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.
@David
Dennis is a lot better since they changed his meds1
@Ge Rijn
Yes a controlled ditching is conceivable if the 0:19 BFO is considered unreliable. This is the position of the ATSB (that the last BFO was not reliable).
I have followed the IG point of view that the ISAT data is truthful suggesting a final rapid descent following flameout. This was the recent argument used by Duncan Steel discrediting the 60 Minutes report.
@buyerninety @airlandseaman
First I don’t know what you exactly mean with ‘mixing up terms’. I use the words ‘center tank’ and ‘main tanks’ correctly I suppose.
‘Centre tank’ is French IMO.
And I say; if the main tanks ‘run empty’ not when they ‘are empty’.
I concluded from the ‘Flight’-article (and some other references) that when the center tank fuel comes below 1300kg the pumps stop.
This fuel remains in the center tank unless the fuel in the main tanks comes below a certain level. Then the scavenge system pumps this remaining fuel to the main tanks.
My point is; was this 1300kg of fuel still in the center tank of MH370 when the plane took off and was this then accounted for in the fuel consumption calculations.
Or is it certain the center tank was completely empty when MH370 took off.
I cann’t find an anwser on that.
I don’t have/find access to the ACARS fuel information of MH370.
@airlandseaman @others
Some other info on the fuel that I found.
On refueling at KL for the flight to Being there was 8200kg total fuel left in the main tanks (left tank 3700kg right tank 4500kg).
Total departure fuel after refueling was 49.700kg (left tank 24.900kg right tank 24.800kg). The center tank is not mentioned.
So no fuel was put in the center tank at refueling. But before refueling the main tanks were not near empty.
So I then assume residuel fuel could have been still in the center tank that was not counted with. The reference:
https://books.google.nl/books?id=5VhsCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT44&lpg=PT44&dq=mh370+fuel+load+dirk&source=bl&ots=ps4Kmcbi44&sig=NQ9bnfNGGEWkySQiq4bGaubjZ-4&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMu-iessbOAhWCIsAKHe4DAb0Q6AEILTAB#v=onepage&q=mh370%20fuel%20load%20dirk&f=false
It might come over stubborn but I just want to know for sure.
@Ge Rijn
“-200ER
With the main tank pumps ON, a scavenge system operates automatically to transfer any remaining center tank fuel to the main tanks. Fuel transfer begins
when either main tank quantity is less than 13,100 kilograms. ”
If the system works right, the scavage system should remove any residual fuel in the Center tank system.
That should answer your question?
Ge Rijn:
All the ACARS info is in the FI, including total fuel every 5 minutes up to 17:07. A description of the fuel system and fuel onboard is in there. It’s easy to find all this in the FI using the Adobe Find tool. No center tank fuel. The early, original estimated time of FE, based on fuel on board and predicted consumption, was 00:12 UTC, which is consistent with the later, refined estimates based on fuel data and Inmarsat data.
http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/FactualInformation.pdf
@airlandseaman @RetiredF4
Thanks. I can put this little stone back on its place..
@Ge Rijn, you’re right, I’m wrong – you did use those words
correctly, it’s just if you write, left center tank over-ride
jettison pump, it’s easier to understand if you write it as,
left ‘centre tank’ over-ride jettison pump.
I’m no literature professor, so I think I was over-reacting
to what followed, because “It says the center tank fuel pumps
stop if there is still 1300kg fuel left in the center tank”
reads as if the causal factor for that pump stopping is the
amount of fuel left in the tank, whereas the pump stops when
it can’t draw any fuel at it’s inlet. Also, “This 1300kg
will be scavenged to the main tanks if the main tanks run
empty”, well the actual words I quoted from the reference
you gave – the words just don’t support ‘run empty or ’empty’.
–
Any 1300kg fuel remaining, that is measured (and included)
when the fuel sensor determines how much fuel is in the Centre
Tank. (Fuel is displayed to the nearest ‘XX.100’).
The FI states what was seen when the fuel tank amounts were
checked on the Flight Deck gauges after refuelling. It doesn’t
say the indication for the Centre tank was zero because it is
taken as understood that no mention of the Centre tank amount,
means there was no amount in the Centre tank to mention.
If you check, you’ll find it is standard practice to fill up
the wing Main tanks before placing any fuel in the Centre tank
(unless, for aircraft ‘centre of gravity’ {CG} reasons, some
fuel needs to be placed in the Centre tank).
For instance, this webpage;
http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots-adventures-more/jumpseat-its-all-about-apu
makes it clear that on one Carriers flights from JFK to London,
“Our fuel load to London rarely, if ever, requires fuel in the
center tank”.
So for the reasons I’ve given now and before, there is just no
reason to think that the FI omitted to list any amount of fuel
in the Centre tank, if there had been any.
@buyerninety
Dutch and English are grammatically very similar but.. different too..
Our sentences are often constructed just a bit different. Same words but in a different order. I assume this makes my English sometimes confusing and odd to read.
I try better but I’m affraid this will stay difficult for me.
Thanks too for clarifying.
As @RetiredF4 explained the scavenge system kicks in to remove the residual fuel if there is less then 13.100kg fuel left in either main tank.
I found this information to be correct (not that I didn’t believe him, just checked).
At refueling in KL, MH370 had much less fuel in its main tanks left (8200kg total).
So the center tank must have been drained by the scavenge system on the flight before (or earlier flights).
Here is a post that might interest some of you by Paul Howard entitled: “My reply to the Independent Group Preliminary Assessment”. (Scroll to bottom of page.)
http://www.paulhowardplays.com/blog/proof-that-capt-z-shah-did-not-plan-turn-into-sio
https://twitter.com/Paul_playwright/status/765606716360634369
Besides his false accusations, fundamental misconceptions, and numerous math errors, it is a good piece. I don’t have an interest in explaining to him how to convert between units (like when to multiply by 60 instead of dividing), how an aircraft navigates between waypoints (and why magnetic variation doesn’t matter), and how to read values from a table (he confuses knots with degrees for the last point), so I haven’t bother to respond.
On the other hand, some of you might actually agree with some or all of his points and might want to contact him to show your support.
He has complained that his work is ignored. I am in total favor of his work being critiqued by knowledgeable people.
@VictorI:
Since you are the first signatory of the IG’s “Preliminary Assessment”, can you indicate the source for the fuel tank capacities in Table 1, Parameters derived from the Raw Simulator Data?
@Buyerninety. While your reference says, “The door can take up to 40 seconds to deploy fully” but also you say,“It’s worth noting that service testing of that APU model;
‘P-1342 Mini Pack.pdf’ (google)
gives a test result electric startup timeframe around 40 secs.”
I cannot find this. Help please?
As I see it, acceptance of the high speed descent interpretation of the second BFO does not mean there would be no pilot. After loss of both engines the aircraft would depressurise and were there one he might be, or feel, compelled to enter an ‘emergency’ descent, though that does not mean that would continue beyond medium altitude.
Re: latest IG simulator preliminary analysis.
Point 8
“We have no comment on whether these data link Captain Zaharie Shah to a crime.”
That is a rather odd stance in light of the fact that a stated IG intention is to further analyze the data to see if it can help to refine the search area. Why would you spend time analyzing something you do not believe is linked to the diversion of the aircraft? Do any of the IG members realize how dumb these statements sound taken at face value?
@DennisW
Could you please stop insulting people here with comments about meds and using words such as whacko and dumb.
Also, you have your own theory about what happened and that’s fair enough but you seem irritated that other people don’t see your point or agree. IMO its you who are blinkered or affected by confirmation bias.
You might be right that Shah had a political motive and that is in my list of possibles but not high up. More likely, just guessing, is something of dire geopolitical consequence 🙁
@Buyerninety. You might have meant;
http://chaseaerospace.com/sites/default/files/P-1342%20Mini%20Pack.pdf
This has the test cell data on the APU fitted to 9M-MRO. But it says that while the starter engaged times, both electric and pneumatic, were 40 secs, the start times were both 60 (Test Cell data p1). This assumes their ATS nomenclature is the same as the APU figure.
@AM2
I should have said that the IG is insulting our intelligence with their latest report – claiming it is worthy of further analysis while disclaiming it has any relevance? Huh?
The IG has avoided the consideration of motive from the get-go – somehow believing that the analytical high road is a more noble undertaking. The reality is a crime has been committed, and pondering why is an important element of solving it. We may as well internalize that fact.
Does anyone believe a plausible route to the South Pole from KL is to fly West over the Malay Peninsula before initiating a turn South?
@Gysbreght: The fuel tank capacities are from the FSX PMDG model for the B777-200LR. I cross-checked those values with other values from other sources and they were close.
At the risk of getting shot down in flames ……..
SUBJECT; FLIGHT FUEL
The question / worry seems to be “was the center tack ACTUALLY / DEFINATELY EMPTY ?”
The answer, on the face of it, seems simple enough.
The centre tank must have been empty, having been “scavanged” to empty on the previous flight.
Reasoning is as follows.
From “balanced” left and right tanks at start of PREVIOUS FLIGHT, we know that IF there was any fuel in the center tank at the start of the previous flight, it is automatically transferred out of the centre tank to both main tanks to maintain balanced tanks until the center tank is down to the 1,300kg remaining, then the center tanks shut down.
At that point IN THE PREVIOUS FLIGHT, both the left and right tanks are equal (quantity unknown, but greater than 13,100kg.
The aircraft continues flight.
We know that the right engine uses more fuel than the left engine, so the right tank would be consume down to the 13,100kg “begin scavange” point first, before the left tank, and thus the remaining 1,300kg center tank fuel would be scavanged to the right tank.
The aircraft flies on, lands, and taxi’s in.
Hours later, we are ready to refuel.
The tanks are (as above):
(Figures are Kg)
LEFT CENTER RIGHT
3,700 Empty 4,500
Now, the scavanged fuel was not used by the right engine, so let’s just “remove it” for a minute.
Subtract 1,300 from right tank and you have:
LEFT CENTER RIGHT
3,700 Empty 3,200
This is a difference of 500kg
This means that on the previous flight:
(A) from the “13,100kg right tank scavange trigger point” the Right Engine consumed 13,100 – 3,200 = 9,900kg.
(B) we know that the left engine consumed less than 9,900kg, but not how much less, exactly.
(C) Add 9,900kg to fuel remaining left tank (3,700kg) = 13,600kg.
(D) this means that at the point in the previous flight wnen the right tank consumed down to the 13,100kg trigger, the left tank still had AT LEAST 13,600kg in it, probably a little more.
When refuelling began for MH370, according only to MAS mind, the TOTAL FUEL was 49,700kg.
At the START of the refuel, the tanks were:
(Figures are Kg)
LEFT CENTER RIGHT
3,700 Empty 4,500
(having put the unused 1,300kg back in the right tank.
Total fuel on board is thus 8,200kg.
According to MAS, after refuelling, the tanks were:
LEFT CENTER RIGHT
24,900 Empty 24,800
This does equal 49,700kg.
So, the actual fuel “uplifted” in the refuelling was 49,700 – 8,200 = 41,500kg.
This means that the “uplift refuels per tank were:
LEFT CENTER RIGHT
21,200 Empty 20,300
Now, it does seem normal, in that the refuelling computer would refuel both main tanks “to equal” (plus or minus 100kg), so “at face value”, it all checks out, as rigigy didge.
All the ACARS data on the leg to Igari seems to corroborate (to me at least) the above.
BUT, the only nagging doubt, the issue I would have with “the fuel”, is determining the “exact” amount of fuel that was ACTUALLY uplifted.
MAS has steadfastly refused to provide the refueller’s ACTUAL records. Why ?
We have never been given the “Actual Uplift Fuel”, we have only been told the “Official Departure Fuel”, of 49,700kg, and how it was apportioned between the left and right tanks (left tank 24.900kg right tank 24.800kg).
Given the “questionable” veracity of so much of the “Official” Malaysian provided data, one may be forgiven for wondering whether or not the “Actual Uplift” was in fact the 49,700kg.
If that “were” the case, the total fuel load at Departure would have been 49,700 + 8,200 = 57,900kg.
In that case, assuming the refuelling computer balances the main tanks to within plus or minus 100kg, and with the bias to the left tank, the fuel for departure would have been:
LEFT CENTER RIGHT
29,000 Empty 28,900
But, the ACARS data says no, can not be.
But “what if” it was so, and that they later realised it, and then “edited” the ACARS data to remove the 8,200kg before publication ?
Could be a totally new ball game now.
@DennisW: There is a healthy diversity of opinion within the IG regarding the guilt of ZS. In the statement, the group attempted to present the facts without taking a position about ZS’s guilt. People are already using our statement as evidence for both sides of the argument, which is proof that the statement is neutral.
That said, a handful of us are considering the case that ZS took the plane and left clues on the simulator. That effort is focused on refining the search area, if possible.
@DennisW, @AM2:
One dares hardly tread between you two on that fragile thread. I think you have a point both of you. (DennisW is paraphrasing Borges — likely unknowingly — and AM2 is treading uncharted sands of sorts, if I am not a complete woodhead.) Without intention to betray anyone’s line of thinking, I would guess that the IG perhaps simply want to state that the task they performed was not a criminal investigation in itself — neither a statement on guilt. But the IG may want to speak for themselves. They may have studied a gun that was smoking, but to be precise not who fired it, bought it, borrowed it or owned it. Or for what reason.
@Johan
LOL; reminds me of a great documentary I saw recently by David Attenborough about shifting sands in the Sahara. Thanks for your comment anyway.
@David,
The information on the inlet door position switch is in the AMM; refer to APU Auto Shutdown and you’ll find it.
OZ
@AM2:
I have seen a few his documentaries. 🙂 🙂
The accidental John Cleese of nature.
Turtles my favourites.
We are the ones to be sorry for Brexit.
But will you really be rid of Britain?
@David , reference your question about ‘P-1342 Mini Pack.pdf’;
My understanding of the terminology used under the heading of
“Performed Test Details” is that for each line item of the
named parameter, they listed what the ‘Limits’ were or are
(meaning the ‘limit’ which the tested parameter was expected
to be within to successfully pass the test) and the ‘Value’
(meaning what the actual test result value was).
So for a test of the parameter ‘ELECTRIC START TIME’, the
upper limit it had to be within was 60 seconds – the actual
test result value measured was 41.49 seconds.
Given that they were testing the ability of the APU to start
using an electric start, (although they don’t specifically
say the following), they would have used a source of electric
power that was just like the source of electric power that
starts the APU in flight (i.e. in flight, the APU dedicated
battery powers its electric start attempts, so they would’ve
used something supplying the same voltage & cranking amps
capacity).
(Note; they do refer to how the test was carried out, the
reference 11.H.(1)(C) specifies that part of the elsewhere
specified document EM.49-26-57 Rev.17, that would contain
how the testing of the APU must be conducted.)
@ventus45
How one question can lead to another..
Very clear and interesting analysis to me.
I did not know the amount of uplifted fuel was not released by MAS. Indeed; why not?
To remove any shadow of doubt on possible errors in the published fuel quantities this would be usefull information to release.
Did the ATSB or anyone else (IG) asked for this information? Or for the reason why they (MAS) won’t release it?
To assume those ACARS-figures where tampered with before publishing goes a bit too far IMO for I though those ACARS-data where send directly to Rolls Royce also.
But to remove any possibility of a electronic fuel quantity registering error or failure it would be necessary to know exactly what amout of fuel realy went in that plane fysically at refueling.
@Buyerninety. Agree thanks, 41.49secs. I misread in haste.
A well spotted test record, only three weeks before the crash so it could be expected that there was little deterioration. Start power might vary in the aircraft as you say, plus the effects of altitude including the cold and whether the effects of ram air were replicated on the test rig (unlikely I would have thought but the test specs you mention would confirm).
Boeing would have needed typical APU start times at altitude for simulators. Probably it could compare this particular APU from its test record and service since to the typical and come up with its individual likely start time at altitude; and fuel consumption for that matter.
It does not seem likely that the test rig’s almost-20-sec start time drop would be replicated at altitude though since the ATSB has this APU taking a min’s worth of fuel.
@Buyer ninety. Please add at the end…”to start”.
@Oz. I have looked at the AMM thanks, in the shut down section. There is a Protective Shutdown (49-00-00 p24), which presumably is what refer to, one initiator of which is the inlet door closing: if it closes past 70% open the air inlet door position switch will prompt an APU shut down.
This I take to be the basis of you believing that that switch will initiate start when the inlet door has opened 70%.
If you go to 49-10-00 p17 in the manual you will see that if set to start the engine at 70% door opening, it would stop also the inlet door opening further at that point. Instead I think that as the manuals say the door will be fully open before start. This would be explained by there being lost travel in the actuation of the switch such that it will not indicate the door is open to either the door actuator or to APU start logic until 100%. Thus the one switch will indicate, “not open” on closing past 30% open and “open” at 100% open, on opening. I believe there to be another switch, “closed” and “not closed” on or at the actuator.
So the outcome as I see it is that the inlet door will take the 30-40 seconds to open that Boeing avow, before the APU starter is engaged.
@Johan
Brexit, Frexit, Nexit, Swexit… 🙁
Way off topic so won’t comment further.
@all
Nothing of note in this afternoon’s Operational Search Update from ATSB
If in the mean time you have installed the PMDG model for B777-200LR, have you run it at various winds and updrafts to confirm your interpretation of bodyaxis definitions?
@Ventus45
You said
“From “balanced” left and right tanks at start of PREVIOUS FLIGHT, we know that IF there was any fuel in the center tank at the start of the previous flight, it is automatically transferred out of the centre tank to both main tanks to maintain balanced tanks until the center tank is down to the 1,300kg remaining, then the center tanks shut down.”
There could only be residual fuel of max 1300 kg in the center tank, if the left and right wing tank had more than 13100 kg left, as stated before. Fuel is not fed from the centre tank to the main tanks and not balance the main tanks either. The OJ pumps produce more pressure (36psi) and a higher flow rate (70.000lbs/h) than the main wing tank boost pumps and feed to the engine fuel manifold, not to the wing tanks. During that period no fuel is used from the main tanks. Only when the centre tank level has decreased to about 1300 kg checkvalves in the manifold sense the resulting pressure drop and open the lines from the main tanks.
you said:
“At that point IN THE PREVIOUS FLIGHT, both the left and right tanks are equal (quantity unknown, but greater than 13,100kg.”
At that point the wing tank holds the fuel which was filled up on the ground previously.
you said:
“The aircraft continues flight.
We know that the right engine uses more fuel than the left engine, so the right tank would be consume down to the 13,100kg “begin scavange” point first, before the left tank, and thus the remaining 1,300kg center tank fuel would be scavanged to the right tank.”
As float valves control the scavage pumps, the scavage fuel from the centre tank will go to the tank with the lower level.
@AM2:
You are probably right. And we shouldn’t hex it.
@ventus45
Thanks for your post. This is the best analysis I’ve seen about MH370 fuel quantity, determination of which as a big impact on the aircraft’s potential range.
In the absence of hard evidence, past the secondary radar fix around IGARI, I’ve been looking for small but significant discrepancies in both the official and unofficial data to try to unravel what is undoubtedly a cover-up of real events. I’ve found a few already, and the one you provided is also telling…
“MAS has steadfastly refused to provide the refueller’s ACTUAL records. Why ?”
@Boris Tabaksplatt
I agree. If MAS refuses to release the actual refueling data , which should be no problem to release at all IMO, they bring upon them the suspicion of covering up possible crucial information. Why?
This kind of refusing just normally expected data gives rise to possibly unnecessary wild theories.
My ‘shot at’-scenario comes in my mind again f.i.
A cover-up of jets scrambled from Butterworth after it became clear MH370 was not going to land at Penang.
Shot at just out of Butterworth radar range an engine and other parts were taken out triggering the 18:25 log-on. Kate Tee saw the plane with a burning engine pass after FMT. The plane flew on on one engine lower altitude.
The pilot was forced to abandon his first planned mission (Diego Garcia?) and chose to steer the plane as far as possible into the SIO and let it vanish with a ditch as good as possible.
The heading of point 4 in the SIM-data is straight to the Maldives/Diego Garcia not the SIO.
Wild theories indeed. But with refusing to release crucial data they give unnecessary room to this kind of scenarios.
Authorities release statement supporting IG simulator analysis and ALSM statement on 60Minutes piece: http://goo.gl/qSmrgo
I don’t know why people think the fuel info is being withheld. It is easy to find in the FI.
FI .pdf pg 20:
The Captain ordered 49,100 kilograms (kg) of fuel for the flight that gave an endurance of 07 hours and 31 minutes including reserves.
FI .pdf pg 49:
Take-off Fuel 49,100 [Note: ~600 kg fuel burned during taxi before TO]
1.6.5 Fuel
The aircraft used Jet A-1 fuel. Following the previous flight, as per records in the Transit Check and Fuel Log, the total remaining fuel before refuelling as per the flight deck indication was 8,200 kg (Left Tank was 3,700 kg and Right Tank was 4,500 kg). Total departure fuel after refuelling was 49,700 kg (Left Tank was 24,900 kg and Right Tank was 24,800 kg) as indicated in the flight deck.
FI .pdf pg 65: [ACARS 16:41:43] Total Remaining Fuel Weight (TOTFW)– kg 49,200 [slight difference from pg 49 estimate]
More on fuel was published last year and available here: https://goo.gl/U2vMtT
@airlandseaman, Frankly I am baffled by the nature of the pushback against my New York magazine piece. First of all, there has been a lot of squawking over my assertion that the forensic work on the simulator hard drive was done by the FBI. That was told to me by Victor Iannello, who had possession of the full Malaysian police report. The fact that he got this point wrong is a good example of why the public needs to see the full report and not have to rely on the say-so of self-appointed guardians of the data. Moreover, it is not at all germane to the point of the piece, which is that Zaharie had evidently conducted a flight which wound up with zero fuel in the remote southern Indian Ocean. This fact has been repeatedly confirmed.
The second point I’m troubled by is the idea that by revealing this data I have unfairly painted Zaharie as the perpetrator. I took pains in my piece to explain that this data point is just a data point, and can be interpreted in different ways. (I admit that the headline to the New York mag piece is strident, but it is common knowledge that writers have no say in what headlines go on their pieces.) Anyone who is familiar with my work on this subject will know that I don’t think that Zaharie is the most likely perpetrator. But I feel that if we are ever going to solve this mystery we have to be open to new information. The IG, Malaysian authorities and the ATSB say that nothing in the police file proves Zaharie’s guilt. Maybe that is so. Yet it cannot be denied that the existence of this simulated route into the southern Indian Ocean is troubling.
More than anything, I am astonished and dismayed that the Independent Group, which spent so much time stridenlty bewailing the Malaysian authorities’ failure to release key data, are now themselves hoarding a trove of crucial Malaysian data–and not only that, but walking hand in hand with those same authorities, declaring to the world, “Nothing to see here, move along!”
Were the IG’s calls for the free and open discussion of the facts of the case merely posturing, all along?
According to paragraph 6 of the IG’s “Assessment”, “the alignments of the points and the progressive depletion in fuel level (…) suggest the coordinates may well be related to the same flight simulation”.
The distance between points 4 and 5 is 3400 NM. Based on the revised fuel capacities the fuel used is 69,026 kg, good for 5560 NM. In the “progressive depletion of fuel level” about 25,000 kg is missing, good for flying to the Maldives and back, before going south-east from point 4 to point 5.
@jeffwise: First, I was shown major portions of the Malaysian report, but not all of it. Second, the FBI was never mentioned in the sections I saw. However, the FBI has publicly declared that they assisted the Malaysians in analyzing the data on Zaharie’s computer, and in my private discussions with you I was alluding to this fact, which I believe is common knowledge.
The IG has NEVER declared “Nothing to see here, moving along”. Rather, the last point clearly says, “Work continues within the IG to better understand and validate the data, and to determine whether the data can be used to refine the search area for the aircraft.”
The simulator data neither proves guilt or innocence of the pilot. However, we would all be missing a tremendous opportunity if there are clues in the simulator data that we ignore. The potential to refine the search zone is the only reason that this data interests me. It is also possible that the data is worthless, but it is way too premature to declare it to be.
@Gysbreght: The tank capacities were not taken from my computer.
If the simulation went from point 4 to point 5 via Male, it would still have fuel at point 5 for another 1000 NM or so.
@airlandseaman
‘I don’t know why people think that fuel info is withheld. It’s easy to find in the FI’.
Oke. But where are those data from the refueling ground crew? They have their own data from what actualy was filled up in the tanks. I cann’t find those in the FI.
Why is it a problem to release this data as stated?
This data should be the same as the FI fuel data so it only could confirm more those FI figures are correct and MAS should be eager to release those data for this reason alone.
Only reason to withhold those data from the ATSB and others I can think of is there are discrepanties between the FI fuel data and the refueling data of that ground crew.
At least IMO they (MAS) raise unnecessary superstition if they refuse to release those data.
Can you agree with that?
Or is the IG in possesion of this refueling data?
@Gysbreght: The excessive fuel consumption between the 10N and 45S coordinates is a fair reason to doubt that the coordinates were all from the same simulated flight. The alignment with McMurdo Station is a fair reason to believe the coordinates are all related. I think the words in the IG statement are accurate.
Frankly, I am tired of arguing. I am trying to use the simulator data to help find the plane. It all may be a complete waste of time, but we don’t have many other options at this point. The presumed guilt or innocence of Zaharie doesn’t really matter if the plane is not found.
The 777-200LR has the same wing as the -200ER, with the wing tips extended by some 2m. While perhaps the wingtip extensions added some capacity to the main tanks, where did Boeing find the space to increase the center tank capacity by 3636 kg (4540 liter)?
@VictorI, No one argues that the IG are a bunch of smart guys, but as far as I know none of them are flight sim software experts. There is a vast online community of people who are, and who I’m sure would relish a chance to take a crack at this data. I just can’t imagine not taking advantage of that.
@airlandseaman
As you sure will know it won’t be the first time discrepanties between what was actualy in the tanks and what the flight instruments showed caused accidents.
The Gimly-glider offcourse but also Tuninter flight 1153 with a partly failed attempted ditch in the Mediterranian Sea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuninter_Flight_1153
The fuel information both from ground crew and indicated in those planes where crucial in finding the cause of both accidents.
But with MH370 this refueling data is of no importance?
@David,
This is the same on this and other aircraft.
B777 = approx 20 seconds to door open (>70%) plus approx 40 seconds = approx 60 seconds.
Approx 60 seconds is stated in the ATSB report.
You are wrong!! Get over it.
OZ
VictorI: “@Gysbreght: The tank capacities were not taken from my computer.”
You ignore my question. And you get tired quite early these days.
@Gysbreght
I read that a few days ago.
Extra tank in the cargo bay:
http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/boeing777/