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.
@DennisW:
“In the case of 911 controllers knew that flight 11 had been hijacked at 8:13. The US did not have fighters in the air until 8:53 which was shortly after flight 11 hit the North Tower…”
Yes, an ~40 minute delay before the first fighter jet gets into the air does, in deed, beggar belief!
@Boris Tabakplatt
Have to reply 911 was the first time something like this happened. Confusion would be more understandable imo.
After 911 all countries over the world were allerted and adjusted their military safety measures.
That’s why it’s still strange to me Malaysia states they never scrambled jets at MH370 crossing their whole country till above the Mallaca Straight when they lost radar contact at 18:22.
That has been one hour.
Even the US airforce did better without any experience or knowledge of a similar situation in the past.
@Michael John
This may explain Prosperity UK
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/hedge-fund-star-my-plan-to-turn-round-london-schools-6574459.html%3famp
Useful article here giving background info on Sir Paul Marshall’s ARK Schools project and its ambitions to be a major player in the lucrative UK ‘Academy’ business…
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/hedge-fund-star-my-plan-to-turn-round-london-schools-6574459.html
The story behind OI is intriguing. I have found what I think is an explanation of sorts. This article talks about Seatrepid & how it was approached by a “British Entrepreneur” who has a passion for Sea exploration. It doesn’t say who that entrepreneur is & I doubt it is Oliver P (he didn’t join the company until much later).
https://issuu.com/rovplanet/docs/rovplanet_magazine_011__web_
As an alternative there is also a possibility that Richard Branson could be behind Ocean Infinity. He had his own quest called Virgin Oceanic to explore the deepest oceans & offer trips to the seafloor for people wealthy enough to pay. Structural integrity problems with the sub meant his dreams couldn’t be fulfilled & he shelved the project in December 2014.
However he posted a blog which said this:
This August, Branson published a blog post about changing course.
WITH GREAT PARTNERS, ENTREPRENEURS AND OCEAN ADVOCATES, WE STARTED VIRGIN OCEANIC IN 2011 WITH THE AMBITIOUS DESIRE TO BUILD A SUBMARINE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO EXPLORE THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN. WE ARE ALL STILL HIGHLY PASSIONATE ABOUT EXPLORING THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOW WIDENING THE FOCUS OF THE PROJECT AND LOOKING FOR NEW TECHNOLOGY TO HELP US EXPLORE THE OCEAN AND DEMOCRATISE ACCESS AT REDUCED COST AND INCREASED SAFETY.
Whilst I’m yet to find any solid link between Richard Branson & OI or indeed Oliver Plunkett it is another name to add to the list of possibles.
Can’t take the credit for this, it was posted in an MH370 group on Facebook. Not heard this theory before – thoughts?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iqOU-3QvaifUWs0qfco468I9B4qq0yrG/view?usp=drivesdk
@Michael John:
“…I’m yet to find any solid link between Richard Branson & OI or indeed Oliver Plunkett…”
Their is, however, a tenuous link between Richard Branson and the twin MAS disasters of 2014, via his ownership of a 20% stake in one of the main competitors of Malaysia Airlines – AirAsia. The 2014 events were the final trigger for a massive restructure of MAS with a large reduction in the number of flights per annum and a 5 year plan to rebuild MAS as a smaller, more efficient regional airline operator. This allowed AirAsia to continue its expansion and move more rapidly towards of becoming the largest airline in SE Asia.
I find it fascinating that Richard Branson, who benefited massively from the MH370 disaster, could be the founder of the outfit wanting to find the missing aeroplane! Although I still think Sir Paul Marshall is the person behind the creation of Ocean Infinity, although I’m uncertain of his motive for wanting to do this.
@Susie Crowe:
“…I see it as another example of spreading, sharing wealth, which is most likely none of our business.”
Before we all get carried away by this amazingly generous half-billionaire, Sir Paul Roderick Clucas Marshall, lets have a quick reality check on who he really is.
I’ve been trying to find some background information about the guy and his family for the last few weeks. So far I’ve discovered he was born in 1959 in London, and his parents are Mary Sylvia Clucas nee Hanlin, and Alan Marshall. Beyond a snippet that his father Alan was once the Chairman of Unilever in the Philippines there appears to be no further info about them.
Following up the Unilever connection, the only Alan Marshall I can find wasn’t listed as the Chairman of UL Philippines. He was born in 1932 and did a variety of roles for the company…
UNILEVER INTERNATIONAL MARKET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Director – 1992 to 1993
UNILEVER U.K. CENTRAL RESOURCES LIMITED
Director – 1993 to 1994
UNILEVER U.K. HOLDINGS LIMITED
Director – 1993 to 1994
UML LIMITED
Director 1994 – 1994
Don’t know if this is the right person, but the date of birth seems about right. I keep getting the dreaded ‘Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe’ citation when searching and I’d be grateful if some non-EU contributor would be willing to search for info on Sir Paul’s parents, otherwise this black hole in his past is likely to remain.
I’m surprised that Jeff with his professional background hasn’t by now managed to dig up the history of OI himself.
@Micheal John
I suspect by now Jeff has noticed that his blog has got contaminated by conspiracy thinkers, trolls and paranoia people who are not interested in finding the plane and constructively contributing to that goal.
Also all you (and some others here) put forward is a distraction of the real issue. Nothing helpfull, informative or positive in contributing to find the plane. All smoke and mirrors.
I hope Jeff is taking his time to think about this and your latest responce..
@Michael John, I find this question very interesting have had my hands full lately (including some MH370 business that I hope will move the plot forward). If Malaysia does wind up signing that contract, and it seems that OI is actually going to start the work, then I think there will be some urgency in a) bringing to the public attention just what this company is and who’s behind it b) trying to raise the point that this new search is an acid test: if it comes up empty, then there is something profoundly wrong with the Inmarsat data, and those who have assured us of the validity of the ATSB’s interpretation have led us down the garden path.
IMO this should have happened after the first search, but the ATSB gave themselves an escape hatch by designating this alternate search area at the 11th hour. I hope we don’t allow preemptive excuses this time. Hypotheses must be falsifiable.
@Ge Rijn, I disagree, I think keeping an eye on OI could turn out to be very useful.
@Jeff Wise
Merry Christmas to Jeff Wise and everyone on this forum.
@Jeff Wise
Yes, I agree. Keeping a critical eye on OI is just as valuable as keeping a critical eye on every espect of this ‘chaotic’ search directed and undertaken by per definition imperfect humans.
But only looking for negative ‘conspiracy’ clues is not going to help at all.
OI is starting their endavour. Whatever their motivation or who is behind it exactly does not matter imo.
They are going to search. That’s what matters. And we all should support them.
The fast majority of people is not ill-willed. They have moral standards and if they have a job to do they will do it at their best. I believe the ATSB/FUGRO team did and OI will do the same.
We have to be critical and realistic but paranoia kills the light.
Don’t let them kill the light.
Merry Christmas
@Ge Rijn, You wrote, “OI is starting their endeavour.” As you know, this is not accurate. Although we’ve been talking about this for months, Malaysia and OI have still not reached an agreement. This is not a small matter.
I would add that whether any one of us takes a positive or a negative attitude towards this venture is irrelevent to whether or not it will go forward.
At any rate, Merry Christmas, and thanks for your pitching in your insights!
@Jeff Wise
You know by now my tenancy has no limit on this subject. And I push on every possible reliable information and data that can solve this mystery. I’m not interested if Richard Branson is behind OI or who else.
Im interested in their endavour. And I’m pretty shure they go for it, agreement with Malaysia or not.
For them it can only be a win-win endavour whatever the outcome imo.
Testing their skills and technology in a historical, real search for the first time.
They will gain tremendous experience and data that will set their name in the industry anyway.
And if they find the plane they will surely set a new standard regarding ocean floor searching and mapping without any competition.
Their investment will prove well worth their endavour in any case imo.
And odds of finding the plane now or much better than the ATSB ever had.
I only worry they also reject a possible glide and ditch in their assumptions and calculations.
We’ll see. It’s in their hands now.
Merry Christmas to everyone!
My last 2 attempts seem to have disappeared into thin air so hopefully third time lucky!
@Sajid UK, Thanks, and Merry Christmas to you as well, and Happy New Year. I’m really grateful to you and everyone here for your contributions.
@Will “Can’t take the credit for this, it was posted in an MH370 group on Facebook. Not heard this theory before – thoughts?”
Jaysus. This is on my home turf. What a load of cobblers.
Just when I thought I’d seen it all, along comes this gem.
Merry Xmas to all
I’m still baffled on what to believe. He Rijn is right that the background of OI isn’t important although it is a curiosity to some who this mysterious company is & where they came from.
It would seem that Victor Ianello & Mike Exner have surfaced recently on the Veritas Facebook group & doing a grand job of tearing apart like pit bulls anyone who dares to question the SIO & ISAT Data. What makes this even more nauseous is the army of bum kissers who will happily echo anything they say.
This isn’t meant as criticism against ME or VI & I wasn’t intending my last comment against Jeff to be a criticism either but let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Mh370 hasn’t been found yet. The science & math behind the ISAT Data is sound & hopefully OI will find Mh370 when it starts it’s search (Negotiations allowing). But really what is wrong with a healthy dose of scepticism? Are us sceptics really going to change the course of the search? No. Are we having any influence at all? No. What is the problem is the people who try to stop scepticism from happening. Personally I believe that it is scepticism that pushes the people that really have the ability to solve the problems to find ways of making those answers more refined. I can not help thinking that if it was not for the sceptics of the World then general interest in Mh370 as a whole would have died out years ago.
@Michael John
I have issue with skepticism if there is a basis for it.
@Michael John
“……… hopefully OI will find Mh370 when it starts it’s search (Negotiations allowing).”
OI now has their ship only a few single digit hours away from Durban.
I can not see any sensible reason, why OI would have moved their ship to the IO, for a search for MH370, unless “the negotiations” had long since been concluded “to OI’s satisfaction.” They would not be spending such a large amount of money, probably for nothing.
If “the negotiations” have not been “completed”, or perhaps even they “fell through”, the only logical explanation I can think of, is that OI is on some other mission. Obviously that mission has a tight “time frame” on it. After all, they did not go to help find the Argentinian Submarine, which is currently a very high profile project, and their scanning technology should have been perfect for the job. Perhaps they are on a survery mission, or they may be looking for some shipwreck, who knows.
As for skepticism, a small dose, is sometimes a good immunisation, against gullibility (a failure of social intelligence, in which a person is easily tricked, or manipulated, into an ill-advised course of action).
“…As for skepticism, a small dose, is sometimes a good immunisation against gullibility, (a failure of social intelligence, in which a person is easily tricked…”
Since day one, the whole of the ‘official narrative’ has smelled like a cover story, rather than anything approaching the truth. When we examine the supposed facts that underpin this charade, everyone needs to have a huge dollop of scepticism. The three biggest red flags to my mind are the radar plots, the Inmarsat data and the bits of MH370 wreckage which so fortuitously turned up at a time when lots of people were doubting the fairytale.
This is the reason I find the whole fishy Ocean Infinity project so interesting. Was it setup as part of the cover operation, or are is it a genuine venture to get to the truth? So far I think it is looking like a controlled operation to make sure that MH370 is never found, as this grand geopolitical melodrama continues grind along towards its long-term goal, whatever that may be.
Well OI certainly isn’t hanging around. Although unless I missed something then no official agreement has been out in place.
I understand that time is a ticking & there is a finite window for good weather in the search zone. Maybe OI will go ahead with a search prior to any official agreement. If they do find anything they will I suspect sit on that information until an agreement has been concluded. Which if that does happen then we could end up with a stalemate situation….
I’m still intrigued by the whole ISAT Data gamble. I will stop short of claiming it to be fake but once bitten twice shy. After the 1st search failed rather dramatically I would expect any potential investors to run for the proverbial hills. Drift analysis on its own doesn’t count for much as even an amateur like myself can see that you can’t backdate drift to any single position. Plus of course we have heard talk of windage ETC however you may be able to replicate the currents to some degree but I doubt you will be able to predict the weather so accurately….
So what is the magic key that is enticing all & sundry to the SIO? Coming back in line to the purpose of this post I can’t see any guaranteed evidence being deduced from the flight Sim. What makes me uneasy is that the SDU went off & came back on. We don’t know why it did that & we don’t know what damage was done to the SDU (if any) in the process so after the 1st failed search you would think that the experts would be wondering the same thing about the accuracy of the data. The fact that they aren’t tells me that the Data MUST be more robust than I can believe.
@Michael John
The fact that they aren’t tells me that the Data MUST be more robust than I can believe.
Unless the data was “spoofed” there is no reason to doubt its integrity. The fact that the aircraft was not found in the initial priority search area has nothing to do with the data. It has everyhting to do with the assumptions made relative to the flight dynamics. The ISAT data alone is not capable of dtermining a terminal location.
@Michael John
“It would seem that Victor Ianello & Mike Exner have surfaced recently on the Veritas Facebook group & doing a grand job of tearing apart like pit bulls anyone who dares to question the SIO & ISAT Data.”
What is Veritas Facebook group? Do you have a link to the pages you are talking about?
@TBill
https://www.facebook.com/groups/951252171610482/permalink/1520527141349646/
It’s an public group. I think people forget that when they comment or post. So you don’t have to be a member to read the posts or comments. You will find Mike E & Victor I in that group & also commenting on the post above. (Maybe my pitbull comment was a bit over the top but it’s certainly like heavyweight boxers fighting featherweights).
@Michael John
(Maybe my pitbull comment was a bit over the top but it’s certainly like heavyweight boxers fighting featherweights).
Good analogy. The featerweights are just that.
DennisW said:
“@Michael John:
I have [no?] issue with skepticism if there is a basis for it.”
Are you saying there is no basis for scepticism of the interpretation or accuracy of the INMARSAT data?
“Unless the data was “spoofed” there is no reason to doubt its integrity.”
And you are absolutely sure it hasn’t been spoofed? How can you be that sure?
INMARSAT doubted (still doubt?) it themselves. Each statement they initially made was either preceded or succeeded by ‘… assuming the data hasn’t been hacked’ … ‘… assuming the data is correct’ and suchlike.
Yet now that very same data is treated by some like the Holy Grail and mustn’t be doubted. The most that is ‘allowed’ (by the people who have rapidly assumed the role of the high priests of the data) is to tweak it a little or ignore parts of it so that it ‘fits’ the latest theory.
Remember that the transmissions were sent in plaintext, not encrypted in any way. And that there was no reason INMARSAT servers had to be especially hardened against intrusion as – say – financial, government or military systems might be.
Despite the large number of military and other satellites in that area, strangely no other satellite ‘saw’ or recorded any data that supported or confirmed INMARSAT’s SIO findings.
“Good analogy. The featerweights are just that.”
That’s maybe because your so-called ‘featherweights’ currently lack knowledge and skills in this area. But having appropriate knowledge and skills doesn’t necessarily mean a person’s ideas and conclusions are right, even if they arrogantly promote and defend them as so.
==================================
Michael John said:
“I’m still intrigued by the whole ISAT Data gamble.”
No doubt there would be a lot of brownie points, extremely positive worldwide PR (and future contracts) if they found it, and they would have created an entry point into an industry that is already well established, with major players. No mean feat.
It will be interesting to see what restrictions the MYG has placed on the OI search that limits its effectiveness, OI’s choice of areas or sets a time limit. I would be surprised if OI is allowed to search wherever it wants for as long as it wants. It has been obvious from the start that while the MYG accept their obligation to provide a search, they drag their feet and dissemble on anything that might help the aircraft be found.
Perhaps one way for the MYG to set a time limit without specifying such would be to purposely delay the start of the search by prolonging the contract negotiations and then limit the agreement to 2018, or by adding (lengthy, delaying) sea trials. The former seems to be happening already.
==================================
Ge Rijn said:
“I’m not interested if Richard Branson is behind OI or who else.”
Perhaps you should be. As others have pointed out, this is a company that has come from nowhere into an already-established industry and its very first search is for a very contentious lost airframe, and necessarily working with a less than transparent government – a search that may lose it a large amount of money. Why take such an enormous risk ($millions?) for your very first job?
What is found or not found, and how whatever found is handled/disclosed, may depend on the intentions/affiliations/contractual agreements of whoever is doing the searching, or not.
“The fast majority of people is not ill-willed.”
The vast majority of people do not have the $millions needed nor the wish to mount a deep-sea search. OI is comprised of a very select and small group – actually a single individual – not the vast majority.
==================================
Ventus45 said:
“As for skepticism, a small dose, is sometimes a good immunisation, against gullibility (a failure of social intelligence, in which a person is easily tricked, or manipulated, into an ill-advised course of action).”
Well said. The information flow seems to have been carefully controlled from the start. Everything announced or theorised about this matter should be questioned carefully, especially when explanations are put forward supporting the official line by people who have some standing and thus a voice in the media, whilst those people at the same time ridicule and mock any alternative explanations and the people who propose them.
Taking sides and/or ignoring what doesn’t fit their current theory/explanation is confirmation bias (or a cover story, depending on intent) not science or truth.
@PS9
Well written. I look forward to reading any responses you get.
@PS9
And you are absolutely sure it hasn’t been spoofed? How can you be that sure?
I am not absolutely sure the data has not been spoofed. In fact, very early on I noted that the data would not be that difficult to spoof. It is also easy to turn off the SDU on MH370 (as suspected prior to 18:25) and substitute another SDU on another aircraft.
The SIO data on Shah’s simulator and the debris finds have pretty much eliminated the spoofing conjecture unless you want to sign up for planted simulator data and planted debris
with his computer having disks disconnected there could have been a virus acquired from his activities on flight simulator sharing boards. He chose something to try from this fs discussion board but was that download had virus embedded into it that disabled his FS but left behind the SIO data points. After the virus troubles, he disconnected the drives with the virus…
@MB:
“…He chose something to try from this fs discussion board but was that download had virus embedded into it that disabled his FS but left behind the SIO data points. After the virus troubles, he disconnected the drives with the virus…”
Not thought of that as a possibility. My goto explanation was that the flight sim data had been planted by the MSB (Malaysian Special Branch) or the FBI, who both had access to Z’s computer. The purpose of which to help confirm the bogus SIO plane crash.
This idea of your’s potentially opens up a completely new barrel of worms!
@boris – I suspect whoever was the actual perp chose Shah as their vector since he was active on some flight sim sharing board/site … once shah took the bait his fate was sealed as the scapegoat who hijacked mh370.
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/radio/local_sydney/audio/201712/pam-2017-12-30-mh370-angry.mp3
@DennisW
On Dec 27th you said:
“The fact that the aircraft was not found in the initial priority search area has nothing to do with the data.
It has everything to do with the assumptions made relative to the flight dynamics.
The ISAT data alone is not capable of determining a terminal location.”
That is one of the most profound things you or anyone else has said about why the aircraft has not been found.
It is the premise of all the research and documentation which I have prepared …which is mostly (as you said) that the ATSB/IG Assumptions of the Flight Dynamics was way off (and still is) from what actually occurred.
@Ventus45. Thanks. Lots of issues there.
DennisW said:
“I am not absolutely sure the data has not been spoofed. In fact, very early on I noted that the data would not be that difficult to spoof. It is also easy to turn off the SDU on MH370 (as suspected prior to 18:25) and substitute another SDU on another aircraft.”
You raise a very good point: the aircraft tracked into the SIO may not be MH370 but another (decoy) aircraft. If so, and if it crashed (and if arranged intentionally) no one would want the remains of that aircraft found, would they? Hence the search on the 7th arc (where the pings suggest) would have to come up empty.
Meanwhile, the real MH370 went wherever and for whatever reason (we can skip that for now). A little later, once done with, the real aircraft is sent off on autopilot for a long, slow descent into the SIO (with left bus still disabled) on 180M to produce the required wreckage on the seabed and the floating sections washing on beaches as ‘evidence’. Obviously, if this aircraft was ever to be ‘found’ the FDR must not be, or if so, must be ‘unreadable’.
This scenario could neatly explain why the real SDU was turned off at some point before 18.25: the perps couldn’t risk something like an incoming satphone call triggering an additional ping(s) from the real SDU when the aircraft would be somewhere it wasn’t supposed to be. It might also explain the ‘coincidence’ of the SDU magically reconnecting just as the aircraft left radar coverage. And although the decoy had the right AES/aircraft ID code, why it didn’t have the right flight ID set – something overlooked on the part of the perps, maybe.
“The SIO data on Shah’s simulator and the debris finds have pretty much eliminated the spoofing conjecture unless you want to sign up for planted simulator data and planted debris”
Not necessarily – in this scenario there’s no need for planted debris: the real MH370 aircraft creates it nicely.
And if this whole thing was a cover-up for an ’embarrassing’ and/or covert situation at country/state level (and that has happened before: see the Italian fiasco in 1980 where 81 innocent people died, otherwise known as Itavia flight 870 – the target being Gaddaffi and the cover-up being requested by NATO, according to the investigating judge) then state-planted sim data could be expected as a reinforcement to the soon-to-be-released-at-that-time sat data, especially since no other corroborating evidence was to be made available to support the sat data, apart from the cell mast registration to ‘prove’ the aircraft passed Penang at the time it was supposed to and was therefore roughly heading for where the sat data started.
The sim data would seem to be easy to install: simply change the date/time on the computer back to the target dates (c. 3rd Feb 2014?) and run the simulations and subsequent deletions and create the restore point, then maybe run a defrag pass to jumble and overwrite things a little. Data inserted. No evidence left behind.
The MYG being unwitting at the start, are then informed and from that point reluctantly play their role albeit in their own bumbling way, in confidence and as directed, but with a hint of: ‘This situation is not our fault or doing; history will show you that eventually when the truth comes to light’.
Which matches what Hishy has repeatedly said, more or less, in interviews after the event: c. “History will judge us well”.
And would explain why the MYG will not be suspicious of, or blame, any of the crew members.
And would explain how Najib knew when he stated the aircraft had been intentionally diverted.
Not saying any of this happened, just expanding on your conjecture.
Ocean Infinity
1w
Ocean Infinity has completed the factory acceptance test (FAT) on numbers 7 & 8 for their HUGIN AUVs. The two AUVs will be mobilized onto the multipurpose offshore vessel the Seabed Constructor, by the end of the year. The additional AUVs will continue to provide flexibility to Ocean Infinity’s fleet of autonomous vehicles with their modular design.
Topside equipment including dedicated servers for the cloud-based IT system which will accompany the AUVs will be housed in separate containers. The additional AUVs and two containers with each vehicle’s auxiliary equipment can easily and quickly be relocated as needed for different projects.
(Posted on OIs LinkedIn page 1 week ago).
@HD, I presume that neither you nor @DennisW has read the DSTG “Bayesian Analysis” paper. This explains how BTO data alone can be used to generate a probability map of the plane’s end point.
@Michael John
“…by the end of the year”. That’s about one hour away in Sydney, Australia.
Anyway Happy New Year to all the readers and contributors to this forum.
@Jeff
@HD, I presume that neither you nor @DennisW has read the DSTG “Bayesian Analysis” paper. This explains how BTO data alone can be used to generate a probability map of the plane’s end point.
Really? The DSTG approach relies heavily on flight dynamics assumptions. If only BTO data were available one could conclude the plane was in Kazakhstan.
@SteveBarratt
Yes. I believe that Seabed constructor is currently in port in Durban. I assume therefore that the last 2 AUVs (Basing my assumption on 8 AUVs being used & the article stating AUVs 7&8) that these will be the last to be passed for operation & therefore the new search for Mh370 will be able to commence soon.
Be interesting to see how well this new concept will actually perform in the real world….
Understanding the Burst Timing Offset (BTO) values:
The round trip time for a message is a combination of:
1. Time from the ground station → satellite → aircraft → satellite
2. Processing time within the ground station, satellite and aircraft terminal, which are constant
The BTO is a value (in microseconds) relative to a terminal at a nominal fixed location. Only R-Channel messages are used.
The BTO therefore allows determination of the distance between the satellite and the aircraft. It does not provide the actual aircraft location
(I believe that was in a report written by Don T)
So my intrigue lies in that the BTO is recorded in Microseconds. A Microsecond is a millionth of a second. With the BTO data ranging from around 10000 to 15000 Microseconds, 15000 microseconds is equivalent to 0.015 of a second. The final BTO measurement was around 18 & 23 thousand microseconds respectively.
So 0.015 seconds for an average return ping time. That covers thousands of miles of Ocean. So my whole point is that it wouldn’t take much of a delay in the ping return time to throw the whole calculations into disarray. How do we know that the final ping time of 18 & 23 are accurate? I’m satisfied these are the Times recorded but are they an accurate reflection on the aircraft’s true location? Of course unless the plane is located we will probably never know.
As a foot note to my last comment just to clarify that based on Don Ts report an Aircraft’s location can not be identified by BTOs however we know that the ARC can be. My query is in relation to ARC positioning rather than the actual aircraft location.
Whilst I acknowledge that based on the Data being correct then the ARCs are exactly where they currently are located. But because the SDU went off rather mysteriously & came back on even more mysteriously how can any one know that the SDU calibrated on reboot correctly or the timings are as accurate as they normally would be?
Dennis mentions that we have no reason to doubt the ISAT Data. I can partially agree. Based on the completion of a search along the whole 7th ARC in the Indian Ocean with a buffer zone allowing for potential glide or errors (Possibly an inconceivable area to search) although narrowing that area down through drift analysis is seemingly feasible. We have no way of knowing how accurate the assumtion of flawless data actually is (At least in relation to 9M-MRO).
@Michael John
Whatever about the Isat-data the latest drift-analysis clearly point to an origin of the found debris between ~30S and ~35S around the 7th arc which was determinated by the Inmarsat-data.
Both Inmarsat-data and drift-data don’t conflict eachother but rather well confirm eachother.
Ofcourse not all is settled yet and lots of questions remain.
But I would argue coming this close within ~5 degrees latitude is based on a lot of study, actual data and facts.
Not based on blowing smoke and reflecting mirrors on everything that has been discussed and settled recently or long time ago.
Your comments again don’t offer possible solutions only smoke and mirrors.
Trolling?
Ge Rijn
To suggest I’m a troll is probably as laughable as my own thoughts are to you. Whatever people may think of me I can assure all my intentions are not bad. I do not judge you so please can your opinion of me to yourself. Afterall it is the season of goodwill.
Whatever about the Isat-data the latest drift-analysis clearly point to an origin of the found debris between ~30S and ~35S around the 7th arc which was determinated by the Inmarsat-data: Not specifically. It is 1 of a few possibilities. What we are looking at is a “Best fit scenario”.
Both Inmarsat-data and drift-data don’t conflict eachother but rather well confirm eachother: Agree that the Drift Data does present a Best fit scenario in conjunction with the ISAT Data. This is the area I believe being proposed for the OI search.
But I would argue coming this close within ~5 degrees latitude is based on a lot of study, actual data and facys: Agree with everything but I wouldn’t call them facts just yet.
Your comments again don’t offer possible solutions only smoke and mirrors: No I don’t offer solutions. I offer alternative views. Doing this doesn’t make me a troll. Nor is it smoke & mirrors.
@Michael John
I agree. We only have so many things to work with. Combining them intelligently makes sense. That may not turn out to be correct, but it is our best course of action.
@DennisW
You remain consistent with both your intellectual and common sense contributions, always keeping your ego in check.
Happy New Year