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.
@Middleton
I understood what you meant. I was unusually terse in my reply. Drove from my beach house today (55F with a fire going) to my ranch (107F). House is now down to 85F after three hours of AC. Kinda makes a guy grumpy. Sorry about that.
I also thought the practice run was questionable for the same reasons you do. Then I thought about it some more and finally decided why he did it was not as relevant as the fact that he did do it.
Of course, I am sure there are a lot of folks here who think the FBI data is just another element in a continuing theme of deception.
There is nothing unusual about deleting files. We all do it routinely. That some files were deleted is not indicative of anything nefarious. Z was having a lot of problems with the sim computer crashing from 2013 on, which is probably why some NOK reported the system was broken. In a way, it was broken. But in fact, it was working with problems… crashing frequently. He was looking all over the web for solutions. He got frustrated and uninstalled the Sim Program in February 2014.
Anyone out there, a few questions on avionics. May sound silly but apologies in advance as its not my area of expertise. My primary source is this: http://www.davi.ws/avionics/TheAvionicsHandbook_Cap_11.pdf
1.is it possible for flaperons to deploy mid flight in bypass mode
Bypassed—In this mode, the actuator does not respond to commands from its ACE. The actuator is allowed to move freely, so that the redundant actuator(s) on a given surface may position the surface without any loss of authority, i.e., the actuator in the active mode does not have to overpower the bypassed actuator. This mode is present on the aileron, flaperon, and rudder
2. Can failure of one ACE actuate accidental deployment of flaperon without pilot noticing any loss of flight dynamics
“Likewise, there is fault tolerance in the ACE architecture. The flight control functions are distributed among the four ACEs such that a total failure of a single ACE will leave the major functionality of the system intact. A single actuator on several of the primary control surfaces may become inoperative due to this failure, and a certain number of spoiler symmetrical panel pairs will be lost. However, the pilot flying the airplane will notice little or no difference in handling characteristics with this failure. A total ACE failure of this nature will have much the same impact to the Primary Flight Control System as that of a hydraulic system failure.”
3. Can failure of force fight elimination result in unintended deployment of flaperons
Ref: 11.8.5 Actuator Force-Fight Elimination
If flaperon is unintentionally deployable in the scenarios above, can I safely postulate that debris analysis indicating glide would not necessarily imply deliberate action by pilot for it could also be due to avionic related failure.
Finally, if flight crew are disabled by hypoxia is there any possibility of flaperon deployment being auto activated by the system once fuel exhaustion or something similar is detected?
Thanking anyone in advance and apologies if they sound silly
To no one in particular, just reflecting… (that is what old people do a lot of)
I recall about a year ago visiting Stanford, and outlining the MH370 problem to Dr. Boyd (my own mentor, and the most brilliant guy I have ever met). It took him about five minutes to conclude that the problem was under-constrained. He told me that his personal ethic was to never get involved in under-constrained problems because it always leads to a pissing match.
I had no idea how prophetic his statement was.
@DennisW
Spot On!
We do know three things:
MH 370 took off
MH 370 turned off
MH 370 turned around
The Three T’s
Cheers TomL
By the way I’m on the wrong side of 75.
I can get real crabby too.
@Tom
I guess we are both in the PIP category – Previously Important Persons. I am OK with that. Life is fun, and this site is phenomenal in terms of the quality of input.
He was looking all over the web for solutions. He got frustrated and uninstalled the Sim Program in February 2014.
@airlandseaman, good to see you here and thanks for those 2 pieces of information. Nobody seems to have mentioned so far that the simulator was uninstalled before MH370 (though it could mean different thigs). And I have always wondered why there were never reports on what the Captain had been doing on his PC other than posting on Facebook.
I recall German police found many interesting things on Andreas Lubitz’ computer.
@Wazir Roslan
It may go for the flaperon for it has only two hydraulic actuators but not for the outboard flap, for this is actuated with rotary actuators.
So the outboard flap will stay in the position the way it was set if hydraulic or electric failure would occure (or after engines and APU shut down).
IMO this is why the found outboard flap section is so important;
If it can be proven the outboard flap seperated when deployed you have proof this flap was set in this position by human intervention.
Then you also have final proof the plane was actively piloted till the end.
And you’ll have proof of a glide and an attempt to ditch the plane.
@Susie. Agree with why isn’t the release of the manifest still a big issue?
@Trond. In this day and age of computer hackings, isn’t it possible to hack into the pilot’s simulator and add and remove data points just to frame him?
@PatM
Of course it is possible.
@Ge Rijn.
I think you were looking for previous pics of the flap carrier hole(s).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tdhuew608q57x5s/bawa25.jpg?dl=0
Fifth photo down of: http://www.jamiiforums.com/threads/bawa-kubwa-la-ndege-laokotwa-kisiwani-pemba.1070044/
Your video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/msXHjpt6WDo confirms 2, both irregularly shaped. The two smaller in the fifth photo down above and the other at the upper (as carried) web are not evident is this but there is a hole in the web above and to the rear of the two in the flange. Perpendicular to the others. Corrosion surely. I assume that the extent of it will be explicable. The Minister said “highly likely” it was from MH370. The ATSB Commissioner was quoted as saying it was “definitely” from a 777. I hope the ATSB report confirms the former or there will be speculation that it is from the Comoros 777, having been in a shed somewhere.
@ DrBobbyUlich. “ However, the ATSB has not searched all locations on the 7th Arc that can be reached using the auto-pilot and standard flight modes.”
Can you give an off the top of the head clue by how many miles the search along the arc would need to be extended for this?
@PatM, @Trond
In this day and age of computer hackings, everybody thinks that everything is possible, even complete nonsenses, the more as Hollywood teaches ppl that zooming of picture creates more mysterious pixels, etc… and real hacking is finally more about social engineering. If I can speculate, I wish we will have some good AI once, which will be able to mark any web page or oppinion as truth or lie instantly, based on unbiased research without human intervention; we have no time to wrestle with lies having serious things ahead…
@ROB
In your opinion the crash area still must be south of ~38S ~86E. Indeed far more west than 101E. But also far more south than 33S.
The plane would have arrived at 33S a ~half an hour earlier. With sunrise maybe starting there around ~that time of arrival?
@falken
He asked me a question and I answered it.
As for those Hollywood movie zooms is all about the number of the pixels stored. The higher the resolution the farther one can zoom in and still have very high quality.
Now to test your knowledge:
a) Is it possible to be given access to computers connected to the internet?
b) Did Hollywood movies get it all wrong about the possibility to be zooming in and still have good quality images?
Let me remind you the questions are about is it duable.
@David
Thank you for the pics but I then was actualy looking for a photo of an intact hinge that seems to show a hole in the same place. I posted it a few days ago. I’ll post it again for you. Zoom in a lot..:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/85cmm49xdebk4cp/outboardflap2.jpg?dl=0
IMO if those 2 holes are not pre-fabricated it must be some kind of corrosion as all the other half holes (on the vertical stringers) and material that is missing.
Small correction: the Comoros plane (Ethiopian flight 961) was a 767.
Rereading my post about zooming it comes as if it meant infinite zoom. That is of course wrong as pictures are 2d. What the light reflects are stored as digital pixels. The more pixels the better the quality.
@Falken. The question I raised was rhetorical. Of course computers can be hacked. You say ” we have no time to wrestle with lies and have serious things ahead”.
Let’s try to be a little more respectful of others, shall we.
Without raw data to evaluate you can not know whether a conclusion is true or not. Do we have access to the pilot’s computer? Have outside experts viewed the computer to reveal or exclude evidence of tampering? Yet we seem to be rushing to judgement. We don’t have the raw Inmarsat data. We don’t have any aircraft debris to carefully examine. We don’t have the full cargo manifest.
We don’t have the radar data to review.
If you are searching for truth, shouldn’t we have this information? Or rephrased, how can anyone claim to know the truth or come to confident conclusion without these points being answered?
@Brock
I get it now, the ‘math’ is the argument at the start of your post.
No – it was always clear that the ATSB search area was based around a loss of control (for whatever reason) at or around the 7th arc. The BEA study is widely used in the first report as an aim for the width of the search area (40nm minimum) and the report says “Also allowing for the fact that a maximum glide distance of 100+ NM would result in an impractically large search area…”. If you thought they were promising to search forever then you didn’t understand what was going on – people’s lives cannot be risked on a near endless search.
On a lighter not, I have seen large total budget numbers used to justify substantial expenditure on a particular favourite item, but not the World GDP. If we can all do that then a manned mission to Mars ($200 billion perhaps over 10 years) is a trivial 0.004% – let’s do it!
@Trond, @PatM
excuse me, my last words about AI was even more rhetorical; but its also completelly irrelevant if WE here have access to the raw data, as they are in hands of authorities in which its needed to believe and respect them, otherwise crazy and dangerous consipiracy theories are born; and if something is connected to internet it means nothing alone – there is no magic, only allowed tcp/ip ports and protocols on them, some open, some perfectly closed – whats problem are bugs, which can be (and was) sometimes unreported for quite long time to be misused silently (some of them can be even intentionally introduced); for example the heartbleed bug was fact, and it was disclosed back in april 2014 that some authorities had backdoor to SSL during 2 years or so… then, almost everything was possible, ya;
http://heartbleed.com/
There are reasons why in democratic countries the defense is permitted to review the evidence and have outside expert’s testimony. There are also reasons why in scientific journals raw data is presented in the ” results/data” section without just a discussion and conclusions section. Perhaps the courts and the scientific community are conspiracy theorists as well.
Meanwhile, another crash in the sea without a trace after several days: http://www.msn.com/en-in/news/newsindia/the-mystery-of-the-missing-antonov-32-hope-and-a-few-questions/ar-BBv2cHR
airlandseaman,
Thank you, a voice of reason. For two years we had “no red flags” from the FBI about the simulator findings. Now nearing a search endpoint we have the “get Shah” campaign reignited? Seems to me someone has some explaining to do? To me we need more info on the sim route findings before convicting.
@PatM
sure, I believe in real engineering, in real science and in real humans, but there is too many fakes these days too, and is it war
Susie Crowe,
Yes I remember reading all that you linked thank you. I recall Shah having said you must sacrifice in order to attain a desired result, but again he was referencing his DIY home improvements saying you must let workers in your home, eyeing your family, etc. in order to get the end result. But sacrificing 238 lives and his own, in order to get a better democracy, nah. The regime hasn’t changed, the country has been kept in the spotlight though, with the blame for the missing plane vacillating on Shah, off, then back on again. And he does say supporting candidates like Anwar Ibrahim would be the way to achieve democracy even if they “weren’t” the best candidate. Like the other 50% of Malaysians, all they want is a better life and a better voice in government. I don’t think they would kill/murder in support of such a candidate in order to achieve that goal.
As far as I have read there was only one report of one person claiming he was unstable or distressed or distant. His daughter refuted that early on. Ergo, the FI stating nothing unusual in his demeanor or ability to handle stress at work. No behavioral red flags.
GE Rijn
Well, we know the plane (apparently) ran out of fuel ⛽ close to the 7th arc, so if you are postulating it crossed the arc at S33, this crossing point would be at long E95.3, where the Sun had risen at about 23:30UTC (7th March) or about 25 minutes earlier than it did at long E89. The aircraft would also have been in sunlight for significantly longer during the closing stages of the flight, so that’s a no no, in my opinion. The plane had to cross the 7th arc at between E88.5 and E89, to meet the ditching at sunrise criterion.
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/07/30/mh370-wasnt-fbi-report-given-false-label/
Who is reporting untruthfully?
@David,
Starting with the assumption that the route flown after the FMT was by means of the final autopilot settings made before or at the FMT, I have been exploring all possible combinations of FMS speed control modes and lateral navigation modes to see which ones are feasible. By feasible I mean (a) the route must closely match the BTO and BFO data, (b) it must conform within a knot or so of the speed predicted by the speed mode (knowing the altitude, weight, temperature, and wind), (c) the course deviations along the route must be small (less than a degree), and (e) fuel exhaustion must occur at 00:17:29.
The speed modes I evaluated include Long-Range Cruise, Maximum-Range Cruise, ECON with a Cost Index = 52, Holding Long-Range Cruise, engine INOPerative long-range cruise, engine INOPerative Holding, constant Mach, and constant TAS. That is a total of eight possible speed modes!
For lateral navigation, the route could a Great Circle if flown to a far-south waypoint, or it could hold the TRACK or HEADING with a reference of either TRUE or MAGNETIC bearing. Thus the five possible horizontal (lateral) navigation modes are Great Circle, True Track, Magnetic Track, True Heading, or Magnetic Heading.
So I have a total of 8 X 5 = 40 autopilot modes to evaluate. It turns out that the endurance criterion is extremely helpful in winnowing down this rather large number of combinations of autopilot settings. I have improved my fuel consumption model to more accurately represent the B777-200ER configuration (thanks to Gysbreght for making helpful suggestions), and I have also provided for approximate changes in fuel flow during climbs and descents.
During the fitting process I adjust the Performance Degradation Allowance (PDA) parameter so that fuel exhaustion occurs at the right time. Expected values of PDA are about 1-4% with the larger values occurring for well-used engines. Negative PDAs mean the route does not reach the 7th Arc, and we can discard it as a possibility. This occurs for the INOP LRC case. For INOP Holding the PDAs are very much too large, and many of them are too slow to reach the 7th Arc, so we can also discard these cases.
The constant TAS and constant Mach routes are a bit harder to evaluate since we don’t an accurate means of modeling the fuel flow for these two cases. However, in every case I have looked at so far, the fits are better with LRC/ECON or Holding speed models. Therefore I have also rejected the constant Mach and constant TAS modes.
For the LRC and ECON with CI = 52 modes, the routes either have insufficient endurance (negative PDAs) or have excessive BFO errors. None of them appear to satisfy all the criteria.
We are left with only two possibilities for speed control that have sufficient endurance: MRC and Holding.
The Holding routes have more than enough fuel to reach the 7th Arc. With no significant climbs the PDAs are near 7%. In order to get down to an expected value of 3-4%, either a significant descent and then ascent must have occurred, burning an extra 2-3% of available fuel, or something occurred to the aircraft to create significant additional drag.
There are three satisfactory routes that end within (and near the center of) the current ATSB Search Area: one Great Circle at Holding, and one True Track each at Holding and at MRC. The MRC True Track route is problematic in that the PDA is positive but close to zero, so it does not match 9M-MRO’s engines.
There are also three Holding solutions for Magnetic Track, True Heading, and Magnetic Heading. These are the most interesting ones because they fall outside the ATSB Search Area to the northeast. It is unnecessary and inefficient to simply extend the ATSB Search Area to encompass these locations. They are reasonably precise and fixed locations, and a 40 NM square on each one should suffice.
The Magnetic Track route has the FMT just prior to and during the 18:40 phone call. The True Heading and Magnetic Heading routes have the FMT after the 18:40 phone call. A descent must be occurring at 18:40 in order to match the BFO then. It appears that a descent from FL360 down to FL100, followed by a simultaneous FMT and climb back to FL360 fits all the satellite data and gives a PDA of about 4%. For a number of reasons I won’t get into here the Magnetic Heading / Holding route is unlikely to be correct.
I am left with just two good candidates outside the current ATSB Search Area: a Magnetic Track / Holding route and a True Heading / Holding route. They are both near 34S. I will note that this area has previously been partially searched, perhaps from ~5 NM inside the 7th Arc to ~15 NM outside it. I also note that although the exact path during FMT is impossible to discern from the limited satellite data, it does appear that a passage north of NOPEK at a relatively low altitude could have occurred which might be consistent with Kate Tee’s sighting of a low-flying aircraft.
I am currently refining and checking my calculations. Perhaps if my route solution were to be verified by the ATSB and the SSWG, they might consider continuing the search at this specific location.
@ROB
I actualy meant the plane crossed the 7th arc at @Victorl’s point at 31.5S 97.6E and then glided towards the Dordrecht Hole at 33S 101E.
It would be reachable I think.
Offcourse the plane would not arrive earlier on the 7th arc at that point but the sunrise would be ~half an hour earlier there (I mixed those up).
Then you are right; the plane would be flying ~half an hour longer in early daylight.
@DrBobbyUlich: As far as I know, there is no Autopilot/Autothrust mode for constant TAS.
The primary radar evidence clearly shows that the autopilot was off after IGARI. There is no evidence that it was engaged later. Those data show the hands of a ham-fisted ‘pilot’ who evidently didn’t know how to use the autopilot.
The IG excuse is that B777 pilots normally fly by autopilot, but there is no evidence that a B777 pilot was at the controls after IGARI.
@DrBobbyUlich
In the MH370 case one has to handle the calculations as if the wheel was being externally controlled with steady mechanical movements. It was only during the climb at Igari human hands looked to be in control. Shortly after that and for the rest of the journey no hands steered the plane.
@Ge Rijn
I’m keeping well away from the Dortrecht Hole, whatever it is. Sounds like a place that’s home to those pesky UFOs, or perhaps the dreaded Kraken.
I think he found a place deep enough for his purposes, at about S39.3, E88.70, give and take, depending on the effects of the prevailing winds. .
@ROB
And to mention all longitudes west of 100E till 80E are in a time zone 2 hours earlier than Malysian time.
So the last ‘ping’ was there at 6:19.
Sunrise there in March between ~90E ~100E is between ~6:15 and ~6:30 (full sunrise, twighlight starts ~half an hour earlier).
So that makes not a lot of difference IMO concerning the flight time in daylight for both locations.
@ROB
You keep ignoring all the drift studies.
The plane did not fly south of 36S according to the most accurate ones.
I’m afraid you’ll keep ignoring this even if the plane is found north of 36S.
Than you will say it must be another plane?
😉
@ Rob and those discussing sunrise ditching
Ditching would have to rely on visual cues, thus good visibility is needed. What you would avoid by all means is heading to the sun during approach and landing due to blinding.
So you guys should consider the final landing being done on a heading from 150° to 030°. Best visibility for the final minutes would be with the rising sun from behind.
Not that I believe in a ditching at all though.
@DrBobbyUlich: Back in July 2014, I proposed a true track that goes BEDAX-180T, which would be identical to a GC route to the South Pole. The route requires a late turn or a loiter north of Sumatra. It crosses the 7th arc at 34.3S.
I was hopeful when GO Phoenix began to scan this area. I stopped proposing this solution when nothing was found, although the search was not nearly as wide at this latitude than more southern latitudes. Once the DSTG study was completed, the searching focused on locations further south. However, recent debris discoveries make this latitude, and ones further north, good candidates for extending the search.
If there was a cell connect near Penang (which I believe occurred), that would imply high speeds and low altitudes for at least part of the trip that was captured by radar. Depending on how long the plane was flown under these conditions, significant fuel might have been consumed, leaving less available fuel for the trip after 18:22.
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/07/30/mh370-wasnt-fbi-report-given-false-label/
Ben Sandilands piece shows how incredibly manipulative and dishonest the Malaysian government is. Unbelievable that they can get away with this. I’m just hoping more leaks occur, and international pressure forces them to hand over ALL the MH370 info they possess–not just what fits their schemes.
@RetiredF4
Yes that’s a good point. In the case of a ditching it would probably elimate headings too straight towards the sunrise (due east).
That could be usefull to eliminate certain ditch areas too I suppose.
And I assume the direction of the wind at the time in the area could have played an important role too in case of a glide and ditching attempt?
And why you don’t believe in a ditching attempt?
Not to argue, just curious for your opinion.
RetiredF4
Exactly right, you would need the Sun behind you. You would be gliding into the wind, and you would also want to note the direction of the swell.
The wind strength at the surface was 15kts in round figures, from the 240deg direction.
A tricky manoeuvre. RH wing caught the brunt of it, evidently, as the much-discussed debris suggests. I have to point this out, even though I know you don’t support the ditching idea 😉
@DrBobby: you are correct: if the 120k km2 search area is completed in November without finding anything, search leaders will have spent $180M and 32 months, and yet ruled out precisely ZERO of their own leading theories.
Had the search box been a “T”, they could have spent that time and money searching the IG-recommended 20nmi width from your original 40s up to 28s (where the IG is now claiming* the debris record supports), PLUS the original IG-recommended 200nmi length out to a width of 125nmi.
(* wrongly: the odds of the “Roy” piece getting from there to Klein Brak by Dec.23, 2015 – and of Australian shores remaining empty throughout 2014 – are both disturbingly low, according to all drift modelling I’ve researched. It is possible, of course – just a very, VERY poor place to search, if the debris record is being considered in isolation, without bias.)
The strategy employed seems more consistent with a plan to PRESERVE a mystery than to solve one.
@Richard: yes, let’s please add an order of magnitude to our global budget for space exploration, and spend it wherever the theoretical physicists suggest. Our advance as a society needs this pioneer spirit. Now, more than ever.
Let’s also – after suspending the search, stiffly auditing search leadership, and correcting its dysfunction (whether corruption or incompetence) – let’s please resume searching – this time ethically and efficiently.
Is there a map for everyone to look at with timelines from KL to the SIO?
@Gysbrecht:
The primary radar evidence clearly shows that the autopilot was off after IGARI. There is no evidence that it was engaged later. Those data show the hands of a ham-fisted ‘pilot’ who evidently didn’t know how to use the autopilot.
The IG excuse is that B777 pilots normally fly by autopilot, but there is no evidence that a B777 pilot was at the controls after IGARI.
It was clearly under autopilot, as it was navigating via waypoints, implying that the AP was in LNAV mode. I assume you are referring to the observed “wobble” of the radar pings about the average track; but that’s just the result that the angular resolution of primary radar isn’t as good as its range resolution.
@Trond
Yes. Wikipedia MH370 timeline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370
@Rob @RetiredF4
‘The wind at the surface was 15kts’.
That’s usefull information IMO.
It means there was not more then a breeze blowing. Meaning the ocean surface would have been rather flat and quiet.
Meaning the prevaling wind direction and wind force wouldn’t have a lot of effect on the gliding distance or direction, nore on the ditching itself IMO.
I also like to hear the opinion of @RetiredF4 on this.
You’re believing in your prejudice, ignoring the evidence, and clearly have a lot to learn about the way an airplane like the B777 is operated.
Despite heavy filtering and ‘smoothing’ of the raw radar data, the results shown in the DSTG report show variations of speed and heading that are incompatible with the airplane being controlled by the autopilot. Waypoints are displayed on the navigation display, and the airplane can easily be directed manually towards a waypoint, and from there to the next waypoint, without use of the autopilot. LNAV requires those waypoints to be entered in the active flight plan. When was that done?
How about that hazardous maneuver, euphemistically labelled “chandelle” and executed just for ‘fun’, involving speeds well below the stall speed?
@RetiredF4, @GeRijn, @ Rob:
Doesn’t the aeronautic night end 30mn before sunrise? If the pilot wanted to avoid being taken on satelit photo, then he would not wait until sunrise to ditch the plane, there is enough light just before, especially for a pilot accustomed at night vision the whole night. Or I miss something?
But with a 240° 15kt wind in the SIO I will rather land parallel to the swells…
@Gysbreght
“involving speeds well below the stall speed?”
As in crossing the border to the supernatural?
re: Clive Irvine
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/29/mh370-pilot-s-flight-to-nowhere-proves-nothing.html
Who is this Tom Clancy wannabe? He has been insisting on the “hero pilots struggling to control the aircraft” theory from the get-go. Hard to imagine that someone is actually paying him to write this garbage.
In regional (NorCal) news today, a far more representative example of an inflight emergency. One pilot aviating, navigation, AND communicating. Far more representative of a failure that was less than catastrophic. Can anyone picture two people furiously engaged in spinning knobs and tossing switches during the entire time it took to get from IGARI to the Strait of Malacca? Unbelievable for someone to suggest such a scenario, particularly in light of the sim data.
BTW, I knew two of the people who perished in the Reach incident.