MH370 - time to think of it as a criminal act

Sodd's Law of the Ocean: hereby invoked.

“Sodd's law is a more extreme version of Murphy's law. While Murphy's law says that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong (eventually), Sod's law requires that it will always go wrong with the worst possible outcome or at the worst time.”

“I'm not absolutely certain of the facts, but I rather fancy it's Shakespeare who says that it's always just when a fellow is feeling particularly braced with things in general that Fate sneaks up behind him with the bit of lead piping.”

Having my old F.O (Murphy) reside in my flight bag for over half a century; and having cursed multiple VAAP (Voice activated Auto Pilot) for bouncing in saying stuff like; the weather's great; Gee Whiz this aircraft is going like dream; or, informing me 'we will be at the gate – on time'. Call me superstitious; but to my mind and I may add experience – 'it ain't necessarily so'. Granny called it tempting fate; Gann called it 'Fate'; some even believe it invokes the Gremlins to visit. The time to say 'that was a good job' is in the Pub afterwards.

https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/th...1d2656c36f

Why can't Bailey just STFU! Why put the Mocha's on the search? On what grounds and based on what knowledge of the technology or 'search' methodology can he possibly declare they will find MH 370? Has 'he' exclusive' information? Nah, didn't think so. I doubt he would understand the science, data or logic supporting the search; nor the money 'games' to back a Lloyd's 'open' search. The costs are phenomenal; the risk extreme, not only for the search, but to loose one of the scanning modules; or, to loose a ship and crew; or, to return to port empty handed. Bailey has naught at risk, yet even before the 'seekers' strike pay dirt – he's on the 'telly' spouting his 'expert' opinion.

[Image: D05ZtSnWoAAfBWZ.jpg]

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

Toot – bloody Toot;
Reply

Malaysia finally seals the deal on latest OI MH370 search?? -  Dodgy

Courtesy SkyNews Oz (forget Bailey he's a tosser -  Wink ):


MTF...P2  Tongue
Reply

Curiosity bump – awakened.

First coffee spent reading through much related to MH370. One 'article' lead to others (as it does) – and all that raised a question; to wit:-

Did the aircraft hit hard and 'break up' or 'gently' enough to allow a period of 'floating?  The reason I ask is that things like empty wing tanks float- even if torn off the air frame there would (probably) be air left in there at least at the tips, which could ?? have kept them afloat or partially submerged for a while. There is a huge (well big) volume of air within empty tanks and de pressurised fuselage.

So, assuming the plan was to disappear the whole aircraft without a trace (minimum damage) how long would it take to completely sink; given the volumes of air (even with the outlet valves open); and, wind and wave assisted, how far could it 'drift' from the first contact point with the wave tops?

I only ask as I can't find any 'intelligent' discussion on this topic and it has me intrigued.

“How are you going to find out about things if you don't ask questions?”

Even the dopey ones, from a farm bred idiot.

Toot – toot...
Reply

Any fracture of the fuselage, even if it did not actually break into two or more sections, lets the air out and water in rapidly. It would not float for long. However, it is almost certain that the fuselage forward of the wing box would separate, perhaps even the rear fuselage behind the wing box as well (three sections). Both halves, or all three, would fill with water in seconds.
As for the fuel tanks, even if the wings came clean off at the center section and did not rupture the tanks in a way, the separation of the engines would break the fuel feed pipes at the spar valve, which being open, would let water in and the air would rapidly escape though the tip vents. I doubt a wing would float for more than 15 minutes max.
Reply

Cheers – & thanks V: that explains the search pattern a bit more. Finding one of three or even four fair sized 'lumps' of the wreckage would provide a much smaller search area. I suppose it matters then 'how' the ditching was executed and by what method. AP on auto land or a careful hand and speed/attitude control. It is indeed a worthy puzzle. Fingers crossed for all..

Toot – toot....
Reply
Photo 

[Image: attachment.php?aid=443]


Attached Files
.jpg Aunty-1.jpg Size: 192.3 KB  Downloads: 18
Reply

Reply

The Malaysian Government put out a presser on Wednesday 3rd December 2025 saying that Ocean Infinity will resume the search for MH370 on the 30th December 2025, and would search intermittently for 55 days.

All that is a bit vague. but a plausible scenario is that Armada 86-05 (currently surveying in the Philippines) will return to Singapore and reprovision for the MH370 search.

It should then depart Singapore on 30th December 2025, and after a 15 day transit arrive in the search area on 14th January 2026.

It should then spend 27 days 'on task' search until 10th February 2026, then transit to Fremantle for reprovisioning, arriving on 15th February 2026, spending 1 day in port (16th February 2026) then departing Freemantle on 17th February and transiting for 5 days back to the search area, arriving 'on site' on the 21st February 2026.

It should then spend 28 days 'on task' searching until 21st March 2026, then a final 14 day transit back to Singapore, arriving on the 4th April 2026.
Reply

Zahari defeated Indonesian Radar by overflying Sumatra at MSA beginning with a turn near Pulau Perak 18:02 towards WITC, going feet wet to meet the first arc just offshore, thence proceeding to the FMT at MABIX 18:38 (36 minutes for 274NM = av457knGS), thence 3789S thence IGPOL.

Satrad 233 Sabang
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1isH4Ut4...sp=sharing

Satrad 234 Sibolga
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ayTnWf7...sp=sharing
Reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WH04_moD0uQ
Duration 16 minutes

The testimony of Ghyslain Wattrelos, a relative and widower of victims of MH370 Interview by Timothee Dhellemmes from Points De Vue, Le Figaro France December 5 2025

Bottom Line:

Gyslain Wattrelos:
I have two reactions.
The first reaction is that it's good that we're talking about it again, we can continue to say that we still don't have an answer, so we must continue the search. So I am very happy that the search is continuing.
My second reaction, which is unfortunately another futile effort, is that I don't believe in two seconds of these searches because, in my opinion, they're not searching in the right place, and I don't believe in these searches at all.

Timothee Dhellemmes
You expect nothing from these searches?

Gyslain Wattrelos
No, I expect nothing because they're searching where the plane didn't crash, in my opinion, once again. And you should know that these searches are based on what are called satellite data from a company called Imarsat. Okay, which claims to have tracked the plane for eight hours. Okay. First, Imarsat said so a week later. So it came much later. And since then, there are people, there are working groups, there are lots of extremely competent people who analyze this data and who will give you a crash site for the plane. And every two years, we have a different crash site, and each time, we search and we don't find it.

Timothee Dhellemmes
So, you get the impression, deep down, that the authorities are pretending to search.

Gyslain Wattrelos
Yes, absolutely.

Timothee Dhellemmes
Pretending not to know.

Gyslain Wattrelos
Absolutely.
Reply

https://x.com/Ventus_45/status/2006127399901987050
Reply

Looks like the three AUV's are now in the water.
https://x.com/Ventus_45/status/2006171842512576998
Reply

Curiosity begs questions.

Cheers for the latest V; merry Xmas & etc for the NY.

So, , ,  another 370 search launched, I wish 'em good hunting and top marks for tenacity. But; suppose they find the wreck; what then?  Is there a 'cut-off' depth for recovery of 'useful' items which may assist investigations?  I realise that 'depth' matters, but was wondering about the percentage chances of say a 'black box' retrieval. It may explain the 'how'  - but I wonder about the why? That is a head scratcher; I mean its' a hell of a statement to 'disappear' a large aircraft with 239 souls on board, without even a squeak of 'why', 'what-for' or; 'Or else'.

Suicide is mostly a solitary gig, but mass murder ain't. A cause, a reason or even a philosophy is usually a radical when folks are slaughtered, 'for the cause'; but even then, the 'reasons' or ideology forms a base for the 'argument'. But I wonder if the aircraft can ever be located until we understand the 'Why' of it.

Just back from a break, so though processor still in low gear.

Cheers – 'K'.
Reply

The first half day of the current search (in yellow)
https://x.com/Ventus_45/status/2006334018263142463
Reply

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year K and all.

Re depth, so far as I know, OI's AUV's are rated to 6,000 metres and the ROV's similar, so anything within the weight limits of the ROV's should be recoverable.

Re why, there could be many motives, but to "vanish" was central to his objective, no findie, no proof, no convictie.
Personally, I think it is a case of giving the Malaysia authorities the right royal digital salute, and they know it.
Z had a point to prove: 'I'm smarter than the lot of you incompetent corrupt imbeciles", i.e. it's a variation of 'catch me if you can' transformed into 'find me if you can'.

So far, he is winning hands down.

I am not confident it will ever be found:
(a) where the mathematicians think it is.
(b) where Malaysia is happy to have a search.

Personally, I believe that it will not be found, until the search strategist "play the man - instead of the ball", where the ball (in this case) has been, and continues to be, religiously confined to endless number crunching on suspect data. You have to wonder why that is so.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)