'Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.'
Sherlock Holmes Quote
-The Sign of Four
When one considers what may have happened relative to the disappearance of MH370 there are four broad categories of possibilities.
1> Suicide by someone on board - a not so broad category.
2> Downing by a sovereign state - intentionally or unintentionally.
3> Technical issue - fire, mechanical failure, explosion, decompression,...
4> Highjacking which may or may not involve a spoof or remote control.
5> Alien abduction, black hole, alternative dimensions, or the like.
I can't think of any other scenario or know of any scenario proposed on the WEB that does not fit into one of the above categories. I will eliminate 5> by fiat. Consider the others one by one.
Suicide
Neither the pilot nor the copilot have been assessed to have had suicidal symptoms. Numerous people in the mental health profession have weighed in on this possibility, and I have not read one opinion that would indicate suicide by either pilot. Background checks have not revealed that there was anyone else on board who could fly the aircraft. Suicide appears contra-indicated.
Downing by sovereign state
Possible, but a coverup of the magnitude required would be an incredible undertaking. Also, there is strong evidence to support that the aircraft flew until fuel exhaustion. Fuel exhaustion and intentional or unintentional downing are not compatible.
Technical issue
All of the explanations I have read in this regard are implausibly complex. While a technical issue cannot be ruled out, it would require a sequence of events that is three sigma or more improbable. Technical issues historically account for 20% of aircraft crashes. That probability is lowered in this case by the additional failure of all communication systems, and then lowered even further by the fact that the plane continued to fly until fuel exhaustion. Also, the flight path simply does not support this notion. Rather it supports an aircraft under the deliberate control of conscious pilot. A technical issue is a non-starter IMO.
Hijacking
The only explanation that has any credulity. What could be the motive for hijacking? The only ones I can think of are listed below.
1> To obtain something or someone on the aircraft.
2> To obtain the aircraft itself.
3> To architect a 911 type event.
4> To use as a "bargaining tool".
An aircraft has never been hijacked to obtain something or someone on board the aircraft in the history of aviation. MH370 could be a first, but it is far easier to obtain that someone or that something before it was placed on the aircraft or after the aircraft landed.
The aircraft itself is not the least bit unique. The same or comparable aircraft can be obtained from a number of online brokers. Orchestrating a hijacking for the purpose of obtaining the aircraft is perhaps the most complex way to do it. Not to mention the murder of more than 200 people in the process. It just does not hold together.
A 911 event requires a target. There were no plausible targets within the fuel range of the aircraft. A heading to Perth would require a speed that is incompatible with ever reaching Perth and simultaneously satisfying BFO and BTO. A heading to Perth at a BFO and BTO compatible speed would terminate well short of Perth. The 7th ping ring arc is a very long way from Perth.
That leaves the "bargaining tool" scenario. The only candidates I can think of are Chinese terrorists negotiating with the Chinese government or captain Shah negotiating with the Malay government. Take your pick. An argument can be made for either candidate. Personally, I lean toward Shah on the basis of background checks which are said to rule out the PAX. If this scenario is true, it is plausible that the aircraft was flown along the Southern coast of Sumatra and Java where there are several airfields that could accommodate a 777. Certainly a flight path to the ATSB search area in the SIO is not a path anyone would select for this scenario. It is also true that all the drift models associated with the flaperon finding greatly favor the area below Sumatra as a terminus.
I have a very difficult time understanding how the ATSB and their collaborators can possibly assess the primary search area identified in any incarnation of their analytics as an area of high confidence. It is simply not sensible.
I have a very difficult time understanding how the ATSB and their collaborators can possibly assess the primary search area identified in any incarnation of their analytics as an area of high confidence. It is simply not sensible.
