Passing strange? Damn straight:-
ABC - “According to a source, the ATSB took the murder–suicide theory so seriously that expert mapping of possible crash locations took it into account.”
Just looking through my own flight planning program data base and the XL spreadsheets I keep, out of habit, of waypoint, track and distance ‘templates’ and there are ‘lots of’; almost 600 individual files. I can, with ease, conjure up a flight plan from anywhere to somewhere in a very short space of time; for a range of aircraft. Now, it seems to me that anyone, even with half a brain, could look at my data base and decide that one of those plans had been used to plan the last flight undertaken. But; if I wanted to ‘disappear’ an aircraft do you not think that within that data base a ‘false’ plan would not have been left behind; a close, but no cigar version.
A 1˚ variance in track details will create a flight path deviation of 1 mile in every 60 travelled; at 300 knots (for easy arithmetic) that :: 5 miles every hour :: 5 hours = 25 miles away from where the faux track would have taken us. So to vanish an aircraft; lay a trail of breadcrumbs from A to B using a ‘track’, say South (180˚); then just remember to add or subtract your own deviation (say 5˚) and; just like that, an error of 100 miles can be built in. The point is that even if the pilot had decided to disappear the aircraft; and, even if he had used his very own ‘program’ to plot the dastardly act; do you reckon he’d be dumb enough to leave an accurate, detailed ‘plan’ on his own computer? No sane investigator would swallow that whole; only the sensationalist press, dumb politicians and Beaker would entertain that notion for more than 30 seconds.
ABC - "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," the statement says.
There now, that’s a much more concise interpretation of a non-fact. That this ‘flight plan’ keeps being raised as even partly credible search evidence is a symptom of the dreadful management of both search and investigation. That folk without any evidence, one way or ‘tuther keeps stating, categorically, that it was the Captain ‘wot-dunnit’ are talking through their collective arses – hats.
Mini rant over – but I declare that if I hear another load of half baked twaddle about some ‘flight plan’ being the sinister master plan developed by a man who cannot defend himself; someone will catch an earful. It’s BOLLOCKS, unmitigated, uneducated, mindless bollocks.
DDD Darren should not be allowed out without a minder and a muzzle; the minder lest he get lost going to loo at Tamworth; the muzzle to prevent him changing feet every time his mouth opens. Dunno which is worse; him or the idiot press. Close race to the bottom that one.
Toot – over it – toot.
ABC - “According to a source, the ATSB took the murder–suicide theory so seriously that expert mapping of possible crash locations took it into account.”
Just looking through my own flight planning program data base and the XL spreadsheets I keep, out of habit, of waypoint, track and distance ‘templates’ and there are ‘lots of’; almost 600 individual files. I can, with ease, conjure up a flight plan from anywhere to somewhere in a very short space of time; for a range of aircraft. Now, it seems to me that anyone, even with half a brain, could look at my data base and decide that one of those plans had been used to plan the last flight undertaken. But; if I wanted to ‘disappear’ an aircraft do you not think that within that data base a ‘false’ plan would not have been left behind; a close, but no cigar version.
A 1˚ variance in track details will create a flight path deviation of 1 mile in every 60 travelled; at 300 knots (for easy arithmetic) that :: 5 miles every hour :: 5 hours = 25 miles away from where the faux track would have taken us. So to vanish an aircraft; lay a trail of breadcrumbs from A to B using a ‘track’, say South (180˚); then just remember to add or subtract your own deviation (say 5˚) and; just like that, an error of 100 miles can be built in. The point is that even if the pilot had decided to disappear the aircraft; and, even if he had used his very own ‘program’ to plot the dastardly act; do you reckon he’d be dumb enough to leave an accurate, detailed ‘plan’ on his own computer? No sane investigator would swallow that whole; only the sensationalist press, dumb politicians and Beaker would entertain that notion for more than 30 seconds.
ABC - "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," the statement says.
There now, that’s a much more concise interpretation of a non-fact. That this ‘flight plan’ keeps being raised as even partly credible search evidence is a symptom of the dreadful management of both search and investigation. That folk without any evidence, one way or ‘tuther keeps stating, categorically, that it was the Captain ‘wot-dunnit’ are talking through their collective arses – hats.
Mini rant over – but I declare that if I hear another load of half baked twaddle about some ‘flight plan’ being the sinister master plan developed by a man who cannot defend himself; someone will catch an earful. It’s BOLLOCKS, unmitigated, uneducated, mindless bollocks.
DDD Darren should not be allowed out without a minder and a muzzle; the minder lest he get lost going to loo at Tamworth; the muzzle to prevent him changing feet every time his mouth opens. Dunno which is worse; him or the idiot press. Close race to the bottom that one.
Toot – over it – toot.