A few things have happened recently in MH370 world that are worth taking note of.
No FMT. The seabed search in the southern Indian Ocean is all over but the shouting, and as a result I see that a consensus is forming that there could have been no “final major turn” into the southern Indian Ocean. Rather, if the plane went south, it must have loitered somewhere beyond the Malacca Strait until after 18.40 before finally flying a straight southerly path from 19:40 onward. This loiter, following a high-speed dash across the Malay Peninsula and up the strait, is quite bizarre, given that no attempt was made by anyone on board the plane to contact the ground, either to ask for help or to negotiate a hostage situation. So the presumption of a loiter doesn’t really shed light on motivation, it does effectively put yet another nail in the coffin of accident/malfunction scenarios.
More of the secret Royal Malaysian Police report released. Mick Rooney, aka @airinvestigate, has released a portion labelled “Folder 6: Audio and Other Records.” The new section contains an expert report analyzing the cockpit/ATC audio up to 17:21, which concludes (with less than 100% confidence) that it was probably Zaharie who uttered the final words “Good night, Malaysia 370.” It also includes ACARS data and the Inmarsat logs which had already been released back in 2014. In perusing the document I was not able to identify anything that would alter our collective understanding of the case, but I hope that others will offer their own assessments. And I applaud Mick for being the only one with the moral backbone to release this information. I am sure that more will follow. UPDATE: The next batch is here: “Folder 5: Aircraft Record and DCA Radar Data.”
Debris trail goes cold. I’ve plotted, above, the number of pieces of debris that have been found each month since MH370 disappeared. After the first piece of debris was found in July, 2015, a smattering of further pieces was found until April, May, and June of this year, when the number spiked and then dropped off again before ceasing altogether. This is a puzzling distribution, since drift models show that the gyres of the southern Indian Ocean act as a great randomizer, taking things around and around and spitting them out after widely varying periods of time. Would expect, therefore, to see the number of pieces found to gradually swell and then fall off again.
There is a complicating factor to this assumption, of course. Even if the pieces do arrive in a certain pattern, overlaid on top of this is the effect of an independent variable: the degree to which people are actively searching for them. It must be noted that a considerable amount of the June spike is attributable to Blaine Alan Gibson’s astonishing haul on the beaches of Madagascar that month. Indeed, Gibson by himself remains responsible for more than half of the 22 pieces of debris found thus far.
Earlier this week, several frustrated family members announced that they would be organizing their own beachcombing expedition, to take place next month. If their efforts prove less fruitful than Blaine Alan Gibson’s, it may raise questions as to what exactly was the secret to Gibson’s success.
@ROB
Not to worry. You said some time ago that drift models were meaningless, so I have been ignoring them ever since.
@ROB
I wonn’t worry.
Even Prof. Pattiaratchi shifted to slightly North of the current search area;
“Western Australia University oceanographer Charitha Pattiaratchi , whose calculations helped an American adventurer find potential debris from the missing jet, said Thursday that the plane could have crashed slightly north of the current search area.”
From this article:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/oceanographer-says-flight-370-could-north-search-area-055838496.html
@ABN397:
“…There has been enough of searching the suspect area by aircraft, ships and some kind of submersible, but no relevant debris or other clue has been discovered.”
Yes. It is almost as puzzling as the loss of MH370. Interestingly both the Sagar Nidhi and the more sophisticated Sagar Kanya were involved in the search for the the AC-32. It looks like the Nidhi is returning to base while the Kanya continues to search on the same longitude in an area further south of its previous position. I’m waiting for more info.
More comments on recent Iannello/Guillaume paper:
From page 4 of the paper:
A zero-lift AoA of 4.2° struck as somewhat strange. For this class of air arcraft I would expect something between 0° and -2°. It is also inconsistent with pitch attudes provided in the FCOM for flight with unreliable airspeed, which suggest a zero-lift AoA of about -0.5°:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9eaivy87uk4si71/B777_FCOM_AoA.pdf?dl=0
The green square symbol in the graph shows Coordinate 2 (5N), the only point where the AoA is not set to zero by manual changes while pausing the simulation. The lift coefficient is based on the recovered speed and altitude, and VictorI’s values of ZFW and fuel on board. Although the AoA is about 1.25° less than the FCOM data, it is still inconsistent with the zero-lift value VictorI claims.
From page 5 of the paper:
The first bullet is clearly in conflict with the penultimate bullet. When the angle of attack is set to zero, the pitch becomes equal to the flight path angle, i.e. it changes from the old value.
@Ge Rijn and Dennis
Thanks, and understood.
@Gysbreght
What I see in FS9 is the engines are more powerful at low altitude take off, about +100 kts faster than at 35000 ft. So at take off I have to cut way back on throttle, until I get to altitude then I can go full throttle. This makes take off a slight pain as I have to monitor the throttle.
from VictorI
————-
@Gysbreght and @David:
Somebody alerted me to the fact that you two have tried to critique the recent paper that Yves and I have recently made available.
Please stop. You two are making so many errors regarding the simulator data that it would take another paper of equal length to correct you.
If you sincerely want to make an effort to technically review the paper, here is what I would suggest:
1. Stop comparing the simulator model with the data in the FCOM. The purpose of the exercise was not about testing the accuracy of the physical model employed in the PSS 777-200ER. It was to better understand how the user might have created the simulator data. The accuracy of the aircraft model employed in the simulator is irrelevant.
2. Purchase FS2004 (you can find versions on ebay) and as well as the PSS aircraft model. Between the two of you, you should be able to afford both and figure out how to install them.
3. Learn about the flight dynamic models employed in Flight Simulator, including how to extract data like the Cl v. AoA relationships that are embedded in some of the configuration files. My co-author Yves Guillaume has written the definitive guide for this if you care to learn from an expert. He has 20+ years of experience with Flight Simulator and has consulted for companies that commercially offer aircraft models for enthusiasts. I don’t expect you to reach his level of proficiency, but at least you can make semi-informed observations.
4. Learn how to use the software and repeat some of the many experiments we have done. Then you can verify for yourself our claims about sign conventions, stabilizer trim versus climb speed, flight path angle, zero lift angle of attack, autopilot settings stored in FLT files, and many other things that you incorrectly challenge.
There was one item that needed a correction that David did spot. Table 2 of the paper shows that data sets 3N and 5N are linked because of stored values serving as flight markers. In the text, we refer to this table, but we incorrectly stated that data sets 5N and 10N are linked. This has been corrected in the paper, which is available at the same link.
There is no need to respond to this because I won’t respond. If you do choose to respond, it is unlikely that I will see it.
@TBill: When do you engage the autopilot and VNAV? The normal takeoff procedure would be to climb maintaining V2 + 10 kt until 1500 ft, then level off to accelerate to 250 kt, reduce thrust from TO to CLB and continue climbing at 250 kt. At FL100 level off again to accelerate to 310 kt and continue climb at 310 kt.
@Gysbreght@David
Just to be clear, I do not have a dog in this fight. Whether the simulator accurately models the aerodynamics of a 777 has no relevance to me. It might just as well be a steam locomotive. What is relevant to me is the flight path, the terminus, and where this data was found.
@TBill:
P.S. The FCOM gives the initial pitch attitude as 9.5 degrees at Max. Climb Thrust, sealevel, 240,000 kg, 270 kIAS, climbing at 3100 ft/min.
@DennisW: Whether or not the simulator accurately represents the real aircraft is not my point. I’m pointing out anomalies and inconsistencies within the simulator data. Another anomaly noted first by David is that the DynPress does not correspond to the speed and altitude in the simulator data.
As he did back in August, Victor Iannello again refuses to discuss the nonsense he publishes. After the long discusion we had in July and August, it would have been decent for him to post an apology here on this blog, admitting that he was wrong.
@Dennis W
I have to agree in some ways with Dennis as regards to drift modelling although “meaningless” isn’t a word I’d use. It seems the drift modelling is as vague as the ISAT Data in regards to defining a search area (it must be about there somewhere way of thinking). Different professionals/companies of drift modelling coming up with different models, disagreeing on where the debris came from. Also no-one knows for sure 100% how long the debris were on the shores (where found) for, or whether it drifted back out then in again.
It’s great that some of the families are going out to these shores looking for debris, I would do the same if I was In that situation. It’s in hope that a particular item(s) may hold clues as to what happened. But as to any debris defining a specific area will be and is as we can see from no underwater plane debris find, currently difficult.
Also to mention, as from @richard_e_cole updates https://twitter.com/richard_e_cole/status/805124377411022849 can be seen that there are areas of ATSB’s Bayesian that have not been Bathy-scanned would it be feasible for funding if available to be put forward to complete these areas of small probability. Or would it be a waste of money, it’s just seems that the ATSB have their reasons whether public info or restricted info for using Bayesian and would it be correct and complete to fulfil there method, by searching the whole Bayesian of probability however small that probability may be before heading elsewhere.
@TBill & more:
This was interesting to me. Maybe it is old news:
“MH370 search: families, independent investigators launch recovery efforts”
https://www.google.se/amp/thenewdaily.com.au/news/world/2016/12/04/mh370-families-plead-for-search-deadline-extension/amp/
Right on the money, reg my/our “theory” above, but doutbless on different grounds.
@Joseph C
My response to ROB had a tongue in cheek component to it. I think the modeling has value relative to moving that Northward even though it cannot do so with significant precision. It is simply another constraint, albeit a week constraint.
@Gysbreght
I cannot speak for Victor, and I am certainly not going to venture into simulator analytics or aerodynamics myself. Much too big a stretch for me. Just a messenger on this one.
@DennisW: Why does victor employ you as his messenger? Can’t he post here anymore?
@TBill:
Depth there making even Dordrecht blush.
@Gysbreght
That is my understanding.
@JW
“@DennisW, Yes, given the availability of the Marianas Trench (if the hijacker just wanted to disappear) and of MAS flights to Europe (if the goal was specifically to disappear in the SIO) then I suspect that the reason the plane flew through Malaysian primary radar coverage is that it wanted to be seen.”
or he actually wanted to embarrass the military/government knowing they were half asleep bunch of incompetent fools?
Remember it happened only a week or two after ethiopian copilot brought the plane to Switzerland instead of Italy and exposed swiss airforce that worked only 9-17 sundays off.
In that case he would certainly want to see the aftermath so another arguement against suicide theory.
@Joseph C.
Relative to your query about completing the DSTG search area, I don’t have a strong opinion, and I certainly don’t have any analytics to weigh in on it.
At this moment, my sense is that it is good to take a deep breath. Maybe even turn it over to a new team relative to looking at all the data. I think the ATSB can manage any actual search activity just fine. I certainly hate to see the search suspended as much as anyone, but I don’t have a high degree of confidence anyone really knows what to do next.
@DennisW, @Gysbreght, Victor is certainly free to comment here if he wishes, his contributions would be welcome. If he chooses not to it may be because he was criticized here for trying to keep the secret RMP file under wraps, apparently doing so in hopes of promoting an interpretation of the flight sim data points that turned out to be a lot more problematic than originally advertised.
The IG as a group have a well-established history at this point of saying, “We are experts, we know best, trust us,” and then turning out to be wrong. I think that this has proven embarrassing for them, which is why to a large extent they have melted away. Duncan Steel has lately been taking down IG posts from his site and is trying to turn it to non-MH370 topics.
@Jeff
Good to know. Victor tried posting here but was unable to. He speculated that it might be a glitch of some sort, and not related to anything on your end. He asked me to put it out there. No biggie.
Duncan has always been a bit of a zealot relative to considering anything not definable in a spreadsheet. He and I got tangled up more than once on that point. I suspect that the direction of the investigation is not to his liking or in his comfort zone. I suppose I am preaching to the choir now since you certainly know the animal.
@as per Victor
I was able to get a fairly cheap EBay FS2004 running on my Win10 computer. For Win10, FS2004 required a from few tweaks, mainly the well known “no CD” patch got it working. I also installed FSX STEAM EDITION which was inexpensive. The FSX seems mostly equivalent to FS2004 to me, but the bad thing was either Microsoft or STEAM decided to remove the simplified 777-300 model from FSX. So that’s why I finally tried to install FS2004 on my Win10 machine.
I have not tried the more realistic 777 models yet (PSS and PMDG) but the PSS that Z liked the most was an inexpensive download.
@Gysbreght
As far as my take offs, right now what I do is engage autopilot Altitude fairly quickly and let that control ascent. After that I engage APP flight plan to turn onto the course. Then I manage the throttle to stay under overspeed warning. Not ready for passengers, I know.
“We are experts, we know best, trust us,”
The definition of arrogance.
@Trond
I have certainly had some sparring with the IG myself, but I have to say that they were the beacons relative to getting the analytics in place, and interpreting the data correctly.
I think they can hang their heads high. Nobody has done any better.
maybe they just trusted the inmarsat data’s validity and not reconfirming the inconsistent issues.
@TBill. “Is the analysis of the Iannello/Guillaume Paper your work? If so nicely done” My thanks, though not all agree. It was a first cut really.
On moon position and sunrise, obviously these are place and time specific and even with an ancillary to improve moon and sun timing accuracy, aircraft arrival would depend on many variables, including atmospheric conditions and any take off delays. In planning one would have to arrive early and hold I think.
To plan on following a star would be a gamble on clear skies above over quite a distance.
“He could have been checking flight path after sim point discontinuity…” Yes.
Earlier you were thinking about visibility of a flame out. I doubt there would be either smoke or flame, though the ATSB now allows there might be automatic restarts which, if the fuel supply is jerky or and ignition problematic, could cause smoke. However pilots might not be aware of this, or for that matter the APU autostart leading to the 7th arc, which for which the ATSB believes there would be fuel.
@DennisW. “What is relevant to me is the flight path, the terminus, and where this data was found.” To me, still missing is the reason Z (supposing it was him) would want to do this simulation. TBill has had a go at that as above. Without an MH370 related purpose there is correlation but no causation.
Maybe something as ethereal as “to get the feel of it” would strike a chord with psychiatrists? (rhetorical)
I do not think the Paper or comments on it have added much to what Matt Moriarty had earlier disclosed, ie that there was a persuasive case of data connection between the turn south and the SIO points. I doubt that even if the authors of the Paper were to take questions that broad outcome would be subjected to review, though the detail of the Paper’s interpretation of data will remain uncertain while there are reasonable questions outstanding.
Here are some simple questions, the answers to which would be at least a beginning and which would not entail heaps of writing.
Were the authors aware that:
• Engine rpm at co-ordinate 5 was 715%? There is no mention of this in the Paper.
• Dynamic pressure was inconsistent with the vector velocities? Ditto.
• The autopilot master was off? Ditto
As an encore, though his might entail a little more to answer, why was a step-climb introduced in the Paper’s re-creation of the run?
Without answers to these at least it will be apparent that the authors did not do their homework and the put-downs in Victor’s response are bluster.
Would you see if you can gain an audience?
Blaine Gibson is at least in some way involved in the search effort of the NoK.
Will he also go with them?
See the pictures:
https://twitter.com/h1ppyg1rl
@Ge Rijn:
“Blaine Gibson is at least in some way involved in the search effort of the NoK.
Will he also go with them?…”
If he goes with them I would expect more debris to be found. If not, I don’t know if the group will find anything meaningful. I find it spooky the way the guy is able to find stuff – almost as if he knew he would succeed.
@TBill:
…which is spot on 7th arc.
Test
@VictorI
Hope the test worked out fine.
Very curious about your latest finds and opinions.
Here is a short response to the most recent questions from @David and @Gysbreght.
@Gysbreght: You said, “When the angle of attack is set to zero, the pitch becomes equal to the flight path angle, i.e. it changes from the old value.”
No, that’s NOT how it works. I don’t know how to be more clear. While paused, a change in MAP window variables results in a pitch after the change equal to the pitch before the change. After the change, the new flight path angle is set equal to the pitch, and the body is aligned to the flight path, effectively setting the angle of attack to zero. If you don’t believe me, ask @TBill to run some cases and you will see you are wrong. Or better, purchase and install the software and see for yourself. We’ve explained exactly the sequence of operations you need to replicate this anomaly which will save you a lot of time.
@David: You said, “Without answers to these at least it will be apparent that the authors did not do their homework and the put-downs in Victor’s response are bluster.”
Are you serious? Not do our homework? Bluster? What homework have you done? Have you even tried to replicate the simulator results?
To your most recent questions:
You said, “Engine rpm at co-ordinate 5 was 715%? There is no mention of this in the Paper.”
You failed to realize that the value is “Pct Engine RPM=7.1560256429252031e-005”. The exponent at the end of 10^-5 means the RPM is effectively zero, consistent with fuel exhaustion. The values in Table 2 were rounded to zero.
You said, “Dynamic pressure was inconsistent with the vector velocities?”
First, the only data set where a comparison can be easily made is 5N because of the speed anomalies introduced by the change in MAP values. For that point, the dynamic pressure does not exactly match my hand calculations. However, we don’t know the temperature field and we don’t know the wind field. (The fact that the magnitude of the velocity vectors in the world and body coordinates agree does not mean there is no wind. Euler rotations don’t change magnitudes.) That said, the purpose of the exercise was not to test the physical accuracy of the PSS model running on FS9. It is old software that is no longer upgraded that was developed for the version in Microsoft Flight Simulator released in 2004. The PSS model for the B777 can be downloaded for $10.
You said, “The autopilot master was off.”
If you bothered to install and test the software, you would understand that there is a large part of the flight file that is missing from the recovered data that is related to variables that PSS tracks, including autopilot settings, roll mode, waypoints, and many others. These values supersede other values in the flight file.
You said, “As an encore, though his might entail a little more to answer, why was a step-climb introduced in the Paper’s re-creation of the run?”
Simple. After the FMC was programmed, it indicated that for the takeoff weight consistent with the fuel loading, the maximum ECON cruise altitude was less than the maximum altitude of 40,000 ft seen for data set 10N. So I first climbed to FL350 and after burning some fuel climbed to FL400. But it doesn’t matter what altitude profile was flown, or what cost index (CI) was chosen. The conclusions regarding distance and fuel consumed are so evident that the specifics about the exact flight profile don’t matter.
@VictorI
V for Victor, you are cleared for takeoff
@TBill: I applaud you for your efforts to come up to speed on FS9 and FSX. The FSX/PMDG model for the B777 is newer, more comprehensive, and more physically accurate than the FS9/PSS model. However, to study the deleted simulator data, the PSS model is really required.
To fly a realistic takeoff and climb, you should learn to program the FMC, where you can enter performance and other data, such as fuel load, zero fuel weight, flap settings, center of gravity, etc., which combined with the runway length and conditions, will determine V1, Vr, V2, and elevator trim. This is useful for determining how much to derate the takeoff and climb thrust. The B777-200LR has GE engines with 110,000 lb of thrust, and if you properly derate the reference thrust, the pitch as controlled by VNAV will keep your speed to the programmed value, e.g., 250 kt under 10,000 ft. The derating is especially important for the relative low fuel loadings required to match the simulator data where the maximum engine thrust far exceeds takeoff and climb requirements.
You described using the APP mode for the roll mode during takeoff and climb. This mode is intended for an approach, not a departure. If you are not going to use LNAV, you should trying using HDG SEL or HDG HLD.
I’ll stop there because this forum is not the place to learn how to use MSFS. There are other forums such as AVSIM devoted to this. Plus, the documentation that comes with the PMDG software is pretty good.
@all, Normally I would put up a separate post about this but I want to let this conversation about the flight sim data play out uninterrupted.
At any rate, Mick Rooney has released a new section of the secret Malaysian police report. Not a great deal of info that is obviously game-changing, but someone might go through it carefully and find something. The contents include aircraft fuel and maintenance records, info on some MAS employees involved in the flight, and a photograph of a DVD containing the civil primary radar records. My main takeaway is that if this is all they have on the MAS employees, they didn’t conduct much of an investigation at all.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1axz5t8li7h3hlg/Folder%205%20Aircraft%20Records%20and%20Radar%20.pdf?dl=0
You probably think that I’m a very dumb person, because I still don’t get it. The angles of attack (alpha) and sideslip (beta) define the difference in spatial orientation between Flight Path (FP) and ZBodyAxis. If a change made in the MAP window sets alpha and beta to zero (XVelBodyAxis =YVelBodyAxis = 0), then the orientation in “World” space of either FP or ZBodyAxis must change. Is there no change in ZVelBodyAxis?
FP is defined by the X,Y,Z components of VelWorld. So if the orientation of ZBodyAxis in “World” coördinates before and after the MAP change is unchanged, then the VelWorld components must all change. Is that what happens?
You say that you have researched this in depth. It must then be easy for you to provide an example of a MAP page change, with the two .FLT files saved before and after the change. That way you would be more clear.
I’ll make one more point that is obvious to me after having taken the time to learn about the simulation software.
It is erroneous to attribute the deleted simulation to the SIO as a means for the captain to gain knowledge. As I have said before, there is no knowledge about navigation, fuel consumption, flight dynamics, etc. that couldn’t be more accurately and more easily gained elsewhere. The captain knew this.
Rather, the simulation was all about creating the EXPERIENCE. That’s why a simulation enthusiast is interested in the hobby. And the saved data sets might have been starting points to relive that experience multiple times.
The more I study the data and the surrounding circumstances, the more incriminating I believe the evidence to be.
@Gysbreght: You are not dumb. You are stubborn, and that prevents you from seeing the obvious.
VelWorld components before and after the change are different in both direction and magnitude. We explained in the paper that the magnitude of the velocity vector erroneously changes. To maintain the pitch while forcing the AoA to zero, the direction also changes. This has been thoroughly explained in the paper.
Victor- Thank you for the tips. Until now I was more interested in the night sky/flight path than than take off and landings. But I plan to get going with PSS and/or PMDG. We have a commercial airliner pilot in the family, so once I get the hang of if, I can supervise our younger grandkids let them push the buttons etc. and we can get feedback.
@JeffW
I had trouble understanding dates of the flight history, but I was trying to confirm 9M-MRO went to Beijing (Z as MH370 pilot) on 22-Feb. Also trying to confirm 9M-MRO went to Beijing MH370 and back on 7-March, the day before.
9M-MRO flight history has been previously published on Reddit, so not much new there except to see if the new info gives any add’l insights.
9M-MRO Flight History:
http://i.imgur.com/UUW6ReX.png
> I was still looking for jet fuel inspections of quality at least density…not seeing anything.
> The O2 top off data is interesting. Looks like anytime pressure was below 1200-psig they fill-up? If one has an imaginative conspiracy theory, maybe the prior flight to Beijing someone drained the O2 to 1200 psig to allow EEBay access just before the flight, and I am turning off Digital Data Flight Recorder breaker at that time, maybe other preps. I was looking for time this was done.
Mick Gilbert tries to make the point that 1200-psig is too low for the number of flights before last refill, but it is probably a weak argument as there quite a number of flights.
@JeffW
I had trouble understanding dates of the flight history, but I was trying to confirm 9M-MRO went to Beijing (Z as MH370 pilot) on 22-Feb. Also trying to confirm 9M-MRO went to Beijing MH370 and back on 7-March, the day before.
9M-MRO flight history has been previously published on Reddit, so not much new there except to see if the new info gives any add’l insights.
9M-MRO Flight History:
http://i.imgur.com/UUW6ReX.png
> I was still looking for jet fuel inspections of quality at least density…not seeing anything.
> The O2 top off data is interesting. Looks like anytime pressure was below 1200-psig they fill-up? If one has an imaginative conspiracy theory, maybe the prior flight to Beijing someone drained the O2 to 1200 psig to allow EEBay access just before the flight, and I am turning off Digital Data Flight Recorder breaker at that time, maybe other preps. I was looking for time this was done.
Mick Gilbert tries to make the point that 1200-psig is too low for the number of flights before last refill, but it is probably a weak argument as there quite a number of flights.
@VictorI:
Thanks for your patience. How about providing an example, to make the issue fully clear?
Difficult for mee to understand that “VelWorld components before and after the change are different in direction”. Doesn’t East remain East, North remains North, and Vertical remains Vertical?
@Gysbreght: If you vectorially add the components along the orthogonal axes before and after a change in a MAP variable, the resultant vector is different in magnitude and direction before and after the change. (A change in FPA is a change in direction. I wasn’t referring to a change in navigational direction, although that does also occur because the value of heading is preserved and the heading and track after the change are forced to be identical.) The paper explains how the velocity vector increases in magnitude. With the pitch held constant, and the AoA forced to zero, the flight path angle changes. If the flight was level (VS=0) before the change and flying with up pitch, then after the change, the flight path will be aligned with the pitch, and VS>0.
It is a crying shame and a tragedy in its own right that no one came up with the idea to organise searching for and paying rewards for airplane parts debris two years ago or so. A propos http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13U1SS?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+Reuters%252FworldNews+%2528Reuters+World+News%2529
@VictorI: Why is it so difficult to give an example? For example: how do the rotational velocities change, how is the dynamic pressure calculated? Does the change explain the excessive GForce levels?
@VictorI
First thanks for providing further information and insight.
You understand that I and about everyone here is convinced you have the whole RMP-report available. Is this true?
Then when based on this report stating:
“It is erroneous to attribute the deleted simulation to the SIO as a means for the captain to gain knowledge. As I have said before, there is no knowledge about navigation, fuel consumption, flight dynamics, etc. that couldn’t be more accurately and more easily gained elsewhere. The captain knew this.
Rather, the simulation was all about creating the EXPERIENCE. That’s why a simulation enthusiast is interested in the hobby. And the saved data sets might have been starting points to relive that experience multiple times.”
Statements like this get more weight if based on this report especialy from you and from your following statement:
“The more I study the data and the surrounding circumstances, the more incriminating I believe the evidence to be”.
Hope the time is right for you to provide this evidence you believe in.
@Gysbreght: Considering the many personal attacks you have leveled at me and your false claims about the recent paper, I am not inclined to do extra work to persuade you of anything. If you are sincerely interested in finding the truth, you can independently replicate our results and answer your own questions.
@VictorI: I’m not aware of having leveled any “personal attacks” at you. All my comments have been entirely factual.
I’m also not asking you to do any extra work for me. It is entirely reasonable for me to assume that what I’m asking you to to provide has been done by you in the course of your in-depth research of the matters we discussed.
I am not inclined to buy and install MSFS software solely to replicate your results or to add more flaws in the recovered file fragments above those that have been identified already.
@Ge Rijn:
I was shown parts of the RMP report under a confidential agreement with a journalist. I will continue to respect the terms of that agreement for ethical, legal, privacy, and safety reasons. That said, I have worked hard to persuade the journalist to release all materials, and I can prove it if ever challenged.
I have been accused by our host of having no moral backbone and selectively leaking information to further an agenda. For that reason, I will only comment on parts of the report that have been put in the public domain by others. My comments above referred to data already made public, and should be taken in that light.
To be clear, I have no agenda. My views on the most likely scenario have shifted as more evidence has surfaced over the past 2.75 years. I have derived no income for anything related to this tragedy. I have been approached on several occasions by members of the media wishing to sign a contract for my participation on various projects. Each time, I said I would volunteer limited amounts of my time, but I do not want to get paid because then I would not be able to claim I was objective. I also can’t make the required time commitment because I am busy with other activities related to my professional career.
Those that viciously and incorrectly claim that I have an agenda should fully disclose their own financial and professional interests in this tragedy, including exclusive media contracts, professional appearances, and income from books.