For a few dollars more.
Joe DC. “[It] seems the drift modelling is as vague as the ISAT Data in regards to defining a search area etc.
Good point Joe; the drift models are vague, as is ISAT – the paucity of ‘hard’ data is as mind boggling as the ATSB approach. But consider, the only real data we have are the pieces of aircraft and the entire SIO. The satellite data is as ‘vague’ and chancy as the ‘drift’ pattern data, but the sat/drift analysis may help refine the ‘arc’ and provide a more accurate idea of where to begin searching; now that the original ‘best guess’ search areas have been all but exhausted.
It is only a notion of my own and I could not prove it if my life depended on it but, I keep returning to it, as it teases my curiosity bump. But I feel the ocean search went in ‘too hard, too early’, with too little data; all the eggs in one basket, so to speak. There was a pressing, although not urgent need to do ‘something’. The opportunity for search and hopefully rescue was long passed; the chances of survivors being found were anorexic. There was little need to ‘rush’; but there was a need to hasten slowly.
You could not, in fairness, accuse anyone of acting incorrectly; you could however, with hindsight, say that a fairly big bet was laid on an outside chance. It was an outside chance- based on the data available at the time. Even if you take out the political expediency and public pressure, the ego’s, the self interest and all the other hoop-lah which fed, in a frenzy, on the ‘story’; strip away the drama and lunatic antics of some commentators; you still arrive at the inevitable conclusion. As Foley says; it was a “best-guess” bet and they have lost their shirts.
If you are convinced that the aircraft is indeed in the SIO; then it is time to bring together all; repeat: all known facts and data and cautiously, carefully redefine the search area. It still may not be the ‘right’ spot; but, several ‘best guess’ options, searched in the manner that the AMSA would have done it would attract a small wager from me.
If the aircraft is in the wild parts of the SIO then a proper search pattern will find it; provided they begin in the right place, based on the best possible analysis of all available ‘hard’ data and physical evidence. A large ‘ego’ dump would be a prerequisite of this process; some loss of ‘face’ would be included with that – but; if the aircraft is to be found and the reason for it’s disappearance explained and any possibility of a repeat eliminated; then that would be a small price to pay. It would be, IMO, irresponsible of the governments involved to leave this event in ‘limbo’ or as Chester would have it ‘in suspended animation’ simply to save a little face and few dollars. Air safety is touted as a ‘top priority’, is it not?
Aye well; Toot toot.
Joe DC. “[It] seems the drift modelling is as vague as the ISAT Data in regards to defining a search area etc.
Good point Joe; the drift models are vague, as is ISAT – the paucity of ‘hard’ data is as mind boggling as the ATSB approach. But consider, the only real data we have are the pieces of aircraft and the entire SIO. The satellite data is as ‘vague’ and chancy as the ‘drift’ pattern data, but the sat/drift analysis may help refine the ‘arc’ and provide a more accurate idea of where to begin searching; now that the original ‘best guess’ search areas have been all but exhausted.
It is only a notion of my own and I could not prove it if my life depended on it but, I keep returning to it, as it teases my curiosity bump. But I feel the ocean search went in ‘too hard, too early’, with too little data; all the eggs in one basket, so to speak. There was a pressing, although not urgent need to do ‘something’. The opportunity for search and hopefully rescue was long passed; the chances of survivors being found were anorexic. There was little need to ‘rush’; but there was a need to hasten slowly.
You could not, in fairness, accuse anyone of acting incorrectly; you could however, with hindsight, say that a fairly big bet was laid on an outside chance. It was an outside chance- based on the data available at the time. Even if you take out the political expediency and public pressure, the ego’s, the self interest and all the other hoop-lah which fed, in a frenzy, on the ‘story’; strip away the drama and lunatic antics of some commentators; you still arrive at the inevitable conclusion. As Foley says; it was a “best-guess” bet and they have lost their shirts.
If you are convinced that the aircraft is indeed in the SIO; then it is time to bring together all; repeat: all known facts and data and cautiously, carefully redefine the search area. It still may not be the ‘right’ spot; but, several ‘best guess’ options, searched in the manner that the AMSA would have done it would attract a small wager from me.
If the aircraft is in the wild parts of the SIO then a proper search pattern will find it; provided they begin in the right place, based on the best possible analysis of all available ‘hard’ data and physical evidence. A large ‘ego’ dump would be a prerequisite of this process; some loss of ‘face’ would be included with that – but; if the aircraft is to be found and the reason for it’s disappearance explained and any possibility of a repeat eliminated; then that would be a small price to pay. It would be, IMO, irresponsible of the governments involved to leave this event in ‘limbo’ or as Chester would have it ‘in suspended animation’ simply to save a little face and few dollars. Air safety is touted as a ‘top priority’, is it not?
Aye well; Toot toot.