Since the home simulator information was made public I’ve been analysing it myself and discovered that RMP was completely wrong for the most ridiculous reason.
Below is the image from the RMP report showing a line between point 3 and 4 of the sim co-ordinates.
what’s most important is understanding the heading information for all points.
The headings are NOT expressed in normal aviation format and are expressed as plus or minus relative to North (360).
That minus symbol in front of the headings is MOST important !
So how do I prove it ?
The image below is point 6 at Kuala Lumpur runway end.
The heading given is -33.85, subtract that from 360 and the real heading is
Plot that and the image below is the result, straight down the runway
All my heading plots are in red and it doesn’t take much imagination to see how wrong they would be if I’d read the heading data literally without that very important minus symbol. Points 1 and 2 below.
255 and NOT 104 which would actually take it back towards Malaysia
NOT towards the SIO.
My own interpretation of that point (if linked to the others) is that ATC software misdirected the flight to DOTEN and the pilot decided to cut the corner and fly direct.
I’m still analysing the data and my interpretation is that the two positions between Australia and Antarctica are unrelated to the first four points.
The heading of 193 from point 5 does not appear to take it to Mc Murdo but I’ve yet to apply magnetic variation which in those latitudes is complex because of the proximity to the South Magnetic Pole. A rough estimate without accurate plotting appears to put the track in the middle of nowhere !
To summarize, my analysis of the data is ongoing and I’m sure much more will emerge to prove that mainstream media are completely wrong to draw the inferences that they have.
It’s also worth noting that a tiny error such as missing a minus symbol, can have huge implications on the conclusion and that also applies to the massive amount of data which actually is relevant to the investigation.
The article below from Le Monde adds further detail from the leaked RMP report. I'll highlight two major points.
1. "It states that the seven contact information extracted from the data"
That means that there is a 7th point not published & I can only assume that's because it didn't suit the agenda of the leakers & more than likely indicates there is NOTHING sinister in Capt. Shah's simulator.
2. "The report's authors say they are not able to establish that these coordinates belong to a single flight."
Confirms my assertion that there was nothing to link the points & certainly no reason to draw a misleading line between points 3 & 4
Vol MH370 : deux ans après, la personnalité du pilote au cœur des spéculations
My reply to the Independent Group Preliminary Assessment
The question which needs to be asked is how long had the IG known about the data and how did it influence their assumptions?
Now to the data itself and I’ll present it in reverse order for a good reason. We can safely assume that two members of the IG have known about the data for some time but their analysis of it was only released 15th August. They had plenty of time to conduct an analysis but didn’t do so until well after New York Magazine published(22nd July) and Jeff Wise had selectively used it to incriminate the captain.
“The report's authors say they are not able to establish that these coordinates belong to a single flight.”
So what have the IG done? Without a single piece of linking information they’ve drawn a path in exactly the same way a child joins the dots, only they’ve made it black so it doesn’t stand out quite so much as Jeff Wise’s blatant incrimination but the insinuation is there.
Let me be clear, there is no path, only a list of 6 random data points.
Why did they not mention that ? Could it be because they’re suggesting that an FS simulation must land somewhere? It hasn’t occurred to them that Mt Erebus is a scenic opportunity for a flyby nor have they mentioned a scenery add-on called Orbx. The 1st thing any sim user does after adding scenery, is a flyby to see how good it is and that doesn’t require a flight. Slewing is much quicker. It's NOT a real aircraft, it does not need to land, a quick scenic flight can end by pressing Esc key !
Below (left) is the table from the original RMP document. The IG badly tampered and “translated” table (right)
I've double checked & IG numbered columns directly compare from left to right beginning with 1 instead of 6
(Why did they renumber the columns if not to confuse & obfuscate ? )
2. Altitude/AGL. The IG omission of AGL is a major attempt to mislead from the original report and to try to force- fit satellite data. Even RMP highlighted with ??? and every point except 5 has a max difference from alt of only 3'. IG have effectively lied to suit an agenda. I'm sure they'll make the excuse of a mistake which only leaves incompetence.
3. Pitch. Absent without leave.
4. Bank. Also AWOL
5. Heading. They don't even know what mag variation is loaded in the sim, bet they used 2014 but hey guess what? MS FSX might not have updated from FS9 which was 2004 ! That's apart from a heading NOT being a TRACK so extending it to anywhere is another piece of IG fiction.
6. Ground speed. All RMP speeds are quoted feet per sec,There's no RMP figure I can divide by 60 for fpm & again for fph & divide again by 6080 to give knots that looks anything like the IG figures.
7. Vertical speed. There's no RMP figure I can divide by 60 to give an IG fpm result.
8. Turn rate. Expressed how? RMP give specific units, IG just give a number and that's fictional without specific aircraft model.
9. Fuel. MSFS is not a real aircraft it can refuel at any time by use of shift+ F keys. But as the IG haven't a clue about MSFS, I'll also explain that shift + F can be remapped to any key combination.
The only purpose of the IG "Preliminary Assessment" is as a PR exercise to provide an illusory perception of analysis and despite their disclaimer,to infer that the home simulator data is related to the published assumed track of MH370
Question; what would a flight simmer be doing with those two isolated southern points ?
I couldn't think of an answer until I realized I'd answered it myself with reference to the complexity of magnetic variation in that part of the world. I just had to check and begorrah! There's the answer.
This was a NAVIGATION exercise !
If the heading was to be extended past the Pole,my guesstimate is that the gentle curve would become tighter and swing towards Erebus but I'm off the overlay at that point. Most would approach Erebus from New Zealand but an approach from Sim 5 over the Pole based on a magnetic heading, would be the most challenging piece of navigation.