To understand what the barnacles growing on the Reunion flaperon can tell us about its history in the ocean, it’s important to have other pieces of flotsam to compare it with. Earlier, I posted a picture of a boat that had drifted across the north Pacific for about the same length of time as has elapsed since the disappearance of MH370. The density of sea life was far higher. But perhaps that’s due to the fact that it was immersed in relatively nutrient-rich waters. A more useful comparison might be to debris that has drifted in the Indian Ocean.
In May of 2013 a LeisureCat Sportsfisher motorboat capsized in a storm off the northwestern coast of Australia and drifted out to sea. (Many thanks to @Matty for bringing this up in the comments section.) Eight months later, it washed up on the shores of Mayotte Island, off the coast of Madagascar, as seen above. To put it in context, it started drifting 1700 nautical miles northeast of the current search area, and wound up 800 nautical miles northwest of Reunion.
One striking difference with the Reunion flaperon is the presence of an obvious waterline, above which no marine growth is present. You can see the barnacles and algae more clearly in the picture below:
I wish the pictures were higher resolution, but they seem to show goose barnacles that are at a similar density and size as those on the flaperon, and much smaller and less dense than those in the tsunami debris photo.
Here are a couple more photos of the same boat:
Note that the stickers and lettering have remained in place.
To the naked eye the boat seems to have been at sea a lot longer than the flaperon. It also has a lot more barnacle concentration on the flat surfaces?
@Matty
flaperon surfaces
Maybe there is some chemical in the Boeing paint, that prohibits use of glycoproteinous substances which the Barnacles use for their attachment. Maybe someone here knows more about this chemical question?
ITs amazing how the painted surfaces act in fact like antifouling agents. I dont know about the paint but assume its resistant to many chemical influences like hydraulic liquid or fuel aerosoles or or some acids up there at 35,000 ft and highly anticorrosive.
The Goose Barnacles seemed to be distributed on many of the edges of the flaperon, plus a handful along holes in the topside skin but only near the outboard end. Could this mean, like the bow of the boat, the inboard end was above the water line too often for this type of Goose Barnacles to survive? The only picture I remember seeing of the underside of the flaperon was the one of the police loading it into a truck. I didn’t see any barnacles attached to the underside skin – only along the edges.
Note, it is hard to identify the Barnacles on the boat but they appear to be different from those on the flaperon. The drift model for the boat showed it passing to the south of Madagascar and then north to Mayotte Island (part of the Comoros group of islands of Ethiopian Air 961 fame). Could this mean that the flaperon circled Madagascar before landing on La Reunion?
@Bruce – The Goose Barnacles pictured in Wikipedia are Lepas Anatifera. Those on the flaperon have been identified as Lepas Anserifera Striata.
We can all speculate about barnacles, algae, anti-biofouling, nameplate adhesives, floating orientations, mechanical design considerations, structural failure modes, drift models, etc., until the cows come home, then argue amongst ourselves, cherry-picking whatever data might support our own pet theory.
For me, what is most important is that Boeing, NTSB, and BEA provide an update to their investigation of the flaperon. It was reported in Le Monde that there was a numbered part from a Spanish subcontractor that could definitively determine whether or not the recovered flaperon was from 9M-MRO. Claims that this determination has been delayed by a month due to vacation schedules is a specious excuse. A delay would have only occurred if the investigators allowed it to occur.
We should all demand full disclosure from the investigators. That includes official, on-the-record statements that provide clarity and are verifiable. Off-the-record statements that have been reported in the past only fuel additional speculation. For the past month, we have had a piece of hard evidence, and yet the facts remain fleeting.
Absolutely disgusting…
@ CosmicAcademy & all
Good Point.
Fascinating stuff as always, but to compare two vastly different vehicles is a stretch to me. One being water born & most likely designed to fend off such crippling creatures. While the other designed to fly at altitude over water not caring nor designed to care about barnacle infestation.
We see local police routinely collaborating with the public via TV and social media to find bad guys, the FBI reaching out to the public for help, but the air disaster investigators that hide behind Annex 13 as an excuse to hide everything from the public until they make a big report at the end is a horrible way to operate in 2015. They need fundamental change to Annex 13, and their misguided attitude. I suspect, with as many bright minds as we have looking at MH370 (but data starved) we could have found the plane in < 1 year if the authorities had collaborated with the public…at least the professionals that offered to help.
Please disregard the previous post. It was missing the lead sentance.
Victor is absolutely correct in all aspects of his very “eloquent rant”. I wish I knew a way to change the situation.
We see local police routinely collaborating with the public via TV and social media to find bad guys, the FBI reaching out to the public for help, but the air disaster investigators that hide behind Annex 13 as an excuse to hide everything from the public until they make a big report at the end is a horrible way to operate in 2015. They need fundamental change to Annex 13, and their misguided attitude. I suspect, with as many bright minds as we have looking at MH370 (but data starved) we could have found the plane in < 1 year if the authorities had collaborated with the public…at least the professionals that offered to help.
Hear, hear! Already last week I was of the opinion that until the flaperon was matched with certainty, all the drift modeling was an academic exercise. And how on earth can it be so difficult to match the part? And why is it that nobody seems to want to explain why it’s so difficult? Forget us. What about the families??
The manner in which this entire thing has gone down is just unfathomable.
Completely agree with Victor. And for the record, I could not possibly care less about analyzing the Marine Biology involved with this Flaperon. I just want to know why it’s taking so long for the French to come to conclusions.
@all
The delay is largely due to the holiday period in France. I have seen this numerous times myself. The French take their holidays very very seriously. I know it is maddening to other cultures, but that is just he way it is.
May as well sit back and chill. Nothing is going to expedite the process.
Jay – we are drawn into marine biology because the investigation – as usual – falls short in many ways. Remember for a moment that there has been nothing really official about the flaperon yet and they are in no rush and that is deliberate.
CosmicAcademy/Chris – a one off poster here with a maritime background recently stated he wished he knew what the flaperon was coated with as it’s “brilliant anti-fouling.” Until we could make a comparison there was no perspective – for me at least. Comparatively, it doesn’t really bear the signs of a 16 month odyssey – to me. Barnacles cost fuel and ships are out to make money.
On Victor’s view – there will be a reason why we are still treated as mushrooms and vacation won’t be it. Specious indeed.
At least we now have a BEA official speaking on the record regarding the provenance of the flaperon. That represents at least some progress:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/29/europe/mh370-part/
The Spanish sub-contractor? What would any normal owner of that firm do under the circumstances? Do they have right under their contract to simply put up the shutters and go fishing? I know Spain is very Spain but what about the client – Boeing.
I’m from Spain. It’s no so uncommon for small-sized companies to close the entire month of August. It’s smoldering hot and saves money. Call it an oddity for the time being, it’s part of our culture. Cerrado por vacaciones.
Still given the circumstances, I’m a little skeptic about that subcontractor being the main reason. I know very few people in my country would not sacrifice their vacation for such an important -and humanitarian- reason. It may very well be an scapegoat, so France could keep the Flaperon longer before rendering it to Malaysia.
The barnacles themselves might be sitting in jars in some French University by now and those scientists will be reporting to BEA exclusively for the time being I would presume? But has the control of information been tighter than anticipated?
This new story from CNN seems to support Iuzzaaul that it’ the Spanish company closed for vacation that’s delaying the final report:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/29/europe/mh370-part/index.html
It also makes it seem like their information will be conclusive in identifying whether or not the part belongs to MH370.
@lulazul
Even large firms in the US have adopted the practice of short shutdowns during holiday periods. It clears personal time off from the books at a time when employee productivity is low in any case. I was supportive of it.
During these periods key personnel were not required to catalog their whereabouts. It would be difficult to contact them if they elected to go somewhere away from their primary residence and were out of mobile phone coverage.
I don’t find the practice all that strange although the time periods in Europe tend to be quite a bit longer than in the US. Like you, I tend to believe the major delay is on the French side just based on prior experience.
Frankly, I find it surprising that an internal component would be uniquely traceable to what assembly it went into. Maybe. Certainly aircraft documentation is far more detailed than the part number trail associated with my BMW. Still, I would be surprised if this goes anywhere.
I owned a small company that manufactured containers for the DoD. We were low level in comparison to those who worked with aerospace parts. Our top level configuration had painted lot #, and the 100 internal parts all had lot traceability certs. Critical parts that go into airplanes or helicopters required inscribed information on each part and also retention of quality records. It doesn’t matter the temp outside, see Raytheon in blistering Tucson, we work in stable facilities with ISO and ANSI requirements performing on contracts that go year round. I can’t imagine the entire plant taking leave, just getting the machinery and dips and robots etc back up is expensive. And all of our records are electronic and key people are always accessible by cell. Must be a vastly different lifestyle in Spain.
I do find it amusing that many posters expressed relief that the part remained in French custody where presumably a “proper” investigation would be done as opposed to the rag-tag way the Malaysians seem to be going about things.
Well the Malays have confirmed that part came from 9M-MRO. Likewise the JACC has given strong assurances in that regard. In the meantime, the French are being relatively silent.
For my part, I am more interested in the damage forensics. My expectation is that we are still weeks away from those details – another week or so for the experts to return, a couple of weeks to poke and prod the part, and a week for the administrators to compose something.
Dennis – I’m familiar myself with the annual shutdown practice but it’s not a total down periscope in my case. Australia can be a pretty lethargic indifferent place too but you can’t slam the door on a big client? It would be unheard of. Would even need to open the office to deal with this one?
You make an excellent point about the families Matt. It is unconscionable and ludicrous that the families are subjected to the cruelty of this mockery of an investigation that somehow is suppose to be acceptable.
Victor is right about about initiating demand for full disclosure. 18 months have passed where complacency can start to settle with those that feel beaten down, hard to imagine how much worse it would be for the families without people advocating for them
The BEA may not be 100% certain that the flaperon is from MH370, but it does seem to know that the flaperon won’t shed any light on what happened.
(“Experts still haven’t determined the causes of the MH370 accident,” she said. “The flaperon isn’t enough. We need more.”)
Thank you for that fine forensic analysis, Mr. Bodine.
I suppose the Spanish subcontractor that would be able to link the serial number found on a detached part to the serial number of a particular flaperon assembly would be EADS-CASA, the manufacturer of the flaperon?
I would be very surprised to learn that a sub-contractor would know the which plane that any given flaperon will be mounted. I’ll guess that the sub-contractor has a blanket order for flaperons and ships x units per month to Boeing. Each flaperon will have a QA documentation package giving a serial number of the flaperon, serial numbers of critical parts, any non-conformance reports, and NDE results, if applicable. Boeing would have the responsibility of assigning a flaperon to a plane and maintaining traceability. A copy of the documentation packages for all components will then be shipped to the customer.
If that customer buys and installs any replacement parts, it would be the customer’s responsibility to maintain records of which part was installed on a given plane and when. Except for very specific components, I cannot believe the customer must notify Boeing of the installation details. Certain customers (not for B777s) have purchased and installed third party winglets without notifying Boeing, so why couldn’t they buy flaperons from third parties without notifying Boeing?
@Victor & ASLM,
I agree with everything you said, but in addition to trying to influence the official search team, I have found this blog to be very educational. Also, it’s like reading a mystery novel except no one knows how it ends.
To me, all of the various bits of information we seek regarding the flaperon will not tell us where to search but only confirmation that it came from 9M-MRO and therefore highly probable that the flight ended in the Indian Ocean. It won’t confirm or disprove the SIO versus CI locations.
We’re nearly at 100% that MH370 departed KL at 16:42Z, and maybe slightly less that it overflew IGARI. After that, without the flaperon, the probability that the radar returns and the ISAT data came from MH370 drops off.
@Lauren H:
The missing link in the chain of documentation is the serial number of the flaperon assembly, because the ID plate that had it is missing.
The manufacturer of the flaperon may be able to trace it from the serial number of a part that was installed on the flaperon.
@Lauren, Thanks for that insight. I think that the story about the Spanish subcontractor going on vacation is doubly suspect given that multiple sources (including the ATSB) tell us that the French have already completed their technical investigation.
@Jeff
Yes. “Completed” and “waiting for info” would seem to be incompatible. Maybe we are over thinking this thing, or maybe the reporting parties are just being careless with their choice of words. It just goes on and on. Maddening to be sure. Here comes the ulcer again.
I’m not sure I understand the etiquette of commenting on the threads on this blog. Some go to the latest while others will go to an older thread in order to stick to the subject matter. Anyway, commenter “Velocity” posted this link on his Aug. 29 comment to the “How Did the Reunion Flaperon Float?”showing debris spotted in March 2014 that looks a lot like a flaperon.
http://abcnews.go.com/beta/International/malaysia-airlines-search-shifted-quickly-spots-objects/story?id=23094190
Lauren,
Thanks for re-posting that. That’s very interesting, and to my untrained eye looks very similar to the flaperon in terms of shape. Size it tough to tell because there’s no scale, but roughly looking at it, it looks around the correct order of magnitude. I wonder if somebody could isolate and blow up that picture, maybe clean it up a bit, and put it next to the washed up Flaperon and see if there are any identifying features we can match.
This piece of debris mentioned in the Match 2014 article was found about 1000 miles North of the current search area. Consistent with what a lot of drift models are saying regarding the Flaperon that washed up on Reunion.
yupp, but for some reason anything northern than current search area seems to be a taboo for ATSB officials…
i think we ought to cut the ATSB a little slack they aren’t a bunch of dummies…personally if you were to ask me….i think they’re getting closer …little by little…..( shuddup george….nobody’s asking you…..)
The newscycle kicks in – http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/holidays-more-important-than-solving-mh370-mystery/story-fnizu68q-1227505301402?sv=1513543700f8a96cf2b541cb7f26cd4f
And I’m willing to predict that the marine biology evidence will only be presented if it supports the dominant narrative. That bit could go quiet which will be an interesting situation for the institutions involved.
Lauren, Velocity, Jay.
On 28th March a large area, about 440km x 760km, was tasked to 5 aircraft. They each covered a separate swath but I’d estimate they flew less than a half of the tasking.
The image of the flaperon-like object was captured by a RNZAF P-3 Orion. If anyone can identify which of the five swaths was flown by the RNZAF Orion that might be useful.
The AMSA map prepared on 29th shows the actual area covered on 28th.
The swaths are between 190nm and 475nm N-NE of where Fugro Discovery is loitering at the moment.
:Don
On Twitter, le Monde reporter Florence de Changy says: I can’t confirm name of Spanish subcontractor. Delay also related to judicial enquiry. A lot of red tape.
So perhaps blaming the delay on the subcontractor truly is a specious excuse, as suspected.
So the BEA and the judge-prosecutor are delaying the release of what is currently known about the flaperon and also deliberately planting a seed of doubt about its provenance. We can only guess why.
Highest res image I could find of that floating rectangle http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Australia-Malaysia-Pl_sham-7.jpg
Victor – it keeps pointing to some inconvenient findings? If you are about to come out against the flow and stake your prestige and credibility you would need to make sure of it? It would set off a media storm and keep BEA in the hairs for years to come – depending on what transpires with the search.
@Matty – Perth and @All
[@Jeff – As Lauren H said, its unclear where to post items now that we have several current threads, could you please clarify]
This (from the news.com.au article link Matty posted – thanks for that) is very telling (if true): “Australian aviation expert Neil Hansford said relations between Malaysia and France were strained as a result of a criminal investigation into MH370 being conducted by the French.
“This is tit for tat — the Malaysians won’t give vital evidence to France, they won’t cooperate,” said Mr Hansford.”
I agree that there appears to be a dominant narrative, perhaps jointly directed by Australia, Malaysia and US? And, as I have commented before, there appears to be a continuing string of reactions to widespread criticisms of the search with the latest being the addition of new sonar equipment.
FWIW my current thoughts on this are a mixture of
a) Even if the French announce that the flaperon came from MH370/9M-MRO it can’t help to either confirm the current search area or provide sufficient information to move it.
b) Especially if the French announce “Non” then its a horrible outcome for the NoK. Surely time for ICAO to assert some influence on the search management.
c) Maybe this was a terrorist plot which has been foiled and we are better off not knowing…
d) Still hoping, despite the frustrations, for a good outcome with the plane found within 6 mths.
@Matty – Perth: That is one of many possibilities. It’s also possible that the BEA is almost sure the flaperon is from 9M-MRO but for legal reasons they prefer to not make that determination official. Whatever the reason, it certainly appears that the seed of doubt was deliberately planted.
Victor/AM2 – as I recall it anyway the French got shut out in the beginning so belatedly they get a stake in proceedings with the Reunion find. Could it just be stage management? We got the ball – we’re going to twirl it for a while?
I’m leaning to the sensitive nature of the findings – atm anyway.
@Don and others – in my opinion, the image of the white parallelogram on blue ocean is too close to square to be the flaperon in question. It could be a flaperon, but if it’s the one that showed up at Reunion, it’s before the trailing edge was broken off, which would seemingly complicate things a bit.
Unscientific, of course, but I’m curious to hear from anyone that thinks the aspect ratio of the piece in the picture, accounting for skew, is close to the piece in Reunion. I don’t see it.
Hi all ..posting for reference.. Highest res image that I can find of that rectangle object.
http://tinyurl.com/nd9wo75
Jinow,
Thanks for that image, it puts the RNZAF Orion in the most southern swath on 28th Mar at approx S32º30′, straddling the 7th arc.
I take JS’ point on the apparent shape, however, it’d be good to pursue this.
:Don
Have just read another newspaper article of interest (from link posted by gwennyfar on Reddit – thanks)
http://www.courrierdesyvelines.fr/2015/08/28/disparition-du-vol-mh-370-«depuis-le-debut-on-nous-cache-la-verite»/
Strangely, this trio of countries is mentioned by Ghyslain Wattrelos (one of the French NoK): “la Malaisie, l’Angleterre et les États-Unis”
[completely off the point but its high time Australia became a republic IMO :-)]
@JS, I agree that the floating white parallelogram doesn’t match the Reunion flaperon–unless one edge was somehow broken/munched off LATER. The straight, smooth, symmetrical sides are very different from the asymmetrical, jagged-edged flaperon. This photo shows it very clearly:
http://www.ipreunion.com/thumb/source/jpg/0170663001438327594/w650-h365-q100-cc/debris-d-avion.jpg
The rectangle shape … I guess just yet another possibility is the other flaperon could have become a floater..
Forgive me for commenting off-topic, but there was a development this month other than the flaperon I think may be even more important but has been far less discussed.
If your eyes glaze over at the length of this comment, the Seattle Times has a good summary of what I’m talking about.
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/fire-on-grounded-787-would-have-been-tough-to-put-out-mid-flight/
On August 19, the AAIB issued its report on July 2013 Ethiopian Airlines 787 ELT lithium battery fire at Heathrow (“ET-AOP”).
http://www.jacdec.de/2015/08/19/3644/
MH370 had the same kind of ELT (Honeywell RESCU 406AFN).
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/25/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-beacons/
The report states that “trapped wires” led to a slow burning fire in the crown of the fuselage:
“The trapped battery wires compromised the environmental seal between the battery cover-plate and the ELT, providing a path for flames and battery decomposition products to escape from the ELT. The flames directly impinged on the surrounding thermo-acoustic insulation blankets and on the composite aircraft structure in the immediate vicinity of the ELT. This elevated the temperature in the fuselage crown to the point where the resin in the composite material began to decompose, providing further fuel for the fire. As a result of this a slow-burning fire became established in the fuselage crown, which continued to propagate from the ELT location at a slow-rate, even after the energy from the battery thermal runaway was exhausted.”
ELT inspections for trapped wires and other potential problems were done as a result of ET-AOP; whether MH370 was so inspected is unknown to me, though I may have missed it in the Factual Information.
“Following the ET-AOP incident in July 2013, all in-service RESCU 406AF AFN ELTs were subject to a mandatory one-time inspection as a result of Airworthiness Directives . . . . As of August 2014 a total of 35 ELTs had been identified with trapped wires.” (P.90).
Modifications to prevent this problem from recurring were implemented two months after MH370 disappeared.
“Honeywell modified the battery orientation within the ELT on all new RESCU 406AFN production units. This modification, effective May 2014, and also incorporated on all replacement ELT batteries, routed the wires underneath the battery, thereby preventing the possibility of the wires becoming trapped under the battery cover-plate.” (P.103).
(The certification process did not consider this issue. On P. 129, the report notes that, “no consideration was given to the effect of a cascading thermal runaway of the ELT battery on the safety of the aircraft and its occupants. This aspect is not unique to the B787 certification process as the RESCU 406AFN, and other similar equipment using lithium-metal batteries, are installed on multiple aircraft types.”)
The fire occurred while the plane was on the ground at Heathrow. A model predicted that the fire would have been less severe in-flight, and even during the climb out:
“The thermal modelling showed the strong effects of external cooling, which
would be present during flight conditions, in mitigating the extent and intensity
of the fire in the composite structure after the initial ELT fire was exhausted.
. . . .
During the climb and descent portions
of flight, conduction and convection heat loss conditions, although different from
those at cruise altitude, would also reduce the potential for fire propagation.” (P.133).
A Boeing in-flight model nevertheless predicted that such a fire might cause depressurization. “Boeing’s structural loads modelling, based on the predicted damage from the thermal modelling of an in-flight ELT fire, predicted that the fuselage would remain capable of carrying flight loads but might experience a depressurisation if the damage were extensive.” (P.139).
The report also notes that written crew instructions in this situation are to attempt to land and remove power from the point of ignition. “In the event of a cabin fire the flight crew would action the ‘Smoke, Fire or Fumes’ checklist from the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH). This includes the possibility of initiating a diversion and if directed, action the ‘Smoke or Fumes Removal’ checklist. The objective of the ‘Smoke, Fire or Fumes’ checklist is to remove electrical power from the ignition source and if required, to land the aircraft as soon as possible. However, the ELT is independent of the aircraft’s electrical network and, in the event of an ELT battery fire, the checklist actions related to removing electrical power from the ignition source will be ineffective.” (P.42).
Is it possible that the MH370 crew followed these instructions? It seems to me that the sharp turn is consistent with an intent to land, and, the possible loss of power to communication equipment might reflect increasingly desperate attempts to control the fire’s ignition source that were doomed because of the (hypothetical) source of the fire.
@Bruce, the possibility of an in-flight fire is certainly something that people have considered since the beginning, but once one looks at the details of the case it becomes difficult to imagine any kind of accident scenario. I won’t enumerate the problems with an accident scenario here, but suffice to say no one has ever managed to make a detailed case for one. (Although if you or anyone else would like to give it a shot I’d be happy to publish it here as I did the theories of Victor Iannello and Kent Smerdon: http://wp.me/p14cXv-RF.)
I highly doubt that the white floating rectangle from the is a flaperon. The proportions don’t seem to be quite right, it seems to be too large and this doesn’t look like plane crash debris at all. It doesn’t look like a damaged piece which broke off from another larger object.
I agree with Victor that the French investigators planted a seed of doubt deliberately about the flaperon’s origins for whatever purposes. Why did these articles from Le Monde and La Depeche come out at all? Apart from those cryptic hints to the flap’s potentially strange submerged floating behaviour and a possible avenue to identify the piece’s origins through the subcontractors those articles didn’t come up with anything certain. Why then not simply wait for definite answers instead of leaking unconfirmed tidbits to the press?
This hints to some strife or power play going on behind the scenes. Personally I think -whether the flap is from the missing plane or not – the French want to get as much forensic mileage out of the piece as possible because they don’t trust Malaysia and maybe other affiliates are willing to conduct an honest investigation. Did they notice something seriously off with this piece of debris, maybe connected to it’s marine growth pattern, damage, floating abilities or the circumstances of it’s discovery at La Reunion’s beach? Who knows? We won’t likely hear about it for now because it will be part of the criminal investigation the French are apparently conducting.