Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

The reason of course is that the science is very solid. The time for the signals to reach the Satellite matched exactly to an aircraft along the Southern Corridor, hence the Northern Corridor was ruled out.

It's not just Inmarsat decree. Boeing and a good number of countries also accept the science and so does the IIT which will include the known facts in their report which will soon be released for people who don't know what they are talking about to look at.

Yes the world is really going to buy the Inmarsat Hijack Theory. They are a company that makes Billions from the Airline Industry, Boeing and Airbus.

Science is solid when it is REAL SCIENCE, not part real part pseudo science.
You personally don't understand one iota of what Inmarsat did.
Start from here and when you get passed the point where you can really understand what you could ever get from REAL science we talk again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

[Paphitis]

why would he do that?...if he wanted to commit suicide why not just nose dive and get it over and done with instead of ditching it?...this doesn't make sense

We know water ditchings are potentially survivable but require some skill. Pilots are at least trained on what to do in the event of a water ditching. This could be in the classroom, going through the procedure in a simulator and in some cases Pilots are trained in advance Water Survival even.

For example, you could be made to escape from a Huey Shell that was rotated upside down and dunked into a tank in darkness whilst seated and strapped in to a seat. You will have to find the exit, open the door and swim to the surface in darkness. You work it out by feeling where your air bubbles are going which could be down, up or sideways in your disorientation.

Other training is sea survival, swim tests in warm and cold water (hypothermia) and being left out at sea for a few days with some water and rations. Flight Training could involve very low flying. The lowest is 20 -100 FT above the waves. You could even be below the crest of some pretty big waves. It can be scary and very Dangerous. We could also practice forced ditchings from 1000FT down to 100FT before Going Around.

It is possible that whoever was in control at that point wanted to survive and take his or her chances in one of the life rafts.

At least one of the Pilots of MH370 was militarily trained.

[Paphitis]

The reason of course is that the science is very solid. The time for the signals to reach the Satellite matched exactly to an aircraft along the Southern Corridor, hence the Northern Corridor was ruled out.

It's not just Inmarsat decree. Boeing and a good number of countries also accept the science and so does the IIT which will include the known facts in their report which will soon be released for people who don't know what they are talking about to look at.

Yes the world is really going to buy the Inmarsat Hijack Theory. They are a company that makes Billions from the Airline Industry, Boeing and Airbus.

Science is solid when it is REAL SCIENCE, not part real part pseudo science.
You personally don't understand one iota of what Inmarsat did.
Start from here and when you get passed the point where you can really understand what you could ever get from REAL science we talk again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

Yes of course the keyboard warriors are all out telling us about the real science!

[Kikapu]

What's this has to do with anything I don't know.

True.

The JACC is using AF447 as an example of how difficult this search is. They are also deploying the same equipment and technology that helped find AF447 after 2 years of searching.

There are rumours within the industry that the IIT will use another incident in 2005 where another aircraft had disappeared from radar due to a ADIRU failure. The only problem is this aircraft stayed on course and landed at its destination.

I already explained what AF447 has to do with MH370. The experts in the JACC are not wrong and they are experts whereas you are an IDIOT!

So let's get this straight. We can either listen to Angus Houston who was a RAAF pilot for 40 years and Chief of Defence or Australia's top military leader, or a lemon cake baker who reads Woman's Weekly like you!

I'm sorry, but you or anyone else cannot use AF447 as an example in trying to explain the difficulties faced with investigators searching for MH370, because they need to FIRST find the wreckage of MH370 BEFORE they can set a forecast how long it might take them to find the Black Boxes of MH370, as in the case of AF447. By trying to use AF447 as an example prematurely, would lead someone with some common sense to suspect that the investigators of the MH370 are trying to buy more time to find the wreckage of flight MH370, let alone the Black Boxes of the MH370, by 2 years to be exact. They are shamelessly using one tragedy to cover up their screw-up in another. It's quite disgusting in fact.

Well I am and not only this, but the IIT is actually using AF447 and citing this as another example to justify one of the confirmed impending findings.

They also had difficulty finding AF447. The search took 2 years and as a result, the IIT are calling on regulators to review aircraft tracking systems such as Underwater Locator beacons and Electronic Locator Beacons.

There are parallels you are just too stubborn to see past your nose.

Furthermore, they are not using AF447 to forecast how long it will take them to find MH370. They are aware that it could take a lot longer but then again, it could be found within a month because the search still continues in the vicinity of the 4 detections and they. If anything, they are saying that the search is a lot more difficult for MH370, and that is the truth. To begin with they never even hard a start point and the aircraft was flown thousands of kms away from its planned track and if you can't understand the difficulties that this poses, then I really can't help you.

Also, even if they do find wreckage, then it is not going to be much hope nearly 2 months after the event. it is likely, that any wreckage will be thousands of kms away from the crash site and that is not going to help the IIT much. They are better off guesstimating using proper scientific Aircraft Performance Analysis and continue with the hard task of surveying the ocean floor.

Ane even if they do find debris, you are going to accuse them of planting the evidence!

For the last time, it did not take 2 years to find the wreckage of AF447. They knew where it was because they found the debris floating in just ONLY few days along with about 20 bodies, including the captains'. At this point MH370 has ZERO relevance to AF447 because thus far no debris or wreckage has been found. Don't confuse floating debris with wreckage at the bottom of the sea. Any MH370 debris found now will have ZERO help in locating the wreckage at the bottom of the sea. If the aircraft sank without breaking up first, then it could be anywhere at the bottom of the sea, “gliding” under the water very slowly for miles until finding it’s resting point.

Of course every accident examined for the purpose of improving airline safety is welcomed and lessons learnt from AF447 are valuable, even if they had not been implemented, like why haven't they already started sending data from the Black Boxes live to satellites for information to be stored on land rather than looking for Black Boxes of AF447 for 2 years at great cost?

I have a question for you, Paphitis. Do the Black Boxes send ping signals ALL the time when the plane is in normal use, or is it activated when the unit's main power supply is cut off and the batteries take over as in the case of a crash? The reason I ask is, if the plane did sink intact, at what point would the Black Boxes start sending ping signals? Is it upon contact with water or if on land, upon when the main power source is cut off?

As for your YouTube video on the model used for ditching, it really does not help how the B-777 would have acted under same conditions, because the module used was something similar to military cargo transporter C-17, which has a flat bottom that is designed in landing on dirt runways, has a high wings unlike the B-777, even though most of the time the engines did get ripped off, and last but not least, the C-17 has a "T" shape tail, which the water did not come close to even getting it wet, unlike the horizontal stabilizers on a B-777 would be in the water along with the wings, which would play a major role in how the whole aircraft would react once making contact with water.

The pilot would have greater chance of ditching the plane at the best possible conditions when under power, but if he was gliding for the ditching, then that would be a whole different ball game altogether. And since we were told that the plane had used more fuel that believed and the search area was moved about 600 miles further north, then one can ONLY deduce from that, that the plane run out of fuel, and that's assuming that the person at the controls would want to stay alive and try and save the plane by making a “Hudson River” landing. But lets say that he did make a perfect intact landing to save himself, then logic would indicate that he would then bail out of the plane by taking the life raft attached to the door and cast himself off from the plane, taking into the account that everyone aboard were dead before the ditching. Then the question arises, as to why no emergency signals such as the EPIRPs were sent from the floating raft when contact is made with water. You see my friend, whichever way you turn, it only raises more questions.

[Pyrpolizer]

The reason of course is that the science is very solid. The time for the signals to reach the Satellite matched exactly to an aircraft along the Southern Corridor, hence the Northern Corridor was ruled out.

It's not just Inmarsat decree. Boeing and a good number of countries also accept the science and so does the IIT which will include the known facts in their report which will soon be released for people who don't know what they are talking about to look at.

Yes the world is really going to buy the Inmarsat Hijack Theory. They are a company that makes Billions from the Airline Industry, Boeing and Airbus.

Science is solid when it is REAL SCIENCE, not part real part pseudo science.
You personally don't understand one iota of what Inmarsat did.
Start from here and when you get passed the point where you can really understand what you could ever get from REAL science we talk again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

Yes of course the keyboard warriors are all out telling us about the real science!

You shouldn't laugh at things you don't understand.
Here's how the Doppler effect can be used upto the point it is EXACT and REAL science. If you have questions feel free to ask.



I

[Paphitis]

For the last time, it did not take 2 years to find the wreckage of AF447. They knew where it was because they found the debris floating in just ONLY few days along with about 20 bodies, including the captains'. At this point MH370 has ZERO relevance to AF447 because thus far no debris or wreckage has been found. Don't confuse floating debris with wreckage at the bottom of the sea. Any MH370 debris found now will have ZERO help in locating the wreckage at the bottom of the sea. If the aircraft sank without breaking up first, then it could be anywhere at the bottom of the sea, “gliding” under the water very slowly for miles until finding it’s resting point.

Of course every accident examined for the purpose of improving airline safety is welcomed and lessons learnt from AF447 are valuable, even if they had not been implemented, like why haven't they already started sending data from the Black Boxes live to satellites for information to be stored on land rather than looking for Black Boxes of AF447 for 2 years at great cost?

I have a question for you, Paphitis. Do the Black Boxes send ping signals ALL the time when the plane is in normal use, or is it activated when the unit's main power supply is cut off and the batteries take over as in the case of a crash? The reason I ask is, if the plane did sink intact, at what point would the Black Boxes start sending ping signals? Is it upon contact with water or if on land, upon when the main power source is cut off?

As for your YouTube video on the model used for ditching, it really does not help how the B-777 would have acted under same conditions, because the module used was something similar to military cargo transporter C-17, which has a flat bottom that is designed in landing on dirt runways, has a high wings unlike the B-777, even though most of the time the engines did get ripped off, and last but not least, the C-17 has a "T" shape tail, which the water did not come close to even getting it wet, unlike the horizontal stabilizers on a B-777 would be in the water along with the wings, which would play a major role in how the whole aircraft would react once making contact with water.

The pilot would have greater chance of ditching the plane at the best possible conditions when under power, but if he was gliding for the ditching, then that would be a whole different ball game altogether. And since we were told that the plane had used more fuel that believed and the search area was moved about 600 miles further north, then one can ONLY deduce from that, that the plane run out of fuel, and that's assuming that the person at the controls would want to stay alive and try and save the plane by making a “Hudson River” landing. But lets say that he did make a perfect intact landing to save himself, then logic would indicate that he would then bail out of the plane by taking the life raft attached to the door and cast himself off from the plane, taking into the account that everyone aboard were dead before the ditching. Then the question arises, as to why no emergency signals such as the EPIRPs were sent from the floating raft when contact is made with water. You see my friend, whichever way you turn, it only raises more questions.

Kikapu,

I suggest you do your research!

[Paphitis]

Underwater search
On 5 June 2009, the French nuclear submarine Émeraude was dispatched to the crash zone, arriving in the area on the 10th. Its mission was to assist in the search for the missing flight recorders or "black-boxes" which might be located at great depth.[96] The submarine would use its sonar to listen for the ultrasonic signal emitted by the black boxes' "pingers",[97] covering 13 sq mi (34 km2) a day. The Émeraude was to work with the mini-sub Nautile, which can descend to the ocean floor. The French submarines would be aided by two U.S. underwater audio devices capable of picking up signals at a depth of 20,000 ft (6,100 m).[98]

Following the end of the search for bodies, the search continued for the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder, the so-called "black boxes". French Bureau d'Enquetes et d'Analyses (BEA) chief Paul-Louis Arslanian said that he was not optimistic about finding them since they might have been under as much as 3,000 m (9,800 ft) of water and the terrain under this portion of the ocean was very rugged.[99] Investigators were hoping to find the aircraft's lower aft section, since that was where the recorders were located.[100] Although France had never recovered a flight recorder from such depths,[99] there was precedent for such an operation: in 1988, an independent contractor recovered the cockpit voice recorder of South African Airways Flight 295 from a depth of 4,900 m (16,100 ft) in a search area of between 80 and 250 square nautical miles (270 and 860 km2).[101][102] The Air France flight recorders were fitted with water-activated acoustic underwater locator beacons or "pingers", which should have remained active for at least 30 days, giving searchers that much time to locate the origin of the signals.[103]

France requested two "towed pinger locator hydrophones" from the United States Navy to help find the aircraft.[71] The French nuclear submarine and two French-contracted ships (the Fairmount Expedition and the Fairmount Glacier, towing the U.S. Navy listening devices) trawled a search area with a radius of 80 kilometres (50 mi), centred on the airplane's last known position.[104][105] By mid July, recovery of the black boxes had still not been announced. The finite beacon battery life meant that, as the time since the crash elapsed, the likelihood of location diminished.[106] In late July, the search for the black boxes entered its second phase, with a French research vessel resuming the search using a towed sonar array.[107] The second phase of the search ended on 20 August without finding wreckage within a 75 km (47 mi) radius of the last position, as reported at 02:10.[108]

The third phase of the search for the recorders lasted from 2 April until 24 May 2010,[109][110][111] and was conducted by two ships, the Anne Candies and the Seabed Worker. The Anne Candies towed a U.S. Navy sonar array, while the Seabed Worker operated three robot submarines AUV ABYSS (a REMUS AUV type).[109][112][113][114] Air France and Airbus jointly funded the third phase of the search.[115][116] The search covered an area of 6,300 square kilometres (2,400 sq mi), mostly to the north and north-west of the aircraft's last known position.[109][113][117] The search area had been drawn up by oceanographers from France, Russia, Britain and the United States combining data on the location of floating bodies and wreckage, and currents in the mid-Atlantic in the days immediately after the crash.[118][118][119] A smaller area to the south-west was also searched, based on a re-analysis of sonar recordings made by Émeraude the previous year.[120][121] The third phase of the search ended on 24 May 2010 without any success, though the BEA says that the search 'nearly' covered the whole area drawn up by investigators.[122]

2011 search and recovery
In July 2010, the US-based search consultancy Metron had been engaged to draw up a probability map of where to focus the search, based on prior probabilities from flight data and local condition reports, combined with the results from the previous searches. The Metron team used what it described as "classic" Bayesian search methods, an approach that had previously been successful in the search for the submarine USS Scorpion and SS Central America. Phase 4 of the search operation started close to the aircraft's last known position, which was identified by the Metron study as being the most likely resting place of flight 447.[123][124]

Source: Wikipedia

[Paphitis]

The reason of course is that the science is very solid. The time for the signals to reach the Satellite matched exactly to an aircraft along the Southern Corridor, hence the Northern Corridor was ruled out.

It's not just Inmarsat decree. Boeing and a good number of countries also accept the science and so does the IIT which will include the known facts in their report which will soon be released for people who don't know what they are talking about to look at.

Yes the world is really going to buy the Inmarsat Hijack Theory. They are a company that makes Billions from the Airline Industry, Boeing and Airbus.

Science is solid when it is REAL SCIENCE, not part real part pseudo science.
You personally don't understand one iota of what Inmarsat did.
Start from here and when you get passed the point where you can really understand what you could ever get from REAL science we talk again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

Yes of course the keyboard warriors are all out telling us about the real science!

You shouldn't laugh at things you don't understand.
Here's how the Doppler effect can be used upto the point it is EXACT and REAL science. If you have questions feel free to ask.



I

Oh please do explain.

They actually measured the time it took for the signal to reach the satellite, compared it to other aircraft and worked out an approximate distance from the Satellite.

Sound simple enough for you!

[Paphitis]

Kikapu,

to answer your question there are actually 2 different devices and they work differently. You have Emergency Locator Transmitters which are the same as EPIRB and their signals are tracked by a constellation of SAR Satellites. These do not work underwater. They are manually set off or when there is an inertia trigger such as a major deceleration or crash.

Then you have Underwater Locator Beacons which are activated by inertia or when they detect water. These have to be detected by hydrophone. These are the devices that were detected underwater.

[Pyrpolizer]

The reason of course is that the science is very solid. The time for the signals to reach the Satellite matched exactly to an aircraft along the Southern Corridor, hence the Northern Corridor was ruled out.

It's not just Inmarsat decree. Boeing and a good number of countries also accept the science and so does the IIT which will include the known facts in their report which will soon be released for people who don't know what they are talking about to look at.

Yes the world is really going to buy the Inmarsat Hijack Theory. They are a company that makes Billions from the Airline Industry, Boeing and Airbus.

Science is solid when it is REAL SCIENCE, not part real part pseudo science.
You personally don't understand one iota of what Inmarsat did.
Start from here and when you get passed the point where you can really understand what you could ever get from REAL science we talk again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

Yes of course the keyboard warriors are all out telling us about the real science!

You shouldn't laugh at things you don't understand.
Here's how the Doppler effect can be used upto the point it is EXACT and REAL science. If you have questions feel free to ask.



I

Oh please do explain.

They actually measured the time it took for the signal to reach the satellite, compared it to other aircraft and worked out an approximate distance from the Satellite.

Sound simple enough for you!

You don't know what you are talking about. We are talking for times at the speed of light here do your maths to see how much time is needed to reach just what 30 Km away. Light travels at 300,000 km/sec. Not even the fastest hardware in the world can write sequencial data at log files such miniscule time intervals.Let aside the fact that log files DO NOT record data at such time accuracy.

And yes here's the explanation of the ONLY 2 possible things you gan get from the Doppler effect. a)SPEED OF THE OBJECT relative to the receiver b) DIRECTION OF TRAVEL of the object relative to the receiver. Actually 2 directions for each ping. e.g +30degrees, -30 degrees.

Now here's the same image based as before turned by 180 degrees. Final positions look like those of Inmarsat don't they?
Can you AT LEAST spot the PARADOX?