![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/201...a-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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Underwater, pt 5 - Malaysia 03.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman[_3_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 31st 09 02:03 PM |
Underwater, pt 5 - Malaysia 02.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman[_3_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 31st 09 02:03 PM |
Underwater, pt 5 - Malaysia 01.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman[_3_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | August 31st 09 02:03 PM |
helicopters Malaysia 5 - sibuhelo5.jpg (1/1) | urbanwriter | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 10th 06 05:21 AM |