CSIRO says it knows where MH370 is
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CSIRO says it knows where MH370 is
Be interesting if MH370 is found 1000klms North East of where the search was be performed in the southern part of the indicative crash area instead of the northern part of the area where the pings were heard.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/35114800...h370-is/#page1
The CSIRO said its new report, released on Friday, confirmed that the most likely location of MH370 was a new 25,000 sq km area, north of the original 120,000 sq km search area.
Last edited by p.j.m; 21st Apr 2017 at 11:06.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from the ATSB website
News: CSIRO releases new MH370 drift modelling report
download report
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...r/ae-2014-054/
doesn't seem consistent, 35°S was within the previous search area.
News: CSIRO releases new MH370 drift modelling report
download report
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...r/ae-2014-054/
The new search area, near 35°S, comprises thin strips either side of the previously-searched strip close to the 7th arc
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be just another case of CSIRO looking for more funding?
Honestly, I would like to take them to task and put their very own jobs on the line with the outcome.
It's the best way to put any self-indulgent speculation to an end.
Honestly, I would like to take them to task and put their very own jobs on the line with the outcome.
It's the best way to put any self-indulgent speculation to an end.
How would this really help them cattletruck? They give this information over the ATSB and they go hire a completely different company to do the search, doesn't seem like they'd really gain anything out of monetarily?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 652
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So they are saying they think they've located the "haystack"? All 25000 sq km of it? Equivalent to a 500km strip 50km wide. That's going to need a lot of dollars...
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,965
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
I think I've asked this question before; Is there anyone else on these boards who like me, suspects that there are certain Governments/Bureaucracies etc who do not want MH370 to be found?
Not ever!
Not ever!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of a paraphrase, BUT..
Is there anyone else like me that thinks too much of Aussie taxpayers money has already been spent on the search, and can't fathom why people are suggesting more money should be spent!!
Is there anyone else like me that thinks too much of Aussie taxpayers money has already been spent on the search, and can't fathom why people are suggesting more money should be spent!!
Because we HAVE spent all that money Square Bear, to spend it all and then get this sort of information and ignore it seems ludicrous, like running 9/10 of a marathon and giving up with the finish line in sight!
Not to mention there's how many Boeing 777's out there with a potentially fatal flaw that we haven't got the slightest clue about?
What about the lives of all those people on board, how much do you value the peace of mind for their families at?
How about for the lessons that could be learnt for potential future searches like this around the world?
I'm sure there's a lot of other reasons that people could fathom to easily justify searching an area that is backed up by CSIRO Drift Models and the Inmarsat Data now and gives up our best chance to date.
Not to mention there's how many Boeing 777's out there with a potentially fatal flaw that we haven't got the slightest clue about?
What about the lives of all those people on board, how much do you value the peace of mind for their families at?
How about for the lessons that could be learnt for potential future searches like this around the world?
I'm sure there's a lot of other reasons that people could fathom to easily justify searching an area that is backed up by CSIRO Drift Models and the Inmarsat Data now and gives up our best chance to date.
Not to mention there's how many Boeing 777's out there with a potentially fatal flaw that we haven't got the slightest clue about?
If any more money is to be spent on a search, it ought to be Malayasian or Chinese money. There is a limit to what Australia needs to spend, and we've pretty much reached it already. At least we looked for it. Nobody else seemed to give a damn. The Chinese gave up PDQ. As for the Malaysians - where were they?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the JACC website ....
I think China's level of monetary contribution to the underwater search was pretty poor, seeing as the largest majority of the pax on MH370 were Chinese.
It's a fair indication that China cares little about loss of its citizens. To be expected, I guess, when you have so many billions of them.
Don't forget that Australia has gained some pretty extensive seabed knowledge of an area that was previously largely unexplored, and a big unknown.
I also have little doubt that a lot of undersea search experience was gained from the search, which would provide pretty useful guidelines and processes for future searches, for aircraft lost in remote areas of the seas.
The revised crash zone for MH370 by the CSIRO is indicative that all the JACC/ATSB calculations on distance travelled were wrong - despite vast amounts of input by so called "specialists" and "experts".
The indications are now that the aircraft was suffering from excessive drag, probably caused by some kind of damage to fuselage or wing panels, which led to increased fuel burn or a lower cruise speed.
The Australian Government has provided around (AUD)$90 million as part of Australia's contribution to the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, including (AUD)$60 million towards the cost of the underwater search effort.
The total cost of the search is around (AUD)$200 million.
The People's Republic of China contributed around (AUD)$20 million in the form of funding and equipment.
Malaysia agreed to fund the balance of the costs, of around (AUD)$120 million, associated with searching the 120,000 square kilometre search area.
The total cost of the search is around (AUD)$200 million.
The People's Republic of China contributed around (AUD)$20 million in the form of funding and equipment.
Malaysia agreed to fund the balance of the costs, of around (AUD)$120 million, associated with searching the 120,000 square kilometre search area.
It's a fair indication that China cares little about loss of its citizens. To be expected, I guess, when you have so many billions of them.
Don't forget that Australia has gained some pretty extensive seabed knowledge of an area that was previously largely unexplored, and a big unknown.
I also have little doubt that a lot of undersea search experience was gained from the search, which would provide pretty useful guidelines and processes for future searches, for aircraft lost in remote areas of the seas.
The revised crash zone for MH370 by the CSIRO is indicative that all the JACC/ATSB calculations on distance travelled were wrong - despite vast amounts of input by so called "specialists" and "experts".
The indications are now that the aircraft was suffering from excessive drag, probably caused by some kind of damage to fuselage or wing panels, which led to increased fuel burn or a lower cruise speed.
Yes, cough, cough ... that's what they were saying about the Boeing 737 after United 585 crashed in 1991 - the aircraft is fine. They only had to crash another two jets and kill another 185 people to er, cough, cough, come to the conclusion that the aircfaft wasn't fine after all.
The revised crash zone for MH370 by the CSIRO is indicative that all the JACC/ATSB calculations on distance travelled were wrong - despite vast amounts of input by so called "specialists" and "experts".
The indications are now that the aircraft was suffering from excessive drag, probably caused by some kind of damage to fuselage or wing panels, which led to increased fuel burn or a lower cruise speed.
The indications are now that the aircraft was suffering from excessive drag, probably caused by some kind of damage to fuselage or wing panels, which led to increased fuel burn or a lower cruise speed.
And there's nothing to suggest an increased fuel burn; an increased fuel burn would have resulted in fuel exhaustion before 0017 UTC.
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.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz (30% of the time)
Age: 62
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
start searching the sea bed area where the aircraft was last positively identified. yes, two hours and ten minutes north of KL on the KL - Beijing track.
...... you've got that right.
Secondly the "authorities" have more information that is not in the public domain
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.
The same "alternative facts" stuff keeps getting applied to the ACARS system - that "someone" obviously "turned it off". Wrong. The only facts known there are that the ACARS was set up to send a burst of data every 30 mins. It sent a burst at 1700Z. The transponder signal was lost at 1722Z and then at 1730Z no ACARS data was received (I may have the exact times wrong; those numbers are to illustrate my point). That does NOT mean someone turned off the ACARS; again, a major fault at 1722Z may be the cause.
As for the "authorities" having more info than is in the public domain: you may be right but I am inclined to call "B/S" on that. I have a mate who happens to have been the Australian-appointed, accredited investigator to the MH370 search team. We've talked extensively about the data and the search. He has never told me about "secret info", info being withheld. Now either he hasn't been told everything (possible) or he isn't telling me everything (also possible). But: unlikely.
Yes, apply some logical and critical thinking, don't just go on what the media and the Byron Bailey's will excitedly say, and you will come the realisation that major technical failure/s cannot be excluded. Imagine, for example, a bomb in the MEC, taking out multiple COMM and NAV systems. And oxygen systems. Cannot exclude someone trying to get the aircraft back to terra-firma whilst blind and mute. And then succumbing.
Despite all of the above, I too, am not excluding the possibility of the whole thing being a deliberate act. However it's wrong to distort the KNOWN FACTS to bias towards such a scenario.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have this from a friend close to the action
Seriously, I do believe the truth is already known, but we (collectively) are just not ready for it.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Here's two facts.
The Satellite Data Unit (SDU) stopped working and then started working again.
The track taken from the tip of Sumatra to the most likely search area was a straight line. If you measure the known distance of the flight prior to the turn south, and measure a straight line to the search area from the turn south to the search area, you ind the aircraft had fuel to accomplish that track, and no more.
So, why would the SDU go off and come back on again, and how do you accomplish flying a straight line in a Boeing without some input from someone who knows what they are doing?
The Satellite Data Unit (SDU) stopped working and then started working again.
The track taken from the tip of Sumatra to the most likely search area was a straight line. If you measure the known distance of the flight prior to the turn south, and measure a straight line to the search area from the turn south to the search area, you ind the aircraft had fuel to accomplish that track, and no more.
So, why would the SDU go off and come back on again, and how do you accomplish flying a straight line in a Boeing without some input from someone who knows what they are doing?
When you say "straight line", what is your reference for "straight"?
