PKPF
Ever watch a "Spider Man" movie - all would be revealed.
.
SFFP
I think I addressed that Diana thing in my recent post (#3259) – you must be desperate to spin it to this extent. – you rant like one of Orwell’s sheep.
.
RE your preceding post: <<"and there are plenty of experienced air crew and avionics techs and engineers who view it who could make sense of the data if it is presented in the right way"
Did you ever wonder if they probably already had......? >>
Well, I haven’t seen anything of it; they certainly haven’t made it available for members of the public with an interest in this case; the only decent analysis I have come across is By Mr. Mitchel of Boeing to which I have often referred.
What I have seen is misrepresentation of the weather and the a/c track from the inquiries – which I have described in a recent post with annotated maps.
Why didn’t any of you pick up that the actual position of waypoint change was bypassed to show a direct line to the crash site ignoring the steer to the right?
.
Again, the analysis of what the a/c had done from the available data is separate to the “conspiracy” theory as I have explained before – you (plural) seem to be using the “conspiracy theory” as a block to considering the conclusions of decent analysis. You can replicate the results yourselves using the Boeing analysis as a template – do the detailed chartwork. And while talking about doing the work for yourselves – why not go up to the Mull this summer and see for yourself those typical conditions in the evening with a southerly blowing (from a boat) – it’s not that far and a pleasant place to visit anyway. Take a GPS with you down to that landing area I have described previously and see just how close you can get to waypoint A without falling off the edge.
I think you would end up with them turning into the landmass from less than a mile away whilst still in clear conditions – with the power and instrument settings as found, the only rational explanation is that they were heading for that landing area for which waypoint A was an obvious inner marker.
Beyond this it is speculation (how they overshot, etc) – but the important point is that this landing area has never been mentioned at any of the inquiries.
My speculation is that helo pilots would only trust a point reference like a DME to approach that fast – but with no proof, it is indeed speculation. Others should have been addressing this starting with a good analysis.
.
<<… he has and continues to ask questions which he has had answers to from extremely knowledgeable folk …>>
But I have not had many answers at all (openly on the tread) and some of them have been obviously wrong – examples include:
The HSI course setting being irrelevant when they must have been on 027m for nearly 40 miles which got them directly to waypoint change, waypoint change to crash brg was 035m and this was found on handling pilot’s course selector;
The altimeter settings (BARO & RADALT alarm) were said to be irrelevant;
A call sign query was fobbed off with something about Tri-graphs;
Inquiring about the SSR Code (squawk) as seen on SSR earlier in the flight, no one recalled it and the existence of radar recordings were denied;
Etc, etc.
Oh, and of course the PLS – wouldn’t we all just love to know how the range and bearing gets displayed to the pilots in a/c fitted with ARS6 or equivalent?
Such an interesting system, that – wouldn’t mind betting it does get switched through to the HSIs somehow – otherwise, why the hell did they dump waypoint A when it was still ahead and the only reference they had (as far as we know) for judging their proximity to the landmass.
Come on you “extremely knowledgeable folk” – don’t tease.