ATSB

Considerations on defining the search area 26 May 2014 MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas 26 June 2014

MH370 press conference by Australian Deputy Prime Minister 27 June 2014
ATSB Blog Cautious optimism in search for MH370 where the questions are too awkward to continue answering and comments no longer approved since 17th July???

7 Responses to ATSB

  1. Profile photo of Marc Marc says:

    Subsequent Comment Submitted 30 July

    In your reply you state this was not part of the DPM presentation. How on earth is that possible? It was live!
    So what actually was a part of the media briefing?
    The whole PR exercise was so orchestrated that I find it hard to believe that a stupid error as you claim can occur!

    RADAR DATA
    Inmarsat claimed on the 24 March that a radar track turning near North of the Andamans is how they have excluded the Northern option.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhRO-0Lx_kQ

    If, as you are denying that the radar track shown is part of ATSB information, then why have you not presented the radar evidence that Inmarsat claim discounts the northern route – someone is lying and there are probably over 1000 direct victims of this tragedy being mislead.

    1 – Is there further radar evidence as claimed by Inmarsat.
    2 – If there is additional radar data why has this not been made publicly available and why is there not a last position and COG and SOG, as it is so critical in the assumptions of the calculated flight paths.
    3 – If there is further radar data available has it been suppressed as it does not fit the ping rings?
    4 – If there is not further radar data available why did Inmarsat lie about it and,
    4a – Why is there no effort going into the Northern options.
    (BFO cannot be used to eliminate the Northern route)

  2. Profile photo of Marc Marc says:

    News Conference of the Australian Deputy Prime Minister, again omission, contradiction and assumption, however it really brings out the lack of co-operation between authorities and each party doing their own thing!
    So omissions first (This is new stuff that I have not found anywhere – so please correct me if I am wrong if anyone has found this elsewhere as previously published data and this was not included in yesterdays fact sheet released by JACC/ATSB);
    Screenshot from conference (app 6minutes 25 seconeds to 6:33);
    1 – Attempts to connect mobile service? This shows rational behaviour if you have no working communications on the plane. How has this been established? What is the source of this information?

    2 – Reappearance on radar. Whose radar and what was SOG and COG at the point this contact was lost and why is there no last fix and time given when it was again lost from radar ?

    Contradiction next:
    Look at the flight path shown from the radar previously. Note location and heading of plane. The next picture is then zooming out from their conference a few seconds later

    This shows a different heading! Now look at the ping rings from yesterday’s report.

    The 18:25 ping ring intersect with the track shown in the picture more or less above the word plane in the white box! Yet if you listen to the answer given on autopilot around 9 minutes into the conference the assumption is made that autopilot was in use from first to seventh ping rings on a great circle route (10min43sec) yet at 12min45 he contradicts himself saying from the second arc. So what is it? because in yesterdays report the results are sensitive to inputs of which these are massive differences for the suggested tracks on which they are basing their search on!
    I take my hat off with their PR attempts, but listen to the early response about radar and auto pilot information, and the response on a possible flight simulator track – totally irrelevant as that is being dealt with by Malaysian authorities! How on earth is anyone ever going to find this plane?
    This abstract from the forum highlights many aspects that have a direct impact on your financial future, as well as your survival!

  3. Profile photo of Marc Marc says:

    MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Areas 26 June 2014

    What is clear is that there is a huge amount of almost unbelievable assumptions that have been made in what appears to be a report trying to justify BFO which is aimed at eliminating the possibility of a Northern route!

    The most glaringly obvious one being a contradiction!
    On Page 18 it says ” BFO was used to estimate the speed and direction the aircraft was travelling relative to the satellite.” Great so this crucial information can be calculated scientifically………
    But no this is not the case! On page 24 ” For a given relative motion, there are many combinations of aircraft speed and heading that will produce the correct frequency change (BFO). There is however a limited range of speeds at which an aircraft can operate and therefore the number of feasible speed/direction solutions is limited (Figure 23).” If you read BFO validation page 29 ” This simulation was able to prove definitively that the BFO value is influenced by the location, speed and heading of the aircraft.”, none of which are known, “assuming a single turn followed by a predominantly straight track”. and then go onto the assumptions made for the three Analyses.
    Analysis A ” Speed and heading modelled by a process18 in which values may drift over time but tend to revert to a fixed (unknown) nominal value”,
    Analysis B: ” Heading changes allowed at each arc crossing” and in
    Analysis C add on ” Groundspeed can change at each arc crossing”

    Talk about fixing inputs to try fit factual data! So really anything and everything is possible with this unscientific approach.

    This really appears a case of no idea but need to be seen to be doing something, especially considering the wealth of information as a percentage of the report is “justifying” BFO, and in the small print on page 57 ” They illustrate the sensitivity of the BFO frequency calculation to heading and latitude errors, showing that the calculation works and that it is reasonably sensitive to errors in aircraft location and heading.” Wow – what a get out clause!

    So Kate’s sighting would actually give considerable weight to the Southern option as opposed to the Northern route as it occurred after the last known fix and heading at 18:22, From my cruising the net discounting the Northern route I think I understand why there is so much disagreement about this! I have no doubt they knew this anyway as pointed out in post 579 Malaysia says there’s sealed evidence on MH370 that cannot be made public , and would offer a simple logical explanation of the lights, buoy and unusaul behaviour of the ship detailed in post 495 and Kate’s previous recollections
    If this is the case considering there are probably over 1000 relatives that lost loved ones why not just state this publically at the time!

    From this it is highly probable that really MH370 could be anywhere on the Southern portion of the 7th ping ring, within its fuel range of its last known position, which factually would be the last ACARS transmission at 17:06 as that includes fuel data, where using best efficiency to determine range the intersect of that circle with the last ping ring will give the extremes of the last contact! This most likely could be narrowed down further by recalculating from the last fix at 18:22 based on the average speed it did to that point of some 400 knots. If there is further radar data described as I suspect in the previous paragraph then this would be able to be narrowed down even further, and as even our GPS logs SOG and COG it could be verified that if there was an engine fire which is the simplest explanation of why Kate saw the orange glow the most probable location on the 7 ping ring could be narrowed down even further, as Stewart so far appears to be the only one who has used the facts to date to look for plausible solutions, rather than manipulating data to suit assumptions

Leave a Reply