The problem with these surface current graphics is that they don't seem to reconcile with what we see. These graphs show that the current was predominantly to the east (maybe NE) at 3 North . However we have a line of bodies arranged roughly North-South, separated along this axis, and drifting approximately North. From memory, the separation was greater NS than it was EW. We know the current was to the north when they were found. However this suggests that it was also to the north for some time prior to discovery. The significant separation along this NS axis is what you would expect with a group of bodies drifting in a current to the north (different bodies will have different drag coefficients according to clothing etc, and hence will vary in how well they are carried along by this current).
Obviously they will appear separated NS when plotted on a graph due to discovery at different times. However the separation seems greater than that due to drift while they were still being discovered. They were separated NS well before any were discovered. Bodies were found on the 6th to the south of those found on the 5th. Clearly they were drifting north (rather than east) at different rates - suggesting the current was predominantly to the north.
If they had been exposed to a significant east component, then there would have been more scatter in their longitude when they were discovered.
I have followed much of this thread including the extensive drift analysis. However the aircraft was not found where this suggested that it could lie. Maybe we missed it. Maybe we were not looking in the right spot.
A turn to the right rather than the left would be pretty relevant regarding where to look. Most of the search has been to the west implying a turn to the left. Again, maybe we have looked in the wrong place. A turn to the left also excludes this pollution spot. A turn to the right could include it.
Last edited by slats11; 29th Nov 2010 at 05:53.