Independent Group member Bill Holland appears to have sorted out the head-scratcher concerning the location of the QZ8501 tail section. His explanation jibes with where we’d expect the plane’s fuselage to wind up, given the fact that just before it disappeared from radar it was descending with alarming speed. I’m pasting here Bill’s recent email in toto:
I think I have the tail GPS coordinates figured out…
I kept finding references to the tail being found that translate as:
The mapping experts who are in MGS Ship Geo Survey finds it precisely in the coordinate 03.3839S (South latitude) and 109.4343E (East Longitude).But, I searched and found a version that seems to make more sense:
Aga pun menyampaikan titik koordinatnya, yakni: Latitude 3;38;39S, Longitude 109;43;43 E.
…in English:
Aga also convey the point coordinates, namely: Latitude 3; 38; 39s, Longitude 109; 43; 43 E.The numbers being quoted are correct, … Only the punctuation was wrong!
-03° 38′ 39″ 109° 43′ 43″ (degrees minutes seconds)
This is about 2.5nm South East of the last SSR/ADS-B location (Google Maps measures 3.03 statute miles = 2.63nm)In my screen grab [above]:
– the lower yellow start marke the tail section (and the blue annotation is the distance from the purple star)
– the purple circle is the last lat/lon from the SSR (ADS-B),
– the purple star is the approx location from the primary radar image.
– The red box is supposed to be “Most Probable Area 2”,
– the black tilted rectangular outline is the left (Western) section of the “Underwater Search Area”.
– The yellow diagonal line is Route M635 between TAVIP to RAFIS.
– The black diagonal line is the FR24 estimated flight path (the inverted teardrops are individual extrapolations from FR24 after the last valid ADS-B data data they received)[ignore the white square, the blue square, the Northern yellow star, and the green diagonal line]
-Bill
Really, it’s remarkable that searchers didn’t scour this location right away, and instead spent a week searching far down-current. There appears to have been some confusion between the nature of floating debris, which disperses as it’s carried by currents, and debris on the seabed, which will tend to remain where it falls, more or less directly under the point where it impacts the water.
The latest news is that preparations are underway to raise the tail section and hoist it onto a ship. Hopefully, the black boxes will be found within, and the cause of the accident one step closer to being revealed.
@myron
The plane never made it to Christmas Island. The BTO data would rule that out. If it went that way, it likely crashed into the ocean as it ran out of fuel while setting up for a South to North approach (the runway is in a North-South direction).
@LGHamilton,
I do not have any fuel consumption tables for the Rolls Royce Trent 892-B17 engines. They could be very slightly different from the Trent 892 engines for which I have a table. The largest uncertainty now in calculating performance limits for 9M-MRO is not the particulars for the standard engine performance, but rather the undisclosed PDA values.
@Gysbreght,
You said:
“When it is applied to the performance boundary of MH370, it will shrink that boundary until it only touches the 7th arc at a single point, and that point is about halfway between the limits defined by ATSB’s performance study.”
I disagree because there can be multiple points of intersection of the performance boundary and the 7th arc. I have demonstrated this in my parametric studies. I found multiple routes, with varying end points at the 7th arc, for which the range margin and endurance margin are equal and are also consistent with typical PDA values. There does not have to be a “single point.” The reason for this is the physical separation of the aircraft location at the final turn and the sub-satellite point. Faster and more westerly routes can work as can slower and more easterly routes. Each acceptable route has a constant ratio of ( distance / speed ) = time and a constant average fuel burn rate, resulting in constant range and endurance margins.
You also said:
“No one would fly a 777 on autopilot for 6 hours without a route and without making any inputs to it.”
I disagree. An incapacitated flight crew could do exactly that.
@Brock,
The average PDA value I calculated in order to match the apparent MH370 endurance with Trent 892 engines is 1.5% at a constant 35,000 feet and 2.2% for a climb from 35,000 to 41,000 feet. Thus the PDA represents the “endurance margin”. I also calculated the “range margin” based on the air miles traveled. I would expect that the correct route would have a range margin equal to the endurance margin (=average PDA). Thus routes that have range margins equal to the endurance margin are more likely to be correct, in my view, than those routes for which the two margins are significantly different.
All the True Track routes (with acceptable speed smoothness) have range margins of 3.6-4.2%, so they don’t seem to match the endurance margins. The Great Circle Routes (with either constant TAS at 35,000 feet or with LRC/Mach 0.84 with a climb) have end points from 88.3E to 83.7E and have range margins of ~2.1 %, which happen to match the 2.2% estimated average PDA rather well. I will note that there is no attempt on my part to make these numbers match (other than selecting the Long Range Cruise with climb = Mach 0.84 scenario). The 2.2% endurance margin comes from the last fuel report at 17:07 UTC, an estimated flame-out time of 00:15:50 UTC, and a Mach 0.84 speed profile with a step climb. The 2.1% range margin comes from fitting a constant Mach 0.84 speed to a route matching the BTO data from 19:41 to 00:11 UTC and assuming Mach 0.84 was also the speed from 18:22 and 19:41.
It is difficult to estimate the uncertainties in these two margin estimates, but I think their agreement is not just a concidence. I would guess that agreement within 1% could be considered as being consistent. Perhaps even a fraction of 1% should be expected. Disagreement of ~2% or more indicates to me a clear inconsistency (and this is the case for all my True Track routes).
I would conclude (based on the consistency of their endurance and range margins) that the end point longitudes from 83.7E to 88.3E are more likely to be correct than the more easterly longitudes (88.4E to 91.5E).
@VictorI,
You said:
“The search in the SIO is currently concentrated along most of the 7th arc predicted by the models to be the likely crash site. Unless it can be shown that there is higher probability for the plane to have crashed elsewhere, I don’t think there is much more we can do to guide the search.”
I don’t think it is necessary to prove that the probability of 9M-MRO being found outside the current ATSB search area is “higher”, just that it is comparable. I believe I have done that. I believe I have also demonstrated that the western end is more likely than the Go Phoenix Search Area.
The current ATSB “Fugro Vessels Underwater Search Area” extends westward only to about 86.6 degrees E longitude. In my opinion, it should be extended westward to about 83.5E to fully encompass the higher probability zone from 83.7E to 88.3E.
@DennisW – as direction may not be completely reliable from the pings… maybe MH370 did not go to Christmas Island but the mirror flip direction – such as Ajalega Island (which has a seemingly decent runway) or another island nearby.
@Bobby:
“I disagree because there can be multiple points of intersection of the performance boundary and the 7th arc. I have demonstrated this in my parametric studies. I found multiple routes, with varying end points at the 7th arc, …”.
I believe you may have misunderstood what I wrote.
First a word about PDA. The ATSB’s June report stated: “Modelling did not include individual engine efficiency”. I take this to mean zero PDA, or nominal aircraft performance, and assume it also applies to the revised performance limit of the October Update. Note that the Southern Limit is unchanged between both reports.
The Performance Boundary of the Oktober report is the envelope of the end points of all paths that are possible within the definition given in that report. It has two intersections with the 7th arc. If a PDA greater than zero is assumed, the envelope shrinks and the two intersections move towards each other. At a certain PDA the two intersections will be at the same single point on the 7th arc. I am guessing that that point will be about midway between the limits shown in figure 2 of the Oktober report, you may disagree with that guess.
As to your closing remark “I disagree. An incapacitated flight crew could do exactly that.” I’m not aware of the IG ever discussing the questions of who was controlling the autopilot, what inputs he made, why he became incapacitated and, most importantly, when.
@Gysbreght: I would not put much value in the range curves presented in the ATSB report. I have much more confidence in the way that the IG has approached range calculations using the LRC performance data. Bobby is now doing his calculations in the same way.
@ComicAcademy
yeah, back in March, I quickly thought that they are drinking vodka somewhere in Russia
Hi Victor,
Thanks for your suggestion, the results could be interesting, but my remarks will equally apply to the envelope they come up with.
LRC range is 99% of MRC by definition, but what is the speed difference?
@Victor: is it presumptuous of me to combine these two statements:
Victor: Bobby now doing his calcs the IG way
Bobby: best-estimate intersection of 00:19 arc and performance limit is between 83.7 and 88.3E
…and arrive at an expectation the IG will soon join Bobby & I in calling for the search to extend west to 83.5?
(and – dare I dream – join me in asking the ATSB why Fig.2 of their Oct.8 report was doctored to make this zone look INfeasible?)
@Brock: Yes, at this time it is presumptuous. Perhaps in time our methodologies and assumptions will further converge. And I don’t think the ATSB doctored anything. I think there are simply errors, omissions, and inaccurate assumptions in that report.
Gentlemen,
it seems we came to a dead loop.
Why AP? Because “…no one would fly a 777 by any other method for 6 hours…”, but only incapacitated flight crew would do.
So, what is a major reason to think the crew was incapacitated? Because no one would fly to ISBIX and further on AP, right?
I haven’t seen discussions why incapacitated crew could not fly on A/T or in A/T+TOGA mode, or even without automation levels at all (as long as the aircraft maintains stability).
And if you lean to think about a pre-programmed path by WPs, why not take as a base what Dennis suggested? Because the altitude does not match the assumed cruise altitude?
In my opinion, there are should be several clusters of terminal points, based on different scenarios.
Bobby,
May I ask what information the tables you have (re Trent 892 engines) contain?
FelineNut,
I don’t think SDU reboot 18:25 should necessary be associated with the engines restart. For example, it could be switched off/on with some purpose, or the power could be restored by 18:25 as a result of crew actions, or it could be some weird game of the electronics without human input as a result of a short circuit.
@myron
I think any path is possible given the latent ambiguity of the data we have, especially BFO and the intrinsic ROC uncertainties associated with the BFO measurements.
It is a moot point in any case, Myron. When the current search in the priority area is finished that will be the end of it. Hopefully the plane will be found there. IMO, the only way additional searching will be undertaken is for a breakthrough of some sort to take place relative to a traditional police investigation.
As far as an incapacitated crew is concerned, that is quite a stretch given the amount of maneuvering that obviously took place after communication was lost, but it is almost a necessary condition for the IG/ATSB scenarios to withstand scrutiny.
Could somebody explain how the “incapacitated flight crew” assumption is compatible with the “constant altitude” assumption?
Also, could somebody remind what are min and max fuel estimates by 18:25 or 18:40?
Thanks.
@Victor: re: convergence: okay, thanks for the update.
re: doctored:
(definition: “expanded” PL = stretched to account for a RANGE of FMTs (18:28 to 18:40))
How would you portray Fig.2 if you KNEW the correct expanded performance limit (PL) extended west to 84E (per 18:28-18:40 FMT), but wanted to PRETEND it was 88E (per 18:40 FMT only)? You would, in Fig.2,
a) simply paste in the 18:40 PL from Fig.3 (without expanding OR rotating it),
b) shorten the FL350 path in Fig.2 until it fit inside this incorrect PL, and
c) suppress FL400 path altogether
Those are EXACTLY the three errors that they “accidentally” made in their presentation of Fig.2.
You are WAY more trusting than I am, Victor.
For entertainment purposes only, I decided to take four proposed flight paths for MH370 – three from others, and one that I generated myself – and compare predictions for BTO, BFO, airspeed, and heading in a consistent fashion. Apologies in advance to anyone who feels I misrepresented their work. Note that I am not arguing for the correctness any particular one – just wanted to see how they all looked side-by-side.
A writeup is here (assuming I have the correct link):
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7YQpAH4JIN5QWNoaGtMSUctZVE/edit?pli=1
@sk999: Thank you for this comparison. Rather than plotting airspeed, perhaps a better measure is Mach number, which on autopilot would expected to be either constant (and therefore ground speed is a function of temperature and wind) or have the Mach number follow an ECON profile such as LRC (corresponding to CI = 180 on a B777). Richard’s solution assumed an LRC profile which is consistent with the range estimates, so it is not surprising that his solution does not show constant airspeed. I don’t believe it is possible for the autopilot to maintain a constant airspeed in this range.
@sk999: I’m surprised that you are still considering a “magnetic hold” track. Over recent weeks there has been a deal of discussion about possible FMC modes and it seems very clear that holding a continuously varying [because of magnetic deviation] magnetic track is not one of them. There is sufficient evidence in the documentation to show that the track hold is referenced to True North, always, although the cockpit display may be shown with reference to True or Magnetic north, selectable, at any particular instant. [Same argument applies to a magnetic heading hold – – just not possible].
VictorI –
I could definitely redo with Mach # (I tabulate it along with many other parameters.) Still, as many folks have noted, the temperature was quite constant along the flight path (doesn’t matter which one you pick) until near the end, at which point variations in temperature (and thus airspeed at constant Mach #) are mixed in with the increase in windspeed due to air currents. Given that there are likely uncertainties in the air currents, it is unlikely that we could unentangle the two.
Regarding LRC and CI – do you have a reference to how where the CI comes from and how to calculate Mach#/airspeeed? My impression has always been that LRC requires one to adjust altitude as well as Mach #/airspeed, and without active intervention, altitude would stay constant.
Flitzer_Flyer, you write:
“… it seems very clear that HOLDING a continuously varying [because of magnetic deviation] magnetic TRACK is not one of them.”
Magnetic HOLD is different from magnetic TRACK. My flight path is specifically magnetic HOLD, not TRACK. Could you clarify your objection?
@sk999: The LRC performance data for the RR engines can be found (at least temporarily) here on Dropbox:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7f94s1a2arv2hvt/Performance%20Data%20-%20RR%20engines.png?dl=0
A description of LRC, ECON, and fuel conservation strategies on Boeing aircraft can be found here:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boeing.com%2Fcommercial%2Faeromagazine%2Farticles%2Fqtr_02_10%2Fpdfs%2FAERO_FuelConsSeries.pdf&ei=eji3VN2jL5ahyATgp4HADg&usg=AFQjCNFHOuN_1xEakx2Z9Y0Rgj5SFuSj7w&bvm=bv.83640239,d.aWw
An LRC speed profile can definitely be flown at a constant altitude. The optimum Mach number and fuel rate for a given altitude is a function of the aircraft weight. This is the basis of the fuel consumption/speed model that Richard G. and I use. Bobby’s LRC models are similarly derived.
I have described here previously the details on how I obtained the LRC speed profile for a constant altitude flight of 35,000 ft. If you need the details, let me know.
Victor
@sk999: I posted something earlier regarding LRC, but it did not appear. I suspect it will appear delayed because I had two links in the comment.
@Sk999
I derived my own SIO route using mag HOLD. At the time my own research showed that this was a perfectly valid FMC mode. I confirmed it with an A320 pilot, but obviously that was a different system. I never gave it any further thought.
@Oleksandr,
First, the Trent 892 fuel burn table can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUNkJPd3pHTWhfWW8/view?usp=sharing
To answer your question on constant altitude with incapacitated flight crew, the last known altitude just prior to diversion was FL350. By the final turn near 18:30 the altitude could still be at FL350 or even higher, possibly up to FL400. The optimum LRC altitude at the total weight of ~209 MT at 18:30 would be ~FL380. If the flight crew were incapacitated near 18:30, the plane could have continued on until fuel exhaustion at a constant and high altitude.
@Gysbreght,
You said:
“As to your closing remark “I disagree. An incapacitated flight crew could do exactly that.” I’m not aware of the IG ever discussing the questions of who was controlling the autopilot, what inputs he made, why he became incapacitated and, most importantly, when.”
What does the IG have to do with this discussion? I am not and never have been part of that group. My opinions are my own.
It is patently obvious that an aircraft like 9M-MRO flying by autopilot and maintaining constant altitude can continue doing this (until flame-out) even if the flight crew becomes incapacitated in the interim. Do you or anyone else disagree with this statement?
I do not agree with your conclusion that the ATSB report language means that they assumed zero average PDAs. I think it far more likely they assumed an average PDA equal to the known value. This is simpler in the modeling than using individual numbers but still quite accurate. It’s only the average PDA that counts, and I think that is exactly what they used.
I agree with Victor and Brock in that we should not take the ATSB performance plots as being set in stone. They made turn, altitude, and speed assumptions in calculating the performance limits, and none of these are described. As Brock has pointed out, their two plots are even inconsistent with each other. At least one of them is wrong.
I will also point out that my range calculations are not based in any way on the ATSB performance limits. Because of the geometry of this flight, a long portion of the 7th arc matches both the BFO data and the maximum range with nominal PDAs. Over a shorter portion of this arc segment, the endurance margin equals the range margin at a nominal 2%. I find that rather remarkable, and I consider that match as a good indicator that the true route ended somewhere on that particular arc segment.
@Dr. Bobby Ulich
begin cut-paste//
“It is patently obvious that an aircraft like 9M-MRO flying by autopilot and maintaining constant altitude can continue doing this (until flame-out) even if the flight crew becomes incapacitated in the interim. Do you or anyone else disagree with this statement?”
end cut-paste//
I don’t disagree with the statement, but the assumption of a constant AP mode for the duration of the flight into the SIO is ridiculous. You know it, I know it, and anyone with a brain knows it.
As I stated above, you are wasting your time. There will be no more searching based on any analytic conclusions once the current search plan has been completed. Despite the rhetoric, there really is no desire to toss more money at this issue.
All,
The MOST likely scenario has Shah executing a successful takeover of the aircraft…ALL other scenaerii simply stretch the confines of belief given what we in fact do know.
The SDU reboot at 18:25 was then surely purposeful, and necessary (apparently). What is most likely is that the left AC bus was repowerd at this time from the cockpit.
What is also most likely at this point is that the all the pax and crew (including Fariq, the co-pilot) were either subdued or incapacitated.
We then have the FMT. What follows is an AP predicated host of assumptions, the major one being no further flight control inputs. Both the IG and ATSB explicitly state this (for otherwise, all is rendered essentially useless)
So, we likely have a living, breathing t7 captain in sole, unchallenged control of the plane, on his final flight, with a cabin full of deceased individuals. As Gysbreght alludes to, MAYBE AP makes sense, but to think that Shah made no further inputs throughout the 6 hour duration fails all rationale.
@Dennis…Re Christmas island…Where is the wreckage??
I disagree that Christmas Island was an intended destination. He already was burdened with a cabin full of dead people…per his actions AND intention. The SIO scenario makes much more sense IMHO, although it understandably fails to appeal to your motive construct.
@airlandseaman
What makes you think that perhaps SOME (maybe an hour, maybe every 5 min etc…) wasn’t hand flown? What is rational/irrational to Shah at this stage in the flight? There is NO way to even begin to comprehend this…sorry.
@DennisW,
Your brain must work differently than mine if you really think “the assumption of a constant AP mode for the duration of the flight into the SIO is ridiculous.”
Despite your claim that “there is no desire to toss more money at this issue”, only this week more money was committed by Malaysia to the search (4th vessel with AUV).
@Spencer
I explained the debris. You are not listening. As far as a cabin full of dead people, that is a completely unfounded hypothesis. Not sure where you are coming from with that one, but it does not belong on this blog.
@Dr Bobby
Yes, our brains are very different.
sk999: My understanding of the documentation is that TRK Hold and HDG Hold operate in essentially the same way. That is the track, and/or the heading is always referenced to True North. In TRK hold the effect of wind is automatically calculated and compensated for [with automatic heading adjustments]. In HDG Hold there is no wind compensation, and the heading is maintained. The fact that it possible to switch between Mag or True is for display purposes only. That is, the crew is able to select which display is appropriate or desired. It does not mean that a Mag heading can be held.
@Dennis
You have NO debris. In a failed landing/ditching scenario due to fuel miscalculation we would have debris, IMO.
As for a cabin full of dead people, um, aside from the reported cell phone ping by Fariq’s phone (which has NEVER been denied), we have not a peep from the pax. Shah depressurizing by a zoom to FL450 OR by a slow bleed prior to the FMT is pretty much a requisite to complete control over the a/c.
I think Jeff, not you, decides what does and does not belong on this thread.
@sk999,
Your comparison of routes is interesting.
The ground speeds I listed in my original Table 5.2 are actually average speeds for the completed leg, not instantaneous speeds. This affects your calculated BFO values, particularly after 22:41, and will reduce the BFO residuals you show there.
Recently I have revised my speed fits to include the 00:11 BTO data. This slightly changes the best-fit trajectory, but not by much compared to my original fit. The RMS true air speed errors are still less than 1 knot even using constant Mach 0.84 rather than allowing the average air speed to be fitted.
I am using the NOAA/GDAS wind and temperature data, and it is clear to me that the corresponding heading and speed corrections are at least approximately correct because applying them significantly reduces the air speed residuals.
An example of a recent route fit (Trial #17) can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUaDNYbFpOX2lHM1U/view?usp=sharing
I would suggest you use this one if you would like to update your comparison. The second page of the PDF file has a plot of the TAS versus time for each flight segment and a plot of the Mach 0.84 profile for the temperatures along my route. You can use the black dashed line (Mach 0.84 profile) to read off the instantaneous speeds (which you need for the BFO calculation) at all times along the route.
This route fits the Mach 0.84 profile (from 18:22 to 00:11) extremely well. The 7th arc crossing is at 84.0E. It assumes a single final major turn (which may turn out not be correct), but it is a typical result for an early turn route.
Dr Ulich – An extra ship coming from Malaysia does not represent an expanded or elongated search does it? Is it an expedited search? I went and threw it down a while ago: if there are any other govts out there who care where this plane is can someone name them?
Spencer – Everyone wants to simplify and go for the easy fruit I guess but I wouldn’t be surprised if what happened was as complex as it is sinister.
All – I tend to agree with Dennis here, the ATSB AP ghost flight seems to be an awkward marriage of scenarios. It almost looks political, as if they don’t actually believe it, but this story didn’t need any more spice, especially coming from there. On face value it was a skilled diversion, very likely by more than one person, and we don’t see any indication there was a problem with the aircraft apart from the fact that it sailed away from radar. That is all very hard to reconcile with an SIO resting place.
@ Bobby:
RE autopilot: You ask a rhetorical question, but avoid my questions, in particular: WHEN did the person controlling the autoflight systems become incapacitated, and what controlling inputs had been made at that time?
RE PDA: It’s your opinion against mine.
RE ATSB: The Update report unambiguously defines turns, altitudes, and speeds used in establishing the performance boundary. Since that boundary is the envelope of the endpoints of all possible paths, it does not change between figures 2 and 3. These figures show subsets of the possible paths – figure 2 for turns at 1828 and figure 3 at 1840. I don’t see an inconsistency.
Bobby,
Thanks for the table. Do you have its extension covering lower altitudes, along with all denotations?
Re your “By the final turn near 18:30 the altitude could still be at FL350 or even higher, possibly up to FL400”.
– The radar data suggests the last known altitude of 9 km, which is more consistent with the Butterworth radar range, than FL350-340 (it would track MH370 for a few tens NM more).
– Absence of the Indonesian radar data can be perfectly explained by low altitudes.
– There was some event at 17:25, which broke the original AP route. Regardless of the nature of that event, is there sufficient basis to extrapolate constant flight level from before to after 17:25?
– It appears that MH370 was flown manually during 17:25-18:00 interval. I hardly believe the curvy path at a constant altitude was pre-programmed. The latter does not make any sense.
– What did make the crew incapacitated? If it was a mechanical/electrical emergency event, why didn’t they try to go down to 3 km or so? If it happened to quick, why did they have sufficient time to enter a complex route? If the AP route was entered before the crew was completely incapacitated, what was a motive to send it to the SIO?
In summary, there more reasons to believe in varying altitude, then in a constant flight level, which is mainly an artifact of the AP assumption.
@Spencer
I apologize.
Matty, Dennis:
“I tend to agree with Dennis here, the ATSB AP ghost flight seems to be an awkward marriage of scenarios. It almost looks political, as if they don’t actually believe it, but this story didn’t need any more spice, especially coming from there. On face value it was a skilled diversion, very likely by more than one person, and we don’t see any indication there was a problem with the aircraft apart from the fact that it sailed away from radar. That is all very hard to reconcile with an SIO resting place.”
Couldn’t agree more. In fact, an (intentionally) diverted passenger aircraft flying by waypoints (that SOMEONE had to enter) and skirting FIR suggests the exact opposite of parsimonious simplicity.
@ Oleksand
I think you missed the point to its entirety….
The engines DID restart 2 times CONFIRMED on Take Off Acending Climb Path and Failed a 3rd with NO RESTART….. Confirmed…
I think all of you have misled this search from Day 1, and I even fell for the Inamarsat misguidance…..
I have a SIO that Has not changed and Confirmed with all Data if it were and maintain that analysis “If it were True”
But it is NOT True as to the Model and information that was spit out and GROSSLY NEGLIGENT in error and Fault and all source prove this a FACT not theory….
Wake Up Guys, Ya’ll are NOT that damn stupid to not do your OWN home-work…. WTH happended to world when someone says, well that’s right without confirming that is what the information actually was and properly being? Fact is Inmarsat doersnt know what they have and that has now been proven beyond “reasonble doubt” and is FACT…
do your homework as your Creditability is now on the line with Inmarsat being debunked..
Plz read that comment again… Here is the Post…
“@ Oleksandr & @ Exner….
I have one that tops that Mike…
Plz answer this anyone…. be on twitter if you figure it out….
“Explain the Power Loss and 2 engine Restarts and 3rd Power Failure with No Engine Power…. Also included the Engine Power Thrust Loss in Take Off and Ascending Climb from Take Off with POOR Performance??”
So it Flew on, and at 471 knots when couldnt Fart in own wind on Take Off, being the engines were Underperforming and Evidence not Theory….. anyone??? Plz… Im still waiting on that turn back???
Anyways Guys and Gals…. its about time Evidence plays a Firm roll instead of wasted and lost time, and angony on everyone ends…
If you havent Heard… The Inmarsat Data has been OFFICIALY debunked for the Handshakes and miscatagorized overwhelmingly… ;-)>
Hey Mike and Crew… thx for the assist in 8501… Ya’ll did great… maybe we should do all Oceanic
Accidents being we all now understand majority of the whats needed… No More Lost Planes!!!!!!!!!!!!
@FelineNut”
@FelineNut, you are a national treasure. I have never understood a single damned word you have ever written.
@FelineNut, ok I would like to know more or understand the evidence more….
do you have times(or locations) when the engines restarted and when they finally failed?
@ Jeffwise, Gotta love ya, It’s always criptic, but just enough to see the light..
anyways, have a great day Jeff and Great week-end.. Can’t wait for next article, always a nice touch with enchanted BS cherry on top… ;-)>
seriously, I love your articles, they always seem to push a new directive in the oddest way!!!!!!!!!
@ FelineNut
@ Myron
well lets Myron… I have already began posting infographics.. with a lot more to show the non-sense that we ALL fell for..
like that’s NOT 7hrs Flights Data, but much a more detail of the Location of the downed aircraft in distress for SAR and miscatorgized as simply Sat Data and Multiple Sat and side real times and Much more… Wake up guys… Go Back and do your home work… MH370 underperformed on TO with engine fails x2 and x3 with NO restart
It also fell at rate of -12800/-14800fpm for 3 seconds at least… It plunged to point..
BTW, the 40d arc as stated is nothing more than the Angle of Attack aka 49d depending which you pull from relavance to latitude…
But like ya’ll will ever figure any of this out on your own because of your arrogance and pride stands in the way to actually solve this crisis…
My pride did as well, and I maintain my SIO point, “if it were actrual toi be true” But it’s NOT…. sorry, but you have to wake-up sometimes to reality and stop and smell the roses instead of that crap coming outta your tail end… Get whiff ofd fresh-air and stop choking on that dirty shaft…
Facts and evidence enlighten this investigation, instead ya’ll insist on yanking on that pole that is NOT your own..
any more questions…. Its quite simple actually… simple as 8501 was solved in 5hrs, but you didnt see that either did you..
But the Chief did… How about those apples…
@ FelineNut
Oh.. I left this Myron
in 1 minute time it covers .21 of a mile at 535mph…
well, what does that mean?? well if at an underperformed rate at that location traveling at 535mph and average Ground distance is 15nm for 1minute and I only traveled .21 of a mile… Well the is obviously a big problem Falling from the air
being a B777 at reat of -12800/-14800fpm
Thats a BIG BIG Problem Coming down./. wouldnt you say???
@FelineNut Arrogance will be the Death of the IG, just watch and see for yourself!
FelineNut,
Perhaps I really misunderstood your question.
If you aware of, for example, the “Engine Power Thrust Loss in [during] Take Off”, could you please share this information?
@ Oleksandr
Are you telling the IG, The saints of BS does have this information…. Remember I had the IG over to the Correct analogy a long time ago, But as analysis matures and Facts emerge, They still ignore the information and pick and choose what they to use??…
Excuse me?? All information relavant…
go back and ALL the Data as I did and analyze the points of track, the MULTIPLE ADS-B and Mode-S Data and you will see this…
BTW… Those ARE GPS points in the Isat Data as it was intended as well… That formula has emeged as well…
Once Again, I have already begun postin InfoGraphics and if you cant read info graphic, then ask what you need clarified,
But for my work to be once again hiested by the IG grouo of Arrogance, Not anymore, as you will see the integrity of ATSB questioned before the senate Oversight Committee, amd I assure you that this will NOT be taken lightly from the Arrogance of The IG Group, I Assure this action in underway, as your arrogance has aided in 400Million US Dollars Wasted in this Investigation and is down right Neferious in behavior and will not stand!!!!
@ FelineNut
@FelineNut, So if I understand your message, the MH370 landed … I guess on a runway in Aceh
FelineNut,
I do not know whether IG has this information or not, and I do not know what your source of this information is. Why wouldn’t you ask IG to comment on this again?
Re roses – I like your suggestion. But unfortunately I have to wait for a few months: it’s winter here…
@ Myron
[REDACTED for obscenity]
@ Oleksandr
Im not asking the IG to comment…
ATSB has to answer to the Senate Oversight Committee…
Facts and Evidence matters and going over the Top matters as does Oversight and its just too darn bad.. ;-)>
Facts are Facts and Arrogance does not prevail, The Facts and Evidence does…
Truss is no idiot, Remember, He once was over ATSB and is no idiot to old school technology…
BTW… If its too cold, open a window.. LOL
YOU are funny… LOL