Two weeks ago, I wrote a couple of posts about the strange reboot of MH370’s satcom system that occurred shortly after the plane disappeared from primary radar, and asked if anyone could come up with a reasonable explanation. I drew attention in particular to the left AC bus, which the satcom equipment is connected to. This bus can be electrically isolated using controls located in the cockpit, and this appears to be the only way to recycle the satcom without leaving the flight deck. I suggested that there might be some other piece of equipment that the perpetrator wanted to turn off and on again by using the left AC bus, thereby causing the satcom to be recycled as an unintended side effect.
The readers rose to the occasion. Gysbreght pointed out that paragraph 1.11.2 of Factual Information states that “The SSCVR [Solid State Cockpit Voice Recorder] operates any time power is available on the Left AC transfer bus. This bus is not powered from batteries or the Ram Air Turbine (RAT).”
This is an incredibly interesting observation. Reader Oz fleshed out Gysbreght’s insight, writing to me via email:
We could isolate the Left Main AC by selecting the generator control switch to OFF and the Bus Tie switches to OFF; SATCOM is now dead. What else happens……….the Backup generator kicks in automatically to supply the Left Transfer bus. Here’s what’s so spine chilling; if you now simply reach up and select the Backup Generator switch to OFF………..you now lose Left transfer as well. The CVR is gone! I couldn’t believe how easy the CVR was to isolate!
To recap;
Left Gen Control to OFF
Bus Ties to OFF (Isolate)
Left Backup Gen to OFF.
I now firmly believe your mystery reboot was Left AC power being switched back ON……….. after something that had occurred that the perp or perps didn’t want any possible evidence of on the CVR……whatever was being hidden was done by around 1822; AC back to normal.
Gysbreght notes that the Factual Information also identifies the location of the CVR as Electronic Equipment Rack, E7, in the aft cabin above the ceiling, and suggests: “Later [the perp] could have opened Electronic Equipment Rack E7, physically pulled the SSCVR power supply plug from its socket, and then gone back to the MEC to restore power to the Left AC bus.”
Oz has his own theory: “If you are thinking why the hell you would turn Left AC/Left transfer back on? Flight deck temperature control comes from these…”
There’s a precedent for a suicidal airline pilot depowering the black boxes before flying a plane into the ocean: the pilot of Silkair Flight 185 appears to have done just that before pointing the nose down and crashing in December, 1997. It’s easy to imagine Zaharie reading the accident reports and realizing he should also figure out a way to disable the CVR before implementing his suicide plan. When the moment came, near IGARI, one can imagine the veteran 777 pilot suddenly flipping various switches while the baffled newbie, Fariq, looked on.
It’s certainly an intriguing scenario, but it is not without its flaws. As Gysbreght notes, “I would expect the Captain to know that the CVR only retains the last two hours and overwrites older recordings.” So if Zaharie planned to commit suicide by flying the plane for hours into the remotest reaches of the southern ocean, he wouldn’t have needed to turn the CVR off: the portion between 17:07 and 18:25 would have been erased anyway. This is not in insurmountable problem, however. Maybe he orginally intended to crash right away, a la Silkair, but then lost his nerve.
I’m not quite ready to declare, as Gysbreght has, “Case closed,” but I have to admit that the CVR idea is fascinating. Great work, Gysbreght and Oz!
@Victor, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on northern paths. Just to make sure, I didn’t mean to imply alternate options are off the table or to speak for other’s hard work on alternate options.
Again, thank you for your high quality service to the search for MH370. I can’t fathom the time you have donated to this effort. Your work is always top notch and your precise comments on bogs etc. are greatly appreciated.
@CA
“Since there is no other explanation, when debris turns up at Reunion, and no debris at all turns up at Australian west coast, the crash must have been in the northern portions of the southern arc according to wind drift maps of the Indian Ocean. That points to e.g. Christmas Island. … and maybe a saucy sailoress comes into play again?”
it’s mind-boggling they haven’t investigated her properly, the only possible valid witness
it probably didn’t fit their autopilot theory
@Richard,
I do not drop Inmarsat data. Not sure where you are getting that misconception. Having said that, why don’t you tell me how you think the plane got to your SIO solution, or do you feel that your analytics don’t require motive or causality?
@DennisW
As Victor pointed out long ago, Christmas Island is 200km inside the 7th ping ring so does not match your terminal scenario.
Since none of us know what happened, ascribing ‘motive’ is not a necessary condition. Something unknown occurred at the start but by late in the flight the data is consistent with the simplest hypothesis – the aircraft was flying in a (roughly) straight line at (roughly) constant speed and that leads to the search zone, allowing for the errors.
I can’t object in principle to other proposals. However, filling gaps with narrative may be satisfying but gives the impression we know what happened, which we cannot since there are no facts, and that is potentially misleading.
@Richard
If you actually bothered to read my scenario, as I did yours, you would know that it does not postulate a landing on the island.
I have heard the simplest hypothesis explanation ad nauseam. The reality is there is not a single plausible scenario which would lead to your terminus. It is not a matter of selecting from a menu of possibilities. When there are no possibilities, it is probably time to rethink your (roughly), (roughly), (roughly),…approach.
@Richard
“Christmas Island is 200km inside the 7th ping ring”
but if it was the approach from the south it doesn’t put 7th ring east to the 6th ring but north to it, which makes 7th ring very very close to the island, anywhere from 10-50 miles from it
” Something unknown occurred at the start but by late in the flight the data is consistent with the simplest hypothesis – the aircraft was flying in a (roughly) straight line at (roughly) constant speed and that leads to the search zone, allowing for the errors.”
could be just a mere coincidence
CNN reporting US intelligence agencies internal report says it was someone in the cockpit that deliberately caused the aircrafts movements.
This is their ‘preliminary’ assessment. It is an official US intel assessment.
It specifically points to the cockpit crew…not just ‘someone in the cockpit’. So NO, it couldn’t be anyone.
Shocker.
Let’s see if Malaysia can maintain the status quo silence in the face of this revelation.
@StevanG
The IG, ATSB, and many other well-intentioned analysts are so amazed that a simple assumption works, that they fall into the trap of concluding that it must be (or is very “likely” to be) correct. There are an infinite number of flight paths that will satisfy both BTO and BFO. Picking the simplest one to the exclusion of the others makes absolutely no sense at all, particularly since the aircraft was obviously actively piloted before the FMT.
While most of these people rail at the thought of making assumptions about motive and causality, they digest the fixed heading and fixed speed assumption without a second thought.
Is this news?? From the Australian.
Whoever was flying Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 when it disappeared in March last year made a gentle turn away from its planned course, possibly to avoid alerting passengers to the change of direction.
As what might be the first piece of wreckage from the missing jet was found on a beach on the French-owned Indian Ocean island of Reunion, aviation sources told The Australian that after more than a year exhausting all other possibilities, investigators believed the plane could not have behaved as it did, and followed the course it travelled, without “human hands on the controls”.
MH370 vanished during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014. No distress signal or message was sent and all 239 passengers and crew on the Boeing 777 are presumed dead. The aircraft is believed to have made a radical change of course less than an hour after it took off and to have crashed in the ocean far off Western Australia six hours later.
Aircraft experts have said the large piece of debris found on Reunion appeared to be a control surface known as a “flaperon” from the back edge of a wing. They have confirmed that it closely resembled a part from a Boeing 777. The wreckage will be sent to France for investigation.
Picture of a suitcase found this morning on an island in the Indian Ocean.
The picture of a suitcase apparently found on Reunion.
Reports last night suggested a suitcase had also been washed up on Reunion but it was not clear whether it was from the missing plane.
Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak said the piece was “very likely” from a Boeing 777 but it remained to be seen if it indeed came from MH370.
Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister Warren Truss said that if the wing section proved to be from MH370, that would be consistent with it drifting on currents for several thousand kilometres in 16 months from what was believed to be the crash site west of Australia.
Mr Truss said it was too early to say the wing section was from the missing aircraft. But it was the first real lead, he added.
“It certainly is an interesting discovery,” he said.
Mr Truss said marine experts were examining shellfish and other marine life attached to the debris to advise on where they might have originated and how long they would take to grow.
This morning he said the suitcase had been handed to police on Reunion and investigators have made arrangements to retrieve it.
“It may just be rubbish and there is no attached marine life to indicate that it’s been in the water for any great time, but it will be examined,” he told AAP.
A search led by Australia has so far covered 55,000 square kilometres of ocean floor up to 4km down. The search could eventually cover 120,000 square kilometres and is expected to cost Australia up to $90 million. Australia has already spent $76m on the search.
In Beijing, anxious families of the 153 Chinese passengers on the doomed aircraft were nervously awaiting the official forensic investigation of the debris.
It is understood Chinese officials may have been sent to join the investigation. In a group statement, Chinese victims’ family members said they were desperate for information. Xu Jinghong, whose mother was on the flight, said families were sceptical each time an announcement about the plane was made.
“I find it hard to believe, it’s contradictory to investigations during the past year,” Mr Xu told The South China Morning Post.
The Australian has been told that, as it diverted from its course, the aircraft made a slow “half standard rate turn” which would have taken several minutes to swing it back over the Malay Peninsula. Then it headed southward to the ocean west of Australia.
A standard half-rate turn is a very gentle change of course and it would take several minutes to complete. Whoever was flying the aircraft could well have also turned off the system of moving maps viewed in the passenger cabin, an aviation source said.
“Aircraft just don’t turn their transponder and their ACARS system off and then make an actual turn in direction all at the same time without someone being at the controls,” a source told The Australian. “Somebody made that happen. The aviation community is convinced there was a human hand involved.”
ACARS, the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System, is a digital datalink system that transmits messages between aircraft and ground stations via radio or satellite.
“The systems were turned off and the aircraft then made a rate half turn across the Malay peninsula and joined the air route across the top of Sumatra and over the Indian Ocean,” a veteran aviator said. “Somebody either programmed that to happen or flew that course. Aircraft just don’t fly themselves. Somebody had to actually manoeuvre the aircraft and transponders don’t just stop transmitting.
“That was initiated by somebody and events then followed from there.”
The aircraft is believe to have flown on for six hours before it ran out of fuel, the engines flamed out and it crashed into the ocean.
Exhaustive examination of ocean currents by the investigators trying to find MH370 has confirmed that the wing section found on La Reunion could have drifted there from the apparent crash site off Western Australia.
The currents would have initially carried the section towards the Indonesian island of Sumatra and then circled out across the Indian Ocean.
Australian investigators say they hope to know within days if the debris is part of a Boeing 777. Mr Truss said the numbers BB670 found on the debris were not a serial number that could immediately identify the plane but could prove valuable if they were added during maintenance. Malaysia has sent an investigation team to Reunion.
A leading oceanographer who has helped in the search said the arrival of debris on Reunion Island was consistent with his own modelling of the likely drift from the crash site.
Charitha Pattiaratchi, professor of coastal oceanography at the University of Western Australia, produced a model last year showing the MH370 debris could have been carried by the Indian Ocean’s characteristic anticlockwise towards Madagascar, west of Reunion, within 18 months.
“The debris would have meandered, it would have gone around and round in swirls and eddies, and it would have taken some time to reach the west,” he said.
If the debris is confirmed to be part of a Boeing 777, that would rule out two other Indian Ocean crashes. Ethiopian Airlines flight 961, a Boeing 767, crashed into the Indian Ocean near the Comoro Islands in 1996, killing 125 of the 175 passengers and crew. The dead included three hijackers. South African Airways flight 295, a Boeing 747, crashed into the Indian Ocean east of Mauritius in 1987 after an in-flight fire, killing all on board.
If they are studying shellfish? Technical drawings will tell you what it is. It’s gone all forensic now so they did care.
StevanG – I see oceanographers are falling over themselves to say it’s consistent with their modeling. That is very different from saying it matches their predictions.
Brian – Getting right to it, I have assumed that in a ditch the flaperon would be downward and contacting the water. Is that reasonable?
Preliminary (food for thought) Flaperon analysis:
http://tinyurl.com/qddkutu
@ALSM
Circling of the wagons has begun. I am inclined to wait to see what the manufacturer has to say about the condition of the part.
@Matty – Perth posted the following from The Australian:
The Australian has been told that, as it diverted from its course, the aircraft made a slow “half standard rate turn” which would have taken several minutes to swing it back over the Malay Peninsula. Then it headed southward to the ocean west of Australia.
A standard half-rate turn is a very gentle change of course and it would take several minutes to complete. Whoever was flying the aircraft could well have also turned off the system of moving maps viewed in the passenger cabin, an aviation source said.
By coincidence, I have been studying the radar data and I have found several anomalies which were going to be the subject of a short paper I am composing. I will jump the gun a bit and say this statement from the Australian is not totally correct. It is true that there is a gentle left-hand turn that places the plane on a trajectory towards Kota Bharu. However, prior to this turn is a very sharp turn from the IGARI-BITOD trajectory that would surely be noticeable by the passengers.
More to come…
Victor
@Matty – Perth
Could you give us the benefit of your local knowledge of WA please. Looking at Professor Pattiaratchi’s drift modelling from (I presume) the current search area in ABC news item http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-30/almost-certain-washed-up-plane-debris-from-boeing-777-malaysia/6660846
and graphic item 11. from The Age http://www.theage.com.au/world/mh370-what-the-latest-discovery-tells-us-about-the-search-for-the-missing-airliner-20150730-ginn21.html
(add http etc.)
Just theoretically… how likely is it that any debris that reached Western Australia from the current search area would be found on the S and W coast? it looks as if the southern coast from Margaret River through Albany to Esperance would be reached sooner than the western coast from Margaret River to Perth say? My memory of this coast is that there are well used beaches & coastal areas and some areas quite remote.
Spencer,
I saw that statement on CNN as well today, but wasn’t the verbiage that US Intelligence agencies internal report said that, “it was deliberately diverted or taken off course.” I took that to mean nothing new, we know it was deliberately turned at IGARI but we don’t know the “why” behind that deliberate action.
Littlefoot,
That piece of debris is certainly fringed with shells, barnacles, etc. I agree the marine biologists will be able to track it’s journey. That may prove more viable than reverse engineering the drift currents.
ALSM – I think we agree the flaperon was torn off with a lot of force and did not hit the water with the plane. But will the manner of it’s tearing leave a handprint on the front edge which is designed to articulate freely? If it was torn away by air then it could be noted that the flaperon would have had a substantially reduced aerodynamic profile after it was damaged. I see the damage and the separation as happening at the same moment nearly. The outer flaperon edge frays with contact with the sea, as the plane descends force accumulates to the point of tearing the unit off. In less than a second. We wait…..
Luckily, the analysis of the flaperon falls within the expertise and experience range of many qualified accident investigators (unlike the analysis of satellite data). Perhaps we are also fortunate that French investigators have custody of the part. I suspect there will be many new insights presented publicly in the coming days.
@Matty.
I did post you a question as to whether debris might be lying around unfound (as yet) on the SW of WA. The post has links so probably will appear later at around 8pm ish 30 July, page 10. I won’t re-post. Thanks in advance. I guess we will get a lot of posts when the news comes in from the French investigators.
AM2 – just read this….
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/lost-wa-boat-found-7400km-away-in-madagascar-after-eight-months/story-fnhocxo3-1226795703739?sv=920db72cb7e718f046d5a08790b47578
And of course timing is perfect. The volcano has to act up. Maybe Spencer was right about it flying into the mouth of the volcano….
@Matty.
Amazing about that boat! I am no expert but get the impression from some news items that the anti-clockwise South Equatorial gyre is “stronger” in the section from NW of Australia going westwards..? It will be very interesting to see what the drift and barnacle experts have to say if that debris is in fact from MH370. I thought Warren Truss’s comments yesterday about taking northern route theories off the table were far too early to mention. Anyway, here’s hoping for some positive news from the French.
@DennisW
I have of course read your blog. You said “The conclusion that the PIC did a flyby South of the Island to verify a clear runway before turning North for the final approach”. This is not consistent with being 200km from the 00:19 ping ring.
@StevenG
>but if it was the approach from the south it doesn’t put 7th ring east to the 6th ring but north to it, which makes 7th ring very very close to the island, anywhere from 10-50 miles from it
The ping ring positions are not dependent on aircraft course, so I don’t think that follows.
@Matty-Perth,
Yes, the flaperon may have been drooping, but it is not the same thing as the flaps. It is not “deployed” as are the flaps, but more or less floats to align with the trailing edge wing profile.
Don’t forget that there is a huge engine right in front of the flaperon. An impact with the water would very likely shear off the engine at its mounting points and the engine would then cause considerable damage to other parts of the wing.
There seems little damage to the LE and the underside of the flaperon, so I think that the damage is more likely the result of high speed flutter. That would rip the flaperon from its hinges in short order. That could certainly occur in the midst of a spiral dive, and the detached flaperon would then flutter down separately and incur little subsequent damage.
@AM2
Yes, Truss stepped on his lizard with the pinger detection comments as well. The guy is apparently not very bright. Maybe he thinks any public exposure is good exposure?
@Richard
I have discarded the 00:19 ring. I don’t use it in any of my analytics since I consider that data to be very questionable. So I suppose your earlier comment about “dropping Inmarsat data” is valid. I do believe the 00:19 BTO is good, but the BFO is very questionable IMO. The aircraft probably began to exhibit fuel starvation at 00:11 or shortly thereafter, so I truncate useful analytics at that time.
Still your point is well taken, and has been raised by others. Why would someone (especially someone of Shah’s pedigree) fly that far (150km before turning North) past the island while low on fuel? My only explanation involves stress, fatigue, and inattention.
richard isn’t 7th ring derived from 6th assuming straight path? Talking about white line on the pics from official ATSB report
Brian – if the flaperon was still on the plane when it contacted the water then it was a ditch – by the look of the flaperon?
@Matty, your comment from July 30, 7:16 pm, that everybody is claiming now that La Reunion is consistent with their modelling – which is very different from consistent with their predictions – hits home. Fact is: it isn’t impossible that the flap drifted from the SIO to La Reunion. But the oceanographer Erik van Sebille who was quoted in several German papers (Spiegel, FAZ) says that the searched areas were probably too far South. He also said that after more than a year it’s almost impossible to come up with an exact retro-engineered path of the flap. If we look at those two statements together it means: the flap having drifted to La Reunion doesn’t flatly contradict the SIO scenario but it also doesn’t strengthen it. The arguments against a suicidal run into the SIO based on plausibility criteria haven’t lost their validity. And let’s not forget in the general excitement that large patches of the SIO have been searched. And so far the search came up empty.
@Cheryl, van Sebille also mentioned the shells and barnacles. He said that unfortunately these species are spread fairly uniformly over the IO and that it is very difficult to reconstruct a drifting route by looking at the growth. What might be possible is a rough estimate of how long the piece was in the water.
If I understand the drift graphs referenced in airlandseaman’s paper above, the flaperon is 6 months ahead of schedule…
So either it swam faster, or it covered less distance (or the models are not accurate).
Furthermore, how much does a flaperon weigh? Can it really still be floating for 18 months without filling up with water with such holes on the sides?
@sinux
See also another drift model, with different pattern, in this updated ABC article. Referring to the gyre: “Charitha Pattiaratchi, professor of coastal oceanography at the University of Western Australia, last night used data based on this current and the Leeuwin current, which pushes south down the WA coast, to model where the debris could end up.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-31/mh370-australia-increasingly-confident-debris-from-missing-plane/6663264
@littlefoot @AM2
but please also look at where the experts expected and predicted debris to hit the coast and what did never happen: no Sumatra and no Australian West Coast. This seems to be telling, that the dispersal did not start SW of Australia but NW (like Christmas Island) as Ennepe was quoted to say.
@Cosmic Academy, agreed. That’s what van Sebille seemed to imply: look further North.
@Cosmic Academy, Sumatra always struck me as nonsense in connection with the SIO and isn’t supported by any drift model I have seen. But the Australian West coast should have seen the first and the main batch of debris coming from the SIO . It’s a bit strange that this – as far as we know – never happened.
If however the plane struck water much further North along the 7th arc the Australian Westcoast can’t have been a land fall location for drifting debris.
My interpretation of the drift patterns is that the plane went down much further north and east than modeled, and that this part is indeed from MH370.
That said, three things are bothering me, slightly.
First, while all 777’s are accounted for, and none were lost at sea besides possibly MH370, this isn’t really a conclusive statement. Is all debris from the prior crashes accounted for? Quite a bit of trash lands in the ocean regardless of where it belongs. While certainly a far-fetched possibility, nobody is willing to confirm that parts of an identical 777 (MH17) didn’t end up in the ocean. Just because things don’t fly into the ocean doesn’t mean they don’t get dumped there.
Second, along the lines of what is not being said, I’ve noticed that everybody thinks the part coils potentially belong to a 777, but few are saying that it can’t belong to som other model. Nobody has said it can’t be part of an Airbus, for example.
Finally, for all the increasing confidence in the idea that this part is part of MH370, nobody can seem to agree on the part numbering. Is it 657BB? BB670? How is there a discrepancy in the reporting still?
Of course, despite no new information, there is “increasing confidence.” Why is it increasing? I feel like I’ve heard this before.
All
I am just wondering whether it is at all feasible if this-here-flaperon might have come off during (excessively violent?) manoeuvres around Sumatra/Banda Aceh (perhaps as per Richard Godfrey’s revised model 15.1 (20 July 2015, http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/1874#more-1874), rather than the ‘final moments’ around the 7th arc / 00:19UTC? This would clearly place the debris further north in a more suitable zone for cycling round the IO gyre, would explain why it has arrived ‘early’ and furthermore add a little credance to the notion of a partially-damaged aeroplane careering off to the SIO.
Note – I’m not saying this is my pet theory, just putting an idea forward!
“The arguments against a suicidal run into the SIO based on plausibility criteria haven’t lost their validity. And let’s not forget in the general excitement that large patches of the SIO have been searched. And so far the search came up empty.” – Littlefoot
But one does have to now admit that Inmarsat data (to some extent) and an ending in the SIO is more believable than before now some wreckage has been found. The doomsdayers of the SIO terminus, quoting lack of wreckage, now have to sample some of the humble pie. I’ve said prior, to discount SIO on the lack of wreckage, doesn’t acknowledge the vast scale of the area at hand.
“Can it really still be floating for 18 months without filling up with water with such holes on the sides?” – Sinux
I have heard this argument so many times over the last couple of days. The Item is made of glass fibre composite honeycomb sandwich. Even if the interior was full of sea water, the buoyancy of the honeycomb would overcome the water ingress of the interior space, allowing it to float and be subject to current and wind.
“along the lines of what is not being said, I’ve noticed that everybody thinks the part could potentially belong to a 777, but few are saying that it can’t belong to some other model. Nobody has said it can’t be part of an Airbus, for example.” – JS
I have read that the 747, 767 and the A310 all have a flaperon. The size and shape of these are significantly different to the B777. Anyhow, MAS has now confirmed (via the media) the flaperon in question belongs to a B777. What B777 it belongs to is yet to be confirmed. I’m reasonably assured the BEA will confirm it belongs to MH370 in time. (quoted typo’s fixed on your behalf 🙂 )
“Finally, for all the increasing confidence in the idea that this part is part of MH370, nobody can seem to agree on the part numbering. Is it 657BB? BB670? How is there a discrepancy in the reporting still?” – JS
Pictures have emerged showing 657-BB. Unless the reported pictures are fake, then it can only be a B777 part. MAS is reported to confirm that as of tonight. That number does not confirm it belongs to MH370. For that detail, we have to wait.
@Sharkcaver – thanks.
I saw the 657-BB in the photo. That’s why I’m a little surprised that CNN keeps reporting the wrong number and in the same article quotes those with “increasing confidence” that the part belongs to a 777. Shoddy journalism, I guess.
Humor me, though. If 657-BB is a component number describing the location of the part, why is it necessary limited to one model? What would the number of a similar part on a 767 be?
@Sharkcaver
“But one does have to now admit that Inmarsat data (to some extent) and an ending in the SIO is more believable than before now some wreckage has been found. The doomsdayers of the SIO terminus, quoting lack of wreckage, now have to sample some of the humble pie.”
The wreckage would confirm the fact that the plane ended up in the ocean. Nothing more. In my view the location of the wreckage (which was forecast to arrive in Sumatra or Western Australia by the ATSB), speaks against the SIO terminus. Your logic is flawed.
@Sharkcaver, all good points.
Yes, if we can be certain that the flap belongs to mh370 and and drifted to La Reunion unaided by human intervention (I’m sure the investigators in Toulouse work on both points right now), then we can assume that the main body of the plane ended up in the Indian Ocean as well. And that certainly raises the chances of the SIO having been the final crash zone. But since that region has been searched without any results so far and I still can’t see a plausible chain of events which might’ve resulted in a SIO crash, I would start to look further North, a course of action which has apparently the support of some oceanographers, too, who had a look at the drift patterns.
@Dennis, yes, if the debris from La Reunion is authentic and legit, the we can assume with high certainty that the rest of the plane also ended up in the Indian Ocean. But if I look at the prevailing drift patterns and combine that with the fact that the SIO search hasn’t been successful so far,one could even argue that the flap doesn’t help the SIO scenario at all – an opinion which is apparently shared by some oceanographers.
@JS
“I saw the 657-BB in the photo. That’s why I’m a little surprised that CNN keeps reporting the wrong number and in the same article quotes those with “increasing confidence” that the part belongs to a 777. Shoddy journalism, I guess. “
I personally believe, far, far too much has been taken on board this whole event in regards to the media. Which is in some way understandable, considering the lack of official information released. Like the old saying, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. So much media reported junk has been debunked in this case to date.
That also raises another personal concern. From day dot, everyone here (and others) seems to think the release of official information and data publicly is a right. It’s not. Official release of information is a privilege, not a right. They (officialdom) have no charter to release anything until an initial/interim and final report. I think that perspective has been lost for the last +500 days. Can’t blame one for trying though.
“Humor me, though. If 657-BB is a component number describing the location of the part, why is it necessary limited to one model? What would the number of a similar part on a 767 be?”
Sorry, I don’t have access to B767 parts manuals to confirm. However, it does stand to reason that Boeing wouldn’t part number a part the same for a B777 and a B767 if the components and final assembly were completely different. That alone would create a world of confusion and goes against world best practice of a highly regulated and traceable modern aviation industry.
”The wreckage would confirm the fact that the plane ended up in the ocean. Nothing more. In my view the location of the wreckage (which was forecast to arrive in Sumatra or Western Australia by the ATSB), speaks against the SIO terminus. Your logic is flawed.” – DW
Logic flawed- How so? What ocean do you believe from the found piece it ended up in then? I can not fathom any ocean other than the Indian myself.
Noting, I am on the record stating Sumatra is a very odd prediction. The WA coastline not as much.
SIO may have been a misnomer on my part in that response. That should be IO as a whole, subject to conformance to ping data. One can’t discount (nor should he/she) a more Northern portion of the 7th. But I hold firm on the IO, owing to this discovery, barring any other evidence yet to be produced. What part of the IO? That’s the new $64M question isn’t it. I don’t believe any reverse drift modelling will be of any use.
@Sharkcaver
I accept your modification of the SIO into IO. That was my only point. The current search area in the SIO is “probably” too far South to produce wreckage at Reunion this early. It is more likely that the terminus was farther North.
Also your reference to “suicidal” flight to the SIO does not conform to ATSM or IG statements. To my knowledge neither the ATSB nor the IG has ever mentioned motive or causality.
My primary interest is for the investigators to postulate a failure or damage mechanism. That information could provide valuable insight into whether the plane plunged into the water at high speed or entered the water in a controlled ditch fashion.
For mechanical failure scenario, you can search for G-EUOB report.
@Sharkcaver
I agree with your conclusion relative to reverse drift modeling. A whole new team of experts will be lining up to get their names in the press. It will be a circus.
I had the opportunity to fund a number of “studies” related to my company’s product offerings over the years. Of course, the funded independent party knew very well what answer I was looking for, and they usually found it. At the end of the day we are all a bunch of whores.
The ATSB (Dolan) is already starting to make noises that the location of the wreckage confirms that they are looking in the right place. Good grief.
The stencil on the part in the photo is 657 BB. The part number for this in the Maintenance Manual is 657BB. There is no hyphen in either place. The description is “Leading Edge Panel” and is the Actuator Access Panel, so this piece is only one of the parts that make up the entire Flaperon shown in the picture in the link posted by Richard. The first “6” means “Right Wing.” The same piece on the left wing would be 557BB. The second “5” means it is in the fifth subzone of the wing: “Wing Trailing Edge.” One of the “B’s” means Bottom. The Panel just above this is 657AT but is not visible in any of the pictures I have seen. A complete breakdown can be found in the B777 Maintenance Manual posted by others.
Since this Flaperon is made from composite, it would have a different bouncy than other floating parts meaning those parts could be 100’s of miles away from Reunion Island. That’s why I doubt the suitcase came from MH370.
The website adrift.org.au lets you follow the drifting of a plastic object either by picking the starting point (like the IO) and watch the location probability density as it moves over time or pick the end point (like Reunion Island) and see from where it came. Either method supports this piece as having come from MH370.
I remember seeing a drift analysis back in June of 2014 (not from the ATSB) suggesting that any floating pieces might find their way to the east coast of Africa and made note of it in the DS Blog.
@Matty – I think the clams or mussels or barnacles on the trailing edge of the Flaperon make this edge look more ragged than it really is but it does appear to be missing material because the whole piece looks much narrower than the replacement Flaperon shown on Richard’s link. (You don’t think the perps could have purchased a replacement Flaperon and tossed it in the Indian Ocean after the air searches stopped, do you?)
@Sharkcaver – we were told (by Dennis?) that the number is not a part number, but a component number. It describes the location of the part, which may indeed make it unique to a 777, but not necessarily. Presumably, a similar part on another Boeing model’s wing also starts with a 6 and maybe even a 657.
There are also parts on a 777 that are interchangeable with parts on a 767 and even a 757. Not the wing, obviously, but in the nose, for example. Notice that the nose and cockpit on the 757-767-777 are all derived from one design, which is visibly different from the 707-727-737 design.
That’s why the a confirmation that the part can belong to a 777 is not the same as saying it can ONLY be from a 777.
@JS
I don’t know anything about the numbering scheme. I am sitting back waiting for the experts to weigh in on the origin of the part, and the damage mechanism.
I’m waiting impatiently, too, what the flap finally turns out to be. But honestly, this obsession about a few digits I don’t share. They will tell us in good time what we have been looking at – although I’m a little surprised that it takes so long. They should know at least by now to what kind of plane the part belongs to. But I figure it must be a B777. Otherwise we would have been told already that the part can’t be from mh370.
@Lauren, I agree: it is highly unlikely that the suitcase is also from mh370 (assuming that the flap is from mh370). The suitcase isn’t battered enough for a more than year long drift. Also the drift pattern would be very different from the flap. And it’s highly unlikely that this tiny spec in the ocean would become the location of two not so small and highly significant pieces of debris from the same source.