CSIRO says it knows where MH370 is
There is no evidence to suggest that MH370's track on its final leg south into the Southern Indian Ocean had to have been a straight line. In fact, Dr Bobby Ulich recently published a paper Interpretation of MH370 18:25–18:41 Satellite Data that demonstrates that the curving path generated by having the final leg flown on a constant heading of 180T from near waypoint ANOKO at Best Holding speed produces an excellent fit to the BTO and BFO data. The flight path produced initially curves to the west and then to the east under the influence of the prevailing winds.
Talk about "alternative facts". It is NOT known that the transponder was "turned off". What is known is that the transponder signal ceased. That could be because someone turned it off or because the system failed for some reason.
Ask your mate about the descent profile flown and tracking after it turned around.
I have. And at the end of the day nothing is absolutely clear-cut and nothing is conclusive. Problem is, media will turn that grey information into "facts" and they become self-perpetuating.
Go and find the commentary from the CNN panel that happened after the event. The facts described are hardly 'alternative'. They were presented immediately after the event. Only when they didn't fit into the story that wanted to be presented that they became 'alternative'.
Ask your mate about the descent profile flown and tracking after it turned around.
Ask your mate about the descent profile flown and tracking after it turned around.
The transponder stopped transmitting at 1720:36 UTC; the reason for that is unknown, it may have been a failure or it may have been turned off. It is worth noting that the right and left transponder circuit breakers are rated at only 5 amps, making them amongst the less heavily rated circuit breakers in the P11 Overhead Panel.
As for "the descent profile flown"; there wasn't one. Of the various primary radar traces for the airplane as it tracked back over the Malaysian peninsular, only three contain altitude data:
1. 17:30:35 - 17:35 UTC (01:30:35 - 01:35 MYT), the radar return was at a registered height of 35,700 ft.
2. 17:36 - 17:36:40 UTC (01:36 - 01:36:40), the radar return was at a registered height of between 31,100 and 33,000 ft.
3. 17:39:59 UTC (01:39:59 MYT) , the radar return was at a registered height of 32,800 ft.
Allowing for the vagaries of primary radar with regards to determining altitude over short traces, that data suggests an altitude, or band of altitudes in a tight range, just below the previously established cruise of 35,000 feet, possibly consistent with a decent to FL340 as appropriate for the new westerly heading. Contrary to some early media reports, there was no radar-evading, low level run across the Malaysian Peninsula. Subsequent to the loss of transponder signal the airplane executed a fairly standard diversion manoeuvre, initially towards the nearest airport, Kota Bharu (which was closed), and then towards the nearest suitable airport, Penang.
There isn't the money available to search every 'possible' crash site. We could search this 'new' 25,000 km3 area and still come up with nothing. Then the boffins would come up with another new area,and so on. The cost/benefit equation is not very promising.
If a wealthy person wanted to donate money to fund more searches,that would be good but I think it's time to let it go,accept that we'll never know what happened and move on.
If a wealthy person wanted to donate money to fund more searches,that would be good but I think it's time to let it go,accept that we'll never know what happened and move on.
You're relying on MEDIA as your source of the facts? As opposed to the raw data being analysed and presented by the ATSB investigators? Says it all.
Other than the guessimates made on the Satellite links there hasn't been much more 'new' information.
What has changed is the rhetoric, and anyone who suggests hijack or military op is quickly shot down as being 'conspiracy' nut. Like it or not every option is still on the table until more evidence is found.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the reason China is not throwing big money into any future search is because they must already know something.
If we don't spend a single cent from this point on then a version of the truth will eventually wash up on a shore, guaranteed.
If we don't spend a single cent from this point on then a version of the truth will eventually wash up on a shore, guaranteed.
Absolutely spot on, MickG0105. Your entire post, in fact, is spot on.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 52
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both CSIRO and the ATSB have been contacted by Guardian Australia for their response. Godfrey said he believed a crash at 30 deg S latitude, well north of the seabed search, “fit the available data” published by CSIRO as well as the timing and location of debris that had been found.
“A MH370 endpoint at 35 deg S latitude does not fit the fact that the underwater search has already discounted this location to a 97% level of certainty.”
“A MH370 endpoint at 35 deg S latitude does not fit the fact that the underwater search has already discounted this location to a 97% level of certainty.”
97% we didn't see it, hence it was not there period! Better never find it instead admitting that we didn't see it right under our nose"
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 59
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To those that still believe that there is an issue with the aircraft that caused the loss please apply some logical and critical thinking. It is known that the aircraft turned off route and flew along an FIR boundary, transponder was turned off. That is not an aircraft fault.
Secondly the "authorities" have more information that is not in the public domain. I have this from a friend close to the action, there was no fault with the aircraft.
Secondly the "authorities" have more information that is not in the public domain. I have this from a friend close to the action, there was no fault with the aircraft.
Prove it! The transponder stopped transmitting, nobody knows why, therefore it COULD be an aircraft fault.
"I have this from a friend close to the action, there was no fault with the aircraft."
Your friend could only KNOW this if he/she was on board the aircraft, therefore speculation.
"I have this from a friend close to the action, there was no fault with the aircraft."
Your friend could only KNOW this if he/she was on board the aircraft, therefore speculation.
Your friend could only KNOW this if he/she was on board the aircraft, therefore speculation.
Non so blind as those who will not see.
Icarus, the only lateral thinking I can come up with is if someone knows for certain it wasn't a problem with the aircraft why hasn't this been made public and why have they allowed the search charade to continue?
There's not much point in such an extensive search if there incontrovertible evidence the aircraft wasn't at fault.
There's not much point in such an extensive search if there incontrovertible evidence the aircraft wasn't at fault.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 59
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rest of your story is speculation, you call "facts".
It is a fact it crashed, there are alternative speculations as to why, and even where.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 59
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: ...second left, past the lights.
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yeh right... Boeing was not at fault and you can guarantee they have been heavily consulted, behind closed doors (without Perth's flogga G.T.!) right from the very moment it "went off the screen" and a number of Gulstreams darted out of Diego Garcia & Guam into KL!
Let's keep to the know facts - the aircraft was deftly manoeuvred along the borders of Malay; Thai and Indo airspace right to a point above Bandah Aceh, both in altitude and headings. There were over a dozen "suitable" and capable airfields he flew past, he could have used, if they wanted to.
I personally thought he took the northern arc of "engine pings" to sneak up into the back of China with his "Cargo" but who knows?
What was on the Cargo manifest needs to be examined. Lips have been sealed over this part haven't they!
Herein lies the motivation for such a stunt, I contend.
Let's keep to the know facts - the aircraft was deftly manoeuvred along the borders of Malay; Thai and Indo airspace right to a point above Bandah Aceh, both in altitude and headings. There were over a dozen "suitable" and capable airfields he flew past, he could have used, if they wanted to.
I personally thought he took the northern arc of "engine pings" to sneak up into the back of China with his "Cargo" but who knows?
What was on the Cargo manifest needs to be examined. Lips have been sealed over this part haven't they!
Herein lies the motivation for such a stunt, I contend.
The turnback from near IGARI is pretty much what would be expected in the case of an evolving inflight emergency with the flight crew commanding an initial diversion to Kota Bharu (WMKC) by selecting it off the FMC Alternate Page (WMKC would have been the No 1 “default” option) and commanding Divert Now, Execute followed a few minutes later by the choice of destination being amended to Penang (WMKP).
There is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that MH370 flew to a point above (over?) Banda Aceh; it disappeared off radar heading west-north-west about 80 nautical miles north-north-east of Banda Aceh and its final turn south would have brought it no closer than about 50 nautical miles to the west of Banda Aceh.
