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.
Bearing in mind the important proviso that actual aircraft might not be identical to the sim (but assuming for the moment that this is the case), it seems to me that victor’s experiment above has some rather important implications.
If I am not mistaken, most BTO path models are “straight” or nearly so. This suggests great circle, hdg hold T or trk hold T. I do realise that there is a smattering of magnetic paths (cf sk999, dr Bobby) but these are rather more difficult to fit and there are fewer candidate paths.
Now, if I’m not mistaken, GC has to have been “pointed at something”: a distant nav waypoint or an arbitrary Lat/long waypoint. It should be unaffected by both wind and declination. This would align with the supposition that the plane was deliberately flown to the SIO using some quasi destination. The “fast and straight” variations on this theme have already been searched without success. Arc segments that are a long way north require flight modes that are curved as well as slow. So if it was LNAV and ended at 7th arc it can’t be a long way north of current search area.
By contrast, it now appears that True heading could have arisen from a route discontinuity. I am reminded that in the early days there were two indications that the path might have bent east towards the end. A) because several commentators found that constant M and LRC paths that fitted BTO ping rings up to 2241 had difficulty reaching 0011 /0019. B) analogously, the data optimised paths all ended up with a bend to the east. Suggesting that if mode was Hdg hold T it must have reached sufficiently far south to have been exposed for some significant period to the westerlies south of ~28S.
In either case, does it not help us to narrow down the segment of 7th arc if we assume no pilot input 1941-0011?
@oxy. If you can come up with a similar scenario that ends even further beyond 7th arc in vicinity 45S 90E i’ll be even morte interested.
@Paul
After Oxy does that he will have to hustle to WA and plant some debris on the shores there which will be needed to reinforce that terminus.
Touché @dennis w. But have you seen a forward drift model that starts from 45S 90E, or do you just have a notion that WA is unavoidable in that instance?
@Paul
Both. No drift model I have looked at would not deposit debris on WA shores from that latitude on the 7th arc. Conversely the places where debris has been found, assuming it has not been planted, are not compatible with that latitude.
Ain’t necessarily so. Imagine a gyre, moving tighter and more slowly near the vortex, faster and wider around the outside. Initial points that are beyond 7th arc (ref position cited) would go “around the outside”, recrossing 7th arc a long way north, thus mimicking a starting point om the arc but further north…
[commented deleted for attempted browbeating — @matt berlanti, your comments will in future be held for manual moderation so may take longer to appear or may not appear at all. — JW]
Hey everyone.. non-pilot here. I’m fascinated by the story of MH370 and have followed it ever since CNN first reported it missing. Of all the web sites, I learn the most from this one. Your comments are especially insightful to me. You are all amazing.
I may have posted this question before but I’d like to raise it for comment. A critical piece of information to this puzzle is how long the passengers survived, if at all. But there really isn’t factual evidence of life on that airplane beyond the cockpit transmissions.
I fly international flights often and usually passengers purchase internet access as soon as they are able to, often within 10 minutes of take off. Has anyone researched credit card transactions relating to internet access purchases? The time stamp of the last credit card transaction would seem to indicate the last point in time passengers were alive. And if there were *no* credit card transactions, then that would only depend the mystery. Someone could compare purchase profiles from say the previous ten flights to compare and look for expected patterns (e.g on average 12% of the passengers purchase internet within 20 minutes of takeoff). Since it was a redeye I would think that if someone wanted/needed internet access they would have done it after takeoff.
All of that info is logged somewhere whenever there is a financial purchase made. Seems very easy to research, at least to me…
If the relatives of the passengers wanted to take the initiative, they could pull their own credit card transactions and do the research themselves.
Interesting that not a whisper of the new Mossel Bay debris has shown up in newsmedia. It seems that media judge that general interest in MH370 is over — so too any likely governmental interest in reactivating a search.
@ikr
It is in the interest of no one to continue. Sad, but true. The people in a position of funding authority want this whole endeavor to go away. It is over.
@OXY
I just want to point out, OXY, that you previously commented, about a month or two ago, with the O2 bottle rupture thesis, analogous to the Qantas case you said. There were a number of respectful comments back to you, including from me pointing out the MH370 gas cylinders were apparently synthetic (eg; Teflon) versus metal for the Qantas case. By my recollection you never responded to the input several of us gave you at that time.
However, some would agree that the satellite data could be “off” for other reasons such as cooling if the crystal furnace was off or cooled due to depressuring of the aircraft.
@DennisW
“The people in a position of (irrelevant) authority want this whole endeavor to go away.”
Correct
“It is over.”
Correct
@JW
It is time to draft your “epilogue” missive.
@Ikr, The complete lack of any news coverage on the latest Mossel Bay piece is telling IMO. I agree with Dennis , come January it will be over. Where I am on the fence is, which choice would be the better of 2 evils? Continue or discontinue? Not finding M9-MRO will remain a very dark cloud over MAS/MY, ATSB and even FUGRO to a certain extent. It will stay in the news for years to come, so particularly for MY, it will not go away. Pilot suicide/mass murder being the obvious theory of many will linger for years to come.
@Keffertje
I would not let the ATSB off that easily. They tossed a bucket of money in the toilet. There should be some accountability. You can’t be allowed to do stupid shit and get away with it.
Just because you work for the government does not make it OK.
@VictorI
-“To complicate matters, it may be that route discontinuities are handled differently than end of route conditions.”
We did two discontinuities and they were identical to the end of route as far as FMC/AP went. It stayed in LNAV and kept the heading we were on (which, due to constant wind, was also a constant track).
Interestingly enough, because the maintenance of that track put us close to the next fix after the discontinuity, the autopilot “ate” it, that leg turned magenta and the amber “FMC Message” annunciator went away. Pretty slick.
@DennisW, Fully agree. The ATSB will also be under a magnifying glass for a long time to come. Burning 200mil without letting a burp is not going to go unpunished. Discontinuing the search is not going to make it go away. Au contraire. It’s probably one of the reasons they would prefer to keep looking.
@Keffetje
The ATSB, and this entire investigation, suffered from a lack of world class leadership. You can’t let a bunch of government employees sucking off a government tit run an investigation of this complexity. You bring in outsiders with impeccable credentials for that purpose.
@Dennis — to an extent, I believe you are right about lack of leadership. But in hindsight, I think the problem is no matter how well led, the ATSB probably should have concluded that there was much less than even odds that MH370 could be found with the information, technology and funding available. Given their desire to go forward [which I think is in part related to the gutting of pure science in Aus, as this looked like free money to oceanographers], they decided to bet on models that would probably work for ghost flights.
Where the board shows poor leadership, it’s likely the groupthink of a concensus model of decision making, as new info came in from debris and drift models, and from new takes on the electronic data. After the first season, they really couldn’t revisit their map, so kept mowing the lawn. At least to make neat edges and not be seen to be the dog ever chasing squirrels.
Their failure essentially closes the door on most mechanical failure models. Without invoking wilder schemas like Jeff’s, we have to believe that the flight was piloted in its last hours. And that is really the only remit of the ATSB that justifies hundreds of millions spent. Harsh as it is, neither NOK nor ZSs reputation would ever have brought real money to the table to even commence a seabed search.
@VictorI. Sim data squeezing back in again….
Firstly, about your before-and-after at co-ordinate 5(45S2). The IAS from XVel body axis before (180 knots) is similar to after (182), either a coincidence (we have no other before-and-afters and thank you for this) or IAS is being maintained, though this may not sit well with your paper’s P.5 dot point 4.
The body and world vector sums are identical both before and after as one would expect. The track after (ie with no wind also the heading), 186, becomes what it would have been before (almost 182), had there been no wind.
The max and min ‘g’ in your run are those of the Z.sim data. Did you fly it to these limits somewhere?
Now a general point I have made earlier and maybe has been covered at some time; in which case please leave it be. Since co-ordinate 3(10N) is before 4(45S1) which is before 5(45S2) and the numbering of the other Strait co-ordinates connect to that sequence, take-off at co-ordinate 6 is at the wrong end. Besides the sequence of the data listings for the flight co-ordinates is reversed compared with elapsed time. I suppose this all might be because the sequence in the shadow drive was random and/or the coordinates have been numbered randomly by RMP? In other words the apparent chain is coincidence? The last diagram of, “Data from The Preliminary Exam Report” (below), which uses different numbering, has the fuel states for points 1 and 2 there matching co-ordinates 6-2 and 7 respectively, adding to the muddle. So the impression imparted is that the examiner has not been at all interested in the ground points or their fuel states – and has overlooked 6.
Indeed 6, while used for the take off in your paper and numbered as a co-ordinate, is not mentioned in this Report, 7 data points in total being listed.
Yet the data read out nomenclature of 6-2 suggests the two are interconnected in some way.
Furthermore, in that diagram there is an altitude of 33,651.1’ shown on the right side between numbers 6 (in fact 45S1) and 7 (45S2) and maybe what is a descent angle of 67.17 deg illustrated between the two. So far as I know there is no mention elsewhere of an intermediary altitude as being in the data and I see no sign of it.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5yyxi7hdqya2ywe/AAAKA-oF92oju_JWqHpWe3FTa?dl=0&preview=Data+from+Prelim+Exam+Report+(Translated+from+Malay).pdf
@VictorI: You posted December 28, 2016 at 1:40 PM
“… the extraordinary existence of a simulated flight from the Andamans to a point of fuel exhaustion in the SIO. A simulation that was created in the weeks before the disappearance of the plane.”
That is important new information. Can you provide more details on the history of those file fragments, such as:
1. When was each Flight file created or modified
2. When was each Flight file deleted
3. When was the shadow volume created
4. Which event caused the creation of the shadow volume, was te shadow volume created by MSFS or by the operating system
5. What else was contained in the shadow volume, such as dated files
6. When was disk drive #25 removed from the computer
@Oxy. Another big bang in the electronics bay affecting oxygen and power, raised before, could have been nosewheel explosion with the bolts having been overtightened, to the point that one failed beforehand and needed replacement (not that I imply that this was necessarily the cause).
I remember that the autopilot drops off line with loss of AC power (ie at APU autostart and needs manual restoration and TAC goes likewise. Autothrottle?
@VictorI. Though doubtless obvious, for X in the first line read Z.
Relapse to conventional again
@Gysbreght
I will be surprized if VictorI provides you with this information, because
I have already asked him for it and he did not reply.;
http://jeffwise.net/2016/12/25/is-the-new-atsb-search-area-sound/comment-page-3/#comment-199325
@David
Although Oleksandr had that theory, there seems to be almost no
occurences of a nosewheel tyre ‘exploding’ at height (777 or other-
wise). I searched, and found only a bare mention that it did happen
in an (unspecified) carrier (transport) aircraft, in a wiki on other
matters, and that mention gave no URL for the event.
Tyres, if they explode, seem to do so either on landing or on takeoff.
@buyerninety: We have to respect Victor’s sensitivities.
@Paul Smithson
I had hoped that pinning down the default autopilot mode that followed a discontinuity, would help us narrow down a 7th crossing point but on closer inspection, it looks like another blind alley is in store. The problem is the easterly wind blowing in the early flight. In constant true heading, this wind is likely to ruin our picnic by messing up the arc crossing points/times. I thought I had something after I estimated the magnetic heading path, but Victor was able to cut that short.
Its a funny thing, but a straight path at constant airspeed (eg M0.81) does fit with arc crossing points/times rather too well. If the flight had actually bent eastwards, the actual arc positions should in theory make it more difficult to match up the 186deg straight track. Something of a puzzle!
Could be that after all, the straight track is the one he flew, and he glided the plane beyond the search area? It’s possible the plane did after all have enough fuel to reach S37.5, the pilot was still alive and skillfully glided it southwards. But on balance, taking all the evidence, the drift studies, the apparent uncontrolled descent, the amount of debris (high speed impact) says otherwise.
@Gysbreght
(shrug) Jeff is on record as noting that (he believed) VictorI
had presented information previously in such a way as to mislead.
We are now hearing unqualified statements that this segment 45S1
to 45S2 somehow ‘proves’ it is linked to the Andaman point, that
it proves ‘the’ points are from the same flight (huh? two points
are probably joined, so automatically that ‘proves’ other points
are joined? really?), and apparently if 45S1 can be joined to 45S2
then that somehow ‘proves’ Shahs simulator was working in all
other circumstances and times (exact quote is : “wasn’t broken“). Oh yeah, 45S1 to 45S2 also ‘proves’ many other
theories are false and can be discarded (exact quote is : “can be
put to bed”) including yours, whatever that was.
I suppose next time Jeff advances a theory, he’ll be told,
‘ C’mmmonnnn Jeff! 45S1 to 45S2, don’t you GET IT? It PROVES
you’re WRONG!! THERE-ARE-NO-OTHER-OPTIONS.’
@buyerninety:
Jeff Wise in New York Magazine: The simulator data could reasonably be interpreted as evidence he planned a suicide flight, or it could be a freak coincidence.
http://jeffwise.net/2016/12/22/new-york-the-search-for-mh370-seems-to-be-over-what-now/
My statement: So either the pilot was the culprit, or he is being framed, or this is all some extraordinary coincidence.
Those statements sound awfully similar.
As for your other points, I would advise you read this paper carefully, which was co-authored with a qualified expert.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lvcz1fsxvphxob4/2016-11-29%20Further%20Analysis%20of%20Simulator%20Data.pdf?dl=0
@Gysbreght: What we know is the recovered computer data, showing a simulated flight from the Andaman Sea to the SIO, was found in a Shadow Volume dated Feb 3, 2014. The FSX software was uninstalled from the MK25 drive on Feb 20, 2014. MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014. As I said, this all could be an extraordinary coincidence.
@VictorI: I think you either misunderstood or avoid my question.
You state as a fact that “a simulated flight from the Andamans to a point of fuel exhaustion in the SIO (…) was created in the weeks before the disappearance of the plane.” That ignores the fact that the file fragments were probably much older. When the shadow volume was created, those files were not only deleted, but many of the clusters that the original files had occupied on the disk had been overwritten. When the RMP investigated the drive, even the clusters copied in the shadow volume had disappeared from the partition were the files had been saved originally.
From the file Data from Flight Simulator Computer.pdf
“These coordinates along with other flight information are found in(-)consistent with the Flight Simulator * FLT saved files.”
@VictorI: Further to the above:
The file fragments in the shadow volume had in common that they were created with “PSS Boeing 777-200LR Malaysia No VC”. I understand that is an add-on to FS9, and does not run in FSX. On 20 December 2013 FSX was installed on MK26 (the main hard-drive of the flight simulator). Was FS9 used at all after that installation?
@Gysbreght, The broken English of the “Flight Simulator Computer.pdf” filed is confusing, but I think the quote you reference is intending to say that when investigators set up their own MSFS simulation run and created .flt files, they matched those found on Zaharie’s hard drive. Which is not surprising.
@VictorI, A little while ago you mentioned that when Blaine Alan Gibson demonstrate his repeated ability to find debris, this eased your suspicions. I find this to be a remarkable statement. If someone claims that they have measured the charge of an electron, and then is able to repeatedly demonstrate their process and results, that would ease suspicions. But if someone repeatedly demonstrates a feat that should only be possible through extreme good luck, that should not assuage doubts but heighten them.
By the way, there seems to be a notion floating around that nobody but Blaine Alan Gibson is looking for debris. This is not the case. There are many thousands of South Africans who spend their time professionally or recreationally on the shore and ocean, and they are very aware of MH370 and are keeping their eyes open. For instance, I talked to an outfitter from Johannesberg who leads fly-fishing trips to St Brandon which involved spending long hours on the sandbars and shallows of the atoll, and he said he and all his guys are constantly on the lookout for debris and have seen nothing. On top of this, there is a yearly beach cleanup in South Africa much like the one I wrote about it Australia. Nothing.
I also think it worth remarking on that the three largest pieces to have turned up were all apparently contiguous. This is probabilistically unlikely.
Victor, you seem quite taken by the coincidence that some points in the flight simulator files line up with an airstrip in Antarctica. But you seem unfazed by other coincidences, such as Blaine Alan Gibson’s incredible luck and the fact that two Malaysian Airlines 777-200ERs game to grief under mysterious circumstances during a 4.5-month period in mid-2014.
@David: “IAS is being maintained, though this may not sit well with your paper’s P.5 dot point 4.”
In the paper, we said “At a pressure altitude of 4,000 ft, the increase is about 2.3%.” Well, 180 kt x 1.023 = 184 kt. Before the change, the altitude was 37,600 ft. After the change, the altitude was 4,000 ft. Those 2 kt of difference between 184 and 182 kt are easily attributable to how FS9 converts between IAS and TAS for different altitudes, which I assure you is not exact. What was stated in the paper is correct, and was determined for a change in MAP window variables at constant altitude.
“The max and min ‘g’ in your run are those of the Z.sim data. Did you fly it to these limits somewhere?”
A file representative of the recovered data set of 45S1 was created by Yves. This was loaded and used by him and me as initial conditions for the simulated flight between 45S1 and 45S2. Included in that created file were the min and max values of g.
“I suppose this all might be because the sequence in the shadow drive was random and/or the coordinates have been numbered randomly by RMP?”
I don’t know why the Malaysians labeled the coordinates in the order they did. I suspect it is related to the order that the data was found in the Shadow Volume, which is probably chronological for some data sets and not others.
“So the impression imparted is that the examiner has not been at all interested in the ground points or their fuel states – and has overlooked 6.”
I don’t think the Malaysians, at least at the time of the RMP report, had done a detailed analysis of the data. That is why we chose to ignore their conclusions and started with the raw data that was recovered.
“Furthermore, in that diagram there is an altitude of 33,651.1’ shown on the right side between numbers 6 (in fact 45S1) and 7 (45S2) and maybe what is a descent angle of 67.17 deg illustrated between the two.”
If you look at that number, you will see there is a leading minus sign. It is not an intermediate altitude. Rather, it represents the drop in altitude of 33651 ft between 45S1 and 45S2. Also note that the altitude at 45S1 is mis-labeled in the graph. It should be 37651 ft, not 37601 ft.
When the flight simulation was paused, the IAS was 181 kt. For the windspeeds you provided for 37650nft and 4000 ft I calculate the following:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Before ____ After
IAS ___ (kt) ___________________ 181,548 ____ 182,982
Calculated dyn pressure (lb/sq.ft) 104,506 _______ 113,028
DynPres in FLT files (lb/sq.ft) 106,568 _______ 114,384
file DynPres / calc DynPres (-) 1,020 ________ 1,012
qc/q (Impact press / DynPres) (-) 1,088 ________ 1,022
@jeffwise: I am most interested in data we reasonably quantify, which we can do with the evidence surrounding the simulator data. For instance, the alignment of 45S1 and 45S2 with a distant airfield is an extraordinary coincidence. You claimed that it is no coincidence. Fly in any direction and you will pass an airfield, you claimed. When I challenged you to find an airfield that is aligned with 45S1 and 45S2, you admitted you were wrong and that were none other than McMurdo Station. But then you brushed that away as inconsequential.
I view the simulator data to be much more quantifiable than trying to determine drift characteristics and evidence of a planted debris from the size and distribution of barnacles. We have to use whatever evidence we have. But have to update our theories as new evidence surfaces.
Relative to Blaine Gibson, you assert that each find was incredible luck. The fact that he was able to repeat his findings to me demonstrates that it was not luck. He has a procedure for finding debris that works. If you can document that others have done this exact procedure for the same lengths of time he has and in the same places without success, then I would question the validity of his finds. But the fact that he could repeat his finds with camera crews and the NOK in tow gives me more comfort that the finds are real.
And of course, he is not the only person finding debris.
I never said that MH370 and MH17 were unrelated. In fact, I have some theories as to how they could have been related, but it is just conjecture and presenting them would create pointless debate here. But my best guess is the two tragedies are related. That doesn’t mean that Russian responsibility for MH17 implies Russian responsibility for MH370.
Largest pieces contiguous a coincidence? Maybe they drift in similar ways and land in similar places. That would be the reasonable conclusion.
So if we have to choose between explaining the disappearance as suicide-by-pilot versus a plot in which Putin masterminded a hijacking, BFO spoof, flight to Kazakhstan, disposal of plane, and planting of evidence, I feel quite comfortable with the suicide-by-pilot scenario.
@JeffWise
I am also struck by the biggest pieces being contiguous, and as you put it, probabilistically unlikely. Yes, unlikely indeed. And add the flap fairing segment found by the South African teen, and the two panels with a seal along one edge, which go with the flaperon, and you have a major part of the RH wing trailing edge. These things are telling us a story, if only we knew the language.
Imagine all the parts found so far, being laid out in a hangar, for expert analysis. There would be quite a lot of head scratching.
@Gysbreght: I’m not sure what you are trying to show me. There is a 2.3% increase in IAS at 4,000 ft, and also small inaccuracies in the TAS to IAS conversion. We are down to explaining differences of a couple of knots, which are explained by the mechanism I said.
@jeffwise: When I was referring to the alignment of the coordinates, I said 45S1 and 45S2. I meant 10N and 45S1.
@VictorI: “There is a 2.3% increase in IAS at 4,000 ft”
182,982 – 181,548 = 2.3% ?
@Gysbreght @Buyerninety
There are 2014 dates of Z’s FS9 simulator runs given in the police report excerpts, which I will not reiterate here.
My personal observation is the following: Based on the FI, Z deleted FS9 on 20-Feb, on 21-Feb he checked into KLIA to fly the 9M-MRO to Beijing.
@ROB @PaulS
If @Lauren were posting she would possibly remind again about the waypoint OLPUS near 37S 95E just south of Arc7. A flight path to OLPUS would intersect Arc7 at about 33.5 South.
OLPUS would be handy to use, you could always input OLPUS/-xx in the FMC if you thought you wanted to stop earlier than OLPUS. Which brings up an interesting point, I suppose one could insert NZPG/-1000 in the FMC if you wanted to stop before NZPG too. That would solve the FMC lack fuel error message someone was asking about.
If Victor is correct about discrete Arc7 crossing points being an undersea search opportunity, that (OLPUS @ 33.5S) is at least one discrete point in the ATSB preferred next search area, analogous to Victor’s 26.9S McMurdo crossing point.
In my mind, one route is follow OLPUS to 32S and then aim due East to the Sun and you end up in Broken Ridge.
@Steve Baker
That is a good point about IFE credit card log on data. I do not recall if IFE was started on this flight. You perhaps know that
the left electrical bus was probably turned off at IGARI and that would have taken down the IFE until SDU reboot at 18:25 UST. I wonder if IFE might have been useful for the pilot(s) to get onto the internet at 18:25, and if the PAX were alive, the PAX could see the IFE flight map if there was an attempt to communicate to them an alternate landing point. All speculation of course.
I wonder if the
@VictorI: I looked again at the video. At the end it is actually 182.0 kt IAS.
@ikr
“@Dennis — to an extent, I believe you are right about lack of leadership. But in hindsight, I think the problem is no matter how well led, the ATSB probably should have concluded that there was much less than even odds that MH370 could be found with the information, technology and funding available. Given their desire to go forward [which I think is in part related to the gutting of pure science in Aus, as this looked like free money to oceanographers], they decided to bet on models that would probably work for ghost flights.”
It is hard to know what was going on behind the scenes. Perhaps the Aussie government felt that is was politically necessary to show some activity. If the initiation of the search was driven by a political agenda, then I think the decision to search where they did was correct given the information available at the time. If the initiation of the search was based on the belief that they had the terminus pinned down with high probability, then it is head shaking time.
In either case, the management of public expectations was poor. There was never, and there is not now, any justification to believe that there is a high probability of finding the aircraft.
As far as the Z flight simulator information is concerned, you can generate as big a smoke screen as you like relative to the parametric details. However, an intelligent person can see through the smoke and realize that none of those details alter the fact that the information is there.
@Gysbreght: If the altitude was 4,000 ft before and after the change in a MAP variable, the increase in IAS would be 2.3%. However, the altitude was changed, the IAS-TAS conversion in FS9 is imperfect, and you see a couple of knots difference. This has already been explained. Again, there is no mystery.
@VictorI: Agreed that we shouldn’t quibble about “a couple of knots difference”, although in this case the FS9 calculation seems to be pretty accurate.
Any comments on my posts of 8:20 and 8:41 AM?
@Gysbreght: I already answered your question regarding the files from the Shadow Volume: “What we know is the recovered computer data, showing a simulated flight from the Andaman Sea to the SIO, was found in a Shadow Volume dated Feb 3, 2014. The FSX software was uninstalled from the MK25 drive on Feb 20, 2014. MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014. As I said, this all could be an extraordinary coincidence.”
If you want to believe that this implies that the flight files were not created in the weeks before the disappearance, you go right ahead.
As to whether FS9 was used after the installation of FSX on Dec 20, 2013, I have no idea you are talking about. The deleted files on MK25 are from a PSS 777 model which only runs on FS9. We know that FS9 was installed on MK25 on Dec 23, 2013. We know that the Shadow Volume was dated Feb 3, 2014. We know that the installation of FS9 was removed on Feb 20, 2014. We know that MH370 disappeared on Mar 8, 2014. Hence, it is logical to conclude that the simulation files were created in the weeks prior to the disappearance.
@DennisW: “However, an intelligent person can see through the smoke and realize that none of those details alter the fact that the information is there.”
An intelligent person would wonder why the information is there, unless he is as prejudiced as you are.
@all
How rare is an ATC “ground-to-air” telephone call?
Is it used primarily by ATC only if it has lost normal contact?
How rare would it be for the call to go unanswered?
How rare would it be that ATC is unable to communicate by any means with a plane almost 2 hours after take-off and that plane be anything but crippled?
Would it be expected for ATC to be greatly alarmed after the unanswered call, and how rare to wait almost 5 hours before calling the plane again?
Please correct me if any of this is wrong, it seems important to establish how extraordinary this conduct may or may not have been
@Susie Crowe
I do not know the answer to your questions, but there is an interesting recent post over on Aunty Pru, if I understand, the ground to air phone calls apparently interrupt the hourly satellite pings. So if MAS had been trying to call more often to find MH370, we might have the lost the crucial BTO/BFO data pointing us to Arc7. Seems strange MAS did not call more often as the CEO said they assumed MH370 was still in the air.
@Gysbreght
I can’t reply to you without getting banned.
I doubt you and I could agree on how to calculate the area of a circle.
@VictorI, I would agree that Gibson’s proven methodology for finding debris would reduce suspicion, except that the only methodology I can think of involves a hidden stash of airplane parts.
And, as I’ve pointed out, there are numerous other inconsistencies involving the debris, including the healthy population of Lepas barnacles on a part of the flaperon that floated clear of the barnacles. Barnacles growing in the air is an probabalistic unlikelihood far more uncanny than the presence of suspicious looking flight-sim files. I’d have to go back to the “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” to find something so unlikely conjured up.