-------- In message <53f8060b.7020...@leikhim.com>, Joe Leikhim writes:
>I applaud those applying their rather extensive math skills at >this problem, but from the outside, it appears to me that the problem >is so very complex (error prone) and so many assumptions are being >applied, that folks time would be better spent scouring the beaches >for flotsam from the aircraft to wash up. It's certainly a big problem that we're in tan(almost_ninety) territory. As for debris on beaches, not so much. There's a gyre in the Indian ocean which is likely to trap a lot of it. >It still bothers me that with all the space, ocean and ground based >radar, sonar and imaging sensors, there is so little trace of the >aircraft's travels that night. The earth is pretty damn vast and not a lot of people loiter in the indian ocean on the off-chance that a plane is going to ditch. A very big uncertainty in relation to electronic tracking is that it is pretty trivial to spoof another plane, and it has previously been done by two planes carrying out a rendez-vouz and swapping squawk and other identifiers over international water. As far as I can tell, that would not work with the Inmarsat transponder without physically swapping the radio modules. Given the hour-long "off" period that could have happened, but it would have been so much easier to just enable the squawk. If they did a rendez-vous with a co-conspirator plane, took over their squawk code, turned off livery-lights and followed the prefiled flightplan, MH370 could fly unchallenged by all airforces all the way to the Black Sea along the norther route. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.