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

KUA and KUL are different airports. I didn't even know what the hell KUA was but luckily I have this fancy Internet machine.

You're the one that needs a few hits on the peace pipe.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 49): The Indian Ocean is not Canada. There is no regulation that says the HDG REF must be set to NORM.

Have you checked - really? Do you think radial 155 which you are obsessing about is 155M or T? "NORM" should be a giveaway.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 47): So fuel burn was constant during taxi, climb out and cruise

Don't bother with raising the truth up with him... The differences are unnecessary... the truth is unnecessary as long as it does not fit his theory.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 47): Maybe he though he was in a polar region

Again... Don't bother with raising the truth up with him... The differences are unnecessary... the truth is unnecessary as long as it does not fit his theory.
I love the part where he says, "don't import unnecessary psychology into this"... but then all we care about is THAT he selected TRUE is unnecessary fantasy! But then, he never said importing fantasy was unnecessary right?   

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 47): So instead of going to PEK,

He was on a flight to PEK, but then somehow his brain got screwed and thought he was about to near his destination because he screwed up and put PEN as the destination instead... hence the D155J! Then a fight ensued about who's right between the two, and the plane turned over D155J, and continued to oblivion with a turn somewhere later...   
Seriously, that actually makes more sense on the D155J selection then the "he must have selected D155J as his turning point to get to the northwest"...   

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 47): You could make a good living as a stand-up comic at pilot association meetings - they'd be rolling on the floor.

We should have that! Pihero has an invitation to do a standup pilot comedy on Indonesian National Carriers Assosiation Flight Operations & Engineering committee gathering, which I head!   

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 49): The Indian Ocean is not Canada. There is no regulation that says the HDG REF must be set to NORM.

Really? I guess the truth is unnecessary for you sir...    Seriously... you have absolutely NO IDEA have you?
So, what is the base heading reference for Kuala Lumpur FIR, Jakarta FIR, and Melbourne FIR? True North? or Magnetic North?
As someone who deal with flight operations in this region, switching your reference to True in these FIRs and if you end up deviating, and then it was found out you deliberately and intentionally switched to TRUE, may end you up in prison!
To assume that the person controlling the aircraft switched the reference to true north, has no basis whatsoever. It is against basic pilot training to switch the reference when not in an area requiring the use of True North.

Oh wait... maybe he missed VPG because he was using True as REF?   

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 51): KUA and KUL are different airports. I didn't even know what the hell KUA was but luckily I have this fancy Internet machine.

Kuala Lumpur International, is KUL/WMKK
Kuantan is KUA/WMKD, it's on the east coast of the peninsula.
There are no VORs or NDBs with the designation of KUA anywhere within 500NM of KUL/PEN/KUA airports, nor are there waypoints with such designations.

and KUA/WMKD airport is at radial 117 at 198nm from VPG.
KUA and KUL are 109nm apart. So, mr. Warren Platts... you still want to know what I am smoking?

The lack of due care and the lack of acceptance of corrective inputs to your theory really does waste your talent!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 50): 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 think he'll find that unnecessary...   

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 53): Kuantan is KUA/WMKD, it's on the east coast of the peninsula.

Aw it's so cute and quaint too. 1/4 million pax per year on a little over 3500 flights... Must be a relaxing place to work. That's about 10 flights a day! 

[Edited 2014-05-11 05:32:13]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 46): Weren't you the one who was saying that ADS-B data is indisputable? Here is the slide you provided overlaid on the model.

Read again what I posted.

No-one except you has ever claimed it flew something else than direct from KUL to IGARI. Here is the slide you provided in part 58, reply #198 to fit your "490 kt theory" (when you obviously didn't understand the importance of the ADS-B tracking).

Hah, wow, I didn't even see that image he posted. They took off 32 and were nearly immediately cleared for direct to IGARI.

That image is absolutely ridiculous.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 48): 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.

Huh? Do you mean KUL? I told you exactly how close it leads to that: 15 nm. Here is the chart:



The green line I drew from VPG through D155J at a bearing of 155. Notice how it hooks up with the grey line in the KUL chart that leads to the 15 nm ring around KUL / VKL. Coincidence? I'm no expert in these matters, but I'm guessing not. I'm guessing airplanes flying from Kuala Lumpur and Penang use that line all the time. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Quoting Mandala: Again, there is no evidence that it was directed at D155J

No, what is happening--again--is that you choose to ignore for your own personal reasons the evidence that has been provided--namely that when you draw a line backwards from VAMPI through the radar points, you get a bearing of about 112. Add 180 to that, you get 292--the course from D200J to VAMPI. Coincidence? Again, I'm no expert, but I'm guessing not. I'm guessing that D200J is probably quite commonly used for aircraft departing Penang that are headed for VAMPI. Add 90 degrees to 200: you get 290--very close to 292.

Similarly for D155J: add 90 degrees to 155 you get 245--very close to the course of 243 from VKB to D155J. Probably, D155J is a common departure point for airplanes coming out of Penang and headed for Kota Bharu. Thus, all these things taken together indicate that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that D155J and D200J--not VPG--were entered into the LNAV subsystem.

Quote: And I'll add another unnecessary question: Have you orthorectified the photo ...

You know, at your behest Mandala, I took another very close look at that slide from the fb dump that shows the initial phase, and I could actually get the the turn at IGARI to match what I had quite closely without doing to much injustice to the adjacent coastline. The question is what about Penang. Unfortunately, the screenshot at Penang is obscured by the word "Last". But after carefully looking at it, it looks to me almost as if both legs are aimed at D200J, which looks to be right about in the loop of the letter "a". Cool. Your usefulness quotient just went up.

Quote: 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, ...

This point is well taken. Of course I will include the appropriate qualifications in the white paper. I fully realize we are dealing with probabilities here rather than certainties. So she may have cut the corner a little bit to the north, but it wouldn't be more than a mile or two.

Quoting Finn350 (Reply 55): Here is the slide you provided in part 58

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 56): That image is absolutely ridiculous.

Amateurs....

That slide is 2 weeks old. But I can understand the desire to argue against straw men, as that makes it easy to score debate points.

Here is the latest model of the initial phase:



It is in virtual agreement with Mr. Hussein's published track up until about NILAM. Notice that it flies direct to IGARI. Thanks to Pihero for pointing that out. It has pretty much crystalized at this point. The only thing I got to do is make the turn a little wider, as I used a bank angle of 35 degrees, when the dial on the dashboard only goes up to 25 degrees I see.

I think it's time someone send out the Bat-Signal for tdscanuck...

Debunking WP methods : A reasonability check

Let’s try sorting out something from all the verbiage we’ve seen from WP.
… and let’s try to get some hard facts, knowing what we know :

IGARI at 17:20 Z…….. Final position from WP : S 39° / E 87°

The great circle arc distance is : 2910 nautical miles computed with exact formulae.

Let’s see now how long it would take to fly such a distance at his constant ground speed of 491 kt.
Easy : 2910 : 491 = 5 : 56 (Five hours and fifty –six minutes).

If we consider that the final position is the one at 00:19 Z, from the last – partial – handshake, the latest time he would have left IGARI is 17 : 23 Z
as : 00:19 – 5:56 = 17:23 Z, which is – I grant him that – coherent with a 3 minutes turn.

So, cutting, really cutting into the bullshit, WP has always based his demonstration on a direct flight path from IGARI to his proposed TRUE search area.[/b]

All the verbal diarrhoea about ping circles, radar plots, turns and kinks were just there in order to mislead all the posters, all the members of this forum.
In France, it is called “trying to drown a fish”...

1- The fuel burn-off :
If we take his assumption of a constant 3400 kg/hr/engine, it will be 6800 x 6:56 = 40.400 T(*), coherent with my estimate of 8.4 T consumed at IGARI with the takeoff fuel of 49.1 T.
Unfortunately, Fuel flows decrease as the airplane becomes lighter as the values below show :
At respective weights, Mach number , fuel flow per engine and TAS :
220 T : M.839 / 3321 / 497
210 T : M.839 /3227 / 497
200 T : M.838 / 3141 /497
190 T : M.838 / 3062 / 497
180 T : M.838 / 2985 / 497
Averaging these five values, we have a fuel flow of 3147 kg/hr/engine, which we further round up at
3147 x 2 = 6300 kg/hr for two engines

And in 5 hours and 56 minutes, the total burn-off will be just about 6.300 x 5:56 = 37.400 T, which, compared to the above value *of 40.400 T, means that with serious computation, the aircraft still had 3.0 Tons left, it couldn’t have fallen for fuel exhaustion and the search should be extended further along the 190° track (TRUE, of course ! ) by some 26.5 minutes at 491 kt - 285 nautical miles.

Whichever way one considers that analysis from WP, it sucks…

2/- WP’s use of waypoints :
Here, I have to say that the fish drowning operation is at its most beautiful. The most beautiful con I’ve had the pleasure to see on A.net.

One is the choice of the most obscure points possible in order to lead everyone astray.
Just one example : D155J.
One will not find it anywhere : it’s not on my en-route charts, whether Low or High altitude, it’s not on the official approach plate ( it has been added on WP’ s pretty picture ), so what is it, as Skyvector recognizes it ?

It’s then that I remember drafting with the Civil Aviation engineers some possible flight paths based on a VOR/DME : they used - are still using – in their study a code :
D[/b... stands for DME-based
[b]155 ... is the radial from the VOR/DME station ( here radial 155° from VPG)
J... is the 10th letter of the alphabet, hence meaning 10 nautical miles.

So, there are in all probability dozens of such named points.

For us, in the cockpit, the insertion would be in the form of : Waypoint Page … Station… VPG… / Bearing …155 ( in magnetic degrees !)… / Distance … 10.
The FMS will then recode it in its own way and present it to the scratch pad.

Sorry for the long post.
I think it was needed.

[Edited 2014-05-11 07:36:44]

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 52): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 49): The Indian Ocean is not Canada. There is no regulation that says the HDG REF must be set to NORM. Have you checked - really? Do you think radial 155 which you are obsessing about is 155M or T? "NORM" should be a giveaway.

Really? Have you checked? The 155 course out of Penang actually happens to be 155T.

@ Pihero: You like arguing against straw men too!

@ Mandala: Oh brother please! Yes, send me some of that Indonesian primo! I thought you had just made a typo, but you were a lot more spaced out than I realized!  

[Edited 2014-05-11 07:40:34]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 61): The 155 course out of Penang actually happens to be 155T.

1/ VOR radials are MAGNETIC
2/ If it's also True, it's a coincidence as the MAGNETIC VARIATION there is zero.
The fish is still alive !

Try on.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58): Amateurs....

Takes one to know one.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58): That slide is 2 weeks old. But I can understand the desire to argue against straw men, as that makes it easy to score debate points.

It's not straw men. We knew they were cleared direct to IGARI in the first week or so, why would you make such a mistake 2 weeks ago? Maybe because the professionals here have a point that you're out of your element.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 60): In France, it is called “trying to drown a fish”...

"noyer le poisson"?  My knowledge of French slang just got a bit better... I think in French Canada in response to your post, they would say "cassé!"

Quoting Pihero (Reply 62): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 61): The 155 course out of Penang actually happens to be 155T. 1/ VOR radials are MAGNETIC 2/ If it's also True, it's a coincidence as the MAGNETIC VARIATION there is zero. The fish is still alive ! Try on.

HAHA! But I got to give you credit Pihero: at least you checked ! 

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 63): Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 58): That slide is 2 weeks old. But I can understand the desire to argue against straw men, as that makes it easy to score debate points. It's not straw men. We knew they were cleared direct to IGARI in the first week or so, why would you make such a mistake 2 weeks ago? Maybe because the professionals here have a point that you're out of your element.

Ah yes, that would the vaunted professional to whom I just had to give a lesson on calculating magnetic declinations. Remember: west is best...  

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 65): Ah yes, that would the vaunted professional to whom I just had to give a lesson on calculating magnetic declinations.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself. There is no aviator in the world who doesn't know how to deal with magnetic declination. You did not give anyone a lesson.

And you haven't answered my question.

[Edited 2014-05-11 07:55:28]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 57): Do you mean KUL?

See you had that info, so that's why I was asking why the heck did you say KUA... and you wondered what I was smoking? Geez...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 57): Notice how it hooks up with the grey line in the KUL chart that leads to the 15 nm ring around KUL / VKL. Coincidence? I'm no expert in these matters, but I'm guessing not. I'm guessing airplanes flying from Kuala Lumpur and Penang use that line all the time. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The Class C airspace marked on the charts are the boundaries joining 15NM from WMKK/KUL, 15NM from WMSA/SZB, and 15NM from WMKS/Simpang/Sungai besi (not marked) on that chart). And the line you're talking about is at 158/338. And yes, it is purely coincidental.
Airplanes departing KUL for PEN would go on the A457 airway, which goes to that 156 radial...
On the way back, they would use W530 then A464.
No, D155J is not associated with any arrivals procedure into KUL, nor does it go into any smartass custom arrivals pilots sometimes dream of. D155J is a fix used for arrivals into PEN.
So, if he did put in D155J, it would be associated with an arrival into PEN (this, can be consistent with both your theory and Pihero's theory). But D155J for enroute, sorry.
I will still take it as "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".
And to add to Pihero's post... yes, making the entry VPG155/10 into the FMC would give you the same as D155J...   

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 57): Coincidence?

Coincidences are often just that... coincidence. If I take meaning into coincidences, I would end up marrying at over a dozen women!   

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 57): Your usefulness quotient just went up.

That is a totally unnecessary comment... as if I care anyway...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 57): No, what is happening--again--is that you choose to ignore for your own personal reasons the evidence that has been provided-

OK, then why the heck did you then say the following?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 57): This point is well taken.

---

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 57): the course from D200J to VAMPI. Coincidence? Again, I'm no expert, but I'm guessing not. I'm guessing that D200J is probably quite commonly used for aircraft departing Penang that are headed for VAMPI.

D200J is VPG200/10... it is a point within the arc, it is not used for any departures and it is solely used for the arrivals into PEN using the 10NM arc. Same goes with D222K and D222G, they are solely for arrivals.
There are no standard instrument departures towards VAMPI from PEN therefore there are no standard waypoints used for PEN to VAMPI departures.
However, for runway 22 departures to VAMPI, it's a simple "maintain runway heading until 2200, then direct VAMPI", if it's programmed, the "waypoint" will not be a lateral waypoint but a flexible point in space along the runway centerline where the FMC calculates where it will pass 2200ft before making the turn.
For runway 04, the same would happen except the turn would be done at 3100.
So, again, these waypoints are, coincidence.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 60): One will not find it anywhere : it’s not on my en-route charts, whether Low or High altitude, it’s not on the official approach plate

He is on the premise that crew would remember these approach waypoints by looking at the FMC... and yes, disregarding that their waypoint names are not (in the case of PEN), published.

Warren, please bear in mind that crew are "taught" to NOT remember the names of these unpublished waypoints for fear of "crystalizing habits"... which is a safety risk. They are there to check what's presented on the FMC, check with the chart, make sure that it concurs. The same waypoint name can move, or the same point can change names. "Knowing them off by heart off the top of one's head", is, in the eyes of many airlines here, a safety hazard.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 61): @ Pihero: You like arguing against straw men too!

Especially one !

...and I noticed that you haven't responded to my #60 in which I exposed your very suspect methods.

Needs, some time, dear friend ?

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 65): Ah yes, that would the vaunted professional to whom I just had to give a lesson on calculating magnetic declinations. Remember: west is best...

Or the amateur who, doesn't know that VOR radials are Magnetic...

My choice is obvious and immediate.

Quoting comorin (Reply 59): I think it's time someone send out the Bat-Signal for tdscanuck...

Unfortunately, he's gone. He left in the middle of the 787 battery threads - despite his unfailing patience and politeness, even he eventually got tired of having his expertise and experience insulted by people like one on this thread.

Pardon me but I, for one, am getting really tired of having to read through so many posts by or around what details WP is trying to shoehorn into his theory.

What's the theory anyway? That may be someone entered obscure waypoints to zigzag across Malaysia and then flew at a constant speed somewhere?

Maybe someone did. Personally, I think that hijackers would not have entered waypoints because they would not feel confident enough. As for someone proficient being involved, he/she would probably have tried to leave as few traces as possible in order not to look as the culprit. But what I think is close to irrelevant at this point since we have so little hard data to work with and realistically constrain scenarios that pop up from time to time.

Anyway, what is the outcome of all this effort? WP found the location of 9M-MRO? Bravo!
Can we now move on to other aspects of this investigation and hopefully other fresh scenarios?

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 63): I think in French Canada in response to your post, they would say "cassé!"

Or "ouâte de phoque"   

Quoting Pihero (Reply 69): Or the amateur who, doesn't know that VOR radials are Magnetic...

Be nice to amateurs, even we know that -_- It's pretty basic stuff. North on a VOR is *magnetic* north. I never even had to navigate with VORs except for shits and giggles with my instructor, but I still remember that. And I have 60-something hours, which is way less than you guys but more than WP apparently.

[Edited 2014-05-11 08:35:37]

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 71): Can we now move on to other aspects of this investigation and hopefully other fresh scenarios?

I'm all for it.
You start.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 71): What's the theory anyway? That may be someone entered obscure waypoints to zigzag across Malaysia and then flew at a constant speed somewhere?

No. It's about someone who is deliberately cheating in order to lead the whole thread astray.

And if you don't like it, you can do what you've just done on my # 60 and proceed onto something more palatable.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 72): Or "ouâte de phoque"

Aaah ! Beau Dommage and the "Balade du phoque en Alaska", my favourite Canadian tune...

Quoting nupogodi (Reply 73): Be nice to amateurs

I used a singular and added " who...."

Sorry for the misunderstanding

Quoting Pihero (Reply 74): I'm all for it. You start.

Actually, if you now redirect your energy I would expect you to continue with the "what happened in the cockpit" part of your scenario to see how it ties in with the other part you have presented so far.

Quoting BackSeater (Reply 76): Actually, if you now redirect your energy

Not time yet.
I'd like some returns on what I wrote so far...

The illuminati and the annunakis will come later... very soon.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 74): Beau Dommage and the "Balade du phoque en Alaska"

Ahhh – on doit avoir le même âge!   

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 61): @ Mandala: Oh brother please! Yes, send me some of that Indonesian primo! I thought you had just made a typo, but you were a lot more spaced out than I realized!

Hey, you're the one who typed KUA not me!
*shakes head in disbelief*

Quoting Pihero (Reply 77): The illuminati and the annunakis will come later... very soon.

Oh God! No! Enough with the "peace cops"... *ask an Afrikaner what it really mean!   *

Quoting Pihero (Reply 77): I'd like some returns on what I wrote so far.

I wonder when we can get on to CRM and FlightOps aspect of the scenario building...
I'm sure the FMC programming is going to be extremely interesting!   
That is, unless the peace cops are allowed to have a field day!   

@ Pihero: Yes, I need time. I got a chicken coop I gotta build today. Also, I'm still programming in the wind triangles into my Excel spreadsheet. When that's done, we'll replot everything and see where it pops out....

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 80): we'll replot everything and see where it pops out....

Isn't that, as you wrote : S 39° / E 87° ?
... or are we going to see it change again ?

Quoting Pihero (Reply 77): I'd like some returns on what I wrote so far...

Quoting Pihero (Reply 60): At respective weights, Mach number , fuel flow per engine and TAS : 220 T : M.839 / 3321 / 497 210 T : M.839 /3227 / 497 200 T : M.838 / 3141 /497 190 T : M.838 / 3062 / 497 180 T : M.838 / 2985 / 497 Averaging these five values, we have a fuel flow of 3147 kg/hr/engine, which we further round up at 3147 x 2 = 6300 kg/hr for two engines And in 5 hours and 56 minutes, the total burn-off will be just about 6.300 x 5:56 = 37.400 T, which, compared to the above value *of 40.400 T, means that with serious computation, the aircraft still had 3.0 Tons left, it

Why 5:56 from IGARI ?
17:22 to 0:19 is 6:57 hours. With 6200 kg/hr, he will need 43.4 tons. He has run out of fuel about 30 min before, or 20 before the completed handshake at 0:11.

And i bet, it will not work out from north of Sumatra too, taking into account the 6,9 t consumed in the meantime.

[Edited 2014-05-11 09:53:06]

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 82): Why 5:56 from IGARI ?

That's the distance IGERI to 39° S, divided by the speed of 491 kt.
It is the only distance that works with his assumptions and fuel.... and unfortunately, he misses the 00:11Z rendez-vous by one hour.

I left that option open, and the *mistake* in timing, hoping that someone would pick it up... and to trap WP.
I'm glad you did

As I wrote, whatever way you read his scenario, you'll find a rat... and a fallacy

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 82): 17:22 to 0:19 is 6:57 hours. With 6200 kg/hr, he will need 43.4 tons. He has run out of fuel about 30 min before, or 20 before the completed handshake at 0:11.

What you discovered is that the whole twisty segment between IGARI and the 17: (whatever ) point has mysteriously disappeared and the basis for his whole pretty pictures is a fallacy of a direct IGARI to the Southern seas segment with one hour missing... and that is not really possible.

What do you think of the credibility of the pretty pictures, now ?

[Edited 2014-05-11 10:34:30]

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 82): He has run out of fuel about 30 min before, or 20 before the completed handshake at 0:11.

Forgot : these 30 minutes are worth, still at 491 kt constant ground speed, 245 nautical miles...
... and that is worth some 4° of latitude, somewhere around 35°S.

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

I stand by what I wrote. Even more so after these latest pathetic 20 or 30 useless (or worse) posts. A once useful thread is reduced to a confrontation of WP against the world, and nothing useful is coming out of that.

to UALWN
Please be patient.
You can't cook before the kitchen is clean.

Quoting comorin (Reply 59): I think it's time someone send out the Bat-Signal for tdscanuck...

I would pay his membership !!!

But seeing what is going on here, he would say, there is no way a fire like that would go and the T7 still fly and some would not believe him (it would be batteries run amok version 2.0)

WHAT HAVE I LEARNED IN 61 THREADS SO FAR? :

1) The aircraft and pax/crew are still missing.
2) The evidence is inconclusive on the path = no plane found yet.
3) No debris of wreck on the area yet even if current after 2 months would transported them very far away.
4) General consensus is that the Aircraft made some route adjustments and ended up flying south.
5) Some pings were heard a month ago but are quite far away and nothing has come up yet.

The best theories so far are:

Crew/Pax/ Pilot did it and flew to ensure the plane would not be found.
Fire in the cockpit or the cargo hold, not catastrophic enough to make the aircraft lose control and dive to a crash.
Some sort of forbidden cargo, and a highjack by a letter agency to destroy/get the said cargo.

In 60 threads a lot has been said and I think Pihero has a very reasonable scenario...
Warren Platts has made all these threads very colorful with a lot of nice graphics, that quite frankly lead no nowhere, and YES I need a very nice google earth graphic with a 50 by 50 km are to search.
I still think the aircraft wont be found soon (meaning 2014).

Now Pihero a question, I have been to a T7 cockpit but I haven't noticed if the knobs and buttons on the center console and the FMC are raised on the plaque and the buttons cover those, because if it is the case a spill would not no INTO the electronics, I find it hard to believe that part and top of the controls has no engineering to make water and liquid spill resistant.

TRB

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 57): -- ------Quoting mandala499 (Reply 48): ------------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. -- Huh? Do you mean KUL? I told you exactly how close it leads to that: 15 nm. Here is the chart:

No, what he was pointing out to you that your original statement, back on the previous thread, was incorrect. Your original statement that brought D155J into the picture at all, because it happened to fit your data, was this, back in reply 301 of the previous thread.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 57): Sure, all the observed waypoints could have been programmed in right at IGARI, but if the goal was to get back to safety, the turn at D155J would have been back to KUA, rather than on to VAMPI in the middle of the Malacca Strait.

Mandala even asked you about it back on that thread, reply 341.

Quoting mandala499: Where is D155J? You mean D155J as in VPG155/10 ? OK, sorry, if they go all the way to D155J, why then would they go to KUA? To go to KUA they need to make another a left turn of 130! I don't know why you're putting KUA and D155J together, it's utterly ludicrous!

You replied to mandala in reply 344, but as is par for the course for you, when something doesn't fit your model, or when you don't like what you are seeing, or when people are pointing out legitimate errors or issues with your theory, you ignore those elements or try to shout them down.

Your reply in 344 addressed many other points of mandala's post, however you conveniently did not reply to this particular point.

Now, lo and behold, you are trying to turn the table and discredit mandala by accusing him of being high on something (talk about amateur move....).

Instead, what you have pointed out to everyone once again, is that you really are trying to make the data fit your model, that you don't like to see your ideas critiqued, that instead of admitting errors or assumptions you play it off or shift the blame and focus, and that you are indeed the amateur here that is way out of their depth when dealing with these elements.

Here is another example of how your perception of data shifts to however it best currently fits your model and also tries to allow you to ignore what the actual people with expertise are trying to explain to you.

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

That is what you wrote originally in Reply 301, when you brought up D155J.

Here, you accept the (unofficial as pertaining to the investigation) Minister of Defense's track as supportive of your theory, even though it is actually listing a track that is no where near D155J. You list your reasons for this (yet another!!!) assumption, the primary of which is really that it lines up with the (also unofficial to the investigation) radar track.

Now, after it was pointed out to you by mandala and others how the track actually looks more like a hand flown route, or that there are many other more likely possibilities for what could result in that track, (which, you never addressed btw...just like I said you wouldn't, because if it doesn't fit your model, you put your head in the sand about it essentially) you now go back and say this...

Quoting WarrenPlatts: 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.

So, now the (also unofficial) track which you originally used to support your theory is no longer valid, because it can be used to support other theories on how the plane was flown between routes. You do realize that all anyone is trying to do here is show you that there are many different ways, even in your theory, that the plane could have made it from one point to another. No one is ruling out waypoints, but you're the only one that is saying that it is a FACT even though it is anything but such a thing.

Also, this new reversal once again points out how precarious of a position you are in with all your assumptions based on the unofficial data. Why is the track in error and not the radar plots, for example? Even though we've already seen evidence of errors and corrections with respect to the radar, as you have pointed out.

The best way to go is to not use any of the unofficial data at all...but then what would that do to your theory?

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 34): It's getting annoying that certain posters want to forbid others from posting here. If you don't like his posts, guess what, ignore it. That simple. But like it or not WP has a right to post. And believe it or not, he is contributing to the discussion while your cheerleading is not.

No one is forbidding anyone from posting here. WP has the right to post, just like everyone else has the right to critique his theory.

The difference is that most every other theory posited blatantly acknowledges the lack of hard data and that certain assumptions have been made. Also, just about every other theory does nothing to preclude the possibility of other theories, precisely because of that fact that it is known that there is so little actual information available.

WP does neither of those things. He actively makes gross assumptions, ignores what the people who have experience and expertise are trying to share with him with respect to aviation, and he actively tries to shout down other theories.

Now, the difference between shouting down another theory and critiquing another theory are very distinct. The former simply tries to re-iterate their own theory as the correct one because to think otherwise is crazy and everyone must be blind not to see it.

The latter means you bring actual knowledge and experience to bear and try to verify what the theory claims is possible, or discuss how likely certain assumptions of a theory are based on how the industry actually works.

WP clearly falls into the former camp, to the point that he says all other discussion here is boring or wasting time. Many other people have spent a lot of time (one could debate whether it is too much...or even if it is wise) in the latter camp to try to help point out the speculative errors and gross assumptions that he is making.

Also, the latter is trying to ensure that the thread doesn't simply get railroaded by a single theory, all with the stated goal of literally finding the airplane when we know that we don't have that charge, nor do we have nearly the amount of information necessary to begin to properly do that!

To your last point, is WP contributing something...yes. Whether or not it is valuable is another matter entirely.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 87): Crew/Pax/ Pilot did it and flew to ensure the plane would not be found.

Don't restrict yourself by adding another condition : "Crew pax or pilot did it..." is enough... The rest is WP's

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 87): Fire in the cockpit or the cargo hold, not catastrophic enough to make the aircraft lose control and dive to a crash.

Two things :
- *Fire*is a word loaded with very emotional connotations... I use more generally *smoke and fumes*
- I do not believe a single thousandth of a second in a coargo hold fire... As you say, it could be dealt with by the fire extinguishiong system and set-up OR it could be so catastrophic that the aircraft would have crashed shortly afterward ( Case of a Li-ion battery fire, for instance )

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 87): t I haven't noticed if the knobs and buttons on the center console and the FMC are raised on the plaque and the buttons cover those

But it has happened. The boxes are single separate units .( I did not launch the spill idea, talk to Zeke ).
Please note that so far, I haven't made any theory on *how* it happened or who did it. What I did was propose a theory on *what* could have happened, with a lot of many possible *hows* that we could discuss.

[Edited 2014-05-11 11:25:04]

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 86): Now Pihero a question, I have been to a T7 cockpit but I haven't noticed if the knobs and buttons on the center console and the FMC are raised on the plaque and the buttons cover those

Here's a good depiction: http://meriweather.com/flightdeck/777/ped-777.html
Lots of places for liquid to penetrate.

BTW, that's just one possibility. I've had a xponder short and arc when I pressed IDENT - not funny, but happily the C130H has a 5 person crew with an FE who has a thorough knowledge of systems. And note that if you lose the xponder, you can't squawk 7700 (or 7600 or 7500).

This is a terrifying scenario on a flight deck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizFsY0yjss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVf4GW9jp-8

So is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf0VuRG7MN4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uBNCN6v_gk

If tdscanuck were here, he could tell us exactly how the wiring is routed and protected. Alas .....

[Edited 2014-05-11 12:42:45]

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 90): Here's a good depiction: http://meriweather.com/flightdeck/777/ped-777.html Lots of places for liquid to penetrate.

sorry guys, I am not buying thew spilled drink theory at all. Those of you having spend time in a T7 Cockpit will be well Aware of the HUGE cupholders on the left Hand side of Pilot & right Hand side of the co-pilot, nicely integrated within Hand reach on either side.
So why the heck would anyone want to place a Cup on a centre console where a Cup of drink has no stable place at all to even stand for a second?? thats like placing your coke can on the (Manual) shifter of your car! nobody would do that full stop, again look at the console in post 90!
Lets drop the ´coffee on the centre console idea please.....'!
and before anyone comments on the empty space on the right of the centre console, well , thats where newer models ( I only know the layouts of post 2008 Models) now have a very fancy new Printer for ACRES!

[Edited 2014-05-11 12:52:49]

Thanks both.... if the smoke/combustion/fire etc in the cockpit was the culprit, I guess we may never know since forensic evidence will be difficult if the plane disintegrated or is never found...

TRB

Quoting cougar15 (Reply 91): Those of you having spend time in a T7 Cockpit will be well Aware of the HUGE cupholders on the left Hand side of Pilot & right Hand side of the co-pilot, nicely integrated within Hand reach on either side.

And how does the drink get to the cupholder when the FA brings it into the cockpit?
It's just one possibility - I'm not buying in to it, or discarding it.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 90): This is a terrifying scenario on a flight deck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizFsY0yjss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVf4G...9jp-8

First thing most pilots would do is throw it out of the cockpit and let the cabin crew handle it -- scary.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 90): If tdscanuck were here, he could tell us exactly how the wiring is routed and protected. Alas .....

Most of the pedestal boxes are built to be relatively spill proof. I'm sure more than a few pilots have spilled the proverbial cup of coffee on one from time to time. As for the wiring, each box has a separate wire bundle going from the control head in the cockpit to the appropriate black box in the EE bay or wherever it is located. Each wire bundle is wrapped/shielded individually making it very difficult if not impossible for one bundle to affect another.

OK.
Let's now talk a bit about

Crew Oxygen considerations
.
The T7, like any other modern airliner is rather well protected in this field.... Or is it ?

Most of the fleets stay with only one face mask model, which is pretty universal : it is very easy to put on and has a two-position switch on the snout : N for *Normal* and *100 %*
In the Normal position, one is breathing a mixture of ambiant air and O2.
The amount of dilution decreases with cabin altitude : We can say that at 8000 ft cab alt, the mixture is around 80 % O2 / 20 ambiant air.
The switch is, by SOPs checked at position 100 % during cockpit preparation for some airlines... not all...

The basic 772ER is equipped with a crew O2 bottle : 3150 liters at 1850 psi... some airlines would require another set-up.
The bottle is - normally - in the E&E bay.
That's normally enough for non-ETOPS requirements : 2 hours , comprised of 10 minutes for an emergency descent to 10,000 ft and 110 minutes afterward.
But in conditions that are not clear-cut depressurisation ?..
Difficult question.

1/- The medical Council in France :
As per an international conference in 2003 ( ? IIRC ), they've identified RMVs ( Respiratory Minute Volume ) of 10 to 25 liters / min in normal conditions ( apparently we're not equal in this domain ) going up to 100 liters / min for high work rate and / or panic.

2/- Boeing ( and I suppose the FAA ) recognizes three RMVs :
- Sedentary = 14 l / min
- Normal = 24 l / min
- Severe = 40 l / min
We could then derive what this 3150 l are worth in terms of O2 at FL 350 :
Sedentary at 28 l /min = 1 hour 52 minutes
Normal : at 48 BMV = 1 hour 5 minutes
Severe : at 80 BMV = 40 minutes.
Thse last two figures go up to 1 hour 21 min and 50 minutes respectively if the diluted mix is used ( switch at *N* )... but with fumes and smoke present, the crew would be breathing polluted / contaminated air...

We'll talk about it later...

[Edited 2014-05-11 14:11:55]

[Edited 2014-05-11 14:13:40]

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 94): As for the wiring, each box has a separate wire bundle going from the control head in the cockpit to the appropriate black box in the EE bay or wherever it is located. Each wire bundle is wrapped/shielded individually making it very difficult if not impossible for one bundle to affect another.

Thanks for that! Do you happen to know what the shielding is - i.e. electrical shielding, or environmental shielding (e.g. moisture proof)? I'm asking because when I had a xponder let go on me, it was ultimately determined that it happened because we were operating in a high humidity environment in which moisture condensed within the box?

The laptop scenario is verrryyy scary - the FAA has documented more than 160 consumer Li-Ion events, some of them "there but for the grace of god ...".

[Edited 2014-05-11 14:53:38]

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 79): I got a chicken coop I gotta build today.

So they're coming home to roost! I hope it's a big one!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 95): 3150 liters at 1850 psi

Just a scuba diver, but the volume would normally be at standard conditions (sea level); doesn't the mask discharge at ambient pressure (plus maybe 0.5psi)? I assume the mask has a demand valve.

Random question... does the manual really mix liters with psi? Normal cylinders are listed in the US as volume of air at standard conditions (in cubic feet), or as internal displacement volume at a specific pressure (l x bar).

The other thing I am having trouble understanding with your theory is how the center console would impact both transponders. With wiring bundles being isolated and cross-connected to the EE-bay it seems hard to imagine a low-energy event that could cause sufficient damage, or a high-energy event that would allow the plane to turn at VAMPI.

Quoting Gennadius (Reply 88): precisely because of that fact that it is known that there is so little actual information available.

That's right, there's no information. And because there's no information around there will be exactly ZERO new relevant posts today. And that makes it boring. So we speculate what could've happened. You can believe Pihero's theory of a burning plane, you can believe Manadala's theory of a rightious mother, you can believe everybody is so wrong and the plane is in the Bay of Bengal or just off the cost of Vietnam next to some oil rig or believe what WP is saying or not. The fact though is that a lot of posters feed WP with more information. If you don't like what he says then don't feed him any information. But see there's no new information so all you can do is argue with WP. And then everybody here blames him for causing all the ruckus. Like you guys are not contributing ?? If you want it to stop, just stop responding. But it seams people here enjoy trashing another poster.