Looks like they’re still looking for it. But why wasn’t as easy as just having a helicopter fly out there and tracking it while it was on its way down?
In: 1
They reported that weather was a factor, which would get in the way of flying a helicopter in and out. Don’t want to risk anyone’s life… also maybe they did find it and are just telling us they didn’t.
They reported that weather was a factor, which would get in the way of flying a helicopter in and out. Don’t want to risk anyone’s life… also maybe they did find it and are just telling us they didn’t.
One was brought down in the Pacific Ocean.
One in Lake Huron.
A third in the far northern reaches of Alaska.
So that’s two that may have sank, and a third that went into the icy tundra of the far north. Right now it’s -27F in Kaktovik, the only named settlement I see on the map anywhere near the shootdown area.
Lack of radar signature, which is why they weren’t detected to begin with. Satellite imaging also takes time for repositioning to scan the target area, and since they’re being shot down over water, there is a limited window before they sink and require sonar to locate (which is harder than you’d think).
Lack of radar signature, which is why they weren’t detected to begin with. Satellite imaging also takes time for repositioning to scan the target area, and since they’re being shot down over water, there is a limited window before they sink and require sonar to locate (which is harder than you’d think).
One was brought down in the Pacific Ocean.
One in Lake Huron.
A third in the far northern reaches of Alaska.
So that’s two that may have sank, and a third that went into the icy tundra of the far north. Right now it’s -27F in Kaktovik, the only named settlement I see on the map anywhere near the shootdown area.
Well, two of them went down in the water, so they’re having to use a combination of sonar and diving to find the pieces. The other one is in the tundra somewhere. And while, yes, having another aircraft ready to go for recovery is a good idea, what *isn’t* a good idea is having an aircraft *below* one that is about to be blown out of the sky. You can predict where exactly the wreckage is going to fall, and you don’t want pieces smacking into your recovery crew on the way down.
Well, two of them went down in the water, so they’re having to use a combination of sonar and diving to find the pieces. The other one is in the tundra somewhere. And while, yes, having another aircraft ready to go for recovery is a good idea, what *isn’t* a good idea is having an aircraft *below* one that is about to be blown out of the sky. You can predict where exactly the wreckage is going to fall, and you don’t want pieces smacking into your recovery crew on the way down.
If I had to guess, they likely have them in their possession or are in the process of getting them if they sank.
The powers that be probably are almost certainly uninterested in answering questions at this time, and if they “don’t have the objects” they have cover to say as little as possible.
That said the government has been much more inept than usual recently.
If I had to guess, they likely have them in their possession or are in the process of getting them if they sank.
The powers that be probably are almost certainly uninterested in answering questions at this time, and if they “don’t have the objects” they have cover to say as little as possible.
That said the government has been much more inept than usual recently.
Latest Answers