One minute after MH370’s flight crew said “Good Night” to Malaysia air traffic controls, and five seconds after the plane passed waypoint IGARI at 1720:31 UTC, the plane’s Mode S signal disappeared from air traffic control screens. As it reached the border of the Ho Chi Minh Flight Information Region (FIR) approximately 50 seconds after that, the plane made an abrupt 180 degree turn. The radius of this turn was so small, and the ground speed so low, that it appears to have been effected via a semi-aerobatic maneuver called a “chandelle.” Similar to a “box canyon turn,” this involves climbing under power while also banking steeply. The maneuver offered WWI pilots a way to reverse their direction of flight quickly in a dogfight.
Chandelles are not a normal part of commercial 777 operation. They would not be used by pilots responding to in-flight fire.
The fact that such an aggressive maneuver was flown suggests that whoever was at the controls was highly motivated to change their direction of flight. Specifically, instead of going east, they wanted to go west.
At the completion of the left-hand U-turn the plane found itself back in Malaysia-controlled airspace close to the Thai border. It flew at high speed (likely having increased engine thrust and dived from the top of its chandelle climb) toward Kota Bharu and then along the zig-zaggy border between peninsular Malaysia and Thailand (briefly passing through the outer fringe of Thai airspace) before making a right-hand turn south of Penang. We know this “based mostly on the analysis of primary radar recordings from the civilian ATC radars at the Kuala Lumpur (KUL) Area Control Centre (ACC) and at Kota Bahru on the east coast of Malaysia; plus (apparently) the air defense radars operated by the RMAF south of Kota Bahru at Jerteh, and on Penang Island off the west coast,” according to AIN Online.
At 18:02, while over the small island of Pulau Perak, the plane disappeared from primary radar, presumable because it had exceeded the range of the radar at Penang, which at that point lay 83 nautical miles directly behind the plane. Then, at 18:22:12, another blip was recorded, 160 miles to the northwest.
The most-asked question about the 18:22 blip is: why did the plane disappear then? But a more pressing question is: why did it reappear? If the plane was already too faint to be discerned by Penang when it was at Pulau Perak, then how on earth could it have been detected when it was three times further away?
One possibility is that it was picked up not by Malaysian radar, but by the Thai radar installation at Phuket. An AFP report from March 2014 quoted Thailand’s Air Marshal Monthon Suchookorn as saying that Thai radar detected the plane “swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea,” although “the signal was sporadic.”
At 18:22, the plane was approximately 150 miles from Phuket. This is well beyond the range at which Penang had ceased being able to detect the plane. What’s more, when the plane had passed VAMPI it had been only about 120 miles from Phuket. If it hadn’t seen the plane when it was at VAMPI, how was it able to detect it when it was 30 miles further? And why just for a momentary blip?
I don’t believe that, as some have suggested, the plane climbed, was detected, and then dived again. As Victor Iannello has earlier pointed out, the plane was flying at around 500 knots, which is very fast, and suggests a high level of motivation to be somewhere else, not bleeding off speed through needless altitude changes.
I propose that what happened at 18:22 was that the plane was turning. Entering into a right bank, the plane would turn its wings temporarily toward the Phuket radar station, temporarily presenting a larger cross section. Then, when the plane leveled its wings to straighten out, the cross section would shrink, potentially causing the plane to disappear.
Why a right bank? The diagram at top is an annotated version of one presented in the DSTG’s “Bayesian Methods” book. The vertical white line is the 18:25:27 ping arc. The orange line represents the path from the 18:22:12 radar detection to the first ping arc. It is 13 miles long. To travel 13 miles in 3.25 minutes requires a ground speed of 240 knots. Prior to final radar return, MH370 was traveling at approximately 490 knots. A plane can’t slow down that quickly without a radical climbing maneuver, which can be dangerous at cruise altitude (cf Air France 447.)
If it had continued at its previous pace, the plane would have traveled 26.5 miles in that time — enough to carry it to the unlabeled yellow thumbtack. Or, to turn to the right and take the path shown in green.
I don’t mean this path to seem so precise and deterministic; there are errors associated with both the position of the ping arc and the radar return. The ping arc, for instance, is generally understood to have an error bar of about 10 km. If the ping arc radius is 10 km larger, and the radar hit location stays the same, then the heading will be be 336 degrees instead of 326 degrees; if the ping radius is 10 km smaller, the angle will be 310 degrees, representing just a 20 degree right turn from a straight-ahead path.
It does not, however, seem possible that the combined radar and ping-arc errors will allow a scenario in which the plane continued on its VAMPI-to-MEKAR heading and speed. As the “Bayesian Methods” book puts it, “the filtered speed at the output of the Kalman filter is not consistent with the 18.25 measurement, and predictions based purely on primary radar data on this will have a likelihood very close to zero.” Neil Gordon confirmed to me in our conversation that something must have changed.
Dr Bobby Ulich, in his recent work examing different flight-path scenarios, has also concluded that the plane turned north at this time. He looked at a southern turn, too, but observed that “the left-hand turn… needs a turning rate higher than the auto-pilot bank limit allows.”
Looking at the over picture of MH370’s first hour post-abduction, we note that:
- The timing of the silencing of the electronics was coordinated to within several seconds to the optimum time to evade detection.
- The 180-degree turnaround maneuver was highly aggressive.
- The plane’s course allowed it to remain in Malaysian airspace. After Penang it stayed closer to the Indonesian FIR (lower black line) than the Thai FIR (upper black line).
- Post diversion, the plane was traveling at high speed, faster than normal cruise flight. This suggests that whoever was flying it was motivated to escape primary radar surveillance–they wanted to get away.
- When last observed, MH370 was likely making a turn to the northwest, in the general direction of Port Blair in the Andaman islands. This is consistent with Air Marshal Monthon Suchookorn’s assertion that Thai radar detected the plane “swinging north and disappearing over the Andaman Sea.”
The overall shape of the flight path from IGARI to 18:25 is U-shaped, curving around Thai airspace. In the Malacca Strait it remained closer to the Indonesian side than the the Thai side. It is possible that the turn at 18:22 resulted from a compromise between two goals: to stay beyond the detection range of the radar station at Phuket, and to travel in a northwesterly direction.
It is widely believed that, since the plane presumable ended up in the southern Indian Ocean, the flight up the Malacca Strait was undertaken in order to avoid penetrating Indonesian airspace en route to the southern ocean. If this were goal, and the person flying the plane should have turned to the left at 18:22, onto a westerly or west-southwesterly heading.
The fact that they did not suggests that, whatever ultimately transpired aboard the plane, the goal prior to the “final major turn” was a destination to the northwest, and that the reason the plane flew southwest from IGARI before turning northwest was to avoid Thai airspace and radar surveillance.
@Johan
MAS sent an ACARS text message to MH370 at 2:03. According to the FI, it was automatically resent every 2 minutes for 40 minutes. The Isat logs, however, only show two such failed attempts. The SITA log (in the FI) records further attempts, but only until 2:15. Presumably the SATCOM connection was automatically logged off and further attempts were made via VHF. It has still not been clarified what happenend to the attempts between 2:15 and 2:40. As far as I can tell, that’s not a typo in the FI (as elsewhere).
During the reboot from 2:25 to 2:28 there is no evidence the text message was received or resent. The IFE reconnected, but didn’t send any data for the rest of the flight duration, but it did send automated data during the early stages of the flight. A possible explanation is the IFE was switched off from the cockpit after 2:28.
According to the FI protocol, MAS operators believed that MH370 kept on flying on a different route in Cambodia and later (shortly before the satphone call) en route east of Vietnam, suggesting they did not think MH370 was hijacked (therefore no alarm was raised). It is unclear why no further attempts were made some time after it was established the flight projection was wrong. It has been suggested the ATC supervisor on duty went to sleep some time after that, but that isn’t clear from the FI, only that he did not respond for some hours.
If Dennis is right to say that the flight following system shows a great circle route (passing through Cambodia) once ACARS is lost, I find it even more surprising that the one coordinate proper located MH370 on the scheduled flight plan east of Vietnam rather than on the great circle route to Bejing.
@ROB @Oleksandr
I think in case of a hijack it would have been usefull to shutdown the SDU/satcom/IFE to avoid every attempt to communicate from within the cabin to the outside world.
And probably also because (maybe unwanted distracting) calls from the outside world would be blocked till he was in ‘safe airspace’.
Then after reaching ‘safe airspace’ it could have been usefull to put the SDU on line again (with the IFE still switched off) to monitor incoming calls. It could have confirmed to the hijacker his position was not detected and no one was following him.
@Nederland, @Ge Rijn:
Thanks for the explanations. You are probably right. Silly with the incomplete release of data there.
It gives Malaysia some credit and honor that they apparently made it very hard for the pilot to understand exactly how little they understood.
@SteveBaratt
Glad to be of some help. I try not to be obstructive though initially I did harbor a somewhat wacko theory on hindsight.
In any case, RMP confirmed it was Z’s voice, a fact affirmed by the wife and eldest son:
“Mrs Shah told the pair that her eldest son positively identified that her husband had given the final sign off from MH370 on March 8.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/484617/Malaysia-Airlines-MH370-Captain-spoke-final-words-from-cockpit
@all
Just a passing note, the first picture in this NYT news item is interesting as the Indonesian guy in the pix seems to point at almost the exact spot @Jeff has up here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/world/asia/missing-malaysia-airlines-flight-370.html
Piecing whatever evidence available online, I deduce the following:
1. The pilot had extensive experience flying these parts and had from a certain point in time, probably from early February, had subtly conducted dry runs during his shifts to test reactions of regional air defense networks.
2. Indonesian radar probably saw the plane but preferred to keep quiet as it was none of their business, just like the Thais did early on.
3. This news item trending today is indicative of how simple it is to raise the alarm albeit a false one:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/saudi-arabian-airlines-pilot-hijack-button-twice-landing-manila-philippines/
That this never happened on MH370 which supposedly was encountering problems is telling.
Off topic
A lot of tripe has been peddled about super cool Malaysia. As usual superficial observations and assumptions hawked by feel gooders fade away when one cares to scratch the surface:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/world/asia/malaysia-bersih-yellow-t-shirts-ban.html?_r=0
there are lots of more that and of more recent vintage but i guess the above will be sufficient.
Its easy to create a feel good illusion of things when reality barks otherwise as every nation has its own idiosyncrasies, Malaysia included
It is also interesting note that the operation centre is supposed to text or call the aircraft via SATCOM once ACARS is silent for longer than 30 minutes (at 1:37 or after) (FI, p. 43)
@Johan
After I posted my previous post I read your post on the previous page (posting can go fast here..).
In fact you suggest the same as I did.
Reconnecting the SDU for monitoring incomming calls could be a quite usefull reason.
@Wazir:
I don’t think Gloria is saying everything is cool in MAY, she said the upper classes are looking cool, being, keeping cool. It evident to anyone that the country is in mild turmoil and has been for quite some time. And Z was right in the middle of this in a sense when he started supporting the People’s Justice Party, despite the fact that he is Malay ethnically and well off. There is a reason why Ibrahim Anwar is “persecuted” — he is apparently a political threat against conformist powers, with the apparent risk of him building a government, at the cost of conservative and traditionalist groups. His party is not a marginal thing, on election day, and the conservative forces are obviously trying to send a message.
Also interesting to me was the posts on moon-rising times.
Without the moon shining this flight would fly in pitch-dark not even showing its contrails.
If the hijacker chose this flight also for this reason it could well be he also anticipated a sun-rise time at destination.
This then could explain a certain timespan of loitering somewhere north to avoid arriving too early in the dark at destination in the SIO.
Far fetched speculation I know but its about turning every stone isn’t it?
@Ge Rijn:
With you!
(Useful is with one L — if you spell wrong the first time autocorrect will give you hell)
@Johan
🙂 It’s full of use..
I’m definitely learning some Englisch here.
No need for autocorrect 😉
Thanks.
Previous post: with the moon NOT shining ofcourse..
@Wazir Roslan
Note that your good reference seems to put a time stamp of Sunday 22-June-2014 as the day we first heard about the flight simulator trips to the SIO.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10921910/MH370-latest-Pilot-spoke-final-words-from-cockpit-says-wife.html
I would like to read The book, entitled “Good Night Malaysian 370: the truth behind the loss of Flight 370”
…but I would first like to know how the authors would update their account based on what is now known. For example, the climb to over 40,000-ft appears to have not happened. Have they said anything about how they would update the book for 2016 knowledge?
@Ge Rijn
Along those lines (1800 psia O2) I would like to know how Z came to be scheduled for 8-March take-off, as any later date I feel would be difficult to disappear a plane due to Moon light. Also it would have been critical to take off on time on March-8, so was anyone taking special steps to make sure the flight took off on time?
@all
I hope Gloria isn’t reprimanded for her strong opinions and its quite clear she’s very passionate about defending Z.
Likewise those on the opposing side who think Z is guilty.
But I think its helpful to at least keep an open mind. After all what might’ve happened may actually be somewhere in between – a ‘long suicide’ cut short with a preventative measure by some jittery military!? We just don’t know for sure!
@all
Not sure how relevant this is to MH370 (I haven’t read the article yet) but a story of a pilot sparking a police operation at Manila airport which I thought I’d pass on.
Doesn’t conform to our ‘lazy, half-asleep’ Southeast Asian stereotype; then again, Phillipines may be different from Malaysia/Thailand, you folks will probably know better.
Link to story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3797998/Saudi-Airlines-jet-isolated-Manila-airport-amid-hijack-fears-pilot-told-plane-threat.html
Thank you for continuing to present ideas, Jeff. Please take the critique that follows in the spirit intended: to keep a laser-like focus on the scientific method, and on rigorous testing of any theory.
My primary issue with this piece is that it presents itself as statements of fact, despite being just one possible interpretation of one possible version of the radar record in the hour after IGARI. Should we believe…
Version #1: what we are being LED to believe (THESE days) – the third version of the primary radar record – the one with the sharp 180 near IGARI, but with much of the WNW radar returns now redacted. (WHY were they redacted?)
Version #2: what we were led to believe before #1: the second version of the primary radar record: sharp turn, but with considerably more plot points between Penang and the 18:22 return. Far fewer degrees of freedom for this path. (WHY was the turn at IGARI dramatically sharpened, weeks after the fact?)
Version #3: the first version of the primary radar record: the bizarrely wild loop after IGARI, first presented to NoK – who were understandably appalled (WHY did it take so long for ANY primary radar record to be admitted?)
Version #4: the first version of events: NO primary radar record of MH370 turning back at all. This first report SEEMS to be supported by one or more of…
– a pilot’s testimony that he made radio contact with MH370’s co-pilot (static, mumbling)
– Mike McKay’s detailed eyewitness testimony (on fire, off course)
– early reports by Vietnamese officials that wreckage had been found in the SCS
– Chinese seismologists’ reports of a possible acoustic event near IGARI
– shoreline debris pointing away from the search box, & toward, eg the channel S of Sumatra as a likely source
(I have read – and have no quarrel with – the mountains of opinion claiming each of the above MAY be wrong; I have yet to see any convincing argument – independent of the shady Inmarsat pdf – that it is PROBABLE they are ALL wrong.)
Until such time as a rigorous, independent audit rules out versions #2-through-#4, I feel it is improper to characterize theories based on #4 as indisputable.
For example (from the above; emphasis mine):
“The FACT that such an aggressive maneuver…”
Moreover: even if one rejects all but version #4 of the primary radar record, there is no way to characterize the above interpretation as a fact. Even Victor has published plausible speculation suggesting the published radar track could be a composite of two flight paths. One need not dispute the Inmarsat data to raise hard questions about the above theory – and in particular how forcefully it is presented.
A Wise person once posited in this forum an inverse relationship between the credibility of a view, and the certainty with which it is held.
I miss that guy.
@RF4
you said:
“Good point, why not apply the same measurement to the two sim points in the SIO? Did you read the report? were you able to redheck the continuous integrity of the data? Do you have proof that Z created those two points? Nada.”
I think you are over-reaching here. It is the existence of the two points on the sim drive that is important. The accuracy of the points is irrelevant unless you want to try to establish a potential waypoint as done by Iannello and Godrey. Whether or not the points are part of a continuous track is also irrelevant.
It is possible that those points were created by someone else, but any reasonable person would conclude that to be extremely unlikely. Frankly, I am surprised you would even raise that as a possibility. In my opinion you have gone far beyond a devil’s advocate position with your remark above. Are you collaborating with Ron again?
Correction: “even if one rejects all but version #1”. Likely clear from context, but apologies for the needless convolution, which clearly confused even its author.
@Sajid UK
@Gloria IMO can easily defend her(or him) -self. That shows.
If you can repeatedly accuse others (who are not mentioned) from ‘sock puppeting’ you should also be able to come forward with reasonable arguments (on topic). Which she (or he) fails to do constantly IMO.
I feel she (or he) is deliberately obstructive. A distracting troll.
Maybe it’s her (or his) way of coming in, but anyway it’s not inviting to me.
To me she (or he) is a genuine sock puppet till she (or he) proves otherwise.
@ROB
Whoah, I said ‘about’. If we are going to be figuring ‘best estimates’,
then I have to be a bit more precise. Measuring from MEKAR directly
due west to the 18:25 ping arc on Oleksandrs ‘spiral dive’ graphic,
my best estimate is 37 nautical miles, say 68.5km. Regarding NILAM,
I estimate on Oleksandrs graphic that NILAM is 16.36 nautical miles
(30.3km) directly due east of the 18:25 arc. This doesn’t invalidate
your theory – but you used the word ‘uprange’ which could be
misunderstood as meaning NILAM simply lay upward ‘along’ the arc.
(Surely that’s not what you meant, because NILAM is not on the 18:25
arc, it’s off to the east of the 18:25 arc.) Cheers
@Jeffwise
You may be right. Most airline pilots might not know much about the electronics involved with SATCOM, but we shouldn’t underestimate this guy. I think he would have done his homework, to make sure he wasn’t caught out. If in doubt, switch it out could have been his approach. Hourly pings are not generally known about, but INMARSAT keeping the BTO timing facility following AF447 is possibly more widely known in airline circles. I haven’t found any other explanation for him switching off SATCOM. As I said earlier, there might be one none of us has discovered as yet. One of Rumsfeld’s “unknown, unknowns.”
I suggested a dogleg at 18:22, following your suggestion the single radar return was caused by him manoeuvring. Looking at the derived radar track as it approaches the end point at 18:22, it remains essentially straight. If he were following N571 without a break, on passing MEKAR, he would have been seen making a slight turn to the right toward NILAM. But the trace doesn’t show any sign of a change of direction. It’s as though he is flying straight to ANOKO, instead. It looks to me as if he maintained the same heading as he passed through MEKAR, ie switched momentarily to constant heading mode, and then back to N571 with LNAV, making the aircraft perform an abrupt S curve (dogleg) as LNAV manoeuvred to regain the air route. It was intended as a deception manoeuvre, possibly. It could explain the 18:22 radar return.
@Brock
you said:
“A Wise person once posited in this forum an inverse relationship between the credibility of a view, and the certainty with which it is held.
I miss that guy.”
Good point. I think we should immediately release everyone being detained in prisons throughout the world. Giving priority to those inmates who had compelling evidence to support their convictions.
We should probably revisit everything we know about math and physics as well. The fact that the subjects are used to create all sorts of gadgets that work could be pure coincidence.
@buyerninety
Phew, No, I certainly didn’t mean to suggest NILAM was on the 18:25 arc. I meant uprange iro N571.
Thanks for looking out for me, though. Much appreciated.
@Keffertje
Don’t worry, you’re a very respectable and able puddy tat. No doubt about it.
If a passenger had his/her own satellite phone? They would also need their own transceiver, amplifier and high gain dish. No that wouldn’t work.
@ROB
As @RetirerF4 explained from behind, the radar profile of a B777 would still be very clear.
To suddenly disappear from this radar screen there’s only one possibility IMO: the plane descended fast under the radar-horizon at 18:22 for whatever reason.
A bank to the left or right would not have caused such a sudden disappearance.
All radar-data from Malaysya and all surrounding countries are still not available. So it’s still all mostly guessing I’m affraid.
@TBill:
Good point about the timing of take-off.
Could he have earned some lost time by flying faster?
@ROB
Globalstar and Iridium satellite phones work just fine. I rent them from time to time when doing extreme motorcycle adventuring in places like Death Valley where there is no cellular phone coverage over distances exceeding 100 miles.
Likewise we use SPOT and DeLorme satellite trackers and emergency location beacons, and they have proven their worth on two occasions. I have no idea if they would work on an aircraft, but I have logged motorcycle tracks at speeds up to 140mph with these devices.
@Dennis
“I think you are over-reaching here. It is the existence of the two points on the sim drive that is important.”
Over-reaching? Same rights for all. You discard radar data published in official documents, but take the integrity of sim data from an unpublished police report, leaked by an unknown person to an journalist, who has not outed himself/ herselv, but again leaked parts of this leaked report to the press and other persons posting on this blog? Are you serious?
“The accuracy of the points is irrelevant unless you want to try to establish a potential waypoint as done by Iannello and Godrey. Whether or not the points are part of a continuous track is also irrelevant.”
If those two data exists it is relevant
-who created them
-for what purpose they were created
-who deleted them
-for what purpose were they deleted
-by whom were they deleted
-who recovered the equipment the datas were found
-who had access to this equipment
-who recovered the data
-who verified the data
According to the same leaked report the data have not been found to contain suspicious material pointing to the involvement of Z.
You accept parts of this report while discarding the final finding of the report. This might not be relevant for you, but in the context of my former answer it is for me.
“It is possible that those points were created by someone else, but any reasonable person would conclude that to be extremely unlikely. Frankly, I am surprised you would even raise that as a possibility. In my opinion you have gone far beyond a devil’s advocate position with your remark above. Are you collaborating with Ron again?”
My commander in chief ones told me:
When in an argument somebody attacks you personally, then that shows that you are right and that the other one is defending an undefendable position.
It is not the first time you act that way, I’m getting used to it.
Shortly after take off, MH370 was advised to cancel standard instrument departure and fly directly to IGARI. MH370 therefore arrived at IAGRI a minute earlier than scheduled. Seems to be fairly common, though.
@TBill
Appreciate the response. Nope as far as I have read there has been no intimation by the authors of issuing z revised version of events. I suspect their premise was based on two reasons. 1. They wanted to provide a plausible explanation of what happened to the passengers 2. They drew their details from interpretations of Thai radar data as it was the Thais who initially mentioned an “erratic” flight pattern.
@johan
I don’t think Malays of whatever social status or persuasion would be the epitome of cool as suggested. There is ample counterindicative evidence of that and the same regarding the Chinese or Indians or other natives over there . Its a volatile admixture of sorts. But I would think that’s a universal construct not a nation specific peculiarity.
@RetiredF4 – excellent reply back to @dennisW
@DennisW
@Keffertje
You know, I realized I’d goofed on the satellite phone, as soon as I pressed the go button. Should stick to things I know about. Oops!
But Death Valley! Wow!
@RF4
“If those two data exists…”
Are you saying the existence of the the data points is in doubt? The ATSB acknowledged them. The Malays acknowledged them. I did not think anyone is doubting the existence of the points. There is also little room for the interpretation of their relevance.
Dennis,
Re: “It is the existence of the two points on the sim drive that is important.”
Have you ever ‘googled’ Paris map?
If yes, do you think data, which likely survived on your storage and can potentially be recovered, is sufficient to accuse you in the preparation of the terrorist attack in Paris on the 13 November 2015?
You remind me an anecdote about a psychiatric doctor and his patient. So far absolutely nothing points on Z. and the rest is only a result of your imagination.
Dennis,
“I did not think anyone is doubting the existence of the points.”
I doubt: strong motive of at least 3 parties involved. How can you be so confident in the authenticity of these 2 points?
@Dennis
“Are you saying the existence of the the data points is in doubt? The ATSB acknowledged them. The Malays acknowledged them. I did not think anyone is doubting the existence of the points. There is also little room for the interpretation of their relevance.”
Same applies for the radar data. They are even in the official report. Difference is, your conclusion out of those sim data is opposite to the official version, whereas you discard the official version of the radar data and their interpretation ny the same ATSB and by the same Malays.
@Oleksandr
In direct answer to your question – no, I have not Googled anything related to Paris that I can recall.
Relative to your assertion that nothing points to Z, I do not even know how to reply. You do believe he was on the aircraft, right?
@ROB, According to Inmarsat, they had only just started recording BTO values and no one outside the company knew they were doing it. When they unveiled their “new mathematical technique” for deducing where MH370 had gone from the BFO values, they seemed amazed at what they were done, and since then have been absolutely confident that no one else could have thought of it beforehand, since they hadn’t themselves.
@RF4
I am not questioning the existence of the radar points. Not sure where or how you formed that notion. I am questioning the accuracy, usefulness, and reliability of that data. We know the data presented to us in the LIDO hotel graphic was severely flawed. The Malay’s knew, or should have known, that the data presented would be closely scrutinized particularly since they have chosen not to release actual data or corrected data. Why they have not corrected or elaborated on the LIDO Hotel data only they can know.
The data on the sim drive is an entirely different matter. It exists. it was found on a drive belonging to Zaharie Shah, and it has locations on it in the SIO. Various people can draw their own conclusions relative to what the sim drive data tells us, but to question its existence is preposterous.
@Johan
For darkness of no Moon (just assuming for a hypothesis that could have been a planning goal) the flight did not need to fly any faster or slower this night.
Looks like the flight took off almost right on schedule at 12:41 MYT, coincidentally, the Moon was setting at KLIA exactly at 12:41 MYT. The northeast initial direction to IGARI put the plane in total Moon darkness on 8-March. 9-March would have been a later Moon set time.
However, my thought was partially wrong…there was no need to take off on time…a late departure would be even further removed from possible Moon light.
But 8-March date could have been critical. 9-March the Moon sets 40-mins later and is brighter. 9-March could have required a flight delay to allow the Moon to set.
The reason I started thinking about the Moon was wondering if the oil rig worker possibly saw the low Moon reflecting off a planes wings, but if so I think it had to be an earlier flight as MH370 was in the total darkness if my Moon set calc time are correct.
@Jeff
Absolutely agree that postulating that anyone could have anticipated how the Inmarsat data would be used is so unlikely that it does not merit consideration.
Spooks falling from the sky.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-u2-spy-plane-down-northern-california-20160920-snap-story.html
My ranch, where I am typing this now, is in the mountains about 30 miles due West of the crash. I did not even see any smoke.
@jeff if we follow the path set out in this piece, where does the aircraft end up? Can we map any onward paths?
@Wazir:
I am not sure what you mean but I don’t think it is important. I don’t think the Malay are “cool” either, sterotypes mix things up. But Gloria were trying to describe what she saw as a socio-cultural trait among the ethnically Malay, as opposed to other Malaysian citizens.
@TBill:
I acctually thought you were thinking about mh370 catching up with the later KLA departure, that mh370 “met” after crossing back over the peninsula.
But it was still interesting to know. He would have wanted it to be dark. I assume.
@DennisW – if the SIM data was properly attributed with creation / deletion dates and mFSx/ windows log file entries to confirm how the data was used and deleted.
It is a good day to fall out on the flight-sim values.
@Johan
Really?
You are fast-forwarding to values? What about the concerns of the people who think the flight sim data does not even exist?
Correction:
It is a good day to fall out over the flight-sim values.
2nd Correction:
It is a good day to fall out over the flight-sim data.
3rd Correction:
It is a good day to fall out over the flight-sim.
🙂