|Quoting 777Jet (Reply 119):|
Yes. People are very quick to update Wiki nowadays, however, the finer details available on Wiki are not always accurate. It is good to see when Wiki is correct but it is not surprising when Wiki is incorrect.
AFAIK, this timeline corresponds exactly to my own records.
Otherwise, check Simon's AvHerald, well known for accurate and reasoned reporting.
|Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 166):|
There is zero evidence for a direct track from IGARI to north of Sumatra. If you have any, let's see it. The only way you can maintain this is if you eliminate the Butterworth radar track.
I never sid there was one. I was just pushing the theories about :
1/- descent below the radar in the Straites
2/- A waypoint based swiggly route between waypoints, either at low /high trajectory or at constant altitude...
to their minimum possibilities, and I have proven that you - especially you - needed to change your assumptions so they can match at least the T7 performance capability
|Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 166):|
It was reported by the New Strait Times and independently confirmed by American officials at CNN that the FO's cell phone was picked up by a tower near Penang.
Claim that was flatly and strongly refuted by the Malaysia,n authorities on APR 17.
|Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 172):|
BTW, Pihero, whom you seem to delight in baiting, pretty accurately (along with Mandala499) predicted what happened to AF447.
Please add yourself to that team, along with dozens of posters among whom DavidL, Zeke, PGNCS,, Bellerophon, Starlionblue.... and so many others.
I particularly miss baroque
who has left us and whose insights on sea research have been extraordinarly helpful... I miss him a lot on this forum.
|Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 178):|
No one to my knowledge has definitively debunked the story. In any case, the Butterworth radar data stands on its own. No one has debunked that AFAIK.
What you call the *Butterworth radar data* are only two plots : one at 18:02 Z and one at 18:22 Z with these infos :
295° R / 200 Nm from Butterworth AB
. There is nothing more.
Then you pick up a slide from the Chinese news agency ( from another site ) which shows a line of red dots and you assume that these were the traces of Flight 370
, then base a whole set of totally incompatible scenarii on the premise that Butterworth radar was in error, but not a Chinese journo.
My demo proved that even this official bearing / distance to the point I called RP2 is questionable.
|Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181):|
So OK: no cell phone calls--I admit it. Yet no retraction of the Butterworth radar data either.
Good of you !
As for all your work on trying to fit a waypoint route to a point close to the search area, it lacks fundamental reasoning :
1/- It has to fit the passage at ALL
the *loci* at the times they were set., which you certainly haven't demonstrated as the bases of your argument are for vastly different speeds ( 373 and 486 kt , IIRC ).
It's easy to reverse- engineer, though : just plot the positions on your chart at 19:11, 20:11, 21:11... etc... with the changing ground speeds due to wind.
I'll be really interested in that work.
2/- It has to fit at these vastly different speeds the endurance of the aircraft : (hint : they can't both fit that requirement.)
(hint #2 : There's no such thing as a normal cruising speed for a modern aircraft . We fly Mach numbers which give airspeeds dependent on outside temperature, and the Mach numbers depend on company policy on cost indexes : that aircraft would have flown anywhere between Mach .87 and .82, a spread of 30 kt independent on actual temperature on a continuously decreasing Mach)
3/- If you assume an FMS-based navigation waypoint trajectory, you also have to assume a managed cruise schedule... and most of all, if you want to disappear, why chose a point that near to Australia ? Why not a route that takes you as far as possible into the 'Forties" at Max endurance schedule, making sure that you'll never be found ?
(you'll have to discover how to fly at max endurance, though).
Why a waypoint route ? Lots easier to just type an impossible target, say... 80°S / 090°E : It requires 5 strokes on your pad... and you disappear into oblivion... well before you reach 80°S.
Alas ! some clever people have found a way to reproduce - or come close to - your track..