Reality check, from a New Zealand Herald interview with the wife of a MH370 passenger:

"Alongside the ever-changing updates on the where, why and how of the search, she has had to endure endless theories and opinions from so-called experts on aviation from all corners of the globe".

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11244515

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 147):

Why do you doubt the 200 miles from Butterworth ? This is the one clear information in the translations and the slide, without any ambiguity. Everything else is open for interpretation.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 151): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 147): Why do you doubt the 200 miles from Butterworth ? This is the one clear information in the translations and the slide, without any ambiguity. Everything else is open for interpretation.

Oh brother... Just look at it man! Yes, the 295R/200nm is clear all right--as in clearly wrong!

How anyone can look at that plot and not understand that the 18:22 position is referring to a position a few miles west of MEKAR is beyond me. I mean this is really basic. If I were to take someone out into the middle of a downpour and state that it is raining, and they still say it is open for interpretation... What else is there to say to such a person?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 143): I did a little research this morning as to the source and interpretation of the radar plot above.

Do you have that radar plot on Malaysia map?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 152): Oh brother... Just look at it man! Yes, the 295R/200nm is clear all right--as in clearly wrong!

I think what people are trying to tell you is that this inconsistency doesn't just cast doubt on the 295R/200nm label, but on the entire slide.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 152): Oh brother... Just look at it man! Yes, the 295R/200nm is clear all right--as in clearly wrong! How anyone can look at that plot and not understand that the 18:22 position is referring to a position a few miles west of MEKAR is beyond me. I mean this is really basic. If I were to take someone out into the middle of a downpour and state that it is raining, and they still say it is open for interpretation... What else is there to say to such a person?

If even you are admitting that there is something wrong with the slide, then perhaps you should lend more credence to the many people that are trying to explain to you that the data on that slide is ambiguous at best, and deceptive at worst.

abba, someone who says they have a passing understanding of the language, claims that the links that you ran through Google translate may not support what you are claiming, yet you completely bypass his statement and just say that it does back you up anyway.

Multiple posters have commented that the slide itself is a plot of all the traffic during that time, without any corresponding context or information, yet you continue to use it as if the data can only possibly mean one thing, and you build on that as one of your largest assumptions.

Your behavior is what has most everyone else shaking their heads and asking themselves "What else is there to say to such a person?"...

[Edited 2014-04-25 14:45:47]

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 128): There are many things that I find surprising in the MH370 mystery, but the most surprising is that not one scrap of debris from the aircraft has been found. I realise how large an area, (or areas), are being searched but I find it amazing that nothing has washed ashore or been picked up by a ship. I suspect that even the most gentle ditching would break the aircraft apart, releasing thousands of bits of floating debris. I really hope that the search will continue, for years if necessary, until the aircraft is discovered. Finding answers is too important to too many people to give up on the search.

I agree about the lack of debris and the longer this goes on for the more I think that they are either searching in the wrong area, really searching in the wrong area, or have been given incorrect info for whatever reason you can imagine.

If not a single debris has been found by the end of next month it wouldn't bother me if the search was at least postponed until new info emerges (if it ever does). The way they are searching now with what little factual info they have can not just go on for years...

Quoting abba (Reply 144): I am rather sure - based on the Chinese skills I do have - that the meaning is NOT what you appear think it is - but much closer to Phiero's interpretation.

Perhaps you would care to tell us what you think the articles actually say? Pihero has claimed that officials said that the slide plots only two MH370 contacts, but has not so far offered a source for this. He has not commented on these Chinese articles.

Quoting Gennadius (Reply 155): Multiple posters have commented that the slide itself is a plot of all the traffic during that time, without any corresponding context or information, yet you continue to use it as if the data can only possibly mean one thing, and you build on that as one of your largest assumptions.

Only one poster has said this in recent parts of this thread, AFAIK, and he suggested it might be a plot showing flights from KUL cleared direct to VAMPI. I have since looked carefully at FlightAware and FlightRadar24 data on departures from KUL to South Asia, Middle East and European destinations, and almost none of them fly over the area in the centre of the Straits between Penang and VAMPI, let alone tracking from near Penang to near VAMPI. There is also a logical problem with the argument that this is a plot of all traffic in the area. There is no airway from Penang to VAMPI, so other traffic would not be concentrated along that corridor. And as a busy area for through traffic to and from SIN as well as KUL, you would see traffic from SE to NW along the Straits, and vice versa, following the couple of defined airways. There is no logical reason why the Malaysian Air Force or Government would wish to present a slide showing plots of other traffic in this band between Penang and VAMPI. Finally, there is the white circle, with no plots in it. This is consistent with the Malaysian announcements that radar lost 9M-MRO and later regained the contact.

Quoting Gennadius (Reply 155): Your behavior is what has most everyone else shaking their heads and asking themselves "What else is there to say to such a person?"...

To the contrary, many other posters have indicated interest in and support for WarrenPlatts' posts. It is a credit to him that he has persisted in the face of a campaign of rudeness and abuse.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 149): the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are Indian territory, and just north of Sumatra - much closer than the plane ever came to Australia.

Banda Aceh to Great Nicobar is 145 Miles. Even if both sides have low power PSR with 60NM still there is 25 Mile gap.

Banda Aceh to Port Blair is 455 Miles.

It appears in 2012 Indian Coast Guard's plan for 4 radar installations in A&N ran into trouble because of endangered birds. Apparently there are only 350 of these birds, so environment ministry asked to CG to find different location.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 134): Regarding suicide, I agree with you - why not just nose down and crash it as seems usual ?

This wasn't just a 'simple' suicide. The reasons for a possible homicide/suicide (which is what it would be) are myriad and complex, with a clear political component that I feel really needs to be scrutinized much more closely. The element of politics in regard to MH370 has been readily dismissed by many, and the relative oversight is unfortunate (IMHO)).

The totality of the 'evidence' suggests a human hand, and, on that supposition, one that is a highly competent and skilled aviator. I have my hundreds of theories, all of which point and lead to Captain Zaharie Ahmed Shah. But, alas, beating the dead horse once again.

I would humbly (surprise) suggest to anyone truly interested in the truth to do some real digging and research into both the distant and near past of Captain Shah, and re-evaluate post-inventory. Things regarding MH370 may just begin to make some sense.

p.s. The emotion of anger (raw and unencumbered) should not be underestimated.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 128): I suspect that even the most gentle ditching would break the aircraft apart, releasing thousands of bits of floating debris.

Discussed at length in other forums…not true, even in high seas. Opinions were somewhat divided, but most believe that a 'perfect' ditching COULD result in minimal fragmentation (engine separation etc…) or even leave a t777 intact. Of course, others argued that even controlled ditching would cause massive break-up in high seas. What IS for sure, is that an UNCONTROLLED impact would cause massive debris, which seems to be MISSING.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 156): I agree about the lack of debris and the longer this goes on for the more I think that they are either searching in the wrong area, really searching in the wrong area, or have been given incorrect info for whatever reason you can imagine.

puzzled here as well, but am of 2 minds…plane is either completely or largely intact, OR, wrong area. Not a believer in the 'big ocean, time, currents, typhoons so no debris explanations'. Massive air search with best assets and not a shred…something should have been found by now.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 141):

Which is well within Jindalee's range.

Quoting KIAS (Reply 59): From this, you determine which cells of your grid-based search area you will begin searching.

Yeah, and you do the most likely cells first unless you like wasting time and money. You work inwards to outwards based on that.

So in all likelihood the last 5% is the least probable cell.

There are many intelligent people who, despite not having specific aeronautical expertise or experience, are capable of enough logic and reasoning to make credible conclusions...which can enhance the discourse along with the contributions of those who have expertise and/or experience in airline related fields.

I admit I haven't always made the most level headed posts and have been as guilty as many to falling into the trap of personal slights. I regret those and try to move on.

Which brings me to this discussion; Very few facts are known about the fate of MH370 and what led to that, which leaves a lot of room for conjecture and speculation. One thing that seems to get lost in the more spirited disussions is that over 200 people died.....and their families and friends are suffering more than I hope I ever have to or than any person should.

It's ok for people to have different opinions....that's one thing that makes this board really interesting; no one person has all the answers and not all answers come from experts.

I suggest that, out of respect for the victims, if not civility, more restraint can be shown in disagreeing with a post or poster. There will never be concensus on any issue...much less one as complex and mysterious as this.

Perhaps one can respectfully disagee with or even ignore a post or poster, instead of stooping to petty insults or snide retorts.

If anyone feels this post breaks forum rules, feel free to suggest its deletion.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 166): I suggest that, out of respect for the victims, if not civility, more restraint can be shown in disagreeing with a post or poster. There will never be concensus on any issue...much less one as complex and mysterious as this. Perhaps one can respectfully disagee with or even ignore a post or poster, instead of stooping to petty insults or snide retorts. If anyone feels this post breaks forum rules, feel free to suggest its deletion.

Very well said. We can all lose perspective when focusing too much on the minutia of the discussions, and it is good to bring everything back into frame from time to time.

3 new interesting articles:

" THE preliminary report on missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 will be released next week after it has been vetted by a team of experts. "

http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general...h370-report-out-next-week-1.579304


And:


"ABOUT 95 per cent of the underwater search area for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has been completed.

The underwater search area is focused on a 10km radius around the second Towed Pinger Locator detection which occurred on April 8.

If nothing is found, the underwater vehicle Bluefin-21 will continue to examine the areas adjacent to the 10km radius."

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...leted/story-e6frfq80-1226896676322


And this one stating the obvious:


"The search for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane could take years, a senior US defence official has warned, as the underwater search off Western Australia failed to find any trace of wreckage or black boxes."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ne-flight-mh370-take-years-warning

This thread has become something of a contest of who has the largest "Theory"!  

[Edited 2014-04-25 21:22:50]

Quoting Gennadius (Reply 155): abba, someone who says they have a passing understanding of the language, claims that the links that you ran through Google translate may not support what you are claiming, yet you completely bypass his statement and just say that it does back you up anyway.

Now, I haven't run anything through Google translate. WarrenPlats has. But I do know enough Chinese to say that one should be very careful when doing it and that claiming that the slide shows the path of the MH370 is not certain. My reading skills are far from perfect - in particular when reading about subjects like this.

So if this had not been a modern jet that emitted the telltale "pings" that revealed that it was still in the air, would rescuers still be searching the waters around Malaysia ?

Would anyone have guessed that the plane was somewhere off the coast of Australia ? I still believe this was a deliberate action.

[Edited 2014-04-25 23:45:33]

Quoting sipadan (Reply 161): The totality of the 'evidence' suggests a human hand, and, on that supposition, one that is a highly competent and skilled aviator ....

... someone who also has the ability to competently make an airliner disappear; if necessary with no scruples or qualms. Lets call him an agent or agency.

But, of course, I'm not a Pilot, let alone a Captain or Engineer etc.; I'm just an ordinary passenger on an airliner once every few years when I can afford it.
So anything I say is just 'conspiracy theories' ....

REASONABILITY CHECK
Suppose - let's for just one minute suppose that WP has come to the truth of the flight details.
If I remember well, speed was 486 kt from KL to 18:29 Z.
Has it occurredto anyone of his defenders that his timing :
a/- shooits down every theory of a twisty trajectory between waypôints inside the straits (distances would be greater )
and
b/- destroys any theory about a low level, radar-avoiding flight path. ( the speeds are too slow to allow these waypoints' check at these times )

So... it's either or...


Right ?

Need to be a little more critical of the reasoning proposed, methinks.

Quoting blueshamu330s (Reply 136): Quoting p51tang (Reply 132): On a pettiness scale of (1-10) for firing third party flight simulator consultants,I'd rate this completely off the charts. Quoting NAV30 (Reply 133): Couldn't agree more - not only did the guy talk sense, he didn't waste words - and, for all we know, he'd been working for many hours trying to sort out the mystery. Absolute stuff-up by the 'administrators,' in my view. Whilst he was on his easy earning little junket with CNN, he repeatedly arrived late for his contractual obligations and didn't turn up for others. Far from a petty misdemeanour, I'd rank that pretty high in the gross misconduct category. Rgds

I'm assuming there was a standard hire agreement entered into between CNN & uFly?.And that uFly financially benefited from this commercial agreement?.

Quote: Savidge and Casado spent 12-to18-hour days in the cockpit, using the machine to simulate what might happen under certain scenarios. They logged so much airtime reporting from the fake cockpit that the hashtag #freemartinsavidge appeared on Twitter.

Quote: In a tweet earlier, Casado wrote "My boss had me training a new guy the last few days, and now that he can do my job, and CNN left, he fired me. That's Ufly."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ufly-...-flight-simulator-who-appeared-cnn


That aside: Who wins the 2014 Flight Simulator Fashion Show?.Martin Savidge or Mitchell Casado?.

Quote: Savidge, who had been vacationing in Australia when the plane went missing on March 8, was sent to Canada for one day on March 14 and returned home for the weekend. The response to his reports was so positive, CNN sent him back on March 17, and he stayed until Monday, April 14 — about 30 days in total. Two days later, Casado was fired.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04...ired-after-shamed-canadians-owner/



In summary: uFly financially benefited from CNN's Television Coverage.So did Mitchell,but obviously at uFlys own remuneration package,not that of CNN's.Perhaps no easy little junket?....

If CNN was that concerned with Mitchell Casado as Flight Simulator Consultant for uFly dressing the way he did and not like that of their own News Corespondent Martin Savidge (who looked like he should have been 'shelling out cards at the local Bridge Club' wearing jeans and a grey shirt/sweater) then it most certainly did not affect CNN's Viewership Ratings, which shot up 84 percent during said Flight Simulator Coverage.

As for Mitchell turning up late for work,or not at all?.That would be a matter for the Canadian Employment Tribunal to decide, if Mitchell were to lay a complaint.



Moving on........I'm o.k with the current search area for MH370.Without the fuel load data for MH370's flight to Beijing,I'm surprised that it even flew as far as the Inmarsat Pings have indicated.

Using Warren Platts way-point theory:



there must have been a decent Safety Margin incorporated into the original Fuel Load?.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 179):

Quoting sipadan (Reply 173):

From an interview with the young widow of a passenger:

"Alongside the ever-changing updates on the where, why and how of the search, she has had to endure endless theories and opinions from so-called experts on aviation from all corners of the globe.
"It's harrowing ... With no information, your mind constantly makes up scenarios of what happened and around what you have read in the news and it's excruciating to think that your loved one could be involved in any of that."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11244515

Quoting sipadan (Reply 173): But in the absence of anything exculpatory,

Not to mention anything inculpatory, other than being a Muslim and having political opinions ....

It reminds me of the "facts" asserted on the AF447 threads:
The FO(PM) was having an affair with the wife of the FO(PF).
The flight crew had been out drinking/partying before the flight.
The captain was humping his girlfriend in the crew rest.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 173): The knowledge base is immense, yes, and appreciated and illuminating, but it does not in any way justify or dignify one opinion more than another as it relates to THIS incident.

I prefer fact-based opinions over opinions based on factual inaccuracy or no facts at all. It's called evidence-based.

I think we could all benefit from staying focused on technical issues including but not limited to:

- getting as much raw data as possible, "corroborated" or not by the Malaysian officials (a/c configuration, radar(s), RTDs, Doppler, Visitor Location Register records, ...)
- identifying and trying to explain perceived discrepancies in the raw data (missing data, timeline, legends, lack of underlying model, ...)
- challenging assumptions that may still be in doubt
- analyzing whether the possible flight paths imply coordinated inputs from the cockpit (whether by the crew or not) or may be the sole result of a chain of accidental/sabotage events affecting the a/c
- strategies for searching for the wreckage and debris

The blame game should not be part of the early phase of this investigation. And after 6 weeks, we are still in the early phase trying to pin down basic raw data.

Nothing found...

Start again at its last known position and head East.

They are looking in the wrong ocean. Try the Mariana Trench in the Pacific.

It's 11,000m deep in places. If he wanted to never be found, there's no better place.

Quote: PIhero post 185: Also take into account that, because of terrain, the plane couldn't have been below 7,500 ft when crossing the Malaysian peninsula

If you are an airline pilot going back to KL, 7,500ft is fine but close as the highest peak on the way is around 2,174m (=7,133ft)
But one can easily cross Malaysia in the vicinity of Kota Bharu - Penang at 5,000ft, even at 4,000ft provided one is willing to perform a little bit more maneuvering.

As I admitted yesterday (in one of my 3 posts that got deleted in cascade), the timeline remains a problem for a low level crossing due to the max GS of 365kts based on VMO during the low level portion of the flight.

But flying for 20 minutes at 39,000ft as some news media have reported is also a problem. Butterworth, Yat Yai and even Sura Thani primary radars should have tracked it. Did they? Intermittently or not at all? Why?

"Investigators have also examined data transmitted from the plane's Rolls-Royce engines that shows it descending 40,000 feet in the space of a minute, according to a senior U.S. official briefed on the investigation. But investigators do not believe the readings are accurate because the aircraft would likely have taken longer to fall such a distance.
"A lot of stock cannot be put in the altitude data" sent from the engines, one official said. "A lot of this doesn't make sense."
The data, while incomplete and difficult to interpret, could still provide critical new clues as investigators try to determine what transpired on Flight 370, which disappeared early March 8 carrying 239 people from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing."

This was reported around March 15. Does anyone know how this fits into the timeline and the time this data was transmitted? Was it in the last acars transmission at 1:07?


Edit: I found a post on another message board that said that Rolls Royce stated that the wall street journals article was "inaccurate". I cant find anything confirming the RR statement.

[Edited 2014-04-26 11:07:29]

Quoting 65mustang (Reply 195): descending 40,000 feet in the space of a minute

I don't think this passes any sanity check.
1. it is very doubtful if the plane was higher than 40.000 ft at any time, especially so shortly after take off with all the weight.
2. vertical speed of 40.000ft/min equals 12km/min equals approx. 720 km/h, on average, not taking necessary vertical acceleration and deceleration into account.

But it might indicate trouble with pressures inside the engine.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 196):

The 40000 was a rate of descent. IIRC the actual numbers were ~20000ft in around ~35 seconds. I was also wondering -if the indicated data is true- if it would indicate a problem with a sensor, problem with pressure, or a problem with acars

Actually, I must say that the Thai radar picture is rather intriguing, as it suggests that whoever took over Flight 370 might have had the intention to smash into the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lampur, and then changed his or her mind, deciding instead to simply disappear without a trace. It would seem to suggest an unplanned, spontaneous event, consistent with someone who just had a really, really, really, really bad day snapping.

And BTW, if Flight 370 were taken over by a single person, that, by definition, is not a conspiracy.

More on the Thai radar:

Look, we know that the Flight 370 passed Pulau Perak at 18:02 UTC. How it got there from IGARI doesn't really matter. Like I said, when one steals a vehicle, the first instinct is to put the "pedal to the metal," as we say in the USA. So she might have sped up for a while, and then later slowed back down to a more normal cruising speed.

On the other hand, let's take the Thai radar at it's face value. Does it really invalidate anything? On the contrary: e.g., the track below is certainly consistent with an a/c overshooting IGARI by a few miles, then turning back directly to Kuala Lampur, followed by a turn to Khota Bharu. Google Earth says the track is 340 nautical miles. Meanwhile the time difference between IGARI (17:20) to Pulau Perak (18:02) is 42 minutes = 0.7 hours.

Guess what? 340 nm / 0.7 hr = 486 nm/hr

Quoting sipadan (Reply 178): You simply choose to turn a blind eye to the political 'aspect' of MH370 and intrigue there within, preferring to dwell in a comfort zone of ONLY empirical data. Only this is sorely lacking, and NOT by accident.

And then people complain when they are called conspiracy theorists...

Possible Waypoint Path Part 2:

As promised, here is my analysis finally. As I discussed in detail in the previous installment, it's quite clear--to me at least--that Flight 370 was behaving as if it were following waypoints programmed into the Flight Management Computer (FMC). Therefore, I believe it is reasonable to expect that she would continue to follow waypoints--as long as there are waypoints to follow. Also, I am assuming an average ground speed of 486 knots.

In the previous installment, I had mentioned there had to be another turn south at some point, as airway P627 leads straight to the B-52 base at Diego Garcia. Thanks to the Duncan Steel "ping rings", loci, LOPs, whatever you want to call them, we can make a reasonable guess that the turn came sooner rather than later. After detailed analysis, I believe that a turn at BEDAX, rather than POVUS, to be the more realistic option: turning at POVUS would cause her to fly slightly closer to Banda Aceh, and it results in a better agreement with the ping rings.

Now, because the 19:40 and 20:40 ping rings are so close to each other, in order to fit, the course must have been pretty much due south at this point. Thus, given the ping rings, three waypoints immediately suggest themselves for after BEDAX: ISBIX MUTMI RUNUT.

When the course is charted and the positions at each ping time determined, the agreement with the ping ring LOPs is not bad at all. On my chart, I alternately use orange and red for the course between each ping time.

After RUNUT, things get problematic as there really are no other waypoints after that. The next sign of civilization would be the Little America base on the other side of Antarctica.

A literally chilling path would be to head for waypoint RERAB at -43°. However, that is simply a bridge too far, and she never would have made it--at least within the time frame allowed.

The Skyvector chart does show a series of what look like waypoints along the 90th meridian that are simply labeled 2390S, 2490S, and 2990S. So I investigated the possibility that she went due south at 90°; after all, 90 is a nice round number and the 90th meridian neatly splits the difference between Australia and the French Southern and Antarctic Lands. However, to follow this meridian due south and be consistent with the ping rings would require that she slow down to a velocity of perhaps 416 knots when on 90°E.

Now, when analyzing the course of Flight 370, I adopt what the philosopher Daniel Dennett called an "intentional stance". The intentional stance attempts to predict the behavior of a system by positing various beliefs, desires, goals, designs. Hence, slowing down would seem like an odd thing for her to do, as there is seemingly little reason to slow down. If I understand it correctly, standard cruising speeds are standards just because they tend to be nearly the most fuel efficient. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thus, I reasoned that a constant velocity path would be more realistic. As has been discussed at length previously, when an a/c passes the last waypoint on its list, the default is to keep going on the same heading. Now, if I understand it correctly, there are 4 ways this could be accomplished: the FMC can be in either TRACK or HDG mode: if the former, it will maintain the same course, and automatically compensate for any crosswinds, Coriolis, etc. If in HDG mode, it will maintain the same compass heading, but will be affected by crosswinds. Then the FMC can also choose whether to follow the magnetic compass or the gyro (true) compass.

Thus, the simplest mode to model would be if the FMC were in TRACK mode with the HDG REF button set to TRUE. So that's what I tried first--also, just speaking for myself as a former navigator, I much preferred true headings if I had the choice.

Now, according to SkyVector, the true heading after passing RUNUT would be 189°. So I plotted a so-called rhumb line--defined as a constant course with respect to true north. To do this, I divided the remaining track with about 7 waypoints (not shown), and ensured that the course was 189° at each point. I would have liked to have done more, but it is a tedious process since the only way I can think of doing it is with a protractor by hand. However, I do not believe that adding a bunch more waypoints would affect the results much.

When this was done, and the course finally run out according to a speed equal to 486 knots, it turned out rather nicely, coming out at the 24:11 ping ring with an overshoot of only 8 nm!

The following is a list of all the errors ("-" means an undershoot; "+" means an overshoot:
time distance
18:29 0 nm
19:40 -17.4
20:40 -15.2
21:40 -17.5
22:40 -18.5
24:11 +7.0

The average error 12.6 knots. Not perfect, but all errors are well within the expected error range of the ping arc radii of at least ~50 nm.

As to the speed of 486 knots, I got that from looking at March 21 radar screenshot. It is somewhat arbitrary I admit; yet it is quite close to the standard cruising speed listed in the Wikipedia of 490 knots. However, there probably there is a slightly different speed that might minimize the errors a little more, but it would not affect the bottom line result much, which is a waypoint path BEDAX ISBIX MUTMI RUNUT, followed by a true course of 189°.

Thus, to accept Red Baron's challenge of where to center a 50 km box as a potential search area, judging from past search areas, it seems that the authorities are zeroing in on the last ping ring itself, and are not assuming much of an overshoot. Therefore, I would center the box at about 38° 30' S 87° 8' E.

OK, gotta go....

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 181): On the other hand, let's take the Thai radar at it's face value. Does it really invalidate anything? On the contrary: e.g., the track below is certainly consistent with an a/c overshooting IGARI by a few miles, then turning back directly to Kuala Lampur, followed by a turn to Khota Bharu. Google Earth says the track is 340 nautical miles. Meanwhile the time difference between IGARI (17:20) to Pulau Perak (18:02) is 42 minutes = 0.7 hours. Guess what? 340 nm / 0.7 hr = 486 nm/hr

In an ideal world of aviation, or space opera, we could instantaneously turn 180°.
Unfortunately, we still ,belong to the Earth, with Earth physics, and these say : Not on your life !
Actually, we're more of less restrained to a bank angle of 25° or so.
That bank angle will take nearly 2 1/2 minutes and the turn radius will be 7 Nm, meaning the aircraft will be 14 Nm off its original track.
If, as you say, we take the Thai radar at its face value, it would have flown until 16:28 Z an extra 5 1/2 minutes, worth 45 Nm of flight on course to KL... So your distance should be corrected by
- the amount of overshoot from IGARI... how much ? Say 5 Nm
- The distance in the turn : 21 Nm
- The offset : 14 Nm
Add these to your 340 Nm and we have the distance actually flown : 340 + 40 = 380 Nm
Which relates to a ground speed of 380 x 60 / 42 = 545 kt
Do the maths.
and before you'd accuse me of cheating on bank angles, these are the figures for a 45° bank :
Radius : 3.5 Nm , distance in the turn :11 Nm, offset : 7 Nm.
That still gets your total distance to 340 + 11 + 7 + 5 = 363 Nm, so a ground speed of 518 kt.
Shall I add that, due to the flight control protections of the airplane, that bank angle is very very heavy to maintain ?

So, answering your question, which was "Guess what ?", I do not guess ; I use navigation methods.
I prove...

Listen ; I've spent hours reviewing all the claims of the respective countries' radar data, imagined all possible scenarii of high levvel, low level, low and high altitudes ... transits inside the Straits and mly conclusion is that one cannot give these any credit at all.
For the radar, I understand that it is a sensitive national security area and a lot of high ranking officers are probably into an ass-covering operation... but I don't care... They are just not credible.
As for all the low altutude jinking manoeuvres, they are all an impossibility considering the trajectories involved.
I'm afraid that the proponents of such scenarii will have to change their assumptions.
Unless, of course they prove me wrong... and that doesn't seem like coming fast.

As I said, exactly what happened between IGARI and Pulau Perak doesn't matter. In my track I put in an extra 8 miles for overshoot because that's what you suggested earlier. Fact is we can play around with the track in Google Earth to provide any ground speed we want.

Bottom line: she was at Pulau Perak at 18:02 UTC.

For the purposes of civil court in the USA at least, the burden of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence--not beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, there aren't going to be any trials....

Thus, for the purposes that matter: assigning blame and assessing damages, establishing a preponderance of evidence is all that's required.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 184): When the course is charted and the positions at each ping time determined, the agreement with the ping ring LOPs is not bad at all. On my chart, I alternately use orange and red for the course between each ping time.

Please give these coordinates so we could make our own minds... Minimim courtesy, I'd say.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 184): . If I understand it correctly, standard cruising speeds are standards just because they tend to be nearly the most fuel efficient. Correct me if I'm wrong.

No. We fly Mach numbers, which make TAS vary with the outside temperature... and the ground speed depends on the winds aloft.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 184): I divided the remaining track with about 7 waypoints (not shown), and ensured that the course was 189° at each point

Why not ? We're all interested.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 184): I do not believe that adding a bunch more waypoints would affect the results much.

For once you could be right

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 184): When this was done, and the course finally run out according to a speed equal to 486 knots, it turned out rather nicely, coming out at the 24:11 ping ring with an overshoot of only 8 nm!

... omitting the fact that you are some 1300 Nm from the search area or 2400 km.
That's what I'd call *lost again, Nav ?*

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 184): : the FMC can be in either TRACK or HDG mode: if the former, it will maintain the same course, and automatically compensate for any crosswinds, Coriolis, etc. If in HDG mode, it will maintain the same compass heading, but will be affected by crosswinds.

How about head or tail winds ? Don't that axial component count ? i.e your ground speed could well be in grave error...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 184): The Skyvector chart does show a series of what look like waypoints along the 90th meridian that are simply labeled 2390S, 2490S, and 2990S.

Oh ! Boy ! and you don't know their significance in terms of navigation?
They are quite important, though !

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 184): However, to follow this meridian due south and be consistent with the ping rings would require that she slow down to a velocity of perhaps 416 knots when on 90°E.

Another case of fitting data to your demonstration.
So, if I rehash all the above :
It followed a waypoint-based track but only half-way, then went into TRUE TRK mode
It had a constant ground speed ( meaning accelerating and decelerating with wind effects, a mode I'm totally unaware of in any aircraft )... but slowed conveniently down by 70 kt ( or some 12 Mach number points : like M.71 iso M.83 )to fit your demonstration... an d not forgetting that at high altitude that could well be in the coffin's corner ...  

[Edited 2014-04-26 15:49:39]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 190): , for the purposes that matter: assigning blame and assessing damages

I seem to have to repeat this at least twice on every thread.

International Convention on Civil Aviation, article 3.1:

"The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability."

[Edited 2014-04-26 19:08:40]

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 198): The MH370 pilot suicide theory was brought up just days after it went missing - just days... I can't recall another incident in which talk of pilot suicide emerged so quickly.

I don't think that's strange. Before Silk and Egypt nobody would ever imagine that it could be possible.

After it has proved possible, it will in the future always pop up as a theory, when relevant, and when it hasn't already proved wrong.

For MH370 I'm afraid that it will remain a theory until the end of the world. We may still hope for an AF447 style outcome soon or in a few years time. But it looks like the potential search area may be hundreds of times larger, and there won't be resources (cash) available to match that. That's of course undescribably terrible for captain Shah and his relatives in case he is in fact innocent.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 201): For MH370 I'm afraid that it will remain a theory until the end of the world.

Could well be, prebennorholm, given that there appear to be no more 'pings' to guide the searchers.

One possible area offering some hope though - there is apparently a class of US unmanned subs that goes deeper, and possibly has more powerful sonar, than the Bluefin type currently in use. Apparently they can also carry cameras on the same mission.

It certainly looks as if the Bluefin had to be very careful not to go too deep. If more capable subs are deployed, there appears to be an outside hope that the wreckage may yet be found?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/forme...-disappearance-20140427-zr0cz.html

Former Malaysian PM lays blame on Boeing for MH370 disappearance


“The loss of the plane is due to the makers, Boeing. How can Boeing produce a plane that is so easily disabled?” he said.
Dr Mahathir said in an era where passenger planes can be tracked on mobile phone, and spy satellites operated by some countries can photograph and identify a person on the ground, Boeing must explain how all these means of tracking the plane “can be disabled, can fail”.
“Either Boeing technology is poor, or it is not fail-safe,” he said.


Writing in an opinion piece, Dr Mahathir questioned why no debris or oil slick from the plane has been found.
“Can it be that the plane remained intact on crashing and sank with no trace and no one launching the lifeboat doors, as we are told all these aircraft are equipped with?” he asked.
“Can one believe this plane quietly floated down into the raging sea and sank conveniently in the deepest part (seven miles deep) of the Indian Ocean?”

My post from yesterday got deleted so I will re-post...

If looking at the Inmarsat red example southern track (source: http://www.inmarsat.com/news/malaysi...publishes-mh370-details-uk-aaib/), the following route broadly fits it:

IGARI - KOTA BHARU - PENANG - VAMPI - IGOGU

That is roughly (36 + 53) + 134 + 170 + (68 + 34 + 104) = 599 nm, give or take a few miles due to the turns.

The transponder went off (near IGARI) at 1721 Z

The plane turned south according to the Inmarsat BFO chart (near IGOGU according to the red example track) at around 1830 Z

That leaves 69 minutes for 599 nm, corresponding to a ground speef of roughly 520 kn.

In addition, according to unconfirmed CNN reports, the plane climbed to 39,000 feet for 20 minutes when flying over the Malaysian Peninsula and descended to below 10,000 after that and then finally apparently climbed to a cruising altitude.

Hopefully the interim report next week will show which route the plane is believed to have flown after the loss of transponder near IGARI.

Quoting chrisrad (Reply 204):

Some of what he said is just as pathetic as the way MH and Malaysia have handled this incident. Trying to blame Boeing as if Boeing 777s go missing frequently. This type of incident is almost unprecedented. But, he makes it sound as if MH370 was intentional and not an accident. I wounder what else he knows? He also talks a lot about pilot suicide and several of his questions imply that the pilot suicide theory is high on his list of possibilities. Well, there may very well be a design flaw with an aircraft if it can be made invisible so easily. Then again, the pilots would usually be the only people on a flight with the kind of knowledge and skill required to pull off such a stunt. I'm sure aircraft manufacturers don't design planes with the idea that the pilots will sabotage their own aircraft in the back of their minds. Again, this is a very rare incident and maybe there is a problem with many aircraft now it is known how easily one can just disappear. Nonetheless, it takes a special kind of knowledge and skill set to make this happen. Should Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers now design planes that make it impossible for their own crew to make disappear without a trace? Maybe airlines should also undertake more frequent background checks / psychological tests of their pilots?

He said: "“I would not like to fly in a Boeing aircraft unless Boeing can explain how all its system can fail or be disabled.”"

Well, I will continue to fly confidently on Boeing aircraft but I will not be flying on any MH operated aircraft again  

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 205): Hopefully the interim report next week will show which route the plane is believed to have flown after the loss of transponder near IGARI.

It probably will, until it is changed or corrected a few days later because a 'mistake' was made...  

[Edited 2014-04-27 00:08:36]

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 206): Some of what he said is just as pathetic

If Dr Mahatir had been an Anet member posting here he would have been denounced(rightly) as a troll.

He was always a loose cannon and one who was never really interested in letting the facts influence his anti Western rhetoric.

It actually surprised me that his tirade didn't include an accusation that Australia was complicit in the disappearance conspiracy... or at least demand an apology from Australia for not finding the plane yet.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 207): It actually surprised me that his tirade didn't include an accusation that Australia was complicit in the disappearance conspiracy... or at least demand an apology from Australia for not finding the plane yet

So very true! Why let such a stupid and trivial thing like fact get in the way of a go on the Western world.

Quoting chrisrad (Reply 204): Former Malaysian PM lays blame on Boeing for MH370 disappearance

The best news in the article is the following:

Quote: The report is expected to reveal details such as the plane’s altitude and speed after turned back from its scheduled course over the South China Sea.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 206): This type of incident is almost unprecedented. But, he makes it sound as if MH370 was intentional and not an accident. I wounder what else he knows?

I had the same thoughts about that; I would also say that Mahathir Mohamad probably knows a lot more than is being made public.

Whilst this incident is indeed 'almost' unprecedented, we must also then consider a whole range of hitherto unprecedented scenarios that may have led to the disappearance of this flight; not only what may have happened on the aircraft but also everything that has happened on the ground, in preparation for the flight. Specifically, were there actions or lack of actions that enabled this disappearance to occur.
The non-screening of cargo is just one such example; are there others?

We must then follow these scenarios through, whether or not they will survive the 'Occam's Razor' test.

There is what happened in the cockpit and, maybe equally important, what happened in the passenger cabin; all that is one thing.

Quite another thing is the 'machinery' on the ground (if I may call it that) that looks after all flights. One part of that machine prepares the flight and another part of it goes into action as soon as there is an aircraft that is not responding as it should, i.e. when there is an uncertainty phase.

Whilst those on flight MH370 may have decided to turn off all communications equipment (or it all got damaged somehow), the appropriate authorities would and should have tried to make contact with the airliner, as soon as possible after there was no word, one should think.
The longer there was no answer, the more urgent those contact attempts ought to have been.

Is there any timeline or feedback on what type of contact was tried?
What is normal procedure in that scenario?
How long does it take before an airliner is contacted if there is no word from it?
And indeed, how long does it take, or should, before a SAR operation is launched if there is no contact?
Were the requirements followed correctly in this case?

[Edited 2014-04-27 01:29:28]

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 206): I wounder what else he knows?

Mahathir obviously always liked conspiracy theories. He is not to be taken seriously. And he is 88.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 206): Well, I will continue to fly confidently on Boeing aircraft but I will not be flying on any MH operated aircraft again

No offense, saying you won't flying on any MH operated aircraft is about as stupid as Mahatir saying he won't fly on a Boeing. Why don't we list every airline with some incident and you'll be running out of options of what to fly.....

Hang on a sec......is there any evidence to prove 100% that the disappearance of this aircraft isn't the result of a fault with a Boeing aircraft. If there is can someone please post a link.

[Edited 2014-04-27 01:46:51]

Quoting chrisrad (Reply 212): No offense, saying you won't flying on any MH operated aircraft is about as stupid as Mahatir saying he won't fly on a Boeing. Why don't we list every airline with some incident and you'll be running out of options of what to fly.....

Incidents can happen to everybody, and it may well be a fault of the plane, but there are other circumstances. Pax boarding with stolen passports, girls in the cockpit, the handling of the affair by Malaysia - all that does not make one trust MH.