The above graph is taken from the DSTG book “Bayesian Methods in the Search for MH370, ” page 90. It shows the probability distribution of MH370’s endpoint in the southern Indian Ocean based on analysis of the different autopilot modes available to whoever was in charge of the plane during its final six hours. It was published earlier this year and so represents contemporary understanding of these issues. As you can see, the DSTG estimated that the probability that the plane hit the 7th arc north of 34 degrees south longitude is effectively zero.
I interviewed Neil Gordon, lead author of the paper, on August 11. At that time, he told me that experts within the official search had already determined that the BFO values at 0:19 indicated that the plane was in a steep descent, on the order of 15,000 feet per minute.
Such a rate of descent would necessarily indicate that the plane could not have hit the ocean very far from the 7th arc. Nevertheless, Fugro Equator, which was still conducting its broad towfish scan of the search area at the time, spent most of its time searching the area on the inside edge of the search zone in the main area, between 37.5 and 35 degrees south latitude, about 25 nautical miles inside the 7th arc. At no point between the time of our interview and the end of the towfish scan in October did Equator scan anywhere north of 34 degrees south.
Shortly thereafter, the ATSB hosted a meeting of the experts it had consulted in the course of the investigation, and the result of their discussion was published on December 20 of this year as “MH370 – First Principles Review.” This document confirms what Gordon told me, that the group believed that the BFO data meant that the plane had to have been in a steep dive at the time of the final ping. What’s more, the report specified that this implied that the plane could not have flown more than 25 nautical miles from the 7th arc, and indeed most likely impacted the sea within 15 nautical miles.
By the analysis presented above, a conclusion is fairly obvious: the plane must have come to rest somewhere south of 34 degrees south, within 25 nautical miles of the seventh arc. Since this area has already been thoroughly scanned, then the implication is that the plane did not come to rest on the Indian Ocean seabed where the Inmarsat signals indicate it should have.
I would suggest that at this point the search should have been considered completed.
Nevertheless, the “First Principles Review” states on page 15 that the experts’ renewed analysis of the 777 autopilot dynamics indicates that the plane could have crossed the 7th arc “up to 33°S in latitude along the 7th arc.”
Then in the Conclusions section on page 23 the authors describe “a remaining area of high probability between latitudes 32.5°S and 36°S along the 7th arc,” while the accompanying illustration depicts a northern limit at 32.25 degrees south.
In other words, without any explanation, the northern limit of the aircraft’s possible impact point has moved from 34 degrees south in the Bayesian Methods paper in early 2016 to 33 degrees south on page 15 in the “First Principles Review” released at the end of the year. Then eight pages later within the same report the northern limit has moved, again without explanation, a half a degree further north. And half a page later it has moved a quarter of a degree further still.
Is the ATSB sincere in moving the northern limit in this way? If so, I wonder why they did not further search out this area when they had the chance, instead of continuing to scan an area that they apparently had already concluded the plane could not plausibly have reached.
I should point out at this point that the area between 34 south and 35.5 south has been scanned to a total widtch of 37 nautical miles, and the area between 32.5 and 34 has been searched to a total width 23 nautical miles. Thus even if the ATSB’s new northern limits are correct, they still should have found the plane.
As a result of the above I would suggest that:
a) Even though most recent report describes “the need to search an additional area representing approximately 25,000 km²,” the conduct of the ATSB’s search does not suggest that they earnestly believe that the plane could lie in this area. If they did, they could have searched out the highest-probability portions of this area with the time and resources at their disposal. Indeed, they could be searching it right now, as I write this. Obviously they are not.
b) The ATSB knew, in issuing the report, that Malaysia and China would not agree to search the newly suggested area, because it fails to meet the agreed-upon criteria for an extension (“credible new information… that can be used to identify the specific location of the aircraft”). Thus mooting this area would allow them to claim that there remained areas of significant probability that they had been forced to leave unsearched. This, in effect, would allow them to claim that their analysis had been correct but that they had fallen victim to bad luck.
c) The ATSB’s sophisticated mathematical analysis of the Inmarsat data, combined with debris drift analysis and other factors, allowed them to define an area of the southern Indian Ocean in which the plane could plausibly have come to rest. A long, exhaustive and expensive search has determined that it is not there.
d) The ATSB did not fall victim to bad luck. On the contrary, they have demonstrated with great robustness that the Inmarsat data is not compatible with the physical facts of the case.
e) Something is wrong with the Inmarsat data.
@buyerninety
Interesting tidbit. My computer skills belong in a category of technologically inept, so I would be clueless about the process of permanently erasing data. That is the very reason I would take a hammer to it or heave it into a dumpster.
@Dennis
I said “If Z theoretically flew hours to the SIO to hide the plane…”
There are many who believe Z flew the plane to a certain location specifically to ensure it was never found. That does not seem to fit with him “not trying to hide anything”
In this follow-up paper by Richard Godfrey, he says the drifter temperature data suggests the flaperon started its drift towards La Reunion from a band of latitudes between 20S and 30S.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pveb004xil0egml/Optimum%20Sea%20Temperatures%20for%20Barnacle%20Growth.pdf?dl=0
@jeffwise: Correct me if I am wrong. You are certain that MH370 flew to Kazakhstan, so you suggest that we restrict our discussions to how that occurred and where the plane landed?
@JeffW
If the U.S. thought Russia did MH370, Obama admin probably would say so as part of the current Russia sanctions efforts. There is a bi-partisan U.S. effort right now to try discredit Russia, among those politicians who feel Trump is heading in the wrong direction. How about talk to one or several of your elected officials such as Rep. Peter King and try to ascertain if there is any merit to blaming Russia? I talked to my local rep when we had FBI Cessna’s over our neighborhood 24/7 a year or so ago. Admittedly it did not help too much in that case.
For what its worth, Mike Chillit is talking about a letter on MH370 search to the Trump admin. If the search is over, it is perhaps time for the U.S. to say what we think happened, so there is a possible opportunity for some open communications. This is why I had suggested a possible informal meeting in DC area maybe we could get some input from FBI or someone.
But I really feel the MH370 issue is apparent pijacking, and implications for the future. The only reason I am somewhat tolerant of the Russian hijack idea is that it is also an intentional diversion scenario, so at least that has some of the same causes and fixes like stop allowing turn off of ACARS etc.
In one sense, we don’t need to know what happened to MH370, we already know what could have happened. Look at your scenario from the viewpoint what fixes in aircraft design or security would the Russian conspiracy suggest? Assume your scenario is true, and what does that say needs to be done?
I gather Congress has been stalling a proposed safe airline flight bill going back to 9/11. Apparently there is a lot of institutional resistance to facing up to some of the lessons of 9/11 and MH370 etc. Maybe it’s valid to oppose change, maybe not, but that is an area you could make a contribution to the national even global discussion.
I was curious about that too, but didn’t dare to ask. Therefore I am very grateful to you for continuing the simulation past 45S2 and for posting that video.
I have stated earlier that continuation of the flight from the conditions of 45S2 would involve phugoid motion, and was particularly interested in that aspect, i.e. period and amplitude of the phugoid. Therefore I read the altitudes from the text at the top of the screen and plotted it against elapsed time in the video: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6tc7kfric7e69o0/45S2_NoPilotInput.pdf?dl=0
The phugoid period turns out to be about twice the theoretical value of 40 – 45 seconds. The initial amplitude is about 1000 fpm, centered on the mean rate of descent of about 1000 fpm. The initial excitation is therefore level flight, not climb. Food for thought?
@Gysbreght: You have to remember that the initial climb is somewhat artificial. It does not satisfy the aerodynamic conditions of a phugoid in process, e.g., nearly constant AoA. In fact, the instantaneous AoA is forced to zero.
On top of this, I do not believe the aerodynamic model in the PSS 777 is accurate. When I created the simulation between 45S1 and 45S2, it was unrealistically easy to maintain a constant altitude while manually flying. Yves tells me that the stability derivatives are too high. He discusses this a bit in his flight dynamics paper.
@VictorI: The AoA is indicated on the PFD. What does it show?
@Gysbreght: The instantaneous indication at the re-start is wrong, just like the instantaneous indication of IAS is wrong. We’ve already discussed this.
@OZ
What I want to know about the PAX O2 system is if it can be turned off? My understanding is that there is no easy way to disable the automated O2 mask drop down, but I’d like to know if there is some way to disable the cabin pressure alarm circuit such as cutting off the left bus power.
@VictorI: My guess is that if the initial condition had been 1468 fpm climb as per the .FLT data post-change, then the pendulum would have swung to an opposite extreme of 3468 fpm rate of descent. What you see is not wrong, it’s just different from what you think it should be.
@VictorI, You wrote, “You are certain that MH370 flew to Kazakhstan, so you suggest that we restrict our discussions to how that occurred and where the plane landed?” I would rather suggest that you were pursuing a more fruitful line of inquiry when you were investigating how the spoof might have occurred, and what flight paths would be viable in that context. I feel that you abandoned that approach too soon, given the debris’ glaring inconsistencies and the fact that most of it was found by a shadowy Russian speaker with three decades’ involvement in Russia.
@VictorI: BTW, the IAS is difficult to read because of the poor resolution, but initially it seems to 183 kt as per the post-change .FLT, but there is wind (again difficult to read), then the IAS changes in a few seconds to 175 kt while the wind changes to zero.
@TBill, ever your 11:10am post
I can imagine at least two reasons why one nation might not acknowledge an adversarial nation’s activity.
One, you might not want to let the adversary know you have the means to know what they’ve done—that is you have the capabilities, you’ve kept them secret, and are saving their reveal for a more significant moment. Think of it as the equivalent of an undercover cop witnessing a crime without intervening and thus not compromising his undercover role.
Two, you and your adversary both might know you know, thereby creating a behind the scenes understanding of some sort among governments, but believe the reveal of your joint knowledge is not in the best interest of the general welfare.
I think the later often happens in the international arena, where moves on the chessboard are often best made without the knowledge, opinions, demands of a populace tending toward immediate chest-thumping revenge for any given battle even if that means putting in jeopardy the winning of the war. An example of that would be Churchill’s public suggestion that the British could not survive Operation Sea Lion as a way, some say, to coax the U.S. into the war, prepare his countryman for a long-term fight, to actually entice the Germans to invade so as to sink their victory chances years before their defeat actually came to pass.
@All
By far the most dangerous (as far as the pilot was concerned) part of this flight would be dealing with the other occupants. Depressurization at altitude is extremely hazardous, irrespective of the temperature drop, and the aircraft appears to have staid at cruising altitude, at least for the first hour, and probably until flameout. No amount of preliminary preparation could have accounted for every possible outcome during the flight. The chances of something going wrong, are significant. No surprise then, that something did appear to go wrong after the FMT.
Ask yourselves, would any sane person consider such an action? Personally, I don’t think a sane person would.
@Rob
I agree with everything you said except your main point of course….you believe Captain Zaharie was responsible and not “sane” and I think he was not and is respectively. Happy New Year!
@Susie Crowe
Happy New Year to you too, Susie.
@Susie
“There are many who believe Z flew the plane to a certain location specifically to ensure it was never found. That does not seem to fit with him “not trying to hide anything””
So now truth is decided by majority vote?
There are people here who think the plane went North.
There are/were people here who are Maldives advocates.
What about Diego Garcia. We going to ignore those folks?
Just, FYI, I don’t care what many people think.
@VictorI@Gysbreght
“There are obvious problems with this scenario, some of which you mentioned. The timing seems too short before the flight to the SIO began, and a pilot flying has limited ability to make a demand and verify the conditions for that demand are met, even if they are working with accomplices on the ground.”
Yes. And obviously those problems were not overcome, and the plane was flown to oblivion. What I think you meant to say is “it was unreasonable to think that successful negotiations could be carried in the time the plane could remain airborne.”
@VictorI
“There are obvious problems with this scenario, some of which you mentioned.”
You were referencing the failed negotiation scenario above. I would challenge you, Gesbreght, or anyone else on this forum to point out a single obvious problem. This scenario checks all the boxes. It might not be correct, but there is absolutely nothing you can say to refute it other than the usual Gysbreght blah, blah, nonsense. He comes on about what banks can and cannot do without even bothering to check how that industry is obligated to behave in the circumstances associated with a money transfer scenario. Frankly, I am getting quite annoyed with his rants.
@DennisW said: And obviously those problems were not overcome, and the plane was flown to oblivion. What I think you meant to say is “it was unreasonable to think that successful negotiations could be carried in the time the plane could remain airborne.”
Yes, that is what I mean. I can’t refute the possibility that his scheme never had a chance to really succeed.
@Dennisw: Happy New Year!
@VictorI
In fact, demands which have a tight time frame (according to friends I still have in places that deal with such things) are the most difficult to deal with and, hence, the most effective. When you give your adversary (in this case the Malay government) as little time as possible to formulate a counter plan, the chances of acquiescence to demands are higher. The idea being to postpone the carnage if possible, and work out a reprisal with a more carefully choreographed response.
@DennisW
Hypothetical arrival time at Cocos (after loiter until 19:40) is around 22:20 so there is that much time for negotiations (4-hrs from 18:22), assuming MH370 could get to a landing field from Cocos or use Cocos air field.
@Gysbreght
Thanks. Happy New Year to you as well. 🙂
@DennisW: So what is your theory for the timing of the path to the SIO after the loiter? How much time did he give the Malaysians to meet the demands?
In so much that the Inmarsat data might have been tampered or spoofed it might be also the radar information was made up to make it look like 9m-MRO flew back over Malaysia ….
So if it didn’t go south or west within these parameter where would it go ? North from BITOD or east out to the pacific ?
@VictorI
I have a late FMT penciled in as in your and Richard’s path using McMurdo. I have 9M-MRO passing the Cocos at around 22:30, give or take, which would have been near the point of no return. That would give about 5+ hours from the turn West at IGARI when the negotiations could have logically started.
More than enough time for an electronic funds transfer to be performed and verified. While Europe has historically been the most reliable in this regard, I am told Hong Kong and Singapore are the new favored havens. All done with a few keystrokes, and extremely hard (involving courts in multiple jurisdictions, to reverse. As a practical matter the money (in previous cases of fraud which you can Google) is moved long before any courts can act to seize it.
@Dennis W “my version has the negotiations being a demand for the transfer of a significant portion of the money Najib embezzled to a numbered account in Europe……The intention of the patriots would be to return the money to the people of Malaysia.”
So you see Shah as some kind of modern day, aeronautical Robin Hood??
I assume with the hope of a ‘success’ message, Shah would have left the passengers sitting in the back with peanuts and Sprite during all of this? A bit risky??
In the case of a ‘fail’ or ‘no message’ Shah would be taking a chance that the whole thing would be blamed on him – without his altruistic intentions ever revealed (he would be viewed as a murdering crazy man, as some are indeed doing.).
Still, I think it beats the “Putin did it” mantra but there is something significant missing.
From a 2014 article:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/captain-zaharie-ahmed-shah-missing-malaysian-flight-mh370-pilots/1/349888.html
“..Investigations by Headlines Today revealed that Captain Zaharie normally wished the Nepali security guards posted outside his colony with a Muslim style of salutation as if he was saying salam to him. But on the night when he took the flight nine days ago, he had saluted the guards in the military style.
“There was a striking change in the way he had saluted us that night,” said one of the security guards posted outside his house on condition of anonymity, adding, ”it was very unlike him.” ”
If these statements are true – and in aggregate of the other available evidence including the sim data, I find this quite alarming.
I would be very interested if this claim has been substantiated elsewhere, or whether we should discard it to the hearsay and conjecture stockpile?
Does anyone know anything more on this, or would like to weigh in? I’d appreciate others’ perspectives.
@tr1ptych – all pretty much dubious hearsay to setup Shah
@Victorl. The most recent Richard Godfrey study is useful in identifying temperatures for optimal barnacle survival and growth between 19 and 25 deg C and explaining how some flotsam could have lost barnacles due to exposure to water over 25.
@Ge Rijn, you posted this on September 10th 11.48 pm: http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/monthly_mean.html. You pointed out that by clicking on the months concerned one can follow local temperatures variations with the seasons and that this seasonal variation can contribute to explaining how barnacles can be subject to variations in temperature of the De Dekkert findings. You elucidated on this over the next two days. If my memory serves me you have not been able to find these earlier postings; which I hope you will now follow up again.
I aim to bow out after this.
VictorI you comment that,“Richard Godfrey.. says the drifter temperature data suggests the flaperon started its drift towards La Reunion from a band of latitudes between 20S and 30S”. His probable latitudes might be different were he to take seasonal and also yearly differences into account. I notice that in his latest post he does not say what dates his drifters passed through the potential crash latitudes and hence does not identify the seasons. In his earlier post he mentioned two drifters which were at these latitudes but their months starting there were September and December vice the March crash.
To get my own feel for this I have run through the NOAA diagrams for the 1984 to 1998 Marches. Generally they depict the temperature of the waters west of Cape Leeuwin by green colo(u)r coding in March, blue in September. At Reunion/Mauritius conversely the colours are tan in March and light green in September.
Also there is a separate “SST Monthly Mean Anomalies” series (see box under the Monthly Means) which gives a quick impression of the year by year temperature variations. 1986 cf 1988 Marches illustrate what the difference there can be off both Cape Leeuwin and at Maurius/Reunion, 1997 cf 1998 likewise.
As a suggestion Richard Godfrey might like to comment on whether incorporating the seasonal and annual variations could lead to a further useful refinement of his 20S to 30S findings.
@DennisW
Looks like from Cocos@22:20 about the only landing option is Jakarta, assuming Indonesia landing was preferred for political reasons. And that would be tight (686 nm), versus 902 nm out to Acr7 at 26.9S.
If Jakarta makes sense, that’s almost a clue that Victor’s McMurdo path makes sense. MH370 had to hit Cocos with enough fuel left to reach Jakarta.
@TBill, when you tested PSS, did you test it in FSX also?
I understand that PSS in FSX ‘works’ in the same sense a that a
child can be said to ‘drive’ a car – which is to say, poorly and
not for long until it all comes to grief. For instance, this webpage;
http://www.avsim.com/topic/266852-pss-777s-in-fsx/page-2
suggests that although PSS will load in FSX, some of the problems you
would experience are random (uncommanded) changes in altitude, engines
not cold starting and engine gauges not displaying the correct status,
flight sim locking up, etc..
Therefore, PSS in FSX would be a poor choice to experience any flight
in, but might be interesting as a testing experiment (of PSS) if you
(Shah) thought there was any chance you ‘might’ get it to work.
Peter, who said on this forum back on July 24th that he had FSX,
outlined how he would go about testing a sim;
“if you haven’t saved a waypoint state, which marks your position and
aircraft attributes, the flight sim reverts to where you started hours
earlier. You can’t pick up where the software crashed.”
…”in trying to de-bug the simulator crash instability, one sets up
various flights to see if certain scenery graphics, when they load into
RAM may cause this. It could be 3D models, scenery terrain art tiles,
seascape, land, or shoreline tiles, even sound files.”
…”Since I used to work for a company that built a competitive simulator
product to Flight Sim, I’m rather familiar with how to de-bug flight
simulators. One way to test if there’s some sort of instability, where
the program quits is to fly over open ocean and avoid any instrument data
or whatever. So, you set up a flight like what this pilot did on his
simulator.”
@TBill,
The only way to disable the automatic O2 drop is with CBs in the E&E bay.
To the best of my knowledge the cabin altitude warning can’t be disabled (other than just cancelling the aural alarm) but it can be delayed by selecting a landing elevation greater than 9,600′; the warning trigger is changed from 10,000′ to 14,200′.
OZ
@VictorI. Add on. More relevant to Reunion, extremes in these years of annual July water temperature variations are 1987 cf 1996.
Please delete “the’ from my earlier second last line
@David @VictorI
Thanks for finding those NOAA diagrams again and bringing this back to the discussion.
I read Richard Godfrey’s interesting latest papers on those buoys and temperatures.
And like you I noticed the lack of drifter-dates which suggest seasonal temperature shifts where not taken into account.
In those September posts I made my points clear enough I hope so I won’t repeat those now.
I assume your clear previous post on this subject will be sufficient enough for @VictorI (and Richard Godfrey) to answer.
@All
Article on the recently found Mosselbay-piece.
With a good new photo included:
http://www.heraldlive.co.za/news/2016/12/29/albie-morkel-found-clue-missing-flight-mh370-mossel-bay/
@TBill
I don’t have an opinion relative to Indonesia being preferred. Maybe. The Cocos themselves could have accommodated the aircraft, and the population is mostly ethic Malay, who presumably would be sympathetic to Shah’s actions. Law enforcement on the Island is minimal. Last I read only two people reporting to Australia.
Sure, the Iannello and Godrey route or the previous Godrey route described in “The Long Hunt for a Diversion Airport” work fine for me as well. In any case we know the plane did not land in Indonesia or the Cocos, and likely continued past the Cocos and entered the water around 27S.
Did some searching on the new Mosselbay-piece.
Trailing-edge landing flaps have no distinqtive taper. And the elevator has no curved surface like the piece shows.
If the remaining complete trailing edge part of the piece is showing what it seems to be showing; a distinqtive taper, it should be another piece of outboard flap.
And if the pictures are not mirrored and the taper is correct it should be another piece of right-wing outboard flap.
An illustrative photo whith all flaps and the elevator visible:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d702pz8nj25aa2g/b777%20overview%20flaps.jpg?dl=0
@Ge Rijn
A bit surprized you didn’t mention the triangular type hole in the
piece, such hole shape is indicative of a thrown turbine blade (‘thrown’
here means it separated from the turbine at high speed and speared
through anything on its awayward journey).
Also, don’t forget there are three high speed turbines on a 777 –
two trent 892s and the APU…
@JeffWise
Would you prefer that I not persist with that rejected post pointing
out some flaws in VictorI’s theory?
Oops, forgot to mention, compare if you like, with the triangular
shape hole in the Klein Brak ‘RR’ piece.
@buyerninety, It took me a moment to figure out what you were referring to. I looked in my spam folder, found your post, un-spammed it, and approved. Presumably it fell afoul of the spam filter for some reason.
@buyerninety
I saw that ‘hole’ and those two long black scratches though it’s hard to tell from the pictures if the skin is penetrated there like other pieces show (RR-piece indeed and several others like left outboard flap trailing edge).
There is obviously a black skin visible under the white paint. I assume this is carbon.
This is different from the other two found outboard flap pieces (left and right wing).
Those show light colored skin beneath the paint on both sides.
And this piece shows no fasteners or traces of them where you would expect them to be on an outboardflap trailing edge piece.
This made me think of a landing flap trailing edge piece. But a landing flap has no obvious taper.
If this piece really shows a taper (and it looks like it) it cann’t be a landing flap piece.
The elevator shows similar taper and dimensions and also the black skin on the underside (see my previous picture zoomed in) but IMO the elevator has no curve like this piece shows and it seems too thick on the leading edge.
Still too many contradicting elements to identify it’s B777 and its position for sure IMO.
More and higher resolution photos are required at least.
@JeffWise , Thanks, I guess I’ll look back at that post later.
@Ge Rijn
Yes, the black layer under the white skin looks similar to the black
layer on the Klein Brak ‘RR’ piece.
(Actually, there were two triangular shaped holes on the ‘RR’ piece.)
I didn’t find anything so far that would tell me what the RPM of a
777, or similar jet engine turbine, would be expected to be if it were
unpowered but rotating from the effect of impinging air upon it due
to the aircrafts forward motion (e.g. in a high speed dive).
Would the RPM of the turbine in an unpowered state still be high
enough to cause the turbine blades to have enough rotational energy
that blades would be thrown outwards from the turbine when the turbine
smashed into the ocean surface?
Perhaps pictures (e.g. of the engine nacelles) of other aircraft that
ran out of fuel and crashed, might give us a clue.
Cheers
@DennisW, VictorI: Choice of flight, upsetting MY govt.
I for my part believe the choice of flight is solved sufficiently by the fact of the Court of Appeals’ decision. In a scenario w. Z as the perp. and no hijack/ransom. In that respect, the flying back across MY is, or becomes, Z’s chance to stick it to the govt. in the only way that is possible without Z shining through too much as the perp. The proximity in time and the apparent emergency that apparently wasn’t one would be enough for Z to sow suspiscion among those who he felt ought to stand with the shame, but not sufficient to restlessly pin it on him in an accident investigation or in the public mind.
It would be sick, of course, but it is not impossible. And he must have planned it for a good while, perhaps weighing the alternatives until he sat there with the one option. And really, he must have been a good way down the road of suicide in any event. It is hard to see a healthy person doing something like that, even though mildly or temporarily insane for whatever reason. What it is they say, “suicide is an eternal solution to a temporary problem”, but it takes a psychotic person to be blind to everything but the execution of the plan. And whatever “political” ambitions he may have had, he probably had time to realise these would be washed away by the lunacy stamp such a deed would imprint on anyone. He’s nothing but a bomb-thrower. More likely perhaps, he saw himself at the end of the tehter for a handful of reasons and decided he would be better off dead. So why not knock down two flies with one stone.
That said, it is not altogether easy to get completely rid of the feeling that he is a patsy for someone or something. He would have stood out as a good one, too. But what then went down, and who would have needed to be behind that is beyond my imagination. And as that would be on the verge of the imaginable, it tends to reinforce for me the notion that the first alternative does have something to it. Or we need to think in terms of an unannounced third pilot or something. But that will hardly get us anywhere soon…
@Ge Rijn
P.S. Just for accuracy, I’ll just note to you that that aircraft
in your dropbox, G-BNWA , is a British Airways B767-300ER.
Cheers
@Ge Rijn
P.S. Also, in the background of the boy at the beach holding
the piece, can be seen a little girl who is holding a long
white thing in her left hand and manipulating it with her
right hand, so the probability is that the picture is
not reversed.
Cheers
@Johan
” In a scenario w. Z as the perp. and no hijack/ransom. In that respect, the flying back across MY is, or becomes, Z’s chance to stick it to the govt”
YesI have heard that explanation many times. In my view it is lame.
@DennisW
“Well, then you have some blanks to fill in.”
Well, just a random technical/human failure (or both). And number of such scenarios is pretty much infinite, the same way number of endpoints around the 7th arc is infinite too. (although currently it’s around 9/10 of infinite heh)
The best hint we have is independent drift analysis that puts flaperon origin north of 25S. Which is compatible with failed approach to CI, as well as the barely mentioned report of swiss seamen that allegedly saw remnants of the plane in that region the day after crash.
Straight path theory didn’t work, time to change the whole approach.
@Buyerninety
I did not personally try to install PSS with FSX, but it is reasonable to assume Z might have tried that at some point, since we know he liked the PSS model. But he might have tried that many years ago. One nice thing about FS/FSX is the great user community and websites, in general lots of help out there, eg; one such area is how to copy FS2004 aircraft into FSX. I also have a hunch PSS could be made to run in some form in FSX. I have the “Steam” version of FSX right now, which may not lend itself as well. If I moved an aircraft into FSX from FS2004, I’d start with the simple 777-300 that Microsoft left out of FSX.
I think Victor is correct that the PMDG 777 is the way to go in FSX as far as top notch 777 simulation with good documentation. So at the moment I see no need to try PSS in FSX.