An analysis of the weather satellite imagery and conditions, and contrail formation over the area of interest at the time of the flight can be found here (scroll down page): High-res visible sectors for Southeast Indian Ocean - 8 March 2014 - Weather Graphics

I think you will also find that in supercooled >100% humidity which often occurs then a contrail can expand sometimes even into cirro-stratus by seeding further ice crystal formation. These widening contrails are not uncommon and may be the type that are easily found on satellite.

It all depends on other traffic.
If you have a tagged primary return without any secondary/ADS that flies into your overhead at a steady speed and track, and at the expected time (probably less than a minute) a primary only return appears flying out of th overhead at the same speed and on the same track and there is no other traffic around, then it is a reasonable assumption that it is the same aircraft. If the airspace is alive with maneuvering primary only traffic and the one that you have tagged is randomly changing heading and speed and disappears together with several others into your overhead - you have a different problem.

I would suggest that it was the former that was more likely at 2am that morning. It may also be that it was being 'watched' by other radars that nobody wants to talk about, so the radar shown is one that is well past its sell by date and can therefore be admitted to.

REGARDING CONTRAILS


At least one report is the plane may have been at 12,000' or even 4000' for a great part of the journey.

NOW, I'm not an expert like Richard Quest or anything ( ;-) )

But contrails that low are unlikely, DON'T You all think?

Not really, looks like a line of low level cumulus associated with a front or a (warm) current to me.... nothing to do with a high altitude contrail..

Contrail in photograph
 

I do not think we can state with any degree of certainty it is a contrail
shown in the picture posted by Susier.
There are natural phenomena that produce same results, such as the Morning Glory off the coast of Australia, mountain range wave, frontal wave and/or cloud and many more.

MODIS sees plenty of contrails but that's not one of them - looking at other satellite data shows that it's a natural cloud which formed a couple of hours earlier.

Two questions about the investigation being unique or not
 

Especially for those with extensive knowledge of airliner disaster investigations:

1. Reports have been published at least since April 18 indicating that Malaysia and Australia are negotiating an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) that will apply to the assignment and division of various responsibilities (such as analysis of the flight recorders, if and when recovered, and autopsies, if bodies are recovered, among other things). Has such a bi-lateral MOU been put in place in any prior investigations of airliner disasters? And if so, what countries, what disaster?

2. Malaysia reportedly has completed a preliminary report yet also has indicated an intention not to allow it to be publicly released or disseminated. Any precedent for a preliminary report to be completed yet withheld? (Yes, it does appear that the subject prelim report is in the nature of the 30-day prelim report preparation (and presumably issuance) of which are done pursuant to Annex 13.)

Thanks in advance to all who may respond.

The techies are probably right
 

As a techie who also has SAR experience, I think there is very strong evidence that the techies are right.

The INMARSAT ping data is pretty good - I doubt anyone just made it up for fun. Even more important, the detection of underwater pings is very close to conclusive - especially since it is almost precisely in the spot predicted by the INMARSAT data. Information provided (including a video of the detection waterfall) makes it an extremely high probability that this was a ULB. Since there aren't a lot of missing ULB's in the world, especially in the south Indian Ocean, this means that they very likely have localized the wreck. They just haven't pin-pointed it yet.

I would guess that, if the initial small search area doesn't turn it up, they'll do what SAR experts normally do: recalculate the probabilities. This would yield a likely search area just outside the initial area, along with some probability that it was in the initial area but missed.

The only even faintly plausible explanation for the aircraft not being in the south Indian Ocean requires either massive incompetence of initial and reviewing authorities, all down the line, or a massive conspiracy. This I relegate to very low probability (<1%).

Who cares?
This sort of ICAO annex is purely advisory in nature, no on can force anybody to publish a report, there were precedents that no preliminary report was ever published ...

Man made noises?
 

Hearing this, we understand why the 4 detections of supposed pingers are considered by prudent people (and real scientists are prudent people) only as a good track and not a certainty:
Mysterious Duck-Like Ocean Sound-Source Revealed | Video | LiveScience
OK, it is not the right frequency nor a near one. But who knows if there is not another specie with a more pitched "voice"? The "mechanical" repetition of the sound is astounding!

A while back I posted a link here to an accident where an Indian Air Force aircraft with 100 people on board crashed in the Himalayas, 30 km from the nearest town, and it took 35 years for someone to stumble upon the wreckage.

MH370 is _probably_ not in the Himalayas, but that "one day" may still be pretty far away.

Mesoman.

I'm not doubting the Inmarsat ping reception for a minute. What I'm asking is if there is any way the transmitted signal could be altered to give the impression of movement away from the satellite. One example would be slow immersion in a shallow liquid. The doppler shift of the last broken ping could be due to any number of things, so I'm not considering that one.

I forgot to mention the sonic pings. I'm afraid that I'm classing them as too spurious along with the radar sightings. From what I've read here it seems unlikely that the ULBs expired completely more-or-less on their expiry date, a decaying signal was the prognosis so surely those would still be being heard?

In order for the signal to be transmitted, at least one engine has to be running, which would, needless to say, be pretty hard to square with slow immersion in a shallow liquid. (Or with a land crash in Malaysia.)

@ Olasek
Two separate reasons, at least.

First, yes, we know ICAO standards are not governmental and are not enforceable in the way that a sovereign nation's (or State's ) actual laws would be enforceable. But the investigatory process set forth in Annex 13 is quite likely to be held relevant in the context of other ICAO procedures. Specifically, at some point this search effort will likely lead to examination of whether Annex 12 terms, and bilateral as well as multilateral agreements on SAR, need to be improved. In that examination I can see relevance in the extent to which the Malaysian government followed An. 13.

Second, again knowing An. 13 has not the force and effect of sovereign law, as and when the US Congress again takes up legislation changing and expanding the requirements for flight recorders (previously introduced as the SAFE Act), I can see the oft-times inexpert, or even misguided, Congressional process locking onto tangential factors. Knowing whether the Malaysian government followed An.13 timelines would be only a background fact, and not directly relevant to the hardware, SAR, and type certification questions presented by such a legislative proposal. Yet knowing those background facts nevertheless would be very relevant because such facts would help keep a side-issue from distracting consideration of the central facts. It's an open-and-shut case of "what you don't know can hurt you" when meritorious legislation is run aground on tangentially related points.

Perhaps you would state some of the prior instances to which you have referred, if this is requested very politely, please?

US Department of Defense Update
 

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=122122

"WASHINGTON, April 24, 2014 – The Defense Department is continuing to support the international search mission for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said today.

The total cost of the search to date is $11.4 million, Warren said. This figure includes $4,200 per flight hour for the two P-8 Poseidon aircraft involved in the search, he added. The plane and its 239 passengers disappeared March 8 on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The costs break down as follows, Warren said:

-- $4.6 million in operations and maintenance funds;

-- $3.2 million in overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid funds; and

-- $3.6 million for underwater search equipment and support.

The P-8s continue conducting aerial search operations, and the Bluefin-21 autonomous underwater vehicle completed its twelfth search mission, the colonel said.

'Bluefin-21 has now completed more than 90 percent of a focused underwater search ... . Unfortunately, no contacts of interest have been found,' he said.

The department has received no requests for additional underwater search assets, Warren said."

The last sentence probably means that the US DOD doesn't have any other underwater search assets that would be useful in this search.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which provided such assets for AF 447 search, has US Navy affiliations, but is not formally part of the defense establishment.

Some WHOI comments on this search:

FAQ: Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

WHOI assets:

Underwater Vehicles : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

In 1950 NW2501 went down in Lake Michigan with 55 passengers and three crew. The airplane was on radar, only 18 miles from the shoreline. To this day, it has never been found. Clive Cussler, the author, funds an annual search for the missing airplane in the lake with underwater gear. No CVR/FDR, No pinger.

So maybe we will never find MH370.....

There is not a "total lack of evidence"; there is the Insat data. Dismissing the Insat data - as if it isn't on the table - won't fly: not around a knowledgable crowd as found here.

Insat engineers see the Equatorial turn represented in the data they have recovered and analysed.

If you have an argument against that, I'd like to hear it.

search area
 

Looking at the JACC search map from yesterday, showing planned search and areas already searched....I wonder why they are searching back over what seems to be areas already searched??? http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/release...ril/mr036.aspx
Wouldnt it make more sense to search closer to shore and also further out to sea??? Or, do they search on the way out to the search area??
Hopefully they are not flying out over debris without seeing it!

@DocRohan

The area where the pings are are close to the southern extent of a westerly current, so debris may have travelled west instead of east.
The plane entrance to the water came on one side or the other of where the westerly current flowed on March 10th and this would have made a drastic effect on which direction the debris may have travelled. The mathamatics of prediction for drift have received sophisticated analaysis from the tiome of WW2 until present. So we can expect the search direction to at least have thoughtful input.


Lately I'm beginning to question one of my assumptions about the flight of MH370. The pilot may have pulled off a successful ditching and kept the plane intact after impact.

Will a 777 pilot comment on the idea that when the plane came down, it may just have been at sunrise; the timing seems to say so. Could a pilot bring the plane in with full flaps just above stall speed and at that point add power from the two healthy engines and execute a manouver that in a super cub is called "hanging on the prop" (just keep raising the nose until the plane settles and then cutting power)?

This has certainly never been done before by a jetliner, but if your goal didn't include saving the airframe would it be possible for a pilot to get a 777 down to about a hunderd knots forward airspeed before falling (hopefully onto the top of a swell) into the water? Maybe this airframe is intact intact on the bottom. In deep silt.