Great Ozzie

So again, I do not understand your point about meddling. You are making the mabe54's (and my) point. The information I posted came from an interview of Air Chief Marshal Houston that is posted on the JACC website... hence the quotes. Let me tell you a little bit more about that. Under the Chicago convention, the accident investigation into the disappearance of MH370 is the responsibility of Malaysia. However, to support its investigation, Malaysia requested that Australia lead the search for the missing aircraft and participate in the investigation as an accredited representative.

I don't understand your point. This idea of "meddling" is utter rubbish -- as many countries ask for the U.S. to aid in aircraft accident investigation. At any rate, in the case of AF 447 the U.S. was quite involved. My understanding, it is relevant and in such a case, is based on aircraft registry. Yes and No... Malaysia invited Australia to "participate as an accredited representative in the investigation". So the agreement was for Australia to lead the search. But Malaysia still has the responsibility for the accident investigation... Australia only a supporting participant. Btw, the U.S. , U.K. and China are also "accredited representatives". Sounds to me you are rewriting history. Read that CMJ I quoted from above. Again... all the foreign countries where I have stepped ashore (from U.S. Naval Vessels) and the foreign military ships I have seen docked in various countries... no, I do not understand that. And little thingys called treaties... like NATO... ANZUS... etc... Then, my friend... you should understand the U.S. response to outside aid after Katrina.

I don't think so. This incident occurred over international waters. Is not the reason Malaysia is heading the investigation due to MH370 originating from that country? Very curious to know what the name of the ship that was supposedly sitting off the coast of New Orleans and was not permitted to assist in aid efforts... I'm sure every country "has rules" about letting "a foreign Armed Force onto land". Personally, as a U.S. Marine, I have been to a number of 'Ports of Call' during three separate U.S. Navy Amphibious Squadron deployments. We docked at Singapore. Not sure what you mean, as I bet dollars to donuts it is still a Port of Call for the U.S. Seventh Fleet. Speaking about those "rules"... I was on board a U.S. ship at Pearl Harbor when we had ships from Japan's SDF docked there. Surreal to see the "Rising Sun" flag at Pearl... nonetheless, it is a port of call for "foreign" navies. Hmmm... I just read the following: Although the best port in terms of condition was located in Texas, Formation Logistics decided that this was too faraway for the ships to steam for resupply. Further, it did not make sense to send them to devastated cities like Biloxi, Gulfport, or New Orleans. Pascagoula Mississippi was considered, but it was decided that the logical initial stopping place was Pensacola. It was estimated that this port would be sufficiently repaired by the time the CTG arrived to offload humanitarian assistance items. The decision to dock in Pensacola was made after the ships were en route, again, an example of the flexibility of an ocean-based response. (Canadian Military Journal, p.57 Vol. 12, No. 3, Summer 2012) Sure... and I think they were respected by other nations. But this respect for "protocols and sovereignty" led to a significant delay in the search (and possible rescue). Whatever mistrust there was should have been set aside for the sake of the crew and passengers / families of MH370. I know... hindsight. But it is a fact that the resources in the U.S. are top drawer regarding aircraft accident investigation.

Sweetness. Thanks Ron. Btw... not posting this in the FSX forum? lol ( :LMAO: )

You cannot possibly be referring to the A2A C172 Trainer...

Excellent "How To" on Flightsim.com: How To...Adapt Aviation Headsets To Computers On the "buy" (instead of build) side... I have previously thought about using something like this: PC Flight Simulator Headset Adapter Read "The Issues" section of that How-To...

Well... for one thing... We could start a "where's your Legacy now?" thread.

Jim, This was before the "frequency shift analysis" and the "correlation of other B777 aircraft" done by Inmarsat engineers over a period of a week.

Yeah... I was an avid reader of Phil Taylor's blog. I still refer to one of them when considering a video card upgrade (GPU variants, performance envelopes, and being an informed consumer) Both he and that first commenter (NickN) used to post here at AVSIM (as well as a few other ACES members). Sadly, Phil took some real abuse here. He was quite a fellow with his experience and desire to make FSX a success.

It was released Q4, 2006 (so just over 7 years ago) and I was running it Christmas, 2006 on a 4-core Opteron system at the time (built Summer, 2006). The problem was, similar as today, one could not (generally speaking) push the sliders all the way up w/o turning it into a slideshow. It was decent, but left a lot to be desired. One of the biggest mistakes imo was Microsoft's "Official system requirements" were totally whack (that's a technical term). I just saw a post a few days ago someone complaining about FSX... that it was designed for pentium 4s (a good chuckle there). The idea stlll lingers. I had an expectation that within 2 to 3 years tops after release, the (then) current systems would have no problem zinging frame rates well over 60fps. Obviously that didn't happen. This idea of "properly" is really relative. If ACES had released FSX with greater limitations i.e. where you couldn't push the sliders up as far / less autogen etc. I think there would have been far fewer complaints. I know I had a blast with it, albeit with the sliders lower than I would have liked. That still holds true today me running an i3770k @ 4.8GHz and a GTX680... I would still like to push things a bit harder / better IQ etc. FSX eye candy is just that... sweet and hard to resist. Don't understand the OP's reason for starting this thread. Don't like it... find something else. I don't understand the big deal. I would not have logged (nor so many others like me) thousand of hours over the years if we did not find a certain amount of fun and satisfaction using FSX (w/o the frustration he seems to be having). I've got the A2A C172R Trainer open at the moment. What a lovely aircraft and such great fun to be poking around where I used to actually fly. We all get a shot at trying things, getting a little taste, of what we'll likely never get to do RW. Certainly not as real as it gets... but not half bad in my book.

Try it on an LST.

It could be a simple as not wanting a confrontation with the pilot's wife / family. She will come under intense police and media scrutiny should she be i.d.'d.

The RNZAF P3 Orion dropped a datum marker buoy to track the movement of the material. AMSA Update Release 11, 23 MAR 2014: 12.30am (AEDT)

Yes... somewhat surprising to me to see the good reporting Megyn Kelly has been doing on MH370. But the thing here is Jim, it is not about her understanding or her other guests understanding. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, Inmarsat engineers worked with the AAIB to come up with the release of the route of MH370. According to an Aviation Week article (Routine Data Analysis Helped Inmarsat Pinpoint MH370's Path) Inmarsat used "groundbreaking but traditional mathematics-based process that was then peer-reviewed by others in the space industry, and indeed contributed to by Boeing." “What we discovered and what we passed to the investigation ... is that the southern path predicted fits very well with the path that’s been indicated by our pings,” McLaughlin says. “To all intents and purposes, there’s no way [the aircraft] went north.” I think this would be great if it was part of a Tom Clancy movie. But just how does a B777 make an intercept of another Heavy? Then at some point it has to peel off without being detected (or colliding with the other heavy it is shadowing). This would require a country's government (like India / Pakistan etc.) to be part of a conspiracy to hijack an airplane for it to go "unnoticed". That the military radar indicated that MH370 was traveling to the northwest (thru the Malacca Strait)? Doesn't appear that has been debunked. For example, just have a look here at the BBC "final hours" graphic. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26728045

Seems so... I reckon we can let out a collective sigh of relief.

I would say that is one of the mysteries about this flight.

'Not to put too fine a point on it,'... "Handshake" would refer to the Inmarsat satellite and the equipment on the 777 attempting to communicate. With respect to communication with ATC, that would actually referred to as a "handoff" (when the crew signed off with an "all right good night"). Then you really should take a look at this interview: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-kelly-file/index.html?intcmp=scard Inmarsat says southern path of Flight 370 is 'inescapable' Another good article from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10720009/MH370-Britain-finds-itself-at-centre-of-blame-game-over-crucial-delays.html

Well kudos to Kate Murphy for a good article on flight simming. The only fault I could find with the article: when she mentioned that "Most virtual aviators use one of two simulator software programs, Microsoft’s FSX or Laminar Research’s X-Plane,"... She forgot to mention that was because FS9 was dead. :LMAO: (j/k of course!)

With all the nutty theories about MH370 in the "news"... Like CNN's Don Lemon discussing the possibility of it being related to a supernatural event ("something beyond our understanding")... or could be blamed on a black hole or the Bermuda Triangle... I guess it was only a matter of time before we heard the, "the government shot it down and is hiding what it did" theory. What is this? Another episode of The X-Files? C'mon...

That would have been good advice for the Japanese ambassador w/ respect to his meeting with Secretary of State Hull the day of 7 Dec 1941. (sry... your post reminded me of that scene from Tora! Tora! Tora!)

Ok... my fault for not knowing the Telegraph was a tabloid (a record of "ill repute"). Also, I figure they would be clued in that they are really unzipping their fly to post a google translated transcript.

So common sense says the Telegraph ran the transcript thru google translate and then posted? Ok... I must be quite a dolt not to have first suspected that one... :rolleyes:

I was just reading that transcript when I saw: MH370, please get on the runway from 32R A10. Years since I have talked to ATC, but I am thinking... you got to be kidding me... that is standard phraseology?

Hi Tom, I was looking at the "media releases" from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (links on their twitter). The releases indicate the P-8 did assist in the search on the(their) 21st. fwiw: https://twitter.com/AMSA_News

Google is ur friend. No.