There are three basic ways to fly a Boeing 777. The first is traditional hand-flying: manipulating the yoke to change pitch and bank. This is a fun way to fly a plane in a simulator, but in practice, pilots don’t do this in commercial jets at altitude because it is inefficient and requires too much attention. Which leads us to the second way to fly the plane: by using the autopilot to fly from waypoint to waypoint. This is called LNAV, for lateral navigation, and is the way that pilots generally fly commercial routes. The path from airport to airport consists of a series of such waypoints, which the pilots plug into the flight management computer so the plane can fly itself.
The third way is to use the autopilot, but in a different way. By selecting HDG (heading) or TRK (track) hold, pilots can aim the plane in a certain direction and let it fly straight.
You can use any of these in Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, the program that MH370 captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah use to practice flying a 777 five weeks before the plane disappeared. You can also use a fourth. By opening the map display panel, you can use your mouse to physically drage the plane to a new location.
Looking at the data recovered from Zaharie Shah’s flight simulator, it seems that he used at least three and possibly all four of these techniques during his session that ended with the plane above the southern Indian Ocean with no fuel.
— At point 3N, the plane is close to airway R467, with a heading that is close to what would be required to reach the next waypoint. It’s possible that at this point he was flying the plane using LNAV.
— Between 5N and 10N, the variable which records the maximum G force that the plane has experienced jumps from 1.4 to 2.2, and the minimum G force descreases from 0.6 to 0.1. These are accelerations that will never be experienced by a plane flying on autopilot, so we can infer that Shah was hand-flying the plane.
— At point 10N the plane is located is 13 nautical miles from airway N877 on a heading of 255.5. It’s been suggested that the plane could have reached this point if it were flying along that airway, and then the active waypoint were changed from DOTEN to a point somewhere in the south. However I have run the simulation in a Boeing PSS 777-200LR and found that if that manoever is performed the plane will enter a left bank of 20 degrees (as observed) and achieve a heading of 255.5 about 6 nautical miles from the airway. It seems impossible, then, that the plane could have been flying along airway N877, and since there is no other route it could have been turning away from, I assume that Shah was flying in HDG or TRK mode, which also make turns by putting the plane in a 20-degree bank.
— Between 10N and 45N, the plane moved a distance that is not commensurate with the quantity of fuel burned. The only plausible explanation is that the plane was moved on the simulator’s map display.
The upshot of all of this is that the recovered flight simulator data tells us that Zaharie Shah did not practice flying a 777 to fuel exhaustion in the southern Indian Ocean on autopilot. Instead, he moved the plane manually to the southern Indian Ocean, altered the setting of the fuel load to zero, and then hand-flew a gliding descent.
Given this understanding, the flight simulator session shows significantly less similarity to the accident scenario than was originally believed. Could its uncannily resemblance to MH370’s eventual disappearance be merely a coincidence? A hallmark of a coincidence is that it’s an outlier, with no other similar or corroborating evidence. And that’s exactly the situation here. Nothing else found on Shah’s computer, or uncovered by the Royal Malaysian Police investigation into his personal or professional life, suggests his guilt. As a piece of evidence, the simulator data looks shaky, and all the more so the closer you inspect it.
@Yetijuice, Nice to hear from you! Welcome.
Rob Anderson said:
“His daughter would say that, wouldn’t she?
A simple denial by a family member is enough for you?”
When the Daily Mail is involved, yes. Their reputation precedes them in everything.
They have made other ‘sensational’ reports in this case where the person supposedly interviewed was contacted by other media to verify and denied ever having spoken to the Mail.
They are frequently sued for libel by people based in the UK. Targets outside the UK are easier because they tend not to sue. Do more intensive research and you’ll see.
If you want to believe their report you’d need to find independent reports of that interview with that ‘anonymous’ source that didn’t get copied from the Daily Mail.
Better still, let’s not have an ‘anonymous’ source who can’t be questioned by other reporters as the basis for a sensational report damning a person who can’t answer for themselves or sue the media involved. That’s far too easy a way of selling newspapers.
More respectable media outlets would verify that story before publishing.
@Yetijuice
Just goes to prove that proof reading what you write is vital. I was reading the report into SA295 which I downloaded. This report is like most aircraft accident reports lengthy & I’m yet to work out how to copy & paste certain articles. Working on a mobile phone doesn’t help either.
After you pointed out that Nepal is of course landlocked I read the piece again. I should have said Natal. My mistake. Apologies.
Mh370 certainly could be found in the SIO & I’m sure we all hope it is because that is where the search is being concentrated thus the likelihood of the aircraft being found there is far higher.
@Michael John
“So basically give it time & roles could be reversed.”
I agree but my definition of “could” would be something like 1-in-500 chance.
Learnt something unique about aviation in Russia, it has a requirement for foreign civil aviation, not airlines flying commercial routes, but business jets or pleasure aircraft entering it’s airspace with intent to land to have a Russian ‘escort navigator’ on board.
They help with filing flight plans, communicating with air traffic control in Russian and helping translate instructions from Russian to English and vice versa because in Russia ATC communicates only in Russian, except at international airports.
The program originally started in the 1960’s for high level summit meetings between Soviet and Western leaders flying into each other’s airspace.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/05/31/shotgun-guys-in-the-cockpit-share-translations-and-toasts/d39dd007-3847-4346-80d2-1e127cdbe8d4/?utm_term=.d08e216ff31b
But it has evolved into something more like a cash grab during the 1990’s and 2000’s.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2011-02-24/customs-treaty-should-ease-bizav-headaches-russia
During Sochi Olympics in 2014, the requirement for Escort Navigator was waived on a case-by-case basis.
Currently, no new airspace restrictions, or changes to approaches at Sochi International Airport (URSS) have been announced for the Games.
Normally, the Federal Air Transport Agency requires foreign aircraft to hire and use a Russian “escort navigator” for flights within Russia. However, during the Olympics, the agency has indicated it will waive this requirement on a case-by-case basis. If the Federal Air Transport Agency requires an aircraft to use an escort navigator, the navigator will be assigned by the agency
https://www.nbaa.org/ops/intl/eur/2014-sochi-olympics/
SUMMARY
– Russia has a cadre of specialized ‘escort navigators’ who speak English
– Escort Navigators file flight plans, communicate with ATC, and know how to switch frequencies as the aircraft crosses sectors
– a few private companies market the services of escort navigators, but some of these guys work for the Russia govt. too
How did CANADA react to MH370’s disappearance?- Part I
Canada is a member of NATO, NORAD, and shares the Arctic with Russia & USA.
The 2014 Russian invasion of Crimea was vigorously opposed by the Conservative Party of Canada which was in government.
Canada has the world’s third-largest Ukrainian population behind Ukraine itself and Russia, and it imposed sanctions on Russia at the same time as USA & EU.
In retaliation, Russia sanctioned some Canadians including the current Foreign Minister in the Liberal govt. who is of Ukrainian descent.
Russia also began flying unannounced near Canadian airspace in the Arctic.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/russias-arctic-flybys-a-strategic-message/article19255529/
Besides scrambling fighter jets, what else did Canada do?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-let-security-officers-carry-loaded-guns-on-canadian-flights/article19439062/
Canadian Air Marshals have been carrying weapons on board airlines since 2001, but it was publicised only a few months after MH370, and only on the Globe and Mail, and a French language newspaper (I checked). Plus, this was prior to MH17.
The Globe and Mail is considered Canada’s national Newspaper of Record. It is not read by most ordinary folks, but it is avidly read by the diplomatic community in Ottawa to decipher the Canadian government’s views on issues of significance.
CONCLUSION
In reaction to MH370, Ukraine, and the subsequent tension between Canada and Russia in the Arctic, the Canadian govt. chose to reveal that Canadian Air Marshals carried loaded weapons on board airlines. So any potential hijackers… or their sponsors who read the Globe and Mail were put on notice that Canada won’t stand for any nonsense on board it’s airlines.
@CliffG. Psychological screening for suicidal or murderous tendencies seems to be unreliable so I wonder how they do that with the Air Marshals? If unreliable there too that and potential mistakes might add as much risk as they reduce. Deterrence would be a useful outcome so long as it was not a risk transfer to other airlines. An alternative is to advertise it but not in fact do it, or very sparingly.
I suppose the possibility of there being one similarly secretly armed person aboard MH370 has been raised though I have not read of it.
@CliffG, Interesting stuff, thanks!
@David, I think what CliffG is suggesting is not that an armed air marshall was on board MH370 and hijacked it, but that Canada had figured out what happened to MH370 and started arming their air marshalls to prevent similar scenarios playing out in the future on their flights.
@TBill, I suspect your probability estimate would shift if you took into account the fact that the SDU was rebooted.
@JW I would agree with you but when you take into account how much money & professional credibility has been staked on the SIO it will take nothing short of a miracle to change the mind set of anyone who has a vested interest in Mh370 being in the SIO.
On a different note…. SeaBed Constructor (Ocean Infinity) is it would seem on it’s way from Trinidad & Tobago heading to Durban where it’s due to arrive on Dec 27th (According to Various sources over on the FB Veritas group).
Admittedly it’s 30 years ago so not sure how much would be left but SA295 left a substantial debris field just East of Mauritius & most was left in situ. Could SC use the well mapped debris field to test it’s equipment? Maybe using new technology at the site may yield some new clues into how SA295 came down.
@All
Slightly off topic but interesting article on a report by Bellingcat suggesting high level Russian sign off for the shoot down of MH17;
https://themoscowtimes.com/news/report-names-russian-general-linked-downing-flight-mh17-59877?utm_source=push&utm_medium=push&utm_campaign=081217
The question of course is if they had any intelligence on MH370 (eg. passengers, cargo etc) suggesting it may be a hijacking and 9/11 event for Russia. A clear message needed to be sent, in other words it was an act of ‘self defense’. This latter point has been discussed in this forum.
The French prosecutors apparently have cleared all the passengers on MH370, with the information at their disposal.
@All
Sorry last posting should read “The French prosecutors apparently have cleared all the passengers and crew on MH370, with the information at their disposal”.
Considering that the French report into the Flaperon has been kept away from public eyes I would suggest France definitely knows more than it’s letting on.
Reports in other items of debris have on the whole been made public. So why not the Flaperon?
@Jeff
Thank you Jeff.
I sincerely believe this tragedy should not be forgotten and I search in every nook and corner of the Internet for circumstantial evidence that can seal the case for the hijacking of MH370.
I’m grateful for this forum where I can share every morsel of information I gather.
Jeff, I truly hope that you can put something together that will bring more attention to this story and hold those responsible for this tragedy accountable to the public.
@CliffG, I appreciate that. I’m now working on an updated edition of my Kindle Single “The Plane That Wasn’t There” that will come out in the spring. It will tie together some of the things I’ve been writing about on this blog together with newly reported material and hopefully bring some clarity to what happened to the plane.
@Jeff, Wen you know why, you will also know where.
A bit disconcerting to see a comment like this on Victors site:
ALSM states;”Regarding the flaperon date: Blaine and I discussed this today.
He confirmed that rumors about a possible earlier sighting were not true.
It beached circa July 28, 2015. He went to Reunion and interviewed everyone
concerned.”
There are more than 800,000 people on Réunion Island. I don’t doubt Blaine
interviewed many people, just as obviously – not everyone.
So ALSM seriously believes Blaine interviewed 800,000 people or would have us
believe that? Possibly – readers would know from past discussions with Mike,
that he has some difficulty with english comprehension.
What is of concern, is that as soon as Oleksandr called ALSM on his assertion,
ALSM went into Ad Hominem attack mode;
ALSM states; “Stop insulting people.”…”Did you read my post? It clearly
stated the date beached and how we know it was the date beached and found a day later.”
How is it ‘insulting’ to seek clarification? Also, note how ALSM originally
asserted “circa July 28th”, but then he morphs that into a firm “clearly
stated the date beached” in his later post.
So what did Blaine actually say? We can’t know, and ALSM morphs his assertion
depending on whether or not he is in attack mode.
Incidentally, about the ‘rumours’ not being true – we know from posts in Jeff’s
forum, back in December 2016, that instead of rumours, we had on site reporting
by journalist David Bowden, that the flaperon could have been seen weeks
prior to the “clearly stated date beached” of ALSM’s assertion.
http://video.news.sky.com/video/h264/vod/700/2015/07/DIGI183441FRMH370BowdenAsLiveOnBe150731183525481438364175823700.mp4
At best, the lesson Blaine should take from this, (for what was probably only
an off the cuff remark by Blaine), is to be a bit guarded in the way he expresses
himself to Mike, if Mike is going to be using Blaines name as a citation in his
assertions – unless Blaine is happy for Mike to misrepresent his words & use
them as a bulwark to launch attacks on other posters.
Blaine interviewed everyone of 800,00 people, Mike? I doubt even Jeff would
believe that Blaine would seriously make such an assertion to you.
@buyerninety, I understand that there were some early reports that the flaperon had washed up long before July 29, 2015. However, this appears to have been one of those early reports that later gets discounted. The fresh condition of the Lepas barnacles at the time they were photographed by members of the local press rules out any possibility that the piece could have been grounded for days.
I don’t think there is any ambiguity whatsoever as regards this aspect of the case.
@JeffWise
We obviously agree to disagree about aspects of the flaperon arrival –
for instance, David Bowden reported that the group of people he spoke to, said “that they saw something, which they think was that wing,
all the way up, about a mile or so”(i.e. further along the beach).
No assertion was made as to whether the people saw the item on the beach,
at the waterline, or in the shallows. Therefore, there is no implicit
suggestion in his report that the item was ‘grounded’, although that is
the inference you may have taken from his report (judging from your use
of that word).
Cheers
@buyerninety, I guess I would understand better why we are having this discussion if I understood what you thought the earlier arrival of the flaperon might be dispositive of.
@JeffWise
You need only to look at the post above yours, which references ALSMs assertion that
Blaine interviewed everyone of 800,00 people on Reunion. Both here and at Victors
site, myself and others take exception to such a misrepresentation by ALSM.
@buyerninety: Slow down and take a deep breath. It’s a simple question so please just give us a simple answer:
What does it matter with regards to understanding the fate of MH370, if the flaperon potentially arrived earlier than commonly believed?
@JeffWise
Although a different subject, I (and perhaps others) are curious about something,
and therefore take this opportunity to ask you – you are probably aware that Ocean
Infinity may be searching along the arc for the remains of MH370 in the next few
months. If they find the remains of MH370 on the ocean floor (and reasonably, we
are talking about finding the engines, wing & hull components), what would your
reaction be if OI found such remains?
@JeffWise
I have explained why I originally posted – ALSMs misrepresentation was the prime
concern in that post, and it is appropriate that he understand that not only
on Victors site, but elsewhere, such misrepresentations will be challenged.
@buyerninety, I would have a complicated mix of emotions. First, I would be extremely surprised, as I feel that there is a great deal of evidence pointing to the plane not being on the ocean floor. Second, I would be embarrassed, because I have spent a lot of time and energy trying to get this point across in the media. Finally, I would be excited at the prospect of this case finding a resolution.
If, on the other hand, the area is searched and nothing is found, I feel that the response on the part of the ATSB and the IG will be “Oh well, I guess it must be somewhere else on the seabed.”
For what it’s worth, I still find a great deal to be skeptical about regarding this venture, not least that the Malaysians apparently still haven’t reached a deal with them.
Thankyou, I believe it is prudent of you to have given consideration in
case of such an outcome.
Certainly Richard Cole has reported an Ocean Infinity ship is inbound to Durban,
and Victor has commented about OI’s plans to search for MH370 – it is unlikely
he would make such bald assertions about OI unless he had gained advance
knowledge of OI’s future intended opertions. Therefore, I am less skeptical
about it, because there is nothing that I can see in the Indian Ocean that
would interest OI (other than the wreck of the SS Waratah, which is an amazing
prize waiting to be found).
Cheers
@buyerninety
It’s not in my aim to defend @ALSM but you just quoted his statement wrong. He said Blaine interviewed all CONCERNED, not the whole population of Reunion ofcourse!
If you are worth your penny you retract your statement.
On OI read my latest comments on Victor’s blog. I think this opportunity of gaining data and experience is well worth the effort as an investment in their future.
If they succeed in finding the plane they hit the jack-pot. If they fail they gain a tremendous lot of data and experience.
For them any outcome would be positive. Contract or not.
@Ge Rijn
Obviously, it is your aim to defend ALSM, and I EXACTLY quoted his statement, so right from the get go your words contain a falsehood.
DennisW regularly bemoans your time wasting posts on Victors site –
so by all means, go back there and waste his time, not mine.
@buyerninety,
I am also curious as to how you would answer Jeff’s question. It makes no difference to me if ALSM misrepresented something unless it’s something so serious that overlooking it would lead us all away from a viable theory.
So would an earlier arrival of the flaperon change anything? Or does it change nothing? It’s a yes or no.
@Jeff,
One thing people may be forgetting is that the idea of a pilot simulating a ditching in the SIO is only strange to people who don’t live near the SIO. In other words, for most of us, there’s a bias when we think of “middle of the ocean.” For east coasters, it’s out in the North Atlantic. For west coasters and East Asians, it’s the middle of the Pacific. For west Africa and east South America, its the south Atlantic.
Those who would first think of the SIO upon hearing “middle of the ocean” are not well represented on this blog and for that reason a lot of extra weight is given to any flight simulation over the SIO. But if we heard that JFK Jr. had done simulations of ocean ditchings in the Atlantic, or Roy Halladay had done simulations in the Gulf of Mexico, we probably wouldn’t raise an eyebrow.
@buyerninety
I see you’ve got the point.
And we’ll see what OI is up to.
@JS
A month or even two months earlier arrival (not discovery!) at Reunion would not change very much in the whole scheme of drifting events. Three months or more (arrival time) would create a problem depending on which latitude you take as an origin of the flaperon imo.
@JS, Thanks, that’s an excellent point, and one that’s hard for Northern Hemispherers such as myself to realize on our own.
@JS, @Ge Rijn, @buyerninety, I think it’s fairly uncontroversial at this point to say that the drift modeling as put together by the CSIRO does not hang together when looked at in its totality. They managed to do enough model-testing in the ocean to refine their windage model such that the flaperon would arrive at Réunion in the right time from from the spot they wanted it to start from, but that same start frame is not compatible with zero-windage stuff like “No Step” getting to where it needed to be in the right time frame.
I think that Victor and others have come to this same conclusion but correct me if I’m wrong.
@Jeff Wise
I think you discribed this problem basically correct in a few sentences.
to add.. But I do not endorse the suggestion that CSIRO modelled their flaperon testing to comply with some pre-set assumptions.
@JS
An earlier arrival doesn’t impact my views on MH370, because my views on MH370
owe nothing to drift studies. An earlier arrival impacts Jeffs theory, because
Jeffs theory (and I am citing purely from my memory, so Jeff will can pull me up
hard if I misremember this) posits that whatever sealife infestation was present
on the flaperon, got there as a result of the flaperon being tied with lines to
float from the seabed or secured to the side of a ship – not from the flaperon
journeying over SIO waters & then sloshing around in the shallows of the Reunion
Island shoreline.
It does make a difference to myself & others when ALSM misrepresents what someone
has said, merely so he can mis-state his current assumption as a ‘fact’, the
recent post he made to Oleksandr being a case in point. (He consistently avoids
giving the exact quote – quotation marks do not seem to be within his ken.)
I myself am a little confused over Blaine.
He States he has absolute faith in the claim by the Maldives people that they saw a plane believed to Mh370.
Yet he is also championing the cause for Mh370 being in the SIO. Unless I’m missing something (Which is entirely possible) the plane can’t have been in both locations?
Just put of interest…. The consensus as it reads to me is that ALSM IS trying to mislead people.
1st question: Why would he do that?
@Michael John, On a related note, I find it interesting that there are people whose approach regarding MH370 is to say, “I don’t have any opinion about what happened to the plane, I just want to find the truth.”
@Micheal John
We would probably have to trouble you to provide the date Blaine made that
statement you attribute to him re the Maldives, because he has been reseaching
MH370 for some years now – it’s possible he no longer holds that view, or no
longer holds it ‘absolutely’.
I would agree with you that an over-flight of the Maldives by MH370 is
incompatible with the location of the arc distances (from the Inmarsat 3F1
satellite) that MH370 was on when its SDU made transmissions – incompatible
in the sense that MH370 can’t have gone to the Maldives and also then later
crossed the portion of those arcs in the SIO at the times that Inmarsat
recorded those transmissions being made, and taking into account the distance
MH370 could have flown on the amount of fuel it was carrying.
(It would be courteous to acknowledge that a few MH370 researchers, our forum host
included, consider the SDU transmissions to have been spoofed or falsified.)
___________________
You said “The consensus”…”is that ALSM IS trying to mislead people”.
I would not claim a consensus on the few replies seen here.
I reject the notion that ALSM approaches any matter so to mislead, per se.
In my opinion, ALSM & also Victor, too often frame their assertions or responses
as if they were trying to ‘sell their assertion‘, rather than to prove
it. MH370 isn’t an entrepreneurial pitch, so there’s no need to ‘shade the truth’
when making a point, because the methodology is simple, it’s been used in
scientific publications for over a hundred years: State the “Exact Quote”, in
context, or cite the attribution. In the absence of this, I notice a non-trivial
number of posts on Victors site devolve into non-productive acrimony, and there’s
no need to have the recurring situation where pretty much everyone from DrB down
to the singlest poster on Victors site, has had to complain ‘Hell no, I didn’t say
what you misrepresented me as saying, or misrepresesnted what someone else said’.
Thanks for your query, but bluntly, polite or not, I’m not going to be answering
a ‘2nd’ or further question on this. I intended to make one post about this, then
had to restate my point when subsequent enquiring posters glossed over that point
or slanted off into peripheral matters.
Cheers
Whenever the flaperon is mentioned, more questions come than answers. Sorry can of worms reopened.
One (of the many) detail(s) that still bother(s) me is the reported mismatch of maintenance records and whether these records could be independently cross checked.
The maintenance seal claimed as a match by the Malaysian Prime Minister did not seem to match the French judge’s observation. Could this be why the report on the flaperon is still not released? How valid is the serial number ID match if the maintenance seal does not match? was this particular discrepancy point ever reconciliated? or should we accept such a discrepancy? the problem seems binary to me, either all details match or there is no match.
WSJ excerpt
“French investigators drilled into the recovered wing section, searching for signs of a maintenance seal that Malaysian authorities documented when the missing jet previously underwent repairs, according to Mr. Wattrelos and people familiar with the matter. The findings of the French investigators didn’t match the Malaysian records, Mr. Gaudino said, according to Mr. Wattrelos.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/3g6rtp/wsj_french_deepen_mh370_probe_plus_info_on_the/
@HB, It is indeed strange (and I would say, annoying) that the French have apparently decided to sit on their findings regarding the flaperon. There are other discrepancies that deserves further attention, including the seeming contradiction between the Lepas distribution and the observed waterline, and the fact (discussed here not so long ago) that the way that the flaperon appears to have broken off is not consistent either with flutter or impact with the surface.
@buyerninety
“because my views on MH370
owe nothing to drift studies. ”
you ignore the biggest hint we have on MH370 location?!
Jeff Wise:
RE “… the fact (discussed here not so long ago) that the way that the flaperon appears to have broken off is not consistent either with flutter or impact with the surface.”
Is that a fact? In my view it is entirely consistent with impact with the surface. Others argue that it is consistent with flutter. I don’t think that either can be excluded.
@Gysbreght
+1
The French almost certainly know the answer, but they are not talking. Sad, really.
@DennisW; “The French” are obliged to submit anything they ‘know’ to the Malaysians.
@Gysbreght @DennisW @JeffW
Besides the lack of barnacles the outboard flap section shows similar features and trailing edge damage and an almost intact leading edge.
In this regard we should not need the ‘French’ flaperon forensic report on the damage and how it occured.
I think the outboard flap section could give all those answers too but also on this piece we have no detailed forensic damage report.
The report the ATSB delivered on this piece leaves many unanswered questions.
With only the ATSB conclusion; ‘the flap was most probably retracted when it seperated’.
Which is no conclusive conclusion either by far.
Ofcourse the detailed forensic report the French surely made on the flaperon would be most welcomed by many.
@Ge Rijn
I too was disappointed by the forensic report on the outboard flap. I was expecting more.
@Gysbreght
“The French” are obliged to submit anything they ‘know’ to the Malaysians.
I would wonder if that is true relative to the classification of the event as a criminal investigation. You would think the French would hand over the flaperon as well, but that has not happened.
It is my understanding that since the start of April 2014 Malaysia appeared to put a block on Companies talking freely about Mh370. I’m sure we have all been there. You try talking to Rolls Royce, Boeing, Inmarsat, ATSB & your met with the same brick wall. So is it any surprise that the French are not talking about the report into the Flaperon. The report I read was that info was passed onto Malaysia & it was up to Malaysia to share that info with Joe Public…. But to my knowledge it didn’t happen.
@Michael John
So is it any surprise that the French are not talking about the report into the Flaperon. The report I read was that info was passed onto Malaysia & it was up to Malaysia to share that info with Joe Public….
Do you have a link to the report you reference above?
@DennisW. Amongst other things the French conducted, “….failure analysis of metal and composite components failure analysis of metal and composite components…” and made the results available to the ATSB, at least.
The public release of the French report as we know, “..is the responsibility of the French judicial authorities”
Page 103:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773565/operational-search-for-mh370_final_3oct2017.pdf