More serious questions raised about the ATSB's review of MH370 data
24 April, 2022
4 min read
More questions are being raised about the ATSB's review of MH370 search data with, incredibly, the two maps in its report apparently showing different, and both incorrect, locations of Mr Richard Godfrey's proposed site of MH370 with the maps out of sync with the original search map issued in 2017.
On Friday, April 22, 2022, the Australia Transport Safety Bureau issued the report of the review of its search data by Geoscience Australia in response to Mr Godfrey’s proposed location of MH370 based on his revolutionary MH370 tracking using WSPRnet technology.
The ATSB stated that; “The Geoscience Australia report notes that it is highly unlikely that there is an aircraft debris field within the area reviewed.”
But the review only looked at 29 per cent of the requested area and the report also stated multiple times that “further data acquisition” and “additional data acquisition” are required.
Even more serious are the disturbing inconsistencies when you compare the ATSB’s report titled “The Operational Search for MH370” dated October 3, 2017, to the Geoscience report titled “MH370 Data Review – Final Report” dated March 8, 2022, with the maps of the underwater search area apparently totally out of alignment.
SEE the podcast: Flight Safety Detectives dissect the Netflix doco “Downfall”.
READ: Can the giant AN-225 fly again?
The proposed crash location 33.177°S 95.300°E has apparently moved 23.8 km further southwest on the current Geoscience maps as shown below.
A closer examination of the ATSB report also reveals the following
- The bathymetry maps from ATSB and Geoscience Australia are different.
- The latitude and longitude positions of the bathymetry maps differ.
- The position of the crash location on the bathymetry maps included in the latest Geoscience report is wrong using the latitude and longitude shown on their maps.
- The position of the crash location on the bathymetry maps included in the latest Geoscience report is wrong both in the wide-area view and the narrow area close up view with differing errors.
Get the latest news and updates straight to your inbox
No spam, no hassle, no fuss, just airline news direct to you.
By joining our newsletter, you agree to our Privacy Policy
Find us on social media
Comments
No comments yet, be the first to write one.