zebra100
Member
Jaac report here: http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releas..._Definition_of_Sea_Floor_Wide_Area_Search.pdf


Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
"On 7 March 2014 at 1722 UTC1 (8 March 0022 local time Malaysia), flight MH370, a Boeing 777-
200ER registered 9M-MRO, lost contact with ATC during a transition of airspace between
Malaysia and Vietnam"
The first sentence is already wrong--MH370 lost contact at 00:22 Malaysia local time--that's how they prepared this report-![]()
ATSB's March 27 fuel analysis
It cannot possibly have been the line defining S4/S5 in Fig.4 on p.6, because that line crosses the original (S1/S2/S3) maximum range line - and the one thing on which we can all agree is that the removal of fuel could not possibly have added range.
The report's statement I quoted in #5 above logically implies:I can't find this. Can you provide a copy please?
and determined that this is the most credible lead to where debris may be located.
Based on the surface currents in that map you included TW, wouldn't it have been wiser to do an underwater search starting in S3 perhaps, since the currents in the SIO rotate counter clockwise, and in the corridor where they most likely believe the plane ditched due to inmarsat, the current is actually moving north.I think you are a little confused. The maps you are referencing are located in the "Surface Search" part of the report. At this point in the search it was still an air search and they were searching for surface debris. Debris would have given a pointer to the crash site after taking into account 20 days of drift due to ocean currents.
The following map gives a good idea of the prevailing currents.
https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/384bae8d88a379725223866abddcdd5a.png
With respect, TWC, it is you who is confused. My argument (#5 above) - including the extracted figure, and all extracted quotes - is based strictly on Figure 3, page 5 of the June 26 report, in the section entitled "possible impact areas".I think you are a little confused. The maps you are referencing are located in the "Surface Search" part of the report. At this point in the search it was still an air search and they were searching for surface debris. Debris would have given a pointer to the crash site after taking into account 20 days of drift due to ocean currents.
But ocean surface currents in that corridor move north, north east, not south or south east.If your argument is correct, the March 28 release should have read: "we did fuel analysis that moved the most probable impact point to the west (per move to black or red max range line in #5, above), but ocean currents March 8->March 28 would have more than offset this, and so that's why we're moving the debris search east. (When we finally start searching for the FDR, we'll be sure to start further west, per the fuel analysis.)"
I think you are a little confused. The maps you are referencing are located in the "Surface Search" part of the report. At this point in the search it was still an air search and they were searching for surface debris. Debris would have given a pointer to the crash site after taking into account 20 days of drift due to ocean currents.
The following map gives a good idea of the prevailing currents.
http://www.seos-project.eu/modules/oceancurrents/images/global_currents.png
At the risk of wasting time on a quibble: the report's opening sentence should have read, "8 March 0122 local time Malaysia". The opening statement is in fact factually incorrect.That's what it says: (8 March 0022 local time Malaysia)
At the risk of wasting time on a quibble: the report's opening sentence should have read, "8 March 0122 local time Malaysia". The opening statement is in fact factually incorrect.
zebra100 was correct in pointing out the error (which I believe he was paraphrasing in his own comment, as a literary eye-roll - not attempting to correct).
Ah yes, I had mistaken the paraphrasing as a correction.
So does this type of error lend weight to the cover-up theory, or the messed-up theory?
How "big" would the something they are hiding have to be to involve a multinational cover up? You wouldn't need to cover up the fact that they were seeking asylum, or if there were hijackers on the plane. Stories like that surface every year to be honest with you, so what would the hiding something "big" have to be in order for such a large cover up to be needed.But every day's delay in this admission makes me ever more convinced that what they're hiding is big.
Can we at least agree that"Impassioned"? I'm just trying to be realistic. We don't know what the analysis was. You are criticising the end result (simplified for public consumption) without knowing what went into it.
I am not going to offer my speculation on this thread as to what a hypothetical cover-up might specifically be covering up, nor its precise extent/scope. All I will say is that I've seen enough to become suspicious, and that scope, if sufficiently senior, could conceivably be quite narrow (i.e. rank and file working diligently, with best intentions).How "big" would the something they are hiding have to be to involve a multinational cover up? You wouldn't need to cover up the fact that they were seeking asylum, or if there were hijackers on the plane. Stories like that surface every year to be honest with you, so what would the hiding something "big" have to be in order for such a large cover up to be needed.
"Impassioned"? I'm just trying to be realistic. We don't know what the analysis was. You are criticising the end result (simplified for public consumption) without knowing what went into it.
1. The areas I take to be impact areas are what the ATSB says are impact areas - in the section of the report entitled, "possible impact areas". Figure 3 (pasted in #5, above) is entitled, "Figure 3: Possible southern final positions S1-S3 based on MH370 max range and time". It is charting impact zones.I say again. The movement of the surface search area, at that point in the the search was predicated on trying to find surface debris which has drifted after the crash. This was being done to,
1. Confirm the validity of the search area,
2. Then refine it for the coming, as yet not started, underwater wreckage search.
There is 20 days of drift to take into account.
Your analysis takes the area to be the probable impact point. This is not so.
This has become ridiculous.I am simply reading the report which states that a surface search was underway and the search areas were drifted to certain areas. That means they were looking for surface debris 20 days after the fact.
Without an oceanographic analysis of the currents and winds, the statement stands. Later on, they adjusted the probable impact points and went from there.
Your "possible final positions" is ambiguous, but it seems to me that if they thought it was the impact point they would have said so.
Even in the unlikely event that the ATSB-announced March 28 search move was to reflect both fuel analysis and drift: BOTH said, "go west, young man"; why did they instead go 1,100km north-east?
The "Drifted Search Areas" section starts on the bottom of p.7. That's where you'll find the westward drift documented in Fig.6.
NACS, reading your arguments hurts my brain a lot. You seem to have tunnel vision with this, and nothing will stop you. More than 2 people have explained to you how your arguments are presumptive, misguided, and overly ambitious. Think about the larger scope of what you're trying to argue and maybe it'll knock some sense into you. If there was some big cover-up, why would they cover it up in a way where somebody like yourself is able to figure out by doing some simple math and analysis, and why are you the only person in the world arguing what you're arguing?
I will no longer assist you in your attempt to understand my argument, TWC, but I will correct you if and when you misrepresent my position:To summarise for those not following the argument, NACS has said that the March 27 fuel analysis moved the probable impact point 1100 km NE.
My counter claim is that it said no such thing...
Because it has to stay on the 6th arc? If you simply reduce the range, then the end point still has to stay on that arc, so NE is the only direction it can move in.
I understand that you would argue that they would have gone further if they had gone faster. But without knowing the totality of their analysis, I'm not ready to throw it out on one criticism.
The other headwind has been attitudes such as yours: a deep-rooted and abiding faith in the notion that anyone who questions authority must necessarily be wrong.
.
We're not debating whether inside experts misdirected the search for two months - we now know that they did - all we're debating here is WHY.
Re: "totality" of the analysis: as I've been saying for months, the problem is that the ATSB itself claims to have changed one and only one model input,
All I meant was that the move up to 20S turned out to be wrong - misguided - misdirected. I didn't think I had to prove this because the investigation team itself admitted in late May that it was the wrong place to search, and went back to the drawing board. Do you dispute any of this?Really? You haven't supplied any figures to back up what you say. Where are your TAS/GS/wind/fuel flow/altitude/fuel load figures and how do they relate to the corresponding ATSB figures?