An acquaintance of mine, well known on this board, but who must, alas, remain nameless, says 'e and 'is mate reckon that debris might be from a yacht that capsized in 2010 during a solo round the world attempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Sunderland

AP: "So what do you think of the alien abduction theory, MM? It seems to have as much validity as any of those others mentioned here."

A lot of nutty codswallop AP, and as I have indicated before these nutty theories appear to come from those with  little  appreciation/knowledge of  science/physics   human  engineering or  psychology,  e.g P007's  evil chemtrailers operate in broad daylight, an aircraft interception conducted with an operating transponder,  or when asked to explain a single technical assertion, fails to do so.

"It seems to have as much validity as any of those others mentioned here."

From memory a few here have stated that they believe F370 has crashed, I believe it is on the seabed somewhere. Why? a mystery that will most probably never be resolved.

nɥºɾ

No news today?

Did they find the mystery bits on the satellite images yet?

update:

MH370 disappearance 'well structured and well planned'

If the objects spotted in the southern Indian Ocean prove to be part of the MH370 debris, several aviation experts claims it would almost certainly point to deliberate cockpit intervention - by either crew, pilots of passengers.

Earlier on Friday, Neil Hansford, chairman of Strategic Aviation Solutions, said he was convinced that the disappearance of flight MH370 wasn't an accident.

He says the evidence indicates the plane's crew was involved.

"I think it's been put there either by one of the crew or both, and they've picked an area where the aircraft won't be found," Hansford told morning television on Friday.

"This was a crew-related incident. It wasn't a catastrophic explosion. It wasn't hit by military ordnance."

"[The debris is] in about 10,000ft of water. In that part of the world there's currents."

"Whether it's terrorism or activism, it's certainly something that has been well structured and well planned."

Hansford also said that the level of fuel on the flight was a strong indication that it was not accidental.

"This aircraft has been positioned to where it is; it could as easily, more frighteningly, have been positioned to the centre of Australia," Hansford said.

Click Here To View Entire Article

Pine Gap ?

TA: " but I am still wondering why the black box doesn't incorporate a transponder that can't be switched off and why these things don't have a longer lasting battery."

Transponder is a device that replies to a transmitted signal from  elsewhere. In aircraft it normally refers to a radar activated unit that  would not work underwater. What is the point anyway,  if the aircraft has crashed it should emit a beacon signal , for a transponder to work you would have to "know" roughly where the aircraft was to activate the transponder

The ULB attached to the "black box" can not be turned off as it self contained.  30 day battery life could be longer,  but for a device that has a range of 2-3 km only why?

My thoughts.

ULB's  operating frequency should be lowered ( 8khz or 4Khz)  which would increase detection range to over 20km.

A serious  re-think apropos ELT design in terms of accident survival/deployment  land/sea, and  a sytem that guarantees deployment free from from any attachment to the airframe. Certainly the ELT would drift in the sea but a working one would be detected in under 30  minutes by the satellites designed to do just that.

IF.  what a strange comment from Hansford: "Hansford also said that the level of fuel on the flight was a strong indication that it was not accidental."

The fuel carried would be for the sector leg (6 hours) + diversion and emergency reserves around 8 hours endurance

" He says the evidence indicates the plane's crew was involved"  What compelling evidence would that be?.

nɥºɾ

---

@monman12 wrote:

 

IF.  what a strange comment from Hansford: "Hansford also said that the level of fuel on the flight was a strong indication that it was not accidental."

The fuel carried would be for the sector leg (6 hours) + diversion and emergency reserves around 8 hours endurance

" He says the evidence indicates the plane's crew was involved"  What compelling evidence would that be?.

nɥºɾ

 

---

I would've thought this fairly strong indication:

"Experts say the messages and conversation appeared "perfectly routine" but pointed out that two features were potentially odd.

At 1:07am, a message from the cockpit told authorities that the plane was flying at 35,000ft. This raised some eyebrows as it repeated a message delivered only six minutes earlier.

Adding to the suspicion of crew intervention, it happened just moments before the plane's ACARS signalling device sent its final message before being disabled."

I have never heard so many  ratbag statements aired on the media as on this event.

I keep hoping some of them will engage the brain before the mouth and show a bit of decency.