Last month, I published an article in New York magazine about a secret Malaysian police report which included details of a simulated flight into the southern Indian Ocean. As Victor Iannello revealed in a comment earlier today, that information came from French journalist Florence de Changy, who had come into possession of the full police report but only shared a portion of it with me.
I have not seen the full report, but would very much like to, because I would like to form my own judgement of what they mean, and I think everyone who is interested in trying to figure out what happened to the missing plane, including the next of kin, are entitled to the same. Some people who have read the full reports have suggested that they give the impression that the recovered simulator files do not in context seem all that incriminating. Other people who have seen the full report have told me that the report contains material that makes it hard to doubt that Zaharie is the culprit. Of course, it’s impossible to rely on someone else’s say-so. We need to see the full report.
The reason I am writing this post now is that earlier today Florence published an article in Le Monde in which she describes having the full report as well as another, 65-page secret document on the same topic. Meanwhile, another French newspaper, Liberation, has also published an article indicating that they, too, have a copy of the report. And private correspondence between myself and a producer at the television network “France 2” indicates that he has as well.
Meanwhile, I know that independent investigators here in the US have the documents as well.
At this point, the secret documents are not very secret. Someone within the investigation has been leaking them like crazy, obviously with the intention that their contents reach the public. My understanding is that this source has placed no restrictions on their use. So journalists and independent investigators who have copies of these documents need to do their duty and release them — somehow, anyhow. Some people that I’ve begged and implored to do so have said that they fear legal ramifiations. Well, if it’s illegal for you to have these documents, then you’ve already broken the law. Use Wikileaks or another similar service to unburden yourself.
Free the data!
UPDATE 8/14/16: Apparently Blaine Alan Gibson has the document, too, according to a rant he post on Facebook. He reveals that the entire set of documents is 1,000 pages long.
And as I believe Captain Shah will have to be prepared to take some blows and bruises from captaining MAS’s disappeared airliner, I can’t say I am regretting what is happening per se. There will be “a lot of smoke blowing out of” a lot of people (paraphrasing DennisW memorable words above) but that is happening all the time anyway.
@Johan
You could make the same argument relative to the Inmarsat data. The most common interpretation, and the one used in California is as follows:
“Specified facts from investigatory or security records, without disclosure of the records themselves, must be disclosed unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion of an investigation, or related investigation, or endanger a person involved in the investigation.”
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 6254(f)(1), (f)(2) and (f)(3).
I doubt the simulator data or other data in the Malaysian Police Report meets the criteria for non-disclosure. Of course, this is a gray area, and there is lot of room for interpretation. Needless to say, it is an ongoing point of concern that does not get as much attention as it should. Frequently, information is released at the discretion of a public information officer, who is forced to make decisions that are often well above his pay grade.
@Jeff Wise
Blaine Gibson’s article mentions 7 data points instead of the 6 you could present.
Have you any notice of this 7th point?
@Nederland
“If, on the other hand, the aircraft was heading to, say, Cocos or Christmas islands, and a ghost flight commenced before it reached its target, this does not seem to match the Isat data as such a northeasterly direction (so far as I know) would indicate a curved path (indicating controlled flight) up until close to fuel exhaustion. This is how I understand, for example, Jeff’s earlier post.”
actually there is a very good reason why Z would want to fly the curved path to CI (which fits ISAT data perfectly), that’s because 777 (as any other civilian plane) doesn’t have an air search radar(except transponder based TCAS which is not the real radar anyway) and he couldn’t make sure if they are after him or not, so he could go around to minimise chances of interception (which would be consistent with his actions before FMT), remember that fighter planes have very limited fuel range especially when they are on afterburner
then again I don’t claim that’s what happened but it would fit ISAT data, it would correlate well with his actions before FMT and it would perfectly fit independent drift theories
all that is needed is an assumption that something unplanned happened on flight which is supported by SATCOM reset at 18:28
but how to kick insane decompression/murder/suicide theories out of crazy ATSB/IG heads and bring them back to reality?!
@Ge Rijn, RE Yr post of 7:46 AM:
Your description of Lorry A and Lorry B is correct.
I’m not sure about your description of Lorry C. Lorry C is going downhill at constant speed. There is equilibrium of forces, the lorry is not accelerating. The only acceleration acting on the fluid in the lorry is the acceleration of gravity. Therefore the surface of the fluid is level with the horizontal plane, perpendicular to gravity, as shown in the graph, and stays so until the balance of forces is disturbed. Talking about fuel movement is ambiguous. Fuel moves only transiently. After it has moved, its surface is as shown schematically in the graph.
Lorry D is accelerating, so the fuel moves rearwards until its surface is perpendicular to the direction of the sum of the accelerations of vehicle and gravity.
@Gysbreght
With lorry C I mean exactly the same.
And lorry D also I assume. What I mean to say is that in lorry B and lorry D inertia of the fuel is in play which overcomes the force of gravity then.
@Ge Rijn
Gysbreght’s statement that the surface of the fuel is perpendicular to the sum (vector sum implied) of all the accelerations acting on it is correct. Introducing lorries and ramps and drag and thrust while they may be useful for visualization purposes sometimes obscures the physics which is actually very simple.
@DennisW: Perhaps you can explain the “very simple” physics to David better than I did.
@DennisW: Perhaps you can explain these very simple physics to David better than I did?
@Ge Rijn, You’ll recall that the two sets of data I published did not match up perfectly, so that each had six data points, but there were seven altogether, meaning that each had a unique data point and the rest were in common. Perhaps that’s why.
@DennisW:
Unless you show me otherwise I will assume the “non-disclosure” refers to the prosecution and the compiled investigator’s protocol that will be made public with the prosecution. Data may be withheld there too. I am not completely sure, without going desperata, but I would guess police will not be obliged to disclose much (if they don’t want to) before the case reaches prosecution. I will be glad to be corrected.
Comments and questions r.e. Blaine Gibson article, “Setting the Record Straight”
1. “The leaked simulator document reported by New York Magazine is NOT an FBI document as the article claims.”
I am unable to find where The NYM article makes such a claim. It refers to a “confidential document” as coming “from the Malaysian Police Investigation”, and describes how the FBI was provided the hard drives and found 6 deleted data points, but how the FBI analysis is incorporated into the document is not described. It would help if someone could clarify. (Also, as Blaine makes clear later, one should not call it the “simulator document” since the simulator analysis is just one part of a 1000 page report.)
2. “There are thousands of simulator coordinates” and “671 simulated routes flown.” A bit more explanation is needed. Presumably each “simulator coordinate” really means a set of 4 files created by FSX with full state information at one moment in time (?) Presumably multiple such sets of files are needed to define a “route” (?) How is this process done?
3. “There are thousands of simulator coordinates of places visited all over the world that were regularly and routinely deleted.”
According to VictorI, “… the coordinates which we believe to snapshots of a flight to the SIO were the only deleted coordinates found on the MK25 drive …” If correct, it means that the coordinates at issue were not simply “cherry-picked” from thousands of others but were grouped in away that made them identifiable by objective means.
Are there timestamps associated with these files that would help group them even more definitively?
4. “Hypothetically, if one were going to premeditate and practice stealing a plane, hiding from radar, and committing mass murder, one would probably practice the first part of the route where the plane will actually to be flown, then stolen, made to disappear, and fly away undetected with two major turns and course changes. That was NOT done on the simulator.”
Strongly agree. One could hardly call the simple route from the simulator to constitute “practice” for the route actually flown. Presumably the data were searched for evidence of a more complex path, but none was found.
The rest of the article consists largely of differences of opinion regarding conclusory statements – no comment.
[In the unlikely event that the above comment is considered an “original work” under the copyright act, it is “fair use” to reproduce or share with others.]
… “deeper”, not “desperata”. Sorry.
@Johan: Thank you.
Yes, but it is not only a POTENTIAL crime, but also the quest to find hundreds of missing people !
And IMO from a moral point of view, this quest should take precedence. Finding hundreds of missing people is more important IMO.
How can anyone find the plane in a multinational effort, in which secret documents are not shared with the investigating authorities, with other countries and with aviation professionals around the globe ?
@Lex Luthor, Due to the recent troll attack I’m having to hold your comments for moderation, which means I have to approve each one by hand. I’m sorry for the inconvenience, thank you for your contributions and your patience.
@SK999
you quoted:
“4. “Hypothetically, if one were going to premeditate and practice stealing a plane, hiding from radar, and committing mass murder, one would probably practice the first part of the route where the plane will actually to be flown, then stolen, made to disappear, and fly away undetected with two major turns and course changes. That was NOT done on the simulator.”
…and then strongly agree with it.
I agree also, with the caveat that the practice route appears to be relative to a flight path to Europe where a turn West at Igari would not be relevant. My thesis is that Shah had to play the hand he was dealt, and divert from a flight to Beijing. His preference, of course, would be a flight to Europe which would take the plane in the general direction of the diversion path without suspicion. Additionally, there would have been more fuel on board.
So, while the statement you quoted is literally correct, it is nonsense considering the full context of the event.
@Johan
I agree with your last post. The protocols are sufficiently vague that they give “the authorities” virtually complete discretion relative to the release of information.
@sk999
I agree here with @DennisW. It could have been a route of first choice for which no opportunity came. This ‘Europe’-route has much less risk involved to disappear unnoticed.
When thoroughly planned he had to take into account a certain time/date window IMO.
It had to be summer still in the SIO for a chance of a relatively calm ocean surface (if he planned to ditch) and maybe also the time of sunset had to be taken into account.
I read somewhere he voluntarily stept in for this flight to Being (cann’t prove this claim) to replace another captain.
Maybe he saw it as a final opportunity and changed his first plan after he deleted data and disassembled his simulator after 20-2.
Only adjustment would be going dark before IGARI/Vietnamese FIR instead of going dark before Chennai FIR boundery.
And after IGARI the risk of interception by the Malaysian Air Force.
Maybe a risk he calculated not to be impossible. Which turned out to be right.
I know, suggesting again pointing at Zaharie but that’s not the point. I hope everyone understands.
Correction: I mean the time of sun-rise..
@DennisW
Hishammuddin Hussein: “There is only confusion if you want to see confusion.”
@sk999: The report says that there were 348 FLT files that were saved on the MK25 drive. Additionally, there were fragments of eight deleted FLT files recovered from the Shadow Volume dated Feb 3, 2014, all for a B777-200ER. Six of those deleted FLT files appear to be related to a simulated flight to the SIO. Two are for an aircraft parked at KLIA. There is no mention of any other FLT files recovered from the Shadow Volume.
@sk999: That should be for a B777-200LR, not ER.
@Trond
I am not confused at all. I know who did it, I just don’t know why or where the plane went.
Most everyone else is either confused or one of those people who needs a video with subtitles.
I am not a big fan of HH in any case – a relative of Najib and just as devious, IMO.
If shah did glide the plane into the ocean as possibly speculated due to the flaps found could the impact have killed him or could he have survived? Just confused why someone would fly that far to commit murder suicide and want to hide the plane….. Was he really that good? I honesty feel like there was more than 1 person involved in this as I don’t think 1 person could pull this off this successfully. Do we know all items on that plane was there anything more significant on the plane that may have been an interest to a terrorist group? If whoever did survive the crash into ocean have there been any reports of suspicious boats in or around that area? I am no expert in aviation at all just have been following this since the beginning and really hope we can solve this mystery someday.
@all – I flew on a 737 yesterday seated in a window seat just behind the right wing and so watched the flaps on takeoff and landing. The 777 probably is different but here is what I observed: on take off the flaps ton and flap slide backwards about 12 inches and then angle downward an additional 6 inches or so. On the 737 there are wing supports below these flaps/flaps tons that they rest on. On landing the same thing happens.
The reason for this post is on a 737 the resulting angle of the flaps is not that much different from the wing to shear off in a controlled ditch. They may come loose because they are hinged and the plane is crashing but the whole wing also would tear off. Particularly the flaperon is close to the fuselage.
I agree the flight was piloted but mr Vance’s comment the flaps and flaperon were sheared off would happen at a very specific angle plus the engines are there as well. I would hope someday we get a crash analysis from an expert who can describe exactly how they think it occurred if they believe they were sheared off – maybe the engine shears off and takes the flap/flaperon with it?
If shah did glide the plane into the ocean as possibly speculated could he have possibly survived the impact and possibly got away? Was there a possibly motive he may have wanted to fake his death? I do find it hard to believe that just 1 person could accomplish this all by themself was he really that good? I fee like there may have been more than 1 person involved in this if in fact this was criminal. Do we know if there was anything more on that plane that may have been an interest to a group of people? Also any reports of suspicious boats in or around that area? I am no expert in aviation just have been following this since the very beginning and hope someday we can solve this to help bring closure to the loved ones.
@DennisW
Do you think Shah took a nap while waiting for the fuel exhaustion?
@ Jeff Wise:
Ah ok I see, sorry for the double post then. I thought I messed up the first time and it didn’t get through. Thanks for explaining, cheers.
@Trond
No. The suicide theory has never made it to the top of my list. I still advocate a diversion performed for a political motive that somehow went awry. I do not believe that Shah intended to physically harm anyone including himself.
@VictorI,
You said: “@DrBobbyUlich: Your path ends close to my BEDAX-SouthPole path (180T). However, one big problem with this and other solutions ending in this vicinity is that GO Phoenix scanned this area and north to about 33S latitude, albeit at a narrower width than further south.”
I don’t think the fact that two different routes end near one another adds any credibility to either one. The fact that there is sufficient fuel to actually fly the entire Magnetic Track I generated does make it much more plausible than the True Track route, for which there is no speed mode with sufficient range and endurance.
As I previously indicated on my summary route page:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUWVBmU3BvcGZlcUE/view?usp=sharing
that terminus has previously been searched from ~5 NM inside to +15 NM outside a notional 7th Arc. I don’t know the altitude assumed for that particular 7th Arc, so the search ranges could shift by a few miles for a different altitude assumption. I will note that the total range searched is 20 NM which is only 25% of the total range the ATSB is currently using in the 120,000 sq. km search area (+/- 40 NM). The rest of this +/- 40 NM width would need to be searched before this terminus (at 34.13S) could be eliminated. Therefore I believe it is worthy of consideration for inclusion in the ATSB search plan for later this year.
Why fuss over the simplest part of the deviation. Ie straight shot to end.
If anything practicing the disappearance at IGARI and flying under the radar would be something compelling.
What sim-Data that supports this??
VictorI – thanks.
On a different note, here’s the most recent ditching of an aircraft.
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/herne-bay/news/plane-ditches-into-sea-in-100738/
@MH:
Well if you plan to make a turn at 10°N latitude, then that has to practiced, obviously. Practice, practice, and practice until you are able to perform that trick …
@David
Maybe you know if the following is taken into account. It most probably is but still I wonder to be sure.
I read that the center tank fuel is consumed first but the center tank fuel pumps stop when there is still 1300kg fuel left in the center tank.
The center tank fuel scavenge system kicks in as the main tanks get empty pumping the 1300kg fuel to the main tanks.
I mean if those main tanks were calculated running empty between the 6th and 7th arc there would still be 1300kg of center tank fuel pumped in the main tanks at that time.
The illustrating link:
http://www.flight.org/the-boeing-777-eicas-fuel-scavenge-system
@Gysbreght – the trick is to hide below the radar seeing the trick and keep the flight elevation low enough to mostly hide from radar hits.
@ DrBobby,
I’m not sure that it is possible for the B777 to actually fly a “Magnetic Track”. Do you have a definitive reference which affirms that this is possible?
I’m not talking about the button options available on the MCP. It is what the Honeywell software in the FMC is capable of doing that is the important question.
I have had it confirmed by someone from Honeywell that the default option after a route discontinuity [for example, after overflying the last waypoint of a flight plan], is to hold the current heading. At the point of the discontinuity the FMC takes a “snapshot” of the current heading, and that heading is maintained. In that situation the FMC has no functionality to maintain a [or any]”Track”. The fact that the heading hold is is a “snapshot” also strongly suggests that the heading is then referenced to True.
@sk999
1. “The leaked simulator document reported by New York Magazine is NOT an FBI document as the article claims.”
…”I am unable to find where The NYM article makes such a claim. It refers to a “confidential document” as coming “from the Malaysian Police Investigation…..”
Exactly. Nowhere does it say or “claim” that. Blaine Gibson’s indignant accusation is a paradox of misrepresentation. Being untruthful seems an odd way of “Setting the Record Straight”.
@Lex Luthor, Feline Nut has apologized for his trolling so hopefully we’ll be back to normal for the time being.
@DennisW:
It feels like you are twisting my arm a bit. What we need to have said is that a criminal investigation will need to be secret but a prosecution will need to be public. The police and state prosecutor may reveal things from the investigation, but not those that may put people or the investigation at risk. The prosecution on the other hand will need to be public so that the defendant and society may know what he is accused of. But the prosecution may withold names and data and images from public view (printed but blackened) to protect individuals, other investigations,simillar). The basic principles are very straightforward. Lawyers, not least in California, live to twist your arm if you step on their principles.
Thanks again to Gysbreght for providing the Le Monde article and to Jeff for this topic. Some folks on Reddit have now posted the text version by Florence de Changy in French and the Google translation (with inherent flaws).
https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/4xo9ai/lemonde_article_on_z_fr/
Overall, IMO, it is as clear as mud who leaked this from the Malaysian police, why it was done, whether the 7? points do describe a single test flight and whether this is of relevance.
@Johan
I think we are on the same page.
@Dennis:
Being on the same page, I’d love to hear more about this:
“The suicide theory has never made it to the top of my list. I still advocate a diversion performed for a political motive that somehow went awry. I do not believe that Shah intended to physically harm anyone including himself.”
… In the morning.
@Gysbreght/Ge Rijn,
From the ATSB:
“The APU fuel inlet is located in the left main tank. The APU is estimated to consume (when electrically-loaded) approximately 2 lb of fuel in 55 seconds. In a standard flight attitude (1° pitch), the difference in location between the left engine fuel inlet and the APU fuel inlet would result in approximately 30 lb of fuel being available to the APU after a left engine fuel exhaustion. From this information, the APU had a maximum operating time of approximately 13 minutes and 45 seconds. The pitch attitude would have an effect on the usable fuel for the APU; an aircraft not under control may exhibit dynamic changes in pitch attitude (i.e. phugoid motion) which could have limited the APU’s ability to receive fuel. In-flight acceleration forces could also affect the distribution of fuel in the tanks.”
There is 30 lb of fuel sitting on a quantity of unusable fuel; the ability to use that 30 lb relies on the relative position of the fuel inlet.
If the inlet was in the centre of Gysbreght’s lorry, how much fuel is usable?
OZ
@David,
The APU start time is approximately 60 seconds which is inclusive of the APU inlet door opening. The inlet door has a position switch which signals the APU Controller that the door is open/not open; the key point being that the switch signals that the door is sufficiently open to commence the start sequence and NOT that the door is full open or close. Therefore, the total run time of the door actuator is irrelevant.
OZ
@Brian Anderson,
Your questions are timely and pertinent.
To the best of my knowledge there are only two possible ways to fly a Magnetic Track path. I am not aware that this can be done as a pilot selection using the FMC instead of the MCP. The sure-fire way is to use the MCP and set HEADING HOLD with the NORM/TRUE switch in the NORM position, which provides a magnetic reference. That could have been done by a stressed or hypoxic professional pilot or by a novice pilot such as a cabin crew member. The other potential method is the default mode after a route discontinuity as you have described. It has been previously suggested that the HEADING HOLD reference in this default case is whatever the position of the NORM/TRUE switch is in, but I don’t know if this is correct.
I don’t follow your logic in suggesting the reference for the default heading is “strongly suggested” as TRUE (although I have another reason for believing it to be correct). Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?
Does your Honeywell source know whether it is always TRUE, always magnetic, or whatever the switch selection is? I have asked the ATSB this question but they will not answer, citing it as Boeing “competition sensitive” information that the ATSB cannot release.
I have also found one TRUE HEADING route that matches all the satellite data and ends outside the current search area, and I will have more say more about it in the future.
I have searched for many months to find an acceptable NORM (MAGNETIC) HEADING route without success. I am 99% convinced it does not exist.
@Oz. I base my statement on these manual quotes:
“The air inlet door position switch sends a signal to the APUC and to the ELMS when the air inlet door gets to the open position. The door takes 30-40 seconds to open fully.”
“APU engine RPM must be less than 12 percent RPM and the air inlet door must be fully open before the start sequence starts”. (the the reference to 12 percent is I believe during previous shut down. The door can close while the APU is running down)
Plane boneyards, objects of interest, throw a bit of the correct vintage and model of plane into the ocean = more smoke and mirrors.
Is the Malaysian Government supporting the suicidal pilot theory? Or, are they obfuscating about, as usual, not knowing what to do? They are geopolitically out of their depth but sure don’t want to the loss of another plane if they slip up by revealing, in passing as HH did, something they would rely on in real evidence.
The plane was hijacked it was flown somewhere and landed.
Later the flap or one from a decommissioned plane, of that model, in a boneyard was taken off and dropped into the ocean along with some other confetti of small items that could also have been torn off an old plane in a boneyard.
The official narrative involves, pinning the blame on suicidal pilot with him taking the plane into the Indian Ocean. But this narrative looks and smells too much like previous cover ups of major incidents. This reads like a standard storyline with different details.
Pin a crime on one rogue individual, hide all the details in smoke and mirrors and false information leaked or disclosed. If this incident was genuinely what the official version would have us believe then why all the hide and seek with various snippets of (dis)information. A plot with slimy edges that need constant props, all the leeks and final disclosures that make no sense in why they were kept away from public scrutiny in the first instance.
@Dr Bobby,
The fact that it is possible to use the MCP buttons to select HDG Hold and NORM does not guarantee that, in fact, the aircraft will continually adjust it’s heading to maintain the Mag reference constant [over a lengthy period of time and hence as the magnetic variation changes]. It is what is implemented in the system software which is the important question. And of course, maintaining the magnetic heading does mean that the path followed by the aircraft is a “Magnetic Track” [compensating for wind].
I concluded that the default heading is referenced to True at a discontinuity based on the response I received from the Honeywell representative. It was my interpretation of the reply.
I received only one reply from Honeywell, and unfortunately my follow up questions went unanswered.
The situation we are considering is quite unusual, because in the real world a Mag referenced heading is standard practice, and at least over relatively short times and distances the actual track followed by the aircraft will not vary significantly. The Mag heading presented to the crew on the MCP is derived from a look-up table, based on the known position of the aircraft, the position being derived from inertial or GPS systems. It is therefore a look-up adjustment of the True heading, compensating for the magnetic variation at that particular location.
I have searched extensively for an answer to these questions and have not found a definitive answer. I have found many interesting and perturbing issues that have been uncovered in various FMC systems. I also appreciate that based on the processing capabilities and the memory capacity of the FMC systems implementing the software to maintain a magnetic track would not be a trivial task.
So the question remains . . do you have a definitive reference?
@Johan
You will wake up before me, so I will simply say that it is not a preferred topic here – too much speculation, and not enough substance.
@Gloria
Get back on your meds.