Concerning that excellent report (that I’ve read), I still have some interrogation that puzzle me:
– If they consider in their hypothesis that flight was at a cte alt for the cruise pattern it only means that they understand that the plane was on an “alt hold” regime, probablywith auto-pilot on from start.
Cruise regime impart a parabolic profile with the weight of the plane going down, the plane climb until it reaches an other equilibrium btw weight, lift, drag and speed.
– Why didn’t they cross checked the hydrophonic data recorded with that of the search patterns ? I understand that both patterns doesn’t match but hydropnonic records varies greatly with temp and density. As sea bed mapping was lacking in precision in this zone, this lack of knowledge shld have compensate for the drift of the zone where an “event” was recorded.
– Manual phone calls have generated two points of data that are now useful for the search. Wouldn’t it be interesting to recommend this being practiced in the future for the sake of latter forensic search ?
– The report mentions teh search for noise of a fuselage implosion but if the fuselage have been breached (in-flight fire, decompression, explosion, crash at sea which remains parts of the most plausible hypothesis), there is no implosion. Water fills gradually the fuselage and there is a pressure equilibrium. It’s hard to think that the plane went at sea with a full hull integrity. This is not a ship heavily loaded. This is a light aluminium structure optimized for internal volume.
Sign In
