Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Due to length part 60 was locked for further contributions. Please feel free to continue your discussion in part 61.

MH Malaysia Airlines B772 Missing Enroute KUL-PEK Part 60 (by wilco737 May 4 2014 in Civil Aviation)

SOME IMPORTANT REMINDERS FOR ALL OUR MEMBERS TO CONSIDER BEFORE POSTING IN THIS THREAD:

**** Out of respect to the crew, passengers and also family members; close to those onboard MH370; please keep science fiction theories and content related to past / current movies or possible future movie rights out of these threads. ****

**** PLEASE DO NOT REPEAT QUESTIONS AND SCENARIOS THAT HAS BEEN COVERED AND DISCUSSED IN PREVIOUS THREADS AND WHICH DO NOT CONTRIBUTE OR APPLY, IN A CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER, TOWARDS THIS CONVERSATION ANY LONGER. ****

**** Please make an effort to read through some of the threads, if possible the latest in the series, before adding your own comments and theories to the current, active thread on this issue. ****

**** PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL TOWARDS OTHER USERS AND KEEP THE FORUM RULES AND REGULATIONS IN MIND WHEN POSTING IN THE FORUMS. SHOULD THERE BE ANY RULE VIOLATIONS, PLEASE BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE MODERATORS BY MAKING USE OF THE SUGGEST DELETION FUNCTION.
****

**** WHEN STATING FACTS, STATISTICS OR NEWSWORTHY BULLETINS, PLEASE BE SURE TO INCLUDE AN HTML LINK OR REFERENCE TO A PUBLICATION. IF YOU ARE MERELY PROVIDING AN OPINION, PLEASE MENTION THIS IN YOUR POST. ALL MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE TO AVOID ARGUMENTS BASED ON RUMORS OR MISINFORMATION

**** Some members may not be aware of the fact that all members have an edit window of 60 minutes, from the time you first make a post in which to add or remove any additional comments or information into/from the post. Please make use of this feature made available to you, for your own convenience, instead of posting one post after another (doubles, triples or more).

**** Also keep in mind that this is a discussion forum and not a chat room. If you would like to chat about this incident, kindly make use of the "Live Chat" option, which is available in the "forum drop-down menu". Messages of agreement such as "ME TOO", "I AGREE WITH X", YES OR NO have been found to waste time and space and are therefore to be avoided. A message consisting of only one or two lines of text is probably not worth posting. Do not make posts that contain only a smiley face, check mark, etc. Make sure the content of your post is relevant to the topic.

Enjoy the forums!

Regards and thanks for your co-operation

Quote: Funny, I learned another one that had a different order ingrained into my head...

SLCPilot... yes... my fault... Aviate Navigate Communicate...   
---

Warren,

Quote: Doesn't matter in the slightest. Let's stay on topic, shall we?

But it does in terms of your insistence of True North as reference...

Quote: The stretch between 18:02 and 18:22 that was covered by the radar is highly constrained. The distance is about 167 nm, giving a ground speed of about 500 kts; according to the wind data I've got, she would have had about a 10 kts tailwind, giving a TAS of 490 knots. Also, the run from IGARI to Pulau Perak, taking into account the initial turn toward BITOD, the wide turn to the left/west back toward Kota Bharu, the end run around Penang at D155J, about 340 nm is a reasonable estimate of the distance, and for that stretch the average tailwind was ~12.5 kts, it still works out to 490 kts TAS.

I should have been clearer, you said:

Quote: Other than the facts that she had just been stolen

So you know that she had just been stolen as a fact? What are the factually accepted evidence? If it is a fact, then the preliminary report might have just pointed that out and that the investigation would be a criminal one rather than an accident investigation (which then, bypasses the need for preliminary reports).

Quote: In general, we should avoid all but the bare essentials when it comes to importing psychological hypotheses,

Bare essentials does not take the aircraft being stolen as fact...
You want all but the bare essentials, or your assumptions and others' assumption as "beyond bare essentials"?

Quote: We do not care about the "how"; we care about the "that". We care THAT he was navigating via waypoints.

That's a rapid contradiction. If you only care about the that, then you should throw away the assumption that he was navigating by waypoints. The waypoints can be used to assist in narrowing down the possibilities but without assuming he was flying by waypoints... because flying by waypoints is the "how" and not the "that". The "that" is solely where the aircraft came down. You keep going back and forth. Now either you are, or you need a better way to communicate in this place (even if that's because we're not communicating well either).

Quote: The tracks shown by the "authorities" consistently show the track going to the south of VPG as it makes a right turn. If VPG was the waypoint, it would have been a "flyby" waypoint, and if anything, the track should have cut to the north of Penang. It did not.

Again... you are "fitting things into your model". Sorry, you said "I will grant that IMO, he was using the LNAV", so, which waypoint did he enter? VPG or D155J? Now... does it make sense for a pilot to put in D155J? Unless he wants to land near there, no... D155J is a waypoint in an arrivals/approach procedure and is not used otherwise. It does not make sense for him to do so. If he entered VPG and he screwed up ending up 10NM away at D155J, it makes more sense (but then it's moving away from your theory and goes towards Pihero's). How many D155Js are there? Any procedure that using a radial 155 at 10NM from a VOR?

Quote: The white line is the digitized version of the track shown at the recent technical briefing and I believe from the Minister of Defense's chart.

It clearly misses D155J... It looks more like a handflown or HDGSEL flown to VPG then a radial outbound to the right of the incoming course. Missing it by 2NM isn't a big thing.

Quote: I believe D155J was the chosen waypoint for these reasons: (1) it is to the south of VPG; (2) it causes the radar track back from VAMPI to be perfectly straight back to D155J--going to VPG requires a kink in the track; (3) there are no other waypoints between D155J and VPG that I have been able to identify, at least on SkyVector.

Again, this requires the assumption that the aircraft was 100% OK and that the only way to explain the 2NM lateral displacement is the selection of D155J.
D155J isn't a listed waypoint, it is a procedural waypoint. Crew don't normally see it selected in any other occasion other than a DME arc entry to PEN, and what's the usual DME arc procedure used? The 10NM arc or the 15NM arc? As far as I know the 777 would use the 15DME arc as their anticipated entry for 04, entered into the FMC, ATC would then vector them. They only use the 10DME arc if ATC ask them...
Sorry, "D155J as a selection" really is, "trying to fit things into the scenario your way".

Quote: Yes, D155J is an obscure waypoint for you or me, but it would have been well known to someone intimately familiar with the area....

As someone familiar with approach procedure waypoint naming conventions, no, it isn't. Looking at the chart can explain why it is called D155J, but then, if he's intimately familiar with the area, why pick D155J, and not D131H, or D130L or D131L, or D165H, D222E, or D100C, or D190D?
But then, ATC over there don't go "Proceed direct D155J"...

I guess he must be really smart in getting us to debate whether he selected VPG or D155J... {biggrin)

Quoting Warren Platts: Doesn't matter in the slightest. Let's stay on topic, shall we? The topic is where to find 9M-MRO, not Steve Fossett.

Once again...no it isn't. This topic is to discuss the missing flight, MH370. Theories may be posited that attempt to explain what has potentially happened, why it happened, and how it happened. In the same way, those theories can be broken down, criticized, and rebutted.

In no way is this thread about literally finding MH370 since most of us realize that we have only a small portion of the available information, and that without making WILD ASSUMPTIONS about all kinds of things, there is no way to even begin to narrow down the possibilities.

Quoting Warren Platts : No no no.... You guys remind me of those muscle builders on Muscle Beach in Hollywood. All these great muscles put to no use other than showing off! You keep forgetting that getting all the little technical details exactly right is not necessary to find this airplane!

It isn't showing off. The people with the actual expertise here are trying, over and over again, to explain to you either why your assumptions are suspect, or to get you to understand how things work so you can refine your theory.

However, just as we've pointed out for many threads now, if something doesn't fit into your theory, you like to just shout it down or you just try to ignore it.

Also, if getting all the technical details exactly right isn't that important, why are you so fixated on this waypoint flown premise? Why do you discount all the many other possibilities of how the plane could have been flown, even though people with the actual aviation expertise have given you many, many other options?

The longer these discussions go, the more and more you start to contradict yourself.

Quoting mandala499: -- Quote: Warren Platts The white line is the digitized version of the track shown at the recent technical briefing and I believe from the Minister of Defense's chart. -- It clearly misses D155J... It looks more like a handflown or HDGSEL flown to VPG then a radial outbound to the right of the incoming course. Missing it by 2NM isn't a big thing.

This should be interesting. Here, someone who is intimately familiar with that area (your original words) and also has the relevant expertise regarding procedure and conventions, has explained to you why your assumption about the track that you have picked is likely incorrect.

What will happen now? Will you ignore his expertise? Will you try to shout him down, saying that he is definitely wrong? Or will you wash it under by saying "it's just details", even though when you thought it was something that fit into your theory, it was a set of very important details.

Quoting mandala499: I see the topic has quickly skimmed the edges of the large proverbial online junkyard again!

Yes, and it is very unfortunate, as there were a few threads there for a short time where there was some good discussion taking place.

[Edited 2014-05-10 10:26:19]

[Edited 2014-05-10 10:27:02]

[Edited 2014-05-10 10:29:33]

Quoting Gennadius (Reply 2): Yes, and it is very unfortunate, as there were a few threads there for a short time where there was some good discussion taking place.

Yes, I wonder what has changed since then...

I just saw WP on TV. He *swam* to where his model predicted MH370 would be, dove down with no SCUBA gear, and managed to not only find the recorders but even resuscitate some pax.

Truly a hero.

Quoting Mandala: They only use the 10DME arc if ATC ask them...

Uh huh... But ATC wasn't communicating...

Quoting Mandala: why pick D155J, and not D131H, or D130L or D131L, or D165H, D222E, or D100C, or D190D?

Again, you are importing psychology unnecessarily. We do not need to know why he evidently chose D155J. All we need to know is that he chose D155J. His reasons are no concern of ours. The only thing that concerns us is that there be a great circle path that aligns with the radar track. That GC track leads back to D155J and no other waypoint. That is our only concern.

Quoting Gennadius: However, just as we've pointed out for many threads now, if something doesn't fit into your theory, you like to just shout it down or you just try to ignore it.

As opposed to someone like Pihero? You've gotta be kidding. Let's see. He finally laid his cards on the table and what were they? Hmmm. Draw a line backwards at a rhumb line back from the search area to his "LOP", assume a velocity to make it work and call it good. (A) that's not a prediction; (B) it totally disregards all information that has been released so far. Utterly ludicrous. And I am the amateur supposedly. Gag me with a spoon. No, I am the only one here that has proposed a concrete model that makes a precise prediction that is actually data based. Unbelievable.

""I'm not quite sure now how long the Ocean Shield was out there this ltime, but regular, scheduled refuelling and resupply are perfectly normal.
The ship has got to have fuel and the crew needs to have fresh food.""

@ YoungMans - Can't the Ocean Shield be re-fueled / re-supplied whilst out at sea? Assuming that there is an available ship to do so?

Quoting UALWN (Reply 3):

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 4):

Really? Come on guys... Is that the best you can do?    Give us some content! A fresh take--if you got one....

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 7): Really? Come on guys... Is that the best you can do? Give us some content! A fresh take--if you got one....

Given the progress of the current search and based on where you believe 9M-MRO is:

1) Do you think it will ever be found?

2) If so, when (a rough time frame)?

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 8): Given the progress of the current search and based on where you believe 9M-MRO is: 1) Do you think it will ever be found? 2) If so, when (a rough time frame)?

ALLOW me to requite you with some corrections:


Warren Platts.

1) Do you think you will find the Aircraft?

2) If so, when (a rough time frame)?

I am still waiting on your 50 by 50 km search area.

Thanks

TRB

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 5): As opposed to someone like Pihero? You've gotta be kidding. Let's see. He finally laid his cards on the table and what were they? Hmmm. Draw a line backwards at a rhumb line back from the search area to his "LOP", assume a velocity to make it work and call it good. (A) that's not a prediction; (B) it totally disregards all information that has been released so far. Utterly ludicrous. And I am the amateur supposedly. Gag me with a spoon. No, I am the only one here that has proposed a concrete model that makes a precise prediction that is actually data based. Unbelievable.

First, once again, the point is not to literally find the plane. You don't win a prize for making a prediction, in fact, by making predictions based on large numbers of assumptions, you leave yourself open to be critiqued, which is exactly what is happening. This would be all fine and good except for the fact that you end up with such tunnel vision that you see only what you want to see, and you cannot even admit the weaknesses in your own assumptions.

Second, Pihero isn't trying to make a prediction. He is theorizing with the available data while actually making the minimal number of assumptions possible. He is not saying his theory is the only one, or even necessarily that it is the most likely, but he is positing one possibility.

Third, your model may be concrete, but its foundation is so unstable as to make it laughable. If all of your assumptions are correct, even assumptions that you are making that don't even need to be made for your theory to be correct, then your conclusion would be accurate. Unfortunately, there are so many assumptions that it is highly suspect at the moment.

It doesn't help that when people critique your theory, especially when they are drawing from their own experience and expertise in the field of aviation, that you are summarily dismissive of anything that you don't agree with. Whether that involves actively dismissing it, or simply passively ignoring it.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 5): Quoting Mandala: why pick D155J, and not D131H, or D130L or D131L, or D165H, D222E, or D100C, or D190D? Again, you are importing psychology unnecessarily. We do not need to know why he evidently chose D155J. All we need to know is that he chose D155J.

And, a brilliant example of you doing exactly what I described. You elect to respond to just this part of mandala's post, however you completely ignore where he explained *WHY* D155J was likely not used, and in a fashion that doesn't utilize anything even close to psychology.

Let me refresh your memory...

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 1): -- Quote: Warren Platts The tracks shown by the "authorities" consistently show the track going to the south of VPG as it makes a right turn. If VPG was the waypoint, it would have been a "flyby" waypoint, and if anything, the track should have cut to the north of Penang. It did not. -- Again... you are "fitting things into your model". Sorry, you said "I will grant that IMO, he was using the LNAV", so, which waypoint did he enter? VPG or D155J? Now... does it make sense for a pilot to put in D155J? Unless he wants to land near there, no... D155J is a waypoint in an arrivals/approach procedure and is not used otherwise. It does not make sense for him to do so. If he entered VPG and he screwed up ending up 10NM away at D155J, it makes more sense (but then it's moving away from your theory and goes towards Pihero's). How many D155Js are there? Any procedure that using a radial 155 at 10NM from a VOR? -- Quote: Warren Platts The white line is the digitized version of the track shown at the recent technical briefing and I believe from the Minister of Defense's chart. -- It clearly misses D155J... It looks more like a handflown or HDGSEL flown to VPG then a radial outbound to the right of the incoming course. Missing it by 2NM isn't a big thing.

And let us not forget what I already pointed out that you would probably ignore this, as per usual behavior...

Quoting Gennadius (Reply 2): ------ Quoting mandala499: -- Quote: Warren Platts The white line is the digitized version of the track shown at the recent technical briefing and I believe from the Minister of Defense's chart. -- It clearly misses D155J... It looks more like a handflown or HDGSEL flown to VPG then a radial outbound to the right of the incoming course. Missing it by 2NM isn't a big thing. ------ This should be interesting. Here, someone who is intimately familiar with that area (your original words) and also has the relevant expertise regarding procedure and conventions, has explained to you why your assumption about the track that you have picked is likely incorrect. What will happen now? Will you ignore his expertise? Will you try to shout him down, saying that he is definitely wrong? Or will you wash it under by saying "it's just details", even though when you thought it was something that fit into your theory, it was a set of very important details.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 9): ALLOW me to requite you with some corrections: Warren Platts. 1) Do you think you will find the Aircraft? 2) If so, when (a rough time frame)? I am still waiting on your 50 by 50 km search area. Thanks TRB

That's gold!

I will correct my questions:

1) Do you think you will find the aircraft?

2) If not, do you think the aircraft will ever be found?

3) If you think that either yourself or somebody else will find the aircraft, when do you think that will be (a rough time frame)?

Is that okay, TRB???  

Sometimes I wonder why I bother feeding trolls... Oh yeah... to prevent misinformation and disinformation. My agenda is the truth, not my version, not WarrenPlatts' version, not Pihero's version... Trollwalling seems to be an obsession for some... but then... I am guilty of feeding trolls...   

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 5): We do not need to know why he evidently chose D155J. All we need to know is that he chose D155J. His reasons are no concern of ours. The only thing that concerns us is that there be a great circle path that aligns with the radar track. That GC track leads back to D155J and no other waypoint. That is our only concern.

Then why chose it? He didn't even fly over D155J... Therefore, Again, you are importing psychology unnecessarily. But then, I guess anything that doesn't fit your theory, is "importing unnecessary items"... right? I guess "I will grant that IMO, he was using the LNAV" is not unnecessary because it comes from you...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 5): That is our only concern.

Let me add a word to that and switch it to me saying it to you...
That is your only concern. Anything beyond that, no matter if it was more reasonable, is "importing unnecessary items" right? You're unnecessarily shutting yourself from the necessity to test your theory. If you believe in your theory so much and that our inputs and criticism are "unnecessary", why don't you contact the media and let them know of your theory (after all, you said... "we got a plane to find", right? or was that another unnecessary comment of yours?)... And do it while I'm taking a few weeks off from my exchanges with the media on filtering some of the theories that have been put forward to them by all sorts of people (and CNN and Fox are not on my list, so there's some avenues for you!)... and for those who have wondered where I've disappeared to (pihero, nupo, et al), that's where I've been over the last few weeks. But then I guess it's unnecessary right?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 5): Uh huh... But ATC wasn't communicating...

LOL! *self censorship so as to remain compliant to the forum rules... but I must unnecessarily admit I almost fell off my chair laughing reading that*

[Edited 2014-05-10 14:10:46]

Quoting Mandala: Quoting Warren Platts: The waypoint way on the other hand, can make defeasible, falsifiable, relatively precise predictions that are based on the past behavior of the human/aircraft system. It makes no hypotheses regarding ultimate motives: it merely notes that he was flying a well-defined waypoint track at a normal cruising speed of 190 knots. The main assumption is that he would continue behaving similarly on the basis that rational agents are rather irrational in that they don't normally change their mode of behavior once they get going. And the likelihood of them being in TRUE is... almost zero.

IF you accept: (1) that he was flying waypoints in the initial phase at cruising speed; (2) that he would continue that modus operandi; (3) you accept the ping rings as fairly accurate; (4) you accept the Inmarsat claim that he flew in a general southerly direction, THEN you are forced into that ISBIX MUTMI RUNUT corridor.

THEN, if you assume that cruising speed is maintained, AND you accept the validity of the final ping ring, he probably flew a true rhumb line, because that is what fits the observables. Again, we do not need to know why he selected TRUE; all we care about is THAT he selected TRUE. It is foolish to try and read the mind of a madman. Focus on the empirical observations, and forget about psychology. That is where the answer is to be found.

And I already gave my 50 X 50 box. It's centered on -39,87. If they mounted an expedition to this location--hmm, which after all was just about the initial surface search area(!)--they could find 9M-MRO in a month, guaranteed....

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 13): It is foolish to try and read the mind of a madman.

Difficult enough just trying to read his posts!

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 14): And I already gave my 50 X 50 box. It's centered on -39,87. If they mounted an expedition to this location--hmm, which after all was just about the initial surface search area(!)--they could find 9M-MRO in a month, guaranteed....

Have you relayed that info on to the authorities? I think they might have stopped checking a.net chatter after about thread 20...

Why did Ocean shield and Haixun 01 searched where they did?
Given what little we know in terms of hard data, I don't believe that any A.netters (no matter how loudly they voice their theories or how often they post) are likely to find 9M-MRO in a rational way.

We have to wish and assume that investigators know much more and hopefully enough to make educated guesses without having to model the thought process of whoever was last in control of the a/c.

IMO, investigators are way ahead of us because:
- they may have some raw data that reduces the error margin on at least the last ping RTD by a considerable amount. That RTD data is not from the Inmarsat GES handling 3F1 but from a classified method of collection. Maybe they have a wideband recording of that portion of the L-band spectrum so that they can determine the burst arrival time very precisely. Not releasing information about that asset may be the reason why they refused to shared data with the BEA as I reported in my previous post #344 in part 60.

- several serious bloggers are referring to underwater acoustic measurements that could have been collected by:
--- the hydrophones of the Centre for Marine Science and Technology (CMST) off Rottnest Island on the West coast of Australia,
--- the two hydrophones (the third one is apparently not currently operational) belonging to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CNTBT) station near Cape Leeuwin, also on the west coast of Australia but about 135nm further south.
The two collection sites form a good baseline so if they did record a transient event (a/c hitting the water at high speed), the location must lie on a hyperbolic curve with the two sets of deep hydrophone locations as focal points.

If they also have the precise time of the last aborted ping, they could actually get a good distance estimate from each hydrophone and therefore a reasonable crash location. That is probably where Ocean Shield went on her first trip..

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 12): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 5): We do not need to know why he evidently chose D155J. All we need to know is that he chose D155J. His reasons are no concern of ours. The only thing that concerns us is that there be a great circle path that aligns with the radar track. That GC track leads back to D155J and no other waypoint. That is our only concern. Then why choose it? He didn't even fly over D155J... Therefore, Again, you are importing psychology unnecessarily.

Huh? What did I just say?

His reasons for choosing D155J is not our concern. We do not care. It is not our business. You are the one importing psychology--not me. As if actual observations can be rejected on the basis of mind reading attempts....

The fact is that it is possible to enter D155J into the FMC, and it will understand what you are talking about. Just because it is normally used for landing, does not entail that the FMC will hang if a pilot enters it while cruising. In fact, I believe that waypoint is also used for lining up with Kuala Lumpur International Airport. You follow that bearing out, it leads to a tangent to the 15 nm ring around KUA. I believe that is the true significance of D155J. IOW, that is a good test of the mechanical failure model. If he was trying to get back to KUA, D155J would be the waypoint to select. But then he would have turned left if that was his real intention. As opposed to turning out to sea again.

As for him not overflying D155J: (a) you have no evidence for that: the Malaysian track I digitized is probably slightly in error here because it is demonstrably in error at the IGARI waypoint where their published track does not coincide with the AEC or whatever you call it recording that was based on actual ACARS transmissions. Overall, their track is qualitatively correct. But it is off in a few minor details IMHO.

In particular, the big evidence is that if you retrace back the known radar track with a great circle, it ends up tangential to that 10 nm ring around VPG. THAT is the main reason to think D155J was the entered waypoint.

hey...anyone having problems with thread 60 showing up on computer screen? For some reason only 60 won't load properly, maybe something to do with it being archived?? All other threads are fine...any thoughts...page seems to load fine, but I see nothing but a blank screen. Sorry for using forum to air what is seemingly my computer problem...just thinking it could be a.net??

Quoting weizenjaeger (Reply 15): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 13): It is foolish to try and read the mind of a madman. Difficult enough just trying to read his posts!

Haha! That is a good one.... 

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 12): and for those who have wondered where I've disappeared to (pihero, nupo, et al), that's where I've been over the last few weeks.

and we thank you for your service!

Quoting weizenjaeger (Reply 15): Difficult enough just trying to read his posts!

HAW! 


My issue with all this WP stuff is
1) You never admit when you're wrong
2) You have this delusion that you are part of some 'unofficial investigation' and that you are in any way contributing
The fact is we have incomplete data. I've never flown anything with an autopilot so I'm not even going to get into the arguments about procedure regarding what heading to fly. AFAIK its magnetic for everything navigation related outside of the polar regions, at least in VFR where I was. But that's irrelevant - no one is going to divert a $$$$$ search effort based on what "some guy on airliners.net posted". AS IF you're their best lead. That arrogance combined with your insistence on never being wrong is just getting so tedious to read, and now we've basically derailed 2 parts of the thread with it! You are basically trolling this forum.

The thing is, unless more info starts trickling out of the authorities, we don't have much to talk about. Everyone's recorded their theories, we spoke at length about almost every aircraft system involved in great detail, and scrutinized every piece of data released. I think we've done a good job. And now, we wait. We knew from the start once it didn't turn up in the obvious places that it will be a long wait.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 16): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 14):And I already gave my 50 X 50 box. It's centered on -39,87. If they mounted an expedition to this location--hmm, which after all was just about the initial surface search area(!)--they could find 9M-MRO in a month, guaranteed.... Have you relayed that info on to the authorities? I think they might have stopped checking a.net chatter after about thread 20...

I am in the process of drafting a white paper that explains the model in detail in layman's terms. Plan is to have a couple of friends translate it into Chinese, and we will forward it to the MH370 Families Committee, as (a) they are interested in alternative views because the "authorities" have proven themselves to be lame; and (b) they have some political leverage and may be actually able to get something rolling.

As my earlier post ( #120, thread # 60) was quite long, I left out the fuel aspect of such a flight..
As I stick to my guns, I disregarded the quantity of 49.100 T reported by J. Ostrower for lack of official written confirmation
First let’s go back to my recap up to 17:25 Z :
RECAP :
TOW = 226.0 T
TOF = 51 T
Turn at N06.44 / E 103.35
At time 17:25 Z
And weight = 217.6 T

Mach .83 / IAS 280 kt/ TAS 491 kt

1/- Fuel burn-off to 18:29 Z, End of the Straits segment :

a)- At 220 T, FF= 3372 kg/hr/engine
b)- At 200 T, FF = 3085 Kg/h/:engine
So the mean FF = 6457 kg / hr for both engines.
For the 1 hr 4 mins segment, the fuel burn-off will be just under 6.9 T

So now we have :
the remaining fuel at 18:29 Z : 50.5 T – ( 8.3 + 6.9 ) = 35.3 T
And the weight : 217.7 – 6.9 = 210.8 T

2/- Fuel for the Southern Sea at IAS = 245 kt.

Here I had to juggle between my three FCOMs as the speeds we have to consider are rather out of the ordinary : I had to find data both at high and low levels for speeds as close as possible to IAS= 245 kt.
So, from a holding table : FL 350 / 200 T : 253 kt and FF = 2950 kg/hr/engine
And from a Maxi-range table from another operator :
FL 170 /170 T : 245 kt and FF = 2457 kg/hr/engine,
FL 080 / 180 T : 252 kt and FF = 2626..

Let’s take these figures at FL 350 and FL 080 ( 8000 ft, btw ), knowing they will be by excess…
We have then an average FF of 2850 + 2626 = 5.576 T /hr, rounded further up to FF = 5.600 T/hr.
so FF = 5.600 T/hr

Hence the burn-off during this final segment : 5.6 x 5hr 50 mins = 32.6 T, compared to the fuel ,available at 17:29 Z of 35.3 T.

Let’s recap the fuel consumption :
Taxi = .500
B/O from takeoff = 8.400 + 6.900 + 32.600 = 47.900 T
Total fuel from ramp = 47.900 + .500 = 48.400 T.

Conclusion:
The aircraft would have 2600 kg left on board from my own estimate of 51.000 T
From the alleged 49.100 T, it would still hold 700 kg remaining, so that figure could have some merit, but it still doesn’t make it official.

3/-Fuel for the Southern Sea at IAS = 280 kt

A similar computation gives ,
For FL 350 / 210 T / FF= 3250 kg/hr/engine
For FL 170 / 200 T / FF = 3003 at IAS = 287 kt
For FL 080 / 190 T / FF = 3177 kg/hr/engine at IAS 287 kt
For FL 080 / 180 T / FF = 3034 kg/hr/engine at 284 kt … etc…
As at that speed there is no visible linearity ( due to compressibility effects ) and to the contrary a seemingly semi-constant Fuel Flow, I settled for an average FF = 3150 kg/hr/engine.

(BTW, Mandala, the fuel flow on that schedule is fairly constant ; It's the specific con sumption that really sucks ! )

Hence the burn-off during the descent is : 3150 X 2 X 5 hr 50 min = 36.700 T…

That figure exceeds even my total fuel quantity : as the total would be :
As above : .500 + 8.400 + 6.900 + 36.700 = 52.500 T compared to my 51.000 and the alleged 49.100.

That flight is impossible for the 280 IAS scenario.

What does all the above mean ?
It’s the slower IAS, which lead to the search area that give the most probable speeds and 100 ft/min descent combination.
We could retry for IAS 250, 255, 260...etc... in order to have a spread... OK, but it means redoing bthe computation for each speed value... loooong process !

Hence,we can understand why the investigation team and the researchers are giving the northernmost part of the LOP, along with the pingers’ detection, the priority.

[Edited 2014-05-10 15:06:00]

I just had a chat with my neighbour who believe that Ocean Shield returned to Perth to collect more 777 wreckage (either of 9M-MRO or pieces of a different 777) to take out and place in the search area so that it can be found at the right time...  

Just thought I'd share that as it has been a while since suggestions were made about placing wreckage in the search area... The neighbour's theory is that MH370 suffered a fire or mechanical issues, turned back to Malaysia, was mistakenly shot down by the military off Malaysia's West coast, and things (publicity) just got so bad that this was the only option... Don't flame the messenger  

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 17): IMO, investigators are way ahead of us because: - they may have some raw data that reduces the error margin on at least the last ping RTD by a considerable amount.

That is not the problem. We know the ping ring is probably accurate to at least within plus or minus 50 nm, although IMO, I think it's more like +/- 20 nm.

But say they reduce that error to 5nm. How exactly does that help us? The problem is not the accuracy of the ping ring because we know it flew a number of unknown miles past the ping ring. What we need to know is where did it cross the ping ring. Refining the accuracy of the LOP does not address that question at all.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 23): That flight is impossible for the 280 IAS scenario.

If it had 51,000 kg to start with after takeoff, if it burned an average of 3400 kg/hr/engine, it could last 7.5 hours.

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 21): My issue with all this WP stuff is 1) You never admit when you're wrong

Utter and complete false baloney. I own all my mistakes, and have always admitted when I'm wrong. And I do not apologize for being wrong. That is how science works: you posit a hypothesis, it gets falsified. You were wrong. You made progress. I know that sounds like a contradiction to your ears, but it is the truth nevertheless.

Quote: 2) You have this delusion that you are part of some 'unofficial investigation' and that you are in any way contributing.

Yes, there is an "unofficial investigation" going on. You are not part of it. But it is proceeding apace. The recent Atlantic article proves that we are starting to get some media and political leverage. See you later.

Quote: The fact is we have incomplete data. I've never flown anything with an autopilot so I'm not even going to get into the arguments about procedure regarding what heading to fly. AFAIK its magnetic for everything navigation related outside of the polar regions, at least in VFR where I was. But that's irrelevant - no one is going to divert a $$$$$ search effort based on what "some guy on airliners.net posted". AS IF you're their best lead. That arrogance combined with your insistence on never being wrong is just getting so tedious to read, and now we've basically derailed 2 parts of the thread with it! You are basically trolling this forum. The thing is, unless more info starts trickling out of the authorities, we don't have much to talk about. Everyone's recorded their theories, we spoke at length about almost every aircraft system involved in great detail, and scrutinized every piece of data released. I think we've done a good job. And now, we wait. We knew from the start once it didn't turn up in the obvious places that it will be a long wait.

This is boring and not helpful.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 27): This is boring and not helpful.

Indeed. Don't you realize that you totally disrupt these threads and turn them into a WP against the rest of the world pi$$ contest? You left because, in your own words, you had nothing more to learn here, and you had an airliner to find. Why did you come back?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 27): Yes, there is an "unofficial investigation" going on. You are not part of it. But it is proceeding apace. The recent Atlantic article proves that we are starting to get some media and political leverage. See you later.

Man, if the investigative authorities needed a washed up Navy guy to help them out, they could get thousands in a day with a search of their records. Might even get fancy and get someone active with recent and relevant experience.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 25): The problem is not the accuracy of the ping ring because we know it flew a number of unknown miles past the ping ring. What we need to know is where did it cross the ping ring. Refining the accuracy of the LOP does not address that question at all.

If I may, let me suggest you read each post at least three times before you start typing, if you really insist on providing a response..

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 26): If it had 51,000 kg to start with after takeoff, if it burned an average of 3400 kg/hr/engine, it could last 7.5 hours.

Another imbecillic comment...
1/- You can't even read a simple step by step computation where google can't help you.
2/- You don't even know that a fuel flow is not constant - neither is the ground speed , by the way - it varies with decreasing weights...
... and so does cruising Mach number.
That's the reason we have some lengthy tables on cruise control, nautical air miles tables or graphs, at different cost indexes...
etc...
You know - as Mandala says - dung about any flying aspect.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 6): The ship has got to have fuel and the crew needs to have fresh food."" @ YoungMans - Can't the Ocean Shield be re-fueled / re-supplied whilst out at sea? Assuming that there is an available ship to do so?

Hi 777Jet;
I'm only guessing about this, based on my experiences with station refuelling, i.e. from ship to shore.

Yes, they could refuel and resupply a ship at sea; we've all seen pictures of it on TV, and it's done in port too.
At sea you would need a special ship, in parlance called an 'Oiler', I believe.
There wouldn't be many of those around in our 'backyard'; the Navy might have one or two and they would probably be pretty busy with normal duties.
Don't forget too: A Navy resupply ship, with all those big hoses on the side, is considerably bigger than the Ocean Shield and therefore much more costly to run. It would probably take a week to ten days (from port back to port) to refuel something like the Ocean Shield. Add to that the time (weeks probably) to get to WA and the costs add up very quickly.

Interesting too, they can refuel submarines out at sea as well, if they run on diesel or bunker oil. I have heard of it being done on the Atlantic, out of Ireland.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 13): The main assumption is that he would continue behaving similarly on the basis that rational agents are rather irrational in that they don't normally change their mode of behavior once they get going.

I would take a closer look at what a 'rationally irrational' flight may look like...though since implicitly irrational, it thus is not predictable in the least. That, IMHO, is what we are faced with. To put it another way, priori be damned, what is apparently rational CAN suddenly devolve into mindlessness (to varying degrees, though always with some guiding internal principal) and render all prognostication foolhardy...just saying.

I am surprised that they did not search in the area of the 2 hour ping in the first place.

Quoting sipadan (Reply 19): hey...anyone having problems with thread 60 showing up on computer screen?

Me too. You're not alone.

[Edited 2014-05-10 18:59:14]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 22): Quoting 777Jet (Reply 16): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 14):And I already gave my 50 X 50 box. It's centered on -39,87. If they mounted an expedition to this location--hmm, which after all was just about the initial surface search area(!)--they could find 9M-MRO in a month, guaranteed.... Have you relayed that info on to the authorities? I think they might have stopped checking a.net chatter after about thread 20... I am in the process of drafting a white paper that explains the model in detail in layman's terms. Plan is to have a couple of friends translate it into Chinese, and we will forward it to the MH370 Families Committee, as (a) they are interested in alternative views because the "authorities" have proven themselves to be lame; and (b) they have some political leverage and may be actually able to get something rolling.

I am so so glad to hear that! Imagine if a genius a.nutter lead to the discovery of 9M-MRO! Wow! You're respect rating would go off the charts and you might even be granted 'legend' status! You could even sell your story about your mates in here and the fun times you had in these threads to a tabloid newspaper or a Hollywood magazine! I really hope that you are correct because that could explain why they have not found anything yet - they are looking in the WRONG area - they should be looking in the area that would be, rightly-so, renamed 'ZONE WP'... Fingers crossed that they can find it soon so we can start focusing more on what happened instead of where it might be. Does the answer lie in 'ZONE WP'? You would be a instant celebrity in China! Let us know how it goes when you forward the WP White Paper (or WP WP) onto the heavies and get a response from them... I can't wait to hear how this goes! Good on you mate for having a go!

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 18): The fact is that it is possible to enter D155J into the FMC, and it will understand what you are talking about. Just because it is normally used for landing, does not entail that the FMC will hang if a pilot enters it while cruising. In fact, I believe that waypoint is also used for lining up with Kuala Lumpur International Airport. You follow that bearing out, it leads to a tangent to the 15 nm ring around KUA. I believe that is the true significance of D155J. IOW, that is a good test of the mechanical failure model. If he was trying to get back to KUA, D155J would be the waypoint to select. But then he would have turned left if that was his real intention. As opposed to turning out to sea again.

Again, I unnecessarily almost fell off my chair laughing!
1. Using D155J to go back to Kuala Lumpur is an unnecessary plucking things out of the air to fit (not feed) your appetite. Why pick something 176NM away and waste time?
2. Most crew in Malaysia does not know that radial 155 out of VPG would bring you near Kuala Lumpur. It is an unnecessary error based on your unnecessary defence of your unnecessary ego.
3. D155J is not part of any arrivals procedures to Kuala Lumpur. This is an unnecessary(?) fact!
4. Every single crew in Malaysia would know that radial 155 out of VPG brings you nowhere nowhere near KUA. For you to continue repeating that, shows you do not understand the premise of aeronautical navigation and aeronautical conventions, rules, what have you... of course, those are probably unnecessary right? Unfortunately, that is your downfall sir.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 18): As for him not overflying D155J: (a) you have no evidence for that: the Malaysian track I digitized is probably slightly in error here because it is demonstrably in error at the IGARI waypoint where their published track does not coincide with the AEC or whatever you call it recording that was based on actual ACARS transmissions. Overall, their track is qualitatively correct. But it is off in a few minor details IMHO.

But it does not mean they picked D155J... I don't know why you reject VPG, but stick to D155J, you have absolutely no evidence that he chose D155J... unless you need the evidence required as unnecessary. A "he went in the general direction of VPG or a local waypoint south of VPG he may have known off the top of his head", sounds more plausible... but then, such concession is unnecessary in your unnecessary point of view right?

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 21): But that's irrelevant - no one is going to divert a $$$$$ search effort based on what "some guy on airliners.net posted".

Such unnecessary irrelevance...
Oh hang on... I know some in the media is willing to pay top dollar for such a theory in exchange for an exclusive exposure to a theory, which can be then proven right by evidence (not by explaining the theory)...
Perhaps the "proven by evidence" has rendered such opportunity as unnecessary by Warren?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 27): Yes, there is an "unofficial investigation" going on. You are not part of it. But it is proceeding apace. The recent Atlantic article proves that we are starting to get some media and political leverage. See you later.

I'm part of an "unofficial investigation" and a "quasi-official investigation", I don't see your name on it. Oh, hang on... there's more than one.

The Atlantic article? We knew that the the north vs south part was questionable from day 1. I've already put the question out through the media a while back... That article merely adds more fuel to it.

See you later? Sure, no problems... since either you or the rest of us, are unnecessary!

Quoting UALWN (Reply 28): Why did you come back?

Hit a block maybe?   

Quoting Pihero (Reply 23): but it still doesn’t make it official.

Ah, therefore it's unnecessary right?   

Quoting Pihero (Reply 23): (BTW, Mandala, the fuel flow on that schedule is fairly constant ; It's the specific con sumption that really sucks ! )

Quoting Pihero (Reply 23): That figure exceeds even my total fuel quantity : as the total would be : As above : .500 + 8.400 + 6.900 + 36.700 = 52.500 T compared to my 51.000 and the alleged 49.100. That flight is impossible for the 280 IAS scenario.

That is unnecessary details!   

Quoting Pihero (Reply 23): loooong process !

Which is unnecessary!   

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 24): Just thought I'd share that as it has been a while since suggestions were made about placing wreckage in the search area.

I guess this unnecessary rumor has reached unnecessary global proportions!   
But yes, this kind of rumor was already surfacing within the 1st 24hrs of the search area being moved to the Indian ocean.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 25): The problem is not the accuracy of the ping ring because we know it flew a number of unknown miles past the ping ring.

Oh, if the accuracy of the ring is not a necessity, therefore the intermediate pings are a little bit more "flexible", therefore, your previous assertion of "it had to go ISBIX RUNUT to fit the pings" is unnecessary? Because if I follow your thinking, the necessity is to find out where it crossed the rings, not where the rings are, right? Or is such a thought process unnecessary?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 26): If it had 51,000 kg to start with after takeoff, if it burned an average of 3400 kg/hr/engine, it could last 7.5 hours.

If = Unnecessary assumption!
Sorry mate, you gotta play by your own rules, not force others to play by your own rules because it doesn't fit your theory, while you unnecessarily flaunt it.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 37): I can't wait to hear how this goes! Good on you mate for having a go!

OK Warren, See you later... Off you go then!   

Quoting UALWN (Reply 28): You left because, in your own words, you had nothing more to learn here

He left because he was temporarily banned. Too bad the ban was apparently lifted.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 34): And believe it or not, he is contributing to the discussion

Actually, he is not.

As a summary of the Pihero's and Warren's theories:

Pihero's theory (IGARI direct to north of Sumatra, pedestal fire):

• - disregards an investigation team map released by the Malaysian Ministry of Transport and an alleged military radar plot showing the plane flying via Penang to north of Sumatra
  
• - disregards widely reported allegation that there should have been an ACARS transmission at 1737 Z at the latest from the plane
  
• - disregards the distances calculated by the investigation team and presented in an investigation team map released by the Malaysian Ministry of Transport (811 nm at 1822 Z, resulting in a GS of around 528 kt between 1722 Z and 1822 Z)
  
• - disregards fuel quantity of 49,100 kg widely reported to be confirmed by the Malaysia Airlines
  
• - disregards the earlier ping rings that can be deduced from the above mentioned investigation team map
  

To be fair, Pihero disregards above allegations because none of them has been presented in the official preliminary report released by the Malaysian Ministry of Transport.

Warren's theory (490 kt ground speed and waypoint track all the way):

• - disregards the distances calculated by the investigation team and presented in an investigation team map released by the Malaysian Ministry of Transport (811 nm at 1822 Z, resulting in a GS of around 528 kt between 1722 Z and 1822 Z)
  
• - requires complex and unusual navigation to fit the assumed waypoint track
  

[Edited 2014-05-11 02:08:42]

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 41): Pihero's theory (IGARI direct to north of Sumatra, pedestal fire):

Could this be the first 777 pedestal fire? If so, what could have caused it to happen to a plane with a safe record dating back almost 20 years (I know faults or issues can be found later on into the career of a plane)? Was it a spilled drink? If so, wouldn't this have happened before - but maybe without causing any damage? Or, was it a fault - but the plane was basically at cruise and 1hr into the flight? And then, the path it flew and the amount of time it flew is kind of odd... I guess something like this would have happened with a pedestal fire: Pilots can't talk to ATC and comms are knocked out. Pilots turn back towards a place they know or want to head to. Eventually, the pilots oxygen runs out, the pilots pass out, and the plane's computer flys whatever was programmed until fuel is exhausted. But, what happened to the pax? Could such a fire have produced such a toxic environment to take out the pax but not damage the plane enough to keep it from flying another 7+ hours? Or, could it have been that the fire only affected the cockpit and the pax had no idea until it was too late? Too many questions... If the pax knew something was wrong, they would have had hours to try to take the plane back - can a cockpit door hold up if it was rammed by a trolley and hacked away at for hours? Do the FAs have codes to access the cockpit from the outside because, if they and thus the pax, or at least some, were still alive, surely then would be able to work out something was wrong after no communication from the cockpit if the pilots passed out. Then we go around in circles... The FAs and pax would have had hours to force entry into the cockpit, or, the fire was so bad they all passed out too - but the fire wasn't bad enough and the plane flew for another 7+ hours. This is so frustrating. I really feel for the loved ones of those on-board MH370...

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 38): radial 155 out of VPG would bring you near Kuala Lumpur. radial 155 out of VPG brings you nowhere nowhere near KUA.

Unbelievable. Please send some of whatever you are smoking. You have my address.

This is beginning to waste my time again. I have managed to extract a smidgen of information from you on what the LNAV does after passing the last waypoint (although I suspect the manual was using "heading" in the loose sense--it seems to me that the LNAV ought to do whatever is displayed in the "Heading (HDG) / Tracking (TRK) Window").

And your direct POVUS to ISBIX suggestion was actually quite useful, and is being incorporated into the model. I'd give you an acknowledgement in the white paper just for that, but you choose to remain anonymous.

But the usefulness ratio has taken a steep nosedive.

E.g., this:

Quoting Mandala: I don't know why you reject VPG, but stick to D155J, you have absolutely no evidence that he chose D155J...

I have addressed this point about 3 times. Addressing it again is a waste of my time. For the sake of the interested lurkers, though, I will show that you are out of your league in this regard:

Here is the track VKB D155J D200J VAMPI as I have drawn it.



Now, what happens when you project back the radar track from VAMPI to Pulau Perak? You get a bearing of 112 that leads straight back to waypoint D200J (i.e., not VPG) that is tangential to the 10 nm radius ring around VPG, that in turn leads to D155J, at which point a tangential line leads back to VKB. You reverse that bearing from VAMPI to D200J, you get a course of 192--exactly what SkyVector says it should be. As one of my old geology professor, Alfred Ziegler used to say: "Just look at it!" Now, of course, I expect that you probably can't see that. But what else can I say except that you need to get your eyes checked?

Anyways, what the evident course to VAMPI of 292 tells me is that whatever was at the controls of the 9M-MRO (a) knew what they were doing; (b) were intimately familiar with the area; (c) for whatever reason (I don't care what) chose to make the end run around Penang by using the J155R J200R 10nm radius turn. This is subtle detail that I don't expect you to grasp, but it is as you say an unnecessary detail that in no way affects the general picture presented in the model.

WRT to interpreting the radar track, I have been repeatedly shown to be right: e.g.: (1) that the R295/200nm canard was a typo; (2) that the end point was where I said it was; (3) that the radar track does not indicate that the plane was weaving because it would take bank angles of up to 75 degrees to physically connect the dots. You, zeke, Pihero have been proven to be wrong--your credibility has eroded. Therefore, I must take your ideas with a dose of salt. Your idea that he would never choose D155J D200J or that he would never set the HDG REF button to TRUE is based merely on your intuition that has been proven to be wrong at times. The fact is my model fits the observables. If you got a better one lets see it. Pihero's weird fire model is not it.

It will be an interesting case for Archeologists to discover the wreckage within four or five hundred years...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43): The fact is my model fits the observables.

And so does manual flying!

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 41): Warren's theory (490 kt ground speed and waypoint track all the way): - disregards the distances calculated by the investigation team and presented in an investigation team map released by the Malaysian Ministry of Transport (811 nm at 1822 Z, resulting in a GS of around 528 kt between 1722 Z and 1822 Z)

Weren't you the one who was saying that ADS-B data is indisputable? Here is the slide you provided overlaid on the model.



The purple line is the ADS-B track. As you can see, I drew my track over the ADS-B track. Now note the white track digitized from the slide thrown up by the Malaysian investigators. Notice how it does not follow the "indisputable" ADS-B track. Hmm. So either the Malaysian track is in error, or the ADS-B track is in error. So choose your poison.

I choose to go along with what you say is true, that the ADS-B track is "indisputable, and that the Malaysian track must therefore be in error. Thus, I have not "disregarded" the Malaysian track. I have regarded it very carefully, and conclude that although the general picture it presents is correct, it is mistaken in its finer details, and should therefore "not be used for navigation".

In this regard, since it the Malaysian track is in error at the IGARI turn, I believe that where they drew the Penang turn is also slightly in error, and that the track at the D155J/D200J 10nm ring is the more likely track since that aligns with the 292 track evidenced by the radar.

Quoting Finn: - requires complex and unusual navigation to fit the assumed waypoint track

It absolutely does not. Since when has using the LNAV subsystem been considered to be "complex and unusual"? No, it is simple and usual. After the 18:27 turn, my model posits exactly one turn: the turn from POVUS to ISBIX suggested by Mandala. After that, it's 190-189 the rest of the way baby....

[Edited 2014-05-11 04:35:11]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 26): if it burned an average of 3400 kg/hr/engine

So fuel burn was constant during taxi, climb out and cruise         

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 13): if you assume that cruising speed is maintained

        

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 13): all we care about is THAT he selected TRUE

Maybe he though he was in a polar region         

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 18): where their published track does not coincide with the AEC or whatever you call it recording

        

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43): . Your idea that he would never choose D155J D200J or that he would never set the HDG REF button to TRUE is based merely on your intuition that has been proven to be wrong at times.

Now we've definitively solved it. The FO was on his first flight without a training captain. So instead of going to PEK, they decided to turn back and do some practice approach procedures, using TRUE so that the FO would learn how to fly a diversion into YRB, and then they ran out of fuel because they were assuming a constant burn.
        

Quoting Pihero (Reply 31): You know - as Mandala says - dung about any flying aspect.

   You could make a good living as a stand-up comic at pilot association meetings - they'd be rolling on the floor.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43): Unbelievable. Please send some of whatever you are smoking. You have my address.

Well, I was going to ask what drug were you consuming but I thought I should be polite and refrain from such unnecessary queries.
So, you wonder why I said:
radial 155 out of VPG would bring you near Kuala Lumpur.
radial 155 out of VPG brings you nowhere nowhere near KUA.
Right? Do you know where KUA is? What I wrote above, are BOTH correct. Now, you need to do some corrections on your part then in one way or another.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 18): believe that waypoint is also used for lining up with Kuala Lumpur International Airport. You follow that bearing out, it leads to a tangent to the 15 nm ring around KUA.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43): I have addressed this point about 3 times. Addressing it again is a waste of my time. For the sake of the interested lurkers, though, I will show that you are out of your league in this regard: Here is the track VKB D155J D200J VAMPI as I have drawn it.

You have failed to provide an adequate and non-unnecessary answer.
Again, there is no evidence that it was directed at D155J, the 10NM radial arc, has several waypoints, not just D155J.
And I'll add another unnecessary question: Have you orthorectified the photo's oblique angle of observation to the projector screen plane?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43): As one of my old geology professor, Alfred Ziegler used to say: "Just look at it!" Now, of course, I expect that you probably can't see that. But what else can I say except that you need to get your eyes checked?

I am fine with "he flew south of VPG and turned right, and we'll use D155J as the waypoint as it looks like it was the right point for fly-by based on observation". But saying D155J was selected, you need to get your head checked... your eyes are unnecessary.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 43): But the usefulness ratio has taken a steep nosedive.

My sentiment towards the usefulness of your participation in this topic series are identical... But, I guess that's unnecessary, right?

Quoting Kaiarahi: Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 336): Granted, the roaring 40's are not polar regions, but it is an area of rapidly changing magnetic declinations; therefore, it is not psychologically unreasonable that the genie had the HDG REF selector set to TRUE. You keep on digging a deeper hole. Use of T headings is regulated, not just something you do on a whim. For example, T must be used in Canadian Northern Domestic Airspace, and routes, runways, navaids, etc are in T.

The Indian Ocean is not Canada. There is no regulation that says the HDG REF must be set to NORM.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 42): Could this be the first 777 pedestal fire?

No. We have quite e few documented . See Kaiarahi 's mutiple posts on the subject.

You are asking very valid questions, like all the members who want a rational scenario.

I understand that...

In fact I respect that...

But I will not be rushed into a scenario until I'm finished exposing all the aspects of my theory...

So far, even the fuel computations I made yesterday have not been addressed, yet.

I will proceed further into :
- Emergency procedures : Fire / Smoke checklists, then Cockpit smoke Evacuation
- Human factors ; airmanship and human reactions to emergencies...
It's then, after we'd all come together with that theory - or a better alternative one - that we'd deal with a discussion on what could have happened in that flight deck.

Not before.

In the mean time, I have to give some counter acts to WP's analyses, in the hope that he will come out
with a more honest, more accurate undertaking... which so far hasn't been the case.

I have promised that' I'd see through the end of this accident and, believe me, I'll keep my word...

That's for the memory of Captain Shah and all the occupants of Flight 370.

Regards.