The Australian Defense Science and Technology (DST) Group claims (see AE-2014-054) the evidence from the Inmarsat data "is inconsistent with the plane making a controlled ditch". They offer no compelling explanation for that claim other than the assertion that engine power is needed to execute such a maneuver, and the evidence strongly indicates a dual flame out. Wow. How did Scully manage the "miracle on the Hudson" with both engines inoperable due to bird impacts? Does the DST not read newspapers or do they know something we don't know?
My guess is the latter. What would it take to make such an outrageous claim that flies in the face of a very recent and well-publicized event? The only answer I can come up with is that the French have provided flaperon forensic data to the Aussies, and have not shared it with the rest of the world. If the French have concluded that the flaperon damage is consistent with aerodynamic flutter, as originally suggested by Mike Exner, then the DST assertion makes perfect sense. The damage forensics would be THE key piece of information needed to rule out (or support) a controlled ditch.
Also the implicit DST rejection of a long terminal glide associated with an assumption of pilot control inputs is consistent with a flutter damage scenario.
Edit 12/14/2015:
On second thought, it really is conceivable that the DSTG pulled their conclusion out of some place other than their brains. Nothing would surprise me anymore relative to the MH370 "science".
