be destroyed entirely.

  33. @Michael John, I like your word “disrupted.” I suspect that it might be less controversial than the phrase I’ve used, “tampered with.”

    Whatever word you use, discussing the fate of MH370 without acknowledgement of this aspect is futile.

  34. we don’t know if SDU reboot occurred intentionally or not, what we do know is there was certainly tampering with plane electronics, being it from cockpit or E/E bay

  35. Jeff Tweets; “Steaming eastward on its mystery-shrouded mission to search
    for #MH370, Seabed Constructor abruptly reverses course, reverses course
    again, then vanishes from @MarineTraffic Anyone know what’s going on?”

    Probably just marginal signal, that got corrupted &/or the receiving unit
    made the best of a marginal signal, immediately before the SC passed out
    of the land based MarineTraffic receiver – that’s the most likely
    explanation for the Pac Man like motion behaviour.

    Since that time you asked me about drift analytics, you would be aware of
    the subsequent French report that put MH370 somewhere up around Christmas
    Island (!)(Indian Ocean), based on their drift analytics.
    For me, the figures on page 18 of the ‘MH370 – Search and debris examination
    update’ remain the most likely applicable (despite the mis-match in landfall
    (The daily grind of not ending up living under a bridge, caused a longer than
    usual delay for my reply.) Cheers

Comments are closed.