French Report: Investigators Can’t Link Reunion Flaperon to MH370

I am grateful to reader @AM2, who early this morning alerted us to a report in the French website LaDepeche.fr stating that investigors who have been examining the flaperon found on Reunion have been unable to find any evidence linking it to MH370. Soon after, reader @Jay provided the translation below, which I’ve tweaked and edited using my high-school French and some online dictionaries. Thanks to both of you (and to Brock for his translation help)! Any corrections or suggestions from people who actually know the language would be very gratefully received.

MH370: At Balma, the Technical Investigation is Complete 

The Toulouse experts of the Directorate General of Armaments have finished the survey of the flaperon found on Reunion. Nothing permits it to be 100% certified as belonging to MH370!

In Balma, near Toulouse, technical analysis of of the wing flaperon believed to belong to the Malaysia Airlines Boeing has ended. The Toulouse engineers have submitted their findings to the Paris Prosecutor’s Office, which is in charge of the judicial inquiry. At the moment none of their observations have been leaked. “The investigation team headed by the French to consider the flaperon concluded the first phase of its inspection work,” the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) announced in Sydney.

Circumstantial evidence

“French authorities will, in consultation with Malaysia, report on progress in due course,” added the ATSB. Indeed, the judicial authorities remain silent and refuse to comment. According to our information, the experts have found no compelling technical element that would certify 100% that this piece belongs to flight MH370. “The expert conclusions are only the technical part of the criminal investigation, which is still going on,” so the case cannot be considered closed. For now all that is certain is that the flaperon, which was transferred from the island of Reunion to Toulouse on August 5, corresponds to a moving part of a wing of the Boeing 777. A representative of the American manufacturer Boeing quickly confirmed that after arriving at the site of the DGA Aeronautical Technical Center in Balma. If the deputy prosecutor of the Republic of Paris has stated that there was a “very strong supposition” that the piece belonged to the plane of flight MH370, which disappeared 18 months ago, that is based on circumstantial evidence.

First, the piece belongs to the aircraft model corresponding to that of Malaysia Airlines, a Boeing 777. In addition, no other aircraft of this type except that of the Malaysian company were reported missing.

Also, the trajectory of the wing piece that ran aground on a beach in Reunion matches the sea currents that link the search area of ​​the wreckage of the plane to the French overseas department. Finally, the shells found attached to the flaperon belong to a species endemic to the southern Indian Ocean where the unit is believed to have disappeared.

According to a Toulouse aeronautics expert who requested anonymity, the element of the wing would not have floated for several months at the water’s surface but would have drifted underwater a few meters deep. According to Jean-Paul Troadec, former chairman of the Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA), the state of flaperon, even if it is not intact, indicates that there was no violent impact with the ocean surface. “If this had been the case with the MH370, one would expect much smaller debris than a flaperon,” said the expert.

COMMENT

A couple of observations from me, JW:

  1. I find it odd that a piece of random debris would happen to have exactly neutral buoyancy, as floating for months just below the ocean surface would require. Unless it was tethered…
  2. Reader @Jay raises the question: “What about the maintenance seal that Malaysia claimed 100% linked the part to MH370?” Likewise, no mention is made of the discrepencies that Boeing and NTSB officials reportedly found between the flaperon and Malaysia Airlines maintenance records, according to the New York Times.  Hopefully the French will soon issue a report clearing up these issues.

 

 

258 thoughts on “French Report: Investigators Can’t Link Reunion Flaperon to MH370”

  1. Jeff,

    Not entirely unexpected; the data plate would have been the only part with a serial number. Brackets, castings and fasteners will only give part numbers. There may have been the odd inspection stamp, but these are normally inked….given the age of the piece and the fact it’s been in water for so long… these would be long gone.

    OZ

  2. My question would be: What about the maintenance seal that Malaysia claimed 100% linked the part to MH370?

  3. Yes, as posted in comment 559 on page 28 of the pprune thread on the MH 370 flaperon discovered on Reunion Island (contains good link to the Boeing manual)…

    #559 (permalink)
    19th Aug 2015 20:22 by Ka-2b Pilot
    Quote: “internal components would only have part numbers.”
    In fact, many internal parts have MSN numbers (Manufacturers serial numbers). These may be ink-stamped or etched near the part number and are often on every part of an assembly that has room. They are not on the ID plate for an assembly but will normally be nearby, along with the assembly part number. One might see the format 285T 1234567 MSN 789 or similar. All these should be traceable through documentation. Its a long time since I worked with Boeing products, or any others for that matter and cannot now recall the precise format. It is almost certain that some of these numbers cannot be seen without completely disassembling a component, hence it may take a long time.
    Not sure how old this is but it may contain some relevant info http://www.thermark.com/TM_Downloads…613-2_XXXX.pdf Page 23 shows the method of marking.
    Boeing 777 would be 285Wxxxx not 285Txxxx
    Reply

  4. @Jay,

    I think you’ll find the seal they were referring to was a replaced aerodynamic seal.

    OZ

  5. Thanks Jeff. My French is not good enough to help here. From Reddit, a French-speaker, gwennyfar, provides these Key points:

    “An anonymous source said they haven’t found anything that links the wing part 100% to the MH370, but a lot of evidence converge towards the fact that it’s probably from MH370 – although apparently no serial number was found.

    The clams found on the flaperon are a specie that particularly develops in the Southern Indian Ocean”

    Perhaps we should be a little cautious as this is a newspaper report with details from an anonymous source and when we get the official report it may have a different slant. Maybe we will never get 100% certainty if the maintenance records are gone but 95% would suffice I guess. It will be very interesting to see what phase 2 of the investigation entails. So, more waiting for the official report…

  6. The barnacles expert Dr Griffiths mentioned the species of barnacles were endemic to tropical and subtropical climate, and SIO where the place is believed to have disappeared does not look like tropical or subtropical, right? Even if having traveled to the north by current, in the thread about barnacles the common conclusion was barnacles got attached to flaperon already close to Reunion, not where the plane is believed to have disappeared.Am I wrong on that?

  7. >I find it odd that a piece of random debris would happen to have exactly neutral buoyancy, as floating for months just below the ocean surface would require. Unless it was tethered…

    Even if it was tethered, it would be strange.

  8. In places like Toulouse or Seattle there are plenty “aeronautics experts”. Are they all experts on the secret life of barnacles?

  9. If it drifted while suspended a few metres below the ocean surface, we’ll also need CSIRO to update its drift analysis with impact of wind and waves set to zero.

  10. @alex or anyone
    We have been referring to the Southern Indian Ocean (SIO) for some time, but do we really mean South of the Equator? In this discussion group I have assumed (maybe wrongly) that we meant further South. [KL is not far N of the Equator (approx 3N, 102E)]

  11. AM2, I would assume SIO is that part of the ocean south of the 26th Parallel (tropic of Capricorn). Its a benchmark North/South datum for land based locations. You certainly shouldn’t be using the equator as a datum. It was mentioned here recently in a round about fashion. Something I thought about after Dennis queried my SIO statement.

  12. If there is a Northern and a Southern Indian Ocean, what is the name for the area in between?

  13. Hm… Not really so unusual.
    http://education.nationalgeographic.com/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/

    The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre is too large for scientists to trawl. In addition, not all trash floats on the surface. Denser debris can sink centimeters or even several meters beneath the surface

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/oceanic-junk-ranges-from-legos-to-suspected-jet-wreckage/

    Instead, those millions of tons of plastic quickly disappear from view, reduced to a near-invisible cloud that floats just beneath the surface.

  14. @AM2: Re” “SIO” agree 100% clarity is required.

    When I use the term in the context of a hypothesized MH370 impact point, I tend to mean within the ATSB-prescribed PRIORITY search area: 33.5s to 38.3s. The reason is because the ATSB says the plane lacked the fuel to generate the given signal data at any latitude outside that range.

    Others will mean the WIDE area – either not understanding or explicitly rejecting the ATSB fuel limits. It runs from 16s to 40s.

    Still others will mean anything S of the equator.

  15. Piece says just below the surface, not meters below–the latter would be very weird and hard to explain without human intervention. I think this is going to be a very important point to look at going forward.

  16. @Alex, the density increase with depth is very small, according to the chart in the linked article — about 1 part per thousand over the span of 1000 feet.

  17. @alex: Rydberg’s result is questionable on three counts:

    1) it ASSUMES the 7th arc is valid, and computes probabilities only among scenarios which drift debris from the arc to Réunion. It therefore serves only to polarize us: if we were already confident of the 7th arc to begin with, his study gives us what we want. If we were NOT confident – and wished to use the Réunion debris discovery to independently TEST it – his study gives us nothing.

    2) relative probabilities among extremely rare (or “tail probability”) events is a dubious exercise. The credibility of any result tends to be quite low.

    A silly example illustrates the point: were I to run a bazillion scenarios starting from each of the five Great Lakes, and then cut out from my analysis all the scenarios which DIDN’T drift to Réunion, and make a graph of the resulting handful of scenarios, then it may well show a dramatic spike for Lake Erie. Were I already diligently searching Lake Ontario, I might publish a paper suggesting this was a major shot in the arm to my “Great Lakes Arc” hypothesis.

    Unless I had a solid SEPARATE reason for searching the Great Lakes, I’d be laughed out of the forum.

    3) Sebille (author of model Rydberg uses) has confirmed to me via e-mail that his transition matrices do not assume debris ever catches on a shoreline – the duckies always “bounce off”. How much, then, of the probability density near Réunion after 16 months represents debris which, in reality, would have caught on Western Australian shores after 6-10 months?

    Everyone agrees the IO current is a humongous merry-go-round; and I’ve never questioned “7th Arc to Réunion” within 16 months. What I question are

    a) “7th Arc (S33-S38) to Réunion BEFORE Western Australia”, and
    b) “7th Arc (<S33) to Réunion, yet MH370 magically no longer fuel-challenged to reach the arc"

    I further question the ability to reach Réunion at all from the SW edge of the arc – which is where they're searching as we speak.

    I think that, were you to ask Sebille himself what his model is saying, he would all but rule OUT the fuel-feasible portion of the 7th Arc (s33.5-s38.3). At least, that's what he told the NYT.

  18. @jeffwise
    Doesn’t it actually say…. “the element of the wing would not have floated for several months at the water’s surface but would have drifted underwater a few meters deep….

  19. @Brock
    You say “…. the ATSB says the plane lacked the fuel to generate the given signal data at any latitude outside that range.” (33.5s to 38.3s)
    No matter how many times you repeat this opinion, it still isn’t true: the ATSB have said no such thing.

  20. >I find it odd that a piece of random debris would happen to have exactly neutral buoyancy,

    Jeff,

    There is a huge selection effect here. This is the only piece of debris that has been found to date, so has been selected in some way. It may be that floating at some depth, due to a near neutral buoyancy, has increased the chance of it reaching land. Other debris with positive buoyancy have been swept elsewhere by the stronger wind effect?

  21. @Richard

    Yes, I agree. Pieces with density above 1.028 g/cm^3 would sink, pieces with density lower 1.025 g/cm^3 would be subject to wind. Selection effect would select those between 1.025 and 1.028

  22. @Dave: Good point. Mea Culpa. Apologies to you and to all for my lack of precision. To correct:

    The ATSB’s…

    – Constrained Autopilot Dynamic (CAD) model ruled out anything north of s35
    – Data Error Optimization (DEO) model ruled out anything north of s33
    – Maximum Range Cruise (MRC) model ruled out anything north of ~ s27

    So the 33.5s – 38.3s priority zone the ATSB set in October has a northern boundary set seemingly based on the first two, but not the third.

    So in my drift comments of the past two weeks, please replace “fuel infeasible per the ATSB” with “CAD- & DEO-infeasible per the ATSB”.

    I still think it’s important to point out that the ATSB has capped their sub-sea zone at 33.5s. Still, I feel badly for having allowed my fuzzy memory to confuse the precise REASON for ruling out parts north. Thanks, Dave.

  23. @Brock: My understanding of the Oct 8 report concerning the DEO model seems to different to yours. They evaluated paths by chosen by a method not well described and from these selected the 100 paths with the lowest RMS error of the BFO values. They plotted the distribution of the RMS error in Fig 5. This in no way demonstrates nor do they claim a performance or data optimization limit . It just shows the 100 lowest BFO errors. However, if you wish to take the extremes of the these 100 paths, the upper latitude appears to be 30.5s, not 33s.

  24. @Dave: well, if it’s a quibble war you’re after, then it’s a quibble war you’ll get. Your 30.5s reading of Fig.5 is the cross-point of the 6th arc; the 7th arc intersection of that extreme scenario would be at roughly 31.5s.

    The 2 degrees for which you’re fighting (31.5-33.5s) are not only unlikely for DEO, & ruled out completely by the CAD (i.e. force a speed no pilot would ever fly or punch in), but the MRC line (per your correction – thanks again!) renders this region highly unlikely to be a point of fuel exhaustion (MRC suggests fuel could continue for several dozens of additional nmi, contradicting the 00:19 log-on request that we’re told clearly indicated fuel exhaustion). So it’s a pretty tough couple of degrees to squeeze a theory into, regardless.

    FWIW: I for one have for over a year now believed that the best approach was to cover a MASSIVE stretch of Arc7 (including significant extra contingencies for model error), starting right on it and working outward. It has been the ATSB who have decided to let the Fugro/GO ships pass right on by the NE regions on their way to and from every scanning mission. If you like 31.5-33.5, talk to them.

  25. @Brock, or really anyone: Much of the current subsea search area lies beyond the fuel-exhaustion limit, yes? As someone whose own (oft-maligned, sniff sniff) pet theory also lies beyond the fuel exhaustion limit, I’d be curious to hear any speculation as to why the ATSB would so casually disregard it.

  26. @Susie Crowe, @Jeff,
    We need a clearer translation. I understood as well that the piece drifted meters below the surface – which would be very odd to say the least.
    I’m sure that will be cleared up soon.

  27. We don’t need a ‘clearer’ translation. We need a more accurate journalist, or an anonymous source who knows what he is talking about.

  28. @Brock: Actually I don’t have an interest in quibbling. And I’m not fighting for “a couple of degrees”. Instead I’m calling you out for repeatedly claiming that the ATSB has written that latitudes more north than 33s are “ruled out”. More specifically, contrary to what you have written, their words regarding the DEO method don’t claim any limits at all.

    @Jeff,
    The ATSB calculated the MRC performance limit based on estimates of both path and fuel consumption. The Oct 8 report refines the estimate by assuming additional FMT locations, but still depends on radar values to estimate speed and altitude pre-FMT. Both affect fuel consumption. I suspect that over time the weighting (and belief) of the altitudes and speed estimated from radar data has changed.

  29. Why does the “expert aéronautique toulousain” request anonymity for his opinion that is not based on any finding of the investigation? He seems to believe that the flaperon has been drifting 17 months between two layers of seawater with different densities. On the basis of what?

  30. @Jeff: while wearing my pro-establishment hat, I’d say they’re still not sure about their performance model &/or FMT, and are thus simply adding a margin for error to their MRC limit. Or something like that.

    While wearing my anti-establishment hat, I’d say they’re surveying fracture zones for resource extraction companies, and only pull back to their own boundaries if & when some internet jerk loudly complains. Or something like that.

    My anti-establishment hat is never far from reach, due to a) scepticism re: 17+ months of dithering on the fuel model, and b) the ingenious ambiguity of the MRC plotted in the ATSB’s Oct.8 report (my Concern #7; if that was an honest error, I’ll eat BOTH hats.)

    Propose we get the ATSB to show us their work on their fuel model, and find out which hat fits.

  31. @Dave Reed:

    ” I suspect that over time the weighting (and belief) of the altitudes and speed estimated from radar data has changed.”

    But, specifically- why? They have not been very open about that descision. The October 2014 report clearly lays out the 4 ‘Refinements’ to the search area – effectively shifting the June 2014 priority area about 700km to the SW, where it is today.

    There are many paragraphs devoted to these 4 ‘Refinements’ in the October 2014 report:

    Updated Perth GES
    Added 18:40 FMT limit using phone call data
    Updated MRC boundaries for 18:28 and 18:40 FMTs
    Explored End-of-flight scenarios

    And yet barely a mention of the shift in radar theory at the time:

    “while the aircraft was being tracked by primary radar, the aircraft’s speed and consequently fuel burn was estimated.”

  32. It would almost seem that they took nearly 7 months to come to a similar conclusion that Victor arrived at in just a couple of weeks- and they even had the ‘raw’ data!

  33. @Richard Cole: Even if the flaperon was “naturally selected” because of its neutral buoyancy, it would have to remain precisely neutrally buoyant despite changes in water temperature, water salinity, attachments of sea life, etc., over the course of its travels for many months. Any compressibility of the structure would also lead to instability of its vertical position, not to mention disturbances from water currents which would alter its instantaneous position. I don’t see how something could float for months just beneath the surface, if that is the claim.

  34. I get the sense the flaperon got caught up on the shoals and inner lagoons of various nearby atolls close to where it was found. Never really sinking too deep for the barnacles to live and and not depending on ocean currents to move it great distances.

  35. I have some misgivings on rather I should comment on this article. I think it would be better to wait for the Boeing/French/? written report and news conference before we comment on the article. The provenance of the article is something to question. With that said I will comment on the article because I do not see anything outrageous (except the part about the flaperon drifting ‘underwater a few meters deep’ as stated by an unnamed source).

    ‘Nothing permits it to be 100% certified as belonging to MH370.’

    The above quote does not surprise me. It would have been nice if there had been I.D. marks that would connect the flaperon to MH370. What we do have is the work (I am making an assumption here) done by Boeing. Boeing has accounted for every flaperon except for two—the two on MH370. By the process of elimination one flaperon is somewhere in the Southern India Ocean and the other one washed-up on Reunion.

    Folks, the flaperon is not a plant, a counterfeit, or any other “bad” flaperon. Boeing and the French investigators consulted a boatload of experts on barnacles, drift currents, etc. The Boeing/French heard nothing from the experts that would make them believe the flaperon is not what it seems to be—a 777 part that floated in the ocean for over a year.
    The Boeing/French would not have worked these many days on the flaperon if they thought they were working on a “bad” flaperon.

    As for the possibility that the flaperon could have been underwater (6 feet+) for most or for the entire trip to Reunion we will need to consult Boeing. Boeing most likely performed floating tests on a flaperon. Again, if the flaperon did not float the Boeing/French would have spent zero time on the flaperon. Note: I would have been nice (smart) if Boeing had used sea water in the floating tests.

    Jeff, here is a question for Professor Griffiths: Is it possible that a flaperon or any object 6+feet underwater can have barnacles growing on it?

    Jeff, while you are at it you can ask the good professor if a tethered flaperon could grow barnacles on it. I am thinking that you will have to repeat the question a number of times. It may help to draw a picture!

    I would file Jay’s ‘maintenance seal’ under “gossip”. Remember Deep Throat? He said to follow the money. In this case we need to follow the information. We need to know the Who, When, How, etc., before we spend any time on the ‘maintenance seal. In other words, what is the provenance of the ‘maintenance seal’ information?

  36. I’ve read the article in French.

    This is what I take from it:

    1. The flaperon would not have floated on the surface for months but would have drifted while plunged or sunk between 2 water layers several meters deep
    2. Having ended up at Reunion Island, it corresponds to the marine currants relative to the current search area
    3. Les coquillages or shells or barnacles, are indigent to the SIO where plane is believe to have gone down
    4. The flaperon, being for the most part intact does not indicate a violent water impact

    The flaperon seems to fit a drift pattern if coming from current search area and shells seem to fit, but yet there is nothing physically on the flaperon that can positively link it to MH370. We wait I guess for an explanation of the maintenance records and what was not matched. Kind of a Catch 22 it seems.

  37. @VictorI – Thank you for your explanation. I think my errors were using linear interpolation between flight levels and using this formula (KTAS=KIAS+(KIASx.02xAltitude in feet/1000) as an absolute instead of an approximation.

    BTW, did you notice that Jeff used the word smithereens to describe the debris after a Mach 1.0 impact with the water? I propose that you define a “smithereen” as .01smoot x .01smoot. It should be OK with Jeff since, I believe, he went to school down the street from your alma mater.

  38. “In due course” means, in September, after summer vacation.

    I’ll bet that Dr. Griffith could tell you exactly how deep the Flaperon floated to establish its barnacle colony. If it were too deep or too shallow, they wouldn’t have attached to it. I would not be surprised to learn that the barnacles can regulate the buoyancy of the combination of themselves and their flaperon.

    This Flaperon appeared to have a combination of adults and juveniles. If true, the adults would have had to be on this Flaperon for more than 12 months.

  39. Lauren H: I doubt that other school up the river will acknowledge the usefulness of the smoot.

  40. Unable to pin it down – that was my reading of the silence all along.

    Joe T – in over twenty years of service how many flaperons have been manufactured? Do you have any reference for the Boeing global flaperon audit or is it assumed by you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.