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!
airlive.net is reporting that a Chinese water bottle and an Indonesian cleaning product have washed ashore on Reunion Island …
http://www.airlive.net/2015/07/breaking-piece-of-wing-found-on-la.html
@airlandseaman: I read your paper on the Reunion flaperon with keen interest. One question:
How do you square [floating debris found on Reunion Island] with [no debris found on W Australian shores], in light of the graphs you show on page 3?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jfninslr7z5kuay/Implications%20from%20the%20Reunion%20Debris%20found%20July%2029.pdf?dl=0
@DennisW
“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.”
Various experts claim that flaperon is torn in a way it reminiscence a controlled ditch.
“The energy required to rip off the fitting and the trailing edge doesn’t match a free fall impact, of a flaperon mass alone. Leading edge must be heavier than trailing edge, therefore in case of a free fall from a ship, the leading edge would bow instead.”
“Those trailing edge surfaces and the engines, all of which hang down, are designed to separate earlier than the wing in a ditching impact scenario, so that the aircraft can be successfully evacuated. The last thing you want is the wing being dragged off.
Furthermore, because the attached surface has deliberate weak links, the water-tight box compartment component remains relatively undamaged and floats.”
“nobody has mentioned yet the fact on a ditching at sea, the engines will have been pulled from the pylons quite violently and this could be a reason why the flaperon section has also been torn away. remember the hudson a320? that wasnt exactly a high speed ditch.”
now what we have here
1) debris that according to expert oceanographers comes from area off NW Australia
2) experts stating it was most probably a controlled ditch(=not any reason to go to the southern SIO)
3) bunch of Orions and other planes searching current ATSB search area only 15 days after the crash(which means any debris couldn’t get far), finding nothing although there apparently were pieces as big as this flaperon floating around
4) area south off Christmas Island that hasn’t been searched at all(because why would they search area around reachable airport, what sense would it make eh)
5) 60.000 sq km thouroughly searched in primary search area again finding nothing
I claimed here before this that CI theory holds around 20% of certainty, but for me now this case is closed and it’s just matter of inert bureacracy how long will they clinge to their must be autopilot to nowhere theory before they really start searching for the plane where it actually is.
If a piece that size lands on La Reunion so many months later, why hasn’t any marine traffic come across something somewhere? I would assume some might be keeping an eye out?
@Anyone – how much damage could this component endure before it would no longer float? Could any water impact have destroyed other similar components enough to sink them while sparing this one?
I realize the aircraft could sustain differing degrees of damage at different locations, to a point. Now that there is (presumably) one piece of debris, it should be possible to theorize probabilities of other pieces floating or sinking.
@JS
I would be inclined to wait for the analytics to be done in France. That should tell us a lot about the type of impact that occurred. After that we can regroup on questions that make the most sense.
@JS
Quote from aviation “expert” Soucie.
begin paste//
The ragged edge of the flaperon found on Reunion Island on Wednesday was likely caused by the mach-speed flow of air over the wing as the aircraft plummeted into the ocean, Soucie said.
end paste//
Now we can almost certain that the plane glided down and the edge damage was caused by water. Soucie has never been right about anything related to MH370 in the last 16 months. The guy is a complete idiot.
@Dennis
Gotta chime in here and pile on. That guy (Soucie) is either being paid off to spew nonsense OR is the dumbest, most naive simpleton to ever have a stage.
He is intolerably, unfathomably idiotic. And I make no apologies for my strong language.
This guy is moron.
Trying to endure him is beyond painful.
Oh, wait.
He’s selling a book.
Shamelessly stupid.
Interesting to note that CNN is continuing to use (at least illustratively) Fariq’s cell phone ping near Penang.
It’s prominently displayed on their graphic demonstrating the flight path.
Just saying.
@StevanG
Yes, I have been beating this drum for a long time. Not saying it is right, but the SIO hypothesis is almost certainly wrong. The ATSB and IG (and others) made a horrible mistake by not considering how the plane may have gotten there. They (ATSB and IG) have a very confused notion of what degrees of freedom mean/imply, but hey, they are not mathematicians.
I’ll pile on too. It was in a supersonic dive (why?) and then it slowed down enough to hit the water without any significant damage. Ridiculous.
For all we know it could have been an undetected, unrelated bird strike, or a shoddy repair of hanger rash.
Aside from that, it looks like a belly flop. I’m thinking a low speed, crippled flight ending near CI.
Sharkcaver,
I agree from the beginning the media in general around the world has been, well, rather terrible in it’s reporting of the MH370 tragedy. We talked about this on the Duncan Steel blog as well early on. I think CNN did a great job on it on the whole though. As I have stated before, there is no real good gumshoe investigate reporting anymore, it’s more about the bottom line and sales or being the first to get a story out there unverified. Investigative reporting is a lost art I am afraid. Newspaper journalists seemed to pull a lot of weight years ago when they were out pounding the pavement digging more than the detectives were.
As for the withholding of the investigative information from the public, I see what you are saying about it being a privilege but in a case this bizarre when they crowd sourced the Inmarsat data and the IG et al got involved, why wouldn’t they go a step further and crowd source some of the other pertinent information to the public?
@StevanG
Yes, I have been beating this drum for a long time. Not saying it is right, but the SIO hypothesis is almost certainly wrong. The ATSB and IG (and others) made a horrible mistake by not considering how the plane may have gotten there. They (ATSB and IG) have a very confused notion of what degrees of freedom mean/imply.
Lauren H – You ask me: 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?)
If it was a sophisticated hijack that’s exactly what I would do and that sort of deception was standard fare in the cold war. But I believe we are looking at a bit of MH370 and I’ve weighed in on what I think happened to that one piece. We wait…
@Matty/Lauren
Of course, one (assuming one with intelligence) would wonder why anyone would hijack the aircraft in the first place. I have heard absolutely no rational explanation for doing so.
Guys, I think, you’re a little overenthusiastic. I’m certainly not known to be a friend of the SIO scenario. But it has one advantage: it has an explanation what finally brought down the plane – it ran out of fuel. That might sound trivial but it isn’t. The SIO scenario of a straight run South corresponds so closely with the fuel limit of the plane that you could argue this could hardly be a coincidence
. The Christmas Island scenario’s greatest flaw is that it can’t come up with a convincing explanation of what went wrong. The plane didn’t even end up at or near CI. It’s too simple to say “oh, well, something must’ve gone wrong”. That’s not better than saying that there must’ve been some crazy reason to run the plane into the SIO. The second problem with the CI scenario is that even if we are content with not knowing what went wrong, it’s even harder to explain why nobody called for help or tried to get nearer to the airport.
So, declaring this a shut case just because one piece of drifted debris which hasn’t even been analysed so far, suggests that the plane might’ve crashed further North than the official search zone is absolutely unwarranted.
Same with the ditch and belly flop theories. I don’t necessarily disagree. But shouldn’t we wait what the experts will tell us about the piece?
Dennis – is an unlawful diversion a hijack?
Interesting that the shellfish are a lot more prolific on the damaged edge. Easier to lodge there I guess. The flat surfaces seem a bit light on and resemble a somewhat the boat hull I posted after an 8 month drift. How long was it on the beach half covered? The marine biologists have a fascinating job on their hands.
I have another question: why is it all over the news now, that the US and their secret service always knew the plane was diverted intentionally? Even German Bild Zeitung sold that as breaking news. I mean, it wasn’t rocket science to come to that conclusion. But couldn’t they have said so a bit earlier – much earlier? It would’ve saved us many speculations about burning batteries, hypoxic crews, slow burning cable fires, blue lightning – and a certain other forum might’ve been a little more tolerant of commenters who dared to say that good old Occam might cut himself accidentally with his famous razor if he heard those theories 😉
But seriously, isn’t it possible that even the official investigation might have focused a bit more on human intent and motive if there had been the clear parole that this was a hijack or unlawful diversion (which is in my book a hijack, too)?
“I accept your modification of the SIO into IO. That was my only point.” – DW
That’s good to hear. Its not how I read the tone or substance of the response.
“Also your reference to “suicidal” flight to the SIO does not conform to ATSM or IG statements” – DW
To correct the record, I have never postulated a theory at all in public. And for good reason. Any postulation is just speculation. There is no undisputed evidence whatsoever to back up any AP/Ghost flight, Suicide, Hijack, spoof, mechanical and/or electrical failure without counter issues attached. And it is for that reason I am a fence sitter. CI to my mind certainly has some merit re motives, but as you acknowledge, it lacks in other areas. And that’s the crux of it all. Any postulation to date so far has baggage attached to it.
As to this becoming a circus, I agree. I can hear the carnival music as I type. This whole sorry saga has been conducted under the big top. The big top is getting bigger.
“There are also parts on a 777 that are interchangeable with parts on a 767 and even a 757. Not the wing,” – JS
You contradict yourself. You say there are common parts between models, which I would agree there probably is. However you state the wing is not interchangeable. The Flaperon is a wing part and from what I have read, is completely different in size, design and shape to that on a B747/B767. But this is all mute. If you believe the media reports coming out MAS has confirmed its a B777 part. Boeing have now done so going by reports I’ve seen this morning. No one has confirmed its from 9M –MRO as yet, but I think that being a B777 part is all but set in stone now.
@Sharkcaver
Actually, the mass murdering, plan to inflict as much damage to UMNO as HE FELT possible, SIO terminating suicidal Zaharie has no serious deficiency…other than people using precedent and an apparent omniscience about the inner workings of the human mind…and what it is and is not capable of.
It’s bs pseudoscience. As I’ve repeated many times, people METHODICALLY commit mass murder/suicide daily on this scorched earth. And they understand full well many days prior that they will be departing this earth.
The whole ‘suicide is impulsive act’ argument has no room or voice here…it’s not at all germane or relevant in the context of this act.
Be it politics or religion, sacrifice and contribution to goal actualization are the driving force.
Just because one is a professional and a pilot does not exempt them from such action.
Furthermore, we have absolutely NO idea as to Z’s ‘personal’ life, well being etc…thanks to Malaysia, absent journos and a climate of fear and retaliation.
@StevanG
I’ll give you 10 to 1 odds, real money, that the a/c is nowhere near CI. Serious.
Spencer – that might the best bit of plane we ever see so possibly another pointless wager. And there is certainly the possibility that the data or our interpretation of it wrong at this point so why not wait? If it ditched?
Littlefoot,
I would imagine that when they say diverted intentionally they are referencing the IGARI diversion, not the FMT into the SIO, which is a diversion from the course they were on in the Straits. All that you mention would still have to be on the table as a possible reason for the IGARI diversion, not dismissed, wouldn’t it since we don’t know the purpose for the diversion? Again, “diverted intentionally” is not necessarily nefarious. The FMT could be a whole other diversion reason or still be linked to the things you mentioned such as hypoxia, fire, malfunction, or botched hijacking, or crazed pilot for that matter.
Did Mr. Soucie say something on CNN I briefly caught yesterday that they were headed in the diversion to where they would have had to go for maintenance and does that tie in with what Lou provided us in the radar googling about where to return in case of loss of radio? Anybody?
Thanks for the marine life info. So whatever marine life has clustered itself onto the flaperon is prominent all over the SIO and that leaves length of time in water to be determined. The mollusks and barnacles seem to have taken on the same color as the flaperon too, they all look whitewashed.
As Matty says, we wait………..hard to be patient though.
Here is an interesting list characteristics of lone wolf violent true believers:
The Violent True Believer as a“Lone Wolf”– Psychoanalytic Perspectives on Terrorism J. Reid Meloy, Ph.D.*,† and Jessica Yakeley, M.D.‡
The existing research on lone wolf terrorists and case experience are reviewed and interpreted through the lens of psychoanalytic theory. A number of characteristics of the lone wolf are enumerated: a personal grievance and moral outrage; the framing of an ideology; failure to affiliate with an extremist group; dependence on a virtual commu-nity found on the Internet; the thwarting of occupational goals; radicalization fueled by changes in thinking and emotion – including cognitive rigidity, clandestine excitement, contempt, and disgust – regardless of the particular ideology; the failure of sexual pair bonding and the sexualization of violence; the nexus of psychopathology and ideology; greater creativity and innovation than terrorist groups; and predatory violence sanctioned by moral (superego) authority. A concluding psychoanalytic formulation is offered.
Many of these fit Z. Many.
@Matty
Because StevanG has proclaimed the case ‘closed’.
And I believe the CI is most improbable for oh so many reasons.
But, yeah, we all wait.
@Spencer
Think “preponderance of evidence”. It will come to you eventually.
@Littlefoot
“Guys, I think, you’re a little overenthusiastic. I’m certainly not known to be a friend of the SIO scenario. But it has one advantage: it has an explanation what finally brought down the plane – it ran out of fuel. That might sound trivial but it isn’t. ”
It is a bad idea to be posting when you are smoking dope.
@Spencer :
“greater creativity and innovation than terrorist groups”
Especially this one is terrifying and absolutely an characteristic feature in this case. An perfectly executed plan of an genius what the world had never seen before and thereafter. I totally agree, many of these fit Z.
@Dennis
Touche. You will see the darkness, when you choose to peer into the unpleasantness of Z’s transformation.
As for the evidence, it ALL points to an intentional SIO terminus…once they find the plane, and they will hopefully.
Honestly, you’re just hopelessly wedded to ‘your’ theory. Nothing supports it other than some fictional construct of Z ‘not being capable’ because he ‘seemed’ like such a great guy.
@Lou
Right, and the indignation and moral outrage. His use of social media (interesting feature that the MD and PHD lis–dependence on it–which is clearly evidenced by his ravenous posting) and the specific NEXUS of ideology and psychopathology.
Really, all of it. But it’s surely confirmation bias. LOL.
@Spencer
I fell in love once, and it cost me about $5M. I will never fall in love again. The CI scenario is pure logic.
@Spencer
I kinda put you in the “hanger on” category in any case. You obviously have no analytical skills, and are simply stirring the pot. Why should I care what you think?
@Dennis
Whatever. LMAO.
You can ‘categorize’ me however you choose. That’s fine.
@Sharkcaver – you may have missed my point. The wings between various models are different, for sure. As for wing components, I can’t say. I would expect reuse wherever possible, but I don’t know the extent other than a few examples. My point is simply that the mere suggestion that a part could belong to a plane model is meaningless until someone says it can’t belong to another model. It is further meaningless unless someone can say those parts are accounted for. A 777 does not need to crash for its parts to end up on a beach, as ridiculous as that sounds.
I’m not ready to believe any of the reporting, YET, because as Littlefoot pointed out, it’s always been bad. “Increasingly confident,” for example, absent any new factual developments, isn’t very believable. It’s very similar to the language used in April 2014 when everybody was “increasingly confident” the plane would be found any minute, and the late stages of the SIO search in which similar “increasing confidence” language was used. We know how all of that ended.
I’m pretty sure that it is moot, as you say, and tomorrow the French will come out and say, yep, it’s from 9M-MRO. However, despite photos and numbers, nobody is willing to flat out say that this part belongs to that plane or even to 777’s generally. If it was really that clear, there wouldn’t be any wavering or waiting.
We wait…because nobody will commit to saying that 657BB belongs only to a 777 and only one of that part is missing in the world. Everybody will guess, but nobody will stand behind it. How come?
Spencer & Lou
We are but the paltry few, who believe that Z did it. Conspiracies abound while the obvious stands at attention.
@JS
Surely it is best to wait a week or however long it takes until the French investigators and Boeing team are absolutely satisfied that the flaperon came from 9M-MRO and it is realistic that it drifted there from a crash site somewhere in the IO, or rule it out. The NoK must be going through an agonising wait, some perhaps not wanting it to be from the plane, others hoping it is. However, wouldn’t it be worse if someone made a premature announcement about this debris and then it was later found to be incorrect?
@Chris
This might be just an pure psychological phenomenon. Many people are unable to sleep well when they come to issue a pilot executed an suicide mass murder run.
So, i can understand that this people try to find instinctively another explanation which is less frightening. An technical issue is here the favourite to explain this tradegy because this is just force majeure. No need to blame anyone, we´ve seen technical issues all day everywhere in the world. Demanding for more technical safety, case closed and the people are able to sleep well again.
Notice : Don´t attack any worldview. Pilots must be heroes, not suicide mass murderer.Anyone who believes the last point is possible is breaking a taboo and will be verbally attacked followed by heavily outrage.
@Lou
Well said….
Police officers,& Priest’s,are also hero’s that we’ve come to believe look over us with love & concern, but lately the Vatican, along with law enforcement, have been sadly disappointed.
Pilots are hero’s each & every day while delivering millions of passengers each and every day. The thought of Z doing this is incomprehensible, but IMO true.
@Cheryl, no, sorry. I’ve read a few of these “so new” announcements. And they clearly state that the plane wasn’t only turned around intentionally at IGARI, but also flown intentionally into the SIO.
It would be interesting to know of course what kind of knowledge they have to come to their conclusions. Do they know something we don’t? Or have. they pieced it together like us?
@littlefoot
“The Christmas Island scenario’s greatest flaw is that it can’t come up with a convincing explanation of what went wrong. The plane didn’t even end up at or near CI. It’s too simple to say “oh, well, something must’ve gone wrong”. That’s not better than saying that there must’ve been some crazy reason to run the plane into the SIO. The second problem with the CI scenario is that even if we are content with not knowing what went wrong, it’s even harder to explain why nobody called for help or tried to get nearer to the airport.”
well you can make up thousand of explanations, inflight brawl where they remove the Captain from his seat and inexperienced F/O takes controls with comms turned off, with just enough time to concentrate on landing on water? Not the most succesiful landing on sea which caused water to get quickly in? No available comms and phone signal means no way to call for help.
now if you have good imagination you are free to imagine other 999 scenarios where each one would
@Matty
“Dennis – is an unlawful diversion a hijack?”
I think it’s a criminal act strictly legally speaking, although I could partly justify it and understand Captain but only in case it was a cargo plane, risking 200 people on board to achieve your political goals sometimes must finish like this.
@spencer
“I’ll give you 10 to 1 odds, real money, that the a/c is nowhere near CI. Serious.”
OK I’ll gladly accept the bet if by “nowhere near” you think it’s further than 300 miles from CI. Is there any online bookie that accept customs bets so we could bet (and give them their provision, kinda like betfair)? Maybe Jeff himself would be ready to accept the money, put it into his account and pay the winner? I think we could trust him.
Also how much money are you ready to lay? Remember that at those odds I need to put only 1/10 of what you are willing to risk.
Good proposition btw, let’s finally put the money where our mouth is 😉
Dennis(and everyone else) are you willing to participate?
@Spencer
If you are “giving me” 10 to 1 odds I don’t understand why you only need to put up 1/10 of the money. Oh well, I just woke up.
@Spencer
Posting before coffee is a bad idea. Got you tangled up with StevanG. Sorry about that. Anyway, I would not feel right betting on something like this. I would be happy if the plane is found. Don’t really care where.
The information is fuzzy enough that there are lots of reasons to pick various locations on the 7th arc. Take your pick for your own reasons.
Watch this video to get a sense for when Boeing 777 flaperon is allowed free movement in conjunction with spoilers.
By extension I’m trying to imagine the violent flutter that might lead to destruction at high speeds no power/control/hydraulics. Seems possible.
Thoughts?
http://1080plus.com/Apc3L53fWJ0.video
@Benaiahu
Excellent video!
Shows how water was channeled between the flaps while belly landing the a/c, thus tearing it from the wing.
now I see confirmed reports from various witnesses that some debris washed ashore in May…which would put the location of origin even norther than somewhere NW of Australia
well, well
@Chris Butler,
Interesting feedback Chris. (FYI, I’m not promoting any concept, just trying to explore possibilities based on the photo evidence in hand.)
With your comments I assume the impact force accomplished tasks 2 & 3 instantaneously.
Tasks:
1.) Engine breaks off.
2.) Broke off ~40% of Flaperon
And at the same time:
3.) Broke off outboard hinge connector (in the strength direction of the hinge) without appearance of deforming the remaining Flaperon where the hinge was connected. My untrained eye sees a potential lateral failure of the hinge, who knows?
Reference (important photo):http://www.francebleu.fr/sites/default/files/article/maxnewsworldthree805990.jpg
I’m not saying it’s impossible since I’m not in anyway qualified and who know what happens in extreme violent impacts.
All comments and arguments welcomed.
@Benaiahu,
Excellent video. I agree that high speed flutter is a very likely cause of the flaperon departure from the wing, and the also an explanation of the missing 30% or so of the chord.
Those who think the damage is caused by a water landing, no matter at what speed, seem to forget that there is a massive engine immediately ahead of the flaperon. The engine would shear off causing massive damage to the flaperon, and such damage is not apparent in the pictures of the debris.
@ Brian Anderson,
It is a most interesting and applicable video. I said ‘engine breaks off’, but probably more accurate statement would be parts or whole engine break off. I suppose it depends on AOA and a host of conditions
If nose first I think all bets are off on how damage occurs other than quite violent.
If trying to land I just wonder what control is available of out of fuel. I think US air landed on Hudson with engines intact and flaperon(s) gone. Totally different aircraft and conditions but just looking at realm of possibilities. Seems to me there would be a reasonable likelihood that high impact ‘holes’ might be present on bottom composite of flaperon, but I don’t see any.
Previous video link seems to now have issues at times. Alternate video feed for Boeing 777 flaperon action during landing approach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apc3L53fWJ0
The oceanographer Erik von Sebille’s drift model appears, unless I am reading the NYT graphic from a couple of days ago wrong, to suggest there’s a 10% chance the part came from the northern end of the search zone and no chance it can from the southern end. I think he’s been quoted to the same effect in other stories. Lends credence to claims that the IG groups’ assumptions of heading and speed were wrong?
There’s a ton of these type shots on youtube.
Here’s a couple from right wing side:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-hCHARD6D4
RH (Very good) Hydraulic connector shown at around 2:14 to 2:46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJFQ_76SPUE
flaperon action at 3:00 to 3:50 and 4:40 to land
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIRtkH-5dgI
flaperon action at 1:30 to 2:45
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2P13zPzxCI
flaperon action at 8:50 to land
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkaMjd3Xuk4
flaperon action at 11:20 to land
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=477-ygI0anY
RH Hydraulic connector shown at around 2:00