[Peetwo]

Proof that Capt. Z. Shah did NOT plan turn into SIO
9/8/2016

2016/08/15 Duncan

Captain Zaharie Shah’s Recovered Flight Simulator Information: Preliminary Assessment from the MH370 Independent Group 

Victor Iannello, Don Thompson, Michael Exner,
Richard Godfrey, Brian Anderson, Yap Fooh Fah,
Barry Carlson, Thomas Kenyon, Henrik Rydberg,
Sid Bennett, Geoff Hyman and Duncan Steel

15th August 2016 

 
Information related to the disappearance of MH370 was recently shared with the Independent Group (IG) by an individual who is not affiliated with any government entity in any country. The information appears to be part of a report compiled for and by the Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) and includes contributions from other Malaysian agencies. In this report, it is stated that data related to a flight simulator game were found on Captain Zaharie Shah’s home computer. The IG makes the following preliminary assessment, which is based on the content of the RMP report:

1. Simulator data from the Microsoft Flight Simulator X (FSX) game were found on a solid state drive that was not electrically connected to the computer motherboard at the time it was recovered. The FSX game was uninstalled from that drive on 20th February 2014. The report did not provide any information on why the computer was in this state.
   
2. The data of interest are fragments of *.FLT files, this being the format used by FSX to store parameters, including position coordinates at arbitrary points during a run of the simulator. The data were saved in a Shadow Copy Set, and were last modified on 3rd February 2014.
   
3. The coordinates, if all from one simulation run, suggest the departure of a B777-200LR aircraft from Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA), a flight up the Malacca Strait, a turn to the south, and a termination in the Southern Indian Ocean near 45S 104E. This path is shown as a black line in Figure 1.
   
4. A path connecting the turn and the final coordinates, when extrapolated further as a great circle, aligns with airfields servicing the McMurdo Station in Antarctica, which may have been chosen as the destination in the simulation. This extrapolation is also indicated in Figure 1.
   
5. Within the Shadow Copy Set, there were two additional coordinates that were recovered for an aircraft parked at KLIA. No other coordinates recovered from the Shadow Copy Set, if there were any, were included in the RMP report.
   
6. Although we cannot determine that the six points (see Table 1) are all from a single flight simulation run, the alignments of the points and the progressive depletion in fuel level, leading to an unpowered descent from an altitude of 37,600 feet down to 4,000 feet over a short distance, suggest the coordinates may well be related to the same flight simulation.
   
7. A preliminary analysis of the flight data, derived by the IG from the data found on the solid state drive, is summarized in Table 1.
   
8. We have no comment on whether these data link Captain Zaharie Shah to a crime.
   
9. Work continues within the IG to better understand and validate the data, and to determine whether the data can be used to refine the search area for the aircraft.
   

 

Table 1. Parameters Derived from the Raw Simulator Data

 

Figure 1: Flight paths into the southern Indian Ocean. In black: the simulated flight path obtained by connecting the coordinates found on Captain Zaharie Shah’s home computer. The grey line is an extrapolation of that path; point 5 in Table 1 is within a few kilometres of the great circle connecting point 4 and the airfield NZPG at McMurdo. In yellow, a representative flight path ending near the 7th arc and 37S from among those modelled by the Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) in Australia, and used by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in defining the priority underwater search area (as shown by the green box).

It has also been revealed that this information had also been leaked to other sources which include French publications Le Monde & Liberation.

This 'leaking' bollocks would appear to have no clear objective other than to severely muddy the waters. Which for mine makes the Gobbles post well worth re-reading to hopefully get various interested parties to stop with the BS and realign their moral compasses... :

A lesson from history and could a + or - really make such a big difference?

Sorry, a Sunday ramble inspired by history and possible similarities but under different circumstances.

The ANZ Erebus accident comes to mind when reading the previous few well thought out posts. I won't go into too much depth here , but those familiar with all the details of the accident will recall this;

Incorrect flight coordinates entered into the flights Nav system caused the disaster.
Nineteen days earlier the pilots had attended a briefing session where they were shown the printouts of a flight plan used by previous flights to the Antarctic. The plan gave co-ordinates for the trip to Antarctica and across McMurdo Sound. With these co-ordinates entered into the flight Nav  system, the plane could fly automatically to its destination. Not too dissimilar to what  MH370 should have done.

On the morning of 28 November 1977 Capt Collins and F/O Cassin entered the series of latitude and longitude co-ordinates into the aircraft computer. However, they did not know that two of the co-ordinates had been changed earlier that morning. When these incorrect co-ordinates were entered into the computer, they changed the flight path of the aircraft 45 kilometres to the east. The rest as they say is sad history, and the outcome nearly broke the airline, a government and a country.

Do I think incorrect coordinates brought down MH370? Not particularly. But mistakes and failures on multiple levels can occur, bringing about catastrophic results.

Erebus was also a good example of how far an airline and a government will go to cover up the truth. This was 40 years ago next year. Has corruption and deceit and a lack of ethics improved in this world? Hardly.

The stench emanating from the MH370 investigation, government actions, the inconsistencies and the refusal to yield is highly suspicious, and the similarities to Erebus in the way that the truth/root cause was covered up is uncanny.

My fear is that just like with Erebus, the truth will never see light of day and the mystery, speculation, accusations, innuendo, and facts will still be sought in 40 years from now.


R.I.P lost aviators and loved ones.

Paul Howard feeling incensed by all this obfuscation, leaking & disinformation, nearly pulled the pin on social media, thankfully he didn't and has made this addition to his previous blog in reply to the IG piece... :

My reply to the Independent Group Preliminary Assessment

Here; http://www.duncansteel.com/

Update: Latest from Paul Howard    - The search for MH370 WIAGW.pdf

Now for some quotes:

Before having a good look at the home simulator data however, the dynamic and context of information relating to the search should be re-visited. What statements have ATSB made about the simulator data ?

From ATSB “Correcting the record”;


“the simulator information shows only the possibility of planning. It does not reveal what happened on the night of its disappearance nor where the aircraft is located.”

“Possibility of planning” At this stage it doesn’t matter what you or I believe about the home simulator data, it only matters what ATSB believed and from that we can be certain that they believed there was a possibility of planning.

Planning for what ? What else but a suicide mission up the Straits of Malacca with a sharp turn into the SIO ?

Let’s further examine the situational dynamic. From the very early days there were rumours that the captain's flight simulator had data which planned a suicide mission into the SIO but we hadn’t seen anything to confirm that. Malaysia made statements that there was nothing sinister in the data and repeated that in Interim Factual. However ATSB have never made a statement of denial, they've left it to Malaysia.

ATSB have always denied an investigative role and claim they were only responsible for the search and yet they are investigating the flap section recovered from Pemba Island. If the simulator wasn’t related to the search, why have they stated that it shows a possibility of planning? Why didn't they just refer any questions regarding the sim data back to Malaysia ? Apart from Malaysia, JIT and ATSB, who else was involved in investigating MH370?

The Independent Group. The question which needs to be asked is just how independent are they? They've admitted sharing information with ATSB, all that need be established is mutuality.

Two members of the Independent Group were involved with the selective leak of the data and one alleged former member was responsible for the leak to New York Magazine and authored the article. The involvement of the two silent members extends at very least to confirming that the data was genuine and that they had seen it.

How long had the IG known about the data and how did it influence their assumptions? Draw your own conclusion from this statement by Jeff Wise (from his blog)



My 1st (*lonely) analysis of the home simulator data was published in my blog 9th August 2016 and six days ahead of the IG Preliminary Analysis published 15th August, despite *twelve names credited and the extra time they had to work with (pre-leak).

http://www.paulhowardplays.com/blog/proo...n-into-sio

---

PDF page 9:

The two errors in my work have been pointed out to me in no uncertain terms by the Independent Group. I haven't edited them out of this article because I'm not trying to hide anything. My point about the IG Preliminary Assessment has actually been vindicated by my own errors. They provided no worksheet and expected us to figure what they'd done and take their word that they were 100% correct as they repeatedly assert but where is the proof.

I admit I did rush my reply and the reason I did so was because of the assertions they made in their descriptive paragraphs. Inferences come at the end of data presentations, not before and I maintain my assertion that because they described a path before proving that it existed, they were deliberately attempting to infer a planned path with it's obvious connotation. Let's not forget that the 1st analysis of simulator data was mine and the only argument the IG could make against it, was bank at point 3(RMP). Notice that in their preliminary assessment, bank is absent so they had no argument against my 1st analysis whatsoever ! Another point to note, because IG have renumbered, in subsequent discussion who is to know what point is being discussed?

An interesting quote about the home simulator data:

- Dr Dr. Amirudin Abdul Wahab is the CEO of CyberSecurity Malaysia

- by email - he confirmed (PRESUMABLY to ABC - PM) that:

- it was his organisation that examined the captain's computer

- at the request of Malaysia Police

- denied US-FBI did analysis

- His VERDICT =

- thousands of co-ordinates are "default positions" in the sim program

- hundreds of routes are also defaults in the sim program

- analysis of data provided "no conclusive evidence" that captain flew a "suicide mission".

Credit @Ventus_45 via http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to...82#pid4982

And finally to Paul's conclusion:

Conclusion.

I think I've shown that the IG have produced a preliminary assessment of the home simulator data which is misleading at the very least, particularly as they've displayed a path with no data to indicate there is one. Not only is there nothing sinister in the home simulator data, there's nothing that even resembles the scenario of MH370. But this shows that both ATSB & the IG thought there was “possibility of planning” and used it to fill the data gaps and base their assumptions and calculations on information from what is effectively a toy which they didn't understand. It explains the double talk from ATSB and the IG because neither can say outright that they blame the pilot. To do so would be a public relations disaster with questions too embarrassing to answer, so rather than say it outright, they prefer inference and innuendo and hope that the idea of pilot suicide will percolate sufficiently as an excuse for a failed search.

It'll be fiction, it won't be what happened but it's what the press will tell the public and they will tell their children and another myth will be born.

What is so startlingly amazing is that somebody at Royal Malaysian Police drew a line between two unrelated points and a $100M + search has been based on it ever since. Not surface debris, not real calculation but a series of guesses which were added to a line drawn by a Malaysian cop. Will they admit it ?

Is my conclusion helpful? Will it help find the aircraft or is it just a criticism of the authorities and the Independent Group ? I'm firmly convinced that the only way this aircraft can be found, is by continuing revision and analysis of the existing data. That includes Inmarsat. Appendix 1 and 2 (below) show the complexity of the system and the potential for error. Only by acknowledging where errors and false assumptions have occurred is there any possibility of progression. It must be understood that from the outset there was so little data, that to embark on a submarine search was a brave and possibly foolhardy mission. Historically, there is a very fine line between the two.

Personally I wouldn't have done it. Once the ULB batteries had expired and there was no chance of receiving any transmission from the aircraft, I would have continued air and surface search but would not have embarked on a submarine search. I was confounded by expressions of confidence by the authorities because from my own understanding, I thought the chances of success were slim.

Of course there are further questions but I won't be asking them, my work on this missing aircraft is now complete.

Top job there Paul, a definite sorting out of the 'wheat from the chaff' and the key for the Tim Tam cupboard is in the mail -


MTF...P2