4 ms·

I didn't find it compelling at all. It mostly just makes a lot of assumptions and piles them all onto a suicide pilot theory that can be used to explain any act

by Steko 5y ago

I didn't find it compelling at all. It mostly just makes a lot of assumptions and piles them all onto a suicide pilot theory that can be used to explain any action needed and has become unfalsifiable without recovering the wreckage. Here's a counterpoint: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-atlantics-william-langewiesche-dusts-off-discredited-conspiracy-theory-to-accuse-mh370-pilot-of-hijacking https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-atlantics-william-langewie...

argonaut 5y ago
The counterpoint spends most of its words (rightfully) dismissing analysis of the pilot's psychology but does not persuasively address the flight simulator evidence. The arguments against that evidence mostly amount to how it is not conclusively incriminating. But this is not a court of law - we are not putting him on trial.
- hugh-avherald 5y ago
  As someone who's used flight simulator games, I have definitely left the computer while cruising, forgotten about the flight, and come back to find myself in the middle of nowhere. Also the smoking gun simulator session was in a different aircraft to MH370 and with a significantly different initial route.
  - ddeck 5y ago
    >I have definitely left the computer while cruising, forgotten about the flight If the reporting is credible, that's not what was found: "the track wasn’t really a track — rather, it was a series of brief clips lasting no more than a few seconds each, indicating that Zaharie had programmed it in advance then skipped along it to various points without actually playing through the entire hours-long flight" [1] >Also the smoking gun simulator session was in a different aircraft to MH370 and with a significantly different initial route. It was effectively the same aircraft (777-200LR vs 777-200ER). From the ATSB report: "It comprised four complete and two partial data captures of various aircraft and simulator parameters at discrete points during the simulation. The aircraft simulated was a 777-200LR The initial data point shows the simulated aircraft at Kuala Lumpur International airport. No useful location data was available from the second data point. The next two data points show that the aircraft had flown north up the Straits of Malacca. By the fourth data point the simulated aircraft had reached 40,000ft, was in a 20° left bank, 4° nose down, and had a southwest heading of 255°. Data points five and six were in the far reaches of the Indian Ocean, 820nm southwest of Australia's, Cape Leeuwin, with the simulated aircraft having exhausted its fuel. Data point five has the simulated 777 at 37,651ft, at an 11° right bank, and almost due south heading of 178°. The sixth, and final, data point was incomplete. "It was 2.5nm from the previous data point and the aircraft right bank had reduced to 3°.The aircraft was pitched nose down 5° and was on a heading of 193°. At this time there was also a user input of an altitude of 4,000ft," says the ATSB." [2] Also from the ATSB report: [3] "Six weeks before the accident flight the PIC had used his simulator to fly a route, initially similar to part of the route flown by MH370 up the Strait of Malacca, with a left-hand turn and track into the southern Indian Ocean." "There were enough similarities to the flightpath of MH370 for the ATSB to carefully consider the possible implications for the underwater search area. These considerations included the impact on the search area if the aircraft had been either glided after fuel exhaustion or ditched under power prior to fuel exhaustion with active control of the aircraft from the cockpit." [1] https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/call-of-the-void-seven-years-on-what-do-we-know-about-the-disappearance-of-malaysia-airlines-77fa5244bf99 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/call-of-the-void-seven-y... [2] https://www.flightglobal.com/atsb-details-mh370-captains-simulation-of-indian-ocean-route/125588.article https://www.flightglobal.com/atsb-details-mh370-captains-sim... [3] https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773565/operational-search-for-mh370_final_3oct2017.pdf https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773565/operational-search-for...
    - hugh-avherald 5y ago
      But what is this evidence meant to prove? For example, is it meant to suggest he planned this operation? Then why use a different initial flight path and a different aircraft? (The -ER and -LR are similar but have different ranges, which would seem crucial if you're trying to plan something like this.) It all just looks like innuendo, or Bible Code or Nostradamus-style coincidences.
      - asd4232 5y ago
        The ER vs LR thing is easy to explain. The most realistic Boeing 777 simulation addon available for Microsoft FS at the time included only 200LR and 300ER models, so using 200LR would have been pretty much the closest option to 200ER available with all the systems modelled in high detail. Besides, the two aircraft don't have that much of a difference in fuel burn. A professional 777 captain could certainly figure out how far the fuel on 200ER could get him. Of course the FS data doesn't prove anything, but I can't see how the aircraft could have ended up where it ended without any input from either pilot. If both pilots died you would certainly expect a more straight flight-path.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        What this evidence shows is that your proposed explanation of a simulation session being accidentally left to run does not explain the specific evidence found. In addition, the waypoints of the multiple track segments all have identical values for certain incidental values - something that is highly unlikely unless these segments were all recorded in the same session. This makes it extemely implausible that these segments, which are consistent with what is known of the aircraft's dog-leg track, were created accidentally. That being said, you can throw out all the simulator evidence and still be left with a very strong case, from the reactivation of the Inmarsat equipment and the turn to the south, that someone was controlling the airplane an hour after it could have reached the airports at Kota Bharu or Penang.
      - wombatmobile 5y ago
        > Then why use a different initial flight path The initial flight path matters least. He mightn't have known which day and route would present the opportunity, which would also have to coincide with the right frame of mind for him to execute this operation. His opportunity might have depended upon who was assigned co-pilot on the day. So, whatever initial flight path he took was outside of his control. What was under his control was the part we are trying to understand now - the rest of the voyage, and the destination.
- Steko 5y ago
  "In fact, the FBI said it found nothing incriminating in the computer simulations, and certainly nothing that came close to the erratic course that the flight first followed." That seems pretty persuasive. The Atlantic article guesses that the simulation was meant "to leave a bread-crumb trail to say goodbye." which seems laughably weak.
  - fanzhang 5y ago
    'Nothing incriminating" doesn't mean it it should be fully discounted. The suicide theory is the strongest one in absence of a better explanation.
  - batushka3 5y ago
    The FBI didn't found anything incriminating, when tourists from Saudi Barbaria were learning just to point plane to desired destination, without any interest in landing or taking off.
metacritic12 5y ago
What alternative theory do you have that would pass the sniff test better? Given the facts, the suicide theory seems like the leading one by occam's razor.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mannykannot 5y ago
In that response, Irving is weak-manning Langewiesche's article, by attacking only the weakest, most speculative parts. As Argonaut says, it is mostly concerned with the point that Langewiesche is speculating about the captain's state of mind and motives. Irving makes no attempt to explain the inconvenient fact that someone activated the Inmarsat system and turned the airplane south an hour after it could have landed at Kota Bharu or Penang. In addition, Irving has no qualms over speculating when it seems to suit his purpose. He claims that the rational choice for someone wanting to disappear would be to head east, ignoring the fact that one has to go further in that direction to reach the open ocean while avoiding radar. Irving concludes by making an issue of the fact that the section of flap that washed up in Tanzania was not deployed at the time of impact, which is an utter non-sequitur. The thing is that once you have compelling technical evidence that the disappearance was not accidental, it is reasonable to speculate about motives, and the weakness of those speculations does not weaken the independent case that it was no accident.

by Steko 5y ago

argonaut 5y ago

The counterpoint spends most of its words (rightfully) dismissing analysis of the pilot's psychology but does not persuasively address the flight simulator evidence. The arguments against that evidence mostly amount to how it is not conclusively incriminating. But this is not a court of law - we are not putting him on trial.

hugh-avherald 5y ago
As someone who's used flight simulator games, I have definitely left the computer while cruising, forgotten about the flight, and come back to find myself in the middle of nowhere. Also the smoking gun simulator session was in a different aircraft to MH370 and with a significantly different initial route.
- ddeck 5y ago
  >I have definitely left the computer while cruising, forgotten about the flight If the reporting is credible, that's not what was found: "the track wasn’t really a track — rather, it was a series of brief clips lasting no more than a few seconds each, indicating that Zaharie had programmed it in advance then skipped along it to various points without actually playing through the entire hours-long flight" [1] >Also the smoking gun simulator session was in a different aircraft to MH370 and with a significantly different initial route. It was effectively the same aircraft (777-200LR vs 777-200ER). From the ATSB report: "It comprised four complete and two partial data captures of various aircraft and simulator parameters at discrete points during the simulation. The aircraft simulated was a 777-200LR The initial data point shows the simulated aircraft at Kuala Lumpur International airport. No useful location data was available from the second data point. The next two data points show that the aircraft had flown north up the Straits of Malacca. By the fourth data point the simulated aircraft had reached 40,000ft, was in a 20° left bank, 4° nose down, and had a southwest heading of 255°. Data points five and six were in the far reaches of the Indian Ocean, 820nm southwest of Australia's, Cape Leeuwin, with the simulated aircraft having exhausted its fuel. Data point five has the simulated 777 at 37,651ft, at an 11° right bank, and almost due south heading of 178°. The sixth, and final, data point was incomplete. "It was 2.5nm from the previous data point and the aircraft right bank had reduced to 3°.The aircraft was pitched nose down 5° and was on a heading of 193°. At this time there was also a user input of an altitude of 4,000ft," says the ATSB." [2] Also from the ATSB report: [3] "Six weeks before the accident flight the PIC had used his simulator to fly a route, initially similar to part of the route flown by MH370 up the Strait of Malacca, with a left-hand turn and track into the southern Indian Ocean." "There were enough similarities to the flightpath of MH370 for the ATSB to carefully consider the possible implications for the underwater search area. These considerations included the impact on the search area if the aircraft had been either glided after fuel exhaustion or ditched under power prior to fuel exhaustion with active control of the aircraft from the cockpit." [1] https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/call-of-the-void-seven-years-on-what-do-we-know-about-the-disappearance-of-malaysia-airlines-77fa5244bf99 https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/call-of-the-void-seven-y... [2] https://www.flightglobal.com/atsb-details-mh370-captains-simulation-of-indian-ocean-route/125588.article https://www.flightglobal.com/atsb-details-mh370-captains-sim... [3] https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773565/operational-search-for-mh370_final_3oct2017.pdf https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773565/operational-search-for...
  - hugh-avherald 5y ago
    But what is this evidence meant to prove? For example, is it meant to suggest he planned this operation? Then why use a different initial flight path and a different aircraft? (The -ER and -LR are similar but have different ranges, which would seem crucial if you're trying to plan something like this.) It all just looks like innuendo, or Bible Code or Nostradamus-style coincidences.
    - asd4232 5y ago
      The ER vs LR thing is easy to explain. The most realistic Boeing 777 simulation addon available for Microsoft FS at the time included only 200LR and 300ER models, so using 200LR would have been pretty much the closest option to 200ER available with all the systems modelled in high detail. Besides, the two aircraft don't have that much of a difference in fuel burn. A professional 777 captain could certainly figure out how far the fuel on 200ER could get him. Of course the FS data doesn't prove anything, but I can't see how the aircraft could have ended up where it ended without any input from either pilot. If both pilots died you would certainly expect a more straight flight-path.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      What this evidence shows is that your proposed explanation of a simulation session being accidentally left to run does not explain the specific evidence found. In addition, the waypoints of the multiple track segments all have identical values for certain incidental values - something that is highly unlikely unless these segments were all recorded in the same session. This makes it extemely implausible that these segments, which are consistent with what is known of the aircraft's dog-leg track, were created accidentally. That being said, you can throw out all the simulator evidence and still be left with a very strong case, from the reactivation of the Inmarsat equipment and the turn to the south, that someone was controlling the airplane an hour after it could have reached the airports at Kota Bharu or Penang.
    - wombatmobile 5y ago
      > Then why use a different initial flight path The initial flight path matters least. He mightn't have known which day and route would present the opportunity, which would also have to coincide with the right frame of mind for him to execute this operation. His opportunity might have depended upon who was assigned co-pilot on the day. So, whatever initial flight path he took was outside of his control. What was under his control was the part we are trying to understand now - the rest of the voyage, and the destination.
Steko 5y ago
"In fact, the FBI said it found nothing incriminating in the computer simulations, and certainly nothing that came close to the erratic course that the flight first followed." That seems pretty persuasive. The Atlantic article guesses that the simulation was meant "to leave a bread-crumb trail to say goodbye." which seems laughably weak.
- fanzhang 5y ago
  'Nothing incriminating" doesn't mean it it should be fully discounted. The suicide theory is the strongest one in absence of a better explanation.
- batushka3 5y ago
  The FBI didn't found anything incriminating, when tourists from Saudi Barbaria were learning just to point plane to desired destination, without any interest in landing or taking off.

metacritic12 5y ago

What alternative theory do you have that would pass the sniff test better? Given the facts, the suicide theory seems like the leading one by occam's razor.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mannykannot 5y ago

In that response, Irving is weak-manning Langewiesche's article, by attacking only the weakest, most speculative parts. As Argonaut says, it is mostly concerned with the point that Langewiesche is speculating about the captain's state of mind and motives. Irving makes no attempt to explain the inconvenient fact that someone activated the Inmarsat system and turned the airplane south an hour after it could have landed at Kota Bharu or Penang. In addition, Irving has no qualms over speculating when it seems to suit his purpose. He claims that the rational choice for someone wanting to disappear would be to head east, ignoring the fact that one has to go further in that direction to reach the open ocean while avoiding radar. Irving concludes by making an issue of the fact that the section of flap that washed up in Tanzania was not deployed at the time of impact, which is an utter non-sequitur. The thing is that once you have compelling technical evidence that the disappearance was not accidental, it is reasonable to speculate about motives, and the weakness of those speculations does not weaken the independent case that it was no accident.