[Peetwo]

Pick the Troll??
It is not 'Mick' but Andy sounds a lot like him..
 

Andrew 


Byron Bailey’s latest article continues to misrepresent and, dare I say it, lie about statements made by the ATSB.  It is full of inaccuracies.

He just doesn’t get it when he claims the ATSB thinks it’s fine to “ignore the overwhelming evidence that Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft”. The ATSB isn’t concerned about why the aircraft went missing; they are only concerned about where the aircraft might have ended up so they can define a search area.   How it got there is irrelevant for the ATSB’s purposes.

He claims the “ATSB used Bayesian mathematical modelling to project the most likely flight path of the Boeing 777”.  Again, that is not correct and shows his lack of understanding of the process.   The flight path analysis was conducted by other parties, including Boeing, Inmarsat and Thales, using a variety of analytical techniques.   The results of that analysis were subsequently tested by the Defence Science & Technology Group using a Bayesian statistical approach.  Controlled vs un-controlled flight didn’t even come into that part of the analysis.

He says he tested the ATSB’s theory in a full flight simulator and states the results led him to disagree with the ATSB’s flight path, which was derived using “only an engineering simulator”.  What he fails to mention is that the aircraft manufacturer’s engineering simulator is actually far more capable than full flight simulators used for pilot training.

He claims the ATSB said, “The right engine flamed out and in each test case the aircraft then turned left and remained in a banked turn”.  That is an outright lie.  The ATSB report actually said, “The aircraft behaviour after the engine flame-out(s) was tested in the Boeing engineering simulator.   In each test case, the aircraft began turning to the left and remained in a banked turn”.   In other words, the aircraft began turning left and remained in a banked turn after BOTH engines had flamed out.

That result is entirely consistent with the expected behaviour of the aircraft.  The aircraft would have continued flying straight after the right engine failed due to the left rudder input from the aircraft’s Thrust Asymmetry Compensation function.   Once the left engine failed, however, the residual rudder input would have caused the aircraft to start rolling and turning to the left.

He then states “they performed a basic trajectory analysis of an uncontrolled ‘but stable aircraft’ for 230km”, claims that was “utter rubbish” and that the ATSB’s search area projection is therefore flawed.   The ATSB report actually states, “A simulation was performed to determine the glide distance of the aircraft under active control to maintain wings-level attitude.  The simulation (from FL330) resulted in the aircraft gliding for a total distance of approximately 125 NM from the point of the second engine flame-out”.   The point of that simulation was to determine a maximum gliding distance if the aircraft had remained under the control of a pilot.  

However, the search area definition was based on the theory that the aircraft was not actively controlled and crashed within about 20nm of the second engine flame-out.

I fail to understand why The Australian continues to publish Byron Bailey’s nonsense. 

Maybe Andy is another bureau white hat? Anyway in answer to his question in bold, BB has created a readership & loyal following and he has drawn out the ATSB, including insightful commentary like yours. I also think there is a game at play going on behind the scenes, why is it people like Andy & Mick feel the need to finally give (although purely theoretical) such factually accurate analysis?

Quote from 'that man' - "The controversial search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has suffered a further setback.."

Okay some other recent comments that perhaps highlight how the narrative is being crafted to paint the ATSB in an extremely poor light:

John 


It's worrying to think that people capable of such risibly incompetent analysis have anything to do with the safety of transportation in Australia.

I was wavering between viewpoints before, but now it seems virtually certain that a pre-determined outcome favouring the standpoint of a fellow member of the Club of Governments has been the motivation all along.

Why is it that I don't feel surprised? Angry at all the taxpayers' money being wasted, but not surprised...

Terrance 


" one can hope China will commission the US National Transportation Safety Board and American oceanographer Robert Ballard, who has found a series of underwater wrecks including the Bismarck and Titanic, to start afresh using real experts."......
Something along these lines is the only hope that there is to find the plane because those who are in control of the current search have a vested interest in denial...that is the protection of their collective reputations or, if you’re a conspiracy theorist, to continue to ensure that it isn’t found.

Mark 


None of those governments want it found, particularly Malaysia.  Both China and Malaysia have promised cash and resources to assist the search, but nothing has ever been forthcoming.  The ATSB, as an organisation, is hopelessly incompetent, actually, The ATSB doesn't even aspire to climb to the level of hopelessly incompetent
 
Bill 

Again we have a taxpayer funded body pursuing their own agendas and ignoring real world experience and advice. Why? Well it keeps them in spending mode (on themselves particularly) and creaming it for as long as possible.  The moment the head of this search operation was selected - one who has no commercial airline experience - it was doomed to failure.  Still Australia has the great propensity of "jobs for the boys" first, second and always.  My only surprise was that an ex politician/ state premier  wasn't appointed to head this soon-to-be another stuff up!

 Ok but none of them are Trolls.. ..but IMO this joker is -  

Chris


The conspiracy nut jobs are out in force today (see below). Its not even a full moon. I'm just amazed with all your knowledge insight and wisdom you cranks aren't employed by NASA.

By the way Byron...What do you do for a crust?...Sit at home and watch repeats of Air Crash Investigation?

&..in reply (feeding the Troll):


Damien

@Chris Read the paragraph in italics at the bottom of the article. Besides what credentials do you have to make any criticism here? I'm a retired flight engineer by the way.

DJD


Chris

@Damien @Chris " ..who has found a series of underwater wrecks including the Bismarck and Titanic, to start afresh using real experts."

The comparisons between finding the Bismarck 41,700 ton, 251 m  Bismarck and the 52,310 ton, 269.1 m Titanic whose position was boxed within a 20KM square is close to certifiable...


Damien

@Chris @Damien And your point is?????
You haven't mentioned your qualifications.

DJD


Chris


@Damien @Chris  And your point is?????

Its a nonsense comparison which compromises his whole article.

Qualifications? Spent 12 years at sea on survey and research ships.

Byron

@Chris Actually Chris I still fly private/corporate jets for a couple of very famous celebrities. We get a laugh from these " trolls " about their outraged confected rubbish. I sent the report to about 20 real experts not just the 5 mentioned in the article and all agree that the ATSB was remiss in not considering the rogue pilot theory.  No flight engineers on a B777 and I did not lie in my article - problem is when I repeat what the Australian has printed re their talking to the head of ATSB then I get finger pointed at me and the editors do leave out a lot of my substantiating facts to appeal to the layman.

I am not concerned as to why Captain Shah may or may not have committed this hijack just like pointing out that these taxpayer funded self appointed ATSB experts on huge salaries are wasting our money. CAE Flight Simulation would be interested to hear that the B777 Full Flight Simulators are not 100 % valid - this is a worry cos we are trained 100 % in the simulators not the aircraft. 

MTF?- Definitely..P2