Geoffrey Thomas of www.airlineratings.com has written a guest article on new credible evidence defining where to search for MH370. Although this area has been partly searched before, the underwater terrain is very challenging. At the 7th Anniversary of the disappearance of MH370, we send our thoughts and prayers to the Next-Of-Kin.
The article on New Credible Evidence can be viewed here
Geoffrey Thomas has written a second article in which Prof. Pattiaratchi and Blaine Gibson define the search area between 32°S and 34°S within 70 nm either side of the 7th Arc. Their analysis is based on the physical evidence of the MH370 debris finds made by Blaine Gibson and other private citizens and the accurate prediction of where those finds would be most likely made defined by the drift modelling of Prof. Pattiaratchi.
The article on Blaine Gibson’s Plea for a New Search can be viewed here
Richard- the red circle does not include 32S preference of Prof Chari and Blaine Gibson?
I’d say skip the area inside the Arc, and extend towards 30 South. Areas already searched can be skipped unless there is a need for spot checks.
The debris analysis of the spoiler is potentially highly important. If it looks like a hard crash, then debris field should be large and maybe the search should be “sampling” of a larger scope of area.
In my view, the search area should be between 30.0°S and 35.5°S with a search area of 65 nm either side of the 7th Arc. The red circle is the most likely location within this overall search area. I fully support covering the area proposed by Prof. Pattiaratchi.
We should not skip the area inside the 7th Arc to the West, although I agree it is less likely. We do not know for certain whether there was an active pilot at the end of flight or not. Without pilot input, the Boeing end of flight simulations show it is possible that MH370 spiralled back on its trajectory and crashed inside the 7th Arc to the West.
All debris analysis is important and I look forward to the new debris found in South Africa being sent to the ATSB or CAAM and their official report. There is ample evidence of a “hard crash” already, with debris items from every part of the aircraft, nose, tail, cabin, wings, engines; both large and small; both interior and exterior. There is also evidence, that debris items may have separated from the aircraft before the crash due to flutter in a high speed dive. The average weight of MH370 floating debris items reported so far was just over 5 kg, but many smaller fragments that beached were not even handed in.
The area I have recommended is 200,000 sq. km. including some areas that have been searched before. The underwater terrain in the proposed search area is very difficult with sea mounts, canyons, volcanoes, cliffs and fractures. The sea bed terrain may have moved since 2014 due to volcanic activity or mud slides and the debris partially buried requiring sub bottom profiling and search. Ocean Infinity’s fleet of AUVs is designed to cope with such challenges and carries a range of sensors to identify debris under the most difficult of conditions.
A great example of the essence of true science is when Prof. Pattiaratchi accurately predicts where MH370 floating debris items are likely to be found and Blaine Gibson and others who follow those predictions and discover a large number of debris items, many of which are subsequently confirmed to be from MH370.
In response to the publication of the article on New Credible Evidence, Geoffrey Thomas received 4 papers from Vincent Lyne, which can be found in the following links:
These papers are well presented and have been submitted to Nature. Geoffrey Thomas asked me for my opinion on the papers.
According to the theory of Vincent Lyne, the location of MH370 is at the intersection between Broken Ridge and the longitude of Penang. He states that he is “unable to explain how the thoughts of Penang, leading to a reanalysis of the sound, entered my head; I can hear it now but can’t explain how.”
Vincent Lyne challenges the fuel-starvation theory used in previous analyses. However, he clearly does not understand the BFO data at the end of flight. He falsely claims that the Doppler shift was not caused by a high rate of descent, but a turn (there is no way a turn can produce the observed Doppler shift). He also does not understand the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) deployment, which he claims was manual, rather than automatic after loss of electrical power from both engines. He claims all investigators have been led astray by the fuel starvation theory. Instead he invents an 8th Arc to fit in with his theory.
The previous underwater acoustic analysis by Alec Duncan of Curtin University was also wrong or at least incomplete. Vincent Lyne formulates a new theory of underwater acoustics and uses his newly defined Chorus Ratio to determine how the underwater acoustic data fits his new location. He also uses the theory of Geostrophy, where the pressure gradient force of an oceanic current is balanced by the Coriolis effect.
Vincent Lyne submits that there was a very careful ditching and soft landing on water similar to the Hudson River emergency landing. He contradicts the debris analysis that implies there was a catastrophic crash, resulting in a highly fragmented aircraft and possibly separation of the right wing or a number of right wing control surfaces prior to impact. He also claims that his MH370 end location fits the CSIRO drift modelling performed by David Griffin.
He concludes that MH370 flight path skirted around the JORN detection range, but he does not provide a satellite data and fuel analysis to support his speculation.
He summarises that this has been a lonely journey of analysis to understand the cryptic pathways of MH370 and he has accomplished the job assigned to him and he has carried out the task as far as he needs to go.
In my opinion, the theory of Vincent Lyne is unfortunately flawed from start to finish.
Ed Anderson has published a false accusation against me on Victor Iannello’s web site under the name 370Location.
I have requested to both Ed and Victor that the statement should please be removed from the web site:
“Lyne makes the same mistake of Godfrey and others in the past, selecting a signal from someone else’s research, and trying to use the timing to only a single hydrophone.”
I have never made such a statement.
It is rather obvious why there is an array of hydrophones.
When I met Alec Duncan on two occasions he told me the origin of the acoustic signal was most likely geological. I can’t believe people are still talking about this on the “370 and Other Investigations” blogsite. I have had no involvement there since it lost focus and branched into the alleged, now debunked, “Pennsylvania election anomalies.”
Anyone who has sailed in and flown over the Southern Indian Ocean as I have knows it is not conducive to a water landing, as is the Hudson River. The only physical evidence…the debris.. points to a retracted wingflap at separation and a high speed dive impact … not a ditching.
Looks like Ed has done the right thing and amended his original post and requested that the earlier version be withdrawn.
Indeed Ed has done the right thing and amended his original post.
Let us focus on collaborating to help solve the mystery of MH370. This is a team effort and all analysts have a contribution to make.