In a posting to a section of its website called “Correcting the record,” the Australian Transport Safety Board today confirmed that the FBI found data on MH370 captain Zaharie Shah’s flight simulator hard drives indicating that Zaharie had practiced a one-way flight into the southern Indian Ocean, as I wrote in a story for New York magazine on Friday. Entitled “False and inaccurate media report on the search for MH370,” the post concerns several claims by Australian pilot Byron Bailey in The Australian, including Bailey’s interpretation of the flight-sim data:
Mr Bailey also claims that FBI data from MH370 captain’s home simulator shows that the captain plotted a course to the southern Indian Ocean and that it was a deliberate planned murder/suicide. There is no evidence to support this claim. As Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester said in a statement, the simulator information shows only the possibility of planning. It does not reveal what happened on the night of its disappearance nor where the aircraft is located. While the FBI data provides a piece of information, the best available evidence of the aircraft’s location is based on what we know from the last satellite communications with the aircraft. This is indeed the consensus of international satellite and aircraft specialists.
While ostensibly rebutting Bailey’s claims, the ATSB tacitly acknowledges the fact that the flight-sim data was in fact found by the FBI.
@Phil
Yes, I realize there are kinks in the generally Westward flight path, but the angles are very small. The effect of the non-westward components of the path are negligible relative to my remarks on the ground speed.
“Virtually straight West” is a valid descriptor.
The cosine of a 10 degree angle is 0.985. You gonna quibble about 1.5%? Even at 20 degrees you are looking at a 6% difference. The best estimate I have of the kink angles is around 13 degrees (from the radar data). That would amount to about 2.5% difference in the distance traveled relative to a straight line.
@Phil
Nice to talk to you again, Phil.
There are lies, dam lies, and statistics.
@Phil
“could be a few degrees”
You realize that one degree is about 70 miles on the surface of the earth. A few degrees (more than two) is at least 200 miles. My own guess is we are looking at over 1000 miles.
Bottom line is that the ATSB bozos should never have started an underwater search based on the data they had. I am including that data they had that we did not have (the sim findings). It was purely a “feel good” activity, and a huge waste of taxpayer money.
No one will get a resume stain as a result either. The Nuremberg defense – “we were only searching where the experts told us to search” will save the day.
@Warren Platts
“The assumption–and that’s what it is, admittedly–that the goal was to disappear is of a piece with the demonstrated avoidance behavior before the FMT: the cutting off of radio communications, refusal to answer the satellite phone, flying along FIR boundaries, major change of course to avoid overlying Indonesia.”
If you want to hide from radar it doesn’t mean you want to disappear forever, otherwise we would have helluva lot of B2s and F117s unaccounted for.
@ROB
your view of human psychology is ridiculous at best, while I don’t doubt you are a good person without bad intents I would still skip the flight you would be piloting 🙂
Some excellent points, sadly ignored in the present discussion.
@Gysbreght
I said it before also, so I agree completely with MPat and you.
Still no other data and information is released by Jeff Wise or anyone else.
In this way the data given has no substans in solving the case IMO. It only spreads more confusion and uncertainty.
It’s about time IMO Jeff Wise stops covering his source and reveiles all the data for the cause of resolving this mystery and the responsabilty to NOK.
@Dennis
Thanks for clarifying.
Am I getting this right… when referring to “virtually due west”, a few degrees is trivial… but when referring to the search zone, a few degrees is obviously a lot?
Again, to the casual observer, the phrase “virtually due west” conjures a straight line with no turns (i.e. one that passes 100 miles north of Penang).
The reason I’m being pedantic is that I’ve seen those who would like to ignore the radar data erroneously seize upon that phrase to imply that the radar data could not be real, when in fact, it is consistent with the Inmarsat data.
Why not be more precise in your language, is all… if it ended up at Christmas Island, would you say it flew “virtually due south”? 🙂
@DennisW
A lack of experiance in problem solving is less of a handicap than having a lot of experiance with ‘knowing it all’ without solving any problem 😉
@ROB
Nice talking to you too.
Ever play poker? You can be a 95% favourite to win a hand, but there are times you still lose (sadly, it seems more often than 1 in 20 in my experience).
Again, words matter… the fact that it hasn’t been found in the priority search zone does not “disprove” the analysis.
@Phil
It is a matter of scale. One degree using the radius of the earth (say 4000 miles for talking purposes) amounts to an arc distance of 69.8 miles. 70 miles is a relatively big number when you traversing it with an acoustic tow vehicle.
One degree over 700 miles (approximate distance from IGARI to FMT) is about 13 miles. 13 miles is trivial when you are traversing it with a 777.
As far as CI is concerned, my published flight path goes initially due South (like everyone else’s) and then mostly East (115 degrees or so – due East being 90 degrees).
@Dennis
I understand degrees.
“Virtually due west” (i.e. bearing 270) = Hat Yai
“Radar path” (i.e. bearing 244) = Penang
Difference = 100 miles.
I’m merely saying your choice of words is easily misconstrued by those less versed in degrees and matters of scale as yourself. Feel free to continue saying it, however… just be aware that you are fueling those who think the radar path implies impossible speeds.
@Phil
No Phil, I don’t play poker. I do buy a national lottery a couple of times a week, and each time I do, I hope to win a lot of money. Statistically, the chances of winning the jackpot are something like 14 million to 1, against. Mugs game, but hope springs eternal.
Thank you for inserting a touch of realism into the conversation.
@ROB
And yet someone does, in fact, win nearly every time.
Stevan@
Thank you for the kind words. I wouldn’t blame you for wanting to skip the flight I was piloting. Any sane person want to do the same.
@Phil
Fair enough, and I take your point here. I’m letting you have the last word, as a gesture of goodwill. I better stop now for the night, while I’m still ahead 🙂
@Phil
Well, I am guilty of confusing things by being too simplistic.
I get the same distance as you do (actually a little greater at 112miles). However, construct a right triangle using the distance from IGARI to Penang (~266 miles) as the hypotenuse and the ~112 miles as the edge straight North to a point directly West of IGARI. Now ask the question what is the length of the path from IGARI to the point 112 miles above Penang we get D = sqrt(266^2 -112^2) = 241miles.
So your ~112 miles is just fine, but the actual path difference to create that ~112 miles is much less than that. The path length from IGARI to Penang is about 266 miles. The path length from IGARI to a point 112 miles North of Penang is 241 miles. 266 – 241 = 25 miles.
My guilt was to lead you to believe the path difference was the path distance to Penang plus the arc distance you calculated. The plane would never fly that path, but would fly both paths directly. The direct path difference being about 25 miles.
The logic would apply for the path from Penang to the FMT following the radar track from Butterworth.
Another error I made in my original description had to do with the angle size. Your headings are good. The headings I used were for my own path which crossed the Malay Peninsula above Penang not following the radar track. I was careless pulling them off Google Earth.
Bottom line is that your number is correct the way I posed the problem. The way I posed the problem was simplistic and not correct. Sorry about that.
BTW the ~70 miles per degree of lat/lon is correct.
”It’s about time IMO Jeff Wise stops covering his source and reveiles all the data for the cause of resolving this mystery and the responsabilty to NOK.”
What ”all data” ? There is just this simulator information. Thats it. Jeff Wise has no access to the real information needed to solve this mystery.
I apologize in advance for going off topic.
Perhaps the greatest flaw of human nature is paying attention to details that support an opinion
while ignoring those that don’t. In a courtroom it may be referred as “out of context”.
What makes this so detrimental is the guise of truth, as it is not dishonest to construe things.
I can tell you my neighbor used his car to try and run someone off the road. He saw a coyote directly behind a pedestrian who would have been maliciously attacked, if not hit by the car. If you disliked my neighbor, or had small children living nearby, you would probably chose to focus on the lack of safety, you may think of words like idiot and jackass and how the driver potentially exposed the walker or others nearby, to serious injury or death. You would probably also pay less attention to the details of distance or timing surrounding the driver’s decision. On the other hand, if you liked my neighbor and or the walker, words like hero or courageous may be used and details of the timing, and distance would be an important part of validating the decision of the driver.
Objectivity is golden, yet it is not coveted for it’s power or nurtured for it’s growth.
Lack of objectivity is an inherent flaw, but if recognized, it may be the greatest gift we can give ourselves and others.
This flaw is present in almost all of us, almost all the time and the reason we have partisanship and prejudice. It is impossible to be uninfluenced by our experiences in life, but an absolute necessity to honor this inability when forming our opinions.
Only when we acknowledge, the potential of our opinion being based on what we want it to be, do we understand and allow the adjustments to see things fairly.
@ Suzie C,
Very nice OT piece Suzie. Most people posting here ought to take heed. By standing back and observing it is easy to see how opinions and speculation translate into supposed “fact”.
The media are having an absolute field day on the SIM data points, based on what ? Speculation and embellishment is rife. Let the real facts speak for themselves. 6 or so data points in a saved computer file [not necessarily deliberately saved even . . ]. It is very hard to attach any real significance to them, and they do not help identify the end point. It is even speculation to suggest that they display motive.
Some objectivity would be useful here.
@Susie Crowe & @Brian Anderson
Well said. Put another way… beware of confirmation bias.
@all
Just came on my news feed. All thats bad about Malaysia.
I have a feeling that this might, just might tie in to the MH370 story.
The 1MDB financial story.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/28/1mdb-inside-story-worlds-biggest-financial-scandal-malaysia?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
I also took another look at the 4 corners interview with H.
His body language at about 9:28 in regarding the question about shooting the plane down, H says”The Americans would” with a rapid glance off camera to somebody or ‘thing’.Extraordinary.
Cheer Tom L
Well said and spot on @Susie Crowe but if I may add,objectivity is also fully realised when all facts /data are made available and thus by default assist to render any obtuse subjective interpretation as absurd.
By the way, if I may, any chance you may be related to Martin Crowe from New Zealand the epitome gentleman cricketer and a very erudite individual to boot.
@ rob
Don’t think @Alsm will be getting chummy anytime soon 😀
Seriously though, the ATSB chose to view the data that way probably because they have access to other stuff that we don’t. Probably they triangulated all those stuff to arrive at that outcome. Perhaps they have ancillary stuff to validate that ‘suspect 00.19 BFO’ as @dennisW and many others put it. For now they are sticking to their guns for those reasons they are privy too and I definitely don’t think @Alsm arm twisted them into it 😀
I may not have the highest regard for the ATSB but I guess I am viewing it from an “uniformed” perspective. As much as I have reservations for the ISAT data set due to several factors, I would consider any acceptance of it should be whole not partial. I guess some others here may not agree with that stance.
By the way, I empathise with @jeff for the flak he is getting over the latest revelation. I sense he is just reporting it as it is without fudging the details. I doubt he is hiding anything or has anything to hide for that matter. Even if he has, ethics dictate that he awaits the green light before putting it out. That’s far better than divulging everything only to have them rescinded in future.
@Paul Smithson. Part flap.
“.. the condition… is entirely consistent with corrosion during extended immersion and coming ashore on rocky shores..”
I would see the coral abrading protective coating in some spots and some localised electrolytic corrosion but the bulk the corrosion being inter-granular. The material for this is the key. Boeing indicates that magnesium alloys were not used on this aircraft but there has been some criticism of the continuing use of stress corrosion prone alloys by manufacturers.
By the way, vulnerability to ‘electrolytic corrosion’ (an inept name since it embraces most) is increased by the conductivity of graphite fibres (vis a vis glass) though again I would expect to find this worst close to the join at the skin.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_07/corrosn.html
http://corrosionda.com/pdf/aircraft.pdf
The forensics of corrosion rate and extent, with flaperon and flap fracture and impact analysis, can help with whether this was a ditching or not (I for one am open though inclined by the current high-speed evidence) and hence search width.
To me the satellite data are near as dammit certain and it is their interpretation which needs scrutiny.
These are higher priorities than chasing whodunnits and giving weight to arguable data drift probabilities.
@Brian
I agree with you, and I said as much earlier concerning motive. There is really not much we can say about that. However, the sim data’s true value lies in what it rules out, and what we are left with. In particular what is ruled out:
1> Hijacking by a third party
Shah intended to fly South and that intention is catalogued by the sim data.
2> Mechanical failure or other malfunction (i.e. battery fire)
The premeditated intent eliminates that.
3> Spoofing of any form
See 2> above.
We are left with the fact that Shah intended to fly South at the approximate location of what we have been calling the FMT. We can only guess as to why, but I see only two possibilities. If someone can suggest another, I would love to hear it.
1> suicide and mass murder
2> safely landing somewhere
Those two possibilities I think span the space of all possibilities.
Take your pick, but this (I think) is what you are left with given that we have two reliable sources we know and respect here who claim the sim data is real and authentic. The ATSB is not denying it. The FBI is not denying it. My sense is that it is what it is claimed to be – Shah diverted the plane to the South for an unknown reason.
So take your pick from the above reasons and circle your wagons.
@DennisW. Why would he need to use his simulator to explore or practice? He knows the way up the Strait and what does he gain by the long simulated trip south?
@ DennisW,
“Shah intended to fly South and that intention is catalogued by the sim data”
Nope. Not objective. What might or might not have been intended is pure speculation.
6 data points only does not suggest “practice” either. Perhaps the FSX play was actually looking to fly the aircraft to McMurdo [just out of curiosity] but happened to run out of fuel before getting there.
2brian Anderson. “..but happened to run out of fuel before getting there.”
In that case he did need the practice
@Brian Anderson. “..but happened to run out of fuel before getting there”.
In that case he did need the practice..
I think it is pretty clear that ATSB have ‘done’ flight-mode modelling as the method of positioning MH370. Alternative and speculative ideas of its flying in this way or in that way are not going to lead to any more searching.
The challenge to the drift modelling (which is independent of flight modes, of course) in determining the aircraft position is to reduce the arc length of the predicted impact zone. The recent paper by Jansen et al adds a completely new length of 700km to the search (north of 33S), which would require a search of 110000q.km. to cover to the same width as achieved as the current search, or 60000sq.km. if a more modest +/-20nm width is selected. Both widths are a long way short of a controlled glide distance. In either case it would take more than a year to carry out the search – the price can be guessed. It’s hard to see the drift modelling leading to a statistically significant search area of any reasonable size, but I could be wrong.
The ‘McMurdo option’ (with fuel exhaustion on the 7th arc) is the best (not quite the right word) idea to date that might give a searchable-sized area. But it could not be defended in front of any review committee.
The Australian analysis of the Tanzanian flap debris piece may be key. If that indicates a slow-speed impact (and hence a controlled glide) then the official search could be over. The required search width with respect to the 7th arc would give an impossible size area, with almost any along-the-arc positioning method.
@Richard Cole
“The Australian analysis of the Tanzanian flap debris piece may be key. If that indicates a slow-speed”
Did they ever confirm it being from MH370?
Tanzanian part is from MH370.
Investigations continue:
http://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/chester/releases/2016/July/dc081_2016.aspx
He does not confirm it is the inboard end of the right outer flap, or any of that.
@David
The article states likely. So it is still not confirmed.
@Brian Anderson. “..but happened to run out of fuel before getting there”.
And he would have ran out of fuel twice within a month! Practise is supposed to make perfect…
@DennisW
Re: “2> safely landing somewhere”
2a. he reached his destination
2b. he didn’t
If “A”, then why are we finding debris now?
If “B”, how come an experienced pilot doesn’t reach his destination?
@all
Expanding on DennisW idea of reaching a destination. There seems to be some evidence that the plane was “avoiding” being detected (sudden turn, drop of altitude, transponder off, satcom on/off).
How do we know that the plane didn’t embark enough fuel to reach this hypothetical destination, and wasn’t just merely mimicking fuel exhaustion at 00:19 (the practise on simulator would have been to test when he should simulate that fuel exhaustion – what would be extremely important then is to know if the fuel in simulator is the same as the “official” fuel the day MH370 disappeared) .
If it’s hypothetical destination was somewhere in Australia, we wouldn’t know if it landed there safely, because the defence department now kindly told us they weren’t capable of detecting it…
But then why the debris?
@ sinux, … And he would have ran out of fuel twice within a month! …
As well as practicing running out of fuel, he was also interested in jettisoning fuel.
zaharie shah2 years ago
being a fan of MFS since the first version and a boeing 777 pilot all at once, , I hv yet to see a good addon as the PSS boeing777 which was release many years ago. Unfortunately its for FS9. I m still holding on to it awaits the same author rebirth. VC is crap, serious enthusiast would go for multi screens , technology is cheaper now. Some of the coolest funtionality on PSS 777, fuel trail on fuel jettision ! Comprehensive support nav data base by third party. ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCL5gLw_2Nw
Given his published enthusiasm for dumping fuel perhaps that needs to be added to the list of the various improbable probabilities? 🙂
sorry guys, I must; RT feat NK at war with US… good morning
https://www.rt.com/usa/353811-north-korean-accuses-us-war/
@Trond. “The article states likely. So it is still not confirmed.”
Fair comment. Previous phrasing for two items has been “almost certainly”. I do not recall the flaperon description.
Always possible it was a plant.
I recall the story of the Rolls Royce car pre-war salesman. There was a hole in front designed for a starting handle. Whats that for asked the customer? I assumed your engines would start?
“That”, said the salesman, “is there for the same reason that men have nipples…..in case they have a baby.”
Old, but may be appropriate.
I guess if we accept @richard Cole as the quasi-ATSB voice, the outcome is inevitable. And what is that outcome? My guess is that the ATSB is exploring the alternative of glide and ditch as backup. If that pans out by way of the Pemba debris analysis, it would tally with the notion of pilot control and by implication, the FS revelation = suicide+ mass murder. Case closed with no wreckage found.
But the default theory is still high impact entry as per @alsm, problem is, even that has not yielded any wreckage. But ironically if Pemba yields no glide, high impact is trotted out and whatever that’s been recovered thus far would be used as the basis for concluding that the plane crashed at high impact into the SIO, end of the story again.
Whichever way it pans out now, one thing is certain MH 370 would remain an enigma but then it has 77 other enigmas for company. And yes, humbling that in this age of tech wizardry that planes can still go missing as #*^% does happen!
Moving away from all that , have to pay tribute to @jeff for last August he did mention that MH370 would never be found in the current search zone and holy cow! that’s almost a certainty now! So kudos to him for being the prescient one here.
And looking back on this saga, I would say he did a great job with this article in Slate that piqued my interest and I guess that of many as well :
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/inmarsat_releases_data_showing_mh370_definitely_went_south.html
Thanks @ jeff though the Huffington post of Kazakhstan was equally good albeit a tad too imaginative 😀
Definitely no red carpet for you at the Kremlin unlike one for Snowden 😀
@all
Whilst still besotted with my theory of missile strike either in the SCS or over the Java Sea given ample direct and circumstantial evidence ( but I won’t flog it here), allow me to provide a balanced take of the pilot regarding the FS thingy.
Exonerating:
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/did-mh370-pilot-captain-zaharie-ahmad-shah-try-to-save-the-plane/news-story/17dbc50e70709e05035c44bbb2ea2e73
Culpable:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/flight-370-pilot-friend-shouldn-flying-article-1.1734998
Those were from the early days of MH 370 of which there are many but already back then the FS was in view even to the extent as to exactly when the incriminating file was deleted ( Feb 3 , 2014)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/03/19/could-a-flight-simulator-really-hold-the-key-to-finding-mh370/
But I guess all that is water under the bridge now especially when this case is drawing to a predictable anti climax. …..
Have a great day ahead folks and fly safe
@Wazir, Thanks for the kudos regarding my earlier explanation of why the plane would not be found in the current search area. However I feel that, given your several recent comments about my “flight of fancy,” I need to set the record straight regarding Kazakhstan. It is a fairly straightforward matter, based on the Inmarsat data, that if MH370 did not go into the southern Indian Ocean then it went north to Kazakhstan. The flight-sim data and the dozen or so pieces of 777 debris are strong pieces of evidence that the plane did indeed go into the southern Indian Ocean, but both have their problems, too, as I and others have discussed at length here.
Your idea about a shootdown over the South China Sea, on the other hand, has no evidence either direct or circumstantial, and no sincere and rational person with even a passing understanding of the facts would give it a second thought. It is pure trollery. I’m not stating this as an invitation to start a debate on the topic; it is a settled matter and I’d ask you not to bring up the subject any more.
Some news on the outboard flap. They are trying to sort out if it was extended or retrackted when it seperated (offcourse..).
I hope they find out and report on it soon.
It will be key-information.
When proven extended this will be evidence of a piloted flight till the end, a glide and at least an attempted ditch IMO.
At the moment it feels there’s been reached a kind of ‘dead end’ to me.
Hopefully the outboard flap piece forces some kind of breakthrough.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/wing-part-may-hold-crucial-clues-as-to-mh370s-final-moment/news-story/4c2f48e48c3c22146ff3cc1d97ed2b40
I think the Datapoints 5 & 6, stored over the SIO, are not connected to each other decribing the same flight maneuver.
On Datapoint 5, we can see a recorded altitude of 37651ft. On Datapoint 6, we can see a recorded altidude of 3999ft.
The distance measured between Datapoints 5 & 6 is 6.08 km. That results in an descent, or nosedive, of 33652ft over a distance of 6.08 km but the 6th Datapoint shows an altidude of 3999ft. It´s impossible to hit the “Save”-Button just in time during this nosedive when the virtual aircraft reached 3999ft. This last altidude on Datapoint 6 is “to smooth” to be just a coincidence.
It makes more sense if the following procedure were executed in FSX :
1.Step : Hit “Save” for the 5th Datapoint – Altidude 37651ft. Assuming the nosedive was underway out of 38000ft.
2.Step : Proceed that maneuver for a few seconds
3.Step : Hit “Save” one more time and enter the new altidude of 4000ft (which is stored as 3999ft for whatever reason). The descent now starts out of 3999ft.
From my point of view, it looks like that the Cpt. of MH370 aborted the descent or nosedive between Datapoints 5 & 6. He probably didn´t watched this nosedive all the way to the bottom and skipped 33652ft of this nosedive for whatever reason.
BTW :
One single Datapoint in FSX is stored in 4 files (User folder). For this 6 Datapoints in question, the FBI restored 24 files (~1000kb)
Interesting link snowing a table of hypoxia loss of consciousness at certain altitudes.
http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/aeromedical/decompressionandhypoxia.php
Point no. 6 is “missing” (withheld), so you must be talking of points 4 and 5. Most of the information on these points is withheld, f.e. the timing of each point, so anything could have happened between those points. Point no. 6 could be back in Kuala Lumpur within the tidbits of information provided.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/amp/articles/25933/20160728/new-study-reveals-where-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh370-could-be-found.htm I’ve been closet following this blog and this is very interesting read.
Tyreen,that is exciting indeed. I stumbled across the same paper (published July 27, 2016) from a different reference. The paper can be downloaded at http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/16/1623/2016/nhess-16-1623-2016-discussion.html
Most interesting Facts: 1. the drift models used explain why no debris has been found in Australia 2. the results also point to a slightly northern final resting point an 3. the main idea is to extend search on the African coasts to find more debris and run more refined drift models (cheap) in order to nail down a sufficiently small new area for a second Phase of underwater search.
@Gysbreght :
Point no. 6 is “missing” (withheld), so you must be talking of points 4 and 5. Most of the information on these points is withheld, f.e. the timing of each point, so anything could have happened between those points. Point no. 6 could be back in Kuala Lumpur within the tidbits of information provided.
No, i´m talking about Datapoints 5 & 6 because Jeff made it clear a few days ago that the “missing” datapoint is on a straight line between the first 3 datapoints before the turn to south.
Maybe one of the simpoints go very far away from the others. What else is there to hide?
@LouVilla: “the “missing” datapoint is on a straight line between the first 3 datapoints before the turn to south.” Kuala Lumpur is on that straight line. Can you think of another reason that it would be withheld?
@LouBilla: We’ve not been given anything that connects those points. Only suggestive text and graphic, and the promising “More to come. Watch this space.” Frankly, I’m tired to be footled by our eloquent gracious host.
I think it has already been mentioned by someone in the discussion on the last article that a likely reason to withhold the point would be very unusual altitude. This is even more likely as it was easily disclosed that the point lies on the straight line from KL to Nicobar Islands. Thus,
@Brian
you said:
“Nope. Not objective. What might or might not have been intended is pure speculation.
6 data points only does not suggest “practice” either. Perhaps the FSX play was actually looking to fly the aircraft to McMurdo [just out of curiosity] but happened to run out of fuel before getting there.”
Brian, that is so lame. Why would Shah chose to fly that route as a deviation from a route that he would normally use to fly to Europe? Why not fly it directly from KL?
I don’t understand why the IG is not embracing the sim data with enthusiasm. After all, it supports what you have been saying from the get-go, and it is actual data not some assumptions (however plausible those assumption might be) relative to flight dynamics which lead the IG to stick pins in a map at 38S.