Mick Rooney, aka @Airinvestigate, has released further documents from the secret Royal Malaysian Police investigation into the disappearance of MH370. I asked him if he could tell me anything about how the documents were sourced or why they are being released now, but he says that he is bound by an oath of confidentiality not to discuss further.
Those familiar with recent events surrounding the case might be able to hazard a guess.
Here are the files:
data-from-flight-simulator-computer
This 14-page document includes technical information about the data found on Zaharie’s flight simulator hard drives. It appears that the machine crashed multiple times in the months before MH370’s disappearance. The document also includes a log of when the flight sim was played, the last time being on March 15, 2014, a week after the plane disappeared (presumably this reflects activity by investigators.) Prior to that, the sim had last been played on February 20, two weeks before the disappearance. This suggests that Zaharie was not using his flight simulator to practice vanishing in the weeks before his disappearance.
data-from-prelim-exam-report-translated-from-malay
This 7-page document seems to have been machine-translated from Malay, and appears to describe a preliminary investigation of the computer hard drives by a Malaysian police technician. It lists the various hard drives found with the flight-sim computer. Among the information recovered were passwords and account information for Zaharie’s hobbies and interests, as well as information about an online bookstore, Zaharie’s various social media accounts, and online shopping. Of particular note, investigators found a deleted folder labeled “777TwinTower” which contains pictures of a Malaysia Airlines plane flying toward the Kuala Lumpur city center. Given widely held suspicion that Zaharie took MH370 on a suicide flight, and that fact that terrorists flew two planes into New York’s twin towers in 2001, this will no doubt raise eyebrows. However, this document notes that: “These images have been taken from the computer screen to play a simulated airplane. The assessment believed that the owners of these computers have taken one of those images for the purpose of being used as an icon on the account.” That is to say, an innocent interpretation of this folder and its contents would be that Zaharie, a proud Malaysian 777 pilot, wanted to create an image of his plane flying past an iconic Malaysian landmark.
After a section discussing the seven deleted points from the flight simulator, which have been much discussed in this forum, the report concludes with a brief Summary: “The results of the examination of the goods were found that no any activity outside the common. The overall computer use to host gaming Flight Simulator only. Nor has any information source which directly indicates there any plans to eliminate MH370 found.”
This 31-page document appears to contain all of the saved data in the seven above-mentioned flight simulator points. Hopefully independent flight simulator experts will look it over and render an opinion for the rest of us who lack the expertise to properly grapple with it.
Overview
How does this new information alter our understanding of the MH370 mystery?
For me, it is noteworthy that so little incriminating information was found on any of Zaharie’s computers, even (especially) among the deleted files. The way we use computers these days, they are essentially extensions of our brains. Any passing fancy that drifts through our head is likely to be reflected in our internet search history, in notes we write to ourselves, and so on. When Andreas Lübitz was in the throes of his final mental dissolution, he spent a great deal of time online reading about mental disorders and researching ways to commit suicide. It’s all right there to be seen. Yet on Zaharie’s computer there is nothing. Indeed, he seems to have been spending his time prior to the disappearance doing things like making instructional DIY home-repair videos and pretending to fly an antique DC-3 airplane. Not, it would seem, the behavior of someone contemplating his imminent extinction.
In the light of this newly released information, it is easier to understand why the Malaysian police came to the conclusion that nothing about Zaharie’s behavior points to him being the culprit.
@TBill:
I recall that discussion although not all of the commotion. Or that it was the Helios flight. Well that doesn’t sound so promising.
The should have been a “vow” there somewhere, not a “wager”.
There is an assertion that the iPhone 4 was more sensitive than other
comparable mobile phones at the time the iPhone 4 was the current model.
http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/iphone_4_antenna
There is a lot of variability in opinions as to whether the iPhone 5s
is as sensitive as the iPhone 4. There is the suggestion that if its
antenna reception is not being lessened by proximity with hand/head/
additional phone add-on case, or perhaps orientation of the phone
(integral casing), that the 5s was as sensitive as the iPhone 4.
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2160630
https://crowdsupport.telstra.com.au/t5/iPhone-5/iPhone-5C-or-5S-blue-tick/td-p/189127
@Ventus45 has previously posted that the BBFARLIM2 phone frequencies
were ‘GSM’, possibly because they were around the 900Mhz range. That
may be true for the country Ventus45 is in, but in Malaysia however,
those frequencies are also utilized for WCDMA, as stated (in 2010);
http://www.malaysianwireless.com/2010/06/celcom-wcdma-900mhz-base-stations-up-and-running/#disqus_thread
and confirmed (in 2016);
malaysianwireless.com/2016/11/celcom-maxis-digi-umobile-network-spectrum/
The spectrum in the 900MHz and 1800MHz are currently held by Maxis,
Celcom and Digi. The 900Mhz was originally assigned for 2G network.
However, over the past few years, Maxis, Celcom and Digi have been
using these 2G spectrum for their 3G/4G network, to improve coverage.
DennisW has previously stated;
“some 70% of the Malay networks use WCDMA technology which has no
inherent range limitation (as does GSM).”
@buyerninety
That is a very interesting point, and significantly extends the possible “altitude / range / speed envelope” for the “where” the aircraft “may” have been at the time of the 17:52 call. Very interesting indeed.
Side Note: Before Telstra closed down the CDMA Network in Australia, I used to have a Telstra CDMA mobile for use in the sticks out the back of beyond in New South Wales. The “range” was the issue back then (and still is sometimes with GSM even now !) So much for “progress” !
To add some information about cellular network systems I post following link.
It’s quite a read but sums it all up with many links added:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network
@keffertje
ya, GSM tries to connect at max 2W or 1W depending on band and then negotiates reliable lower transmit power to not jam everything around too much and spare battery; I always wondered the real reason why there is requirement to switch-off phones in airplane and its probably mostly because of impact of many GSM phones trying to conenct at max power from high altitudes where they can reach far more base stations and overload the whole network (if you imagine how much devices are flying these days). And while it may also jam some very near electronics (imagine mouse pointer movements when GSM phone rings or so…), this effect reduces drastically with distance – so, to some extent in airplane it may be dangerous inside, depending on position, but protecting of networks BS is probably the reason. Interesting that CDMA uses lower power(?) spread spectrum which is in fact signal hidden in noise, simialar to WIFI (and its more military-originated modulation , especially HF bands DSSS). In our country CDMA was somewhat hacked to former NMT-mobile UHF band for a while, to provide internet data only, but we use GSM mostly – both are not cooperating in the same area and band.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators_of_the_Asia_Pacific_region#Malaysia
http://www.engineersgarage.com/contribution/difference-between-gsm-and-cdma
A 32km max. range. This means not obstructed by any buildings or landscape features hills etc.
From BBFARLIM2 this is only possible in the east-east-north direction towards the sea.
Line-of-sight (verticle/altitude) of 22.5 degrees above earth-surface (which is a wide taken range) results in max. detecting/recieving/sending altitude of ~30.000ft on the edge of 32km range.
In the tests no detections/connections were realized to BBFARLIM2 at all.
This is most probably due to the test-flights that sticked to their assumption MH370 flew the route south of Penang Island.
The fact that BBFARLIM2 did not make any detection or connection throughout these tests proves to me MH370 did not fly past south of Penang Island but crossed it straight over the island coming from the east-east-north towards George Town over sea at a max. altitude of 30.000ft but most probably a lot lower.
Celcom only succeeded in detecting/connecting arround and under 8000ft with the Blackberry phone.
The phone which is in the hand of Fariq on the picture @Buyerninety posted.
This scenario alines very well with the primary radar data from the Lido-primary radar image.
There’s a gap starting west (not south) from Penang Island.
Only physical explanation for that is; MH370 flew on low altitude across Penang Island invisible for primary radar then climbed back to altitude and became visible to primary radar again.
There is no other explanation if those data are what they show and are real.
I sence a reluctance to except some possibly very important information relating to this.
And also to the ‘777TwinTowers’ file.
I agree it probably doesn’t mean anything substancial but the refusal to dig deeper in a deleted folder like this is not a ‘scientific’ approuch at all IMO.
To make a big issue out of the leaked SIO-SIM-coördinates which I totally agree to make an issue on, but to completely ignore a deleted ‘777TwinTowers’ folder, I think is a mistake.
Surely if it’s only based on how the folder was exactly named (yes Jeff I’m referring to you..).
Facts change and we have to adapt if it serves our presumptions or not.
Facts tell the truth in the end, we cann’t ignore them.
According this latest information MH370 flew in, on low altitude between 20.000/8000ft max. to Penang Island straight towards George Town and crossed the Island climbing to altitude ~30.000ft after passing the island (according to Lido primary radar image).
The december 2013 deleted ‘777TwinTowers’ folder could hold important information on what kind of simulated flights were made towards the KL Twin Towers.
Where this fly-past? Fly-over? Fly to?
No issues to just ignore.
Too important what’s happening right now.
This is gonna sound totally crazy, but what IF the plane really was hijacked/stolen? Maybe the “Twin Tower” file was exactly that-another planned attack on the towers in NYC.
@Ge Rijn
“I sense a reluctance to accept some possibly very important information relating to this.”
Can you elaborate on what you feel is not being readily accepted?
@CF NYC is a long way from MH 370’s route. It would have to stop somewhere for fuel. In the very early days (when no one knew much about BTOs) it was being speculated that one stop in the badlands of Somalia may have been enough for a trip to NYC or anywhere in Europe or the eastern US.
@TBill
I think I clearly stated it in my post.
Serious reactions on the ‘777Twintowers’ folder have not appeared.
Neighter have deeper digging reactions on the Fariq cell phone detection/connection.
When people don’t have the motivation anymore to look at other perspectives and information it becomes a lot more difficult to find a solution.
No offence meant but I senced this on this and the previous topic. Just my sence.
@Ge Rijn
“When people don’t have the motivation anymore to look at other perspectives and information it becomes a lot more difficult to find a solution.”
Digging on the wrong end or at the same place will lead nowhere. There is not much sense to disuss two snippets of a 1.000 pages police report, when the reported result of this report is still kept secret. At least this final conclusion of the report could shed some reasoning without harming the NOK.
Instead we are being fed with breadcrumbs to keep us busy. I think it is time that the known leakers of this report talk in honesty to us about their real intention for this manipulative way of information.
@Ge Rijn – if it was north of Penang island, with the cell phone temporarily registering, etc; maybe Fariq was flying on take off from Butterworth military base.
Re: SIM DATA
I find the sim data extremely noteworthy. If you’re in the “Z is innocent” camp, you may want to skip this post.
When you look at Gmax/Gmin data at each of the coordinates, you will find three fixes where the Gmax/Gmin data is absolutely identical, out to 15 decimal places. Those values represent the extremes in G load recorded between one flight reset and the next (in this case, from +2.2 to near zero Gs).
Please understand that the chance of different flights displaying identical Gmax/Gmin values out to 15 decimal places is effectively zero. This really stuck with me and I double checked myself with Victor (who will hopefully weigh in soon on this latest leak) who not only backed me up on Gmax/min grouping flights together, but pointed out something that I had initially missed.
BOTH of the SIO fixes AND the fix at N010 (which is reasonably close to every projected FMT fix I know of) have identical Gmax/Gmin values. Three fixes, one fix thousands of nm north of the other two, and all three display Gmax/Gmin that is identical down to 15 decimal places.
This can only mean that these fixes are indeed from the exact same flight.
It’s possible that the ground points in KUL and over the Strait are also from the same flight. A flight which ranged from 1G on the ground, to +1.4/0.59 over the Malacca Strait, with an increase to +2.2/0.14 before the FMT, which was then never exceeded thereafter.
Possible, but it can’t be fully proven. Linking N010 with the SIO? That’s proven beyond any doubt by the .FLT data (though I’m sure there will be valiant attempts at shrouding it in doubt.)
The bonus for me, personally, is that the mystery of what these points actually are is finally gone and we now know they are files written ONLY when the pilot pushes the SAVE key.
So, again, the question of “Why would a man who was the pilot of an aircraft that disappeared into the SIO have pushed the SAVE button at three critical points in a simulated flight that closely match the route of the actual missing flight (1 – in a 1/3 standard rate turn to the south at a point that looks a whole lot like an average of everyone’s favorite FMT fix; 2 – in a zero fuel scenario at high altitude in an 11 degree left bank, 1 degree nose down, over a remote part of the SIO; 3 – having pulled into a gliding climb at 4000′, with yoke amidships, over a remote part of the SIO.)
Remember, the fact that these files exist means, by definition, that Shah hit the SAVE button at each of those points.
So, people, let’s hear it: Why would somebody do that? Why would the pilot of a real 777 that flew an eerily similar route to its demise have wanted to SAVE the data at these fixes, which clearly show one continuous flight from a suspiciously-FMT-ish fix to equally-suspicious points in the SIO?
@matt – when the “save” is done can those files generated be used in a tablet or laptop? What would the supporting reader software be if not a full msfx is installed ??
@MH
The nuances of MSFS are not my domain, but I can tell you that X-Plane dumps were in .txt format. I have to imagine that .flt would auto-open in some app designed to read and display text and that’s probably what the Malays did, especially since every new coordinate is preceded by many lines of what appears to be code.
Victor is growing more expert on MSFS all the time so whenever he next writes at duncansteel, a lot of things will become clear.
@MattM
Thx. Frankly, I never doubted the points were from the same flight. Including the points on the ground at KL and to the FMT. I had no way to prove or even infer that – just a logical conclusion from the file grouping and the ensemble of deleted points.
@DennisW
I know you didn’t and that’s ok. There are many doubters here, though and I think it’s important to share these findings. And what comes below may surprise you.
I’m still going through the files but, in the most recent look, I found one additional criteria for grouping points into a single flight: “MaxReachedEngineRPM.”
Coordinates 3-5 (which should get a name at this point…hmmm…how about SSF for “Suspicious Single Flight” ?), in addition to sharing Gmax/Gmin, also share MaxReachedEngineRPM of 32,968.87.
Three coordinates, exact same max rpm. (In each engine, which tells you how lame MSFS is at simulating the real world.)
Coordinates 1-2 (the Malacca Strait leg) also share both Gmax/Gmin and MaxReachedEngineRPM: Left Engine 31,517.49 and Right Engine 31,909.35 – at both fixes. (MSFS more realistic here.)
However, because the MaxRPM values are different, I believe this might NEGATE the possibility that they are from the SSF.
Not everyone agrees with me. The contrary line of thinking is that maxrpm was reached somewhere between point 2 & 3 during a single, continuous flight.
So, in the words of Charles Barkley, “I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.”
Regardless, I don’t think anyone can argue any longer than points 3-5 are from separate flights.
@Matt Moriarty, Nice detective work. I think you make a very compelling case.
To address your question, why would someone do that?” I would suggest that perhaps, with regards to the final two points, he had manoeuvered the plane into a situation where it was about to have close to zero airspeed, and he wanted to see how much altitude he would need to recover from that unusual attitude. Each such exercise would be necessarily rather brief, since he had no fuel. Rather than have to go through the laborious procedure to get the plane to that condition again, he could try again just by hitting restore. Maybe as part of this game he wanted to see how far he could get before he ran out of altitude… (though the small distance between points 4 and 5 suggest that, if the lower one was presumably from the same original flight as the higher one, he did not have that goal in mind)
Judging from the high g-loading (and unloading) it looks like he was flying the plane in a rather extreme way. It calls to mind early reports that said that the radar returns suggested MH370 had been flown “like a fighter jet.” Perhaps Zaharie had goofed around on his flight simulator, putting a simulated 777 through its paces, and then decided that he just had to try the same antics with a real plane and a real load of passengers?
Seems bizarrely macabre, but who knows.
BTW the direction of flight, rate of climb, and airspeed of these two points are not in my opinion consistent with a flight towards McMurdo or any other distant point that ran out of fuel and spiraled in. It seems that the object was to do some kind of quasi-aerobatics before killing oneself.
@MattM, Very interesting post Matt :). Am looking forward to Victor’s paper on the SIM data as well.
“When you look at Gmax/Gmin data at each of the coordinates,
you will find”…
Probably, most visitors to this forum will find nothing, because no
reference as to where to ‘look‘ is given. URL? PDF title? Dataset can be seen where?
The values are identical “down to 15 decimal places”. OK, so searching
to find this specific number, we only have about a quadrillion other
numbers to find it in… because the number isn’t stated. The specific
number is??
@buyerninety
The specific numbers are:
MaximumGForce: 2.203215765072863
MinimumGForce: 0.1453230067931921
Where to look is shown in Jeff’s article which is the parent to this thread. It’s the clickable “sim data” link but I’ll include it here so you don’t hurt yourself looking for it four inches above this comments thread: http://031c074.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Sim-Data.pdf
@Jeff
My personal opinion on the “why” is that in 18,000 hrs, the guy prob never got tested on dead stick in a 777 and he had a very specific need to determine how he would pull it off. How does it glide? How far and fast? How do you structure your descent so that you hit the water like a knife at VNE but don’t break up on the way down? What’s a good altitude to transition from glide to nose down? How do you manage energy in a plane that you’ve never flown in a glide? About the last thing he’d want is some check airman giving an interview about how “At his last sim check, Z kept asking to try a glide from 36,000’…”
Macabre? Oh yeah. Sadly, it’s been my opinion from day one so the ghoulishness has sort of worn away.
I won’t debate what the “distant point” was or if the whole final leg was flown in HDG with no distant point, but I do feel there is a strong case that the full southbound leg COULD have been flown in LNAV with a distant point in the FMC, only to click off when – or just prior to when – the fuel ran out. What that distant point was depends on one’s particular beliefs about where the thing went down I suppose.
I know there are problems fitting LNAV tracks with known distant points into the ISAT rings. I don’t have the time to re-do groundspeed/track calculations over 2000nm but plenty of smart people do and we’ll see what turns up.
In the meantime, I feel this is quite a scoop and I’m glad the full data finally surfaced, as badly presented (and subsequently COVERED UP) as it is.
@JeffWise
I looked at a 2260nm great-circle route after 19:40 using the penultimate SIO sim fix as a final “distant waypoint” and with FMT at about 8N on the 19:40 arc and it showed me two things I found rather interesting.
1) A constant groundspeed of 490kt satisfied the rings surprisingly well while flying a great-circle route.
2) Another 6,500lbs of fuel and the plane would have come down directly over the Dordrecht Basin where the water gets more than 21,000′ deep. (S33.4 E101.2)
Based on these two things, I’m really warming up to the idea that Dordrecht might have been the final objective.
The northern sim point could have functioned as a “distant waypoint” in the same way the SIO sim fix could have (like McMurdo, or Cocos, or whatever..). He could never hit that waypoint in a way that satisfied the rings. But it’s a useful point off in the distance that allows you to fly a wind-corrected great circle route for as long as your fuel (or, in the case of FMT, your nerves regarding an intercept) holds out. He’s not sure if he’s going to clear Indonesia without an intercept. But around 19:40, he thinks “Ok, I think I’m good. Let’s turn now since I’m tight on fuel.”
Remember, weather in Beijing didn’t call for any extra fuel and that being the case, he didn’t load any. The 10N sim fix may have been a relic of a route that was more cautious about Indonesian airspace because weather in Beijing would have afforded him that luxury. On 08 Mar 14, it didn’t afford him that luxury, so maybe he turned early.
Anyway, my path intersects the 7th at S28.634, about 280nm shy of Dordrecht.
@Matt Moriarty:
Strong input, indeed.
Before a shot at the Why, how was it with this data, was it found in the computer (Windows) trashbin (practibly visible) or on the disc as removed from the trashbin (practibly invisible)? Or perhaps untouched among sim Temp-files or similar? Or to put it in another way: was the files in practise still readily available to anyone playing with the sim / going about with that computer, or would it be available (in practise) only to someone with professional or even technical skills?
I am aiming at a line where he himself or someone in the family still effortlessly could retrieve the data (from the game or through desktop/interface) (and in a state/shape/context that would make sense, at least lats. and longs.), or if they were in a state beyond that, only available to someone who would have to put time and spec. equipment, skills, knowledge etc. into it to find and retrieve it? I see two or three hypothetical reasons for leaving them there.
@MattM
I just got an old copy of FS9 off Ebay. I do not yet have the Pheonix 777 plug in. Some of the things I am trying to do is see the ocean to see if Broken Ridge shows, see the Moon set at 00:41 Take off, and sunrise in the SIO.
Managed a lousy MSFS 777-300 take off from Perth and flew into SIO (no ocean terrain but I do not have high-graphics gaming XP computer so the water/terrain features are grayed-out). There are ocean details in the police report FS graphic, but I suppose they might have made that map outside of the FS program?
Took off from KLIA at night heading West to see Moon on 7-March-2014, could not find the Moon yet. Reportedly FS9 has correct Moon rise/set time but the Moon phases are totally off (made sense for 2003).
@MattM
P.S. as you say Dordrecht or Broken Ridge is on the Z Sim FS2009 path (or close to) as shown as the black line in Iannello/Godfrey prior paper, starting from about N10E90 in the Sim. Iannello of couse found a different yellow line with loiter meets the ping rings. The yellow line is more northerly near where Mike Chillit wants to organize a search. I’d like to hear if VictorI thinks the black line is better now. I always liked the orig Sim black line if you say Broken Ridge was the target idea.
@Johan
My understanding FS2004 was deleted from disk 20-Feb-2014 as well as the files. FBI recovered data for MY. Looks to me like very next day 21-Feb-2014 Z checked into KLIA for 9M-MRO earlier flight to Beijing.
@Tbill
Or something in between such as the path I constructed using the Cocos as a waypoint (overflown). I did not use a magnetic heading after the Cocos, but simply continued the route on a great circle (which is not correct, but close).
The three routes – Victor’s, Matt’s, and mine differ slightly in airspeed, ~470 knots, 490 knots, and 480 knots respectively, and move gradually SW on the 7th arc to accommodate the speed differences.
http://tmex1.blogspot.com
@Dennis
Yes nice work. I commented right after your post. One thing I like about N10E90 starting point is it goes further offshore Indonesia. Wouldn’t someone try to get more West out of Indonesian radar just in case.
Why is Florence de Changy ‘leaking’ selected pages from a 1000 page ‘secret report’, composed of unreadable low-resolution graphs, interspersed with equally unreadable text OCR’d from those low-resolution scans or photographed pages, and an unintelligible machine translation of another part of the report?
Are the sales of her book disappointing, or does she have another agenda?
@Gysbreght
Is it Florence de Changy?
Imho the snippets of information leaked to this blog by whoever it is serves no purpose at all.
The main discussion and information exchange about this report takes place in the background in between a small group.
@TBill
I can guarantee you that MSFS will not show any terrain below the water level. You’d need a special add on where somebody had specifically designed that kind of thing and I don’t think anyone but Z would have been interested in that prior to Mar 08.
@Dennis, everyone
I’m a total newbie and I gotta ask – is there a way to share Google Earth files? I keep seeing stuff I want to take the path measure tool and I can’t do it because it’s a f*&king jpeg.
@Matt
Google “sharing google earth files”. There is a lot of info on various ways to do that depending on what you want to do. It is also easy (but tedious) to overlay images on Google Earth. Scaling can be a bit frustrating, but it does work very well.
@Matt. Highlight feature in question. Save as… kmz.
@Paul, DennisW
Thx guys!
@JW
“You imagine it would be a piece of cake, because you have not tried it. What you will end up doing is generating a flight plan with arbitrary heading and/or throttle changes. Not only are these incompatible with even irrational human behavior, they are vanishingly unlikely from a probabilistic perspective, in that the hijacker would have to have arrived at, by sheer chance, the ones that just happen to match the straight-and-fast ping rings, out of the untold possible routes one could arrive at via arbitrary heading and throttle changes.”
actually circular path through SIO (even hand-flown) makes lot of sense if you assume the goal was to arrive at whatever airfield without interception
military jets have very limited range especially when they have to use afterburner for interception, flying parallel with Indonesia would make discovering/interception far more likely than going circular through SIO
I see it as a very logical continuation of the known route.
@StevanG, My statement was predicated on the assumption that a final major turn had taken place before 18:40. If we accept some alternate explanation for the 18:40 BFO value, and posit instead that there was a loiter period north of Sumatra, then any number of endpoints on the 7th arc become possible.
This is a huge “if,” however, and requires careful consideration.
That may be so for actual flights in the real airplane, if the max/min recorders (e.g. for monitoring fatigue life) are reset prior to each flight.
It does not apply in the Microsoft computer game (or, for that matter, in a professional flight simulator). An FSX Flight (*.FLT) file saved after a simulator session can be edited to change certain parameter values. The edited file can then be used as input for another simulator session. Therefore all that can be said about the three sets of [SimVars.0] and [Engine Parameters.n.0] data is that they were saved from simulator sessions that started from conditions that were derived from the same ancestor *.FLT file.
Consider for example the simulations conducted by ALSM. At least five or six end-of-flight scenarios were simulated which were obviously not complete flights, nor simulations of a single flight.
@Matt Moriarty: Very thoughtful work. Unless the levels recorded are the max/min extreme values in FS, it appears you have resolved whether the sim data was from one flight or a series of random flight data points. Assuming the sim data reflects one flight (appears highly likely), the odds that Z ran that flight on FS and wasn’t also the culprit on MH370 (which is believed to have taken a highly similar route) would be extremely remote.
Impressive work.
Regarding the FO’s mobile phone, it is notable that only his phone has been reported as being recorded connecting.
I have left my phone on (with cellular service active) for a fair number of flights. Perhaps on 20-30% of those flights, the phone connects to a tower. I’ve never placed a call, but either emails or texts will come through. Rare is it that I don’t see at least some others with their phones in active cellular mode on flights as well.
Even though MH370 was a redeye, to assume all pax turned off their phones is probably short sighted.
Do we have any info either way if the Malaysians reported checking all of the mobile numbers of the pax?
@Gysbreght – per:
“An FSX Flight (*.FLT) file saved after a simulator session can be edited to change certain parameter values. The edited file can then be used as input for another simulator session. Therefore all that can be said about the three sets of [SimVars.0]”
Very good observation.
Thankyou for those numbers, which are in fact sixteen decimal places
(trailing zero discarded in first number), and for which your 1st
post gave a different name to that used in the (non-searchable) PDF.
Where in that PDF? Pages 43, 47 & ’50 of 65′.
The assertion is that the FLT file fragments, Coordinate 3 and Coordinate 4,
in Sim-Data.pdf, must be from the exact same flight, because certain data
values are identical.
Two complementary points;
1.) Why would ‘MaxReachedEngineRPM’ values be identical in different flights?
Reasonably, later flight(s) used a previous flight FLT file, and never
exceeded that (previous flight) maximum value, therefore that value was
never changed upon a (later) autosave (or ‘SAVE’).
Consider the value ‘MaxReachedEngineRPM’, not as a continuously changing
readout, but rather like a ‘high water mark’ – a higher value has to be
Reached, or the previous value won’t be (overwritten) changed by
the flight sim in the FLT file.
Same reasoning for the MaximumGForce, and their MIN value.
2.) This webpage;
http://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?154236-Tip-start-FSX-from-flt-file
explains that an FLT file from a previous flight can be utilized to expeditiously
load a later flight. For instance, a flight, say, to Columbo could be simulated
(fully, or partially if the computer crashed) – then, on a later subsequent date,
if a user wanted to simulate a different flight, say to the magnetic south pole
region, he could have utilized the previous flight FLT file to expeditiously
launch his later flight simulation.
I believe using an FLT file in this manner, causes the import of values from the
‘previous flight’ FLT file into the subsequent simulation. Most values are changed,
either initially by the user if changing e.g. wanted Lat/Long, or by the sim
software as a normal consequence of the action in the sim e.g. movement on
X, Y, Z axés – however, some values may not be changed, as per 1.) above.
_________
Was there a contiguous sim flight that started at Coord 3 and also went
via Coord 4 & 5? Possibly – the ‘identical values’ only suggest that those
three Coords were within a shared progression of flights.
Alternatively, maybe Shah got into the habit of launching PSS via a singular,
particular ‘previous flight’ FLT file (that contained those ‘identical values’),
so after the time that Coord 3 occurred, there could have been numerous
other FLT files (and numerous other flights occuring), up until the time that
the Coordinate 4 & 5 flights occured.
As far as I’m concerned, if a continuous flight occurred stepping via
Coord 3, 4 & 5, it still wouldn’t be conclusive proof to me, because it is still
as likely an explanation that Shah was practicing a (magnetic variation)
simulation flight;
http://www.paulhowardplays.com/blog/proof-that-capt-z-shah-did-not-plan-turn-into-sio
to or about the south magnetic pole.
(An arguement could be made that an interest in magnetic variation simulation
flights, is why Shah {sim}flew a DC-3 early 2014, CYZF to CBX5, in Canada’s north.
‘Table 5, Data-from-Flight-Simulator-Computer.pdf’)
Sidenote; I can’t see, when I read Data-from-Flight-Simulator-Computer.pdf,
any specific statement as to whether the “No”s (numbered rows) in table 7
correspond to the numbering used for the ‘Coord’s in the Sim-Data.pdf .
Therefore, I’m unable to draw an inference from the dates listed in Table 7.
________
Addendum; Are FLT files “written ONLY when the pilot pushes the SAVE key”?
The statement is not supported by the PDF’s in Jeff’s article. Perhaps certain
text in the PDF’s, such as;
“.FLT This file containing the configuration and location coordinates flight
game in play during the game at the save.”(sic) or,
“.FLT It will result when the user save the game.”(sic)
led to that belief.
The MS webpage on FLT files, which Gysbreght drew to our attention
back on the 25th October, says this;
FLT’s “can be amended after they are saved off and before reloading, or
applications can“…”output flight files“. (Per MH Post above).
htps://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc707071.aspx
Do the PDf give a complete listing of all applications (e.g. .EXE & .DLL)
on the Hard drive?
No, only this sentence in ‘Data-from-Prelim-Exam-Report-Translated-from-Malay.pdf’;
“This hard drive is used as a data backup application that stores and some (sic)
software simulation games airplane like Xplane 10, Microsoft Flight Simulation X
(FSX) and Microsoft Flight Simulation 9 (MFS9).”
So we can’t be sure that applications such as FSUIPC, which can perform an
autosave from the flight sim. Also, it is known as to whether or not PSS can
simply be set to autosave (e.g. at specific intervals).
EDIT to my previous post;
So we can’t be sure whether applications such as FSUIPC, which can perform an
autosave from the flight sim, were present on the Hard Drive.
EDIT to my previous post;
Also, it is unknown as to whether or not PSS can
simply be set to autosave (e.g. at specific intervals).
——
..(Time for sleep.)
@StevanG
The quote you cut/pasted below was directed at me.
“You imagine it would be a piece of cake, because you have not tried it. What you will end up doing is generating a flight plan with arbitrary heading and/or throttle changes. Not only are these incompatible with even irrational human behavior, they are vanishingly unlikely from a probabilistic perspective, in that the hijacker would have to have arrived at, by sheer chance, the ones that just happen to match the straight-and-fast ping rings, out of the untold possible routes one could arrive at via arbitrary heading and throttle changes.”
In Silicon Valley we have a well-known analogy called “the talking dog effect”. Basically everyone is so amazed that a dog can talk that no one bothers to question whether the dog is saying anything intelligent. So it goes with Jeff’s “amazement fixation” on a straight path fitting the data. It is truly meaningless, and only one of many paths that can be readily, and easily, constructed.
I actually constructed path using the Cocos as a waypoint relatively quickly (i.e. it was a piece of cake) while packing for a trip in response to Jeff’s challenge. Of course, despite the assertion that “I have not tried it”, I have constructed many many paths as Jeff well knows. I did neglect to pack my Macbook charger which I blame on JW.
@JW
“This is a huge “if,” however, and requires careful consideration.”
everything requires careful consideration, and unless you have a reliable lead you shouldn’t waste $100M of taxpayers money searching vast area of nothing
that money should have been better split among various areas on the 7th arc
@Gysbreght, @buyerninety:
Also strong inputs as far as I can follow.
@TBill:
So the sim software was uninstalled? And all (affiliated) files with it? (But what was the reason for that? Hadn’t he upgraded the software already, earlier? Or had he more than one software installed parallell, but decided to uninstall the older at that date?)
And the next day was a kind of dress rehearsal with the same aircraft and the same initial leg?
The former just as much tuning down suspiscion as the latter exponentially tunes it up. Will we ever get the grip on this guy?
I had initially the idea that he might have saved the sim files in a way where he knew he could reach them as a note and a reminder of a specific figure that would be fixed (distance?, duration?) and which he needed for an estimate calculation of the (extra) fuel needed, or something. With his experience, a flight to SIO calculated on a Beijing flight would after a test shot probably boil down to a single figure to keep in his head, rather than to scribble it down. The key figure that he needed to remember correctly and that he needed to double check at times to make sure he had’nt miscalculated the first time? It would be actual time to actual flameout, or something wouldn’t it? Or a combination of altitude and velocity and distance, whichever made it possible for him to reach as far as he thought it necessary to fly. And then of course the last figure would be the low, or the high-low span on actual volume of fuel in the plane?
@DennisW, Your flight path fails. You have achieved the ring-fitting only by ignoring a crucial parameter, namely the 18:40 BFO value, which up until now the consensus has accepted as valid and meaningful.
If you want to argue that this constraint should be abandoned, then fair enough, but you need to do this explicitly. Indeed, if the consensus is shifting to the acceptance that there must have been a loiter, more attention needs to be paid to the question of how this BFO value could have been generated: what range of bearings and/or rates of descent could account for it, given a reasonable margin of error in the BFO data?
@Jeff
“@DennisW, Your flight path fails. You have achieved the ring-fitting only by ignoring a crucial parameter, namely the 18:40 BFO value”
Hard to understand how you can assign crucial importance to a 18:40 BFO value when you ignore all BFO values for your preferred path to the North.
There is no BTO data for the 18:40 BFO value, and no way to assess its validity. As a matter of policy I do not use BFO values with a missing or a bogus BTO value i.e. 18:25:34 and 00:19:39. Some, perhaps even most, people (including the ATSB) use the 00:19:39 BFO value to reinforce the notion of a “death dive” at the end of the flight. It is not often mentioned that the corresponding BTO is totally bogus. Why would you have so much confidence in the BFO?
Furthermore, the 18:40 BFO is hardly crucial. For example, Inmarsat ignored it in their paper. It is in the category of an outlier, and one has to get very creative to make any sense of it i.e. Victor’s lateral offset maneuver.
Generally speaking the flight path between 18:25 and 19:40 is very ambiguous. You can take your pick of several different scenarios.
@Johan
Z had two flight sim versions, the new version is called MS FSX. The older version is called MS FS9 or FS2004. It was this older version that Z had used before the flight, and deleted. Associated with the older FS2004 is an add-on program called PSS 777 (Phoenix software). Z liked the PSS 777 version, which is apparently not available for the newer FSX. Victor Iannello says he is working with the users and CEO of the PSS 777 to better understand the deleted files.
@DennisW, You wrote, “As a matter of policy I do not use BFO values with a missing or a bogus BTO value.” Lucky thing that your policy happens to jettison the data that nullifies your theory.