by Victor Iannello
Note: Ever since the idea of spoofing was first discussed, one of the main issues has been how falsified BFO values might have been calculated. Most of assumed that the values were arbitrarily selected to suggest a flight in a generally southward direction. Here, Victor Iannello presents an ingenious suggestion: that hijackers might have altered a single parameter in the Satellite Data Unit frequency precompensation algorithm. — JW
Notice: The views expressed here are solely mine and do not representthe views of the Independent Group (IG), Jeff Wise, or any other group or individual. — VI
Summary
In previous work, paths were reconstructed for MH370 using the available radar and satellite data. Paths to the north of Malaysia were studied bymatching the measured Burst Timing Offset (BTO) data, but relaxing the constraint of matching theBurst Frequency Offset (BFO), which is appropriate if the BFOdata waseithercorrupted or misinterpreted. It was found that there are paths to the north that end at airports that could be reached with the fuel that was loaded onto MH370.In this work, the conventional interpretation of the BFO is challenged. In particular, the possibility that the operation of the SATCOM was deliberately modified so that a northern path would have the BFO signature of a southern path is studied. Some of the findings are:
- The Honeywell Thales MCS-6000 SATCOM used by MH370 hasafrequencycorrection algorithm withthe capability to correct for the Doppler shift caused by inclination of thesatellite. This is known to the official investigation team butis not generally known by independent researchers.
- The value of inclination for the Inmarsat I3F1 satellite that was broadcast by the Ground Earth Station (GES) at Perth, Australia, to be used by SATCOMs logged into the satellite, was zero. The true inclination of the satellite was around 1.65⁰. The two parameters that describe the satellite inclination, the inclination angle and the time of the ascending node, are stored in the System Table of the SATCOM in non-volatile memory, and are used by the frequency compensation algorithm.
- If an individual obtained unauthorized access to the non-volatile memory of the SATCOM, the value of the inclination used by the frequency correction algorithm could be changed from 0 to 3.3⁰, or about twice the true inclination of the satellite. With this change, the BFO signature of a northern path that satisfied the BTO data would resemble the BFO signature of a southern path that satisfied the BTO data.
- The apparent turn to the south between 18:28 and 18:40 UTC that is suggested by the measured BFO data might have been caused by a change to the inclination parameters stored in the SATCOM’s System Table during that time interval.
- The calculated values of BFO for northern paths with the inclination parameter changed to 3.3⁰match the measured BFO values with an RMS error less than 3.8 Hz. This is true for Mach numbers between 0.65 and 0.85 at FL350, with little variationin errorseen in this speed range.
- At each log-on, the inclination parameters would be reset to zero. Therefore, the BFO data associated with the log-ons at 18:25 and 00:19 UTC should be evaluated with inclination parameters set to zero. The BFO data at times between these log-ons should be evaluated with the possibility that a change was made.
- The BFO value at 00:19 matches an aircraft along the northern part of the 7tharc on the ground and stationary once the BFO is adjusted for the log-on offset seen at 16:00 UTC. This suggests that if MH370flew north, it might havesuccessfully landed.
- Researchers have identified security vulnerabilities in other SATCOMs, including backdoors and access to memory, although the MCS-6000 has not been specifically studied. The possibility of “spoofing” the BFO to disguise location has been considered before.
Read the whole report here.
@Brock: On the surface, the conclusions of the Chen study are bizarre. Even if the magical combination of slow vertical speed, near vertical entry, and appropriate surface currents existed, which in itself is extremely unlikely as you say, I can’t imagine that the high stresses imparted to the thin shell by the rapid deceleration would not tear the fuselage to shreds. The paper also seems they have ignored what I would have guessed is the most likely mode of structural failure: buckling/crumpling caused by the high axial compressive stresses in the thin shell fuselage. (Think about stepping on an empty aluminum can.)
I will reserve judgment until I have read the paper more carefully, studied the previous analysis performed for the Space Shuttle, and perhaps have talked to the authors. But my first impression is it makes no sense to me.
@Jay, thanks for posting the old article. While it’s hardly a credible source it gives me pause nevertheless. It’s exactly one of the scenarios I envisioned before everybody started focusing on the SIO. I discarded it eventually because I couldn’t explain why Zaharie would go silently without a trace into the SIO after his negotiations failed. Wouldn’t he let the world know what was about to happen? In order to salvage at least part of his mission?
@Dennis, how about combining the allegations voiced in Jay’s article with your Christmas Island theory;) Zaharie negotiated to no avail and then decided to take the plane and the passengers to Christmas Island in order to be taken into custody by Australia rather than at home or in Indonesia. And since he wasn’t a trained terrorist something went wrong. He might’ve run out of fuel after all.
Don’t ask me why the US decided to keep this under wraps. But Obama has been mighty cozy with Malaysia’s Prime Minister lately. They even spent Christmas in Hawaii together – playing golf.
You see, sometimes I think the most difficult thing to explain isn’t so much the route or motives. There are plenty of half way plausible theories around. But how can one explain that the plane vanished from our 4 dimensions without leaving a single trace behind? That’s were most theories run into difficulties. In crash scenarios it’s always the missing debris. Maybe the SIO scenario enjoy still a lot of acceptance not only because of the sat data but also because it’s easier to belive that a plane vanishes without a trace in the uncharted crevasses of this vast ocean stretch. In landing scenarios you have to come up with an explanation of what happened afterwards. Even if you feature a set of unscrupulous and evil to the core perps it isn’t easy to wipe a jet with 230 people on board from the face of the earth within a very short time. And without any chance witnesses. The perps must’ve been not only very evil but also very well organized – or protected.
@Gysbreght, sure didn’t want to disappoint you. It’s all a question of semantics I guess. In the end I think Jay just wanted to find out where we stand right now.
@Victor: I’m glad that was your initial impression, too. I have to do more reading as well – and I’m far from expert – but I’m told that, at nose-dive speeds, water treats a jumbo jet much like concrete would. If so, it looked to me like this paper would have predicted the Germanwings crash scene to be two intact wings and a hole in the mountain wall.
Vertical Entry
Downloaded the Chen et. al. paper and gave it a quick first pass. It appears to be a very serious effort. Certainly, I am in no position to critique it or the conclusions. It is a well-respected publication with peer review procedures in place. Certainly an interesting addition to our database.
@Dennis: I don’t know; I think we should be wary of mathematicians wielding simulation models…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72dmVOSXdyZVdFN0U/view?usp=sharing
A) SIO = 100 %
B) Northern Arc = 0 %
C) Maldives = 0 %
D) Diego Garcia = 0 %
E) South China Sea = 0 %
F) Bay of Bengal = 0 %
G) Other = 0 %
There was someone on a suicide mission mass murder run into the SIO. Most likely one of the pilots. Prime Suspect Z. No doubt in my mind.
@Brock
Yes, garbage-in garbage-out. Assumption 2) in the referenced paper has no basis other than that is the way pilots like to fly planes from SFO to JFK.
@Dennis: good thing my model was merely TESTING (and REJECTING, by arriving at a contradiction) one (or more) of assumptions 1 (ISAT data is valid) and 2 (IG-endorsed AP+pilotless endgame scenario is correct). I feel it is wrong to treat EITHER as axiomatic; good to see you agree with me on 2, at least.
(PS: for purposes of the “referendum” paragraph you challenge: I define “SIO” as broadly as did Richard C.)
@DennisW
Motive – When there is so little evidence I am suspicious of using some perceived motive as a criterion. I treat all the narratives of pilot suicide/hijacks/fires with equal suspicion, there just isn’t the evidence to support any of them and they can be actively misleading. Therefore, it is not relevant that we don’t understand why the data point to the middle of nowhere.
The only evidence we have is the Inmarsat data and the only proven data analysis technique is the one demonstrated on the other flights. There is no independent evidence of data spoofing so the fact that is alleged to be possible has no weight. This goes for anything that might have happened (there are many such things) but for which there is no evidence that it actually did.
Debris – Done to death. There were gaps hundreds of kilometres wide in the original air/sea search. Unless it could be demonstrated that there was a 100% (or 99% or similar large number) chance that debris would have been detected from any site in the search area (which it can’t) then it is not useful as a search area criterion. It certainly cannot override the Inmarsat data.
Search results – As you point out, there is a statistically significant part of the original search area still to be covered. Given the continuing priority placed on the western end of the larger (and presumably lower probability) search area then it will be quite some time before the original search area is completed.
@Richard
I agree about being suspicious relative to motive, but in the case of the SIO there is no motive to be suspicious about. There is no plausible motive at all – not suicide, not hijacking, not fire, nada.
If the Inmarsat data were in any way deterministic, I would not be beating this drum, but it is not. You and other deep SIO supporters are relying on the fact that your guess about speed is correct. A slower speed assumption would result in a flight path farther to the North. If one removes the fixed heading and altitude assumption you can get just about anywhere South of the equator. While I am sure you know this, the recent responses lead me to think that most people believe that if the Inmarsat data is correct the plane must have come down around 37S or beyond. That is simply not the case.
Richard Cole – Yes the air search was probably patchy but it’s the first time in my knowledge that an array of satellite companies scanned the whole lot for debris and found plenty of pretty well defined patches of – rubbish.
Dennis – the Christmas Island sea state would very likely have been something similar to what we saw during the ping trawling and I guess it’s viable that it sunk cleanly?
The Chen study – I want to be a respectful layman but it looks desperate. It also reminds me of another issue we don’t debate here and I don’t intend to: Climate. Temps have been flat for 18 years now(stasis) and watching the various explanations for it is a virtual spectator sport because there is a lot now hanging. The debris factor is similarly inconvenient so we see these kind of papers. Some claim 100% for the SIO but clearly some in that camp are troubled enough to augment it with miracle entries.
Dennis – I understand your frustration. A sort of conventional wisdom set in with MH370 that was hard to buck.
If my memory is correct satellites were buzzing about in the sio early and didn’t pickup anything to report. And nothing washed up ashore anywhere it could have
@Lou Villa
You have unwanted company. Z on suicide/mass murder mission. Not a doubt in my mind. The SIO terminus makes all the sense in the world, IMHO
@Dennis
Were the pax alive in your Xmas island scenario? Or was he going to land with a fuselage full of corpses (sorry if this come across as vulgar or disrespectful) and rail against the regime? Or do what, exactly?
Although I believe it is a certainty that the pax were all deceased by the FMT (which IMO takes Xmas island off the table entirely)…no cell activity (other than possibly Fariq) further supports this, buttressed by the harrowing flight path and speeds, perhaps you have another explanation?
@Spencer
Yes, the PAX were alive in my model and calmed by the assertion that they were being inconvenienced by the diversion, but would be able to continue on their way.
I do not believe Shah was a murderer. The profile for murder or suicide just does not fit.
@Dennis
Thanks. We’ll agree to disagree on both Shah and how everything went down prior to the FMT…I’m not sure how you reconcile the pax being alive, no cell pings (but Fariq’s) and the probable flight path…it would have been a ride akin to a living nightmare.
Furthermore, I would argue that anyone capable of such callous disregard for innocent human beings (and all their NOK) is potentially a killer as well. IMO it’s hardly the leap you seem to believe it to be. And there is simply no way to know what had become of his personal life (though I believe by far and away his motivation was a political one). He makes it clear over and over in social media that sacrifice was necessary for change, constantly heaping praise on those Malaysians who were doing their part in refusing to stand idly by in the face of repression. But I digress.
He also fancied himself a ‘lone soldier’.
Cheers
@spencer re: “He also fancied himself a ‘lone soldier’”
First I heard of this — Where is such claims by Shah and in what context????
@Myron- Oh great, you’ve opened a can of worms…now here comes Spencer posting a poem that Shah had on his facebook. Really not keen on hearing this story again..
@Jay: My guestimates for final location but I don’t think it makes sense to give 0% for any options:
A) SIO 20%
B) Northern arc 5%
C) Maldives 1%
D) DG 1%
E) SCS 5%
F) BoB 5%
G) Other (including other places West 40%)
Then, overlaid on that, my guesses for motive… what does everyone else think?:
1) No motive…pure accident 1% (e.g. combinations of mechanical/electrical failure, pilot error, weather etc.)
2) Hacking trial 5% (e.g. hackers onboard trialling back-door possibilities, no intent to crash plane but it got out of control)
3) Pilot suicide 5%
4) Hijack to steal plane/cargo or capture persons aboard 5%
5) Hijack for terrorist purposes, e.g. use plane/cargo to cause major damage 60%
6) Other
Then, overlaid on that, final outcome:
i) Crashed through fuel exhaustion or accident 20% (including escorted by military)
ii) Intentionally shot down etc. to avert hijack purpose 70%
iii) Accidentally shot down, collision etc. 5%
iv) Plane landed 5%
(No other that I can think of)
Any other ideas on these overlays – please suggest.
@Jay
Considering Shah is in most peoples eyes (professional investigators included…see NYT article) THE n#1 suspect, his social media postings would seem to me to be quite germane.
Why you would not care to revisit this is strange, IMO. I think people that aren’t familiar with the political diatribe and ranting of Zaharie deserve to be informed (if they aren’t willing to go and look for themselves).
It’s anything but a can of worms. 239 people are missing/dead and you seem to be wanting to repress information that may be viewed as giving further credence to Shah’s potential culpability (as if that were needed). Wow.
On the Maldives sightings: I agree with Niels and Brock it was likely that Wills and Kate were evacuated to DG for their safety (whether there was a missing plane in that part of the world that morning or whether the authorities knew that something else dire had happened by that stage). I recall seeing their visit to DG being reported on TV but think its a dead end trying to get the dates/times and other details of this confirmed by anyone because of Royal security restrictions. As to sightseeing on the way at day-break, it seems unlikely but anything is possible and again I suspect that our chances of getting this confirmed are near zero.
@Niels: well said on the politics
@Nihonmama: thanks for the info re: the Indonesian police chief
PM – I’m under the impression that they Royals arrived in the Maldives on the day it went missing. They flew in on British Airways.
@Matty: I thought they arrived 2 days earlier (6th) but am only going on the various (conflicting) reports I can find online. Also, from BA’s own website for Feb next year they fly Gatwick to Male 3 days a week (Fri, Sun, Wed) arriving early morning next day (approx 10 hours flight) and return flights 3 times a week later in morning (Sat, Mon, Thu)…same plane, different crew perhaps. But this might be quite irrelevant. Thanks, but I think its time to give up on the Royals in the Maldives.
If Shah was going to end it all why on earth wait to the SIO. Maybe Malaysia was onto him and capture mh370 in Malaysia airspace. If he tried to get all political during the fight I still think Malaysia forced down mh370 within its airspace. Everyone on that aircraft in custody waiting for the international interest to subside and the SIO search to end.
@Matty
Satellite companies and debris fields – it looked to me like the interpreters turned up the contrast until structure appeared out of the noise in the images. That was probably the best that could be done since the task was to look for any trace of debris in areas close to where the aircraft might have been and so give a clue for detailed work. It doesn’t seem it convinced anyone enough to move the search area to match.
@Dennis
– You and other deep SIO supporters are relying on the fact that your guess about speed is correct…lead me to think that most people believe that if the Inmarsat data is correct the plane must have come down around 37S or beyond…
There are a few things mixed in here. The key issue is stability of course, not speed. Once a model of course is chosen the speed follows from the need to fit to the BTO values. The BFO values then select which tracks are possible. Using ‘reasonably’ straight-line courses and BFO noise gives the North search edge of 33S. The speed and course are not guessed, the guess as you put it is the degree of complexity allowed in the track model.
I agree that allowing arbitrary changes of course and speed can give fits of tracks up to the latitude of Christmas Island. This is where Occam’s razor has to be applied, that is what level of complexity can be allowed in the solution before it loses any predictive ability – that is it fits any data?
Jay,
Percentages:
SIO = 60%
Northern Arc = 40%
West/Maldives/DG/SCS/etc. = 0%
Question for Dennis W.,
I think your theory is very interesting. So you think it was a political statement without intent to murder but was going to channel the passengers to refuge through Christmas Island? Why do you think he (Shah) is misjudging the fuel so badly in the attempt to get there? It’s all very interesting but I would ask since Shah was working for them (regime) since it was the national airline, did he really think the loss of one airliner would realistically change them one iota?
@Jay,while I personally don’t feel that I want to assign any percentages to my hunches, it was a nice idea anyway, since many felt compelled to spell out what they believe. And I find that interesting.
@Dennis, @Cheryl, @Spencer, while I do think it’s possible that the plane was taken North Zaharie is a strong suspect IMO for having at least initiated the original turnaround at IGARI.The very time table of the switch offs/failings of the different functions seems to suggest that one of the pilots must’ve done it. And Spencer, I critized you often, but I absolutely agree with you that most people have neglected to make themselves sufficiently familiar with Zaharie’s entries into his social pages – and when they stopped. They tell a story of a man who was in deep turmoil and ready to change his life drastically. In a serious forensic analysis this simply cannot be ignored. I came to the conclusion that Zaharie was either part of a plot – or he was assigned to the flight deliberately as a fall guy because of his political leanings. I suspect the first but can’t completely exclude the last. Where I differ strongly from you, Spencer, and agree with Dennis and Cheryl: I don’t think Zaharie fits the profile of a sucidal mass murderer. If Zaharie really took the plane North (or planned to take it to Christmas Island) then I think the passengers were still alive after IGARI. He planned a political act that would change his life completely. In such a scenario the million dollar questions is: what went wrong? In Dennis’s scenario he must’ve made a dreadful mistake without trying to make contact in order to seek help and save the people on board. He also must’ve gone past Christmas Island in order to hit the 7th arc. Puzzling. In a Northern scenario the outcome is equally puzzling: why did the plane vanish, if Zaharie had planned a political act? Was he used and double crossed? Possible but a very complex scenario. But I believe two things: Zaharie doesn’t have the profile of a suicidal mass murderer but I think it’s absolutely possible that he was ready to commit a crime out of political persuasion and turn around his life completely. Whether that readiness was used by other factions for their own purposes I don’t know and it would make the scenario very complex. But if I would assign any percentages to a scenario I would say I’m fairly sure that it wasn’t a coincidence that Zaharie’s plane was abducted. Either he was involved or he was used as a fall guy because of his well known persuasion.
@Spencer
“You have unwanted company”….indeed, well said.
Folks keep bringing up the motive. Well…..your looking at it. IT IS the mystery of it all. And without proof,whose to say. While granted, there has been a long list of a/c disappearances, this one ranks highest IMO. If highjacked, for what purpose? Wait for over a year to make a statement? Nothing about it makes any sense b/c he wanted it that way. As for the black boxes. He blacked out that a/c. I’m sure they went black also. He left Fariq’s cell on for a reason, to divert suspicion from himself. Pax & co-p were killed long before the FMT, probably around the first major turn on his way back, this would account for the lack of cell chatter. One couldn’t calm that many folks w/o text & cell chatter, especially along the Panang run. Folks just don’t want to believe he did it. Sadly…to me, Germanwings proves that out. No message to the world on his way to oblivion, no message left behind as to his reason/s. Just the wreckage of human life & the NOK. Another nut job that slithered out of the cracks of human decency for his own selfish reason/s.
For all those who have always said: Don’t smear the pilots:
My arguments are not meant to smear anybody. In the contrary – all I’ve learned about Zaharie made me feel for the guy. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. We all come to Jeff’s blog with different backgrounds. Mine is forensic psychology. And I think it would be negligent to ignore the development of Zaharie’s personality as shown in his social pages. That isn’t hearsay, that’s first hand evidence which allows a glimpse into his soul. He shows a very similar profile astoome fairly high profile German terrorists I have worked with during my student days. Some of them were likable and idealistic community minded guys who had taken a horribly wrong turn somewhere along their road of life. I don’t know for sure if that’s what Zaharie did as well – but IMO he does fit the profile of someone ready to commit a politically motivated crime. If he really did it is another question.
@Chris Butler,
while I agree with you that Zaharie might have been involved – but with all due respect: the case of Andreas Lubitz is as different from Zaharie’s as day and night. The guy had a well documented history of mental illness with suicidal tendencies. While he didn’t leave an actual suicide note, he left behind plenty of traces on his lap top. Jeff will come out soon with his ebook about the case. And his suicide was fairly straight forward: he didn’t try to avoid detection and didn’t go dark or made twists and turns. He simply drove the plane into a mountain side.
I am in agreement with @littlefoot re: “he was used as a fall guy because of his well known persuasion.”
@myron, that’s not my favorite scenario at all – personally I just don’t want to exclude it 😉
@Spencer :
I want to contact you on eMail.
Re: Chen et al. paper on Water Entry of MH370
I have studied the paper more closely as well as the referenced MIT paper by and Yue (1986) entitled “Impact Damage of the Challenger Crew Compartment”. Here are some of my findings regarding near vertical entry into the water:
1. Chen predicts a fracture failure mode resulting in the rupture of the fuselage and wings for a vertical speed of 22 m/s (43 kn)when the plane hits the water. Certainly the vertical speed greatly exceeded this value for a near vertical entry into the water, resulting in a global failure of the structure. Therefore, by their own analysis, MH370 would have experienced a global structural failure with a near vertical entry.
2. Chen claims that because the surface pressure reached 6 MPa and the yield strength of aluminum is 85 GPa, there was no local failure of the aluminum. In truth, the surface pressure and the tensile stresses in the aluminum are far from equal! In the Wierzbicki paper, for instance, it was found that a surface pressure of 1.2 MPa resulted in local tearing as the aluminum skin was elongated between the support rings to failure. (Do the authors really believe that the skin of a B777 can survive a surface pressure of 6 MPa = 60 atm = 880 psi?)
3. Neither paper analytically addresses the buckling failure of the thin cylindrical shell. Chen acknowledges that this failure mode can occur at low impact velocities based on NASA experiments with a true aircraft. Wierzbicki also acknowledges that this mode may occur at lower impact speeds than for the other modes considered, but at least partially justifies ignoring this mode because of the presence of the tiles on the Shuttle. Obviously, there are no tiles on the skin of a B777.
In summary, the Chen paper cannot be used to justify the lack of debris with a near vertical entry into the water for the following reasons:
1. Using their own methodology, any reasonable entry speed will result in fracture failure and global failure of the structure.
2. Their predicted surface pressure would result in local tearing of the skin. Chen’s assertion that there is no local failure because the predicted surface pressure is less than the yield strength of aluminum is incorrect.
3. Chen completely neglects the buckling failure mode without justification.
I invite others to confirm or refute my findings.
Victor
The first sentence of my last post should read: I have studied the paper more closely as well as the referenced MIT paper by Wierzbicki and Yue (1986) entitled “Impact Damage of the Challenger Crew Compartment”.
@victor
Certainly the 22m/sec impact speed would not be consistent with a near vertical descent from altitude. My assumption was that the plane was being actively flown and “stalled” a short distance above the water (20 meters above the water would be approximately consistent with 22m/sec impact speed if the plane simply dropped out of the air), and nosed over to the vertical. It would be interesting to get Chen’s rationale for the 22m/sec impact speed. Certainly the authors must have realized this speed was, indeed, very low.
@DennisW: I cannot envision a likely scenario in which a plane can enter the water vertically at such a low speed. Surely you agree that the scenario you describe, in which the plane skims 20 m above the water, reduces its horizontal speed to near zero, then pitches down 90 deg and enters the water, is not based in reality.
I agree that the flawed logic seems so basic that it makes you wonder if the authors intended something else. But equating surface pressures to tensile stresses and neglecting the buckling mode (which before reading the paper, I would have thought was the most likely failure mode) also seems quite basic.
I plan to contact the authors and get their response. Maybe we can all learn something from them.
@Littlefoot
Yes, in my narrative I speculated that Shah flew past Christmas Island (South of the Island) to verify a clear runway before executing a left hand turn to the North. A North to South landing would be compatible with the Southwest surface wind at that time.
Shah must have known he was cutting it close, but the slow flight speeds needed for the BFO/BTO compatibility of this route would be consistent with the desire to land in daylight with the aircraft as light as possible.
Of course, all this is rampant speculation on my part.
it seems that any form of water entry would cause MH370 to have some sort of debris field. my guess for the spaceshuttle analysis there might have been some emergency systems to help slow down the speed to impact, such as parachutes.
Dennis, respectfully: why are you so convinced that MH370 went to Christmas Island, as opposed to any other spot in the Indian Ocean on the 7th arc? I mean, even if one were to accept that it were among the possible scenarios, is there any reason to think it is more likely than any other?
@ VictorI:
Thanks for your sensible comments.
Considering that the radome is no more than a flimsy honeycomb fairing, I would add the front pressure bulkhead to your considerations.
Step back for a moment and consider “the preponderance of evidence”. Sorry, Nihonmama, I have not recovered from your “probative” tweak.
While I have no training as a psychologist, forensic or otherwise, suicide is rarely a spontaneous decision. There are generally all sorts of warning bells preceding such an event. None of those bells were ringing in the case of Shah as they were in the German Wings incident. It is the lack of any hint of suicidal tendencies that caused me to reject the SIO solution almost from the get-go. There is no other even remotely plausible explanation for why the plane would arrive there. I did post my own SIO solution early in the Duncan days since it was the only way to “bark with the big dogs” without getting tossed off the site, but my heart was never in it.
So, looking elsewhere within the constraints of the ISAT data (which I still believe is the best hard data we have) one comes up with the alternate political statement motive. Shah’s life was disintegrating – both marital and political. Why not show his wife and the rest of the world that he was not simply an aviation geek, and voice his great displeasure with Malay politics? He wanted to go out with a bang so to speak. Of course, being the sensitive person he was, he never intended to harm anyone in the process.
The Christmas Island destination fits this mission well. It is a haven for Chinese refugees, it has a runway which could accommodate a light 777, and it is in range. Of course, the lack of debris was very troubling.
Along comes Dr. Chen to check to last unchecked box. His analytics are consistent with a pilot actively controlling the aircraft, and trying desperately to minimize harm to the people on board by dropping it as gently as he can into the ocean. Unfortunately, it was not Shah’s day. He misjudged the landing and nosed it over from a very low altitude stall (my speculation).
So we have motive, we have an ISAT data fit, we have an explanation for the lack of debris,…that is the preponderance of evidence which I do not believe any other scenario provides.
@Littlefoot
I’ve tried looking at this crime from every possible angle. Nothing else fits….The only other thing I can think of is, that it was going to be a terrorist attack, but he lost his nerve, THEN took the FMT. Who knows what drives people at times. Former Marine & Boy Scout Charles Whitman, out of the blue, guns down 32 people (Including family members at home) from a bell tower in Austin. He left a note asking them to check his brain for any abnormalities & sure enough they found a tumor. Now, if it were a hijacking…what’s the end game? Terrorist act….what’s the end game? No conclusion to either scenario. I don’t buy into the 8-hour accident with no communications theory either. Shoot down theory doesn’t work due to the lack of debris. Nor the 007, eliminating 297 people for some super secret cargo, or gold theft. That only leaves the last thing anyone would hate to imagine. While the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In this case, all roads lead to Rome, Z is that Rome. While you probably are thinking, what does Charles Whitman & Germanwings & this crime have in common? The human element. Andreas Lubitz could have killed himself at home, or a favorite park, but he had to take all of those folks with him…why? Charles Whitman sought to have his brain checked AFTER his rampage…why? Why seek an answer to yourself when your already dead ? The human element fomenting these acts in the minds of sick individuals is, as we can see, very hard to foresee, understand & accept. Hopefully, in the near future, I’ll be proved wrong, but until then….
The stall speed of a 777 at 180 tonnes and flaps 30 is about 100 knots.
@myron
In the Challenger shuttle disaster there were no parachutes or other forms of support. The crew module separated from the rest of the orbiter at ~50000ft and would have quickly achieved terminal velocity which is quoted elsewhere as a much larger figure, ~90m/s. The paper states 18.8m/s (like falling 20m) and also mentions a shuttle ditching which Challenger certainly was not. I haven’t paid the $25 for the original Wierzbicki paper but he might have been analysing a theoretical ditching event with the orbiter under control.
@Gysbreght
Yes, relative to the onset of the stall. The speed could be much less than that as the stall progresses. I don’t see your point.
@DennisW:
No, the traditional stall speed is the lowest speed achieved in a stall maneuver. At that point the speed is already insufficient to generate a lift force that supports the airplane weight and the speed inevitably starts to increase. The only way to get to a lower speed is in a zoom climb where speed is traded for altitude, but then that speed is recovered on the way down. There is no way to enter the water at less than 100 kts.
@Victor
Yes, contacting the authors of the Chen et. al. paper would be a very good thing. I am intensely curious relative to the response.
With respect to your question about skimming and stalling and nosing over, I am not qualified to comment beyond pure speculation. I’m sure the authors would have considered various aerodynamic possibilities, or maybe not?
@Gysbreght
Good explanation. I now see your point.