I think someone is jerking a chain in all this now. I wonder what the folks at Inmarsat think of the new calculations.
First of all, if the partial ping reported a day or so ago marked the end of the flight time then regardless how much fuel it burned, we know how long it flew.
Secondly, if the pilot was in control he could have conserved fuel by flying higher and/or slower during the last five hours, or he could have burned fuel by flying fast and low. And we don’t have a clue which of those he did.
So, like I said, I think there’s a chain being pulled here. It would be interesting to read a thread like this where the only participants were the engineers with the data in hand. I’ll bet there are differing opinions even within that fraternity. I wonder if the new assumed airspeed just resulted in them tweaking their doppler dataset, resulting in a new location?
(By the way, I think the graphic you linked to where the speed was 400 knots to the new location was probably done before this latest info. It would have just indicated a likely spot on the 8:11 arc given the two different speeds. So 450 knots would have put it further south.)
Exactly -- it was done weeks ago -- and that's the point.
It would have just indicated a likely spot on the 8:11 arc given the two different speeds. So 450 knots would have put it further south.
Exactly -- and the only way to get to that new search area is to plug in the slower 400 knot speed for the last 5 hours.
It flew faster during the first two hours as the pilot was anxious to get out of that busy air corridor as quickly as possible before he was spotted, flying as low as 12,000ft to avoid planes flying at the upper altitudes.