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

https://i.imgur.com/Uc1QZLs.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/m7ZQJ2x.jpg

I wonder if they will be able to convince any agency or government to gamble millions of dollars for yet another 'maybe' search ?

I don't think so.

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.

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.

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?

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...:sad:

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!:=

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!!

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.

Cough, cough...err no, those that NEED to know this already know that the aircraft is fine.

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?

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.

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 search area doesn't necessarily indicate that the DSTG/ATSB calculations on distance travelled were wrong at all; what it suggests is that their assumptions about the timing of the final major turn south and/or the speed flown on the final leg south were wrong. And we always knew that the timing of the final major turn was a best guess based on the BFO data associated with the 1840 UTC air-to-ground phone call.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He/she is not Chinese by any chance :}

Seriously, I do believe the truth is already known, but we (collectively) are just not ready for it.

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?

When you say "straight line", what is your reference for "straight"?

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.

A 25Cent levy should be paid on every airline ticket and funds kept in trust for this type of SAR op. To say there is no money is like saying we dont care

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.

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.

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.

This is a reasonable example of the over-reliance on the media and the under-reliance on proper factual information and research that has plagued the discussions on MH370 pretty much since the get go.

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.

Except that the information presented by CNN at the time is very similar to what the ATSB has.

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.

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.

Nonsense. I'm not dismissing nefarious conduct or outside interference either. They are certainly possibilities.

You are exactly correct. But that is precisely NOT some people assert. Read post #15, for instance. And red herrings, outright disinformation about "descent profiles" for example, are outright mischievious.

Absolutely spot on, MickG0105. Your entire post, in fact, is spot on.

I'm with Pinky on this one.

I strongly presume that 97% level of confidence comes from assumption that MH370 flew at cruise altitude, also I guess there is kind of confidential notice :O 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"

"transponder was turned off. That is not an aircraft fault"
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.

This is simply untrue, you need to think a little more laterally.

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.

How much has Boeing contributed?

Your second line is true.
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. ;)

Probably nothing?
They would not want it found if there is a chance it is their fault. ;)
Better to whisper "murder/suicide, nothing wrong with our aircraft" ;)

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.

Is it? Do we know that with certainty? :E

Well let's start by replacing that media hype you're spruiking with the real known facts. The airplane most assuredly did not manoeuvre, deftly or otherwise, along the Malaysian-Thai FIR boundary. After turning back off its planned flight path near IGARI MH370 flew on a track that took it over, not along, a stretch of about 120 kilometers of the Bangkok (Thailand)‐ Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) airspace boundary that traces the Golok River. Subsequently, MH370 remained firmly in the Kuala Lumpur FIR (Malaysian airspace) at all times until it was lost from radar.

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.