The counterpoint spends most of its words (rightfully) dismissing analysis of the pilot's psychology but does not persuasively address the flight simulator evidence. The arguments against that evidence mostly amount to how it is not conclusively incriminating. But this is not a court of law - we are not putting him on trial.
As someone who's used flight simulator games, I have definitely left the computer while cruising, forgotten about the flight, and come back to find myself in the middle of nowhere.
Also the smoking gun simulator session was in a different aircraft to MH370 and with a significantly different initial route.
>I have definitely left the computer while cruising, forgotten about the flight
If the reporting is credible, that's not what was found:
"the track wasn’t really a track — rather, it was a series of brief clips lasting no more than a few seconds each, indicating that Zaharie had programmed it in advance then skipped along it to various points without actually playing through the entire hours-long flight" [1]
>Also the smoking gun simulator session was in a different aircraft to MH370 and with a significantly different initial route.
It was effectively the same aircraft (777-200LR vs 777-200ER). From the ATSB report:
"It comprised four complete and two partial data captures of various aircraft and simulator parameters at discrete points during the simulation. The aircraft simulated was a 777-200LR
The initial data point shows the simulated aircraft at Kuala Lumpur International airport. No useful location data was available from the second data point.
The next two data points show that the aircraft had flown north up the Straits of Malacca. By the fourth data point the simulated aircraft had reached 40,000ft, was in a 20° left bank, 4° nose down, and had a southwest heading of 255°.
Data points five and six were in the far reaches of the Indian Ocean, 820nm southwest of Australia's, Cape Leeuwin, with the simulated aircraft having exhausted its fuel.
Data point five has the simulated 777 at 37,651ft, at an 11° right bank, and almost due south heading of 178°.
The sixth, and final, data point was incomplete. "It was 2.5nm from the previous data point and the aircraft right bank had reduced to 3°.The aircraft was pitched nose down 5° and was on a heading of 193°. At this time there was also a user input of an altitude of 4,000ft," says the ATSB." [2]
Also from the ATSB report: [3]
"Six weeks before the accident flight the PIC had used his simulator to fly a route, initially similar to part of the route flown by MH370 up the Strait of Malacca, with a left-hand turn and track into the southern Indian Ocean."
"There were enough similarities to the flightpath of MH370 for the ATSB to carefully consider the possible implications for the underwater search area. These considerations included the impact on the search area if the aircraft had been either glided after fuel exhaustion or ditched under power prior to fuel exhaustion with active control of the aircraft from the cockpit."
But what is this evidence meant to prove? For example, is it meant to suggest he planned this operation? Then why use a different initial flight path and a different aircraft? (The -ER and -LR are similar but have different ranges, which would seem crucial if you're trying to plan something like this.)
It all just looks like innuendo, or Bible Code or Nostradamus-style coincidences.
The ER vs LR thing is easy to explain. The most realistic Boeing 777 simulation addon available for Microsoft FS at the time included only 200LR and 300ER models, so using 200LR would have been pretty much the closest option to 200ER available with all the systems modelled in high detail.
Besides, the two aircraft don't have that much of a difference in fuel burn. A professional 777 captain could certainly figure out how far the fuel on 200ER could get him.
Of course the FS data doesn't prove anything, but I can't see how the aircraft could have ended up where it ended without any input from either pilot. If both pilots died you would certainly expect a more straight flight-path.
What this evidence shows is that your proposed explanation of a simulation session being accidentally left to run does not explain the specific evidence found.
In addition, the waypoints of the multiple track segments all have identical values for certain incidental values - something that is highly unlikely unless these segments were all recorded in the same session. This makes it extemely implausible that these segments, which are consistent with what is known of the aircraft's dog-leg track, were created accidentally.
That being said, you can throw out all the simulator evidence and still be left with a very strong case, from the reactivation of the Inmarsat equipment and the turn to the south, that someone was controlling the airplane an hour after it could have reached the airports at Kota Bharu or Penang.
He mightn't have known which day and route would present the opportunity, which would also have to coincide with the right frame of mind for him to execute this operation. His opportunity might have depended upon who was assigned co-pilot on the day.
So, whatever initial flight path he took was outside of his control. What was under his control was the part we are trying to understand now - the rest of the voyage, and the destination.
"In fact, the FBI said it found nothing incriminating in the computer simulations, and certainly nothing that came close to the erratic course that the flight first followed."
That seems pretty persuasive. The Atlantic article guesses that the simulation was meant "to leave a bread-crumb trail to say goodbye." which seems laughably weak.
The FBI didn't found anything incriminating, when tourists from Saudi Barbaria were learning just to point plane to desired destination, without any interest in landing or taking off.
