ChristiaanJ
Originally Posted by jcjeant View Post
In fact the BEA explanations shown some things .. the complete failure of the BEA to conduct professionally a search for a disappeared plane (for this particular plane at least)
I take it then that you are an expert professional in underwater searches in the Mid-Atlantic (3000m depth plus), to profess such a judgment.
Do you work for Wood Hole? If not, why didn't you offer your services?
And I even suppose you don't know the expression "needle in haystack".....
Quote:
By the BEA failure in researches a precious time was lost for publish new recommendations
Slightly dumb remark.... Some recommendations HAVE already been published, and so far I haven't seen any crashes similar to AF447. What "precious time" was lost?
Quote:
The BEA explanations are not satisfactory...
Maybe not to you, since they don't match your conspiracy theories.
I doubt you've ever been part of a real accident investigation.
All this deserves that we will investigate a little more this "conspiracy"
Scientific Report from the Drift Group
ESTIMATING THE WRECKAGE LOCATION OF THE RIO-PARIS AF447
page 134 Appendix 7: On June 2 2009 at 8h16,a possible pollution spot.... a SAR detected pollution spot...which does not have the characteristic elongated form of an oil spill coming from a ship. CLS and CEDRE experts were not able to understand its origin...
We have been unable, however, to relate this pollution spot to any impact point of the plane as determined from the debris and bodies found and the velocity fields estimated (whatever the methods). But, all our calculations, are based on the assumption that the plane hit the sea surface intact (following BEA expertise of the recovered plane remains).
Source:
http://bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.a...oup.report.pdf
Here is what has delayed for nearly two years the discovery of the wreck
They know that the oil stain is not that of a boat
They knows that AF447 last know position was in the vicinity of this oil stain
This could have come from AF447
What made the BEA?
The BEA note this information
After some time (other debris found .. etc. ..) make it a study of currents, etc. .. (they say themselves very difficult given the fluctuating number of parameters)
After the experts work and reports .. they assumes several points (points found by a study based on assumptions) and find that they can't connect them with the oil slick seen before
So the oil slick has nothing to do with the accident ... BEA think .. but in mean time they dunno from where (not a ship at least) come this oil
Remark :
BEA know that the plane had broken in pieces when contacting sea .. and BEA know it was a certain quantity of fuel aboard.
So no need to investigate further more the area ... and all are going fishing far away .....
But so what?
Where does this oil slick
The lack of curiosity and good sense of BEA has cost 2 years ... not to mention money ... is not negligible in an investigation
