gums
Hiya. The reason I believe that the impact zone "heading" has no relationship with the debris Field's "direction", is as follows. Very vertical, very energetic impact. The debris was "focal" (compact) and the debris distribution on the seabed reinforces that the heavy things sank very nearly in the same trajectory. Whichever direction the impact was, the engines were destined to be the "beginning" of the seabed "trail" and the heading away from the engines at impact on the seafloor will reflect the subsurface current only. To suggest that any current in the sea was the same as the final nose direction is betting 360-1.
The reciprocal of the debris' "direction" is no less likely than the "perceived" WSW, so let's make the odds 180-1. The lighter things would sink a bit slower than the engines, so would reflect only the current, not the initial impact's orientation.
Get my....Drift?? We don't really know her heading much after 0210, how can we predict what it was on the surface at impact? Especially since there was LOC, and the BEA themselves have said the airframe was yawing right when she hit. A water impact is not at all like a surface debris trail, she didn't stop crashing until she hit the bottom. The "engines forward" trail tells us nothing of her orientation at impact. IMHO.
yo
hmmm...How about, since you admit she changed course, was it intentional? Unintentional?? With LOC, impact heading is de rigeur random, and since there was LOC, intentional heading is impossible.
Last edited by bearfoil; 10th May 2011 at 23:57.