View Single Post
Old 9th May 2011, 18:36
  #1012 (permalink)  
infrequentflyer789
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 788
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
Hi,

I don't agree with this supposition ... if you read the ACARS ..
BEA read also the ACARS ... and maybe more we don't know about.
I can't suppose a glide from them.
But if you keep an open mind, there is a small possibility of such - similar to the small possibility of both pingers failing (maybe about 1%). Looking at the ACARS, I too would have assumed no glide, but I would also have assumed at least one working pinger based on track record.

The aera phase 1 the very first research .. (with ASSUMPTION of working pingers) was not a large one !
Really ? They failed to completely search it all (hence the phase two) within the pinger specification time despite using two TPLs, a nuclear sub, several surface ships and another sub + a ROV. What would you consider a "large" search area, and how much resource would you need to deploy to search it within the 30days ?

And phase 4 included the crash site.
The difference is they used appropriate tools for this search and they assumed (this time) that the pingers were no more working !
No, they did not "assume", given the lifetime (30days minimum, 40 expected) the pingers are known to be no longer working by this stage.

At the first search .. they have two doors to open ....
One with the pingers in the room .. the other with no pingers ...
They opened only one door .
First search - pingers over 90% probability of working, larger area can be covered faster by looking for signals. Later searches - pingers <1% probability of still being working, so use other slower search methods over smaller area. Eventually got lucky.

It's easy to use hindsight to say they should have bet on the 100:1 outsider after you know the result.
infrequentflyer789 is offline