MH370 - "new" news
Seems ferry pilot has finally left the building and is back on his meds after winding up everyone quite successfully. Just goes to show what you can achieve with nothing more than repeating a premise, however ridiculous, over and over and over again as if it is accepted fact.
Now where were we, GBO? Something about an oxy bottle...
Now where were we, GBO? Something about an oxy bottle...
I think ultimately the wreckage of MH370 will be found.
Advances in undersea technology, better ROVs, the insatiable nature of human curiosity and the fact that the truth seems to have this habit of eventually emerging all suggest this will happen. It just doesn't say when it will happen. Whoever made time, made plenty of it.
If Robert Ballard can find the "Titanic" and the "Bismarck" (admittedly both had reasonably well-documented surface positions), sooner or later someone, probably looking for something entirely different in the Indian Ocean, will find the images of a wrecked airliner marching across the screens.
There are far more people who have an interest in finding the wreckage than are interested in not finding it for reasons best known to themselves.
I have no doubt Boeing, for example, would like their aircraft to be absolved of any fault or blame due to a defect. If the cockpit section (or whatever remains of it) is unburnt then the fire in the electronic bay theories go out the door. Perhaps the FDR will be recovered to tell its story. Will the CVR be of any use? Perhaps, perhaps not. But when the wreckage is found, forensic investigators will find enough evidence to eliminate the wilder theories, and those that remain will boil down to one which is the best fit for the available evidence from the wreckage, some of which will almost certainly be recovered and brought to the surface for closer examination.
Eventually, the truth will emerge. But it may take another decade, or two, or more. The evidence is there; it will be found.
Advances in undersea technology, better ROVs, the insatiable nature of human curiosity and the fact that the truth seems to have this habit of eventually emerging all suggest this will happen. It just doesn't say when it will happen. Whoever made time, made plenty of it.
If Robert Ballard can find the "Titanic" and the "Bismarck" (admittedly both had reasonably well-documented surface positions), sooner or later someone, probably looking for something entirely different in the Indian Ocean, will find the images of a wrecked airliner marching across the screens.
There are far more people who have an interest in finding the wreckage than are interested in not finding it for reasons best known to themselves.
I have no doubt Boeing, for example, would like their aircraft to be absolved of any fault or blame due to a defect. If the cockpit section (or whatever remains of it) is unburnt then the fire in the electronic bay theories go out the door. Perhaps the FDR will be recovered to tell its story. Will the CVR be of any use? Perhaps, perhaps not. But when the wreckage is found, forensic investigators will find enough evidence to eliminate the wilder theories, and those that remain will boil down to one which is the best fit for the available evidence from the wreckage, some of which will almost certainly be recovered and brought to the surface for closer examination.
Eventually, the truth will emerge. But it may take another decade, or two, or more. The evidence is there; it will be found.
The following 3 users liked this post by criticalmass:
Stating the ‘bleeding obvious’, finding MH370 won’t be easy even if it’s likely location becomes better known.
As an example, it took nearly 70 years to find the German armed merchant cruiser, Kormoran, that sank off the WA coast in 1941. The captain, Detmers, had written it’s approximate location (in code) in his German-English dictionary. The interrogation of the crew largely confirmed Detmers notes.
The possible locations for MH370 cover a far larger area than the search box (96km x 63km) used to locate the Kormoran.
The Kormoran sank in 2,560 metres of water while the depth where MH370 is conjectured to be is up to 4,000 metres deep.
The Kormoran was 164 metres long and weighed just under 9,000 tonnes. A 777 is about half that length and only about 300 tonne.
As an example, it took nearly 70 years to find the German armed merchant cruiser, Kormoran, that sank off the WA coast in 1941. The captain, Detmers, had written it’s approximate location (in code) in his German-English dictionary. The interrogation of the crew largely confirmed Detmers notes.
The possible locations for MH370 cover a far larger area than the search box (96km x 63km) used to locate the Kormoran.
The Kormoran sank in 2,560 metres of water while the depth where MH370 is conjectured to be is up to 4,000 metres deep.
The Kormoran was 164 metres long and weighed just under 9,000 tonnes. A 777 is about half that length and only about 300 tonne.
On the other hand they recently found Shackleton's "Endurance" from Frank Worley's 1915 position
But then Worsley was genius navigator - he was only 6 kms out
But then Worsley was genius navigator - he was only 6 kms out
Asturias, I agree. Frank Worsley, was in my view, the real genius behind Shackleton's marvelous escape from the ice. Shackleton held the team together (no mean feat), and maintained morale but, without Worsley's brilliant navigation, they would never have survived.
Does anyone know much about the corrosion properties of things like aluminum and similar aircraft components over extended periods in a deep saltwater environment? I know aluminum can corrode fairly quickly in the presence of salt air, but deep water - even salt water - is a completely different environment due to the relative lack of oxygen.
I know that it's been stated that - while after its first century under water it's still largely intact and recognizable as a big ship - in another 100 years or so the Titanic is likely to collapse into a big pile of rust.
While I agree with crtiticalmass that there is a good chance the wreckage will eventually be found, if it all falls to corroded bits that changes the equation rather dramatically.
I know that it's been stated that - while after its first century under water it's still largely intact and recognizable as a big ship - in another 100 years or so the Titanic is likely to collapse into a big pile of rust.
While I agree with crtiticalmass that there is a good chance the wreckage will eventually be found, if it all falls to corroded bits that changes the equation rather dramatically.
New/resumed search?
Some people are trying to get the search resumed, including the no find/no fee people who did it last time:
Australia should back new search for MH370, top official who led first effort says
The Australian government should get behind a new search for the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, the man who headed up the initial search says, now that new equipment and data is available.
Peter Foley was the program director for the international effort, led by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, to find the plane. MH370 went down on 8 March 2014 with 239 people on board. The disappearance of the plane is one of the world’s greatest enduring mysteries.
Foley hopes pressure from families and the upcoming anniversary will push things in the right direction.
a woman writes a message on a board for victims of mh370
“I want to see the Australian government push for another search and support a search when and if one gets up and running,” Foley said.
“There are a lot of people who contributed to the original search and everyone who’s been involved in the search is really keen to get answers for the families.”
The search was suspended in 2017 “in the absence of credible new evidence”, after failing to find the wreck in the area of the southern Indian Ocean, in Australia’s search and rescue zone.
The government said at the time the search was not terminated.
MH370 went missing 40 minutes into a six-hour flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Most passengers on board were Chinese, but there were more than a dozen nationalities represented including dozens of Malaysians and six Australians. Australia had put $90m towards the cost, China $20m and Malaysia the balance.
In 2018 Malaysia contracted marine robotics company Ocean Infinity to use autonomous underwater vehicles in a new search on a “no find, no fee” basis. It had no luck. But now Ocean Infinity has new data and new robotic ships.
Ocean Infinity’s chief executive, Oliver Plunkett, has said there is an “almost daily conversation” about resuming the search. In a speech on last year’s anniversary of the plane’s disappearance he told family members the search would begin again in 2023.
Plunkett said there was new information about where the plane may have ended up, and that the company had commissioned a fleet of new, 78-metre search vessels.
He said Ocean Infinity would re-engage and tell the Malaysian government it was ready to carry on, again on a “no win, no fee” basis.
“Hopefully, we’ll enjoy the same support from the Australian authorities as we did last time,” he said.
That support included dealing with regulations for an unmanned ship.
The federal government declined to comment on whether or not it would support a new search.
From the moment MH370 disappeared there have been theories about what happened – theories that range from serious data analysis to conspiracy theories.
These have included a mass hypoxia event, a deliberate murder-suicide by the pilot, an unconscious pilot and a “controlled ditching”.
New evidence has also emerged, including debris that has washed ashore.
A spokesperson for Bridget McKenzie, the Coalition’s shadow transport minister, emphasised that the search had only been suspended, not closed.
“The families of those who were tragically lost with the disappearance of flight MH370 will not have closure until solid answers are obtained as to what happened,” the spokesperson said.
“If credible new evidence becomes available as to the location of the missing plane, this should be fully considered – noting the government of Malaysia is responsible for making any decision to resume the search for the missing plane.”
Foley said it was time for a new search.
“We should be searching, and this time we need to search until we find it,” he said.
Australia should back new search for MH370, top official who led first effort says
The Australian government should get behind a new search for the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, the man who headed up the initial search says, now that new equipment and data is available.
Peter Foley was the program director for the international effort, led by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, to find the plane. MH370 went down on 8 March 2014 with 239 people on board. The disappearance of the plane is one of the world’s greatest enduring mysteries.
Foley hopes pressure from families and the upcoming anniversary will push things in the right direction.
a woman writes a message on a board for victims of mh370
“I want to see the Australian government push for another search and support a search when and if one gets up and running,” Foley said.
“There are a lot of people who contributed to the original search and everyone who’s been involved in the search is really keen to get answers for the families.”
The search was suspended in 2017 “in the absence of credible new evidence”, after failing to find the wreck in the area of the southern Indian Ocean, in Australia’s search and rescue zone.
The government said at the time the search was not terminated.
MH370 went missing 40 minutes into a six-hour flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing. Most passengers on board were Chinese, but there were more than a dozen nationalities represented including dozens of Malaysians and six Australians. Australia had put $90m towards the cost, China $20m and Malaysia the balance.
In 2018 Malaysia contracted marine robotics company Ocean Infinity to use autonomous underwater vehicles in a new search on a “no find, no fee” basis. It had no luck. But now Ocean Infinity has new data and new robotic ships.
Ocean Infinity’s chief executive, Oliver Plunkett, has said there is an “almost daily conversation” about resuming the search. In a speech on last year’s anniversary of the plane’s disappearance he told family members the search would begin again in 2023.
Plunkett said there was new information about where the plane may have ended up, and that the company had commissioned a fleet of new, 78-metre search vessels.
He said Ocean Infinity would re-engage and tell the Malaysian government it was ready to carry on, again on a “no win, no fee” basis.
“Hopefully, we’ll enjoy the same support from the Australian authorities as we did last time,” he said.
That support included dealing with regulations for an unmanned ship.
The federal government declined to comment on whether or not it would support a new search.
From the moment MH370 disappeared there have been theories about what happened – theories that range from serious data analysis to conspiracy theories.
These have included a mass hypoxia event, a deliberate murder-suicide by the pilot, an unconscious pilot and a “controlled ditching”.
New evidence has also emerged, including debris that has washed ashore.
A spokesperson for Bridget McKenzie, the Coalition’s shadow transport minister, emphasised that the search had only been suspended, not closed.
“The families of those who were tragically lost with the disappearance of flight MH370 will not have closure until solid answers are obtained as to what happened,” the spokesperson said.
“If credible new evidence becomes available as to the location of the missing plane, this should be fully considered – noting the government of Malaysia is responsible for making any decision to resume the search for the missing plane.”
Foley said it was time for a new search.
“We should be searching, and this time we need to search until we find it,” he said.
Ocean Infinity are the key to finding the crash site. In the space of 5-6 years those guys have turned the undersea search/survey business on its head. An undersea search/survey task has gone from being performed by a single vessel with a single tow-fish sonar scanner, with perhaps a limited range AUV doing some backfill. Point-of-interest work required the search vessel to cease tow-fish operations and put down an ROV. Very time consuming, very expensive in terms of dollars per square kilometer.
That was the technology back when the initial undersea search for MH370 started. And, as is always the case, the available technology drove the search philosophy. The proposed search area had to be constrained in order to keep costs and time-to-complete down to something acceptable. That in turn meant there needed to be some way to come up with a fairly tightly defined search area, initially to an area of only up to 60,000 km². Enter the DSTG's Bayesian Analysis and other "X marks the spot" approaches trying to come up with a best estimate for the crash site. These approaches, while generally technically and scientifically sound, were trying to wring a level of precision out of the vanishingly small dataset provided by the Inmarsat satellite exchanges (basically just nine data points over the final six hours of the flight, with only seven of those points having distance-from-satellite (Burst Timing Offset) data) that would prove nigh impossible due to the wide and varied range of unknown and unknowable variables. Bear in mind, no wreckage or debris had been recovered at the time this work was being undertaken.
The need for a fairly tightly defined search area also drove what became one of the more controversial aspects of the search area definition - setting the width of the search swathe. This brought the "active pilot to the end, controlled glide after fuel exhaustion" theorists into conflict with the "uncontrolled descent after fuel exhaustion" group. The decision was made to constrain the initial search area more by width (50 nm) than by length (325 nm) - distance along the 7th arc.
The resulting search area would be akin to searching out to 50 kilometres either side of the Hume Highway from Melbourne to Yass. And, given the technology available, it would take 10 months to survey and search that area. Again, that was all completed months before the first piece of wreckage - the right flaperon - was recovered.
Fast forward to Ocean Infinity's first foray into the search for MH370 in early 2018. The technology had moved from a vessel with a single tow-fish to a vessel deploying a fleet of AUVs (up to eight at that time, I think) that would each perform a pre-programmed search independently over a couple of days before coming back to a collection point to download search data, upload the next search program and change out batteries. Apart from the multiplier effect of having eight search units running concurrently, that also freed up the support vessel to do POI follow ups with an ROV without impacting search operations. It was an order of magnitude improvement in efficiency.
Ocean Infinity have now moved the whole game forward another huge step with their plan to operate multiple uncrewed (or very lightly crewed) support vessels each capable of deploying up to ten, I think it is, AUVs each. The first two of a planned half a dozen or so of these uncrewed support vessels are just starting to be fitted out with all their technical kit in Norway after sailing there from the Vietnamese shipyard at Vung Tau where there were built. OI will doubtless be keen to demonstrate this new kit and have committed to going back to look for MH370 later this year or early next year.
That was the technology back when the initial undersea search for MH370 started. And, as is always the case, the available technology drove the search philosophy. The proposed search area had to be constrained in order to keep costs and time-to-complete down to something acceptable. That in turn meant there needed to be some way to come up with a fairly tightly defined search area, initially to an area of only up to 60,000 km². Enter the DSTG's Bayesian Analysis and other "X marks the spot" approaches trying to come up with a best estimate for the crash site. These approaches, while generally technically and scientifically sound, were trying to wring a level of precision out of the vanishingly small dataset provided by the Inmarsat satellite exchanges (basically just nine data points over the final six hours of the flight, with only seven of those points having distance-from-satellite (Burst Timing Offset) data) that would prove nigh impossible due to the wide and varied range of unknown and unknowable variables. Bear in mind, no wreckage or debris had been recovered at the time this work was being undertaken.
The need for a fairly tightly defined search area also drove what became one of the more controversial aspects of the search area definition - setting the width of the search swathe. This brought the "active pilot to the end, controlled glide after fuel exhaustion" theorists into conflict with the "uncontrolled descent after fuel exhaustion" group. The decision was made to constrain the initial search area more by width (50 nm) than by length (325 nm) - distance along the 7th arc.
The resulting search area would be akin to searching out to 50 kilometres either side of the Hume Highway from Melbourne to Yass. And, given the technology available, it would take 10 months to survey and search that area. Again, that was all completed months before the first piece of wreckage - the right flaperon - was recovered.
Fast forward to Ocean Infinity's first foray into the search for MH370 in early 2018. The technology had moved from a vessel with a single tow-fish to a vessel deploying a fleet of AUVs (up to eight at that time, I think) that would each perform a pre-programmed search independently over a couple of days before coming back to a collection point to download search data, upload the next search program and change out batteries. Apart from the multiplier effect of having eight search units running concurrently, that also freed up the support vessel to do POI follow ups with an ROV without impacting search operations. It was an order of magnitude improvement in efficiency.
Ocean Infinity have now moved the whole game forward another huge step with their plan to operate multiple uncrewed (or very lightly crewed) support vessels each capable of deploying up to ten, I think it is, AUVs each. The first two of a planned half a dozen or so of these uncrewed support vessels are just starting to be fitted out with all their technical kit in Norway after sailing there from the Vietnamese shipyard at Vung Tau where there were built. OI will doubtless be keen to demonstrate this new kit and have committed to going back to look for MH370 later this year or early next year.
Regarding the BTO error, it is in the order of 30 μs or 9 kilometres. You are conflating the likely glide distance post fuel exhaustion as derived from the Boeing simulations - the figure used to determine likely distance from the 7th arc that the aircraft might impact the ocean and therefore search swathe - with the BTO error. Two markedly different things.
At 00:19:29 UTC the aircraft must be within about 9 kilometres of the 7th arc - your scenario has the aircraft four times that distance away. That's a problem.
When it quotes a standard deviation of 63 microseconds for the BTO at 00:19:29 UTC, it is not referring to the maximum error, but the measure of the amount of variation from the mean in the histogram set of values. (See Bayesian methods report)
In a Gaussian distribution, values within one standard deviation (also known as sigmas) will account for about 68% of the set away from the mean, two sigmas will account for 95%, and three sigmas will account for 99%.
Thus, the 63 microseconds of one sigma is approximately 6.8 nautical miles laterally at latitude 34S. Two sigmas is 13.6 NM, and 3 sigmas is 20.4 NM.
Now add the distance the aircraft will travel uncontrolled from the seventh arc according to flight simulator studies (15 NM), and it equates to approximately 35 NM. Then there are the unknowns to consider, is the SATCOM operating in a normal state, or is it corrupted by a damaged electronics bay, does the aircraft behave like the simulator, and how are far are the underwater sea currents drifting the debris to the ocean floor?
Hence, the ATSB searched out to 40 NM either side of the arc (ATSB report 03Dec2015) at 38S.
However, at 34S, the ATSB conducted a thorough search, but only to 2 NM inside the arc. Ocean Infinity then did a quick scan out to 25 NM, but NOBODY has searched from 25 to 40 NM inside the seventh arc at 34S.
....and how many square kilometres of search area does "from 25 to 40 NM inside the seventh arc at 34S" cover?
I'm quite familiar with statistical analysis, but thank you for taking the time to have a crack at explaining standard deviation (σ).
A few points. The main point being that clearly you do not understand the ramifications of what you have just written with regards to your proposed flight path, in particular where you have placed the aircraft at 00:19:30 UTC (ie at the 7th arc)
First up, the BTO error as calculated by the authors of the Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370 paper is conjectural. There has been considerable work done by others on the BTO error that determines it to be somewhat lower than the values (note: plural) quoted in Bayesian Methods for the 7th arc. For example, Doctors Iannello and Ulich have determined the BTO error to have a standard deviation of 29 μs.
Leaving that discussion aside, let's run with the Bayesian Methods' estimates for σ for the 7th arc; 63 μs at 00:19:29 UTC and 43 μs at 00:19:37 UTC. Their average σ for the 7th arc is 53 μs.
However, let's leave that aside and run with your higher value of 63 μs.
I have no idea why you would be talking about BTO error in terms of lateral displacement from the arc (eg "... 63 microseconds of one sigma is approximately 6.8 nautical miles laterally at latitude 34S.") The BTO error manifests itself radially (ie along the radius of the arc), not laterally. 63 μs equates to a 10.2 nm radial displacement.
However, let's leave that aside and run with your calculations for lateral displacement from the 7th arc. Your nominated location for the aircraft at 00:19:30 is 34.4°S 93.0°E. That position is some 33.3 nautical miles laterally west of the 7th arc. Using your calculations, that is the equivalent of -4.89 σ.
Statistically, that means that there is roughly a 0.0005 percent chance that your 00:19:30 position is correct (see, "(t)he main point being that clearly you do not understand the ramifications of what you have just written ... "). That brings me back to my 1 January 2023 observation that,
Separately, please read the section Search area width from the ATSB's MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas of 3 December 2015. You will note that, contrary to what you have just written, the ATSB did not use a ±3 σ BTO error range as part of their calculations in determining the search area width.
A review of the various maps and reports of underwater search areas completed will show that your statement about the ATSB only searching 2 nm inside the 7th arc at 34°S is also incorrect.
As to Ocean Infinity having performed "a quick scan", that's an unfortunate turn of phrase that might give rise to the impression that the OI work was not thorough. That would entirely misrepresent the very high quality of their work, arguably better than that achieved by the initial tow-fish operations closer to the 7th arc.
I would observe that the more you write, the more you demonstrate significant gaps in your understanding of the topic.
A word to the wise: Stop Writing.
A few points. The main point being that clearly you do not understand the ramifications of what you have just written with regards to your proposed flight path, in particular where you have placed the aircraft at 00:19:30 UTC (ie at the 7th arc)
First up, the BTO error as calculated by the authors of the Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370 paper is conjectural. There has been considerable work done by others on the BTO error that determines it to be somewhat lower than the values (note: plural) quoted in Bayesian Methods for the 7th arc. For example, Doctors Iannello and Ulich have determined the BTO error to have a standard deviation of 29 μs.
Leaving that discussion aside, let's run with the Bayesian Methods' estimates for σ for the 7th arc; 63 μs at 00:19:29 UTC and 43 μs at 00:19:37 UTC. Their average σ for the 7th arc is 53 μs.
However, let's leave that aside and run with your higher value of 63 μs.
I have no idea why you would be talking about BTO error in terms of lateral displacement from the arc (eg "... 63 microseconds of one sigma is approximately 6.8 nautical miles laterally at latitude 34S.") The BTO error manifests itself radially (ie along the radius of the arc), not laterally. 63 μs equates to a 10.2 nm radial displacement.
However, let's leave that aside and run with your calculations for lateral displacement from the 7th arc. Your nominated location for the aircraft at 00:19:30 is 34.4°S 93.0°E. That position is some 33.3 nautical miles laterally west of the 7th arc. Using your calculations, that is the equivalent of -4.89 σ.
Statistically, that means that there is roughly a 0.0005 percent chance that your 00:19:30 position is correct (see, "(t)he main point being that clearly you do not understand the ramifications of what you have just written ... "). That brings me back to my 1 January 2023 observation that,
Separately, please read the section Search area width from the ATSB's MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas of 3 December 2015. You will note that, contrary to what you have just written, the ATSB did not use a ±3 σ BTO error range as part of their calculations in determining the search area width.
A review of the various maps and reports of underwater search areas completed will show that your statement about the ATSB only searching 2 nm inside the 7th arc at 34°S is also incorrect.
As to Ocean Infinity having performed "a quick scan", that's an unfortunate turn of phrase that might give rise to the impression that the OI work was not thorough. That would entirely misrepresent the very high quality of their work, arguably better than that achieved by the initial tow-fish operations closer to the 7th arc.
I would observe that the more you write, the more you demonstrate significant gaps in your understanding of the topic.
A word to the wise: Stop Writing.
Last edited by MickG0105; 7th Jan 2023 at 23:08. Reason: Tidy up, added point to save another post
The following users liked this post:
MickG0105
That’s great. So Doctors Iannello and Ulich determined a 29 μs BTO error for the 00:19:29 logon, rather than the 63 μs as determined from the actual histogram for the aircraft. And what flightpath and search location do they recommend?
That’s great. So Doctors Iannello and Ulich determined a 29 μs BTO error for the 00:19:29 logon, rather than the 63 μs as determined from the actual histogram for the aircraft. And what flightpath and search location do they recommend?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
the Titanic is likely to collapse into a big pile of rust
named Halomonas titanicae after the great ship -- that lives inside icicle-like growths of rust, called "rusticles." These bacteria eat iron in the ship's hull and they will eventually consume the entire ship, recycling the nutrients into the ocean ecosystem.
Would not the Chinese be more proportionately financially willing to help this time, or should that not be encouraged? I seem to recall they had a rather useful ship out there last time. Bit of a hot potato?
It appears that:
dr dre, Icarus2001, flightleader, Capt Fathom,
Lookleft, Are out, MickG0105
are UNABLE to produce a flightpath that matches the radar and satellite data.
The only flightpath remaining which is compliant with the evidence is…
the diversion to Banda Aceh airport via NILAM and SANOB at FL340/0.84M with left Autothrottle inoperative, left HGA inoperative and an unresponsive crew.
Ends in the vicinity of 34S 93E.
Still unsearched.
dr dre, Icarus2001, flightleader, Capt Fathom,
Lookleft, Are out, MickG0105
are UNABLE to produce a flightpath that matches the radar and satellite data.
The only flightpath remaining which is compliant with the evidence is…
the diversion to Banda Aceh airport via NILAM and SANOB at FL340/0.84M with left Autothrottle inoperative, left HGA inoperative and an unresponsive crew.
Ends in the vicinity of 34S 93E.
Still unsearched.
Not unable, unwilling.
I have a large rural roperty, a wife and a dog and not enough time to enjoy them all.
I am certainly not interested in getting into a pissing competition with a kid in his mums basement making baseless claims.
I have a large rural roperty, a wife and a dog and not enough time to enjoy them all.
I am certainly not interested in getting into a pissing competition with a kid in his mums basement making baseless claims.
"are UNABLE to produce a flightpath that matches the radar and satellite data.
The only flightpath remaining which is compliant with the evidence is…
the diversion to Banda Aceh airport"
flightpath around Indonesia towards Australia matches the radar and satellite data, also Indonesian officials have said repeteadly that the plane didn't enter their airspace
there is a margin of error for satellite data, yes theoretically the plane could also crash in the vicinity of 34S 93E but it doesn't mean it's 100% there, FWIW it could really be anywhere around the 7th arc
The only flightpath remaining which is compliant with the evidence is…
the diversion to Banda Aceh airport"
flightpath around Indonesia towards Australia matches the radar and satellite data, also Indonesian officials have said repeteadly that the plane didn't enter their airspace
there is a margin of error for satellite data, yes theoretically the plane could also crash in the vicinity of 34S 93E but it doesn't mean it's 100% there, FWIW it could really be anywhere around the 7th arc