Two men, strangers to one another, go into the cockpit of an airplane and lock the door behind them. They take off and fly into the night. One radios to ATC, “Good night, Malaysia 370.” One minute later, someone puts the plane into a turn. It reverses direction and disappears.
Question: Did one of the men take the plane?
For many, it’s inconceivable that there could be any other answer than “of course.” Moreover, that since the details of the incident suggest a sophisticated knowledge of the aircraft, the perpetrator could obviously only be the man with the vastly greater experience — the captain. As reader @Keffertje has written: “Though I try to keep an open mind to all other scenarios, the circumstantial evidence against ZS simply cannot be ignored.”
For others, blaming the captain without concrete proof is immoral. There are MH370 forums where the suggestion that Zaharie might be considered guilty is considered offensive and hurtful to the feelings of surviving family members. Even if one disregards such niceties, it is a fact that an exhaustive police investigation found that Zaharie had neither psychological problems, family stress, money problems, or any other suggestion that he might be suicidal. (Having broken the story of Zaharie’s flight-simulator save points in the southern Indian Ocean, I no longer think they suggest he practiced a suicide flight, for reasons I explain here.) And far from being an Islamic radical, he enjoyed the writings of noted atheist Richard Dawkins and decried terror violence. And he was looking forward to retiring to Australia. If he was trying to make the Malaysian government look bad, he failed, because in the absence of an explanation there is no blame to allocate. And if he was trying to pull off the greatest disappearing act of all time, he failed at that, too, since the captain would necessarily be the prime suspect.
So did Zaharie do it, or not?
This, in a nutshell, is the paradox of MH370. Zaharie could not have hijacked the plane; only Zaharie could have hijacked the plane.
I’d like to suggest that another way of looking at the conundrum is this: if Zaharie didn’t take the plane, then who did? As has been discussed in this forum at length, the turn around at IGARI was clearly initiated by someone who was familiar with both aircraft operation and air traffic control protocols. The reboot of the SDU tells that whoever was in charge at 18:22 had sophisticated knowledge of 777 electronics. And the fact that the plane’s wreckage was not found where autopilot flight would have terminated tells us that someone was actively flying the plane until the end. But who? And why?
If Zaharie did not do it, then one of the passengers and crew either got through the locked cockpit door in the minute between “Good night, Malaysia 370” and IGARI, or got into the E/E bay and took control of the plane from there.
If we accept that this is what happened, then it is extremely difficult to understand why someone who has gone to such lengths would then fly themselves to a certain demise in the southern Indian Ocean. (Remember, they had the ability to communicate and were apparently in active control of the aircraft; they could have flown somewhere else and called for help if they desired.)
Recall, however, that the BFO values have many problems. We get around the paradox of the suicide destination if we assume that the hijackers were not only sophisticated, but sophisticated enough to conceive of and execute a spoof of the Inmarsat data.
Granted, we are still left with the issue of the MH370 debris that has been collected from the shores of the western Indian Ocean. Many people instinctively recoil from the idea that this debris could have been planted, as a spoof of the BFO data would require. Fortunately, we don’t have to argue the subject from first principles. Detailed physical and biological analysis of the debris is underway, and should be released to the public after the official search is called off in December. As I’ve written previously, several aspects of the Réunion flaperon are problematic; if further analysis bears this out, then we’ll have an answer to our conundrum.
@CosmicAcademy
very good points made.
@jeffwise
A minor correction to your article. The turn back angle at IGARI was not 180 degrees which would have sent it back to Kuala Lumpur. However the actually figure 154 degrees. This put it 75km further away from Kuala Lumpur for every 100km it flew, whereas it was 100km closer to Penang for every 100km flown.
Ordinarily this would not be an issue as there is not a lot of difference between the two, however on three separate groups and forums in the last twenty four hours the figure 180 is being quoted as evidence it was set on a course back to Kuala Lumpur and somehow wandered off course due to the so called aircraft malfunction.
Perhaps,mthat as your intention.
@DennisW. “Have you ever heard of a defense attorney claiming that his client’s DNA and fingerprints are on thosuands of items all over the world, and the fact that they happen to be present at the crime scene should be ignored? I never have heard of such a defense, yet there are mnay people on this blog using it despite the absurdity.”
While not addressed to me, I respond on behalf of “many people”.
Your analogy is circular. It concludes there was a crime by supposing it.
One less partisan would be that his client’s fingerprints were found where there was also a body and the two cannot be linked just from that.
@DennisW:
I fully agree or acknowlwdge that there is smoke and a gun and the smell of gunpowder, and the gun is stuffed in Z’s pants, but I am trying to keep an open mind here. Further: 1) I am no expert on hard drive tire burnmarks and have to rely on others (among which the RMP has a role to play); 2) the prosecution of Z (? — will that even happen, or will it only be an accident report?) is not up to me but a state attorney (in Malaysia); 3) the sentencing of Z (dito) is not up to me but to a court of law (in Malaysia); 4) the “practice” with circumstantial or better technical/forensic evidence relys heavily on confession, which you won’t get in this case; 5) there is no motive; 6) there is reasonable doubt, or is it not?; 7) forensic evidence will (would he be alive and facing trial) put him on the crime scene (but we knew that already), and then some (he was a pilot, he had a simulator, he had kids and friends, he was a Malaysian resident, for whom deepest SIO might be what ultima thule is to me or to some summer Germans (and Dutch) — i.e. his erased data points are certainly suspect, but who am I to say, perhaps he erased them so that his kids wouldn’t see that he was fooling around playing?; perhaps he, being a pilot, had the habit of tidying his computer now and then when he had played around or done some emergency scenario training, as he must have been aware (self evidently) that he might not come back one day; 8) I am a skeptic (or practical cynic); 9) What if he did whatever he tried to do (but failed) together with Hamid and on someone’s order (MAY govt.)?
If you add all those points together what you get is a bit like the multiplication of poor excuses. So, sure, you are right — Zaharie did it. Zaharie did it. I believe he did it. Now it is said. But it could be Hamid, too. Or not
@DennisW; @David:
It seems David beat me to my no. 7. But we concluded differentiy.
Updated list of Debris from Malaysian government (dated 14-Oct-2016) Believe it just adds one new piece the tail section with the red paint. Perhaps other edits.
http://mh370.gov.my/phocadownload/News/Summary%20of%20Debris%20Recovered%20-%2014Oct2016.pdf
I am surprised as some press articles in early Sept said many new pieces being found (but apparently random pieces do not make the list if not believed related to MH370)
@Middleton, The final words were confirmed to be spoken by ZS according to an interview with ZS wife in June, 2014. I also believe voice analyses by experts has confirmed that as well.
@Ge Rijn, “A clumsy pilot …would be out of order”. Itis safe to say that whoever took control of M9-MRO has not done it before. “Clumsy” does not necessarily equate to “inexperience” (though it could). The decision to go dark and make an aggressive turn, is a big deal. There is no going back. That person/person(s) would be sweating bullets, would be very very nervous, his/her adrenaline levels would be going through the roof – because you cannot make a mistake, you passed the point of “no return”. IMO, that person would perhaps fly clumsily, more so if crew are pounding on the cockpit door demanding it be opened. If it is intentional, hijackers or pilots, you cannot dry tun this part.
@Paul Smithson
How often do you check your email?
@Gysbreght
I believe DrBobbyUlich is expressing a view in regard to
a higher level of precision than that which the FI states.
Generally, you would be aware that IGARI is a fly-by waypoint,
and his statement about;
‘The exact time of nearest passage to IGARI is unknown’
merely relects this.
Your attempts to figure a working figure for the aircraft
speed during the circum-IGARI to circum-WMKP airspace are
worthwhile – you would be aware that VictorI figured that the
airspeed (there) was approximately Mach 0.84;
http://www.duncansteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Fig1.png
Do you have any comments that support or negate VictorIs
reasoning?
@DrBobbyUlich
Re; “Could the repeated notifications to ATC of FL350 have been
a (subtle) reminder that a higher altitude had been requested
but not yet authorized?”
I’d agree with Gysbreghts rebuttal – adding that the second
notification can be seen merely as a attempt to ensure that
KL ATCC would expedite the changeover to HCM ATCC as soon as
it was appropriate.
@Johan@David
Congrats. You just got added to the whacko list.
@dennisW
What if Zaharie didn’t do it?
I know for a fact that the debris analyzes will reveal an external party that did this, and none onboard was part of it.
@DennisW.”You just got added to the whacko list”.
All the best with your struggle.
@Brock McEwen
As far as I can tell, the only reason the DHJ hasn’t been working in the search area is because it carries an AUV, and this can only be safely deployed and retrieved when the sea is relatively calm.
Apparently the towfish carried by Equator, isn’t affected in the same way, as it remains attached to the ship by a steel cable.
I’m just as impatient as you to see the DHJ go into action.
@buyerninety:
“I believe DrBobbyUlich is expressing a view in regard to
a higher level of precision than that which the FI states.” When the airplane passed IGARI its transponder was still transmitting Mode-S data, containing the Lat/Lon from the airplane’s navigation system.
“Do you have any comments that support or negate VictorIs reasoning?”
I don’t know Victor’s reasoning in detail, but M.84/FL340 is still 14 knots faster than M.82/FL350. My reference is Fig. 4.2 of the DSTG report, which is based on a continuous trace of radar data at 10 second intervals from 16:42:27 to 18:01:49.
The ATSB published a radar trace showing that the airplane overflew IGARI, then turned right on a heading of approx. 68 degrees to intercept the track IGARI-BITOD, then turned left. Factual Information states:
@Vector-1, You wrote, “on three separate groups and forums in the last twenty four hours the figure 180 is being quoted as evidence it was set on a course back to Kuala Lumpur.” Thanks for alerting me–I’ve changed the wording to remove that implication.
Perhaps the highjacker intended to return to Kuala Lumpur?
@Carla
Thank you, you are welcome.
What appears to me, is, that most cvontributors here seem to have plenty of experience in killing 239 people in one stroke. At least they talk about it , as if thats their daily business.
From people who really killed human beings , who talked to me for counseling, i know, that it is very far from easy to kill other humans. It seems to be a very traumatic event. Even people who were heavily trained to kill in special forces units (supposed to deliver nukes in the back of atacking forces) had tremendous difficulties killing someone , even if it was only self defence and truly necessary. They were traumatized for decades.
I would guess, that Zaharie was not trained in killing people, but he is supposed to have killed in his first killing ever 239 people in a calm , James Bond like fashion, for reasons nobody can tell, and he even is suposed to have functioned like a professional 777-pilot during the act, who, by the way did some complicated stuff in the leg from igari to mekar. Imagine , a person who never smelled the smoke of any battle ground, who never had any physical dispute in his life, should somehow become a very smart and professional acting serial killer of a kind?
He lacked the training for that. He was not prepared for the moment when you suffer the nervous breakdown, after a killing. He was just not capable to do what most people here insinuate he did.
Jeff,
I note Rob’s post addressing Brock McEwen. I cannot see any post from Brock. What is going on?
@MuOne
democracy is dead?
@MuOne, I’ve banned Brock. I believe his contributions amount to high-level trolling.
@MuOne
Agreed, I’ve been looking at multiple pages back and can’t see any relevant thread from Brock McEwen. Usually this sort of unrelated post would include the time stamp so you can find it.
@DennisW
Could you add me to the whacko list please, the evidence is piling up that 9M-MRO was hijacked.
Despite this opinion I do enjoy reading your consistently excellent posts.
Jeff,
You got to be joking! I think you need to grow some thicker skin.
How come, that we have to find out this way? I saw no “[JW: redacted, because…]”, “final warning”, or other.
You lost a lot of, if not all, credibility with me for this “covert” ban of one of the more esteemed contributors here.
Pretty poor not to own up to it. This is a blog about MH370, not the presidential election of the US, where one may expect such behaviour.
@joshua, yep, you seem to have a point there
@SteveBarat, thanks for stating your notice of this too
@all others, this is a good time to step up and show your support for Brock and put some questions to our host.
@MuOne, It’s not a question of thick skin. Brock is a “truther” — his basic position is that all data must be mistrusted because the governments running the investigation are fundamentally untrustworthy. Thus there can be no forward progress. Everything must remain forever shrouded in a haze of doubt. This corrosive attitude is fundamentally the same as the Russian attitude of “Nothing is true, everything is possible.” I do recognize that Brock made some valuable contributions in the past, and told him privately that he was welcome to post here so long as he left his trutherism out of it, but he kept hitting the same note, so I had to do what I had to do.
@Joshua, You wrote, “Is democracy dead?” Let’s be clear, this is a moderated forum. The only way I can keep it from degenerating into chaos is by clearing out the weeds. If what I consider trash, you consider treasure, there is a whole wide internet where I’m sure you’ll be able to find your cup of tea.
Brock is amongst the most essential of contributors and highly regarded by all (but Jeff apparently).
Too many redactions, too many final warnings – all contributions ought to be welcome.
Bring back Brock, Gloria, Paul ……
@MuOne: “this is a good time to step up and show your support for Brock”
Not for me.
@Cosmic A, You have touched on some valid points in your post. However,all the people who committed suicide, after committing (mass) murder do not sit in front of you to tell their story. We have many of these events taking place. They were also 1st timers in the atrocius crimes they committed, and went through with it anyway. For this reason, you cannot know for fact whether ZS did it ot not. The same applies to the other end of the spectrum, where we cannot say that ZS is the culprit in this event with 100pct surety.The knife cuts both ways.
@TBill
@ALL
Re the updated list or debris, released by Malaysian MOT, ref
http://mh370.gov.my/phocadownload/News/Summary%20of%20Debris%20Recovered%20-%2014Oct2016.pdf.
Does anyone remember who first suggested that Item 16 was a cabin interior panel? I know it appears to be exhibiting a lattice-type pattern on the white paint surface, but this could be an effect caused by the impact force or by the immersion in seawater, IMO. I know you could say I’m showing my bias here, but Item 16 is highly fractured, too fractured to come from the interior, IMO. If this is an interior panel, then there should be a lot more interior debris, because the fuselage must have gone through a mincer. I don’t believe this can possibly be an interior panel, but more likely it’s a highly fractured wing closing panel. However, it could be taken as showing that the Malaysian MOT read this blog, and find it a useful resource. This I can Believe!
MuOne, SteveBarratt,
There was a post from Brock, his usual style, certainly not trolling, not insulting to anyone…
Sadly, over the last few months we witnessed how the whole Jeff’s platform transformed into a “whacko club”. A number of valuable contributors have left; a number of contributors were banned for their disagreement with Jeff. A number of technical “round-table” discussions, which did not fit Jeff’s narrative, were suppressed or banned. Meanwhile, a number of contributors were allowed to post disgusting garbage…
Jeff Wise has already several times mentioned “this is a moderated forum”. Obviously, recently it became ‘moderated’ to meet his own goals and expectations, but not to seek the truth.
Nevertheless, I would like to thank Jeff Wise for this platform, which provided an excellent opportunity to learn new stuff and contribute, hopefully, some useful ideas. I am going into the “silence mode” for now.
Jeff,
I don’t share your view that Brock is a ‘truther’, whatever that means.
I share a certain level of scepticism about the data that has been released, then re-released in a modified form, several released data classes/sets seemingly contradicting each other (e.g. ISAT vs drift, nothing suspicious found vs sim points, early vs. later FI radar data, etc.)
Given that these come from the same general official source(s), how can you not apply a little mistrust or at least skepticism, or try to establish how the modifications came about or inconsistencies can be explained. I thought that kind of thing is what basic journalism is about.
I give you that Brock is stern and vocal with his scepticism, but I did not take away “must be mistrusted…fundamentally untrustworthy” from his posts. He is merely asking for an audit of search decisions as a means to uncover possible explanations for some of these inconsistencies and contradictions. I see nothing toll-like or “truthery” in that.
@MuOne @all
I guess we have to wait a minute about ‘Jeff Wise’. This is not like him and he’s been hacked before.
I await an explanation about Brock McEwen’s banning.
Another matter is the discussion (by the suggestive topic) is shifted to ‘who is to blame’ rather then to ‘where is the plane’.
It’s tempting to speculate about it which I also did referring to the co-pilot as another possible culprit.
But I decided it has little or no use.
Some pilot did fly the plane that’s clear. Who and why he flew it the way he did we can only speculate about. It won’t be of any help in finding the location of the plane IMO.
In fact it doesn’t matter who ‘did it’ or ‘why’ considering the goal of narrowing the the possible crash-area.
We only have the Inmarsat-data, radar-data, drift-analysis and debris to work with now to find the most probable crash-area.
‘Who did it’ and ‘why’ can possibly only be answered when the plane and black boxes are found. And perhaps even then there will be no answers to those questions.
Also the SIM-points in the SIO are not helpfull in this regard. They might be a clear indication Zaharie planned all this.
But then what?
Is this information going to find the plane? No IMO.
Anything could have happened after ‘Goodnight Malaysia 370’.
A hijack by others, the captain took over and locked the co-pilot out, the co-pilot locked the captain out and took the plane, a sudden mechanical/electric failure.
Malaysian jets shot at MH370 at 18:22 leaving it flying crippled. And so on..
For this moment it doesn’t matter ‘who did it’ or ‘why’ IMO. That’s of later concern.
The focus should be on using all ‘factual’ information in narrowing the possible crash-area.
@ROB
I think it was @Susie from England. The same decoration is visible as on the Rodrigues-piece.
The fuselage must have been broken in at least one place IMO. Three found interior pieces indicate a lot more interior pieces must have left the fuselage.
And all through one door becomes very unlikely with that. Possible, but very unlikely.
Back in January I posted: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9sdn0cx1ipkvnd/IGARItracks.jpg?dl=0
The red line shows the route from KLIA to IGARI, then the track IGARI-BITOD.
The blue line represents the radar track first published in the ATSB’s Fact Sheet “Considerations on defining the search area” of 26 May 2014.
The green line represents the groundspeed and track data in the DSTG’s Figure 4.2.
The purple half-circle represents a steady turn at 25 degrees of bank that matches the times in Factual Information for IGARI and the first primary radar point.
@Ge Rijn, Nope, not hacked. I think I’ve explained my decision sufficiently.
@MuOne, I appreciate your views, and respectfully disagree. As I’ve often said, I try to have a big a tent as is practicable.
@Oleksandr, Vaya con dios.
@Jeff Wise
Although I often oppose(d) @Brock McEwens views, especially his diffusing/contradicting drift-analizes, I never felt his posting was meant to be trolling. Could be though.
You are sure about this?
If it’s true it is quite sophisticated trolling. Hard to believe.
I’m suprised and can see why others are without warning him.
@Gysbreght, thanks for sharing that. I have constructed a similar graphic. I think it is correct to say that a turnback (assumed 25 deg bank angle and same TAS as previous) provides a “fair-poor” fit to the turn as shown.
If the a/c made the IGARI turn on to the IGARI-BITOD leg, my calculations indicate that a 25 degree bank angle turn initiated at 17:22:10 gets you back right on time (+/-2s) to the first point in the Kota Bharu primary radar at 17:30:33. So far so good.
Let’s also assume that the radar might have a tendency to extend/extrapolate paths until it establishes that a change of course has definitely taken place [comments by radar experts welcome].
Could this explain an apparent overshoot of the IGARI turn by 4Nm / ~30 seconds (by my reckoning)?
Could it explain the “right angle corner” (extrapolating straight path, then “snapping” on to a new path)? If so, the radar took about 50 degrees of turn (say ~45 seconds) before it picks up the new heading.
What of the “turn diameter”? Even if the radar software has a tendency to interpret straight lines, by my reckoning the military radar turn indicates a diameter of not more than 11Nm – requiring bank angle of a smidgin over 30 degrees if TAS was 484kt. Allowing a slight compression of the turn due to head/crosswind it would still require a 30 deg bank turn.
So, while I agree that the military radar turnback, if that is what is depicted, is roughly in the right place. But its shape, diameter remain problematic. Moreover, a more routine turn doesn’t quite put you back on the right angle for the KB incoming track (about 235 instead of 230).
@Jeff Wise @Oleksandr
And I agree with @Oleksandr in this way that valuable/technical contributions may have been suppressed by switching to this new topic. Not at all that this was on purpose but effectively I think it works that way.
The discussion about possible headings and tracks after FMT between @Matt Moriarty @DrBobbyUlich @Brian Anderson and others was very interesting IMO. The shift effectively closes this discussion and that’s a pity I think.
@Oleksandr I hope you stay on.
You know it’s not only a rational thing but also an emotional one.
And overall Jeff Wise is not doing that bad moderating at all.
Let me translate. Jeff Wise is saying: “You are all wrong. The Russians did it.”
@Ge Rijn, As I believe I’ve explained before, I shift the comment threads over to each new post in order to keep everyone in the same conversation. In no way is my intention to end any particular conversation. You can keep talking about whatever.
To give an example of what I found interesting about the previous topic discussion.
It became clear (to me) that after a route-discontinuity the FMC takes a snap-shot of the final entered waypoint/coördinates and just goes on on this heading if no changes are made by a pilot.
This heading will be a magnetic heading, no true/track heading.
It will only compensate for wind variations but not for magnetic variations.
So if no pilot inputs where made after FMT this would only leave curved magnetic paths that where compensated for wind variations only.
IMO this is important for it reduces the number of possible flight-paths in case of no pilot inputs after FMT.
Assuming there where pilot inputs just before or/and after FMT, IMO you should consider what inputs would have been logical to deviate from the normal route-discontinuity reaction of the plane without further pilot inputs.
I think if a pilot had a destination after FMT he would choose a true-heading or track.
Compensating as well for wind and magnetic variations.
I’m surely not an expert on this but I felt this was and is an important discussion.
@Ge Rijn. Yes, it is a very important discussion. If Brian Anderson’s informant at Honeywell is correct – and I have every reason to suppose that he is, then:-
a) If the trek south began from a route discontinuity, then it ought to be a magnetic heading path. Very few of the modelled paths are.
b) Conversely, if we can’t find any magnetic paths that fit (I oversimplify here – I know that both SK999 and Dr Bobby have), then a “nearly straight” path south must have been *commanded* by navigating to a waypoint (great circle) or by heading/track-hold (T).
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
The radar echo determines the Lat/Lon position each time the target is ‘painted’ (about every 10 seconds). If the target is temporarily lost, it is possible (I suggested that a while back) that the processing software projects the paths forward and backwards, which might explain the “right angle corner”.
The Mode S symbol of MH370 dropped off from radar display at 1720:36 UTC (5 seconds after passing IGARI), and the last secondary radar position symbol of MH370 was recorded at 1721:13 UTC. Therefore I don’t think that the “apparent overshoot of the IGARI turn” is due to radar measurement errors.
I must apologize for writing 25 bank from memory. The arc shown on the graph has a radius of 11 NM, which would require 32 degrees of bank at 484 kTAS. Autopilot maximum bank angle is 25 degrees.
@Paul Smithson
Thank you. You say in short terms better what I meant to say.
@Brian Anderson still left a bit of confusion to me for he stated ‘magnetic’ and ‘true’ where the same for a short time.
This might be ‘true’ 😉 but over long distances, as to the SIO, the difference would be huge IMO.
Still don’t get exactly what he meant with that statement.
Hope he will explain here.
@keffertje
Thanks for your response. You may be right, but please let me e3xplain the term “capability”
I said that Zaharie Shah was not capable to execute, what might have happened, because he would not have been able to act in such cold blood. … A first time killer always makes trillions of mistakes and would not have been able to even touch the joystick of a 777. He would have left traces and evidence behind him. What i wanted to say that he was not capable to kill in a mass murder and at the same time act in very cold blood as an experienced commander in a warlike battle.
@Middleton – I also picked up on the American accent. Cheryl agrees. I believe ZS’s in-laws or other relatives are American.
@Gysbrecht. Taking this at face value….
If you assume that the aircraft got half-way through the IGARI turn – from 026 to ~040 (instead of 026 to 058), then continued on ~040 for some 30 seconds – as some folks have interpreted from the FR tracklog, then:
a) your active route would need to have been disengaged (but not pointed at a new destination)
b) remain on same heading ~040 for about 30 seconds
c) then make this 30+ degree bank-angle turn to the left
d) then, rather than staying on constant heading after turn terminus, subtle change in heading as you progress
All very strange.
On another note, viewed at high level of zoom, what did you make of the “flechette” markings along both the secondary radar trace pre-disappearance? These seem to run both E-W and N-S. Possibly some sort of “confidence bar” on the lat/long of each fix (which, I gather, are in the order of 1/sec)?
When we get to the primary radar trace of the turn, there are very distinctive flechettes on the course line. These no longer point E-W but are angled. Possibly radial angle of the radar?
Apologies again: For ‘radius’ read ‘diameter’.
The only long range radar that I can find that these “flechettes” line up with is Western Hill. But at 235Nm it is quite a bit beyond nominal range of that radar (220Nm, according to @GuardedDon).
@Paul
While interesting, your suggested path suffers from a seriuous negative attribute – it cannot be reconciled with the ISAT physics. we may as well put the Maldives back on the table,
@GortoZ
It should be apparent by now that no one cares what you think.
@Dennis W. We are not talking about “my suggested path”. We are talking about the “right-angle turn” that Gysbrecht had posted about above [https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9sdn0cx1ipkvnd/IGARItracks.jpg?dl=0]. If you’ve got something knowledgeable to chip in, please carry on…. Or maybe take a coffee first?