Why is Australia leading the search for Flight 370

Factual Questions
1

Hi
Why is Australia leading the search for Flight 370? I realize it was a joint search effort in cooperation with China, India, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States. Is that still the case? Does it have anything to do with a belief that the flight went down in Australian waters?
I look forward to your feedback.
http://www.livescience.com/44248-facts-about-flight-370-passengers-crew-aircraft.htmlPassengers and crew

Flight 370 left Kuala Lumpur at 12:41 a.m. local time carrying 227 passengers and 12 crewmembers. People from 14 nations were on board; most of the passengers — 153 — were Chinese citizens; all of the crewmembers were Malaysian. Three Americans were on the flight. Other passengers were from Australia (6), Canada (2), France (4), Hong Kong (1), India (5), Indonesia (7), Iran (2), the Netherlands (1), Russia (1), Taiwan (1) and Ukraine (2).

A multinational search effort became the largest and most expensive in history.[2] An analysis of possible flight paths was conducted, identifying a 60,000 km2 (23,000 sq mi) primary search-area, approximately 2,000 km (1,200 mi) west of Perth, Western Australia, which takes six days for vessels to reach from Fremantle harbour, near Perth.[3] The underwater search of this area began on 5 October 2014 at a cost of A$60 million (approximately US$56 million or €41 million).[4][5] As of 5 March 2015, over 26,000 square kilometres (10,000 sq mi) of seafloor has been searched, which is over 40% of the priority search-area; with no significant delays, the search of the priority search-area will be completed around May 2015.[6] On 29 July 2015, a piece of marine debris, later confirmed to be a flaperon from Flight 370, was found on Réunion Island.[7][8][9][10]

Ships and aircraft from Australia, China, India, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States were involved in the search of the southern Indian Ocean. Satellite imagery was also made available by Tomnod to the general public so they could help with the search through crowdsourcing efforts.

2

Is it a question of the ATSB’s( Australian Transport Safety Bureau) expertise that other countries don’t have in searching for missing aircraft? I’m not sure.

The ATSB is responsible for defining the search area and has been coordinating a search strategy group since May 2014. The group has worked to define the most probable position of the aircraft at the time of the last satellite communications. The group brings together satellite and aircraft specialists from the following organisations:

Air Accidents Investigation Branch (UK)
Boeing (US)
Defence Science and Technology Organisation (Australia)
Department of Civil Aviation (Malaysia)
Inmarsat (UK)
National Transportation Safety Board (US)
Thales.

3

This was the search area in 2014

This refined search area is located 1,800km (1,100 miles) off the west coast of the Australian city of Perth.
2016:

"“The best guess that we think is that it’s probably around the Broken Ridge region, which is slightly to the north of the area that they’re looking at,” Pattiaratchi said.

But he could not eliminate the possibility that the aircraft had indeed crashed within the 120,000 square kilometres of seabed currently being searched southwest of Australia."

4

I think it is because the plane is thought to have crashed into the area of ocean where Australia has primary search-and-rescue responsibility. See the International Maritime Organization’s maps of SAR areas (PDF).

5

Thanks slash2K. I’m sure I’ve probably heard it reported as such, but I don’t recall it. It makes perfect sense though. Thank again. Very helpful.

6

Here’s a map of Australia’s SAR territory with the MH370 search area within it. Not hard to see why Australia is leading the search.

7

Thanks Richard Pearse. A random search did not yield maps like the one you and slash2k posted. Pity.
This was the latest article that prompted my question.
Australian Investigators Restart Search for Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 - The Atlantic.

8

There has been some discontent voiced here about the cost, and why Oz is footing the lion’s share of the bill. (OTOH, the discontent has mostly been voiced by some of the ultra-conservative politicians, who are remarkably insular in their thinking, so it is both not to too surprising, and mostly ignored.)

In general, it is expected that each country with such responsibilities will discharge them. It cuts a number of ways. There is a mutual understanding worldwide that no matter where you are, if you are in trouble, there will be rescue. Australia sits in a lot of ocean, and gets responsibility for probably more are of ocean than any other country. Fishing sailors out of the Southern Ocean when the keels fall off their race boats has been another rather expensive pursuit. But I suspect there is also the question of sovereignty. Although the deep ocean isn’t part of area claimed by Oz, an abrogation of responsibilities in the deep ocean might be viewed as a country not really pulling its weight when claiming those ocean entitlements it does have. No country wants to open that potential can of worms.

MH370 is clearly not a question of rescue. But even just the capital cost of the plane lost of the same order as the cost of the search so far. Understanding what happened may be enough to avoid another such loss in the future. That alone makes it worth the effort. Let alone the loss of life and concomitant financial losses. Given that theories range from malicious action by crew through to Lithium battery cargo fire, there are things we really would like to know.

9

I don’t know if I would say I’m voicing discontent at this point but I have severe doubts its worthwhile. And I’m a very long way from ultra conservative.

The only rational reason for looking for it is the hope that the wreckage will lead to learning of a cause that would permit avoidance of a similar loss. The chances of finding it are extremely low. The chances of learning from the wreckage are extremely low. The chances of it not involving foul play of a type that is effectively unpreventable are, well, low IMHO. So little chance of finding it multiplied by little chance of learning the cause multiplied by little chance that the cause was preventable? I doubt the numbers stack up.

10

I don’t think you necessarily have to be an ultra-conservative to doubt the wisdom of continuing this search.

When Air France flight 447 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on June 1, 2009, flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris searchers had a far easier task.

It’s communications weren’t switched off. No-one suggested that the plane was off course, deliberately or otherwise. Debris and bodies were found within a few days of the crash. The flight path is heavily used and monitored. But it still took 2 years to locate the underwater debris field. When it was discovered they towed the pinger locators over the crash site and they still failed to detect the black boxes.

All things considered I can’t concede that there is much chance that they will ever find MH370.

11

The ultra-conservative part is the “why are we doing this for another nation - we didn’t lose a plane or people?”

The benefit is hard. It may be harder than Air France 447, but not insanely. It took them 2 years. It is reasonable to think the search is viable. The question is not that. It is the value in finding the plane. Air France taught the world a lot of things. The crash was stupid. It should not have happened, and yet it did. The lessons are hard won and will almost certainly prevent another loss.

MH370 is just as hard. There is simply not enough information to have anything other than a few guesses. One aftermath of the loss are the new restrictions placed of transport of Lithium Ion batteries. They are much more draconian, simply because part of the known profile of the aircraft is consistent with a fire, and the plane was carrying a shipment of batteries. But other parts of the profile remain a puzzle, and don’t fit. But the point is that we don’t know. Forensic work of what can be found may well lead to significant understanding of an important failure mode. It is work like this that makes air flight so safe. We don’t know if there isn’t a significant issue with the plane design or its systems that results in a loss that should otherwise not happen in the face of a fire or other problems. It may lead to changes in design or procedures across the industry. It is not unreasonable to imagine that success in finding the plane would not eventually result in avoiding the loss of another plane. Not knowing is not a good situation.

12

It’s clearly an extraordinary case entailing extraordinary search costs. I’d be puzzled to say why asking for help with the expenses would be considered a fringe view.

I suggest deleting the second “not” from this sentence.

13

I was thinking maybe they had a large shipment of vegemite on the plane

14

Both Malaysia and China already do contribute.

:smack::eek::smack:

15

Malaysia is in the top ten of Australia’s trading partners, I’m sure there is a political aspect to it, we try to stay friendly with countries to our north, unfortunately our Prime Minister was rather naive to believe we could quickly locate that plane.