Hail Mary Analysis

[ibscas]

I have to say that for $860,000 I'll be happy to get a disposable underwater camera and get better pictures for you!  You know what, just for TIGHAR, I'll even gear up with all my pro underwater cameras and HD video equipment and get pictures of some really nice groupers too. 

Yea, it's snarky, but that is such a massive amount of money for such miserable results that it boggles the mind.

[Ric Gillespie]

That implies confidence problems with the 'anomaly' itself, if I follow.  We know there were data compression issues and skipped pings with some of that older data (please correct me if I've gotten that conflated with some other detail of the 2012 search) and that 'sizing' of the 'image' (or 'shadow') was questionable until sorted out by another source.  It still seems a bit shaky to me, frankly.

I see no reason to doubt Ocean Imaging Consultants' representation and sizing of the sonar anomaly.  They were simply post-processing the raw data. They didn't have a dog in the fight.  It's the position data that are questionable because we know there were problems with the way Phoenix set up the navigation system.  The interpretation of the anomaly is a separate issue entirely.  OIC offered no opinion on what the anomaly might be.  We asked several people who have expertise in sonar interpretation and, predictably, we got a variety of opinions  from "definitely a man-made object" to "probably geology."  I've said from the start that, in my opinion, the chances that the anomaly is the airplane are no better than 50/50.

Is TIGHAR re-evaluating the reliability of the anomaly imagery itself because of all this?

My opinion of the anomaly hasn't changed.  I think it should be investigated but I don't think the chances that it's the airplane are better than 50/50.

Don't get me wrong - you know I'm a 'look wide and deep' guy at this point anyway, but that doesn't mean 'no confidence' in 'Niku, somewhere (as in deeper and further out, maybe even further 'around' the island)', and while I wouldn't quarrel with an 'look at it as can' (and the old 'debris field') if one gets back for a macro-scopic expedition, I wonder more than ever how wise any further singular pursuit of the anomaly really would be at this point.

How crazy would I have to be to not want to look wide and deep? 

I know I don't need to point out how long and hard one has to work to get 'big guns' on the job, if it can be done.  This thing's clearly an awfully tough nut to crack, and I well realize the temptation to go after incremental shots at solving it - but it seems we have a plate full of lessons to take to heart about all that by now.

Tell me something I don't know.

I hope Phoenix International will also learn from your critical review of their performance - but it would take a lot for me to ever want to consider them again were I you.

It goes way beyond that.  We feel that Phoenix is liable for their nonperformance.  We want our money back.

[Byron Ake]

That's certainly disappointing news, but it is not all bad. That means that both the debris field and the anomaly are likely still there, just not in the locations that we thought. Is OIC able to correct any of the location data? Is that even possible? I was also curious about the possiblity of having the entire sonar map processed by OIC, given the huge difference between the pre- and post-processed anomaly images. Could that lead to new targets, or revisiting previous targets such as the "wing target"? (If I remember right, there was some uncertainty as to if the "wing" was actually located.) What would the cost be for something like that?

[Byron Ake]

It goes way beyond that.  We feel that Phoenix is liable for their nonperformance.  We want our money back.

Don't forget that lives were put at risk searching for the debris field. That was not your average recreational dive.

[JNev]

Thanks, Ric.

I appreciate your "50/50" analysis - and respect that it's difficult to assign hard values to these things, at best.  I've been shown arguments that 'airplanes' and similar objects show themselves more clearly when 'pinged' and have my own reservations - but also realize that an 'anomaly' is just that - and that it showed itself for some reason, true.

"Tell me something I don't know." - well, as I said...  ;)

I think you are very right to hold Phoenix fully responsible as well; given the nature of their sea-going business, they must (or absolutely should) know all too well the stake they hold for performance in these expeditions.  Good start on the 'lessons learned' in applying these things aggressively, IMO.

[Ric Gillespie]

That means that both the debris field and the anomaly are likely still there, just not in the locations that we thought.

Yes.

Is OIC able to correct any of the location data? Is that even possible?

Probably not.

I was also curious about the possiblity of having the entire sonar map processed by OIC, given the huge difference between the pre- and post-processed anomaly images. Could that lead to new targets, or revisiting previous targets such as the "wing target"? (If I remember right, there was some uncertainty as to if the "wing" was actually located.) What would the cost be for something like that?

Good question. It's something we might want to pursue.

[Ric Gillespie]

I think you are very right to hold Phoenix fully responsible as well; given the nature of their sea-going business, they must (or absolutely should) know all too well the stake they hold for performance in these expeditions.

Consider this.  Phoenix was the initial contractor on the MH370 search using the exact same piece of equipment - Bluefin 21 AUV - that performed so poorly on the TIGHAR expedition.  Now that we know for certain that the 777 went in the water, how certain can we be that it wasn't within the area Phoenix searched?

[Byron Ake]

Consider this.  Phoenix was the initial contractor on the MH370 search using the exact same piece of equipment - Bluefin 21 AUV - that performed so poorly on the TIGHAR expedition.  Now that we know for certain that the 777 went in the water, how certain can we be that it wasn't within the area Phoenix searched?

One would hope that they would at least be capable of locating a large, likely intact airliner on a sandy ocean bottom, which is almost the complete opposite of the Niku environment. I'm even going as far as to be willing to chalk up their failure to bad luck/evil island spirits/AE's ghost/whatever the reason is for the difficulties encountered around that place. But then again I have never seen them in action, much less worked with them, and it sounds like their problems go deeper than that.

[JNev]

Dozens of yards make a huge difference in terms of getting back to the anomaly or debris field area at Niku, but should not so much in an open ocean floor search for the major chunk(s) of a 777.

That leads me to wonder if Phoenix truly understood the criticality of TIGHAR's need for precision, and whether their error is actually within the bounds of reasonable tolerance for open sea floor searching according to more common terms they may deal with.  Their site information says:

An onboard Inertial Navigation System, Doppler Velocity Log, Ring Laser Gyro, and depth sensor combined with an UltraShort Baseline (USBL) System produce highly accurate, repeatable and reliable navigation and positioning of the vehicle.

Which implies more accuracy than my supposition above would expect, as I read it.

This is all educational as to the intricacy of processes involved in qualifying equipment and suppliers and getting an effective search done.  It is also very sobering news about what must happen to make any sort of 'surgical hit' occur with true confidence: dozens of yards in tolerance is a no-go. 

There may not be a true means of doing so precise a search after all if 'Bluefin' cannot do better - and other brands can't outperform: 'deeper and wider' may have to embrace 'much wider' in such cases, to ensure that the desired areas are re-captured. 

Do others than Phoenix demonstrate a more precise technology for subsea placement?  I wonder about benchmarking capabilities.

[Ric Gillespie]

That leads me to wonder if Phoenix truly understood the criticality of TIGHAR's need for precision,

Phoenix understood.  They did not deliver the accuracy they promised. 

This is all educational as to the intricacy of processes involved in qualifying equipment and suppliers and getting an effective search done.  It is also very sobering news about what must happen to make any sort of 'surgical hit' occur with true confidence: dozens of yards in tolerance is a no-go. 

"Surgical hits" are what ROVs are best at. 
The question is whether we're talking about re-doing the sonar survey or using an ROV to check out the targets detected in the sonar data Phoenix collected in 2012 even if the position of the target is off by dozens of meters. 

The 2012 expedition had two types of vehicle aboard - an AUV equipped with side-scan sonar to do the sonar survey, and an ROV equipped with cameras to check out targets. Properly calibrated and deployed, both technologies should deliver position accuracy within a few meters.  Re-doing the sonar survey AND checking out targets with an ROV means duplicating the 2012 expedition but with a competent contractor. As noted, Phoenix charged us $860,000 for what they did in 2012.

[JNev]

Well, since Phoenix kind of got TIGHAR into a 'can't find her backside with both hands' situation on this thing (may as well laugh as cry) maybe the return of that $860K would be a good start toward a redux... which might be a partial foundation for a more sweeping effort (broader and deeper...)?

Just a thought.  More brain gas sez 'really broader and deeper' needed... but we already talked about that, I know.

[Craig Romig]

Probably by seeing or finding pieces.

Sorry everyone including you Gary. I didn't finish before I posted. Totally my fault.  My question should have said how would we know if it was in large piece of pieces. Or totally shredded into small pieces.

Sorry for my incomplete post.

[Craig Romig]

As far as Phoenix and cost. When I first saw it. I thought I saw 860.00 not 860k. If they botched a job they were paid for they are liable for the botch I think.

How many real competent and willing contractors are there? Well forget that.

Eyes on I think is what's really needed. However it's done. Now that we have sonar. Its got to be pretty close. Close enough to find.

Who knows what direction the camera was pointed.

[George Lam]

Probably by seeing or finding pieces.

Sorry everyone including you Gary. I didn't finish before I posted. Totally my fault.  My question should have said how would we know if it was in large piece of pieces. Or totally shredded into small pieces.

Sorry for my incomplete post.

Wasn't incomplete... I knew what you were saying.  The only way to know, as my original response stated, is to actually find abundant pieces (small or large) to know how the Electra ended up.  We can only guess before that. The name's Greg!

[Craig Romig]

Greg sorry. Meaning how do we tell what were looking for. What we find is different than what were looking for.