Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

jamesdiver · 05-09-2014 7:41am

Just wondering if the mh370 flight positions that helped them predict the current search area are available to the public? I'm talking about lat/lon and time.

Cheers,

James

Synode · 06-09-2014 12:32pm

Investigators mapping the Indian Ocean floor in search of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 have uncovered "hard objects" that appear to be inconsistent with their surroundings.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/malaysia-airlines-mh370-seabed-search-spots-unidentified-hard-094840042.html#w1n3Fx4

the_monkey · 30-09-2014 4:49pm

Synode wrote: »

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/malaysia-airlines-mh370-seabed-search-spots-unidentified-hard-094840042.html#w1n3Fx4

Seems to have led nowhere ?

What they did discover is that the area is full of volcanoes and canyons,
could be almost impossible to recover the black boxes even if they do locate them..

kippy · 30-09-2014 5:10pm

the_monkey wrote: »

Seems to have led nowhere ?

What they did discover is that the area is full of volcanoes and canyons,
could be almost impossible to recover the black boxes even if they do locate them..

Based on the article itself, the wont be able to "get a closer look" until October, so no outcome as of yet.

homerjay2005 · 30-09-2014 5:10pm

surely at this stage, at least some pieces of the plane would have surfaced somewhere?

Synode · 30-09-2014 5:11pm

They still seem sure it's the correct area

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/09/29/malaysian-airlines-mh370-search/16451559/

Duiske · 30-09-2014 5:14pm

the_monkey wrote: »

Seems to have led nowhere ?

What they did discover is that the area is full of volcanoes and canyons,
could be almost impossible to recover the black boxes even if they do locate them..

The resolution used in this mapping effort was far to low to be able to show up something as small as the wreckage of MH370, and it was not designed for that purpose. The maps will be used as guides for the unmanned submersibles. Not sure when that part of the operation is due to begin.

kippy · 30-09-2014 5:16pm

homerjay2005 wrote: »

surely at this stage, at least some pieces of the plane would have surfaced somewhere?

Again, a lot of people cannot grasp the vast area that is being talked about.
Some bits and pieces may have surfaces (they may not also, depending on how the plane entered the water) however even if pieces did surface, the area size of them and the area of ocean involved means that they may never ever be found by anyone.
Even if washed up on a shore somewhere, which may take months/years, there are vast tracts of shoreline surrounding that region which have no humans near it on a regular basis.

Mountainsandh · 30-09-2014 8:14pm

However considering the vast media coverage, any remnants found on a shore would have a great potential monetary value to the finder; so I would guess shore dwellers or visitors are more attentive to flotsam than they might ordinarily be.

Just like the Floatsies rubber ducks, there should have been at least a first batch of flotsam to reach some shore by now. The currents and gyres may not release the rest for years.

The first Floatsies were found on Alaskan shores 10 months after spilling from their container, much further from any shore than where it is estimated MH370 crashed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_Floatees
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Friendly_Floatees.png#mediaviewer/File:Friendly_Floatees.png

kippy · 30-09-2014 8:55pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

However considering the vast media coverage, any remnants found on a shore would have a great potential monetary value to the finder; so I would guess shore dwellers or visitors are more attentive to flotsam than they might ordinarily be.

Just like the Floatsies rubber ducks, there should have been at least a first batch of flotsam to reach some shore by now. The currents and gyres may not release the rest for years.

The first Floatsies were found on Alaskan shores 10 months after spilling from their container, much further from any shore than where it is estimated MH370 crashed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_Floatees
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Friendly_Floatees.png#mediaviewer/File:Friendly_Floatees.png

That's a random sample though.......
The point I am making is that:
1. We have no idea how "broken up" the wreckage may be.
2. IF some wreckage is "floating" somewhere, it may be small.
3. IF some of this reaches shore the changes of it reaching accessible shoreline where humans reside/walk etc, is slim. There are vast tracts of coasline in the world (cliff faces etc) where people simply don't go.

eatmyshorts · 01-10-2014 4:31am

kippy wrote: »

That's a random sample though.......
The point I am making is that:
1. We have no idea how "broken up" the wreckage may be.
2. IF some wreckage is "floating" somewhere, it may be small.
3. IF some of this reaches shore the changes of it reaching accessible shoreline where humans reside/walk etc, is slim. There are vast tracts of coasline in the world (cliff faces etc) where people simply don't go.

You're wasting your time trying to explain to this one, kippy. Some people just refuse to understand.

Mountainsandh · 01-10-2014 7:13am

That certainly moved the conversation along nicely Eatmyshorts.

kippy · 01-10-2014 9:31am

eatmyshorts wrote: »

You're wasting your time trying to explain to this one, kippy. Some people just refuse to understand.

Yeah, that's true.
If at this point people don't get it, they never will.

Maximus Alexander · 01-10-2014 10:45am

The Indian Ocean has a surface area of about twice that of the entire Moon, just to put things in perspective. They've narrowed it down, but it's still an area so vast that it's hard to conceive of.

Mountainsandh · 01-10-2014 6:03pm

Kippy, what am I supposed to "get" ?
That the Indian Ocean is vast ?
Ok, I get that.

Maximus the comparison is impressive, but the surface of oceans is not static, and the Pacific Ocean is larger yet again.

I am not making any wild predictions, I am simply pointing that really after 7 months, it is reasonable to expect that some flotsam may have shored, and it is also reasonable to expect that some beachcomber or shore dweller might have come across something already.
Especially given the fact that the aircraft is thought to have crashed some distance from the Western Australian shore, placing it in a more central position of the gyre at its starting point (the debris' starting point).

Alaskan coasts are not the most crowded either _I don't have time to check but it would be interesting to discover whether they are more or less populated than the Mauritian or Malagasy coasts _and duckies were found there.

It is just as reasonable to expect that some random sample of drifting debris should be recovered within months or a year, while the rest may well end up in a garbage patch.

Adopting a high and mighty attitude does not make for a great discussion, and reflects badly on posters here imo.

Arguing that the debris may not be discernible from the other abundant rubbish landing on Mauritian beaches would be a lot more convincing, and something that I can consider. Although I am still convinced that beachcombers and recyclers are now pretty well briefed in what to look for.

flanna01 · 01-10-2014 6:17pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Kippy, what am I supposed to "get" ?
That the Indian Ocean is vast ?
Ok, I get that.

Maximus the comparison is impressive, but the surface of oceans is not static, and the Pacific Ocean is larger yet again.

I am not making any wild predictions, I am simply pointing that really after 5 months, it is reasonable to expect that some flotsam may have shored, and it is also reasonable to expect that some beachcomber or shore dweller might have come across something already.
Especially given the fact that the aircraft is thought to have crashed some distance from the Western Australian shore, placing it in a more central position of the gyre at its starting point (the debris' starting point).

Alaskan coasts are not the most crowded either, I don't have time to check but it would be interesting to discover whether they are more or less populated than the Mauritian or Malagasy coasts _and duckies were found there.

It is just as reasonable to expect that some random sample of drifting debris should be recovered within months or a year, while the rest may well end up in a garbage patch.

Adopting a high and mighty attitude does not make for a great discussion, and reflects badly on posters here imo.

Arguing that the debris may not be discernible from the other abundant rubbish landing on Mauritian beaches would be a lot more convincing, and something that I can consider. Although I am still convinced that beachcombers and recyclers are now pretty well briefed in what to look for.

Excellent point, about time common sense prevailed.

Fuzzy Clam · 01-10-2014 7:00pm

Not to mention all the spotter planes which have located no debris at all.

Tenger · 01-10-2014 7:54pm

If you can't contribute to the discussion at hand then refrain from trying to appear clever on the internet by posting condescending comments.

EDIT: Not directed at kippy

kippy · 01-10-2014 8:13pm

Tenger wrote: »

If you can't contribute to the discussion at hand then refrain from trying to appear clever on the internet by posting condescending comments.

Is this directed at me?
A tad unfair if so.

Myself and others have been pointing out WHY nothing has been found "washed up" anywhere so far......

Would anyone asking this question like to put forward a better, more well formed and logical reason for nothing been washed up so far that isn't based on a conspiracy theory?
Because to me, the only reason nothing has been found so far is because of the reasons I have already outlined.

kippy · 01-10-2014 8:14pm

flanna01 wrote: »

Excellent point, about time common sense prevailed.

So why exactly do you think nothing has been found so far?

I am genuinely interested to hear why people think no "Floating" debris has been found thus far.

Mountainsandh · 01-10-2014 10:40pm

Because they might not be looking in the right place.

Statement above does not mean we're into conspiracy theories, simply that we do not 100% adhere to the assumptions made in determining the alleged crash site.

kippy · 02-10-2014 7:40am

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Because they might not be looking in the right place.

Statement above does not mean we're into conspiracy theories, simply that we do not 100% adhere to the assumptions made in determining the alleged crash site.

The comments were specificilly about debris being washed up on land.

Tenger · 02-10-2014 8:05am

And lets be fair, at this point "assumptions" are not being made about the crash location. They are using every possible bit of data they have to make a best guess on the location, facts on hand rather than assumptions are leading to this. That doesn't mean new data may lead them to another location. At the moment they have to rely on the little data that they have.

Calina · 02-10-2014 11:12am

I'd like to qualify something:

It is reasonable to expect that debris might wash up somewhere at some stage (although if it's Western Australia, it is reasonable to expect that no one might find it) but it is not reasonable to expect that it should wash up somewhere.

Seeking to put a fixed time line on it may not be based on safe assumptions however. I'm not aware that Curtis Ebbesmeyer has commented on how long it might take debris from the missing airliner to turn up and I'd be surprised if he did. There is a significant difference between knowing what sort of debris you're looking at (viz, toys, lego pieces, shoes) and this situation.

Ultimately, the extent of the debris available is heavily dependent on how the airliner crashed in the first place. High speed impact will generate more debris; slow glide to surface, I suspect, will generate far less. However, I imagine the pilots amongst us might have more correct views on that.

have2flushtwice · 02-10-2014 3:37pm

where is the satellite imagery? if I let a cow into a field that shouldn't be there, I have the dept. of agriculture onto me. surely to god the technology Is there to remap the satellites vision and tell us where the plane flew.
another few months and we will be told it flew north again.
someone knows where it is. and I say its on land. what happened to the low flying plane which was spotted off the maldive islands? was that identified? and the US military airbaseon an island in the south pacific - why is that/was that not being utilized as a base for the search? I l know where my money is.

Tenger · 02-10-2014 6:00pm

have2flushtwice wrote: »

...... and the US military airbaseon an island in the south pacific - why is that/was that not being utilized as a base for the search? I l know where my money is.

How do you know that it isn't?

Diego Garcia is one of the most secretive places in the world. Can't see the US allowing anyone access to it. Thats where they stage their B-2, B-1 and B-52 who are operating over Afghanistan and Iraq

Synode · 02-10-2014 7:55pm

Not to mention how far it is from the predicted crash site. Australia is a much better base for search operations

BlackEdelweiss · 06-10-2014 7:02am

I cant believe this thread is still going. Seriously, just give up all the useless speculating and wait for an answer. Nobody knows what happened and probably never will. Accept it.

h3000 · 06-10-2014 9:20am

^^^^^^^

KoolKid · 06-10-2014 9:28am

BlackEdelweiss wrote: »

I cant believe this thread is still going. Seriously, just give up all the useless speculating and wait for an answer. Nobody knows what happened and probably never will. Accept it.

A commercial airliner disappears, presumed crashed... People dead. There is no way they will not find out what happened . You really want people to just accept that?
If you had family or friends on that flight would you just accept it??

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

Comments