> I would say it raises serious questions about the accuracy of the simulator Langewiesche relies on.
Irving's claim in this regard is a non-sequitur: the fact that the flight's early stages, after the departure from the planned route, did not follow the simulated track, is beside the point.
There is another non-sequitur in Irving's argument about the flap deployment: while deployment would indicate that there was someone flying the airplane at the time of the crash, its non-deployment tells us nothing. And to claim that Langewiesche is wrong because this flap was not literally "shredded into confetti" is just silly.
Meanwhile, Irving ignores the satellite evidence that the turn to the south was performed at a higher rate of turn than the automated systems can achieve.
Irving also misrepresents the purpose of parts of Langewiesche's story. There is no evidence that Zahierie waited for the first officer to leave the cockpit for a break (or, as Langewiesche actually suggested, told him to go back and check something), but all Langewiesche is doing here is showing that there is a plausible explanation for how Zahierie could take control of the airplane. Similarly, the depressurization theory is merely a plausible explanation for how Zahierie could subdue the passengers, who, in this post-9/11 world, would surely try to break into the cockpit once they became aware of what had happened.
As to why Zahierie would initially turn west, there is at least the point that it is the direction in which last contact with radar is achieved as soon as possible (other than cutting across Sumatra, which might attract too much attention from the Indonesian defense forces).
It is unfortunate that the Malaysian government attempted to blame Zahierie for the crash when there was no particular evidence that he was responsible, but that does not mean that he was not. I agree with Irving that, putting the simulation aside, the evidence for him being suicidal is very weak (and for him being homicidal, there is none), but I think Langewiesche makes a reasonable case for it being the least implausible explanation that fits the physical evidence.
Especially given the Malaysian government's smear tactics and general incompetence, I would like to know more about the simulation's provenance, and whether it could have been faked (even though the Malaysian government dismissed it as irrelevant, which seems to be an odd claim from an entity allegedly trying to blame Zahierie.) I also wonder if there is any evidence of other simulations of flights that end up in the open ocean.