Re: MH370: Malaysia releases satellite analysis

[LP[_2_]]

"Government Shill #2" > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:33:05 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote:
>>> On 03/25/2014 11:04 AM, LP wrote:
>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/mh370-relatives-of-lost-passengers-protest-against-malaysia-live-updates
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering why all the secrecy in the first ten days, if this is the
>>>> outcome. Why was the transponder initially turned off, if it wasn't a
>>>> hijacking or crazy pilot suicide plot? Any ideas or theories?
>>>
>>> Everything I saw about the pilot didn't sell me on the suicide bit. How
>>> about the crew struggling to fly an unfylable maybe depressurized
>>> airplane, or passed out? Secrecy? We have NOTHING but alleged opinion,
>>> no pieces, no bodies, no verifiable DNA, no NOTHING. I'll wait for facts
>>> and data and until then everything stays on the table.
>>
>>I agree that there are more questions than answers, but I can't think of
>>one
>>reason to turn off the transponder if my plane is on fire, depressurized,
>>etc.
>
> If the fire was in the transponder, or something effecting the power
> supply to
> the transponder... or the depressurisation was caused by the transponder
> antenna
> ripping out and leaving a hole in the fuselage...?
>
> There's a couple of reasons. Just tossing out some crazy ideas.

Thanks for brainstorming for a reason. Seems more than we have got from the
media. This morning on abc was all about what the ping sounded like on a
real black box. <guffaw> Just the facts, please, if you can find them abc.

> At this stage, my money is on the systems being deliberately switched of
> by
> person, or persons, unknown. This is based on wild eyed guesswork on my
> part.

I find it strange that it supposedly flew for over 7 hours total. With
submarines all over the Indian Ocean, you would think they would have picked
up the ping on the box.

LP

[LP[_2_]]

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370: Why crash location is hard to pinpoint
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 probably crashed 17 days ago. But no floating
debris has been found. 'We're not searching for a needle in a haystack,'
said Australia's deputy defense chief. 'We're still trying to define where
the haystack is.'

By Rod McGuirk, Associated Press / March 25, 2014

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0325/Malaysia-Airlines-Flight-MH370-Why-crash-location-is-hard-to-pinpoint

[Government Shill #2]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:51:09 -0500, "LP" > wrote:

>
>"Government Shill #2" > wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:33:05 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>>
>>>
> wrote:
>>>> On 03/25/2014 11:04 AM, LP wrote:
>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/mh370-relatives-of-lost-passengers-protest-against-malaysia-live-updates
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering why all the secrecy in the first ten days, if this is the
>>>>> outcome. Why was the transponder initially turned off, if it wasn't a
>>>>> hijacking or crazy pilot suicide plot? Any ideas or theories?
>>>>
>>>> Everything I saw about the pilot didn't sell me on the suicide bit. How
>>>> about the crew struggling to fly an unfylable maybe depressurized
>>>> airplane, or passed out? Secrecy? We have NOTHING but alleged opinion,
>>>> no pieces, no bodies, no verifiable DNA, no NOTHING. I'll wait for facts
>>>> and data and until then everything stays on the table.
>>>
>>>I agree that there are more questions than answers, but I can't think of
>>>one
>>>reason to turn off the transponder if my plane is on fire, depressurized,
>>>etc.
>>
>> If the fire was in the transponder, or something effecting the power
>> supply to
>> the transponder... or the depressurisation was caused by the transponder
>> antenna
>> ripping out and leaving a hole in the fuselage...?
>>
>> There's a couple of reasons. Just tossing out some crazy ideas.
>
>Thanks for brainstorming for a reason. Seems more than we have got from the
>media. This morning on abc was all about what the ping sounded like on a
>real black box. <guffaw> Just the facts, please, if you can find them abc.
>
>> At this stage, my money is on the systems being deliberately switched of
>> by
>> person, or persons, unknown. This is based on wild eyed guesswork on my
>> part.
>
>I find it strange that it supposedly flew for over 7 hours total. With
>submarines all over the Indian Ocean, you would think they would have picked
>up the ping on the box.

The Indian Ocean is a BIG place.

73,556,000 km² = Indian Ocean
9,826,675 km² = USA

[LP[_2_]]

"Government Shill #2" > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:51:09 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Government Shill #2" > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:33:05 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
> wrote:
>>>>> On 03/25/2014 11:04 AM, LP wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/mh370-relatives-of-lost-passengers-protest-against-malaysia-live-updates
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm wondering why all the secrecy in the first ten days, if this is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> outcome. Why was the transponder initially turned off, if it wasn't
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> hijacking or crazy pilot suicide plot? Any ideas or theories?
>>>>>
>>>>> Everything I saw about the pilot didn't sell me on the suicide bit.
>>>>> How
>>>>> about the crew struggling to fly an unfylable maybe depressurized
>>>>> airplane, or passed out? Secrecy? We have NOTHING but alleged
>>>>> opinion,
>>>>> no pieces, no bodies, no verifiable DNA, no NOTHING. I'll wait for
>>>>> facts
>>>>> and data and until then everything stays on the table.
>>>>
>>>>I agree that there are more questions than answers, but I can't think of
>>>>one
>>>>reason to turn off the transponder if my plane is on fire,
>>>>depressurized,
>>>>etc.
>>>
>>> If the fire was in the transponder, or something effecting the power
>>> supply to
>>> the transponder... or the depressurisation was caused by the transponder
>>> antenna
>>> ripping out and leaving a hole in the fuselage...?
>>>
>>> There's a couple of reasons. Just tossing out some crazy ideas.
>>
>>Thanks for brainstorming for a reason. Seems more than we have got from
>>the
>>media. This morning on abc was all about what the ping sounded like on a
>>real black box. <guffaw> Just the facts, please, if you can find them
>>abc.
>>
>>> At this stage, my money is on the systems being deliberately switched of
>>> by
>>> person, or persons, unknown. This is based on wild eyed guesswork on my
>>> part.
>>
>>I find it strange that it supposedly flew for over 7 hours total. With
>>submarines all over the Indian Ocean, you would think they would have
>>picked
>>up the ping on the box.
>
> The Indian Ocean is a BIG place.
>
> 73,556,000 km² = Indian Ocean
> 9,826,675 km² = USA
>

Yes, I do realize how big the Indian Ocean is, I've been on Google Earth
before it was called that. When you pull it up, almost the entire picture
is water.

I wonder how far out the Boeing 777-200's ping will sound?

LP

[Government Shill #2]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:12:16 -0500, "LP" > wrote:

>
>"Government Shill #2" > wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:51:09 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Government Shill #2" > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:33:05 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
> wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/25/2014 11:04 AM, LP wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/mh370-relatives-of-lost-passengers-protest-against-malaysia-live-updates
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm wondering why all the secrecy in the first ten days, if this is
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> outcome. Why was the transponder initially turned off, if it wasn't
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> hijacking or crazy pilot suicide plot? Any ideas or theories?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Everything I saw about the pilot didn't sell me on the suicide bit.
>>>>>> How
>>>>>> about the crew struggling to fly an unfylable maybe depressurized
>>>>>> airplane, or passed out? Secrecy? We have NOTHING but alleged
>>>>>> opinion,
>>>>>> no pieces, no bodies, no verifiable DNA, no NOTHING. I'll wait for
>>>>>> facts
>>>>>> and data and until then everything stays on the table.
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree that there are more questions than answers, but I can't think of
>>>>>one
>>>>>reason to turn off the transponder if my plane is on fire,
>>>>>depressurized,
>>>>>etc.
>>>>
>>>> If the fire was in the transponder, or something effecting the power
>>>> supply to
>>>> the transponder... or the depressurisation was caused by the transponder
>>>> antenna
>>>> ripping out and leaving a hole in the fuselage...?
>>>>
>>>> There's a couple of reasons. Just tossing out some crazy ideas.
>>>
>>>Thanks for brainstorming for a reason. Seems more than we have got from
>>>the
>>>media. This morning on abc was all about what the ping sounded like on a
>>>real black box. <guffaw> Just the facts, please, if you can find them
>>>abc.
>>>
>>>> At this stage, my money is on the systems being deliberately switched of
>>>> by
>>>> person, or persons, unknown. This is based on wild eyed guesswork on my
>>>> part.
>>>
>>>I find it strange that it supposedly flew for over 7 hours total. With
>>>submarines all over the Indian Ocean, you would think they would have
>>>picked
>>>up the ping on the box.
>>
>> The Indian Ocean is a BIG place.
>>
>> 73,556,000 km² = Indian Ocean
>> 9,826,675 km² = USA
>>
>
>Yes, I do realize how big the Indian Ocean is, I've been on Google Earth
>before it was called that. When you pull it up, almost the entire picture
>is water.
>
>I wonder how far out the Boeing 777-200's ping will sound?

http://bit.ly/1l2yVGb

"The quoted maximum detection range is 2-3km"
http://www.hydro-international.com/issues/articles/id1130-Deepwater_Black_Box_Retrieval.html

Given the local water depth is 3,000 ~ 7,000 metres (3km~7km) it might be hard
to find?!?!

Shill #2
--
Great Tarverisms #5

The pitot tube was added to the first American jets to prevent the
kind of failures that killed an entire squadron off Florida. Without
P1 and T0 a jet will stall in fog.

Thanks to both of you for playing.

John

rec.aviation.military
11 August 2002

[LP[_2_]]

"Government Shill #2" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:12:16 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Government Shill #2" > wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:51:09 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Government Shill #2" > wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:33:05 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 03/25/2014 11:04 AM, LP wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/mh370-relatives-of-lost-passengers-protest-against-malaysia-live-updates
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm wondering why all the secrecy in the first ten days, if this is
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> outcome. Why was the transponder initially turned off, if it
>>>>>>>> wasn't
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> hijacking or crazy pilot suicide plot? Any ideas or theories?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everything I saw about the pilot didn't sell me on the suicide bit.
>>>>>>> How
>>>>>>> about the crew struggling to fly an unfylable maybe depressurized
>>>>>>> airplane, or passed out? Secrecy? We have NOTHING but alleged
>>>>>>> opinion,
>>>>>>> no pieces, no bodies, no verifiable DNA, no NOTHING. I'll wait for
>>>>>>> facts
>>>>>>> and data and until then everything stays on the table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree that there are more questions than answers, but I can't think
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>one
>>>>>>reason to turn off the transponder if my plane is on fire,
>>>>>>depressurized,
>>>>>>etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the fire was in the transponder, or something effecting the power
>>>>> supply to
>>>>> the transponder... or the depressurisation was caused by the
>>>>> transponder
>>>>> antenna
>>>>> ripping out and leaving a hole in the fuselage...?
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a couple of reasons. Just tossing out some crazy ideas.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for brainstorming for a reason. Seems more than we have got from
>>>>the
>>>>media. This morning on abc was all about what the ping sounded like on
>>>>a
>>>>real black box. <guffaw> Just the facts, please, if you can find them
>>>>abc.
>>>>
>>>>> At this stage, my money is on the systems being deliberately switched
>>>>> of
>>>>> by
>>>>> person, or persons, unknown. This is based on wild eyed guesswork on
>>>>> my
>>>>> part.
>>>>
>>>>I find it strange that it supposedly flew for over 7 hours total. With
>>>>submarines all over the Indian Ocean, you would think they would have
>>>>picked
>>>>up the ping on the box.
>>>
>>> The Indian Ocean is a BIG place.
>>>
>>> 73,556,000 km² = Indian Ocean
>>> 9,826,675 km² = USA
>>>
>>
>>Yes, I do realize how big the Indian Ocean is, I've been on Google Earth
>>before it was called that. When you pull it up, almost the entire picture
>>is water.
>>
>>I wonder how far out the Boeing 777-200's ping will sound?
>
> http://bit.ly/1l2yVGb

Heh, I've done that to others, doh!

>
> "The quoted maximum detection range is 2-3km"
> http://www.hydro-international.com/issues/articles/id1130-Deepwater_Black_Box_Retrieval.html
>
> Given the local water depth is 3,000 ~ 7,000 metres (3km~7km) it might be
> hard
> to find?!?!

Wow, needle in a haystack!

http://www.smh.com.au/world/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-why-the-black-box-locator-could-be-useless-20140326-zqmzg.html

LP

[Daryl[_3_]]

On 3/25/2014 6:51 PM, LP wrote:
> "Government Shill #2" > wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:33:05 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On 03/25/2014 11:04 AM, LP wrote:
>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/mh370-relatives-of-lost-passengers-protest-against-malaysia-live-updates
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering why all the secrecy in the first ten days, if this is the
>>>>> outcome. Why was the transponder initially turned off, if it wasn't a
>>>>> hijacking or crazy pilot suicide plot? Any ideas or theories?
>>>>
>>>> Everything I saw about the pilot didn't sell me on the suicide bit. How
>>>> about the crew struggling to fly an unfylable maybe depressurized
>>>> airplane, or passed out? Secrecy? We have NOTHING but alleged opinion,
>>>> no pieces, no bodies, no verifiable DNA, no NOTHING. I'll wait for facts
>>>> and data and until then everything stays on the table.
>>>
>>> I agree that there are more questions than answers, but I can't think of
>>> one
>>> reason to turn off the transponder if my plane is on fire, depressurized,
>>> etc.
>>
>> If the fire was in the transponder, or something effecting the power
>> supply to
>> the transponder... or the depressurisation was caused by the transponder
>> antenna
>> ripping out and leaving a hole in the fuselage...?
>>
>> There's a couple of reasons. Just tossing out some crazy ideas.
>
> Thanks for brainstorming for a reason. Seems more than we have got from the
> media. This morning on abc was all about what the ping sounded like on a
> real black box. <guffaw> Just the facts, please, if you can find them abc.
>
>> At this stage, my money is on the systems being deliberately switched of
>> by
>> person, or persons, unknown. This is based on wild eyed guesswork on my
>> part.
>
> I find it strange that it supposedly flew for over 7 hours total. With
> submarines all over the Indian Ocean, you would think they would have picked
> up the ping on the box.
>
> LP
>
>

You don't have any idea just how large the Pacific Ocean is. They could
have easily lost power or had problems with the avionics and had to pull
the circuit breakers which would turn off the IFF and locators. You not
only went dark to everyone else, you may find yourself lost over a few
hundreds of thousands of water with no land in sight. You are also over
an ocean that is something like 23,000 miles deep. The locators onboard
that still are working are dark as well after so many miles of ocean
insulates the signal.

Even if they find wreckage, that may be found hundreds or even a
thousand miles away and there is no way to track it back to the crash
sight.

There is a greater chance of not ever finding where it went down than
finding where it went down.



--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[Government Shill #2]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:52:43 -0600, Daryl > wrote:

>You are also over an ocean that is something like 23,000 miles deep.

I've told you a MILLION times, do not exaggerate!

Shill #2
--
I am so smart...S.M.R.T.
Homer J. Simpson

[Daryl[_3_]]

On 3/25/2014 9:01 PM, Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:52:43 -0600, Daryl > wrote:
>
>> You are also over an ocean that is something like 23,000 miles deep.
>
> I've told you a MILLION times, do not exaggerate!
>
> Shill #2
> --
> I am so smart...S.M.R.T.
> Homer J. Simpson
>

Change that to feet.



--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[Government Shill #2]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:03:32 -0600, Daryl > wrote:

>On 3/25/2014 9:01 PM, Government Shill #2 wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:52:43 -0600, Daryl > wrote:
>>
>>> You are also over an ocean that is something like 23,000 miles deep.
>>
>> I've told you a MILLION times, do not exaggerate!
>>
>> Shill #2
>>
>
>Change that to feet.

Got it.

Shill #2
--
Them™
Pay Section
Disinformation Directorate
Ministry of Information
Antipodean Division

[Keith Willshaw[_6_]]

On 26/03/2014 00:51, LP wrote:
> "Government Shill #2" > wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:33:05 -0500, "LP" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On 03/25/2014 11:04 AM, LP wrote:
>>>>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/25/mh370-relatives-of-lost-passengers-protest-against-malaysia-live-updates
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering why all the secrecy in the first ten days, if this is the
>>>>> outcome. Why was the transponder initially turned off, if it wasn't a
>>>>> hijacking or crazy pilot suicide plot? Any ideas or theories?
>>>>
>>>> Everything I saw about the pilot didn't sell me on the suicide bit. How
>>>> about the crew struggling to fly an unfylable maybe depressurized
>>>> airplane, or passed out? Secrecy? We have NOTHING but alleged opinion,
>>>> no pieces, no bodies, no verifiable DNA, no NOTHING. I'll wait for facts
>>>> and data and until then everything stays on the table.
>>>
>>> I agree that there are more questions than answers, but I can't think of
>>> one
>>> reason to turn off the transponder if my plane is on fire, depressurized,
>>> etc.
>>
>> If the fire was in the transponder, or something effecting the power
>> supply to
>> the transponder... or the depressurisation was caused by the transponder
>> antenna
>> ripping out and leaving a hole in the fuselage...?
>>
>> There's a couple of reasons. Just tossing out some crazy ideas.
>
> Thanks for brainstorming for a reason. Seems more than we have got from the
> media. This morning on abc was all about what the ping sounded like on a
> real black box. <guffaw> Just the facts, please, if you can find them abc.
>
>> At this stage, my money is on the systems being deliberately switched of
>> by
>> person, or persons, unknown. This is based on wild eyed guesswork on my
>> part.
>
> I find it strange that it supposedly flew for over 7 hours total. With
> submarines all over the Indian Ocean, you would think they would have picked
> up the ping on the box.
>
> LP
>
>

1) The Indian Ocean is BIG
2) Nuclear Submarines typically operate submerged with no radar working
3) DE Submarines tend to lurk around main shipping routes and also
practise EMCON

Keith

[Vaughn]

On 3/26/2014 4:37 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> 1) The Indian Ocean is BIG
> 2) Nuclear Submarines typically operate submerged with no radar working
> 3) DE Submarines tend to lurk around main shipping routes and also
> practise EMCON

Correct me if I'm wrong, but:

Listening for a "ping" is a passive operation. Simply listening
involves no emissions of any kind from the submarine. Still, given the
published 2 KM range of the black box's pinger, the chances of a
submarine blundering close enough to detect it are small given the vast
search area.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/26/2014 4:37 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> 1) The Indian Ocean is BIG
>> 2) Nuclear Submarines typically operate submerged with no radar
>> working
>> 3) DE Submarines tend to lurk around main shipping routes and also
>> practise EMCON
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
>
> Listening for a "ping" is a passive operation. Simply listening
> involves no emissions of any kind from the submarine. Still, given
> the published 2 KM range of the black box's pinger, the chances of a
> submarine blundering close enough to detect it are small given the
> vast search area.

I haven't seen whether that refers to the straight-line spherical
radius to the box or the circular radius around it on the surface. A
sub could more easily listen below the Deep Scattering Layer. However
having more than one nation's boats searching, and recording each
others' sound signatures, may not be a good idea for us.

[Keith Willshaw[_6_]]

On 26/03/2014 12:08, Vaughn wrote:
> On 3/26/2014 4:37 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> 1) The Indian Ocean is BIG
>> 2) Nuclear Submarines typically operate submerged with no radar working
>> 3) DE Submarines tend to lurk around main shipping routes and also
>> practise EMCON
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
>
> Listening for a "ping" is a passive operation. Simply listening
> involves no emissions of any kind from the submarine. Still, given the
> published 2 KM range of the black box's pinger, the chances of a
> submarine blundering close enough to detect it are small given the vast
> search area.

Especially given that the average depth of water in that area is around
4 km. Finding it will require a towed array.

Keith

[george152]

On 27/03/14 07:21, Keith Willshaw wrote:

> Especially given that the average depth of water in that area is around
> 4 km. Finding it will require a towed array.
>
> Keith

First find the debris field.
Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
It'll take time and surface ships.
Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft

[Daryl[_3_]]

On 3/26/2014 1:15 PM, george152 wrote:
> On 27/03/14 07:21, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>
>> Especially given that the average depth of water in that area is around
>> 4 km. Finding it will require a towed array.
>>
>> Keith
>
> First find the debris field.
> Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
> It'll take time and surface ships.
> Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft

The debris will have floated for about 100 miles riding the currents.
No help from that.

--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[Jeff Crowell[_6_]]

george152 wrote:
>> First find the debris field.
>> Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
>> It'll take time and surface ships.
>> Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft

Daryl wrote:
> The debris will have floated for about 100 miles riding the currents. No
> help from that.

Ocean currents are to some extent predictable and consistent in
vector. Of course it will help.

Search area goes from a bazillion square miles to hundreds.


Jeff
--
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

[Keith Willshaw[_6_]]

On 26/03/2014 20:23, Daryl wrote:
> On 3/26/2014 1:15 PM, george152 wrote:
>> On 27/03/14 07:21, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>
>>> Especially given that the average depth of water in that area is around
>>> 4 km. Finding it will require a towed array.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>
>> First find the debris field.
>> Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
>> It'll take time and surface ships.
>> Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft
>
> The debris will have floated for about 100 miles riding the currents. No
> help from that.
>

As it happens you do get some help from that. The winds and currents can
be used to estimate the position of the crash. That technique was used
to find the remains of Air France 447. They combed the likely area using
a towed sidescan sonor until they found the submerged debris field.

Keith

[Daryl[_3_]]

On 3/26/2014 3:16 PM, Jeff Crowell wrote:
> george152 wrote:
>>> First find the debris field.
>>> Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
>>> It'll take time and surface ships.
>>> Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft
>
> Daryl wrote:
>> The debris will have floated for about 100 miles riding the currents. No
>> help from that.
>
> Ocean currents are to some extent predictable and consistent in
> vector. Of course it will help.
>
> Search area goes from a bazillion square miles to hundreds.
>
>
> Jeff

Hundreds just as well be bazillion at that point.

--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[Daryl[_3_]]

On 3/26/2014 4:19 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> On 26/03/2014 20:23, Daryl wrote:
>> On 3/26/2014 1:15 PM, george152 wrote:
>>> On 27/03/14 07:21, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> Especially given that the average depth of water in that area is
>>>> around
>>>> 4 km. Finding it will require a towed array.
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>
>>> First find the debris field.
>>> Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
>>> It'll take time and surface ships.
>>> Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft
>>
>> The debris will have floated for about 100 miles riding the currents. No
>> help from that.
>>
>
> As it happens you do get some help from that. The winds and currents can
> be used to estimate the position of the crash. That technique was used
> to find the remains of Air France 447. They combed the likely area using
> a towed sidescan sonor until they found the submerged debris field.
>
> Keith

How deep was the area that 447 went down in. This one went down in one
of the deepest oceans. You pretty well have t be right on top of it to
pick up anything. And it has to be done fast before the battery runs
down on the black box. Once the battery is gone, it will never be
located unless some Scifi things creap up. Now I know that the Seaview
could probably find it.





--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[Keith Willshaw[_6_]]

On 26/03/2014 23:51, Daryl wrote:
> On 3/26/2014 4:19 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> On 26/03/2014 20:23, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2014 1:15 PM, george152 wrote:
>>>> On 27/03/14 07:21, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Especially given that the average depth of water in that area is
>>>>> around
>>>>> 4 km. Finding it will require a towed array.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>> First find the debris field.
>>>> Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
>>>> It'll take time and surface ships.
>>>> Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft
>>>
>>> The debris will have floated for about 100 miles riding the currents. No
>>> help from that.
>>>
>>
>> As it happens you do get some help from that. The winds and currents can
>> be used to estimate the position of the crash. That technique was used
>> to find the remains of Air France 447. They combed the likely area using
>> a towed sidescan sonor until they found the submerged debris field.
>>
>> Keith
>
> How deep was the area that 447 went down in.

More than 4,000 metres, it was the South Atlantic


> This one went down in one
> of the deepest oceans. You pretty well have t be right on top of it to
> pick up anything. And it has to be done fast before the battery runs
> down on the black box. Once the battery is gone, it will never be
> located unless some Scifi things creap up. Now I know that the Seaview
> could probably find it.
>

They found AF-447 in similar water depths AFTER the battery had run out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26680633

However it will certainly be harder than for AF-447 if for no other
reason than the location being so remote and if the debris is in a
topologically complex area such as a ravine they may never find it.

Keith

[Daryl[_3_]]

On 3/27/2014 3:32 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
> On 26/03/2014 23:51, Daryl wrote:
>> On 3/26/2014 4:19 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2014 20:23, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2014 1:15 PM, george152 wrote:
>>>>> On 27/03/14 07:21, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Especially given that the average depth of water in that area is
>>>>>> around
>>>>>> 4 km. Finding it will require a towed array.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keith
>>>>>
>>>>> First find the debris field.
>>>>> Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
>>>>> It'll take time and surface ships.
>>>>> Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft
>>>>
>>>> The debris will have floated for about 100 miles riding the
>>>> currents. No
>>>> help from that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As it happens you do get some help from that. The winds and currents can
>>> be used to estimate the position of the crash. That technique was used
>>> to find the remains of Air France 447. They combed the likely area using
>>> a towed sidescan sonor until they found the submerged debris field.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>
>> How deep was the area that 447 went down in.
>
> More than 4,000 metres, it was the South Atlantic
>
>
>> This one went down in one
>> of the deepest oceans. You pretty well have t be right on top of it to
>> pick up anything. And it has to be done fast before the battery runs
>> down on the black box. Once the battery is gone, it will never be
>> located unless some Scifi things creap up. Now I know that the Seaview
>> could probably find it.
>>
>
> They found AF-447 in similar water depths AFTER the battery had run out.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26680633
>
> However it will certainly be harder than for AF-447 if for no other
> reason than the location being so remote and if the debris is in a
> topologically complex area such as a ravine they may never find it.
>
> Keith
>

AF-447 is a red herring. For the most recent, the depth in KMs in that
area is over 7000 or 23,000 feet or almost 5000 feet. That's average
depth. As you stated, add in the mountainous nature it gets even more
difficult. Now, add in that pieces falling off on the way down will go
through many different thermals and water direction and using those
pieces that float will be worthless since it may have gone through many
directional water streams on it's way to the surface.

Yes, it's not impossible that they can find it. But it's highly
improbable when cost is considered. How many millions of dollars will
be spent each day until it becomes no longer financially viable. I
think they are going to hit that limit in the next few days.



--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Daryl" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/27/2014 3:32 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> On 26/03/2014 23:51, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2014 4:19 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>> On 26/03/2014 20:23, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 3/26/2014 1:15 PM, george152 wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/03/14 07:21, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially given that the average depth of water in that area
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> 4 km. Finding it will require a towed array.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keith
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First find the debris field.
>>>>>> Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
>>>>>> It'll take time and surface ships.
>>>>>> Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft
>>>>>
>>>>> The debris will have floated for about 100 miles riding the
>>>>> currents. No
>>>>> help from that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As it happens you do get some help from that. The winds and
>>>> currents can
>>>> be used to estimate the position of the crash. That technique was
>>>> used
>>>> to find the remains of Air France 447. They combed the likely
>>>> area using
>>>> a towed sidescan sonor until they found the submerged debris
>>>> field.
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>
>>> How deep was the area that 447 went down in.
>>
>> More than 4,000 metres, it was the South Atlantic
>>
>>
>>> This one went down in one
>>> of the deepest oceans. You pretty well have t be right on top of
>>> it to
>>> pick up anything. And it has to be done fast before the battery
>>> runs
>>> down on the black box. Once the battery is gone, it will never be
>>> located unless some Scifi things creap up. Now I know that the
>>> Seaview
>>> could probably find it.
>>>
>>
>> They found AF-447 in similar water depths AFTER the battery had run
>> out.
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26680633
>>
>> However it will certainly be harder than for AF-447 if for no other
>> reason than the location being so remote and if the debris is in a
>> topologically complex area such as a ravine they may never find it.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>
> AF-447 is a red herring. For the most recent, the depth in KMs in
> that area is over 7000 or 23,000 feet or almost 5000 feet. That's
> average depth. As you stated, add in the mountainous nature it gets
> even more difficult. Now, add in that pieces falling off on the way
> down will go through many different thermals and water direction and
> using those pieces that float will be worthless since it may have
> gone through many directional water streams on it's way to the
> surface.
>
> Yes, it's not impossible that they can find it. But it's highly
> improbable when cost is considered. How many millions of dollars
> will be spent each day until it becomes no longer financially
> viable. I think they are going to hit that limit in the next few
> days.

If the ships and planes have been paid for, does it -really- cost that
much extra to have them performing this task instead of another?
jsw

[Daryl[_3_]]

On 3/27/2014 4:04 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Daryl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 3/27/2014 3:32 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>> On 26/03/2014 23:51, Daryl wrote:
>>>> On 3/26/2014 4:19 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>>> On 26/03/2014 20:23, Daryl wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/26/2014 1:15 PM, george152 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/03/14 07:21, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Especially given that the average depth of water in that area
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>> 4 km. Finding it will require a towed array.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keith
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First find the debris field.
>>>>>>> Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
>>>>>>> It'll take time and surface ships.
>>>>>>> Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The debris will have floated for about 100 miles riding the
>>>>>> currents. No
>>>>>> help from that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As it happens you do get some help from that. The winds and
>>>>> currents can
>>>>> be used to estimate the position of the crash. That technique was
>>>>> used
>>>>> to find the remains of Air France 447. They combed the likely
>>>>> area using
>>>>> a towed sidescan sonor until they found the submerged debris
>>>>> field.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keith
>>>>
>>>> How deep was the area that 447 went down in.
>>>
>>> More than 4,000 metres, it was the South Atlantic
>>>
>>>
>>>> This one went down in one
>>>> of the deepest oceans. You pretty well have t be right on top of
>>>> it to
>>>> pick up anything. And it has to be done fast before the battery
>>>> runs
>>>> down on the black box. Once the battery is gone, it will never be
>>>> located unless some Scifi things creap up. Now I know that the
>>>> Seaview
>>>> could probably find it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They found AF-447 in similar water depths AFTER the battery had run
>>> out.
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26680633
>>>
>>> However it will certainly be harder than for AF-447 if for no other
>>> reason than the location being so remote and if the debris is in a
>>> topologically complex area such as a ravine they may never find it.
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>
>> AF-447 is a red herring. For the most recent, the depth in KMs in
>> that area is over 7000 or 23,000 feet or almost 5000 feet. That's
>> average depth. As you stated, add in the mountainous nature it gets
>> even more difficult. Now, add in that pieces falling off on the way
>> down will go through many different thermals and water direction and
>> using those pieces that float will be worthless since it may have
>> gone through many directional water streams on it's way to the
>> surface.
>>
>> Yes, it's not impossible that they can find it. But it's highly
>> improbable when cost is considered. How many millions of dollars
>> will be spent each day until it becomes no longer financially
>> viable. I think they are going to hit that limit in the next few
>> days.
>
> If the ships and planes have been paid for, does it -really- cost that
> much extra to have them performing this task instead of another?
> jsw
>
>

Yes, it does and the cost of fuels, personnel and wear and tear comes
into play. Also, it takes them away from their other missions.

--
Visit http://droopyvids.com for free TV and Movies. One of
the Largest Collections of Public Domain and Classic TV on
the Internet.

[Keith Willshaw[_6_]]

On 27/03/2014 21:12, Daryl wrote:
> On 3/27/2014 3:32 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> On 26/03/2014 23:51, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2014 4:19 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>> On 26/03/2014 20:23, Daryl wrote:
>>>>> On 3/26/2014 1:15 PM, george152 wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/03/14 07:21, Keith Willshaw wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Especially given that the average depth of water in that area is
>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>> 4 km. Finding it will require a towed array.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keith
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First find the debris field.
>>>>>> Then work your way back to begin scanning the ocean floor.
>>>>>> It'll take time and surface ships.
>>>>>> Nukes have other duties than looking for downed aircraft
>>>>>
>>>>> The debris will have floated for about 100 miles riding the
>>>>> currents. No
>>>>> help from that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As it happens you do get some help from that. The winds and currents
>>>> can
>>>> be used to estimate the position of the crash. That technique was used
>>>> to find the remains of Air France 447. They combed the likely area
>>>> using
>>>> a towed sidescan sonor until they found the submerged debris field.
>>>>
>>>> Keith
>>>
>>> How deep was the area that 447 went down in.
>>
>> More than 4,000 metres, it was the South Atlantic
>>
>>
>>> This one went down in one
>>> of the deepest oceans. You pretty well have t be right on top of it to
>>> pick up anything. And it has to be done fast before the battery runs
>>> down on the black box. Once the battery is gone, it will never be
>>> located unless some Scifi things creap up. Now I know that the Seaview
>>> could probably find it.
>>>
>>
>> They found AF-447 in similar water depths AFTER the battery had run out.
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26680633
>>
>> However it will certainly be harder than for AF-447 if for no other
>> reason than the location being so remote and if the debris is in a
>> topologically complex area such as a ravine they may never find it.
>>
>> Keith
>>
>
> AF-447 is a red herring. For the most recent, the depth in KMs in that
> area is over 7000 or 23,000 feet or almost 5000 feet.

This makes no sense at all.

The deepest point in the Indian Ocean is 8047 m or around 25,000 ft
the average depth is around 3890 metres or 13,000 ft which as it happens
is approx the depth of water that AF-447 lay in.


> That's average
> depth. As you stated, add in the mountainous nature it gets even more
> difficult. Now, add in that pieces falling off on the way down will go
> through many different thermals and water direction and using those
> pieces that float will be worthless since it may have gone through many
> directional water streams on it's way to the surface.
>
> Yes, it's not impossible that they can find it. But it's highly
> improbable when cost is considered. How many millions of dollars will
> be spent each day until it becomes no longer financially viable. I
> think they are going to hit that limit in the next few days.
>

Given that there is intense interest in China , Malaysia and amongst
operators of the 777 I doubt people are going to lose interest that
quickly. The search for AF-447 started in June 2009 and the wreckage was
finally found in April 2011. Its probable that the first phase will end
in the next few weeks if for no other reason that winter in the southern
ocean is fast approaching. However I would expect a similar phase II
search involving oceanographic reserach vessels to commence in the pring
or summer.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
> Given that there is intense interest in China , Malaysia and amongst
> operators of the 777 I doubt people are going to lose interest that
> quickly. The search for AF-447 started in June 2009 and the wreckage
> was finally found in April 2011. Its probable that the first phase
> will end in the next few weeks if for no other reason that winter in
> the southern ocean is fast approaching. However I would expect a
> similar phase II search involving oceanographic reserach vessels to
> commence in the pring or summer.
>
> Keith


This is the free-swimming robot submarine that found AF 447 in the the
Mid-Atlantic Ridge:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=38144
http://boingboing.net/2011/05/06/air-france-447-how-s.html
"On April 3, researchers spotted the plane's debris field, 13,000 feet
down, smack in the middle of a massive underwater mountain range."

jsw

[Jim Wilkins[_2_]]

"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>
> This is the free-swimming robot submarine that found AF 447 in the
> the Mid-Atlantic Ridge:
> http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=38144
> http://boingboing.net/2011/05/06/air-france-447-how-s.html
> "On April 3, researchers spotted the plane's debris field, 13,000
> feet down, smack in the middle of a massive underwater mountain
> range."
>
> jsw

To give you an idea of the state of the art,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider
"In November 2012, a Liquid Robotics Wave Glider autonomous underwater
glider set a Guinness World Record for "longest distance traveled on
the Earth's surface by a robot" by travelling over 14,000 kilometres
(9,000 mi) on an autonomous journey of just over one year duration."

"In August 2010, a Deep Glider variant of the Seaglider achieved a
repeated 6000-meter operating depth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberdade_class_underwater_gliders
"... and remain on station for up to six months."

jsw

[george152]

On 28/03/14 23:02, Keith Willshaw wrote:

>
> Given that there is intense interest in China , Malaysia and amongst
> operators of the 777 I doubt people are going to lose interest that
> quickly. The search for AF-447 started in June 2009 and the wreckage was
> finally found in April 2011. Its probable that the first phase will end
> in the next few weeks if for no other reason that winter in the southern
> ocean is fast approaching. However I would expect a similar phase II
> search involving oceanographic reserach vessels to commence in the pring
> or summer.
I see according to some new data that the aircraft was burning fuel at a
higher rate so they've knocked 1000 km off the distance travelled