Survey conducted by @Jay (Joel Kaye) via the comments section of “Guest Post: Northern Routes and Burst Frequency Offset for MH370.”
635 thoughts on “Where Do We Think MH370 Went?”
@Victor “Sometimes there is benefit to misdirection rather than no direction. And it is the insurance company that is paying for the search, not Malaysia, China, and Australia.”
Well I have explained the only possible “benefit” there would be. What would hijackers lose if there was no sat data at all? Nothing except Malaysia wouldn’t spend this much money on the search.
And no I think you are wrong here, it’s malaysian and australian government that pay for the search. You can find the info easily.
“As for the logic of China’s hijacking a plane bound for China: on the surface, it would seem to be illogical. However, sometimes things aren’t the way they appear on the surface. I’m willing to listen to people’s ideas to see if something reasonable surfaces before labeling ideas like this as “stupid”.”
how do you mean “on surface”? China could confiscate whatever (and whoever) was on the plane when it lands in Beijing.
“From my vantage point, there is no harm in being open-minded as long as the ideas don’t violate math and physics.”
I see where you are coming from but I think you should also add human psychology in the equation 😉
@Victor:
You’re response to @MPat is clear and very important.
and +10K this: “I am not using Gerry’s statement of proof of a BFO spoof. Rather, it suggests that the likelihood of a spoof is not on par with an alien abduction of the plane, as some suggest, and it deserves further attention rather than reflexively dismissing it.”
As for for Gerry’s vagueness and your unsuccessful attempts thus far to get more details from him, let me offer this:
I. Culture and credibility
a. When Jeff Wise, who’s appeared on CNN and elsewhere in the media, went public with his (Kazakhstan) theory FIRST, it gave Gerry “cover” to take a huge risk and discuss information about Inmarsat that that HE’d clearly been aware of, but did not disclose earlier.
To underscore the point:
b. Perhaps you’ll recall a Twitter convo back in July 2014, wherein Gerry went full metal jacket on me, because I was discussing the vulnerability of the E/E bay on the 777. Recall, I learned about the unlocked E/E bay (and the what’s in it) not long after MH370 disappeared — not from the media or a social media site — but from a family member who’s spent MANY hours flying that plane and had his own concerns. Gerry accused me of promoting (my word) a “kneejerk reaction” (his words) and unfairly targeting Boeing. But when, three months later, Miles O’Brien’s NOVA special debuted and HE discussed the same E/E vulnerability, Gerry did not attack Miles.
II. Industry
When Gerry came forward publicly and talked about the possibility of BFO spoof, a poster on this board vociferously attacked Gerry, for doing so. In fact, that person *outed* Gerry by posting the handle (alter ego) that he (Gerry) uses on a huge, and very highly trafficked aviation-related website. The poster also noted (and this is not completely invalid) that on the aviation site, Gerry was consistently adamant that a spoof was not possible.
I can assure you that while there were people in the aviation industry who knew Gerry’s anonymous handle, many people did not know. I feel bad for Gerry that that linkage was made public — and it’s probably resulted in repercussions that none of us are aware of. So going forward, if Gerry is not forthcoming again, it won’t be a surprise to me.
@Niels:
“My judgement is that this mystery will only be solved (partly) by a combination of science, politics, diplomacy,criminal investigations, legal procedures and civil activism.”
+10K
StevanG:
“again spoofing itself is not the problem as it’s certainly doable for experts, but motivation is”
And, I as find myself saying to people (repeatedly): just because people can’t fathom a motivation, or how a spoof might have occurred doesn’t mean it couldn’t (or didn’t) happen.
@Victor
“For those that believe the plane more likely crashed in the SIO but to the north of what was already searched, the lack of floating debris is even more problematic.”
northern areas of SIO are not searched nowhere near like the area around priority zone, add to it that the northern you go the calmer the ocean is so ditching with almost no debris becomes very much a possibility
@Nihon even if spoof could happen with a push of a button that doesn’t change silliness of the theory one bit, there is practically no difference for hijackers between spoofed and darked out plane(unless those are search ship owners wanting their shares to raise on the market… if we are already at silly theories)
A pilot who has landed a 777 hundreds, if not thousands of times, should be able to ‘land’ it on water without crashing.
@Gysbreght yupp, but provided the waves are very low
@Neils,Littlefoot,
Yes, I understand your ensemble of concerns, and acknowledge their merit. However, the more people and entities (governments ect.) involved, the more difficult it is to conceal what took place. One man, acting alone, who has the means, motive, and opportunity would be undetectable and unstoppable. I cling to the notion that it was Shah, and Shah alone, who perpetrated this act.
@StevanG said, “And no I think you are wrong here, it’s malaysian and australian government that pay for the search. You can find the info easily.”
Yes, I have easily found that according to the New York Times, MAS has a $2.25 billion policy with no limit on search-and-rescue costs.
From that article:
*****
An Australian delegation has been sent to Malaysia to broach the question of sharing costs for the Flight 370 investigation and seeking insurance reimbursement, said people with knowledge of the visit and the insurance policy, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
*****
So unless your sources on this matter are better than the New York Times, I would not be so sure of your info.
Gerry Soajetman is so full of ___ it’s laughable, really.
His completely make believe spoof account just so happened to piggyback on Jeff’s equally absurd spoof theory (from which he draws from Gerry).
The irony is that Mr. Soajteman uses his make believe solely for the purpose of offering a ‘viable’ (this is laughable) alternative to the ‘captain did it’ theory. In fact, the article in which Mr. Soajetman first brings us this fiction is titles something to the effect of “why the captain didn’t do it” (not verbatim).
As Gysbreght points out, Mr. Soajetman had been over the spoofing ground countless time on a.net over a period of many months. He was very dismissive of the possibility of anything like this occurring. LOL.
Then, out of nowhere, he claims Jeff’s article ‘jogged’ his memory. This too is so unbelievable as to be the highest order of mendacity.
Then he throws in the ‘Russians, Chinese, Israeli’s…and that 2 Indonesian guys told him that these countries knew how to do the spoofs’.
All of this during an integrity testing session for national security per Inmarsat.
But he forgot about it for over a year.
LMAO.
@Victor
from Guardian
“The Malaysian government has revealed that it has spent just a fraction of what Australia has paid in the search for missing flight MH370, as officials from both countries prepare to meet to discuss the next phase of the mission.
Officials from Malaysia are expected in Canberra on Tuesday for talks, including discussions about funding for the operation.
The Australian government has set aside almost $90m for the search, expected to be the most expensive in aviation history, but it is possible that figure could increase.
The treasure, Joe Hockey, said Australia wouldn’t try to avoid picking up the tab.
“It is understood that the plane went down in waters that are our responsibility, and there is a cost to having responsibility and we don’t shirk that,” he told reporters on Tuesday morning.
“We accept responsibility and will pay for it. We’re not a country that begs others for money to do our job.””
from Telegraph
“countries argue over who will pay bill for multi-million pound search”
“The Australian government expects to spend 90 million Australian dollars ($84 million) on the search by July 2015. But the actual cost to Australia will depend on how quickly the wreckage can be found and how much other countries are willing to contribute.”
from BBC
“For now, Australia has joined Malaysia in downplaying the cost factor: Prime Minister Tony Abbott has vowed to ”spend what we need to spend to get this job done.””
and on and on… NY Times journalist got something wrong there, maybe a % of malaysian part is insured and that’s what confused him
@Nihonmama
I just saw your ‘defense’ of Mr. Soajetman.
First, the very idea that I somehow alerted readers to his handle on a.net and ‘outed’ him is laughable. It is publicly on his profile, and contrary to what you say, everyone knows who Gerry Soajeman is. Look at Goggle +, look at his own blog, look particularly at a.net where he self-identifies with his handle ALL THE TIME. So let’s put that silliness to rest.
Second, if you choose to reveal information as ‘sensitive’ as both he and you now claim (apparently, if I understand you correctly), whether under the friendly cover of JW or otherwise, it seems logical that one should be prepared to be pressed for greater revelation and detail.
My noting that Gerry consistently scoffed at posters who would purport a spoof is not ‘not completely invalid’ as you frame it, but 100% factual.
It also deserves to be mentioned that Gerry has at every turn IMO attempted to steer the conversation of MH370 away from anything that would appear to incriminate Mr. Zaharie.
This has been my experience with Mr. Soajetman, plain and simple.
@StevanG:
“Even if spoof could happen with a push of a button that doesn’t change silliness of the theory one bit”
As you noted (quite rightly, IMO), human psychology is a huge part of the equation here.
So, what is the psychology of people who conclude that the possibility of a spoof is “silly” or who assert (with vigor) that X DID (or DIDN’T) happen when we don’t actually KNOW what happened to MH370?
Asking for a friend. 😉
there was no reason to spoof it if they could achieve the same (literally) with just turning the equipment off, human psychology tells us that noone would undertake unnecessary experiments if they are not needed at all and could just complicate things
@StevanG:
“could just complicate things”
You make my point better than I could.
Those who’ve studied or are experts in human psychology would not say X is impossible (or less likely) simply because a scenario involved COMPLEXITY. Complexity is what the human mind is all about. Just ask the profilers who work for the FBI.
But Occam would.
And therein lies the problem.
#goingtothebeach
@Nihonmama
Of course, all the doors are still open. I find this recent series of posts to be a refreshing change from a “new and improved” SIO analysis. Not saying the plane is not there either. Just waiting for someone to suggest any motive at all.
I think grappling with the “why”, will prove to be very productive.
there is a huge difference between complexity and completely unnecessary complexity 😉
As to motive for going dark and flying to the SIO
The 9/11 attacks were the last successful use of jet liners as weapons. Changed attitudes to defending against them by intercepting and shooting down civilian airliners and/or pax rebellion on hijacked planes have pretty much removed this from the terrorist tool box.
What if: Are we looking at a terrorist’s proof of concept experiment for successfully hijacking?
SIO: Loose any evidence for good, or at least buy a huge amount of time
Sat phone calls: Perps testing “Are you still flying (read not shot down)”
Expected public forum discussions: learn a lot about what else needs considering (e.g. Sat pings provide level of traceability, but also offer opportunity to spoof, etc.)
Cheers
Will
@Stevan G, I have to say that you should try a little harder to think through certain scenarios before you label them as silly. You say that China could easily confiscate anything or anyone who was on that plane, once it arrived in Beijing. And everbody would know about it. If people vanish in China there would be inquiries. But there may be plausible motives that a superpower wants very much that certain things stay secret and avoid a heavy handed obvious action. You talk a lot about things which have to work in the real world. I think a lot of people here have never tried to dive into the very real world of secret services and dark ops. It was strange to me, too. But if you just look conservatively at some operations that really happened and exclude the wilder rumors and speculations you will find much more hair raising operations than the abduction of a plane which might have been obfuscated by a technically very doable spoof and some meticulous planning. Why do you think did China, Russia and Israel try BFO spoofing? They must have seen it as a very useful tool. It just hasn’t been done before, that’s all.
Actually if you talk with people about the vanishing of mh370 who don’t have a lot of prior knowledge and preconceived ideas about the case but have a certain level of technical education, they find the idea of a spoof in order to cover the tracks much more plausible than the idea that a pilot abducted his plane in a very well executed choreography of moves, was last “seen” on radar heading into a Northwestern direction towards the Andamans – only to turn around 180° apparently just when out of radar coverage in order to make a run South and crash the plane into the SIO 6 hours later. Most balk at that part and reject it out of hand as a downright silly and implausible scenario.
I think the greatest obstacle for accepting any scenario – Northern, Southern or cover up is the persistent lack of a believable motive. Personally I find it more plausible to believe in a well organized hijack in order to gain something important which is so far unknown to me than an extremely elaborated suicide run.
And statistics favor my point of view. Suicidal pilots without an extremist background make up a minuscule percentage of all hijackers. Andreas Lubitz was apparently one of them. And his modus operandi was markedly different from what went on with mh370.
@MuOne
terrorism for testing purposes, now that’s wicked (however still possible in theory)
have in mind though that they could obtain all the information about “darkening” the plane without any testing, it was(and still is) publically available
regarding air defenses one could expect that they would be a lot more responsive to future hijackings and reduce terrorist’s chances, it also doesn’t add up
@littlefoot
my theory is that his goal was not suicide but “simple” diversion to another country, the same thing that happened just two weeks before the flight
something happened during the flight and he either lost control around Indonesia and the plane continued on autopilot to the south until fuel exhaustion or he managed to come close to the Christmas Island but crashlanded on sea or ditched the plane because of fuel exhaustion
if he achieved his goal it would be nothing unprecedented and I think we should exhaust such theories first before straying to movie-like scenarios
@Nihonmama, you’re right. Occam’s Razor is difficult to wield expertly if the human mind is involved. If this human mind is set on deception it becomes even more difficult.
@Stevan G, a spoof isn’t an unnecessary complication. First of all it doesn’t seem to be all that complicated to me – just unusual and meticulously planned. And abducting a plane by simply going dark would lead to investigators looking high’n low for the plane if there are no indications whatsoever for a crash. If this plane was on it’s way to China then China would’ve been one of the very first places to look for the plane. So, if China had a strong motive to abduct the plane they also had one of the better motives to employ a spoof in order to avoid unnecessary complications.
@Dennis, agreed. We need to grapple with the why. At this stage that might be more productive than coming up with ever more refined SIO scenarios. But the thing is that you have to invest as much thoroughness into this and go down to the nuts and bolts as with any calculations. And that is a lot of work. It can’t be done in a few minutes.
@MuOne, I don’t understand your last comment. Could you explain and elaborate some more?
@StevanG, yes, I contemplated as well a simple diversion to another country. That’s a much more sensible line of inquiry than pilot suicide. But this apparently simple scenario becomes complicated very quickly as soon as you start to think it through in detail and try to line up the known facts and observations into a coherent narrative.
@DennisW: Can you please explain what caused the plane to run out of fuel on its attempt to reach Christmas Island? There was sufficient fuel if the plane had properly chosen its speed and altitude. I believe in your scenario the pilot flew at an inefficient speed and altitude yet executed a perfect ditching after fuel exhaustion and produced no debris. What might lead to this sequence of events?
“If this plane was on it’s way to China then China would’ve been one of the very first places to look for the plane. So, if China had a strong motive to abduct the plane they also had one of the better motives to employ a spoof in order to avoid unnecessary complications.”
how do you mean “look for the plane”? Russian and US satellites are looking at their airports regardless of any spoof or this whole MH370 case at all. A missing plane wouldn’t change their surveillance methods one bit and they would feel it was chinese problem and not theirs anyway.
Again, what motive would China have to abduct the plane full of their nationals that was going to them anyway? If they needed a specific person they would abduct him on the ground without media even knowing about it, also valid for specific item in baggage. There is no single reason why would China want to abduct this plane.
“But this apparently simple scenario becomes complicated very quickly as soon as you start to think it through in detail and try to line up the known facts and observations into a coherent narrative.”
what facts and observations exactly you find not fitting into the narrative?
@Victor
“@DennisW: Can you please explain what caused the plane to run out of fuel on its attempt to reach Christmas Island? There was sufficient fuel if the plane had properly chosen its speed and altitude. I believe in your scenario the pilot flew at an inefficient speed and altitude yet executed a perfect ditching after fuel exhaustion and produced no debris. What might lead to this sequence of events?”
you could think of million reasons why would that happen, the most possible one is that passengers broke into cabin when they realised they weren’t going to Beijing and made pressure on him, it’s easy to make mistakes if you have angry people around you, not the same kind of environment he had at his home on the simulator…
@StevanG: In your scenario (one of millions, as you say), the pilot made mistakes because of “angry people around him”, which had to last for many hours to excessively burn all that extra fuel. Yet, somehow he was able to perfectly ditch the plane after fuel exhaustion despite all the “angry people around him” and produced no debris on impact.
I find this scenario quite unlikely.
it’s possible he wanted to burn more fuel to land as light as possible(the airstrip on Christmas Island is relatively short so every little matters), thus intentionally flying slower
another reason – he wanted to wait for the sunlight as I guess it’s impossible to activate PAL lights (present on the airport) with comms turned off
and it doesn’t mean they pressured him all the time, maybe they realised the situation and let him do the job when they saw the plane approaching sea…
StevanG – background checks are not the be all these days as Islamists are dropping out of trees atm that were not on any list. Last few days prove it. When elements of the Pakistani Navy tried to pirate one of their own ships to attack a US warship – same story.
You say – “they wouldn’t spend $100M on the search if they had any hint the data could be spoofed.”
Actually they would continue to search because there is no real way of knowing either way unless you find the thing. The issue of data manipulation is not an ATSB issue for one moment. They have to proceed as normal.
As for China they happen to be in an arms race withe US atm and desire a regional war. The are developing an ICBM that can strike a carrier anywhere on the planet vertically at 1000’s kms/ph and there is no system out there that could stop it. US military technology has been ending up there over the years – via Malaysia by the way. Get out more.
Why would a terror group do this? If they wanted a plane they have to do it covertly or not bother. It would have to appear as a crash and so the spoof.
We don’t really know why the US govt pointed to the SIO. They either had info it was down there or they had absolutely no intel on it going north or elsewhere – a default conclusion.
@StevanG: A pilot does not fly inefficiently for hours to burn extra fuel. More likely, he would dump the fuel over the sea before landing so to not miscalculate and run out of fuel.
There is no way an experienced pilot like Capt Shah would fly slow to reach a destination at sunlight and then run out of fuel along the way. This is all very easily planned and experienced pilots don’t make mistakes like this.
And your pressure-on/pressure-off scenario in which the pilot flies like an amateur for hours without realizing he is burning extra fuel but then executes a perfect landing that requires excellent skill and extreme luck is not plausible in the least.
In fact, I can’t think of ANY plausible scenarios in which an experienced pilot runs out of fuel due to bad flying for hours yet ditches perfectly. But rather than label the theory “silly” or “stupid” as some might do, I’ll just wait to see if a more realistic scenario surfaces.
Dennis? What’s your guess?
@StevanG
I think the passengers were resigned to a diversion via the public address system, and were reluctantly accepting of it. The slow speed to CI was the result of a desire to land as light as possible after sunrise. I think Shah just made a small error in the fuel range estimate. Low altitude and slow flight would lie considerably outside the normal flight envelop of a 777, and it is easy to imagine errors creeping in.
Of course, the lack of debris as Victor implies, speaks volumes against this scenario which is why I was initially excited about the recently published Chen report. Much less excited after digesting it and the feedback.
If Shah did manage to ditch smoothly in the relatively calmer waters near CI, you would think that some of the PAX would have managed to exit the aircraft. Also, looking at the Southwest coast of Sumatra, it is apparent that it is densely populated and debris would have almost certainly been spotted by now.
There is a slim chance that the static current passing CI known as the Thermohaline Circulation would carry debris toward Africa. This current is a relatively slow surface current, and it is not clear that it would be able to overpower wind and local sea conditions. Just don’t know.
” background checks are not the be all these days as Islamists are dropping out of trees atm that were not on any list. Last few days prove it. ”
beheading people and shooting with AK47 isn’t anywhere close to spoofing a 777, those able to spoof an airliner and hijack it withouth any trace would sure be on a list of sorts
also terror group would want to leave the mark and cause the terror, that’s why they are called so
“Actually they would continue to search because there is no real way of knowing either way unless you find the thing. The issue of data manipulation is not an ATSB issue for one moment. They have to proceed as normal.”
if they had any hint of plane going north they would publish it, why would they hide it and continue throwing the money in the well?
“As for China they happen to be in an arms race withe US atm and desire a regional war. The are developing an ICBM that can strike a carrier anywhere on the planet vertically at 1000’s kms/ph and there is no system out there that could stop it. US military technology has been ending up there over the years – via Malaysia by the way. Get out more.”
but they could do whatever they wanted while the plane was on the ground, why risk with hijacking(and possible crashing as a consequence)?
“Why would a terror group do this? If they wanted a plane they have to do it covertly or not bother. It would have to appear as a crash and so the spoof.”
but why would they need a 777? They could do whatever they wanted with any smaller plane that would cost less than this operation. And now all militaries and ATCs in the world know what could happen when a plane without active transponder enters their airspace, why would terrorist decrease their chances of success?
@Victor while it’s true that doesn’t mean he would employ standard procedure in a pretty much non-standard situation
“This is all very easily planned and experienced pilots don’t make mistakes like this.”
easier said than done
anyway I don’t claim he ditched it perfectly just leave the possibility, even if there was debris around that area isn’t extensively searched for debris (if it’s searched at all) and it’s possible the ocean currents took it who knows where, looking at the ocean currents map it maybe finished in Pacific
you know maybe he even had just enough fuel but something happened during approach and they got soaked
@Victor
Yes, fuel dumping would be a good argument against someone of Shah’s pedigree cutting it too close.
@DennisW: Do you really think it is possible that an experienced pilot like Shah would miscalculate the fuel and/or timing of the landing on Christmas Island? Somebody with a simulator in his home that practiced flights to alternate airports in his spare time? And by some slim chance, he was running low on fuel due to a mistake, he would be aware of it long before fuel exhaustion and could correct his error and fly more efficiently to reach Christmas Island. Certainly he would rather arrive early at a dark airport than ditch in the ocean.
It makes no sense.
@Stevan: Shah might not employ standard procedures in a non-standard situation. But he is also not going to make choices like trying to time a landing for low fuel rather than flying more efficiently and dumping fuel. After all, the situation is non-standard, but we are assuming he is flying in a sensible manner to complete his mission, especially since a successful ditching will require a pilot who has his wits about him (or her).
I still have not seen a coherent explanation of how Shah might have tried to reach Christmas Island but ran out of fuel short well short of the destination.
@Victor I’m quite sure something unplanned happened after turn around Indonesia
what it was and where it led them is a million dollar question but I’m sure the southern part of SIO wasn’t the destination of choice
StevanG – the biggest sponsor of terrorism today is Iran, a country that boasts potent technological capabilities. AK’s are just part of it.
You say – “if they had any hint of plane going north they would publish it, why would they hide it and continue throwing the money in the well.”
I think you forget about the northern arc? The southern one is favoured because the BFO fits better and there is no indication it crashed up there.
You say – “but they could do whatever they wanted while the plane was on the ground, why risk with hijacking(and possible crashing as a consequence)”
No they don’t. The plane is not their property and detaining it and rifling through the cargo hold/taking people away, in full daylight you would just not do in peacetime. There is at least the intention the appear to adhere to intl law and protocols governing aviation. If the Chinese ever did that it could mean a suspension of air services altogether.
A 777 would be an attractive item because of it’s range.
Emirates Flight 407 is an example of experienced pilots making mistake without any pressure, pilots are not robots remember
@Victor
Your reasoning is sound IMO. I have no counter argument other than human frailty.
“the biggest sponsor of terrorism today is Iran, a country that boasts potent technological capabilities. AK’s are just part of it.”
I don’t think so, they are actually fighting against terrorism(ISIS) and they have nothing to do with all recent attacks in Europe.
USA is much bigger sponsor if you take into account they even trained ISIS troops hoping they would oust Assad.
“I think you forget about the northern arc? The southern one is favoured because the BFO fits better and there is no indication it crashed up there.”
the northern arc is not plausible as the plane would have to go through several asian countries, it would be noticed.
“The plane is not their property and detaining it and rifling through the cargo hold/taking people away, in full daylight you would just not do in peacetime.”
umm, an “anonymous” bomb threat could sure do the job, they would take the passengers off board and take whatever they wanted without anyone looking at what they are doing
@MuOne – You said, “What if: Are we looking at a terrorist’s proof of concept experiment for successfully hijacking?”
That actually happened in the “Bojinka Plot.” If true, it explains almost everything. It was discussed on CNN just two days after MH370 went missing:
@StevanG: I am sure you are quite sure about many things, including something “unplanned” happening around Indonesia and a flight to the south that did not end in the southern part of the SIO. But you have not offered a cohesive story that supports your assertions despite an opportunity to do so. So at least for now, I will choose to not assign your assertions the same certainty that you do.
Once we state that a particular scenario is a certainty, we start defending it rather than continuing to objectively evaluate it.
@StevanG: I never said pilots are infallible. I said it is unlikely that an experienced pilot would fly for hours inefficiently without realizing until the end that there was not enough fuel to reach the destination, and then successfully ditch the plane. That is an implausible sequence of events.
Spencer – your character assassination of Gerry is bettered only by your job on Shah and maybe it’s tied to his refusal to acquiesce with your theory – it’s horrible when people won’t agree isn’t it? If his thinking on a spoof has moved he wouldn’t be the only one. People who were openly dismissive of it now mention it as a caveat when presenting the data.
I don’t claim it didn’t end in the southern part of the SIO, just that it wasn’t planned.
There is a sequence of events that could lead the plane anywhere on the 7th arc including that part and that without any plan.
I don’t know the exact stats of succeeded vs failed hijackings but I think it wouldn’t favor the first one so…nothing unprecedented in failed hijacking scenario heading to Christmas Island, it happened already before albeit under different circumstances.
Areout – If you want to know who is sponsoring terror you would ask the Israeli’s. They point to Iran. They are indeed fighting Sunni terror as well as spreading their own and positioning for the next ME carve up.
An anonymous bomb threat? It would still appear as daylight robbery. Who would buy that? Any technology theft has to be covert.
StevanG – A China angle has issues I admit but closing a door can’t be a matter of waving the hand. That hasn’t worked.
How do you mean “daylight robbery”? They have the right to confiscate any “suspicious” devices. Some technological marvel would sure fall under that category.
And if there was a technology on the plane worth of stealing for the Chinese why would anyone send that technology to China anyway?!
@littlefoot,
Re last comment, perps would expect that
– a massive search would be mounted,
– official investigation reports would be issued,
– many peanut galleries would spring up, etc.
The speculated POC experiment, if indeed that is what we are looking at here, has so far succeeded in terms of commandeering and disappearing a plane.
The ongoing part of such an experiment is the public deliberations here and elsewhere, unearthing a multitude of new info, methods, possibilities. Perps can sit back, observe and learn a lot about what they may have missed in their plans (e.g. BTO/BFO), discover new tools (e.g. spoofability), capabilities in the area (radar or lack thereof) etc.
Cheers
Will
MuOne that’s right but at the same time officials have also learned a thing or two about satellite data and plane tracking…no more plane disappearances over oceans without satellites being directed at them immediately, I wouldn’t call that a good strategy for terrorists.
@Lauren H,
Thanks for the link, will have a read.
Cheers,
Will
@Matty
Nah, what’s horrible is when people purposely drum up a completely fictional story in an effort to throw more convoluted crap into the mix. That what is horrible.
Your assertion that Gerry’s thinking perhaps ‘evolved’ on BFO spoofing is not supported by the story Gerry has drummed up, which is:
Oops, after 13 months of ridiculing the idea of specifically BFO spoofing, my memory was jogged by JW, and come to think about it, I now remember these Ruskies, Israeli’s and Chinese can do this. How apropos?
Doubtless you’ll come up with another reason as to why he has told this tallest of tales.
My theory is that Shah depressurized around IGARI killing the pax, the exception being Mr. Hamid. This is supported by the complete lack of communication from pax other than Fariq.
It is inconceivable that pax would not frantically attempt phone calls, even if directed to not do so by a guy locked in the cockpit, while the co=pilot, locked out, is doing just this.
This is also supported by the earliest leaked information coming out of Malaysia (430FL), rapid descent. I have no doubt that Z killed the pax early on.
Cheers
@spencer
earliest reports were erroneous radar information, please do not use that argument again
also it’s quite possible he pulled a mild turn and crossed Malaysia without anyone of passengers noticing, what deal he made with Fariq to stay silent we don’t know, we just know Fariq had to obey him as he was the subordinate
@Victor “Sometimes there is benefit to misdirection rather than no direction. And it is the insurance company that is paying for the search, not Malaysia, China, and Australia.”
Well I have explained the only possible “benefit” there would be. What would hijackers lose if there was no sat data at all? Nothing except Malaysia wouldn’t spend this much money on the search.
And no I think you are wrong here, it’s malaysian and australian government that pay for the search. You can find the info easily.
“As for the logic of China’s hijacking a plane bound for China: on the surface, it would seem to be illogical. However, sometimes things aren’t the way they appear on the surface. I’m willing to listen to people’s ideas to see if something reasonable surfaces before labeling ideas like this as “stupid”.”
how do you mean “on surface”? China could confiscate whatever (and whoever) was on the plane when it lands in Beijing.
“From my vantage point, there is no harm in being open-minded as long as the ideas don’t violate math and physics.”
I see where you are coming from but I think you should also add human psychology in the equation 😉
@Victor:
You’re response to @MPat is clear and very important.
and +10K this: “I am not using Gerry’s statement of proof of a BFO spoof. Rather, it suggests that the likelihood of a spoof is not on par with an alien abduction of the plane, as some suggest, and it deserves further attention rather than reflexively dismissing it.”
As for for Gerry’s vagueness and your unsuccessful attempts thus far to get more details from him, let me offer this:
I. Culture and credibility
a. When Jeff Wise, who’s appeared on CNN and elsewhere in the media, went public with his (Kazakhstan) theory FIRST, it gave Gerry “cover” to take a huge risk and discuss information about Inmarsat that that HE’d clearly been aware of, but did not disclose earlier.
To underscore the point:
b. Perhaps you’ll recall a Twitter convo back in July 2014, wherein Gerry went full metal jacket on me, because I was discussing the vulnerability of the E/E bay on the 777. Recall, I learned about the unlocked E/E bay (and the what’s in it) not long after MH370 disappeared — not from the media or a social media site — but from a family member who’s spent MANY hours flying that plane and had his own concerns. Gerry accused me of promoting (my word) a “kneejerk reaction” (his words) and unfairly targeting Boeing. But when, three months later, Miles O’Brien’s NOVA special debuted and HE discussed the same E/E vulnerability, Gerry did not attack Miles.
II. Industry
When Gerry came forward publicly and talked about the possibility of BFO spoof, a poster on this board vociferously attacked Gerry, for doing so. In fact, that person *outed* Gerry by posting the handle (alter ego) that he (Gerry) uses on a huge, and very highly trafficked aviation-related website. The poster also noted (and this is not completely invalid) that on the aviation site, Gerry was consistently adamant that a spoof was not possible.
I can assure you that while there were people in the aviation industry who knew Gerry’s anonymous handle, many people did not know. I feel bad for Gerry that that linkage was made public — and it’s probably resulted in repercussions that none of us are aware of. So going forward, if Gerry is not forthcoming again, it won’t be a surprise to me.
@Niels:
“My judgement is that this mystery will only be solved (partly) by a combination of science, politics, diplomacy,criminal investigations, legal procedures and civil activism.”
+10K
StevanG:
“again spoofing itself is not the problem as it’s certainly doable for experts, but motivation is”
And, I as find myself saying to people (repeatedly): just because people can’t fathom a motivation, or how a spoof might have occurred doesn’t mean it couldn’t (or didn’t) happen.
@Victor
“For those that believe the plane more likely crashed in the SIO but to the north of what was already searched, the lack of floating debris is even more problematic.”
northern areas of SIO are not searched nowhere near like the area around priority zone, add to it that the northern you go the calmer the ocean is so ditching with almost no debris becomes very much a possibility
@Nihon even if spoof could happen with a push of a button that doesn’t change silliness of the theory one bit, there is practically no difference for hijackers between spoofed and darked out plane(unless those are search ship owners wanting their shares to raise on the market… if we are already at silly theories)
A pilot who has landed a 777 hundreds, if not thousands of times, should be able to ‘land’ it on water without crashing.
@Gysbreght yupp, but provided the waves are very low
@Neils,Littlefoot,
Yes, I understand your ensemble of concerns, and acknowledge their merit. However, the more people and entities (governments ect.) involved, the more difficult it is to conceal what took place. One man, acting alone, who has the means, motive, and opportunity would be undetectable and unstoppable. I cling to the notion that it was Shah, and Shah alone, who perpetrated this act.
@StevanG said, “And no I think you are wrong here, it’s malaysian and australian government that pay for the search. You can find the info easily.”
Yes, I have easily found that according to the New York Times, MAS has a $2.25 billion policy with no limit on search-and-rescue costs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/business/air-insurers-worry-after-malaysia-airlines-latest-crash.html
From that article:
*****
An Australian delegation has been sent to Malaysia to broach the question of sharing costs for the Flight 370 investigation and seeking insurance reimbursement, said people with knowledge of the visit and the insurance policy, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
*****
So unless your sources on this matter are better than the New York Times, I would not be so sure of your info.
Gerry Soajetman is so full of ___ it’s laughable, really.
His completely make believe spoof account just so happened to piggyback on Jeff’s equally absurd spoof theory (from which he draws from Gerry).
The irony is that Mr. Soajteman uses his make believe solely for the purpose of offering a ‘viable’ (this is laughable) alternative to the ‘captain did it’ theory. In fact, the article in which Mr. Soajetman first brings us this fiction is titles something to the effect of “why the captain didn’t do it” (not verbatim).
As Gysbreght points out, Mr. Soajetman had been over the spoofing ground countless time on a.net over a period of many months. He was very dismissive of the possibility of anything like this occurring. LOL.
Then, out of nowhere, he claims Jeff’s article ‘jogged’ his memory. This too is so unbelievable as to be the highest order of mendacity.
Then he throws in the ‘Russians, Chinese, Israeli’s…and that 2 Indonesian guys told him that these countries knew how to do the spoofs’.
All of this during an integrity testing session for national security per Inmarsat.
But he forgot about it for over a year.
LMAO.
@Victor
from Guardian
“The Malaysian government has revealed that it has spent just a fraction of what Australia has paid in the search for missing flight MH370, as officials from both countries prepare to meet to discuss the next phase of the mission.
Officials from Malaysia are expected in Canberra on Tuesday for talks, including discussions about funding for the operation.
The Australian government has set aside almost $90m for the search, expected to be the most expensive in aviation history, but it is possible that figure could increase.
The treasure, Joe Hockey, said Australia wouldn’t try to avoid picking up the tab.
“It is understood that the plane went down in waters that are our responsibility, and there is a cost to having responsibility and we don’t shirk that,” he told reporters on Tuesday morning.
“We accept responsibility and will pay for it. We’re not a country that begs others for money to do our job.””
from Telegraph
“countries argue over who will pay bill for multi-million pound search”
“The Australian government expects to spend 90 million Australian dollars ($84 million) on the search by July 2015. But the actual cost to Australia will depend on how quickly the wreckage can be found and how much other countries are willing to contribute.”
from BBC
“For now, Australia has joined Malaysia in downplaying the cost factor: Prime Minister Tony Abbott has vowed to ”spend what we need to spend to get this job done.””
and on and on… NY Times journalist got something wrong there, maybe a % of malaysian part is insured and that’s what confused him
@Nihonmama
I just saw your ‘defense’ of Mr. Soajetman.
First, the very idea that I somehow alerted readers to his handle on a.net and ‘outed’ him is laughable. It is publicly on his profile, and contrary to what you say, everyone knows who Gerry Soajeman is. Look at Goggle +, look at his own blog, look particularly at a.net where he self-identifies with his handle ALL THE TIME. So let’s put that silliness to rest.
Second, if you choose to reveal information as ‘sensitive’ as both he and you now claim (apparently, if I understand you correctly), whether under the friendly cover of JW or otherwise, it seems logical that one should be prepared to be pressed for greater revelation and detail.
My noting that Gerry consistently scoffed at posters who would purport a spoof is not ‘not completely invalid’ as you frame it, but 100% factual.
It also deserves to be mentioned that Gerry has at every turn IMO attempted to steer the conversation of MH370 away from anything that would appear to incriminate Mr. Zaharie.
This has been my experience with Mr. Soajetman, plain and simple.
@StevanG:
“Even if spoof could happen with a push of a button that doesn’t change silliness of the theory one bit”
As you noted (quite rightly, IMO), human psychology is a huge part of the equation here.
So, what is the psychology of people who conclude that the possibility of a spoof is “silly” or who assert (with vigor) that X DID (or DIDN’T) happen when we don’t actually KNOW what happened to MH370?
Asking for a friend. 😉
there was no reason to spoof it if they could achieve the same (literally) with just turning the equipment off, human psychology tells us that noone would undertake unnecessary experiments if they are not needed at all and could just complicate things
@StevanG:
“could just complicate things”
You make my point better than I could.
Those who’ve studied or are experts in human psychology would not say X is impossible (or less likely) simply because a scenario involved COMPLEXITY. Complexity is what the human mind is all about. Just ask the profilers who work for the FBI.
But Occam would.
And therein lies the problem.
#goingtothebeach
@Nihonmama
Of course, all the doors are still open. I find this recent series of posts to be a refreshing change from a “new and improved” SIO analysis. Not saying the plane is not there either. Just waiting for someone to suggest any motive at all.
I think grappling with the “why”, will prove to be very productive.
there is a huge difference between complexity and completely unnecessary complexity 😉
As to motive for going dark and flying to the SIO
The 9/11 attacks were the last successful use of jet liners as weapons. Changed attitudes to defending against them by intercepting and shooting down civilian airliners and/or pax rebellion on hijacked planes have pretty much removed this from the terrorist tool box.
What if: Are we looking at a terrorist’s proof of concept experiment for successfully hijacking?
SIO: Loose any evidence for good, or at least buy a huge amount of time
Sat phone calls: Perps testing “Are you still flying (read not shot down)”
Expected public forum discussions: learn a lot about what else needs considering (e.g. Sat pings provide level of traceability, but also offer opportunity to spoof, etc.)
Cheers
Will
@Stevan G, I have to say that you should try a little harder to think through certain scenarios before you label them as silly. You say that China could easily confiscate anything or anyone who was on that plane, once it arrived in Beijing. And everbody would know about it. If people vanish in China there would be inquiries. But there may be plausible motives that a superpower wants very much that certain things stay secret and avoid a heavy handed obvious action. You talk a lot about things which have to work in the real world. I think a lot of people here have never tried to dive into the very real world of secret services and dark ops. It was strange to me, too. But if you just look conservatively at some operations that really happened and exclude the wilder rumors and speculations you will find much more hair raising operations than the abduction of a plane which might have been obfuscated by a technically very doable spoof and some meticulous planning. Why do you think did China, Russia and Israel try BFO spoofing? They must have seen it as a very useful tool. It just hasn’t been done before, that’s all.
Actually if you talk with people about the vanishing of mh370 who don’t have a lot of prior knowledge and preconceived ideas about the case but have a certain level of technical education, they find the idea of a spoof in order to cover the tracks much more plausible than the idea that a pilot abducted his plane in a very well executed choreography of moves, was last “seen” on radar heading into a Northwestern direction towards the Andamans – only to turn around 180° apparently just when out of radar coverage in order to make a run South and crash the plane into the SIO 6 hours later. Most balk at that part and reject it out of hand as a downright silly and implausible scenario.
I think the greatest obstacle for accepting any scenario – Northern, Southern or cover up is the persistent lack of a believable motive. Personally I find it more plausible to believe in a well organized hijack in order to gain something important which is so far unknown to me than an extremely elaborated suicide run.
And statistics favor my point of view. Suicidal pilots without an extremist background make up a minuscule percentage of all hijackers. Andreas Lubitz was apparently one of them. And his modus operandi was markedly different from what went on with mh370.
@MuOne
terrorism for testing purposes, now that’s wicked (however still possible in theory)
have in mind though that they could obtain all the information about “darkening” the plane without any testing, it was(and still is) publically available
regarding air defenses one could expect that they would be a lot more responsive to future hijackings and reduce terrorist’s chances, it also doesn’t add up
@littlefoot
my theory is that his goal was not suicide but “simple” diversion to another country, the same thing that happened just two weeks before the flight
something happened during the flight and he either lost control around Indonesia and the plane continued on autopilot to the south until fuel exhaustion or he managed to come close to the Christmas Island but crashlanded on sea or ditched the plane because of fuel exhaustion
if he achieved his goal it would be nothing unprecedented and I think we should exhaust such theories first before straying to movie-like scenarios
@Nihonmama, you’re right. Occam’s Razor is difficult to wield expertly if the human mind is involved. If this human mind is set on deception it becomes even more difficult.
@Stevan G, a spoof isn’t an unnecessary complication. First of all it doesn’t seem to be all that complicated to me – just unusual and meticulously planned. And abducting a plane by simply going dark would lead to investigators looking high’n low for the plane if there are no indications whatsoever for a crash. If this plane was on it’s way to China then China would’ve been one of the very first places to look for the plane. So, if China had a strong motive to abduct the plane they also had one of the better motives to employ a spoof in order to avoid unnecessary complications.
@Dennis, agreed. We need to grapple with the why. At this stage that might be more productive than coming up with ever more refined SIO scenarios. But the thing is that you have to invest as much thoroughness into this and go down to the nuts and bolts as with any calculations. And that is a lot of work. It can’t be done in a few minutes.
@MuOne, I don’t understand your last comment. Could you explain and elaborate some more?
@StevanG, yes, I contemplated as well a simple diversion to another country. That’s a much more sensible line of inquiry than pilot suicide. But this apparently simple scenario becomes complicated very quickly as soon as you start to think it through in detail and try to line up the known facts and observations into a coherent narrative.
@DennisW: Can you please explain what caused the plane to run out of fuel on its attempt to reach Christmas Island? There was sufficient fuel if the plane had properly chosen its speed and altitude. I believe in your scenario the pilot flew at an inefficient speed and altitude yet executed a perfect ditching after fuel exhaustion and produced no debris. What might lead to this sequence of events?
“If this plane was on it’s way to China then China would’ve been one of the very first places to look for the plane. So, if China had a strong motive to abduct the plane they also had one of the better motives to employ a spoof in order to avoid unnecessary complications.”
how do you mean “look for the plane”? Russian and US satellites are looking at their airports regardless of any spoof or this whole MH370 case at all. A missing plane wouldn’t change their surveillance methods one bit and they would feel it was chinese problem and not theirs anyway.
Again, what motive would China have to abduct the plane full of their nationals that was going to them anyway? If they needed a specific person they would abduct him on the ground without media even knowing about it, also valid for specific item in baggage. There is no single reason why would China want to abduct this plane.
“But this apparently simple scenario becomes complicated very quickly as soon as you start to think it through in detail and try to line up the known facts and observations into a coherent narrative.”
what facts and observations exactly you find not fitting into the narrative?
@Victor
“@DennisW: Can you please explain what caused the plane to run out of fuel on its attempt to reach Christmas Island? There was sufficient fuel if the plane had properly chosen its speed and altitude. I believe in your scenario the pilot flew at an inefficient speed and altitude yet executed a perfect ditching after fuel exhaustion and produced no debris. What might lead to this sequence of events?”
you could think of million reasons why would that happen, the most possible one is that passengers broke into cabin when they realised they weren’t going to Beijing and made pressure on him, it’s easy to make mistakes if you have angry people around you, not the same kind of environment he had at his home on the simulator…
@StevanG: In your scenario (one of millions, as you say), the pilot made mistakes because of “angry people around him”, which had to last for many hours to excessively burn all that extra fuel. Yet, somehow he was able to perfectly ditch the plane after fuel exhaustion despite all the “angry people around him” and produced no debris on impact.
I find this scenario quite unlikely.
it’s possible he wanted to burn more fuel to land as light as possible(the airstrip on Christmas Island is relatively short so every little matters), thus intentionally flying slower
another reason – he wanted to wait for the sunlight as I guess it’s impossible to activate PAL lights (present on the airport) with comms turned off
and it doesn’t mean they pressured him all the time, maybe they realised the situation and let him do the job when they saw the plane approaching sea…
StevanG – background checks are not the be all these days as Islamists are dropping out of trees atm that were not on any list. Last few days prove it. When elements of the Pakistani Navy tried to pirate one of their own ships to attack a US warship – same story.
You say – “they wouldn’t spend $100M on the search if they had any hint the data could be spoofed.”
Actually they would continue to search because there is no real way of knowing either way unless you find the thing. The issue of data manipulation is not an ATSB issue for one moment. They have to proceed as normal.
As for China they happen to be in an arms race withe US atm and desire a regional war. The are developing an ICBM that can strike a carrier anywhere on the planet vertically at 1000’s kms/ph and there is no system out there that could stop it. US military technology has been ending up there over the years – via Malaysia by the way. Get out more.
Why would a terror group do this? If they wanted a plane they have to do it covertly or not bother. It would have to appear as a crash and so the spoof.
We don’t really know why the US govt pointed to the SIO. They either had info it was down there or they had absolutely no intel on it going north or elsewhere – a default conclusion.
@StevanG: A pilot does not fly inefficiently for hours to burn extra fuel. More likely, he would dump the fuel over the sea before landing so to not miscalculate and run out of fuel.
There is no way an experienced pilot like Capt Shah would fly slow to reach a destination at sunlight and then run out of fuel along the way. This is all very easily planned and experienced pilots don’t make mistakes like this.
And your pressure-on/pressure-off scenario in which the pilot flies like an amateur for hours without realizing he is burning extra fuel but then executes a perfect landing that requires excellent skill and extreme luck is not plausible in the least.
In fact, I can’t think of ANY plausible scenarios in which an experienced pilot runs out of fuel due to bad flying for hours yet ditches perfectly. But rather than label the theory “silly” or “stupid” as some might do, I’ll just wait to see if a more realistic scenario surfaces.
Dennis? What’s your guess?
@StevanG
I think the passengers were resigned to a diversion via the public address system, and were reluctantly accepting of it. The slow speed to CI was the result of a desire to land as light as possible after sunrise. I think Shah just made a small error in the fuel range estimate. Low altitude and slow flight would lie considerably outside the normal flight envelop of a 777, and it is easy to imagine errors creeping in.
Of course, the lack of debris as Victor implies, speaks volumes against this scenario which is why I was initially excited about the recently published Chen report. Much less excited after digesting it and the feedback.
If Shah did manage to ditch smoothly in the relatively calmer waters near CI, you would think that some of the PAX would have managed to exit the aircraft. Also, looking at the Southwest coast of Sumatra, it is apparent that it is densely populated and debris would have almost certainly been spotted by now.
There is a slim chance that the static current passing CI known as the Thermohaline Circulation would carry debris toward Africa. This current is a relatively slow surface current, and it is not clear that it would be able to overpower wind and local sea conditions. Just don’t know.
” background checks are not the be all these days as Islamists are dropping out of trees atm that were not on any list. Last few days prove it. ”
beheading people and shooting with AK47 isn’t anywhere close to spoofing a 777, those able to spoof an airliner and hijack it withouth any trace would sure be on a list of sorts
also terror group would want to leave the mark and cause the terror, that’s why they are called so
“Actually they would continue to search because there is no real way of knowing either way unless you find the thing. The issue of data manipulation is not an ATSB issue for one moment. They have to proceed as normal.”
if they had any hint of plane going north they would publish it, why would they hide it and continue throwing the money in the well?
“As for China they happen to be in an arms race withe US atm and desire a regional war. The are developing an ICBM that can strike a carrier anywhere on the planet vertically at 1000’s kms/ph and there is no system out there that could stop it. US military technology has been ending up there over the years – via Malaysia by the way. Get out more.”
but they could do whatever they wanted while the plane was on the ground, why risk with hijacking(and possible crashing as a consequence)?
“Why would a terror group do this? If they wanted a plane they have to do it covertly or not bother. It would have to appear as a crash and so the spoof.”
but why would they need a 777? They could do whatever they wanted with any smaller plane that would cost less than this operation. And now all militaries and ATCs in the world know what could happen when a plane without active transponder enters their airspace, why would terrorist decrease their chances of success?
@Victor while it’s true that doesn’t mean he would employ standard procedure in a pretty much non-standard situation
“This is all very easily planned and experienced pilots don’t make mistakes like this.”
easier said than done
anyway I don’t claim he ditched it perfectly just leave the possibility, even if there was debris around that area isn’t extensively searched for debris (if it’s searched at all) and it’s possible the ocean currents took it who knows where, looking at the ocean currents map it maybe finished in Pacific
you know maybe he even had just enough fuel but something happened during approach and they got soaked
@Victor
Yes, fuel dumping would be a good argument against someone of Shah’s pedigree cutting it too close.
@DennisW: Do you really think it is possible that an experienced pilot like Shah would miscalculate the fuel and/or timing of the landing on Christmas Island? Somebody with a simulator in his home that practiced flights to alternate airports in his spare time? And by some slim chance, he was running low on fuel due to a mistake, he would be aware of it long before fuel exhaustion and could correct his error and fly more efficiently to reach Christmas Island. Certainly he would rather arrive early at a dark airport than ditch in the ocean.
It makes no sense.
@Stevan: Shah might not employ standard procedures in a non-standard situation. But he is also not going to make choices like trying to time a landing for low fuel rather than flying more efficiently and dumping fuel. After all, the situation is non-standard, but we are assuming he is flying in a sensible manner to complete his mission, especially since a successful ditching will require a pilot who has his wits about him (or her).
I still have not seen a coherent explanation of how Shah might have tried to reach Christmas Island but ran out of fuel short well short of the destination.
@Victor I’m quite sure something unplanned happened after turn around Indonesia
what it was and where it led them is a million dollar question but I’m sure the southern part of SIO wasn’t the destination of choice
StevanG – the biggest sponsor of terrorism today is Iran, a country that boasts potent technological capabilities. AK’s are just part of it.
You say – “if they had any hint of plane going north they would publish it, why would they hide it and continue throwing the money in the well.”
I think you forget about the northern arc? The southern one is favoured because the BFO fits better and there is no indication it crashed up there.
You say – “but they could do whatever they wanted while the plane was on the ground, why risk with hijacking(and possible crashing as a consequence)”
No they don’t. The plane is not their property and detaining it and rifling through the cargo hold/taking people away, in full daylight you would just not do in peacetime. There is at least the intention the appear to adhere to intl law and protocols governing aviation. If the Chinese ever did that it could mean a suspension of air services altogether.
A 777 would be an attractive item because of it’s range.
Emirates Flight 407 is an example of experienced pilots making mistake without any pressure, pilots are not robots remember
@Victor
Your reasoning is sound IMO. I have no counter argument other than human frailty.
“the biggest sponsor of terrorism today is Iran, a country that boasts potent technological capabilities. AK’s are just part of it.”
I don’t think so, they are actually fighting against terrorism(ISIS) and they have nothing to do with all recent attacks in Europe.
USA is much bigger sponsor if you take into account they even trained ISIS troops hoping they would oust Assad.
“I think you forget about the northern arc? The southern one is favoured because the BFO fits better and there is no indication it crashed up there.”
the northern arc is not plausible as the plane would have to go through several asian countries, it would be noticed.
“The plane is not their property and detaining it and rifling through the cargo hold/taking people away, in full daylight you would just not do in peacetime.”
umm, an “anonymous” bomb threat could sure do the job, they would take the passengers off board and take whatever they wanted without anyone looking at what they are doing
@MuOne – You said, “What if: Are we looking at a terrorist’s proof of concept experiment for successfully hijacking?”
That actually happened in the “Bojinka Plot.” If true, it explains almost everything. It was discussed on CNN just two days after MH370 went missing:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2014/03/10/wolf-schiavo-bojinka-plot-missing-plane.cnn
@StevanG: I am sure you are quite sure about many things, including something “unplanned” happening around Indonesia and a flight to the south that did not end in the southern part of the SIO. But you have not offered a cohesive story that supports your assertions despite an opportunity to do so. So at least for now, I will choose to not assign your assertions the same certainty that you do.
Once we state that a particular scenario is a certainty, we start defending it rather than continuing to objectively evaluate it.
@StevanG: I never said pilots are infallible. I said it is unlikely that an experienced pilot would fly for hours inefficiently without realizing until the end that there was not enough fuel to reach the destination, and then successfully ditch the plane. That is an implausible sequence of events.
Spencer – your character assassination of Gerry is bettered only by your job on Shah and maybe it’s tied to his refusal to acquiesce with your theory – it’s horrible when people won’t agree isn’t it? If his thinking on a spoof has moved he wouldn’t be the only one. People who were openly dismissive of it now mention it as a caveat when presenting the data.
I don’t claim it didn’t end in the southern part of the SIO, just that it wasn’t planned.
There is a sequence of events that could lead the plane anywhere on the 7th arc including that part and that without any plan.
I don’t know the exact stats of succeeded vs failed hijackings but I think it wouldn’t favor the first one so…nothing unprecedented in failed hijacking scenario heading to Christmas Island, it happened already before albeit under different circumstances.
Areout – If you want to know who is sponsoring terror you would ask the Israeli’s. They point to Iran. They are indeed fighting Sunni terror as well as spreading their own and positioning for the next ME carve up.
An anonymous bomb threat? It would still appear as daylight robbery. Who would buy that? Any technology theft has to be covert.
StevanG – A China angle has issues I admit but closing a door can’t be a matter of waving the hand. That hasn’t worked.
How do you mean “daylight robbery”? They have the right to confiscate any “suspicious” devices. Some technological marvel would sure fall under that category.
And if there was a technology on the plane worth of stealing for the Chinese why would anyone send that technology to China anyway?!
@littlefoot,
Re last comment, perps would expect that
– a massive search would be mounted,
– official investigation reports would be issued,
– many peanut galleries would spring up, etc.
The speculated POC experiment, if indeed that is what we are looking at here, has so far succeeded in terms of commandeering and disappearing a plane.
The ongoing part of such an experiment is the public deliberations here and elsewhere, unearthing a multitude of new info, methods, possibilities. Perps can sit back, observe and learn a lot about what they may have missed in their plans (e.g. BTO/BFO), discover new tools (e.g. spoofability), capabilities in the area (radar or lack thereof) etc.
Cheers
Will
MuOne that’s right but at the same time officials have also learned a thing or two about satellite data and plane tracking…no more plane disappearances over oceans without satellites being directed at them immediately, I wouldn’t call that a good strategy for terrorists.
@Lauren H,
Thanks for the link, will have a read.
Cheers,
Will
@Matty
Nah, what’s horrible is when people purposely drum up a completely fictional story in an effort to throw more convoluted crap into the mix. That what is horrible.
Your assertion that Gerry’s thinking perhaps ‘evolved’ on BFO spoofing is not supported by the story Gerry has drummed up, which is:
Oops, after 13 months of ridiculing the idea of specifically BFO spoofing, my memory was jogged by JW, and come to think about it, I now remember these Ruskies, Israeli’s and Chinese can do this. How apropos?
Doubtless you’ll come up with another reason as to why he has told this tallest of tales.
My theory is that Shah depressurized around IGARI killing the pax, the exception being Mr. Hamid. This is supported by the complete lack of communication from pax other than Fariq.
It is inconceivable that pax would not frantically attempt phone calls, even if directed to not do so by a guy locked in the cockpit, while the co=pilot, locked out, is doing just this.
This is also supported by the earliest leaked information coming out of Malaysia (430FL), rapid descent. I have no doubt that Z killed the pax early on.
Cheers
@spencer
earliest reports were erroneous radar information, please do not use that argument again
also it’s quite possible he pulled a mild turn and crossed Malaysia without anyone of passengers noticing, what deal he made with Fariq to stay silent we don’t know, we just know Fariq had to obey him as he was the subordinate