Aceh is a highly sensitive area to the Indonesians. And most folks in the Region are aware of that. There is no way that this aircraft passed through Indonesian airspace in or around North Sumatera without being spotted.

Yawn said
Indeed, but did you see my previous post where I suggested a different interpretation?
If this Aussie find turns out to be a red herring, thoughts might turn to the Northern Arc again.
I believe the last Malaysian press conference did say that both arcs were still equally in the picture?

We shall see .

Looks like it's closer to the French Southern (population of 140) & Antarctic Lands and Heard Island & McDonald Islands than Perth.

Max depth of Indian ocean some 8000 metres (26,000 feet).

bud leon said,

for the record,

This is specifically what was reported in the news cycles on March 8th:
March 9th:
March 10th
An AP reporter was also standing right there, hears it, and supposedly verifies the statement with multiple (unnamed) Malaysian Officials

March 11th
His March 9th press conference statement, of course, being that there was corroborated evidence it had turned back to the Straights

Yet despite all that, the official position remained “we [Malaysia] had no reason to suspect that the aircraft that we tracked flying across our peninsula was MH370” ...until day 8 of the search.

Creampuff, not sure about thous bouys you mention, but I am aware that the RNZAF Orion that is departing Perth at 4pm local time (probably about now??) recently had a major overhaul and was equipped with the latest surveillance systems including technology that enables it to scan under water. By the time they get to the site it will be dark, hence why I thin they are the last aircraft to be sent out.

180
 

The 180 theory seems like a credible explanation as the so-called radar returns are most likely spurious (as I have always believed).

aLso lends credence to catastrophic fire scenario leaving the aircraft on a reciprocal heading to KL but crew incapacitated.

th ac could only have reached that far at cruise speeds /altitude (FL 300 &above)

Radar Hits of 'Significant Size' Registered in Indian Ocean: Flight Crew - ABC News

"A flight crew scouring the southern Indian Ocean for a missing Malaysia Airlines plane tells ABC News that they're getting radar hits of "significant size," indicating something lurking below the water's surface.

ABC News' David Wright, the only TV reporter on board the US Navy P-8 Poseidon, said the crew tells him the radar indicates "there is something down there."

It is still too early to tell if the radar hits are related to the missing plane, which was carrying 239 people when it disappeared on March 8."

Obviously, time frames involved means that what they were referring to would have been closed on by now; whether or not the vis is good enough for a FLIR or visual sighting is a different story

"The radar hits indicate something may be beneath the ocean's surface".

Is it likely that in such rough seas the large parts of the wreckage would still be floating after so many days? I presume that SAR crews would quickly determine from their sensors if the floating object, a large part of which is reportedly below the surface, is made of ice or metal? Does anyone know if icebergs are commonly encountered in this particular search area?

CreamPuff, the short answer is no.

The FDR/CVR acoustic beacons operate at 37.5kHz with a usable detection range of up to 3 nautical miles (higher freq => lower range). This is a result of the need for small size, reasonable power requirements, and good localisation ability. The short acoustic pinger range makes detection from near the surface in an approximate 12000 feet of water a big ask.

The anti-submarine sonobuoys are designed for the sorts of lowish frequency noises put out by machinery on/in subs and ships. These travel much further in water. (In a past life I was the engineer overseeing software development for the AP-3C acoustic processor systems (since replaced))

When you punch coordinates into the FMS is it N or S ? Or is it + or - ?
As a senile imbecile who was taught navigation nearly 60 years ago I find decimal degrees and + & - quite a challenge.

It is a very big ocean. What was seen could be anything from Tsunami debirs to discarded nets. The Australian PM announced it, does he have the mail or has he made a fool out of himself for PR purposes? time will tell.

The data and images would have been alalysed by now. The authorities would already know what the result is. Silence is not a positive indication IMHO unless someone is waiting for the make up lady to arrive.

I hesitate to add to pure speculation; but assuming this large object is part of the aircraft, this would mean we're looking at an impact gentle enough to not send big bits to the bottom, less than 12G to not set the ELT off, but solid enough not let anyone on board switch on the ELT if inclined to do so, nor deploy slides/rafts and trail an EPIRB. Does that sound about right?

Any yachtie will tell you that there are literally hundreds of containers that have washed overboard from container ships and that are "lurking just below the surface". I find myself wishing that Tony Abbott had held off from announcing this development until a P3 crew had confirmed the objects were indeed from the MAS 777.

He hasn't, so now I find myself hoping that he got a "set in stone" guarantee from the satellite analysis experts that the debris is not just some junk that's got nothing to do with the 777. If this sighting turns out to be a fizzer, despite all his carefully guarded qualifications to his announcement, he will be made to suffer and to look a total fool by his always ready to criticise political opponents - lead (I hasten to add) by the National Broadcaster.

Today is equinox. So if the search area is at about 90 degrees east, the sun will set at 1200Z is the search area.

The FMS of the 777 is capable of lat-long insertion as waypoints, so that LNAV can be directed towards a specific location on the globe.

For 41 degrees south and 85 degrees east, the format has to be: S41E085.

Here's the satellite images released by Australian authorities.
bit.ly/1ds9Ij4

FWIW, at the press conference when answering it is "just a blob" - he held his hand in a narrow fashion - ie elongated blob. Seemed to think better of whatever he was going to say , then said the blob comment.

Elongated blob would fulfill fuselage shape - though cannot imagine for a second that that would float, but perhaps he changed his description mid sentence because that's what it would sound like

The 180°M Theory
 

Back in Post #5970 I formed the opinion after looking at wind and magnetic variation, that the heading was set to 180°M when the aircraft was about 200NM west of Banda Aceh, Sumatra.

The winds between 10°S & 20°S were from the east, but from 30°S the westerly jet stream started to have and effect, and became the major factor by 40°S.

On top of that was a rapidly changing variation the further south the aircraft progressed, starting at 1°W near the equator and progressing to 30°W near 45°S. The track that was produced included most of that, and it was then that I decided that the heading had been set to 180°M off Aceh.

There had been no mention of 180°M until I posted the graphic.

D.S You may choose to build a damning case against the Malaysians because of that possible singular contradiction but I'm not prepared to form an opinion simply by relying on media hearsay. I'd say you might be showing some confirmation bias.

There is no doubt they are not as polished as western spokespeople who not only are speaking in their own tongue but are also highly trained in media communication and issues management. They may even have made some mistakes, they are human like everyone else.

But taking the helicoptor view, ignoring the speculation of vain experts-for-rent and journalists tasked with selling advertising space in an information vacuum, what I see is an evolution of the search area as increasing amounts of information has become available and verified. There is no doubt lessons can be learned from this but casting the Malaysians as conspiratorial, face-saving incompetents is not only lazy and aggressive, it is one way not to learn lessons.

The Australian Prime Minister has been guarded in his comments. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Several objects - the largest 24m - have been located on satellite and aircraft despatched to see if they can find them and identify them. Abbott is making an announcement to satisfy intense media interest but is certainly not going to have egg on his face if they turn out to be something quite different.

I doubt, however, that such an announcement would have been made if the objects looked like shipping containers. Australia has been conducting maritime search and rescues in high southern latitudes for many years and have a good record. These people know what they are about, but obviously until someone has a close look at the objects, we won't know more.

Interesting that the objects were described as "awash" or under the surface. To be able to determine that from satellite imagery says a lot about the quality of the images.

It wasn't the PMs decision to move all of the aerial assets to the new location and callout more aircraft including one that will be flying at night.
He has told the world why the planes have suddenly moved out of the original search area.

The potential target had been identified by the specialists who are familiar enough with analysing aerial images and the PM as well as the military and civilian commanders, during the press conference, repeated that it may not be wreckage.

They also said that the weather was poor and they may not be able to find it.

We have been warned that SAR in open ocean is very difficult.
Suggest Ppruners who do not have access to the content and context of the press conferences take note! If we want transparency and timely updates don't shoot the messenger!

In respect to US journos giving blow by blow from the jump seat of search planes, the US news media is very competitive and they will risk being wrong to be first and have no problem being dramatic at the expense of being dogmatic.