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.
@Erik
Here is the way I look at it. The alleged “cabin disintegrating” mayday call, if it happened, was reportedly received by U.S. sources. Does this mayday call mean that the FBI believes MH370 was possibly brought down by a mechanical problem? My perception is “no”…rather the U.S. seems to keep pressure on MY to admit intentional diversion, which PM Razak did say on 15-March-2016. Although I must say I agree with you that ATSB does sometimes seem to have a hidden reason for assuming ghost flight.
TBill
correction above: 15-March-2014
@Trond
At least referrence/links or proof please.
If you cann’t deliver, this kind of statements are completely useless.
@VictorI
No definite proof, as you say. To equate the simulator with the real thing might be a leap of faith, a bit too far? You might be right, but the ATSB have also consulted B777 pilots, who said the only modes they ever flew in were great circle ir magnetic heading hold. (I would guess that is airport glide path excepted).
If an aircraft passes a discontinuity, wouldn’t ATC want to be able to assume it switched to heading hold, to avoid confusion? Magnetic heading hold is understood by pilots flying all types of aircraft, and simplifies things for ATC.
@Trond, So it’s secret information that’s being spread around on Reddit? Doesn’t sound very secret to me.
I’m just going to delete this kind of thing going forward.
[Trond, I’m deleting all your posts on this subject. I will not tolerate the proliferation of disinformation. Further comments from you will require manual approval by me so may be delayed — JW]
@Rob: You’re misunderstanding me. I agree that the most common A/P modes chosen by pilots would be LNAV and (magnetic) HDG HLD (or SEL). I was referring to what would be flown if a route discontinuity is encountered and there was no further pilot input.
If the ATC is giving instructions for a vector, for instance, during a departure, it would definitely be a magnetic heading.
Strangely, in the video the pitch is initially 4.5° nose-up, the airplane is descending at 500 fpm. The loadfactor indicated at the top is 1.3 g, and in about 2 seconds the rate of descent changes to 600 fpm rate of climb.
Back to the drawing board?
@Gysbreght: No, you are wrong. It’s back to the drawing board for you. What I said is correct. Perhaps you will understand after I explain it to you.
If you look at the airspeed and vertical speed in the PFD, you can see that there is a low-pass filter applied between what is displayed and what is experienced by the plane. Look at the airspeed, for instance. In the text on top, the starting speed is 200 KIAS. In the PFD, the speed starts at 182 and then rapidly rises to 199 KIAS. The same thing occurs with the vertical speed. It displays a negative number, but rapidly goes positive. If you look at the text display, you will see the altitude is always increasing.
The initial conditions for the video is the 45S1 data set. The pitch is positive (up), and the plane is climbing, just as I said.
@Erik, @TBill,
When I watched this condensed Four Corners video;
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/05/19/4005244.htm
I was dumbfounded by Hussein’s blatantly awkward attempt at responding to the question. It was a classic approach when truth is not an option, ask for question repetition, or show an inability to hear or properly understand, all meant to buy time for a suitable answer.
Subsequently his, America would shoot the plane down comment, was said with such obvious disdain, it seemed curious he would take that shot when it did nothing to bolster his answer.
Shortly after, I saw a clip of an innocuous response regarding the identity of the benefactor for the funds in MBD1/Najib’s personal account. I cannot remember who said it (Najib, someone from is staff), only my visceral reaction to it. The answer; it was a gift from a small country who would not want to influence them like America. Not only did the comment appear out of context, but again the obvious disdain was there.
It was only then, I felt the US was somehow involved in a detrimental way. Without any additional or factional information, I remained convinced of this but have no basis to discuss it.
@VictorI: If the pitch and the FPA are initially aligned, why not on PFD display in the video? I’m primarily looking at the PFD, I noted that the text at the top is slightly out-of-phase. The low-pass filter may well apply to the calculation of the change of altitude, how does it apply to the initial display on the PFD?
@Gysbreght: As explained before, there was a change in MAP window parameters at 45S1. The displayed values look to be filtered, while the text at the top of the screen, which shows the value of certain internal variables, is not. My guess is the plane was descending before 45S1, and you are seeing the “residual” from that descent in the displayed vertical speed in the PFD. The plane was clearly climbing when the simulation was restarted at 45S1. Meanwhile, the altitude and speed shown at the top of the screen look to be the raw, unfiltered values.
@Susie Crowe – i noticed the same thing, while “friendly” to the US interests, they must have done something they got caught with so they were forced not to reveal.
@VictorI: So why didn’t you tell us that the video simulation started with your “guess”? Why would Zaharie pause the simulation while he was in a descent, then fly perfectly level 27 seconds before he paused the simulation again?
@VictorI: Fly perfectly level 27 seconds, then pause the simulation to change the altitude to 4000 ft.
“The simulator data alone suggests the captain is a prime suspect. ” ???
@Gysbreght: The initial conditions for the simulation shown in the movie were taken from the 45S1 data set, as I have said many times. That was not a guess. I only speculated on the conditions that led up to 45S1.
I have shown that numerous assertions you have made about the simulator are completely false. The simulator was not broken. The data sets at 45S1 and 45S2 can be explained and repeated by flying in a normal way and under fair weather conditions, as I have maintained. There is no need for gale force winds or wind shear. There is no need for expert flying skills. And I have produced a video that clearly shows all this.
The evidence is all there for those to care to look and learn.
@VictorI: I understand that the initial 200 kt IAS was also your guess?
What other guesses defined the initial conditions of the simulation shown in the video?
@Gysbreght: You are a complete fool. I told how the initial conditions were set. The [SimVars] were taken from the 45S1 recovered data. There were no guesses.
It must not be easy to be you and to be wrong so often.
I am sorry that the video was so persuasive that you now have to attack it as fraudulent. Absolutely pathetic, but also very revealing.
@VictorI: “@Gysbreght: You are a complete fool.”
That reveals more about the author than it does about me. Thank you for the compliment.
@VictorI. Yes I understand the 68 seconds to be ‘real’ in that he did deduce the time of fuel exhaustion (or zeroing as I prefer) and likewise the 27 seconds is just using the ‘run down’ as a time reference.
In my mind he zeroed fuel and a minute later paused while he fast forwarded to the 45S1 position, saved, then 27seconds later decided to reduce altitude abruptly, paused then saved.
I remain foxed as to the purpose(s) other than experimentation/proving with/of the program.
The whole thing could have taken just a few minutes.
@Victor
Great work. It is clear that Z INTENDED to remain alive until the end, and I have no reason to believe that this is not in fact what occurred.
He had a plan and he executed. Fariq was obviously locked out and frantically trying to squeeze off a call knowing the dire situation he was confronting. The idea that some, most, or even a few pax were still alive post FMT is ludicrous, as, again, a mass/murder suicide is about attaining absolute situational control…
So It seems we can rule out a cockpit breach by F and the other pax, again keeping in mind that it was Z’s INTENTION to see this thing through (again, it’s about control and controlling all possible outcomes ).
And I find the idea that he accidentally succumbed to a depressurization that he was responsible for unlikely, very unlikely.
So in what mode would a LIVING Z have preferred to fly deep into the SIO, is it at all possible he did not fly in either LNAV and (magnetic) HDG HLD (or SEL), and would he have ever bothered to fly manually prior to the EOF?
I actually think manual flying to not be so unlikely, unless his 5 some hours were busier than I can imagine.
Because he was alive.
@Rob
I like your sunrise scenario.
Edit:
SOME manual flying. Obviously, he didn’t manually fly the aircraft to it’s endurance limit.
@Jeff Wise. “..Equator…on its last mission…did not carry the towfish rig to search this new area but instead brought the AUV to search an area that the gamut of international experts had already said they were confident the plane was not.”
My understanding was that there were sites which had been set aside for further investigation. I do not think the gamut had said they were confident the plane was not there. It is on the supposition that the plane would not be found in the nominal search area that the Review was called and thence the weighting given to likely modes was adjusted. In other words it was in the prospect of the plane not being there.
Reiterating, I think that had the ATSB got some expertise into the Review which had no position to defend (supposing such could be found) or explained why they hadn’t, their position would not be so open to question.
Incidentally as to new information available at the Review, AirLandSeaMan did draw attention to the initial set to the NW which applied at one latitude and its significance. An example of the importance of initial conditions….
Finally, I add a couple of points about the potential value of the Tanzania flap part for drift and submergence measurement (in the absence of the recovered flaperon). Besides its clear water line (a merit compared to the flaperon. See below) it has a similar shape. Having collided, the two could well have started very close together.
Item 19, http://www.mh370.gov.my/phocadownload/News/Summary%20of%20Debris%20Recovered%20-%2014Oct2016.pdf
@all.
It is possible F on portable O2 got into EE bay and disconnected cockpit masks at or after FMT in an attempt to force Z to descend below FL100. Z would do smoke hood and wait it out. Eventually his O2 would run out. Aircraft would then be ghost flight with only F still alive on remaining portables but unable to do anything.
@Erik @TBill
I posted an incorrect link earlier, this is the correct link.
https://youtu.be/VNMvzTjgNNo (Duration 3:25)
@Rob, on the point you raised about the APU powering the inner actuator of the right flaperon and both inner and outer then being operative, that would add to loading symmetry at the flaperon’s two hinges as you say. However since the flaperon is asymmetric you could expect uneven hinge loadings all the same. Also it depends what the source of the actual loading leading to breakage is and in what direction. For example the hinges might fail together in side load bending (inertia, collision with the adjacent flaps etc).
From my quick scan of the books, the APU potentially could power the control system PFCs and ACEs and air and electrically driven hydraulic pumps. But if it could not find the grunt to include powering of the right hydraulic system electrically driven pump the inboard actuator of the flaperon would remain in by-pass. And that supposes the RAT would power the outboard actuator, though again the APU could power that (via the centre system) if the RAT were not deployed. This supposes once more that the APU could manage to provide the requisite air or electrical capacity.
In the absence of the APU, engine windmilling at high speed could contribute hydraulic pressure too I would think.
On the consumption side in the instance of no active pilot the yokes would be free and so respond to aircraft accelerations, gravity and ‘g’.
@all
In defense of VictorI. i have had a few interactions with Gysbreght, all of them unpleasant. The person truly is a blockhead. My guess would be Dutch. For sure European.
As it is well known “no good deed ever goes unpunished”. Gsybreght had some problems with the simulator data which our host was more than willing to absorb and publish. Now he is on the defensive. My advice to both Gysbreght and our host is to give it up it.
JW’s latest is another transparent attempt to promote the Northern path. Is there no end to it?
@Susie Crowe
The impression from this interview (original link) that the truth was that they first became aware of the fact that MH370 went missing prior to the aircraft actually leaving Kuala Lumpur. Where is Cleese, Palin, Chapman Jones and Idle when you need them?
Another uncomfortable aspect of this interview is an educated uncovered women asking some well thought out questions. Culturally ‘difficult’.
On a more serious note weren’t BTO/BFO data from ~20 9M-MRO flights prior to 8th March 2014 presented in this forum? The essence being equipment failure was not an issue but it did not exclude the possibility of spoofing. From memory there was agreement with the suggestion by @DennisW that this data cannot precisely locate 9M-MRO.
@SteveB
“the suggestion by @DennisW that this data cannot precisely locate 9M-MRO.”
It is not a suggestion, it is an assertion.
Car Nicobar (India’s Military air base) turn Tells me (Cocos sunrise is the clue) as to possible pilot and gear drop off. The Island above Cocos (Bay) needs checking for helicopter traffic.
Another clue was the need to power up the left bus which shutdown when emergency power took over at 1721 utc to stop mobile phone calls, because guidance was for needed at the 1822 utc and a ping was due at 1825 utc for flight alterations later on.
Mobile Celcom contact was made at 1752utc to gain RF data direct to aircraft without going through sitcom ACARS option.
All pings fit that I indicate with a turn at VOCX. Car Nicobar.
Flight Mh370 indicates turn south and CoCos Islands heading, before Keeling Bay Island situated north west of main Cocos Island and its airport.
The planes flight continued for 1 hour an (assumption is made here)south west of Cocos then turned nor west (auto pilot) the plane had enough fuel to fly to shut off at 8 hrs 35 Total in flight 529 mins, includes glide time.
Average fuel burn just under 94kgs minute about 5611 per hour. Prior to Cocos the two broken pings near ‘Runut’ Pilot interupt with height levels.
Only 3 pings fit 1825, 1941,2041 oncourse to Cocos and sunrise,possible ping perhaps 1 hour after Cocos plane turning northwest. crash was recorded by Australian Geotec Austics in Perth. Approximately 1600nm from Perth. The final pings I have left to my own conclusion.
I’m putting my money on a turn north west and our occustics team.
@Ventus
The scenario you lay out, while not impossible, is HIGHLY unlikely.
1. Z would have first and FOREMOST accounted for the potential threat that Fariq posed. He was by far and away the greatest obstacle to a successful execution.
This was a pre-meditated and well thought out act of sabotage and destruction, with no compromise. He would have simulated every possible Fariq action in his head, looked at every angle, including the EE bay if he thought it possible, and accounted for any and all potential actions that were possible to control for. *A noted exception would be Fariq’s phone call, as he probably could not separate Fariq from his phone without rousing suspicion (my assumption being that Fariq’s phone remained on his person, despite protocol/SOP).
2) This scenario is asking a lot of 777 newbie. To say he was ‘quick on his feet’ given the urgency of the situation would be an understatement were he able to get into the EE bay and start pulling stuff. He would also being climbing over bodies and eye-balling a cabin full of dead people.
3) Rumors were that he tried calling either his mother or fiancee (IDR). He apparently only tried one time, or a connection was only made once. While it is possible a second (or third and forth) attempt occurred and didn’t ping any tower, I think he knew he was about to die.
4) The depressurization scenario that makes the most sense, from a perps POV, is the one that has the greatest chance of neutralizing, as efficiently as possible, all potential threats, while keeping yourself out of harms way. Here we get into the positive pressure needed at certain flight levels, and the mask users ability to have sufficient oxygen intake. This certainly would have been an option for Z, and one he would have carefully considered.
5) The airplane apparently ended up exactly where Z wanted it to.
6) Lastly, if Z was willing to risk an EE bay incursion, I suspect he would have had some counter measures, plan B…maybe someone much brighter that myself could mull this over?
@DennisW. In defence of all of Victorl, Gysbreght and JW they are major contributors.
While not all you say is helpful, so are you.
@Dennis
You really need to come to terms with a suiciding, murdering Zaharie.
Your resistance, which you predicate on ‘he seems like a nice guy, nothing in his psych background’ FLIES in the face of what appears to have taken place, and most significantly, of where the plane ended up….Hint (and for StevenG): Not in the shallow waters off Cocos, or any other nearby island.
I just don’t get your obstinacy…respectfully, some ‘mishap’ given the sim data and what we understand to have taken place, including the plane DISAPPEARING (this reeks of deliberateness), lack of all pax calls, z not trying to land, call, contact etc…well, it’s just laughable.
@SusieC, At the time this interview aired I studied Husseins mannerisms ad nauseum. Growing up in those contrails, I am very familiar with local behaviour and body language. The use of a female journalist was both confrontational and humiliating to Hussein. This choice have been pure ignorance or intentional. MY already had its pants down as it relates to MH370, and hugely embarrassed. The fact that their dirty laundry was being aired for everyone to see, is humiliating. Added to this, the fact that one of their own could have executed this atrocious act only added insult to injury. His response related to not being like the US and shooting down planes was because he was cornered and thus triggered a clear jibe at the US/west. As you said, it showed his true colours and disdain. At the time of the interview Malaysia was continuously being battered in the press on all aspects related to MH370. If MY had clear knowledge or proof of any US wrongdoing or involvement, they would have used it. This would not only have exonerated them but diverted all blame, monetary liabilities and empowered MY amongst all its allies. They would not cover up any US involvement, of that I am sure.
@matt, Your posts are all speculative and also incorrect.”…..or a connection was only made once”. You read too many tabloids. No connection was ever made. Fariq’s phone was “detected” by a cell tower, which is a huge difference. In one post you state that Fariq was a real threat and then go on to state he was a newbie. All of your depressurization event theories may make the most sense to you since they are just a figment of your own imagination.Nothing you said is based on fact.
@Keffertje
Uh, it’s pretty darn obvious that the co-pilot would be the biggest potential threat, newbie or not.
As for the cell phone, I MEANT that it pinged the cell tower ONE TIME, or, by your way of putting it, that the tower ‘picked it up ONCE. My intent was also obvious, but obvious seems lost on you.
I suppose you thing the pax were alive and well for the 8 hour trip to their deaths?
I’ve never read a tabloid in my life, and apparently speculation is something you intensely dislike, while you patronize a website whose host speculates that the BFO was spoofed and the plane in Kazakstan.
Geez.
@all
We had clear weather the other day, so I got some photos of jets in setting sun, simulating possible MH370 appearance if it flew in the morning sun.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vyZNRZCsMbHZtLRCN1ncyVeIpR54ZMBCKEOZjR9Ertc/edit
The first photo (pretty blue sky) is about 33 mins after sunset on the ground, and now the plane/contrails are also out of the sun. So the sky is quite dark, the contrails look white, but the camera has a relatively long exposure which makes it appear lighter outside than it really was.
The second photo which looks like the plane is “on fire” is about 21 minutes after sunset, so the aircraft is still being lit by a very low Sun. The contrails at this time appear reddish.
Interestingly, I noticed the jets at lower altitude (less than FL200) had no contrails. So if the MH370 pilot(s) were alive and trying to hide the plane, I think they might have tried to vary altitude to find a zero contrail zone (if possible).
@ All
Fortuitous that the discussion comes back around to autopilot modes on the same day I report back from the B777 sim. Here’s what I learned:
Overflying the FINAL waypoint is not technically a “Route Discontinuity.” (We flew one of those with similar results and if I get time I may post that vid too). It is an “End of Route” scenario and is annunciated as such.
After overflying the final waypoint entered in the LEGS page, the autopilot STAYS IN LNAV but flies a MAG TRK. (I’m talking to Honeywell to see if it’s simply a wind-corrected MAG HDG or if it’s an actual great-circle-route like everything else in the FMC. Neither my 777 captain nor his instructor had any idea since they’d never tested an end-of-route before). MAG TRK vs Great-Circle will make a tremendous difference with respect to MH370, of course. My hunch is that it’s a great circle route (probably right around the globe to the last fix, commencing with the ground track flown after that fix). I base that on the fact that Boeing/Honeywell engineers weighed in on the search which as we know favored the more westerly part of the 7th arc. A simple MAG TRK would have slowly turned the plane East over the ground, thus favoring the eastern (higher) part of the arc. But, like I said, I’m waiting for Honeywell to be sure.
Contrary to what my pilot friends and I all thought, the A/P DOES NOT go into HDG HOLD or HDG SEL.
Most importantly, whatever HDG was previously selected in the MCP is irrelevant. There were those who thought that at end-of-route the plane would then turn to whatever was in the window. We had it selected about 100 deg off our course going into the final waypoint and it made no difference.
We also filmed the process of going back and forth between MAG and TRU reference and I’ll post that vid too if I have time.
Sadly, I did not have time to start depowering buses and many of the other tests we might like to have seen. Maybe another time.
Anyway, here’s the link if you’re interested. The picture is uncut through well past the overflight – only sped up through the tedium and occasionally blurring out the tail number of the sim.
https://youtu.be/JwI1jxG7T7k
Very sad that $180 million has been wasted on wild goose chase search, meanwhile the families received so little compensation and so much disappointment. Maybe one day a whistleblower will expose the shoot down of the plane.
Susie mentioned the 4 Corners comment by Hussein which I have pointed to in several posts on other threads on this site. There is anger behind his comments like he is censoring himself because he knows what happened but has been warned not to disclose, “the American’s would ! (shoot down the plane)”
Keffertje tries to dismiss what many have noted. Hussein is on the verge of spilling the beans. A short time later a US backed Ukrainian government shoots down, by military jet another MAS, MH17, plane. Further warning to the Malaysians to keep quiet.
The forgotten eyewitness accounts that draw a line to the location:
Oil rig worker saw a plane with fire but intact:
“The surface location of the observation is Lat 08 22’ 30.20” N Lat 108 42.22.26” E.
While sailing from Kochi, India, to Phuket, Thailand, with her husband, Katherine Tee reported seeing a plane on fire.
Mrs Latife Dalelah returning to Kuala Lumpur on flight from Jeddah, was so convinced about what she saw, plane on water in the Andaman sea, on March 8, several hours after MH370 vanished, that she filed an official report with police that very day – a full five days before the search for the plane was expanded to the area around the Andaman Islands.
All that money and energy applied to data based on pings that may have been spoofed while ignoring the timeline and location derived from the three reported sightings.
@Gloria
You state:
‘A short time later a US backed Ukrainian government shoots down, by military jet another MAS, MH17, plane’.
Are you a Russian troll???
This is completely misplaced and untrue information.
The Dutch report has been very clear on this:
MH17 was shot down on Russian backed rebels territory with a Russian BUK-missile from a Russian BUK launche vehicle send in from Russia and droven back to Russia.
Or would you accuse the Dutch also from fraude and conspiracy?
A westerner who does not buy the official narrative which was too quick to point a finger, then orchestrated to falsify and justify the fake narrative.
The Dutch report has more holes than the bullet holes in the parts of the plane that are not included in the plane reconstruction. Again contrary eyewitness accounts are lost in the white noise of the official narrative
MH 17 was destroyed by Ukraine to make sure the Malaysian government stayed silent while it was also a convenient way to poke the bear by blaming Russia.
The connection between MH370 and MH 17 is all to obviously a bit of geopolitical covert military activity. The architects of perpetual war are at work here and it is not Russia. But I wonder, sarcastically, who is the primary invading, war mongering country of the late 20th and early 21st century?
If you put this into context, the military were engaged in “exercises” with Thailand….they decide to use the weapon of mass destruction on an actual plane, a hit for reasons of the passengers or cargo, zap the laser weapon works perfectly.
The plane, on fire is sighted by at least three eyewitnesses, the ones who lodge official statements. It appears the plane came down in the Andaman sea but part of it might have been blown off closer to Thailand when it was hit by the laser.
Systems shut down, all passengers dead due to smoke or rapid decompression, pilot tries to redirect the plane but it is too late. Very sad that he is still being blamed for what was military action.
The reality is that any commercial plane can be destroyed at any time for covert military or “security” rational by the type of weapon that destroyed MH 370.
The part of the plane with fouling found on Reunion, probably real part. The confetti of small parts probably salvage from the real plane or more likely, similar make model from a boneyard, placed to support the official narrative.
@Matt Moriarty
I’m thinking that it would also continue to stay in LNAV if true track was or previously selected, looking at what is written at 56 seconds in your video.
@VictorI:
I think it is fair to say that you set the tone for the conversation when you replied to my entirely factual observation: “@Gysbreght: No, you are wrong. It’s back to the drawing board for you.”
It was never my intent to suggest that you were ‘fraudulently’ presenting information. If my question could be misunderstood that way, I apologise.
However, you presented an experiment and then it is fair to ask for a specification of the conditions that the experiment represents.
From the FCOM Chapter 10:
The experiment shows that in the simulation the angle of attack is not set to zero after a change on the MAP page. The initial AoA value is 3.4°, and the AoA only increases after that.
The text at the top of the screen indicates the loadfactor, initially 0.9 Gs, increasing to 1.3 Gs in 2 seconds, then returning to 1.0 Gs.
The pitch attitude shown on the attitude display is initially 4.5°, then varies between 4° and 8°.
The vertical speed indicator to the right of the altitude tape initially indicates about -500 fpm, increasing to about +600 fpm in 2 seconds (consistent with the G’s), then reduces through zero to negative values again.
The objective of the exercise is to understand the data in the recovered fragments of MSFS FLIGHT files. In that respect the experiment fails to reproduce the anomalous change of dynamic pressure after changing the altitude on the MAP page. I still have to study the before/after data in more detail. Would it be fair to ask for the X,Y,Z,P,B,H “VelWorld” data in both files?
@Matt Moriarty
Liking your work. It will be useful to pin the default autopilot setting following a route discontinuity with no pilot intervention, particularly now with confidence growing in the 00:19 BFO, and the negative search result, meaning that evidence is building of no pilot inputs during the final hours of flight.
@Matt Moriarty: Nice video. Thank you.
When I do this same experiment in FSX, I see the same annunciation, i.e., LNAV on the PFD and MAG TRK on the MFD. However, after flying in this mode long enough for the magnetic variation to change (by compressing time and accelerating the simulation), I see the value for the TRK to change according to the magnetic variation. That is one of the reasons I believe the mode is effectively True Track. Did you run the experiment long enough to be sure that the value would not change according to the magnetic variation?
@Anyone with an aerodynamic interest:
For a given weight and altitude, the lift coëfficient is proportional to the loadfactor divided by M-squared. I’ve plotted that parameter for a number of points in the 27 second simulation against angle of attack (alpha) in the following graph. The regression line intercept has been set for a zero-lift AoA of approx. -4.2 degrees.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oriy2n9c1gjmwpi/NvsAlpha.pdf?dl=0
@Gysbreght: I told you to ignore the exact values that you continue to use for your theories. I’ve also guided you with the values you should be using. If you want to continue to concoct incorrect theories based on these values, you go right ahead. And what is said in the FCOM is irrelevant, as I have explained to you many times.
Perhaps you don’t trust me because you think I am either dishonest or I am not an “authoritative” source as you have said before. Well, the conclusions I am presenting have been reached in collaboration with Yves Guillaume, who has decades of experience, has written the authoritative reference on flight dynamics in MSFS, and has consulted for MSFS developers. By comparison, you have zero experience with MSFS. Yet, you continue to tell us we are wrong regarding matters that are obvious.
Why you don’t do your own experiments instead of latching onto false assumptions is beyond me. Hell, I’ll even pay for the software if it helps you arrive at the correct answers. A Christmas present from me to you.
I have shown how the plane was flown from 45S1 to 45S2, starting with the exact values from the recovered data set for 45S1 and creating nearly the same data set for 45S2. I have documented this 27s in a short video. In doing so, many false theories that I have seen here (including many of yours) are put to bed.
In the simulation, the plane was flown manually in an ordinary way and under fair weather conditions. That is what is relevant. If you can’t accept that, I can’t help you.
@David said, “I remain foxed as to the purpose(s) other than experimentation/proving with/of the program.”
He was not trying to obtain technical information, except in a very qualitative way. He had better ways to get technical answers regarding flight plans, fuel consumption, navigation, meteorological conditions, etc. Rather, I believe he was trying to create an experience.
A person creates a flight file in MSFS so that a particular flight condition can be reloaded and serve as a starting point at a later time. From this, I believe that at the time he created each flight file, he thought he might want to re-create at a later time the experience of flying under that condition.
We tend to search for reasons for the simulation in terms of gaining technical knowledge and improving skills. I don’t think the FS9/PSS B777 model would serve that purpose. Rather, the simulation might have been for other reasons related to that re-created experience.
Dear Mr. Wise,
Your journalism
leadership in drawing
attention to the various
irregularities associated
with the algorithms of
the ISAT data is truly
remarkable indeed.
Please forgive my
vernacular digression
with usage of my acronym
FACT – Which is Fucking
Annoying Cold Truth..
But..
The FACT of this matter
is simply this –
Total absence of
physical evidence of
MH370 anywhere within
the official search
area as promised by
all the so called
experts irrefutably
demonstrates that any
and or all of said
experts have and now
continue to have zero
clue what they are
claiming to know.
As difficult a FACT
that will be to swallow
for the so many who are
understandably trying
with ever increased
levels of desperation
to back track AFTER the
FACT of search failure…
I anticipate that those
very same will likely
never accept they were
wrong from day 1 and are
sadly cut from the same
fabric as those upon the
Titanic who refused to
accept that the ship
was sinking and they
drowned as rats.
Andre Milne
@VictorI, Do you have any insight into why ZVelWorld values are sometimes negative and sometimes positive? I can’t imagine the plane was flying backwards…