So ging es mir im Übrigen auch, aber wie du schon sagtest: leider kam da nichts.Flybywire schrieb:Ich warte weiterhin auf ein Leak oder einen Whistleblower.
Ersters hatte ich nach dem Regierungswechsel in Malaysia erhofft.
Original anzeigen (0,2 MB)
Original anzeigen (0,7 MB)Many thanks for pointing out the mention of the military radar in Figure 1.1 C of the Malaysian SIR report.Quelle: https://www.mh370search.com/2021/10/11/how-can-wspr-help-find-mh370/
“The primary target (military radar) appeared to track west-northwest direction joining RNAV route N571 at waypoint VAMPI thence to 10 nm north of MEKAR (source RMAF)”.
“The primary target ended at 10 nm after MEKAR at 1822:12 UTC [0222:12 MYT] (source RMAF)”.
As you say, it is strange that the word “appeared” is used. It is also less than helpful that the radar data from the quoted source of the RMAF was not included and has not been published since. The slide shown to the NOK in Beijing was also not included in the official Malaysian report.
The DSTG publication “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370” mentions a radar data point at 18:22:12 UTC but they decided no to use the data.
“The radar data contains regular estimates of latitude, longitude and altitude at 10 second intervals from 16:42:27 to 18:01:49. A single additional latitude and longitude position was reported at 18:22:12.”
This DSTG statement is in contradiction to the slide shown to the NOK in Beijing which shows a large number of purported radar data points between 18:01:49 UTC and 18:22:12 UTC.
“The 18:22 radar observation was not used quantitatively because the latitude and longitude derived from it are likely to be less accurate at long range and the aircraft may have manoeuvred prior to 18:22. The radar observation was deemed to indicate that the aircraft did not turn between 18:02 and 18:22, but the numerical values were not used. Instead, a prior was defined at 18:01 at the penultimate radar point”.
The DTSG also note a discrepancy between the radar data point at 18:22 UTC and the Inmarsat satellite data between 18:25 UTC and 18:28 UTC.
“Also, it was observed that the range ring derived from the timing measurements at 18:25 and 18:28 are closer to the 18:02 report than predictions based on either the 18:02 filtered speed or the 18:22 filtered speed.”
In the DSTG Figure 4.3 on page 20 shows the relative positions of the 18:25 arc and the Malaysian military track based on their radar data.
You ask: “Did DSTG allow for flight paths over Sumatra after 1801?”
DSTG state: “The radar observation was deemed to indicate that the aircraft did not turn between 18:02 and 18:22”.
Instead of using what “appeared” to be the track of MH370 and a single questionable radar point where it is “deemed” to indicate MH370 did not turn between 18:02 UTC and 18:22 UTC, the Malaysian authorities only need to release the full set of raw radar data points that was used in the slide presented to the NOK in Beijing.
Dabei bezieht er sich aber nur auf die Inmarsat Daten.
Rein vom Betrachten her würde ich sagen Godfreys Route führt nur über das malaysische Festland.Zz-Jones schrieb:Mich würde jetzt brennend interessieren, ob es so ist, wie Thailand behauptete, nämlich dass sich das erfasste Flugobjekt nie in deren FIR befand.
Hast du den Blog von Godfrey gelesen?
Der einsame Blip um 18:22 soll jedoch die letzte Primärradar-Erfassung gewesen sein.
Es geht also darum, ob die Godfrey-Route mit den (angeblichen) Radar Daten in Einklang zu bringen ist.
