In last month’s New York magazine article about Zaharie Ahmad Shah’s flight simulator, I cautioned against treating the recovered data as a smoking gun:
…it’s not entirely clear that the recovered flight-simulator data is conclusive. The differences between the simulated and actual flights are significant, most notably in the final direction in which they were heading. It’s possible that their overall similarities are coincidental — that Zaharie didn’t intend his simulator flight as a practice run but had merely decided to fly someplace unusual.
What I failed to question was the report’s assumption that the six points all belonged to a single flight path. On closer examination that assumption seems ill supported. Rather, it seems more likely that the six points were recorded in the course of two or possibly three separate flights. They were interpreted as comprising a single flight only because together they resembled what investigators were hoping to find.
The first four points do appear to show a snapshots from a continuous flight, one that takes off from Kuala Lumpur and climbing as it heads to the northwest. Between each point the fuel remaining decreases by a plausible amount. Each point is separated from the next by a distance of 70 to 360 nautical miles. At the fourth point, the plane is at cruise speed and altitude, heading southwest in a turn to the left. Its direction of flight is toward southern India.
The fifth and sixth points do not fit into the pattern of the first four. For one thing, they are located more than 3,000 miles away to the southeast. This is six or seven hours’ flying time. Curiously, at both points the fuel tanks are empty. Based on its fuel load during the first four points, the plane could have flown for 10 hours or more from the fourth point before running out of fuel.
The fifth and sixth points are close together—just 3.6 nautical miles apart—but so radically different in altitude that it is questionable whether they were generated by the same flight. To go directly from one to the other would require a dive so steep that it would risk tearing the aircraft apart.
The picture becomes even more curious when we examine the plane’s vertical speed at these two points: in each case, it is climbing, despite having no engine power.
The ATSB has speculated that in real life MH370 ran out of fuel shortly before 0:19 on March 8, and thereafter entered into a series of uncontrolled porpoising dives-and-climbs called phugoids. In essence, a plane that is not held steady by a pilot or autopilot, its nose might dip, causing it to speed up. The added speed willl cause the nose to rise, and the plane to climb, which will bleed off speed; as the plane slows, its nose will fall, and the cycle will continue.
Could a phugoid cause a plane to climb—663 feet per minute at point 5, and 2029 feet per minute at point 6? The answer seems to be yes for the fifth point and no for the sixth. Reader Gysbreght conducted an analysis of 777 flight-simulator data published by Mike Exner, in which an airliner was allowed to descend out of control from cruise altitude in the manner that the ATSB believes MH370 did.
A diagram produced by Gysbreght is shown at top. The pink line shows the plane’s altitude, starting at 35,000 feet; the blue line shows its rate of climb. Worth noting is the fact that the phugoid oscillation does indeed cause the plane to exhibit a small positive rate of climb soon at first. But by the time the plane reaches 4000 feet — the altitude of the sixth point — the oscillation has effectively ceased and the plane is in a very steep dive.
Gysbreght concludes:
As expected for a phugoid, the average rate of descent is about 2500 fpm, and it oscillates around that value by +/- 2500 fpm initially. The phugoid is apparently dampened and the amplitude reduces rapidly. I was slightly surprised that it reaches positive climb values at all. Therefore I think that 2000 fpm climb is not the result of phugoid motion.
Not only is the plane climbing briskly at the sixth point, but it is doing so at a very low airspeed—just above stall speed, in fact. If the pilot were flying level at this speed without engine power and pulled back on the controls, he would not climb at 2000 feet per minute; he would stall and plummet. In order to generate these values, the plane must have been put into a dive to gain speed, then pulled up into a vigorous “zoom climb.” Within seconds after point six, the simulated flight’s speed would have bled off to below stall speed and entered into an uncontrollable plunge.
Perhaps this is why Zaharie chose to record this particular point: it would have been an interesting challenge to try to recover from such a plunge at low altitude.
What he was doing at points 5 and 6, evidently, was testing the 777 flight envelope. This might seem like a reckless practice, but I think the opposite is the case. From time to time, airline pilots do find themselves in unexpected and dangerous conditions. For instance, as Gysbreght has noted, “On 7 october 2008 VH-QPA, an A330-303, operating flight QF72 from Singapore to Perth, experienced an In-flight Upset west of Learmonth, West Australia. The upset was caused by a freak combination of an instrumentation failure and an error in the flight control software, which resulted in an uncommanded pitch-down. The vertical acceleration changed in 1.8 seconds from +1 g to -0.8 g.” It would be better to experience a situation like this for the first time in a flight simulator in one’s basement, rather than in midair with a load of passengers and crew.
What Zaharie clearly was not trying to do was to fly to McMurdo Station in Antarctica, as some have speculated.
For one thing, while a 777 is fully capable of flying from Kuala Lumpur to Antarctica, it was not carrying enough at point 1 to make the trip. And if one were trying to reach a distant location, one would not do so by running one’s tanks dry and then performing unpowered zoom climbs.
The misinterpretation of the flight simulator data offers a couple of cautionary lessons. The first is that we have to be careful not to let a favored theory color our interpretation of the data. The investigators believed that MH370 flew up the Malacca Strait and wound up in the southern Indian Ocean, and they believed that Zaharie was most likely the culprit; therefore, when they found data points on his hard drive that could be lumped together to form such a route, that’s what they perceived.
A second lesson is that we cannot uncritically accept the analysis made by officials or by self-described experts. Science operates on openness. If someone offers an analysis, but refuses to share the underlying data, we should instinctively view their claims with suspicion.
@DrBobbyUlich or @all
Brock McEwens post;
http://jeffwise.net/2016/08/31/mh370-flight-simulator-claim-unravels-under-inspection/#comment-183096
raises the objection that certain route scenarios are precluded because
(by the postulated time of the engine flameout) there is still a calculated
“excess of fuel”.
Has it been considered that shortly after IGARI, the pilots started the
APU and it ran throughout the following flight, using fuel and contribut-
ing a minor but noteworthy source of drag?
Could you please very briefly note why no-one includes APU on after IGARI
as a possible parameter worthy of consideration?
@Gloria
When you read information about MH370, particularly information
whose source is press releases or ‘anouncements’ by Malaysian officals
in the immediate months after the disappearance of MH370, please then do
further checking to ascertain if a particular piece of information has
subsequently been determined to be incorrect or untrue.
‘ascent to 43,000 to 45,000ft for 23 minutes’ has long since been
determined to have not occured.
Though in part conjecture, an interesting piece nevertheless.
http://mh370apilotperspective.blogspot.nl/2016/06/mh370-important-change-in-protocola-clue.html
@buyerninety
Who determined it to be not accurate? It was military radar tracking the flight really. The same people pushing the silly search in that location in the SIO? The Authorized version goes…suicidal pilot, practices flight, ditches plane end of story. Er wrong.
If you see how Malaysians at Zaharie’s level of education and affluence live in KL, so much better than any pilot in The US. They have hugely comfortable lifestyle with large homes, maids and extended family living in proximity, very social.
The sock puppets trolling forums like this keep pushing the authorized version, as silly as it sounds in the antiquated hope that like the Warren Commission’s single bullet theory re JFK.
People accept it. Different times, different cynical view of authorized versions events that don’t add up.
According to military radar the airliner climbed to 45,000 feet, above the approved altitude limit for a Boeing 777-200, soon after it disappeared from civilian radar and turned sharply to the west. This item alone, why?
The Malaysian government’s military tracked the plane but gave their data to The US and China, big mistake.
The plane then descended unevenly to 23,000 feet, below normal cruising levels, as it approached the densely populated island of Penang.
@Brock McEwen,
The answer is the BTOs satisfy both. In fact, the BTOs can be matched for ALL routes that (nearly) intersect all the arcs for all the possible lateral navigation modes (and allowable navigation errors). So matching BTOs is a given but just the first step.
The question is not just “do the BTOs match”, but what else does? The first check beyond the BTOs/nav errors is, are the speed errors acceptable? Next, one can check the BFO errors to see if they are acceptable (but they change so slowly with small route shifts that they don’t really contribute significantly to convergence). The last test is the sufficiency of the fuel. Only if you get matches everywhere do you have an acceptable route. So they keys in fitting are matching BTOs, nav errors, and speed errors. Achieving that, one then looks at the BFOs and PDA to see if they are acceptable.
I do allow small changes in bearing along constant heading routes (up to 0.5 degrees RMS and 0.7 degrees peak), and perhaps that is what you are noticing in the plot you made. The reason for this is the uncertainty in crosswind. The wind data are imperfect, are not taken simultaneously with the satellite data, and are taken at a single pressure altitude which is not generally the same as the aircraft flight level. Therefore I expect to see some small variations from time to time along the route, but I don’t let any leg bearing vary more than 0.7 degrees from the overall mean route heading. The 0.5 degree RMS bearing error is equivalent to having a 4 kt standard deviation of crosswind error between the beginning of the leg and the end.
Each % higher in PDA is a 1% increase in fuel burned to produce the required thrust. For instance, the difference betyween 4.7% and -1% in PDA is a 5.7% increase if engine efficiency. I don’t know where you get 36%.
None of my modeling is targeted toward any particular result – inside the search area or outside it, or near some drift modeling result. I don’t assume anything about shoreline debris or seabed search, only that those data points that Inmarsat says are reliable are authentic and accurate within Inmarsat’s error bounds. I simply look for all the routes that match those satellite data. The routes come out where they come out. The answers I am getting are certainly not what I expected.
Using my current model there are “acceptable” solutions for only two routes, and they both end outside the ATSB Search Area. The corollary to this is that no “acceptable” (in my opinion) route ends SW of or even inside the ATSB Search Area. The BFO errors are a bit too large, and the fuel is insufficient. The fuel issue is critical to understand, because if my fuel model somehow overestimates the fuel used, additional routes can become feasible, including a True Track route at 180 degrees that also ends outside the ATSB Search Area. To get feasible routes inside that search area, one needs to supply an additional 3-4% in fuel efficiency from somewhere AND also allow BFO errors > 4 Hz RMS.
I’ll see what I can do on the fuel model. Maybe I can create a large Excel table with relevant parameter values (not formulae) and post a link (for the True Heading route). Then whoever wants to check the minute-by-minute numbers can do so. If anyone finds a significant error, so much the better.
@Gloria
You say;
“According to military radar the airliner climbed to 45,000 feet”.
Where is your attributation as to the source of your alleged
statement?
@Gloria
“If you see how Malaysians at Zaharie’s level of education and affluence live in KL, so much better than any pilot in The US. They have hugely comfortable lifestyle with large homes, maids and extended family living in proximity, very social.”
I grew up in Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia. Lifestyle comparissons as to exclude a “possible” suicide is more than just shortsighted. IF, this was intentional and thus a suicidal event, it was not one to be broadcasted to the world. It was not done to make a statement. Au contraire, IMO it was very private indeed. So much so, that the perpetrator in this event made sure all evidence to that effect would dissappear.
@buyerninety,
You made a good point regarding the APU. I don’t have a dog in that fight, but it’s easy to add to my fuel model. All I need is an estimate of the APU fuel flow (kg/hr). I understand it will depend on electrical load, so maybe a lower and upper bound would at least allow me to see the integrated effect on calculated fuel and estimated engine PDA. Have you got access to those numbers?
If the APU were already running when main engine fuel exhaustion occurred, how would that change the interpretation of the subsequent events and timeline?
Supposing there was still sufficient fuel in the APU fuel line so that it continued to run for several minutes at least after left-engine fuel exhaustion. Would the SDU still lose power for a sufficiently long period of time that it would stop operating? How and when would power to the SDU be restored so that it would re-boot? What does this imply regarding the time when engine fuel exhaustion occurred? Would that mean it occurred later, less than 2 minutes before 00:19:29? What about the RAT? I think it would deploy at engine fuel exhaustion, but could it ever power the SDU? Could the SDU re-boot be caused by the APU fuel exhaustion and then the RAT coming online?
I apologize if these questions have already been answered elsewhere. I recall some discussions on this topic, but I don’t recall the conclusions.
Gloria,
See the comments on this website back on Sept. 29, 2014 concerning the vagaries of estimated altitudes from military radars for airplanes with transponders turned off.
http://jeffwise.net/2014/09/29/mh370-what-we-know-now/
@Boris
>.. this misunderstanding of the data…
I am not suggesting any misunderstanding of the data in defining the current search area. The recent thread has concerned the detailed errors in the BFO data. This issue is not relevant to the DSTG Bayesian model which does not use the BFO data in that way.
Sk999,
“The AFDS has all the information it needs. Magnetic heading comes from the ADIRU and is on the same ARINC 629 bus as true heading”
No, this is not true. I already provided you with the reference, which lists ADIRU output. I thought we more or less clarified that magnetic heading is not output from ADIRU, and what likely purpose ADIRU stores magnetic declination tables.
Bobby,
You asked Buyerninety “All I need is an estimate of the APU fuel flow (kg/hr).”
APU fuel consumption rates are listed in both FI and FCOM. Please note that APU increases head drag, and hence this results in additional fuel consumption to compensate it.
DrBobbyUlich said;
“All I need is an estimate of the APU fuel flow (kg/hr).”
(It would seem myself & perhaps Ge Rijn have our homework for the
coming week…)
It would need to be APU fuel flow {expressed, or conversion made to}
“(kg/hr)”, preferably an ‘in flight’ figure, although ‘at the gate or
on taxi’ would be helpful to extrapolate from if no ‘in flight’ is
found.
Also, I have read andectodal mention that the APU inlet door,
when open in flight, causes an amount of drag that is small but
noticeable (from experience of pilots by comparison reference to the
amount of fuel used to previous {presumably route} flights when no
APU inlet door was open). It would be helpful if a figure for this
additional source of drag could be quantified, even if only as an
off the cuff mention by some 777 pilot.
Cheers
@Brock McEwen,
Here is a link to an Excel spreadsheet containing the fuel model calculation results for my True Heading Route #6D:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUV05VVUpWbGFsc1k/view?usp=sharing
@Oleksandr
Although those sources do give figures, it is not certain what
amount of ‘loading’, or even if any loading of the APU was occuring,
for the figure(s) stated in those sources. It is therefore prudent
of DrBobbyUlich to seek figures for fuel use from other sources
(if other sources can be found).
@Gloria
You asked “Who determined it to be not accurate?”, (in regard to the
45,00 feet ascent altitude).
Angus Houston, then head of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre for
MH370 did, as attributed by the Malaysian media here;
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/inaccurate-malaysian-radar-readings-may-have-sent-mh370-searchers-on-wild-g
Therefore, please stop making posts about the false 45,000 feet
altitude (I believe you also have made this assertion in previous posts).
Dennis,
Earlier I asked you about an acceptable BFO error treshold, as you may guess not randomly.
There are a few points I would like to make if you assume the limit of 20 Hz:
>1. The two intervals of data from Inmarat corresponding to the two phone calls and containing ~40 samples each, exhibit small fluctuations, much smaller than 20 Hz.
>2. The overall BFO trend after 19:41 is nearly linear with deviations from the “line” also much smaller than 20 Hz.
>3. There is a question, why not 21 Hz. In this regard non-exceedance statistics would be useful. What is probability of the exceedance of 20 Hz?
>4. If I recall correctly the northern heading of ~10 deg gives errors of order 40 Hz. More intelligent choice of flight modes may possibly result in smaller errors. Hence by accepting the limit of 20 Hz, BFO data effectively become useless.
In summary, while 20 Hz errors are possible, probablity of their occurance is very small.
@DrBobbyUlich
>inspection of Inmarsat’s Figure 15 reveals that of the 30 BFO measurements plotted on one flight, 25 are within +/- 3.5 Hz and only 5 are between +/- 3.5 and +/- 7 Hz.
Section 5.3 of the DSTG paper gives an average of 170 in-flight BFO measurements per previous flight of 9M-MRO. The Inmarsat paper fig 15 has 30 data points, so it isn’t the raw BFO data (they don’t claim that it is).
@buyerninety,
Per the ATSB, the APU consumes 2 lb of fuel in 55 seconds when electrically loaded, which is 1 kg/minute or 60 kg/hr. Every hour of loaded APU operation costs 0.137% of the available fuel after 17:07. Loaded APU operation from 17:22 to 00:19 costs 0.95% of the fuel from the last report, and would reduce the PDA for my True Heading route from 4.70% to 3.75%. This would eliminate the concern about having too much fuel for that particular route.
I wonder if it would be the usual practice to start the APU whenever an electrical problem occurs, such as loss of the left IDG/bus?
@DennisW, @Aunt Bea,
If the drives were wiped, there wouldn’t have been “restore point file, deleted files” categories, but everything would be unallocated cluster files.
So the drives were not wiped, the flt files were simply deleted.
@MH
Why would you need to reactivate satcom? I could understand changing the transponder ID to military, but no one is tracking the satcom in real time.
Inmarsat probably looked for other spurious data in their database. But if they’d found something they wouldn’t tell us. If they didn’t find anything, how would they prove absence of data? They can’t release their whole database.
I would argue that if a plane were to be hacked, it could only be done by state sponsored actors. But why would a state do that? How would they convince a pilot to work for them, leaving his family forever?
Since nobody else on the plane is reported as being capable of flying a 777, either the captain or the fo had to be in on it.
@Sinux
How do you know, there was or wasn’t a restore point?.
Whether a drive is wiped as in formatted or a file deleted it can be recovered only if that section of clusters hasn’t been rewritten/formatted again effecting the particular type of file your after.
@Oleksandr,
First, I didn’t say anything about BFOs for speeds HIGHER than LRC.
And why are you using YAP’s BFO calculator instead of your own? That was the whole purpose.
Anyway, to compare with Yap’s results, I ran the same conditions as you used with his calculator. Here is what I got:
BFO = DeltaF(up) + DeltaF(down) + deltaf(comp) + deltaf(sat) + deltaf(AFC) + deltaf(bias)
DeltaF(up) = -1.3 Hz (sat toward aircraft) -122.0 Hz (aircraft toward satellite) = -123.3 Hz Total
DeltaF(down) = -36.1 Hz
deltaf(comp) = +165.5 Hz
deltaf(sat) + deltaf(AFC) = +10.6 Hz
deltaf(bias) = 150.3 Hz
BFO = 167.0 Hz (which is 3.0 Hz different than the value you gave for Yap’s calculator).
I don’t have Yap’s calculator, so why don’t you show the term-by-term breakdown for his results and also for your model. Then we can compare and see where the differences lie. I know there have been some refinements in some of the terms over time, so we must see the individual terms before we can understand any of the (rather small) differences in the sum.
Your example of 570 knots ground speed is not a realistic possibility for this aircraft.
@Sinux
Hypothetically, the pilots would not have to be convinced of anything, if they were incapacitated or the plane was hacked in such a way as to make the pilots unknowing co-conspirators.
If your instrument cluster is giving you false heading, altitude, or speed information, the pilots adjustments would cause the plane to head anywhere the hackers wanted.
A car with a faulty speedometer would cause me to push on the accelerator or brake, and the wrong freeway signs would cause me to change directions or keep driving in the wrong direction. Further, there aren’t geographical markers in the night sky that I’m aware of.
@DrBobby, @Oleksandr, Would it be useful to try to reach agreement on a BFO formula — a mathematical formula with a description of the terms, so that we could all be on the same page with regards to what set of BFO values will result from what aircraft path? I could publish it as a post or a page on this website for general reference.
@Gloria:
I think it could be a good idea for many of us — two years on — to lean back a little regarding the hype in general, for one, and the “Z did it”, for second. But people and media and others will be stirred from time to time. And whether the authorities will “pin it on Z” remains to see — they haven’t really managed yet and there are more obviously interests benefitting from the scapegoating as such (and you will always see headlines of the kind “priest stopped beating his wife”), than a real danger as yet that Z will be pinned to it once and for all. It is a process. It has to be. This is still the trial part, and will be for a long time. He’s the captain, so he would have known that he would be held accountable for the plane (in a more ordinary accident). He is paid accordingly, if you like.
I have stated many times here that there is no motive, no likelyhood (socially), no incentive (politically or other), no psychology known today that would point to Z dong this all by himself. You are perfectly right. To me. On the other hand it is not impossible, It cannot be ruled out, that such a motive might surface. A couple of factors would be enough, and then it would be another matter. There are strong forces and sentiments: disgrace, fear of social decension, betrayal, revenge, of death…
“Structurally” (opportunity in this case), there is on the other hand a very heavy load on him. He was almost the only one there. From that point of you, he could (nearly) only be more suspect if he flew the plane himself, with no passengers. I won’t go into the flight-sim here, because that is too messed up for my liking right now to be taken seriously until anyone of all people who know what exactly was on those drives finnally get their butts up. That is not beatiful, I agree. But I think one has to take it as an indication of the gravity of the suspiscions against him. Now, many things a pilot would do to save the plane could look equally nefarious if it ends without witnesses. People will (obviously) make headlines of that. Cope with it. Choose side for yourself but try to build it on facts or the gathering of facts. The real truth might never be known or classified for reasons of national security. We’ll have to cope with that too. You cannot jay-walk around the facts and the evidence available anyway. That is outside the law. Out-law.
@Johan, Very well written. Thank you for posting, I agree, that the facts are critical and will eventually, hopefully, lead to an answer. Getting the information on those drives may shed more light on the matter and bring us a step forward.
@PhilD and @buyerninety
Angus Huston retired military coordinating the failed search also claimed the primary radar reports (from Malaysian military) are unreliable. That retired military chief, lost his credibility at the 20 million dollar mark of the search. Huston discrediting information released by Malaysia (military) soon after the event. Not worthy of notice.
The height of the plane can be determined from primary radar, any other claim is fallacious but it serves the authorized version since that information is not easily explained away.
“Regardless of whether an aircraft has a transponder, primary radar will detect an aircraft’s position, height and approximate airspeed…” http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/services/how-air-traffic-control-works/our-technology/
All shill roads direct everyone back to..”the pilot did it and the plane is in the SIO”, there is so much narrowing effort by trolls and sock puppets to drive this version home, perpetual assertion based on flimsy and possible fake data. It is a security agency white wash.
The Australian authorities involved in this are either instructed or briefed in what to say, will conform to the puppet masters story by virtue of naiveté or misguided cooperation.
@Jeffertje
As I’ve mentioned in other posts, I spent a decade in KL, 3-10 months annually. The Western media flimsy profiling of Z being politically motivated, radical and suicidal is simply ridiculous. There is any amount of psychological profiling of indicators of suicidal intent available for comparison. Z’s situation, family life, Malaysian lifestyle and position does not fit.
The only evidence being offered up in support of Z suicide mission is hearsay, coming from the sources that are pushing this one line of explanation but not based on the actual facts of the event that are known in a broader public arena. Recorded times and actions.
It is the stench of mendacity coming from the parties pushing this line that layers the discredit and keeps people questioning what happened to the plane.
Wiping means deleting forever.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/safety/online-privacy/safely-dispose-computers-and-devices.aspx
Correction: “From that point of view [obviously], he could (nearly) only be more suspect….”
@keffertje:
Thanks for that. That was my backhand, it is much better.
Agreed.
@keffertje;
Now as Gloria brought it up, and misnomed you, I will have to go about thinking that you are nothing but Jeff speaking through sock-puppets both of you. Trying to introduce some marrow. But I am not the sorrier. I need the practice.
It was nice talking to you, anyways.
The Indonesians say their military saw MH370 turn at IGARI heading west (another indication their radars are not switched off after 00:00).
The Thai military says they saw MH370 turn and fly back to Malaysia.
And ofcourse the Malaysian military claim they tracked MH370 turning at IGARI back to, over and beyond Malaysia.
Three radar-stations from different countries that tracked MH370 at IGARI and further.
Comparing those data could probably refine and better confirm reached altitudes, speeds and headings.
But where are all those radar-data?
Why is this kept classified if there is nothing to hide?
@Oleksandr
You mentioned 40Hz BFO error allowing Northern routes previously. I thought you were joking, but a quick check showed that is about right mathematically. It would require speeds on the order of the Goodyear blimp, but hey.
The BFO error in The DSTG book has gotten enough attention now, so I feel my mission is accomplished in that regard. Yes, BFO is just about useless for any purpose other than concluding the plane flew South after crossing the Malay Peninsula.
@DrB
I thought my comment relative to you BFO logic summarized your position perfectly. That is you are ignoring data that does not support your views.
@Johan, Likewise:) but valid and clear insights on your part. @Gloria. You need to take a step back. I have 3 decades of Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia under my belt. Do not try and find evidence from past examples. This may be exactly the opposite from what you are deducing and thinking. It might not fit your mindset and make sense but an open mind is a way to go. People sometimes act in such a way to protect those they care about. We cannot always make sense of the non-sensical. Zahari’s position cannot be ignored. Even if you don’t like it. But if its worth anything, I hope you are right and I am wrong.
@keffertje: That’s the spirit 🙂
@DrB
If its any consolation, Dennis accused me of exactly the same thing.
Jeff Wise
Re: “Would it be useful to try to reach agreement on a BFO formula — a mathematical formula with a description of the terms, so that we could all be on the same page with regards to what set of BFO values will result from what aircraft path? I could publish it as a post or a page on this website for general reference.”
The IG made public not only a BFO model, but a complete path model (including the BFO math) available to anyone who cares to dive into the detailed math. It was built in Excel by Richard Godfrey, so it is easy to see how all the equations relate to the data. The model is easily modified to explore alternative assumptions. It has been out there for 2 years, with numerous updates over time. Here are two examples:
2014 model (V13.2): http://goo.gl/J0Q7lS
2016 model (V16.1): http://goo.gl/lY0VZN
@airlandseaman, Wow, I totally did not know that. Thanks very much. Great resource.
Has this circulated before? It’s publishing date is today. Don’t know whether this would be considered relevant to anything already discussed…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/mh370-pilots-friendship-with-mystery-woman-revealed/news-story/1e5d5b18a3a87e4765830c311f1e87ac
There are two interesting snippets of info in the story @Will linked, thanks (@Will) which even aligned to my other parts of my pilot jigsaw is telling.And they ironically refers to what the woman says more than what the retired chief pilot is saying.
I did mention earlier that the likelihood of the pilot taking the plane for a last joyride was slim when compared to a ghost flight. But that was then when data was sketchy but this news reopened old thoughts. All I can say now is that the jigsaw on the pilot is falling into place, whether it will be ever be complete to display the entire picture is a big if though.
@Will:
A “good read”. Very much on the spots. Thanks. Suggests Z had a midlife crisis of sorts. And some “ageing issues” in combination with family issues. He perhaps should have tried to find another job, it appears…
@Will, could you paste the text? Keen to read the story…
Answering my own plea…
Sent it over twice @Jeff but somehow it didn’t go up. Nice to see you put it up for it does give clues as to what happened. When carefully read with other reports back then and since about the personal life, things do add up eventually.
If it happened, I would rather think that it was more a personal culmination of things rather than any political or extremist motives. Still I think the end flight scenario is not one of glide but rather a wilful or angst ridden plunge into oblivion and beyond
More pieces found in Mozambique:
http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/internacional/malaysia-airlines/mh370-mocambique-exibe-destrocos-que-podem-ser-do-aviao
https://www.noticiasaominuto.com/mundo/649261/autoridades-mocambicanas-exibem-pecas-que-podem-pertencer-mh370
Sorry but this photos were only published on portuguese media.
@Wazir:
I would speak to his pharmacist.
This is not a guy who likes sitting without having anything at all to do.
@Wazir:
And by the way, I expect the Australian to be capable of careful writing, too. In order for an article to be carefully read. So a grain of salt will be my will, if you will.
@Wasim Roslan
A wilful plunge at the end is a possibility. The 5,000fpm ROD at 00:19:29, 2 minutes after 2nd engine flameout (as the BFO suggests) would fit well with this scenario. But the debris is telling a different story. To me, the debris suggests the plane must have pulled out of the dive before striking the water. It’s an unavoidable conclusion, as far as I see it.
Would Shah have allowed a steep dive into oblivion to enter into his plans? With the possibility of a mass of comminuted (well broken up) debris giving away the location of the watery grave? I cannot see how he would have
Just my four pennyworth. You don’t have to agree, of course.
@Joseph Coleman
cf Malaysian Police report pg. 23
If wiped as per @Trond ‘s link, nothing to recover. Anything less and there are ways to recover some data (in a lab). We have data. The drive wasn’t wiped.
@PatM
I thought about that.
You don’t need a speedometer to tell you if you’re driving 30 or 80. If you’ve driven the same road 20 times I bet you don’t even look at the signs on the road.
The captain wasn’t a learner driver. He possibly had flown that leg 10s of times in his career. When the plane turned at Igari, he was fully aware that the plane was turning. True it’s more difficult to get markers at night. But city lights help. And less than 30min after Igari they were supposed to over fly a big one! Can’t miss that. On top of that there is a compass in the cockpit… not easy to hack with a computer.
But yes I’m wondering what could have happened if someone had brought an electromagnet on board ( @Oleksandr regarding your ADIRU failure… any input?).
So in the case of a hacking scenario, it is my current working hypothesis that one of the pilots had to be in on it (if they were made to cooperate under some kind of threat, they would have left clues).
@Wasir Roslan
I apologise for misspelling your name in my previous post.