Missing Malaysia Airlines jet carrying 239 triggers Southeast Asia search

[Scott]

Please stay on topic and stop with the personal remarks aimed at other posters.

[Lite Beer]

Signal detected in MH370 search 'consistent' with black box

PERTH: A signal detected by a Chinese ship searching the Indian Ocean for flight MH370 is "consistent" with the type emitted from the aircraft black box, according to the Australian ex-military chief in charge of the hunt.

China's official Xinhua news agency reported Saturday that a black box detector on board the Chinese search ship had picked up a signal at a frequency of 37.5kHz.

The Underwater Acoustic Beacons on the MH370 flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder both operate at that frequency, a spokesman for Honeywell Aerospace, the manufacturers of the black boxes on board the missing plane, told AFP.

Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, head of coordination in the search, said the reported characteristics of the signal "are consistent with the aircraft black box".

A number of white objects were also sighted on the surface about 90 kilometres from the detection area, he said, according to a statement by the Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC).

However, he warned: "There is no confirmation at this stage that the signals and the objects are related to the missing aircraft."

In a statement Sunday, the JACC reiterated that the signals had not been verified.

Up to 10 military planes, two civil planes and 13 ships will scour the remote waters on Sunday, almost a month to the day since the plane carrying 239 passengers and crew disappeared on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8.

The hunt will concentrate on about 216,000 square kilometres of the Indian Ocean around 2,000 kilometres (1,200 miles) northwest of Perth.

- Cautious reception -

The Chinese search ship Haixun 01 picked up the pulse signal at about 25 degrees south latitude and 101 degrees east longitude, Xinhua said in a brief dispatch Saturday.

Australia has asked China for more information, Houston said, and was considering deploying search assets to the area.

Chinese officials also warned the signal had not yet been identified.

"Suspected pulse signal picked up by Haixun 01 has not been identified yet," the China Maritime Search and Rescue Center said on a verified microblog.

Australian Defence Minister David Johnston echoed the words of caution.

"This is not the first time we have had something that has turned out to be very disappointing," he told ABC television.

Australian and British vessels are currently involved in a round-the-clock underwater search hoping to pick up a signal from the black box, but the battery powering those emissions is nearing the end of its roughly 30-day life span.

The Ocean Shield, which is carrying a US Navy black box detector, and HMS Echo, which has a similar capability, are searching a 240-kilometre track of ocean in hopes of detecting sonic pings from the recorder.

However, progress is painstaking as vessels must move slowly to improve readings, and officials have acknowledged there is no solid evidence the plane went down in that stretch of sea.

- Unique frequency -

Anish Patel, president of US black box beacon manufacturer Dukane Seacom, said he was "highly sceptical" about the Chinese report Saturday.

"I would like to understand why not two signals -- there should be a second beacon from either the flight data recorder or the voice recorder. So if the recorders are adjacent or within reasonable proximity... they should have detected possibly two signals," he told CNN.

"So let's get some additional assets in the water so we can corroborate, before we get everyone's hopes up, before we disappoint these families one more time I think we need to corroborate."

But Charitha Pattiaratchi, a professor of coastal oceanography at the University of Western Australia, said the news was exciting.

"The 35.7 kHz is a man-made noise. There's not another noise at that frequency," he told AFP, adding that this was exactly why black box pingers were set at this frequency.

"A whale or a dolphin or rain or an underwater earthquake... they have a completely different frequency."

Earlier in Kuala Lumpur, Transport Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said Malaysia would, in line with international agreements, appoint an independent "investigator in charge" to lead an international team to probe what happened to MH370.

The team will include Australia, China, the United States, Britain and France.

Hishammuddin again declined to provide any detail from Malaysia's ongoing investigation, however, saying he remained focused on finding the plane and its black box.

Malaysian authorities believe satellite readings indicate MH370 crashed in the Indian Ocean, far off Australia's western coastline, after veering dramatically off course.

But no proof has been found that would indicate a crash site, and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has described the oceanic search as "the most difficult in human history".

Source: http://www.thephuketnews.com/signal-detected-in-mh370-search-consistent-with-black-box-45556.php

-- Phuket News 2014-04-06

[Old Croc]

Breaking News.

This morning Australian ship Ocean Shield has also detected an 'acoustic event' in the same area as the Chinese vessel.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Old Croc

[Chicog]

Ridiculous theories that Boeing or an airline having the NTSB in their pocket and won't search for the truth?

Ridiculous theories? The NTSB is noted for bowing to lobbying and political pressure rather than doing its job.

TWA800 is a prime example.

As is the DC10 cargo door I mentioned earlier.

The worst example is UA811.

If you don't agree that, even if the NTSB did an impartial report, it would not be trusted, then I think perhaps you are a little biased.

Either the Australian or UK Accident investigation boards should be given the job, neither has a dog in this fight (other than a sadly contemporary desire not to upset the Chinese, which I don't think would be much of an issue in this case).

[rabas]

Breaking News.

This morning Australian ship Ocean Shield has also detected an 'acoustic event' in the same area as the Chinese vessel.

I also read that it was in a different area 300km away.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/flight-mh370-chinese-pick-ping-ck-154339

I also read elsewhere the "second" Chinese detection was in a "different area", 2km from the first.

Here we go again with garbled news. I think they just copy from each other

then put it through a shredder to make it look different.

[3NUMBAS]

the seabed hasnt been mapped in the area for a long time and its not flat but peaks and troughs so wont be easy says the experts

[3NUMBAS]

Signals on a frequency of 37.5 kilohertz were detected two kilometers apart by the Chinese ship.

Authorities say an Australian vessel, the Ocean Shield, several hundred kilometers away and carrying a sophisticated U.S. Navy pinger locator, also heard a faint signal on the same frequency. It is to listen for more underwater sounds at its current location before heading to the spot where the Chinese patrol ship's hydrophone detected something.

A British Royal Navy vessel, the HMS Echo, last week detected a similar signal that turned out to be false.

The batteries for the locator beacon of the missing plane's black box are due to run out at any time.

http://www.voanews.com/content/china-missing-plane/1887281.html

[Cobragold]

Taken from a Malaysian forum.

http://youtu.be/jpKot27qbyw

[boomerangutang]

Now is when we need Bob Ballard. He and his ship/crew found the Titanic, and the USS Enterprise in the Pacific, and they found the Bismark. He's to finding sunken ships, what Red Adair is to capping flaming oil wells. Get the best man for the job. Go get 'em Bob. ....and pay him handsomely, Malaysia.

[P45Mustang]

Taken from a Malaysian forum.

http://youtu.be/jpKot27qbyw

So if the passengers are alive, what's the motive?

I wouldn't necessarily discount military intervention at some point however.

Military intervention and the passengers still being alive is far too big a stretch of the imagination.

More likely that if military action was involved it was either to prevent an incident or destruction of any potentially incriminating information.

[Chicog]

That poor woman is delusional.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[P45Mustang]

Maybe she is hanging on to the Diego Garcia theory or something similar.

Understandable if one is personally involved.

[canman]

Now is when we need Bob Ballard. He and his ship/crew found the Titanic, and the USS Enterprise in the Pacific, and they found the Bismark. He's to finding sunken ships, what Red Adair is to capping flaming oil wells. Get the best man for the job. Go get 'em Bob. ....and pay him handsomely, Malaysia.

Not sure why you think Bob would be the man. He had a fairly defined seach area looking for the Titanic and frankly got lucky, assuming he did not have data available to anyone else. Not taking anything away from him, Bob was at a point in history where technology had advanced to a stage and he is a great saleman and he got those searches financed, it was a great achievment. Woods hole and similar entities simply do not have the funding or can afford the tech to do the job.

One area where private enterprise is better than the US and any other state sponsered entity is subsea exploration.

Doing a search of the seabed at those depths with sufficent bin size to identify a known object size on the seabed is now known tech and can be conducted by several puplic companies. Indeed the US and other nations engage those public companies to perform subsea tasks for them on a suprisingly regular basis.

[F430murci]

Ridiculous theories that Boeing or an airline having the NTSB in their pocket and won't search for the truth?

Ridiculous theories? The NTSB is noted for bowing to lobbying and political pressure rather than doing its job.

TWA800 is a prime example.

As is the DC10 cargo door I mentioned earlier.

The worst example is UA811.

If you don't agree that, even if the NTSB did an impartial report, it would not be trusted, then I think perhaps you are a little biased.

Either the Australian or UK Accident investigation boards should be given the job, neither has a dog in this fight (other than a sadly contemporary desire not to upset the Chinese, which I don't think would be much of an issue in this case).

The NRSB found against Boeing on design issues in 800.

DC10 was McDonnell Douglas (your original comment edited out was Boeing had NTSB in its pocket). NTSB, however, found design flaw in cargo door against McDonnell Douglas.

In UA81, NTSB found design flaws.

So where is the evidence you suggest that NTSB is in Boeing's pocket and never finds causes of incidents or never makes findings against Boeing?

NTSB found problems and identified causes in your examples. Are they perfect? No. They, however, literally rebuild planes out of millions of tiny pieces to find causes and are the best at what they do.

Just more irrantional anti US or anti every other government hysteria seen throughout this entire thread. Sure, lets have some board that rarely investigates accidents investigate instead if the best because some people are paranoid or believe everything is a conspiracy.

Edited April 6, 2014 by F430murci

[Chicog]

Oh don't be so sensitive, I'm not waving flags here, merely being objective. The NTSB is not truly independent, especially in this case, and it's in their interest to hand it off to a reputable alternative.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[P45Mustang]

Oh don't be so sensitive, I'm not waving flags here, merely being objective. The NTSB is not truly independent, especially in this case, and it's in their interest to hand it off to a reputable alternative.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I hear you chic. Not necessarily in total agreement.

But why 'especially in this case'?

[Chicog]

One word: Boeing.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[F430murci]

Oh don't be so sensitive, I'm not waving flags here, merely being objective. The NTSB is not truly independent, especially in this case, and it's in their interest to hand it off to a reputable alternative.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sensitive. I spoke facts. You speak subjective beliefs driven by something other than objective facts. I don't care if NTSB is from Pluto. They are the best. I don't care about Boeing. I would sue them in a heartbeat if I had a case against them.

I am all for letting Boeing burn and get hit hard if there was a design flaw at issue here.

Nevertheless, I am sure this will be a joint effort and a joint investigation and everything will be alright as far as the investigation is concerned. All boards will likely have access to data and can perform analysis..

Edited April 6, 2014 by F430murci

[impulse]

Now is when we need Bob Ballard. He and his ship/crew found the Titanic, and the USS Enterprise in the Pacific, and they found the Bismark. He's to finding sunken ships, what Red Adair is to capping flaming oil wells. Get the best man for the job. Go get 'em Bob. ....and pay him handsomely, Malaysia.

Not sure why you think Bob would be the man. He had a fairly defined seach area looking for the Titanic and frankly got lucky, assuming he did not have data available to anyone else. Not taking anything away from him, Bob was at a point in history where technology had advanced to a stage and he is a great saleman and he got those searches financed, it was a great achievment. Woods hole and similar entities simply do not have the funding or can afford the tech to do the job.

One area where private enterprise is better than the US and any other state sponsered entity is subsea exploration.

You're forgetting that the US Navy funded his search for the Titanic in the time left over after he found a lost nuclear submarine for them. And that the vast majority of the search technology was developed by (and for) the militaries of the world and then adapted for commercial use.

I'm pretty sure what we don't know about the US or UK Navy's abilities in subsea exploration for man made objects would dwarf what a Shell, BP, Chevron or their contractors could bring to the party. If I want to find oil below the seabed, or look for some junk lost in a known location, like falling off a platform, they're the ones I'd call.

If I want to find a man made object somewhere "out yonder", the Navy gets the nod. But that assumes they actually want to find it, and they don't have any motive for delaying the find while someone sanitizes the location. (Yes, I'm an unapologetic wingnut conspiracy theorist with regards to TWA 800- and that will never change with the data that's out there).

Edited April 6, 2014 by impulse

[Chicog]

Oh don't be so sensitive, I'm not waving flags here, merely being objective. The NTSB is not truly independent, especially in this case, and it's in their interest to hand it off to a reputable alternative.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sensitive. I spoke facts. You speak subjective beliefs driven by something other than objective facts. I don't care if NTSB is from Pluto. They are the best. I don't care about Boeing. I would sue them in a heartbeat if I had a case against them.

I am all for letting Boeing burn and get hit hard if there was a design flaw at issue here.

If you'd read properly about UA811 I wouldn't mind, but you clearly have not. It was one victims' parents sheer tenacity that ultimately forced the NTSB to admit a Boeing defect was at fault.

Sitting there squealing 'USA! USA!' does not constitute 'fact'.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited April 6, 2014 by Chicog

[P45Mustang]

Pure conjecture, and shoot me down in flames if I am proven wrong.

I do NOT think this was mechanical failure.

The world's most mysterious plane disappearance to date and the Boeing 777 safety record do NOT stack up.

[F430murci]

Oh don't be so sensitive, I'm not waving flags here, merely being objective. The NTSB is not truly independent, especially in this case, and it's in their interest to hand it off to a reputable alternative.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sensitive. I spoke facts. You speak subjective beliefs driven by something other than objective facts. I don't care if NTSB is from Pluto. They are the best. I don't care about Boeing. I would sue them in a heartbeat if I had a case against them.

I am all for letting Boeing burn and get hit hard if there was a design flaw at issue here.

If you'd read properly about UA811 I wouldn't mind, but you clearly have not. It was the sole victims' parents sheer tenacity that ultimately forced the NTSB to admit a Boeing defect was at fault.

Sitting there squealing 'USA! USA!' does not constitute 'fact'.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I believe it was finding the door a year later and examination of that door and not some personal investigation by a family member. I remember this incident fairly well.

----------

Before the recovery of the cargo door, the Safety Board believed that the door locking mechanisms had sustained damage in service prior to the accident flight to the extent that the door could have been closed and appeared to have been locked, when in fact the door was not fully latched. This belief was expressed in the report and was supported by the evidence available at the time. However, upon examination of the door, the damage to the locking mechanism did not support this hypothesis. Rather, the evidence indicated that the latch cams had been back-driven from the closed position after into a nearly open position after the door had been closed and locked. The latch cams had been driven into the lock sectors that deformed so that they failed to prevent the back driving.

Thus, as a result of the recovery and examination of the cargo door, the Safety Board's original analysis and probable cause have been modified. This report incorporates these changes and supersedes NTSB/AAR-90/01.

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/aar9202.html

Edited April 6, 2014 by F430murci

[Chicog]

P45 I agree but it will be an issue of contention if the NTSB is given the ball.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited April 6, 2014 by Chicog

[P45Mustang]

2 points.

1. NTSB is US Federal Agency. What is standard investigational procedure for international incidents like this one? Malaysian plane flying from KL to PRC nowhere near US air space.

2. Who would investigate if the plane had been an Illyushin for example?

[F430murci]

P45 I agree but it will be an issue of contention if the NTSB is given the ball.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Some will never be satisfied no matter what just as some will apparently believe that Chinese dumped a box full of parts and the boxes into the ocean if boxes are found off of Perrh. The world cannot reshape its principles and compromise important task because of the outliers who will never be satisfied.

[P45Mustang]

P45 I agree but it will be an issue of contention if the NTSB is given the ball.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Some will never be satisfied no matter what just as some will apparently believe that Chinese dumped a box full of parts and the boxes into the ocean if boxes are found off of Perrh. The world cannot reshape its principles and compromise important task because of the outliers who will never be satisfied.

Notwithstanding cynicism, what I wonder are the answers to my 2 questions in the above post?

[canman]

Now is when we need Bob Ballard. He and his ship/crew found the Titanic, and the USS Enterprise in the Pacific, and they found the Bismark. He's to finding sunken ships, what Red Adair is to capping flaming oil wells. Get the best man for the job. Go get 'em Bob. ....and pay him handsomely, Malaysia.

Not sure why you think Bob would be the man. He had a fairly defined seach area looking for the Titanic and frankly got lucky, assuming he did not have data available to anyone else. Not taking anything away from him, Bob was at a point in history where technology had advanced to a stage and he is a great saleman and he got those searches financed, it was a great achievment. Woods hole and similar entities simply do not have the funding or can afford the tech to do the job.

One area where private enterprise is better than the US and any other state sponsered entity is subsea exploration.

You're forgetting that the US Navy funded his search for the Titanic in the time left over after he found a lost nuclear submarine for them. And that the vast majority of the search technology was developed by (and for) the militaries of the world and then adapted for commercial use.

I'm pretty sure what we don't know about the US or UK Navy's abilities in subsea exploration for man made objects would dwarf what a Shell, BP, Chevron or their contractors could bring to the party. If I want to find oil below the seabed, or look for some junk lost in a known location, like falling off a platform, they're the ones I'd call.

If I want to find a man made object somewhere "out yonder", the Navy gets the nod. But that assumes they actually want to find it, and they don't have any motive for delaying the find while someone sanitizes the location.

Yes the thesher and bismark were found, again because the tech evolved at the right time to do so and the USN contracted a private company. BB was in the right place at the right time. Nothing wrong with that, he is a good man manager but also a singularly driven glory hound.

We are straying off topic here but.... You are partilaly correct; shell, bp, chevron or statoil nor any other oil companies have the technology nor are they interested in any thing other then funding promising tech to benefit oil exploration and development.

Think Howard Hughs and the glomar explorer; The US has always relied on private high tech for deep sea tech. I can tell you it has not changed.

[F430murci]

2 points.

1. NTSB is US Federal Agency. What is standard investigational procedure for international incidents like this one? Malaysian plane flying from KL to PRC nowhere near US air space.

2. Who would investigate if the plane had been an Illyushin for example?

(1) Malaysia would have been responsible for lead in investigation, but did they not request assistance from NTSB and FAA or from other countries. Resources are just not there otherwise.

(2). Are you making a funny. Russian aviation safety is not too good and they don't really do a great job investigating incidents in their own country. In short, they really don't care and good luck suing their airlines.

[P45Mustang]

Now is when we need Bob Ballard. He and his ship/crew found the Titanic, and the USS Enterprise in the Pacific, and they found the Bismark. He's to finding sunken ships, what Red Adair is to capping flaming oil wells. Get the best man for the job. Go get 'em Bob. ....and pay him handsomely, Malaysia.

Not sure why you think Bob would be the man. He had a fairly defined seach area looking for the Titanic and frankly got lucky, assuming he did not have data available to anyone else. Not taking anything away from him, Bob was at a point in history where technology had advanced to a stage and he is a great saleman and he got those searches financed, it was a great achievment. Woods hole and similar entities simply do not have the funding or can afford the tech to do the job.

One area where private enterprise is better than the US and any other state sponsered entity is subsea exploration.

You're forgetting that the US Navy funded his search for the Titanic in the time left over after he found a lost nuclear submarine for them. And that the vast majority of the search technology was developed by (and for) the militaries of the world and then adapted for commercial use.

I'm pretty sure what we don't know about the US or UK Navy's abilities in subsea exploration for man made objects would dwarf what a Shell, BP, Chevron or their contractors could bring to the party. If I want to find oil below the seabed, or look for some junk lost in a known location, like falling off a platform, they're the ones I'd call.

If I want to find a man made object somewhere "out yonder", the Navy gets the nod. But that assumes they actually want to find it, and they don't have any motive for delaying the find while someone sanitizes the location.

Yes the thesher and bismark were found, again because the tech evolved at the right time to do so and the USN contracted a private company. BB was in the right place at the right time. Nothing wrong with that, he is a good man manager but also a singularly driven glory hound.

We are straying off topic here but.... You are partilaly correct; shell, bp, chevron or statoil nor any other oil companies have the technology nor are they interested in any thing other then funding promising tech to benefit oil exploration and development.

Think Howard Hughs and the glomar explorer; The US has always relied on private high tech for deep sea tech. I can tell you it has not changed.

Fine.

Who opens the black box and does the analysis IF they find it?

[Chicog]

P45 I agree but it will be an issue of contention if the NTSB is given the ball.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Some will never be satisfied no matter what just as some will apparently believe that Chinese dumped a box full of parts and the boxes into the ocean if boxes are found off of Perrh. The world cannot reshape its principles and compromise important task because of the outliers who will never be satisfied.

Agreed, but the AAIB will be seen as being more impartial and they are just as capable.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app