Slashdot Mirror


US Navy Strategists Have a Long History of Finding the Lost

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Benedict Carey reports at the NYT that the uncertainties surrounding Malaysia Airlines Flight 370's disappearance are enormous, but naval strategists have been unraveling lost-at-sea mysteries as far back as the U-boat battles of World War II, and perhaps most dramatically in 1968, when an intelligence team found the submarine Scorpion, which sank in the North Atlantic after losing contact under equally baffling circumstances. "The same approach we used with Scorpion could be applied in this case and should be," says John P. Craven who helped pioneer the use of Bayesian search techniques to locate objects lost at sea. "But you need to begin with the right people." The approach is a kind of crowdsourcing, but not one in which volunteers pored over satellite images, like they have in search of Flight 370. "That effort is akin to good Samaritans combing a forest for a lost child without knowing for certain that the child is there," writes Carey.

Instead, forecasters draw on expertise from diverse but relevant areas — in the case of finding a submarine, say, submarine command, ocean salvage, and oceanography experts, as well as physicists and engineers. Each would make an educated guess as to where the ship is, based on different scenarios: the sub was attacked; a torpedo activated onboard; a battery exploded. Craven's work was instrumental in the Navy's search for the missing hydrogen bomb that had been lost in the Mediterranean Sea, off the coast of Spain in 1966 and this is how Craven located the Scorpion. "I knew these guys and I gave probability scores to each scenario they came up with," says Craven. The men bet bottles of Chivas Regal to keep matters interesting, and after some statistical analysis, Craven zeroed in on a point about 400 miles from the Azores, near the Sargasso Sea. The sub was found about 200 yards away.

In the case of the downed Malaysian plane, forecasters might bring in climate and ocean scientists, engineers who worked on building the plane's components and commercial pilots familiar with the route. Those specialists would then make judgments based on the scenarios already discussed as possible causes for the disappearance of Flight 370: terrorism, pilot error, sudden depressurization and engine failure. Sound-detection technology in and around the Indian Ocean may aid this forecasting. The sound of the airliner's fall — if it hit the water — might already have been picked up by submarines watching each other. "In that case the information would be classified," says former submarine commander Alfred Scott McLare, "and we wouldn't know anything until it was released through back channels somehow.""

38 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. not quite as easily by slashmydots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some of the earlier "finds" referenced in this article had a lot more evidence and a lot less of a geographic area. I think right now the flight is determined without a doubt to be "somewhere in asia, maybe." It was maybe being flown by a pilot but maybe by hijackers. It was maybe flying for 0 more hours after it last checked in or maybe 5 or maybe something in the middle and at a unknown speed.
    They have about the same odds of finding it on the moon as they do at any particular geographic point with the current level of evidence. So what they need is more evidence, not just a really good search team from the Navy.

    1. Re:not quite as easily by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      They seem pretty certain now that plane flew for five to seven hours and they seem to have a very general idea of possible flight paths. The question of immediate concern was this a theft for the purposes of a mass murder of 230+ people, or to gain a large jet for some other purpose.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:not quite as easily by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, it is tricky; it sounds like they know more than they do. They talk about 2 flight paths, but actually it is a giant arc from Pakistan to Thailand to the Indian Ocean, and they don't even have a direction. Just a range from the satellite based on the signal strength, which produces an arc that it probably was in when the ping transmitted. There are 2 obvious "flight corridors" in that arc, so those are the best guesses. Sounds clearer than it is.

      Also nothing has been released about if they stopped for fuel, or if it is known. The US keeps saying they think they crashed into the sea in 1 of 2 areas, which implies that they don't know that they DID refuel; but the way they phrase the combination of statements, I think they don't have information to negate refueling, they don't have indication of it. And without refueling, and assuming it was in one of those two corridors, then it would have likely crashed.

      Also they're assuming that the fuel supply is based on having been properly fueled for a flight to Beijing, but no public information has said anything at all about having verified on the ground how much fuel was loaded, or if that can be accurately checked up on with certainty. Seems like airport corruption would have to be 0% in order for them to even know. I'm under the impression that airports in Malaysia actually have a significant corruption problem, and so it is probably impossible to go back and check in the past how much fuel was really taken on. Maximum range at maximum load for the 777-200ER is 7,725 nmi (14,310 km, 8,892 mi), a whole lot more than the 2500 nmi circles the media is drawing on the screens.

      So if they re-fueled OR if they loaded extra fuel, they could be anywhere, and the Indian Ocean flight corridor that is speculated on would lead to waypoints to the middle east. I'm guessing Iran, but it could just as easily be in Sudan or Pakistan.

    3. Re: not quite as easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seems like a good precaution... Probably more effective than the TSA.

    4. Re:not quite as easily by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure how the record-keeping works for fueling. Certainly the pilots get a copy of the loading info. I imagine that whoever paid for the fuel gets a copy of the bill if nothing else. It is important for flight crews to have a good understanding of how much fuel is onboard - level sensors tend not to be very accurate so the most accurate figures come from measuring how much goes in and out.

      If the plane has too little fuel the results are obvious. If it has too much fuel the results might not be as obvious, but it can be a big problem. Fuel is heavy - a plane needs more takeoff thrust or distance if it has more fuel, and it needs more landing distance if it lands with extra fuel (indeed, if a long-range flight has a problem right after takeoff they often end up circling or dumping fuel before landing just to shed weight). In order to maximize engine life the crew calculates the necessary takeoff thrust based on weather, weight, and runway length/slope, and programs the autopilot to deliver just that much thrust. If their weight was significantly over, they could run out of runway (especially if they had to abort at what they thought was the last possible moment - which would turn out to be too late - the crew calculates what that threshold is on every flight as well).

      They certainly could put some max limits on range. A 777 fully fueled and fully loaded (that is, every seat taken and every baggage compartment loaded to rated capacity) couldn't take off at all. Long-range flights cannot carry as much cargo as a result.

      So, based on what was in the plane they probably have a decent idea of what the range is. They probably don't know within 100 miles, but I doubt they'd be off by much more than 1000. Now, one thing the search radii doesn't reflect is winds - the effective range will be much less upwind, and much longer downwind. Obviously the max range is only achievable if the plane flies a direct route, and all that climbing/descending reduces range as well - max range can only be achieved at an optimal altitude (which starts out at one level and slowly goes up as the plane burns fuel).

    5. Re:not quite as easily by davecb · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Actually I studied Bayesian analysis under George Lasker in university (back when dinosaurs walked the earth), and it is a good way to deal with crappy, disorganized evidence. In effect, you find the ares to search, ordered by
      • - the likelihood of getting evidence from searching there
      • - the strength of each kind of evidence, and
      • - the difficulty of searching a given area.

        After each search result comes in, you recompute and find the next best place to search.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    6. Re:not quite as easily by DougF · · Score: 2

      Umm..it happened with Republic Airlines in the early 80's. I was stationed at Luke AFB, working weekend duty as the supervisor of maintenance when a Republic jet (727? I remember it had two aft engines) landed on our runway and caused one heck of a scare for our SPs and the pax on board. Turns out, the fuel totalizer was inop and the aircrew assumed the jet was full of fuel for their milk runs to/from San Diego and Phoenix. The initial flight to San Diego went OK, it was on the return leg that the problem surfaced. The low fuel light came on, and the crew did the sensible thing and looked for the nearest patch of concrete, which turned out to be Luke AFB. As they approached, number one flamed out, and on the runway number 2 flamed out. We got transient alert out there, towed them to the ramp and pushed a maintenance stand up to the door to get the pax and crew out. We took the pax to the Officer's Club, where they drank the bar dry while waiting for Republic to send a bus for them. The AF charged Republic $10K a day ramp fees plus the booze; and Republic had to verify the aircraft was repaired before we let it go, on Monday morning.

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
  2. Arcs are a lie by sshir · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Navy guys will need more data.

    Those much hyped arcs from Inmarsat are pretty much bogus. The trouble is that the problem is badly conditioned - because satellite is way too far (geosynchonous orbit - not your friendly neighborhood gps) and it's right on top of the search area. In other words - small errors in time/distance measurements, satellite position, etc. produce huge errors in estimation. They're lucky they placed the airplane on earth.

    1. Re:Arcs are a lie by olsmeister · · Score: 2

      Well that would present a problem! One would then wonder how those creative terrorists managed to get a jet engine to operate outside of an atmosphere. :)

      But seriously, wouldn't you just compare the timing of the signals received from the jetliner of interest with the timing signals received from other, less hijacked, planes and based on their more reliable locations figure out what distance 370 must have sent from?

    2. Re:Arcs are a lie by rasmusbr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, am an engeneer and a scientist.

      And considering that arcs (as presented) do not have error brackets on them is a dead giveaway that qualifications of people who did the calculations are highly suspect.

      But we haven't necessarily seen the maps that the search effort uses internally. This: http://static01.nyt.com/images... looks like someone drew it in 20 seconds in MS Paint, I'm guessing while in a hurry.

  3. Slashdot could find MH770 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We've seen maps of where MH770 could be based on the angle of last ping received from the engines. Here's one: http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/03/16/world/asia/16flight-map/16flight-map-superJumbo.jpg

    We have a Last Known Position (indicated on that map). We know how fast 777s can fly. If we had the ping arc data as shown in red on the above map for every ping received, we could determine MH770's course, and narrow down where it ended up significantly.

    The following numbers are wrong, but a concrete example is easier to follow. Say the first ping occurs 15 minutes after the Last Known Position, and we think the 777 is flying at 500 mph. Set your compass for 125 miles (scale), put the pointy end on the last known position, and draw a circle. That circle will intersect the First Ping Arc in two places (we hope). If it doesn't, we need to rethink assumptions. Anyway, the plane was in one of those positions (more or less) at the time of tyhe first ping.

    Do it again for the second ping arc. And again. Some of these potential courses will make no sense and no longer need to be followed. With any luck. though, there will emerge a Most Probably Course for the aircraft.

    It may be necessary to rerun this analysis for different speeds - if MH770 was flying low to avoid radar it would travel more slowly. Do it. Hell, throw the entire problem to a computer and let if grind out possibilities.

    Has the satellite angle data, or the location arcs at particular ping times, been released? Can it be released?

  4. I'll make it easy by frovingslosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The plane was stolen. Forget about failures that there are no reason to think happened, about explosions or mechanical failures, about suicides or searching the ocean for debris. Just figure out where a stolen 777 was taken and you'll find the plane.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:I'll make it easy by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Airplane parts without a paper trail are, more or less, worthless.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:I'll make it easy by Splab · · Score: 4, Informative

      In theory yes, in real life no. There is quite a huge black market for spare parts.

    3. Re:I'll make it easy by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the passengers however, was probably killed when they climbed to 45.000 feet

      The official service ceiling is 43,100 ft. So you can be darn sure that 45000 ft (44000 in the most detailed reports) is not going to kill anybody. You do know the cabin is pressurized, right?

      damned thing can easily be disguised as civilian traffic and can fly around the world and place it where ever they want...

      Not without turning on a transponder. And while you can obviously fly over Malaysia without one and not raise an eyebrow, getting over Western countries without a transponder might prove more difficult. Somebody doesn't just peek up from the ground and say, "ah, gee, looks civilian, let it pass." They actually see it on radar, and most countries will scramble fighters and intercept something large that doesn't have a transponder, or isn't scheduled to be in the area. They then fly close and identify markings. They fly close enough to see faces in the windows when they're doing an escort. An empty plane with no transponder is going to get shot down. So it is substantially more complicated.

      There was at least 1 fairly high level American business exec on the flight. There is significant hostage value there. If they are religious nuts they probably don't care the slightest bit what the "value" in dollars of the airplane is, they care about the propaganda value.

      If the incentive was financial, (highly unlikely) the parts value of the plane is very low, or zero, but the whole plane has significant value as an AWACS type of platform for a smaller country. And while selling parts would be problematic, buying them might not be. 30 years ago, maybe. Not now.

      If they were going to use it as a bomb, the most realistic targets would be India, or a US military base somewhere where they don't control the airspace.

    4. Re:I'll make it easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not in countries affected by trade sanctions. Iran Air kept some 727s flying forever with no access to official spare parts. Now they replaced them with some old Airbus that they got through several middle men and paid a premium for. Their pilots and mechanics are forced to be creative and figure things out with very limited access to anything official. However, one of the things I don't believe has happened to this plane is theft of the plane itself.

      There are easier ways to get an aircraft for those who have the resources to do something with it than to steal one full of passengers. I mean, sure, a pilot can take the plane he's flying and put it down somewhere else than the intended destination but what is he going to do then? And if you have the resources to get enough terrorists/mercenaries/sycophants/whatever to help you, you also certainly have the resources to charter a private jet, which is then much easier to steal like this. And the largest ones for charter with 24 hour notice are A320s and if your intention is crashing it into something, I doubt that you need anything bigger. Furthermore, the companies that offer jet charters are used to customers wanting no attention whatsoever and guarantee that everything will be completely confidential (i.e. the families of the crew do not know where their jobs take them and rarely when to expect them back). They're also used to accommodating bizarre requests by passengers. If you say you enjoy chopping wood with your ancient axe whilst flying, you just might get what you need in the cabin. Or just break a few bottles from the minibar to get weapons to subdue the crew.

    5. Re:I'll make it easy by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      In China, they'll murder you just for tax evasion. Falsifying part numbers and getting caught making China look bad almost certainly qualifies even if the part wasn't involved in an international incident. If you're going to go off to break rocks or get broken up for your internal organs anyway, who cares?

      Well, yes and no. In China the real crime is embarrassing the government. You can put whatever you want into your infant formula until a reporter actually notices all the kids dying everywhere. Then heads will literally roll.

      To an extent all countries work this way, but in China it is taken a lot further...

    6. Re: I'll make it easy by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Yup. I doubt anything bad would happen to a 777 at 45k feet. It probably would take a while to climb that high, and if it were heavily loaded it probably couldn't make it that high at all. That doesn't mean that it would fall apart of anything - the plane just would start slowing down as you tried to climb past a certain point and eventually start losing altitude or stall (not that any competent pilot would let it get that slow). If climbing on autopilot using a flight level change mode the airplane just wouldn't climb at all - the airplane would prioritize speed over climbing.

      Typically airliners on long flights will step-climb - the optimal altitude increases as it burns off fuel and the crew will command ascents every few hours. They can flight higher than the optimal altitude, but it will cost them extra fuel.

      If they were flying at 45k feet I imagine it would reduce their range considerably unless the winds were just that much more favorable (which seems unlikely).

    7. Re:I'll make it easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I typed out many different things before realizing they were all instruction manuals on how to do bad things. All I'll leave you with is that the passenger's and flight attendant's oxygen supply will run out long before the cockpit crew's, as it's only meant to be used long enough for the aircraft to perform an emergency descent to an altitude where supplemental O2 isn't necessary. And it's also possible to intentionally depressurize an airliner in-flight from the cockpit if you know which switches to flip and buttons to push. Then fly extra-high (maybe just a touch above the service ceiling on a much-lighter-than-max-gross-weight aircraft, no problem at all) and the time of useful consciousness (without supplemental O2) drops to mere seconds. The "death zone" mountain climbers talk about is above 26,000 feet, and 45,000 is certainly well above that.

    8. Re:I'll make it easy by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The most likely scenario is suicide. It's hard to imagine, but it's happened twice- SilkAir Flight 185 and EgyptAir 990. I don't think there is one case of someone stealing a commercial aircraft, just because there's no way to sell it. It's not a Honda Accord you can sell for cash or strip for parts; it's now the most famous plane in the world and you'll have as much success selling it as you would have selling a stolen Mona Lisa. And the parts have serial numbers.

      No other scenario make sense. If the plane was hijacked for a terrorist plot, it should have turned up. Plots like 9/11 rely on the element of surprise, so you need to strike as quickly as possible, instead of giving the authorities an entire week to track you down. Similarly, if the plane and passengers were taken hostage, this would have been announced by now. If your hostage-takers are politically motivated, parading hostages on TV advances their cause; if they're just after money, they need to open negotations. Either way, we should have heard .

      It all points to pilot suicide. That raises the question of why the pilot would fly on for hours instead of just nosediving into the ocean, but by definition pilot suicide isn't the act of a rational mind. It suggests not a desire to end one's own suffering but to inflict suffering on others and a complete disregard for human life- in other words, a sociopathic mindset. Eric Harris- the sociopath behind the Columbine killers- comes to mind here. He wanted to end his own life but also to take as many people as possible with him, and get as much attention as possible in it. Some careers attract this kind of person- lawyers, CEOs and surgeons are often sociopaths- and being a pilot may be one of those. You probably find that flying induces anxiety, now imagine that you not only have to worry about the anxiety of flying, but have to actually take responsibility for the safety of the airplane itself and several hundred lives... most normal people wouldn't enjoy that. Sociopaths have no anxiety, and actively enjoy control over and manipulating other people, personality characteristics that would make them a natural for the job.

    9. Re:I'll make it easy by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The plane was stolen. Forget about failures that there are no reason to think happened, about explosions or mechanical failures, about suicides or searching the ocean for debris. Just figure out where a stolen 777 was taken and you'll find the plane.

      Why would you steal a passenger aircraft carrying 230+ passengers and crew when you could steal a cargo-configured 777 or 747 with a crew of maybe 4? A passenger aircraft carries a lot more media attention: compare the coverage of the cargo 747 that crashed coming out of Bagram last year versus the plane that crashed recently in SFO. Plus, do you think all of these ships and planes looking for 370 would have been mobilized had the plane been a cargo aircraft? Probably not. To me, it seems more probable that this was a suicide by one of the pilots rather than a hijacking.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    10. Re:I'll make it easy by toddestan · · Score: 2

      While that might be true for some airplanes, I doubt there are many operators of an expensive, modern airliner like a 777 that would be interested in some parts that "fell off the back of a truck".

  5. Cause is key by tji · · Score: 2

    They mention looking at the causes "terrorism, pilot error, sudden depressurization and engine failure" to estimate likely search locations. Of course, that's true.. But, if the cause is a rogue pilot who doesn't want to be found (as evidenced by the manual disabling of communications) things get tough really quick.

    I guess at that point you're working with the fuel radius and removing areas covered by some form of tracking that would have definitely detected them.

  6. Maylasian military fucked up by nbauman · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Malaysian military radar showed an unidentified plane without a flight plan fly across their country and over the Indian Ocean. The radar operators didn't notice it. So they missed the opportunity to send up fighter jets to find out what the fuck was going on.

    Instead they were were searching the wrong sea, on the east of Malaysia.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...
    Series of Errors by Malaysia Mounts, Complicating the Task of Finding Flight 370
    By KEITH BRADSHER and MICHAEL FORSYTHE
    MARCH 15, 2014

    1. Re:Maylasian military fucked up by sadboyzz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope. That NYT piece seems to have forgotten about the initial statement from Malaysia Airlines, which said the last time of contact with flight 370 was at 2:40am:
      https://www.facebook.com/my.ma...
      That was before the Malaysian authorities went into full denial mode and claimed last contact was at 01:20am. The 02:40 time was inconsistent with their estimated "crash site" in the Gulf of Thailand, which was one of the initial sources of confusion. However, 02:40am turned out to be the exact time of last military radar contact which they were forced to confirm more than 5 days later. Additionally, there were the "small" details that two transponder systems were turned off one after another more than 10 minutes apart, and that the ACARS system was turned off before the last voice contact with the pilots.
      In order to fit all these facts into a theory of stupidity, you'd have to accept that: 1. an unidentified flying object the size of a 777 can just fly across the width of Malaysian airspace (more than 1 hour of flight time) at cruising altitude without being noticed by the Malaysian military 2. that 02:40am time from Malaysian Airline's initial statement just turned out to match the time of last military radar contact by complete coincidence 3. nobody noticed the time descrepancies between the two transponder systems turning off.
      This is clearly beyond the realm of incompetance, and can only be explained with a touch of malice. The Malaysian authorities knew from the beginning what was going on, but was more concerned with the possible liabilities and damages to their "image" resulting from a rogue pilot, than with actually finding the plane. With wanton disregard for the 239 lives on board and their relatives on the ground, they knowingly misled the international community on a wild witch hunt across the Gulf of Thailand, delaying the search for at least five crucial days, thereby eliminating any possiblity of finding survivors (if the plane had ultimately crashed), and quite possibly lowering the likelihood of finding the cockpit recorders to near zero.

    2. Re:Maylasian military fucked up by sadboyzz · · Score: 2

      Sad indeed. But it's not my fault that Malaysia Airlines chose Facebook as their official channel. Here's a non-Facebook quote if that makes you feel any better, though I suspect all non-Facebook sources are second-hand sources who themselves copied from MA's official Facebook page.. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

  7. US investigators like Southern ping arc by mdsolar · · Score: 3, Informative

    US investigators are interested in the Southern ping arc because radar installations along the Northern arc would be hard to evade though some mention is now made of traversing Myanmar on the Northern arc. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03... However, in the graphic, an envelope of 1 hour flight distance is shown for each arc. The envelopes for the North and South arcs don't overlap. In fact it looks like it would take three hours to get from one arc to the other. Drawing radii from the arc ends to the satellite position, it looks like you'd have to get to Sri Lanka before the arc ends are within an hour's travel distance. But, news reports indicate detection of hourly pings. If similar arcs are associated with the other pings, then there may never be time to jump from one arc to the other if they are never consistent with a position near Sri Lanka, so the Southern arc might be excluded on geometric grounds.

    1. Re:US investigators like Southern ping arc by malakai · · Score: 2

      I'm not positive about this, but I don't think they need to turn on 'another' transponder, they just need to change their transponder code. I'm pretty sure pilots dial in the code based on what the tower tells them to use. I don't think every transponder is guaranteed unique, and traceable.

    2. Re:US investigators like Southern ping arc by hax4bux · · Score: 2

      Mode S transponders carry more information than Mode C. It isn't just the 4 digit code that ATC assigns you.

    3. Re:US investigators like Southern ping arc by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yup. Also, I doubt that even in 3rd world nations that planes flying at that altitude would simply be ignored if they had a transponder on. They're almost certainly in controlled airspace, and that is illegal just about everywhere without a clearance, even for domestic flights. You can't just go flying over the US at 20k feet and expect ATC to ignore you just because you have a transponder on. In theory you should be challenged as soon as you enter the ADIZ, and for domestic flights depending on where you are they'll either intercept you, or just see where you land and send the police to get your tail number and ID.

    4. Re:US investigators like Southern ping arc by GumphMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The classic Mode C transponder simply blurts out the four octal digit code programmed by the flight crew (at ATC request usually) every time it is painted by a secondary radar (typically associated with a primary radar and usable over longer range that the primary). The code is associated by ATC with that flight in that control zone for that time only. A Mode S transponder carries a 24-bit globally unique ID that is registered to the particular airframe. This code is attached to the response any selective query for altitude, airspeed, heading, rates of change etc. Although it can be changed in the equipment (e.g. for maintenance reasons) this is not a normal function of flight operations. An ADS-B system actively broadcasts much of the same information as Mode S including an absolute position and the unique ID. Turning off these devices negates the presence of the unique id.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  8. Scorpion by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and perhaps most dramatically in 1968, when an intelligence team found the submarine Scorpion, which sank in the North Atlantic after losing contact under equally baffling circumstances. "The same approach we used with Scorpion could be applied in this case and should be," says John P. Craven who helped pioneer the use of Bayesian search techniques to locate objects lost at sea.

    Not so fast. The Scorpion was found because the U.S. had an extensive underwater listening array in the Atlantic (SOSUS) designed specifically to (wait for it...) locate and track submarines. Soviet submarines, but it worked equally well on U.S. submarines which were making a lot of noise - like one in its death throes from an onboard explosion and imploding as it passed crush depth. One of their first clues that something disastrous had happened was when those sounds showed up on SOSUS audio tapes.

    Yes the same methodology can (and should) be applied inn locating MH370. But we're talking about uncertainties in location and time an order or three in magnitude larger than for the Scorpion or AF447.

    1. Re:Scorpion by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Yup - explosions in the middle of the ocean at depth can travel incredible distances. In fact, at some depths the sound can travel all the way around the world. With multiple sonar stations measuring arrival times the position could be determined fairly accurately.

      A plane crash happens on the surface and there would be little other noise - probably hard to notice unless a sensor were fairly closeby. Now, the pingers in the black box probably could be picked up from a distance, but I doubt the US monitors the Indian Ocean like they did the Atlantic in the Cold War.

  9. Yeah but ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... if the plane went down over land, or landed somewhere, the US Navy is going to have a tough time finding it.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  10. Re: Sex up the headline... by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    If there was a reason to search for it, they would. There is none. The question about Flight 19 is, why did it happen, and how to prevent it? That is all understood now. You don't let some hotshot look out his window and fly by the seat of his pants guessing at unlikely locations, when his subordinates knew where they were. Finding the crashed airplanes is meaningless; the crews are all dead and there was no sensitive cargo.

  11. only where matters by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    Don't waste time speculating on a motive. It doesn't prove anything and does not find the plane.

    Don't waste time speculating on who. It is on;y speculation and does not find the plane.

    Focus on determining where the plane went, where it is and how it is being hidden. That will lead to the other answers.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  12. Want to hear a prosaic theory about MAL370 by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Almost all the conjectures have been quit exotic and very imaginative, which coincidentally keeps the interest alive and boosts TV ratings and acts as click bait.

    The delays in turning off the transponder and the data stream to the modem, flying between way points on a well known path etc might be explained by confused and disabled pilots too.

    Hypoxia can set in as little as 90 seconds of oxygen deprivation and will severely incapacitate and confuse people. Cabin pressure loss is the most common theory for hypoxia. But cabin pressure loss would deploy oxygen masks, sound alarms and the pilot would have been alert in the first few seconds to declare emergency and radio out. The captain seems to be nerd with home made flight simulator, he would have reacted correctly to oxygen masks dropping from the ceilings.

    Carbon monoxide is a way for hypoxia to set in. If there was a slow smoldering fire in the cockpit, not hot enough to trigger fire alarms it could result in incapacitated confused pilots. Again there are CO detectors, and warnings and associated with it.

    I am not sure how regularly these systems that detect cabin pressure loss and CO detectors are tested. It is quite expensive to actually deploy all those oxygen masks. So even the regular testing protocol would require the maintenance crew to disable the actual deployment of the oxygen masks and test the detection and deployment signals. They could forget to turn them back on, like the did in the Helios flight disaster I mentioned in another thread. CO detector is chemical based. They have to be replaced regularly and this is an old plane.

    Once the pilots flip switches on and off in confused state lose their consciousness completely, the plane would fly on autopilot following the way points that happened to be programmed.

    If there is foul play involved, it would be worthwhile exercise to make sure every flight plan that was file in that duration and every flight directed by the control towers in that time is legit and locate those planes. The pilot(s) could easily turn off the transponder, drop out of radar, pop back in and start using a different call sign. Without a transponder, air traffic control completely trusts the pilot to self identify the plane correctly. If the malefactors had filed a fake flight plan, the plane could change its identity mid flight without attracting attention.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  13. Two questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1 The last fix from Inmarsat gave a Line of Position (LOP) which is a very broad arc.
    They had a ping every hour, each of which should have resulted in an LOP.
        Is there a way to combine these LOP's to get a better idea of the flight path?
          (Old school marine folks would walk the old LOP's forward in time and combine them.)
            One would have to guess a direction and speed to do this which makes the logic somewhat circular.
              Still, there should be more information in the rest of the LOP's.

    2) Who benefits from all this?
            This has focused attention on the flight and not on what's happening in with Russia.
                This seems an unlikely motivation, but it is a definite consequence.
                    I certainly hope this is not the motivation behind this.