All the news sources citing expert and professional analysis I've read through say the return signal from the plane only lies somewhere on those red lines, not the entire circle representing the 40 degree inclination from the satellite. I'm sure there is an uncertainty factor, maybe 5 degrees, maybe less, but there is no mention of this tolerance.
I'm curious how they narrowed down the signal to only those two red segments of the circle.
It is my understanding the line was determined by how long the signal took to travel, and they determined the distance the signal could cover in that time and calculated the circle that the distance crossed the earth. The satellite wasn't intended to locate the plane or any angle of the plane.
They eliminated the west half of the circle because it was out of range and part of the center of the east side of the circle because it was covered by radar.
Does crossing that line at the time it did still give the plane enough fuel to reach Iran?
The line on the map posted stops before it gets to Iran and they said the west half of the circle is out of range. I think the "range" is by time. In other words it couldn't get there in that time but does it still have enough fuel to reach Iran if it crosses that line at that time?
If I understand it the INMARSAT pings were hourly but we've only seen the arc for the final ping at 8:11. If there is similar data for previous pings, that data would provide valuable clues about the course of the plane. So, has it been stated that there is no previous satellite ping data for the plane, or is this data being withheld for some reason?
Good point, Steve.
If I had to guess I'd say we've seen nothing like the full data yet, and probably never will. But I'd also bet someone is gathering it, and at least two strong candidates exist for having that capability (and motive) - US (as in "U.S.") and likely Israel, who have a knack for gaining such information. I would also bet India knows more than is being broadcast.
Every tidbit that can be gleaned is no doubt going onto someone's 'spreadsheet' and better than even somebody already has strong notions of where this bird went to earth. Us mere mortals probably won't know until it's either in the hunter's sack, or launched for some bad purpose (which I doubt will succeed).
Further thoughts on this thing -
IF this plane is intended for bad use, it unfortunately does not have to consummate that plan for the perpetrators to have succeeded in large fashion already: they've proven they can steal a plane and muscle it through the aviation web, albeit in an aviation backwater of course, at least compared to western standards. They've also managed to get major attention from authorities in every nation worth considering - publicly tying up resources and raising awareness about the limitations of governments in protecting and controlling all things important.
All that while ripping off capitalist enterprise and digging spurs into the mindset on transportation safety, not a bad day if one is a bad guy. "It can happen to you" is possibly the intended message in some master-mind's head, no matter how this goes next.
It seems aimed at the human propensity for clining to near-superstition, although there can be practical concerns, no doubt. Think of it - odd similarity perhaps to the Earhart loss in a peculiar way - what was the public sentiment about long-range landplane flight over water for years after the Earhart loss? Was she really such an abberant footnote, or did she imprint a particular notion on the public's mind about core aviation capabilities? In her time, convention held that safety was realized in the form of lumbering seaplanes plying those routes and I will suggest that were it not for the realities of WWII, landplane sea crossings might not have become so common so quickly in the next decade.
But did the Earhart loss have anything to do with that mindset? Not sure that's clear - WWII overrode many things. And it's hard for me to fear Flight 370's fate - as a Delta frequent flyer seldom going further east than Tel Aviv, I don't relate that well to whatever risk may lie in flying on the carrier of an emerging nation in a relative backwater. I just sent my son to Germany yesterday on a Delta flight, a nice 767, and with nary a perilous thought. But had someone suggested to me in say, August of 1937, that I board a twin-engined landplane to fly over the ocean, I don't know... and were I invited to fly from Malaysia to China aboard the former country's flag carrier right now... hmmm. I guess that's what landed this string where it is.
And I guess I'd want to know finally who had analyzed all the data that must be 'out there' to the satisfaction of those who can best guarantee improvements to the system - and my safety. I'd bet it is being gathered and will eventually sift-down into some good intelligence that gets laid before us in some form.