Кстати в Википедии пишут, что какие-то подозрительные сигналы гидрофоны этой же системы все же зарегистрировали.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 "Impact event[edit] If Flight 370 had impacted the ocean hard, resulting underwater sounds could have been detected by hydrophones, given favourable circumstances.[18]:40[248][249] Sound waves can travel long distances in the ocean, but sounds that travel best are those that are reflected into the 'deep sound channel' usually found between 600–1200 m beneath the surface. Most of the sound generated by an aircraft impacting the ocean would travel straight down to the seabed, making it unlikely that any of these sounds would be reflected into the deep sound channel unless the seabed sloped. Sounds from pieces of the aircraft imploding at depth would be more likely to travel in the deep sound channel. "The combination of circumstances necessary to allow [detection of an ocean impact] would have to be very particular," according to Mark Prior, a seismic-acoustic specialist at the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, who also explains that "given the continuing uncertainty regarding the fate of MH370, underwater acoustic data still has the possibility of adding something to the search."[249] When an Airbus A330 hit the Atlantic Ocean at speed of 152 kn (282 km/h; 175 mph), no data relating to the impact was detected in hydroacoustic recordings, even when analysed after the location of that aircraft was known.[249][250] As with the analysis of the Inmarsat satellite data, the hydroacoustic analysis uses the data in a way very different from that originally intended.[250]
External media Images Graphics produced by the Curtin University research team Audio Audio recording of the suspect acoustic signature The Australian Transport Safety Bureau requested the Curtin University Centre for Marine Science and Technology (CMST) analyse these signals.[18]:40 Scientists from the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization & Geoscience Australia have also been involved with the analysis. Available sources of hydroacoustic data were:[18]:40,47[248][249][250]
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CNTBTO), which operates a system of sensors to detect nuclear tests as part of their mission to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Data was analyzed from CNTBTO hydrophones located south-west of Cape Leeuwin, Western Australia (HA01) and in the northern Indian Ocean. These stations have two hydrophones each, separated by several kilometers, allowing a bearing to be calculated for the source of noise to within 0.5°.
The CMST researchers believe that the most likely explanation of the hydroacoustic data is that they come from the same event, but unrelated to Flight 370.[18]:47 They note that "the characteristics of the [event's acoustic signals] are not unusual, it is only their arrival time and to some extent the direction from which they came that make them of interest."[18]:47 If the data relates to the same event, related to Flight 370, but the arc derived from analysis of the aircraft's satellite transmission is incorrect, then the most likely place to look for the aircraft would be along a line from HA01 at a bearing of 301.6° until that line reaches the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge (approximately 2.3°S, 73.7°E). In the latter possibility, if the acoustic recordings are from the impact of the aircraft with the ocean, they likely came from a location where water is less than 2000 m deep and the seabed slopes downwards towards the east or southeast; if they came from debris imploding at depth, the source location along this line is much less certain.[18]:47 The lead researcher of the CMST team, Dr.Alec Duncan, believes there's a slim chance—perhaps as low as 10 percent—that the acoustic event is related to Flight 370.[251]"
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-09-27 05:33 pm (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370
"Impact event[edit]
If Flight 370 had impacted the ocean hard, resulting underwater sounds could have been detected by hydrophones, given favourable circumstances.[18]:40[248][249] Sound waves can travel long distances in the ocean, but sounds that travel best are those that are reflected into the 'deep sound channel' usually found between 600–1200 m beneath the surface. Most of the sound generated by an aircraft impacting the ocean would travel straight down to the seabed, making it unlikely that any of these sounds would be reflected into the deep sound channel unless the seabed sloped. Sounds from pieces of the aircraft imploding at depth would be more likely to travel in the deep sound channel. "The combination of circumstances necessary to allow [detection of an ocean impact] would have to be very particular," according to Mark Prior, a seismic-acoustic specialist at the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, who also explains that "given the continuing uncertainty regarding the fate of MH370, underwater acoustic data still has the possibility of adding something to the search."[249] When an Airbus A330 hit the Atlantic Ocean at speed of 152 kn (282 km/h; 175 mph), no data relating to the impact was detected in hydroacoustic recordings, even when analysed after the location of that aircraft was known.[249][250] As with the analysis of the Inmarsat satellite data, the hydroacoustic analysis uses the data in a way very different from that originally intended.[250]
External media
Images
Graphics produced by the Curtin University research team
Audio
Audio recording of the suspect acoustic signature
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau requested the Curtin University Centre for Marine Science and Technology (CMST) analyse these signals.[18]:40 Scientists from the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization & Geoscience Australia have also been involved with the analysis. Available sources of hydroacoustic data were:[18]:40,47[248][249][250]
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CNTBTO), which operates a system of sensors to detect nuclear tests as part of their mission to ensure compliance with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Data was analyzed from CNTBTO hydrophones located south-west of Cape Leeuwin, Western Australia (HA01) and in the northern Indian Ocean. These stations have two hydrophones each, separated by several kilometers, allowing a bearing to be calculated for the source of noise to within 0.5°.
The CMST researchers believe that the most likely explanation of the hydroacoustic data is that they come from the same event, but unrelated to Flight 370.[18]:47 They note that "the characteristics of the [event's acoustic signals] are not unusual, it is only their arrival time and to some extent the direction from which they came that make them of interest."[18]:47 If the data relates to the same event, related to Flight 370, but the arc derived from analysis of the aircraft's satellite transmission is incorrect, then the most likely place to look for the aircraft would be along a line from HA01 at a bearing of 301.6° until that line reaches the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge (approximately 2.3°S, 73.7°E). In the latter possibility, if the acoustic recordings are from the impact of the aircraft with the ocean, they likely came from a location where water is less than 2000 m deep and the seabed slopes downwards towards the east or southeast; if they came from debris imploding at depth, the source location along this line is much less certain.[18]:47 The lead researcher of the CMST team, Dr.Alec Duncan, believes there's a slim chance—perhaps as low as 10 percent—that the acoustic event is related to Flight 370.[251]"