AUSTRALIA FINDS POSSIBLE OBJECTS LINKED TO MH370

Page 1 of 2  
AUSTRALIA FINDS POSSIBLE OBJECTS LINKED TO MH370
Australian authorities combing the Indian Ocean for missing Malaysian Airline Flight MH370 have found two objects and diverted surveillance aircraft to locate them, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said.
“The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has received information based on satellite imagery of objects possibly related to the search,” Abbott told lawmakers in parliament today. “Following specialist analysis of this satellite imagery, two possible objects related to the search have been identified.”
A Royal Australian Airforce Orion has been diverted to the area to locate the objects and three more aircraft will follow, Abbott said.
AMSA is scheduled to hold a media briefing at 3:30 p.m. Sydney time today, according to an e-mailed statement.
=========================== MH370: two objects may have been found in Australian search zone - live
* Australian prime minister announces possible findings related to search mission in Indian Ocean * Two possible objects may have been found in Indian ocean based on “credible” information * Maritime authorities to hold press conference shortly * Search area near Australia had earlier halved in size
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/20/1395285651603/8192543e-a7bb-487e-a575-9de32cbbbfc3-620x372.jpeg
Search area for the Australian search has been reduced to 300,000 square kilometres from 600,000 square kilometres
Two possible objects related to the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane have been found in the southern Indian Ocean, the Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, says.
“I would like to inform the house that new and credible information has come to light in relation to the search for Malaysia airlines flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean,” he told parliament on Thursday.
“The Australian Maritime Safety Authority has received information based on satellite imagery of objects possibly related to the search.
“Following specialist analysis of this satellite imagery, two possible objects related to the search have been identified.
“I can inform the house that a Royal Australian Air Force Orion has been diverted to attempt to locate the objects. This Orion is expected to arrive in the area at about this time. Three more aircraft will follow this Orion. They are tasked for more intensive follow-up search.
“I have spoken to my Malaysian counterpart … and informed him of these developments. I should tell the house – and we must keep this in mind – the task of locating these objects will be extremely difficult and it may turn out that they are not related to the search for flight MH370. Nevertheless, I did want to update the house on this potentially important development.”
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:53:35 PM UTC-4, Walter Cronkite wrote:

From the pics I've seen, it could be anything. Also, seems kind of hard to imagine that a 75ft section of aircraft is still floating almost 2 weeks later. They didn't find it today during daylight, so unlikely they will find it now until tomorrow and that assumes that it's still floating. The pics were from 2+ days ago too.
It's very possible though that they have better images than they are disclosing to the public.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They said they were too long to be from containers, that sometimes fall off container ships.
That's how we could make good money, if any of you want to go in with me.
We could get a ship and follow these freighters around, waiting until a container falls off and we could salvage them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

FOAD you morphin' piece of moose shit
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
> micky wrote:
>> wrote: >> >>> micky wrote: >>>> Boy is it exciting to watch a skilled juggler juggle running chain >>>> saws. He's got to be really good to do that.... >>>> >>>> But it finally occurs to me. The engine's running but the chain's >>>> not moving, is it? So the only chance of getting hurt is stubbing >>>> a finger a little by bumping it against the case or getting a >>>> little burn brushing the hot muffler against the jugger's skin, >>>> right? >>> >>> The good juggler catch the handle at the trigger and rev it up so >>> the chain is moving before tossing it up again >> >> How long does it take the chain to stop after that? Before he >> catches it again or after? >>> >>> Not for the faint of heart > >
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbMvxLRdpm0
> > Here you go, chains still spinning while being juggling, super slow motion > to prove the point
Wow. You found the perfect video. You're right, the chain is running.
Of course he added those 14 inch handles to each saw.
I think the idea is, If it spins around but the handle is not about to land in the juggler's hand, he should control himself and just not grab it, let if fall on the ground, rather than grab the moving chain.
But I can't juggle at all. I've tried tennis balls, and if I can't do them, I don't think I can do anything. Kudos to this guy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Getting back to the topic at hand:

> still floating almost 2 weeks later. I dunno about that. Commercial airplanes store their fuel in their wings. A wing from a 757 could easily be about 75 feet long and the empty fuel tanks would behave like flotation devices.
Certainly, people that know much more about it than us have taken a look at the best resolution pictures available and have decided it's worth sending out some planes for a closer look.
Satellite imagery on a clear day is excellent. But, where you have an object floating in the water it's going to be partially, if not mostly submerged, and that fact alone is going to make it's edges and hence it's shape hard to discern, and that makes any photo of it seem to be of lesser quality than it actually is.
See, what that woman in the Wal-Mart store should have done is pulled her toes out of that guy's mouth and kicked him real hard in the face. That way, the police could narrow their search to black men wearing sweaters and tan pants with blood all over their face.
--
nestork


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, March 21, 2014 2:09:18 AM UTC-4, nestork wrote:

Maybe if the wing separated from the aircraft and then somehow managed to stay intact so that it didn't fill with water. Chances of that IMO are slim.

I didn't say it wasn't worth taking a look. Of course they should go check it out, if they can find it again. Just that from the moment I heard this and saw the pics, I thought it was doubtful. Have you seen the pics? I'm not sure that it's even anything other than waves and maybe some foam. As for the pic resolution, it's not a spy satellite or something with secret resolution. It's the DigitalGlobe commericial satellite, same one used by Google Earth and the same one you can go search yourself on the Tomnod website. I'm taking bets that they never find whatever this was.

Submerged, not submerged, what you're left with is what you can see in the pic. The pics the Chinese had, whatever they were, at least it was clear that there were in fact objects there that did have defined edges, features, etc. These new pics of "objects" could be anything. And it was pretty dumb for the PM to even bring this up in front of Parliament, which the media immediately took to mean that it had more credibility than it did. The CNN folks for example were running amock with it, saying that if the PM brought it up before PM, it must have significance to the crash, etc.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 23:09:18 -0700, nestork

Come on, sealed tank of fuel? now why would anybody do that? Everyone knows that fuel is carried around like an open tumbler.
a gallon of water weighs approx 8 pounds. a gallon of fuel weighs around 6 pounds, therefore a 10,000 gallon tank full of fuel will float, slightly submerged. Don't airliners traditionally FILL their fuel tanks before taking off? I used to. It's difficult to go back later and get the fuel you left behind.

Actually better to tear your assailant's ear off. Easy to do, tends to take the fight out of the them, and definitely makes them identifiable - they are missing na ear. You have their DNA. Can even find their family and localize your search.
NEVER bite anyone, unless you're tightly holding on to them. It is well known that teeth pull out quite easily from your mouth. For example, one of the Baldwin sons did that to their mother - she bit his hand, the act of retrieving his hand removed one of her teeth. Yes, they all felt very bad about it. If they'd been in China instead of the US, the dentist could have promptly replaced the tooth and had it survive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, March 21, 2014 11:41:13 AM UTC-4, Robert Macy wrote:

The site they are searching is where the fuel would have been either almost all gone or close to it. It was 7 1/2 hours after takeoff for what was supposed to be a 6 hour flight. Even at takeoff, the plane had less than half of it's max load of fuel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader_4;3213305 Wrote:

Still, this story has had so many twists and turns, it's premature to say that anything that would shed light on the fate of that plane has been found.
And, the kicker here is that flight data recorders only record flight DATA, like heading, speed, altitude, and that sort of stuff, which is not going to explain WHY the plain appeared to intentionally veer off course and crash.
Perhaps there'll be something on the cockpit voice recorders that would shed light on whether the pilots crashed the plane, or whether or not the plane was highjacked.
Further to that story about the guy that put the ad on Craigslist for a used boat trailer in exchange for oral or anal sex. What happens if the police go to his house and find 14 used boat trailers? Could the other 13 trailers be used as evidence against him?
--
nestork

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, March 21, 2014 6:05:21 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:

It's not premature. It's a fact that as of now no wreckage from the plane has been found.

Nonsense. They record a lot more data than just that and have been extremely helpful in determining what exactly happened. For example, they record the position of the flight controls, the control surface positions,whether the autopilot was engaged etc. A simple example is we'd know a lot more about the mysterious climb to 45,000 ft, including if that did indeed happen. And if it did, was it commanded by an autopilot run amock? A fire that was slowly disabling systems? One pilot pulling back on the stick and advancing the throttles? One pilot pulling on the controls and one attempting to pull back on the stick, etc.
That type of data showed what happened to AirFrance off Brazil and Egypt Air off Cape Cod.

Yes, there may be, but they only hold the last two hours of recording, so there is a good chance the most interesting part, what happened when the plane first went off course, could very well be gone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If there's evidence of a fire on the data recorder, it would explain a lot. A fire can cause a pilot to change altitude rapidly - up to extinguish the flames, down to breathable air when it's out. It would also cause him to look for the nearest airport to make a crash landing. I think the flight data recorder has the potential to tell us a lot - if it's ever found. The Malaysians screwed the pooch long and hard enough that it's very likely the trail's gone too cold to ever find the wreckage.

Two hours of eerie silence perhaps punctuated by automatic warning signals and possibly the sounds of the plane breaking up when it hit the water.
A two hour looping recording on a 6+ hour flight won't be telling us very much except that we need a new standard for cockpit voice recorders: "they need to run for as long as the plane can with a maximum fuel load." The current mismatch is stupid and hard to understand given the amount of audio data that can be stored in a shirt pocket digital recorder.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:01:06 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

Which this plane did not do. Also the odds that a fire just happened to disable the VHF radios, the transponders, AFAIC, all the communication systems, just at the point between ATC's which is the perfect spot to go missing, yet leave the plane controllable, able to fly for 7 hours, etc are near zero.
I think the flight

I'd say maybe 20% chance at this point.

I agree. They store the recording on flash, which is exactly what's in your cheap $50 Sansa device. Hard to explain why they would not have 20 hours recording required by now. And even though the current min reqt is 2 hours, IDK why aircraft manufacturers would not have gone well beyond that long ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The idea is that what is in the mouth is robust enough to be removed easily, like fingers. Elsewhere in that post [I think] I said just reach up and tear off your assailant's ear, comes right off. The ear is just not robust enough to be inserted into an assailant's mouth, be bitten, and wih the action of pulling that ear out expect to pull out teeth with it.
I've not heard of anybody attacked with an ear. except maybe by Dumbo look-alike winners.
All in all, I would much more prefer 'defense' classes that truly teach defense, where not a single action can be interpreted as some offensive move. Best example is if mugged, throw your money one direction, run the other. Attacker goes after money. You get away.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Great, now we have 'fuel exhaustion' as a potential cause. Airline trying to save a few bucks in mpg by running light, puts in too little fuel for the trip, and voila!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 11:11:37 AM UTC-4, Robert Macy wrote:

Airline trying

No one has suggested fuel exhaustion as a cause. Only that given that we know the plane was still flying at 8:11AM, it was near it's max fuel range. Airlines never fill a plane to the max. They fill it to either required minimums or somewhat above that, depending on the airline, policies, conditions, etc. That fuel load this plane had was consistent with it's 6 hour flight to Beijing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's possible the pictures shown to the public were not the ones used.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/22/2014 11:13 AM, RobertMacy wrote:

I admittedly don't know much about satellite photos, except for looking at my house occasionally on Google Earth. If these photos from the various countries were taken at different times and different systems, could they all be looking at the same few objects? Are the various satellite systems' calibration the same? (Like could an object look one size on system A and a different size on system B, so both discoveries are actually the same object?).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, March 24, 2014 8:05:23 AM UTC-4, Lee B wrote:

It's possible they are the same. Or they could be different. No one knows. The photos from the Chinese satellite were about 75 miles away from those of the DigitalGlobe one. Also, IDK how far apart they were in time. The DG ones were about 3 days old when the possible objects were spotted. Looking at the DG ones, I'm not even convinced there is an object. What is supposed to be an object looks a lot like the rest of the surrounding sea/waves to me. Yesterday they said France has spotted something now too, I haven't seen any actual pics of what they have. So, it's anyone's guess at this point.
Last night was just unbelievable on CNN. Apparently they got a military "source" to tell them that the plane "made a sharp turn to the left at the time it went missing and flew as low as 12,000 ft". They turned that into a huge breaking news story, complete with their panel of 6 live experts and a 777 simulator. If you listened long enough, you finally figured out that the "sharp turn" didn't necessarily mean a sudden, tight, 40 deg turn. It could just mean that they meant that it was a distinct turn away from their correct course toward Beijing, ie ~90 deg to the left which we already knew. And then their reporter finally admits that all the source said about the 12000 ft, was that it was flying that low somewhere along it's route to the Straits of Malacca over the next hour.
Yet, there they are with the simulator, with that anchor idiot Don Lemon asking them to show what a max hard turn to the left would be like. How would the passengers feel, would they notice it, etc. Then he has them do the same thing with a gradual, slow turn. Then he has them do a max dive to 12000 ft. Then he has them do a gradual, slow decent to 12,000. Good grief. How dumb are these idiots? They think they have to show people what a gradual decent in a plane is like? And why speculate about the sudden plunge to 12000, when their source, even according to them, never said that? That crap went on for hours, I was watching other channels, but flipped back once in a while to see it continue.
I will say that the 777 instructor in the simulator did do one good thing. He said several times how even if he was doing a 12000 ft emergency decent, it would be easy to also be communicating with ATC, to get off an emergency mesg, all you have to do is push a button on the yoke, and he would have done so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
trader_4;3213632 Wrote:

I expect the airlines know how much fuel to put into each plane to not only make it to the destination, but also to fly to an alternate airport if necessary.
You never know when or where bad weather or a terrorist attack is going to occur, so planes have to have enough fuel on board to fly to alternate airports to land.
But, it also makes sense that they don't put more fuel on the plane than they may reasonably need. The extra weight makes the plane heavier and requires more fuel for the flight. That extra weight could be earning money for the airline as cargo capacity.
OT: Now I know that commercial aircraft fly at about 35,000 feet altitude. And I know the reason for this is that they use less fuel per mile at 35,000 feet than they do at 1000 feet. But, does anyone know why flying high is more fuel efficient? Is it simply because the thinner the air the less air resistance the engines have to overcome to push the airplane forward?
Would the same argument apply to internal combustion/propeller driven airplanes?
--
nestork

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.