Here’s a link to the report broadcast today on Australian 60 Minutes about the search for MH370. Part 1:
Part 2:
Discussion after the jump…
The main thrust of the piece is that an independent air-crash expert, Larry Vance, has looked at photographs of the Réunion flaperon and decided that their relatively intact state, and the lack of debris from inside the aircraft, means that the plane must not have impacted the water at high speed, as would be expected if the plane ran out of fuel as a “ghost ship” and spiralled into the water. He interprets the jagged trailing edge of the flaperon as evidence that it was deployed at the moment of impact and was worn away when it struck the water.
I find it discomfiting when people say that the mystery of MH370 is not mystery at all–that they are absolutely confident they know the answer. Vance undercuts his credibility, I feel, by taking this stance. There is indeed a strong argument to be made that the plane must have been under conscious control to the very end; to me the most compelling is simply that the plane has not been found in the current seabed search zone. However it is less clear that someone attempted a ditching. What the show does not mention is that debris from inside the aircraft has indeed been found, suggesting that the fuselage could not have survived the impact and sunk to the bottom of the ocean intact. Indeed, the program doesn’t mention the other debris at all, with the exception of the Pemba flap, which is the other relatively intact large piece. The fact that most of the debris found so far is rather small is to me indicative of a higher-energy impact. But I have no strong opinion one way or the other; I feel that proper experts must look at the debris close up to determine what forces caused it to come apart.
The program cites the recently revealed flight-sim data from Zaharie’s computer as further evidence that the plane was deliberately piloted to fuel exhaustion and beyond. For the first time, the program showed on screen pages from the confidential Malaysian report. The producers of the show reached out to me as they were putting the program together, and asked me to comment on some of the data they had accumulated. Here are the pages of the document that they showed on-screen:
It’s worth noting that these pages offer a summary of the recovered flight-sim data which are described in greater detail and accuracy elsewhere in the confidential Malaysian documents. Here is a table showing a subset of what the documents contain:
Note that the numbering systems for the two data tables do not match. (Please do not ask me to explain this.) I suggest that for the purposes of discussion, the point saved at Kuala Lumpur International Airport be called point 1; the three points recorded as the flight-sim moved up the Malacca Strait to the Andaman Islands be called 2, 3, and 4; and the points over the southern Indian Ocean with fuel at zero be called points 5 and 6.
In order to understand the fuel load numbers in the second table, I made some calculations based on the fuel loads in a real 777-200ER. I don’t know how closely these match those in the flight simulator Zaharie was using. If anyone can shed light I’d be happy to hear it.
Worth noting, I think, is that the fuel difference between point 4 and point 5 is enough for more than 10 hours of flight under normal cruise conditions. The difference between these points is 3,400 nautical miles, for an average groundspeed of less than 340 knots. This is peculiar. Perhaps the flight-sim fuel burn rate is very inaccurate; perhaps the simulated route between the points was not a great circle, as shown in the second page of the report above, but indirect; perhaps Zaharie was fascinated by the idea of flying slowly; or perhaps points 5 & 6 come from a different simulated flight than 1 through 4. Readers’ thoughts welcome.
Also note that neither the locations nor the headings of points 1-4 lie exactly on a straight line from 1 to 4, which suggest perhaps that the route was hand-flown.
@Trond @others
Another graphic picture of the overhead ‘electric’ panel where all functions are readable:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tsfjw2x3xdh81h8/ElectricalB777.jpg?dl=0
@ David:
Whether fuel moves forward or backwards depends on the balance between thrust and drag. Fuel moves forward when thrust is less than drag, does notr move when thrust is equal to drag, and moves rearward when thrust is greater than drag. Whether the path is downhill, level, or uphill does not matter.
In the example of the lorry, the fuel moves forward until the inclination of the liquid level plane is perpendicular to the direction of the pendulum.
If you agree to that we have indeed no reason to discuss this further.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=307433932712355&set=a.271329812989434.61880.100003372525116&type=3&hc_location=ufi
“Zaharie Shah
February 22, 2013 ·
“last session on my sim with Capt Zainal (chikgu) b4 aku borai kan PC tu… upgrade.”
While the primary ACARS system on board MH370 had been switched off, a second ACARS system called Classic Aero was active as long as the plane was powered up, and kept trying to establish a connection to an Inmarsat satellite every hour.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communications_Addressing_and_Reporting_System
Why did it do that, it is not programmed to do that?
@Kathy Mosesian
“Last session on my sim” doesn’t necessarily mean Zaharie did no t use the his again.
His meaning could imply last time he had a fellow captain as a guest.
Also the date February 2013. Zaharie used his sim after that date anyway even according to his family.
But what are you implying?
@Aaron
What it does show is that other people used his sim.
His family has stated over and over that his sim had not been working for over a year. This date corresponds with that. I believe the upgrade never happened.
We also have this:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh370-search-no-evidence-a-rogue-pilot-hijacked-and-crashed-plane-malaysia-20160804-gqlhoi.html
“But investigators have found no evidence implicating Captain Zaharie, reporting his ability to handle stress at home and work was good and that he had no known history of apathy, anxiety or irritability.
“Investigators said there had been no significant changes in Captain Zaharie’s lifestyle and no interpersonal conflict or family stresses.”
@Gysbreght @David
What I had in mind was MH370 steep descending with engines off only accelerating by gravity.
There would be no other ‘thrust’ than gravity.
So there would be more drag than thrust I assume in this case. Moving the fuel forward.
I thought it was strange for in the Zero G movie you see nothing is moving forward or backward during the steep descent (or the climb).
As Gysbreght suggest; to keep it this way a balance between thrust and drag is created.
I think then this can only be accomplished if thrust from the engines is added in the descent to compensate for the drag.
Then I think this means the plane has to speed up faster then the pull of gravity for balancing the drag.
My point for the question was to find out if the fuel would move forward in an accelerating descent without engine thrust.
I conclude now this will be the case.
But I also conclude with engine thrust and a pilot controlling the thrust in a descent it is possible the fuel would not move forward or backward. I understand the fuel could even been forced backward if the pilot would choose to shift the balance to more thrust than drag.
Is this correct?
@ Gysbreght. I could not but agree that in accelerating descending flight with thrust less than drag, fuel will flow forward: thence APU fuel will have to be drawn against resistance rather than being under pressure at the APU; and also the residual fuel will flow forward ie tending away from the APU pump suction.
This of course has a bearing on end of flight and could be approached quantitatively (via L/D) should any need arise.
@JeffWise
Is there no kind of notification system in place here? I never would have known, I don’t think, that someone replied to me had I not come back to look. Perhaps it went to my email and I just have not noticed yet.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/MH370Search/
I think it is unlikely/impossible that everyone in the cabin had died from oxgygen starvation by the time of the reboot.
The portable oxygen bottles last between 1:15 hrs and 2:30 hrs, depending on flow setting. It also normally takes several minutes once the aircon is turned off for the oxygen to reach a critical level.
There were also more portable bottles than crew members. In order to kill everyone in the cabin, depressurisation would need to last a few hours at least, including time of reversible unconsciousness. Hypothermia would be more of a problem.
@Nederland
” order to kill everyone in the cabin, depressurisation would need to last a few hours at least, including time of reversible unconsciousness. Hypothermia would be more of a problem.”
Your statement wrong. Did you not see my post I,e hypoxia loss of consciousness,death time it takes at different altitudes?
I guess not. Not only but there’s a lot misinformation being posted.
Ppl in general on the page need to take the and do more research.
So in case you missed it.
http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/aeromedical/decompressionandhypoxia.php
@Aaron
Those figures apply to rapid decompression and no oxygen provided.
The FI gives the specifications for the portable oxygen bottles for cabin crew. These are the same as, for example, with Helios 522 (1:15 hrs to 2:25 hrs duration). In that case, at least one crew member survived for 2 1/2 hrs even at higher altitude.
@Trond on Litlefoot:
At least a seasoned flight captain might have a good idea about what could be expected in terms of fighter jets and radar and military alert behaviour. A completely irresponsive plane, captained by someone who is beyond suspiscion, and with no obviuos motive or target in terms of an attack, and seemingly either trying to find an opportunity to land or heading away from big cities (by the time they had spotted him again) would not necessarily be a candidate for a shootdown. He could probably count on that as long as he was heading away,fighter jets would if all only take a look if someone was visible in the cockpit. It happens pretty fast too, and the Indonesians and Thailand would be a bit worried by scrambling fighter jets. (In these cases military won’t take your word for it. )
You could (should even) leave the shooting down to the airforce in the direction the plane is heading.
A plane with apparently reinstated satcom-capabilities which is not answering would be another matter. That you would take down with much greater ease. So I think it could be the other way.
@Nederland
Yes it does.. and you mentioned “depressurisation would need to last a few hours at least ”
where are you getting that figure..
In regards to Helios the cause. That incident was caused by a maintenance technician. Checking for any pressurization leaks.As it was reported that stewards seen ice forming on the rear entry door on a previous flight.. The technician set the pressurization switch on the overhead control to manual in order for him to do his checks..He forgot to set it back to auto. A config alarm sounded but the pilots could not understand what the alarm was for..
Even on manual setting the depressurization would take a lot longer..
Point is if a pilot wanted to depressurize the plane fast he could do this within mins, and if the aircraft was flying @35000 feet.Once Oxygen masks are deployed passengers can expect about 15min..
Question in regards to portable oxygen supply for a crew member..I don’t know the exact specs.But If I can speculate on oxygen supply would not last more than 30min max (reference to oxygen supplied to the pilots on the flight deck)
few points
Last acars transmission was @01:07:48
SDU log on request was @ 02:25
*The link is re-established after being lost for between 22 and 68 minutes.[12]:39[17]:18
If MH370 was dark for all of 68 mins..That would have been plenty of time for someone (maybe the pilot) to create a Hypoxia event, if MH370 was flying at an altitude between 29000-35000 feet.
Most air crash investigators regard this scenario of the most likely outcome for passengers and crew, not with standing the pilot (if he did hijack his own plane)
@Aaron
Thanks Aaron. It is a little sick after an event like this. But I would not suggest the passengers would get similar buttons with regard to the cockpit to help them defend themselves.
@David:
Thanks David, I am much obliged.
That was proximate indeed. This much you could infer (hypothetically): the turn is logically related to the fact that the plane is technically responsive again. (See my previous post). He feared the jets might come after him or meet up but they would be looking in the wrong place.
A more benevolent theory would be that there is or has been some struggle to regain control and reinstate satcom and that someone with their last efforts (realizing they won’t survive to land) sends the plane off in a harmless direction).
Well, my post before my previous post.
@Johan
So true sadly..
I’ve always the question to some of my friends who work various positions in the airline industry.
Since 911 entry to flight deck has to be locked at all times to prevent a hijacking.
What happens if the pilot is the hijcker?
Take German wings crash.A depressed suicidal co-pilot who locked the captain in order to crash the plane.
Since then I know a lot of carriers will not allow either pilot or co-pilot alone on the flight know.If one of the pilots needs to leave to go to the toilet or something another crew must go into the flight deck.
This is not a strict enough protocol in my opinion.
The question I’ve asked is, why isn’t there some kind of emergency code the can be imputed from outside the flight. To send a message to ATC that someone has locked themselves in the flight deck..
Planes like the 777 can be remote piloted.So in part that to be executed from the ground in an event like that.
@MH/@Trond/@Ge Rijn:
Would be interesting to hear final words on that. Would there be backup systems that would kick in to override the flight deck’s input? I am not sure what is the most weird.
It could be of great significance, too, as it might indicate if the system had been tampered with in advance to facilitate the blackout.
@Nederland,
Another piont I forgot to mention on the Heilos crash.
When the technician set the switch to manual he pressurized the plane in order to do his checks. That’s why depressurization took a lot longer.
@Aaron
“Question in regards to portable oxygen supply for a crew member..I don’t know the exact specs.But If I can speculate on oxygen supply would not last more than 30min max (reference to oxygen supplied to the pilots on the flight deck)”
Speculation?
On portable bottles for cabin crew on MH370, see FI, App. 1.6E p. 25
Specifications are the same for Helios 522
http://www.aaiasb.gr/imagies/stories/documents/11_2006_EN.pdf
p. 33
MH370 was descending after diversion, and per ATSB flying at around FL300.
As far as I’m aware, 3 liter/minute would be sufficient, that means just under 2 hours duration, less if on 4 liter/minute (but still longer than one hour or 68 minutes). And how could the captain communicate if decompression occurred before 01:19?
But it is important to note that there were more bottles than crew members.
For passengers 22 minutes, per FI.
@Ge Rijn. “My point for the question was to find out if the fuel would move forward in an accelerating descent without engine thrust.”
Yes.
“I understand the fuel could even been forced backward if the pilot would choose to shift the balance to more thrust than drag.”
Yes again.
@Middleton
MH370 or 9M-MRO was a B777 200ER.
The following is extracted from B777 Smartcockpit Systems Summary (Electrical):
Backup Generators, if both IDGs and APU are inoperative, following systems are shed (777 200 and 200ER) TCAS, SATCOM, RH HF radio, centre tank override/jettison pumps
(777 200LR) in addition to the above, position and exterior lights, non essential cabin equipt (galleys, entertainment systems etc) certain passenger cabin lighting, cabin temperature control restricted/degraded.
Therefore, if I interpret it correctly, on MH370 IFE was not load shed on backup generator. IFE is shed on 777 LR, but not on ER.
@Aaron:
You are right. But I can see the troubles. However you turn you will not get around the human factor. (But who will watch over the watchmen?), and with all the flights round the world all the time, you cannot distrust all the captains. In this case, and I have still a hard time believing it, he slipped through all nets you could imagine would pick him out.
And then there is the industry, where strong interests, big money, competition and cost efficiancy and whatnot will make it difficult to create rapid change and make it work all over the board. The costs involved are already extreme. You need a huge superindustrial fund to pay for the implementation costs really.
The German Wings crash by the way is outragous and shows a profound disrespect for all and everything involved. The airline or other responsible ought to be fined massively. You can’t have planes in the air at any cost. Who do they think they are? We can’t have the whole flight industry going postal. Ground anyone who shouldn’t be in the air. It is hard to pull through of course, but a “human resources” department worth Its name could really make a difference there.
@Nederland
@David
Nederland, FI quotes cockpit oxygen quantity as in excess of at least 18 hours, if memory serves, as I noted here previously.
The ATSB has determined that in standard flight attitude (1° pitch) approximately 30 lb of fuel is available to the APU after a left engine fuel exhaustion.
The simulator tests conducted by ALSM show that after the left engine fuel exhaustion the airplane initially descends at 2000 fpm with a steady airspeed of 200 kt IAS, i.e. on a flight path angle of about 4° down. The speed of 200 kt IAS is less than the normal cruise speed. Therefore the angle of attack would be about 2° greater than in normal cruise, say AoA=3°, so that the pitch attitude would be approximately 1° nose-down on a 4° glidepath.
While a change of pitch attitude of 2° nose-down can make much difference to the fuel available to the APU, I doubt that an attitude of 1° nose-down would cause vapor lock at the APU fuel pump.
@Aaron:
If Shah is supposed to have done this alone I would take a guess that someone in or around MAS or his personal life would know. And he must have left traces. I can’t see him pulling this off without leaving a trace. He may have been in a priviledged position what regards prior knowledge and similar but if he was not instructed in his capacity as MAS employee on what all he appears to have had to know to make this happen, then he ought to have left traces behind him.
And there has to be additional motive than just being pissed off at the Court of appeals. There has to something major. Otherwise I still would hold as likely that he did this as part of something bigger or that things simply went very wrong.
Maybe we will have to be content with lining out the different scenarios.
Further: if this to be a probable stunt by the captain, and so meticulously planned, then he would have made certain first of all that he could kill all passengers as quickly and as effortlessly and conveniently as possible.
I can’t see him sitting in an oxygen mask for some two hours with a screaming riot behind the cockpit door. Which might have been forced during that time. I think that would have spoiled all the good feelings.
The fact that the batteries for the voice recorder (was it not) had passed their expiry date by a year or so says some of how hard it will be to make things work properly.
@Aaron
Decompression may have occurred quicker (in theory) on MH370 than on Helios 522, but there is still enough time to get hold of an oxygen bottle.
Even if some crew members passed out, it still takes time for that condition to become irreversible. Passengers on Helios 522 were still alive after 2 hrs of oxygen starvation, although it is assumed they were in an irreversible coma at the time of the crash (see accident report, above). Someone else can help you with your oxygen supply or, if air con was switched on again at some point, chances are you regain consciousness.
3 litre/minute is about the recommended setting for loss of oxygen at around FL300. Some may decide to go for 4 litres, but may later adjust once they become aware that the hijacker has no intention to decrease altitude. So perhaps anything from 75 minutes to 2 hours is a rough estimate per bottle (301 litres per bottle). Since there were 10 cabin crew members but 15 bottles, arguably some would have been able to use two (or more) bottles.
It becomes difficult to cope with oxygen bottles above c. FL350, but MH370 reportedly decreased altitude to c. FL300. To my mind, this counter-indicates deliberate depressurisation.
I’m not sure how long it takes for the temperature to sink to fatal levels, but I suspect the hijacker would become hypothermic long before everyone in the cabin is in a state of irreversible coma.
@Nederland:
That is interesting to hear. Temperature estimates would of course be valuable. So if the hijacker didn’t bring a car heater and extra knickers he could not keep the temperature any higher in the cockpit compared to the rest of the jet?
Will the thermic effect hit harder on the cockpit for being immediately exposed to the windspeed? Or is it neglible do you think? (The cockpit might have extra shelter for that of course).
@Nederland
I doubt if hypothermia would occure.
IMO the heating system will remain working only the air will be of lower pressure in the cabin. It probably will get colder but not freezing. Warm air will still be pumped in the cabin but will flow out at a certain higher rate than normal.
The flight attendent on the Helios flight was not frozen after 2 hours of decompression. He was sitting in the cockpit with no extra clothing as I remember well and waved to the F16 pilot.
Maybe something else to consider on availability of oxygen.
With 220 passengers on board their would be ~100 oxigen masks hanging unused.
If someone was keen enough to go from one mask to another before they were empthy he/she could have surfived for many hours.
@Ge Rijn:
Hm. We’re thrown between hope and despair here.
But it is a sign of progress, isn’t it? Thanks.
@Ge Rijn, David
I can’t answer that question definitely, but my impression is most contributors here and elsewhere think that deliberate depressurisation means a dramatic drop of temperature.
This article also states that human bodies recovered from Helios 522 were frozen:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/flugzeugabsturz-die-meisten-leichen-waren-gefroren-a-369778.html
The accident report on Helios 522 does not answer that question but (link above, p. 104) it lists previous incidents of depressurisation that involve a drop of temperature.
In that case, the cabin crew would be in a better position as they can move freely in the cabin and have 200+ blankets at their disposal.
At any rate, if some in the cabin are able to survive a few hours, it is doubtful if decompression would prevent resistance as in that case there can be very little doubt about nefarious intentions.
Thanks Nederland. I will take a closer look.
Let’s say Shah allowed a friend (or FO) to use his home simulator and that person input the SIO route. We know the FO was on board but, would we know if that friend happened to be aboard MH370?
Many of us use the fuel burn rate tables published in the FCOM and, not surprisingly, get identical answers to endurance and range projections. I believe the main purpose of these table is to allow calculations of how much fuel, plus contingencies, are nedessary for a given flight. Couldn’t that suggest that these values might be a little conservative? For example, PI.21.7 gives burn rates for “holding” but with a footnote that the values shown include 5% additional fuel for holding in a racetrack pattern. Five percent is a nice round number that applies to all of the different combinations of weight and altitude. Sounds conservative to me.
The reason for suggesting this is perhaps Dr. Ulich’s negative PDA values are realistic when comparing the actual burn rates to the published values.
Due to differences in simulator’s projected burn rates and the actual fuel burn rate of MH370 (which was shown inefficient ie- higher rate) it’s unlikely the sim was useful in any planning effort.
@MH
There are only six primary standards in the world today –
length, mass, time interval, temperature, electrical current, and luminous intensity. Every other measurable we use is directly related to these six.
The point is that consistency and accuracy are two different notions. I can calibrate a thermometer, the odometers in my vehicles, my torque wrenches, my fuel gauges,… in fact, I do all these things. Likewise it would be relatively straight forward to calibrate the output of the simulator against whatever standard the user wanted to use as a reference. It is common practice for every instrument used in a QS9000 environment to have a periodic calibration (with a dated sticker). Nothing is perfect or remains accurate. Everything needs to be calibrated. Shah knows this. He was not an idiot.
@Nederland
Nothing definitive on frozen bodies, but I note that it is mentioned by newsmedia at the time, such as:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10340994
Other details in the report are wrong or exaggerated though (a Greek who wanted some attention was later sent to jail for lying about getting texts about crew turning blue). The plane had a history of troubles with pressure and airconditioning that might have caught on too.
You get the overall impression that, in the internet age, where the historic record does not get the same weight any more, newsbits are invented and inserted as one goes along. A little like ancient maps and encyclopedias. (There might be a language barrier too.) Not least with a “mediafriendly” event as this. It has Its own dynamic, like Hitler’s Govt. cabinets. (news have Always been exaggerated but there were times when you could depend more on certain printed papers who were embarrassed by printing lies and used to publish corrections when they faulted (do I sound like an old hog?). There are some left but hardly online.
They are selling awe. It is human.
@Kathy Mosesian
“What it does show is that other people used his sim.”
Good point.
Regarding that facebook picture, perhaps you did not also notice
that the scence on the (flight sim) screens could be an Antartic
landscape (snowy, with rocky outcrops)…
_
@ROB
The 777_Electrical.pdf is not an official Boeing or Carrier document,
it is a production of the ‘smartcockpit.com’ website. It represents
the best efforts of an ‘enthusiast’ to provide information on the 777.
Therefore , you should consider it likely that, rather than the IFE
‘shedding priority’ being different in the 200ER as compared to the
200LR, that instead the information that the author of the document
consulted for the 200ER did not specify the shedding priority for items
other than those stated (for the 200ER), whereas the information the
author consulted for the 200LR merely ‘went into a bit more detail’,
and the author has simply provided that ‘bit more detail’, verbatim.
What I am suggesting is that the shedding priority is almost certainly
the SAME for either 200ER or 200LR, especially for a non-essential
item such as the IFE.
If you wish to confirm or investigate this point, you could send an
email to the ‘contact’ email on their smartcockpit.com website.
I guess most have read wiki’s rendering of the Heliios accident. I can recommend it to those who haven’t, for reference. Makes you humble. And makes you wanna spend your vacation at your own local Walden pond.
Whether it is fully correct I couldn’t say, but makes you think. No frozen bodies though.
I would expect Shah not to be any idiot, Hence why would he use a mFSX to plan. Similarly the data from mFSX would be of non useful state.
@MH
So why would Shah have a simulator at all?
You are beating on a dead end path here.
@DennisW – home based simulators are just games no analytical value especially from uninstalled and reinstalled application done multiple times also those data files recovered from inconsistent Restore point amongst many os patch layers that fix restore point issues.
@Johan
In the FI, I can’t see how to control temperature separatly from cabin pressure. (App. 1.6E1)
Uncontrolled depressurisation regularly involves dramatic drop in temperature, unless the aircraft descends.
In the Helios accident report
http://www.aaiasb.gr/imagies/stories/documents/11_2006_EN.pdf
the case mentioned on p. 104 seems to provide comparison.
“The senior cabin attendant again entered the cockpit to report that passengers were experiencing ear problems, the cabin was very cold”
P. 59 says that generally low cabin pressure amounts to decreasing temperatures.
@MH
At the end of the day it does not matter what you think (or what I think). Shah had a simulator. That is what matters. Don’t be an idiot.
I presume the computer hooked up to all that sim gear was dedicated to the sim, i.e, it was not his email or facebook computer.
All the (5 mentioned) other hard drives seem to have been dedicated to the sim as well.
Whether or not Shah had a simulator or not is not really the point.
What is the point, is how good it was, and why it was so good.
To explain.
It is reasonably clear that it was pretty complicated toy as home sims go, and that he was continually upgrading it, apparently driven by a desire to make it as “realistic” to the real 777 as possible, even to the point of installing a “fuel dump” upgrade.
The fact that at least one other MAS Captain was photographed on his facebook page playing with it suggests that he was very proud of it, and wanted to show it off, i.e, demonstrate it to his peers.
He continued tinkering and upgrading and eventually it crashed. He spent months trying to fix it. He failed. He was still trying to fix it weeks before MH370 went missing.
Bottom line, the sim was definitely not the planning tool the powers that be are trying to suggest it might have been. Feeding us a few lat longs and – hey look, they go to McMurdo, definitely is a deliberate red herring.
@DennisW- it depends if the data from such simulators (remember there were at least two application of serval versions) are actually applicable to the missing MH370 case. Got proof the data is applicable and stable ?
@ Gysbreght. “I doubt that an attitude of 1° nose-down would cause vapor lock at the APU fuel pump.”
No, not of itself, but for APU start and run 2 minutes is needed for SDU reboot and I doubt the simulator runs would give confidence that pitch down would not increase during the latter part.
Vapour lock is an issue only if the APU fuel pump cannot access any, or enough, residual fuel. Even so, for those who may be interested beyond the above, I have cobbled together some comments on the topic.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/op7pm747z7l0b13/Vapour%20Lock.docx?dl=0