'Contact lost' with Malaysia Airlines plane

About 'homing in' on the signal, i am sure that is not possible without many passes at different angles to then pin point it.
 
koolpc said:
About 'homing in' on the signal, i am sure that is not possible without many passes at different angles to then pin point it.
Click to expand...

If they're picking it up (although the Aussies i think were picking something up well beyond the range of what the Chinese signal would be), that alone allows them to narrow the potential search area down massively, as I think the signal will only travel a few miles.

To get an accurate fix they'd need to triangulate, preferable with multiple ships picking up the same signal, or the one ship taking multiple readings (preferably with some form or directional receiver), but any signal if it's real helps massively.

This of course assumes that the equipment the Chinese are using isn't just picking something similar up, and being too basic isn't letting them filter it out (I think they're using shallow water divers gear which isn't intended for deep water use or to allow examination of the original incoming signal).
 
Finally some hope as the Australian vessel Ocean Shield has acquired a signal twice, once for more than two hours, the second for about 13 minutes. The pinger returns are said to be consistent with transmissions from a black box.
 
7sh2.jpg
 
Good news indeed, it seems. Still, we wait with the ever present nagging that it's something else, and like the debris, that something else will never be disclosed.
 
OceanShield detected signal "consistent" with blackboxes, heard for 2 hours 20 minutes... turned around, heard for 13 minutes, 2 pinger returns were audible.. "Probably best information we have had... treat this information cautiously and responsibly..." "haven't found the aircraft yet, need further confirmation" "Many steps before this can be positively verified"... "fix location, before lowering Bluefin 21 into the water and attempt to locate wreckage on the sea floor."
"Approx depth of 4500m"... limit of capability for autonomous underwater vehicle. "It could take some days before the information is available to establish whether this information can be confirmed". "In very deep oceanic water, nothing happens fast"

CNN report news conference tonight Middle Eastern time.
 
Jokester said:
From what I've seen on the news, the Chinese are just using a microphone taped to the end of a wooden stick!
Click to expand...

Still seems to have worked better than the Royal Navys pathetic efforts!:rolleyes:

In all seriousness finally we seem to have some good news. Hopefully they can triangulate you its location before the batteries die.
 
Catanonia said:
Named after they guy that invented them.
Click to expand...

Dr. David Warren ?

They are called "The Black box" because that is what they are. They were first used in 1960 in Australia and the Engineers refereed to them as the "Black Box"....

They came about after the Comet crashes.

While a modern-day black box is painted bright orange to help investigators find them, early versions were painted black, and the name stuck.
Click to expand...
 
MOOGLEYS said:
Dr. David Warren ?

They are called "The Black box" because that is what they are. They were first used in 1960 in Australia and the Engineers refereed to them as the "Black Box"....

They came about after the Comet crashes.
Click to expand...

yup, my bad, getting my references mixed up.
 
Has anyone read into the Rothchild's connection to the missing flight?

Slight tin foil hat stuff BUT it does sound feasible
 
kPATm said:
Has anyone read into the Rothchild's connection to the missing flight?

Slight tin foil hat stuff BUT it does sound feasible
Click to expand...

I think somebody mentioned it about fifty pages back. IIRC it fell down because the names on the patent didn't appear on the passenger manifest. I don't think it's tin foil hat to imagine that a business might act criminally to protect its future revenue, nominally on behalf of the shareholders.
 
Tuppy_Glossop said:
I think somebody mentioned it about fifty pages back. IIRC it fell down because the names on the patent didn't appear on the passenger manifest. I don't think it's tin foil hat to imagine that a business might act criminally to protect its future revenue, nominally on behalf of the shareholders.
Click to expand...

I think it's tin foil for a large multi national company to purposely shoot down and airplane and kill 200 odd people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom