By Victor Iannello
Don’t be fooled by claims of the red tape causing the delay in the determination of the provenance of the flaperon.
Boeing and the NTSB were parties to the investigation when the flaperon was first brought to Toulouse. It is very unlikely that the Spanish subcontractor ADS-SAU did not immediately turn over all documentation when requested by Boeing. The investigators had to know soon after the start of the investigation what the provenance of the part is, whether or not that determination was made public.
I have said before and continue to believe that there was an attempt to delay the release of the results of the investigation in parallel with planting a seed of doubt regarding the provenance of the part. Just look at the series of events this week. First the claim that Spanish vacation schedules have delayed the identification of the part. Then the claim that the identification was not possible. This was followed by the claim that the flaperon was certainly from MH370.
The pattern of leaking contradictory or false information to the media from off-the-record sources continued in full force this week. I believe this is a story in its own right that should be getting a lot of attention. Perhaps when enough journalists are made to look foolish by reporting contradicting statements, their “reputation instincts” will kick in and compel them to dig deeper.
We who are following this incident should demand that more facts be fully disclosed. Technical reports should be released so that we are not parsing statements from a judge-prosecutor to understand the true meaning of what was written. And journalists should not blindly report statements without attribution.
@Victor
There are many posters here who are conspiracy theorists. I will not name names. I have zero tolerance for that line of thinking.
Not using news stories is a part of my personal ethic. People earn degrees for a reason, and I respect that. Credentialed reports are significant relative to the credentials of the reporting party. Journalists just have to generate something interesting whether or not it is true.
@AM2
I feel sorry for you.
@DennisW
“Journalists just have to generate something interesting whether or not it is true.”
I hope you just discovered core problem. This is it – not always, but too often.
(my zero tolerance for conspiracist is the same as yours)
@Dennis
What?? I am even somewhat supportive of your CI theory. Just trying to use logic to rule in or rule out the many remaining options.
@Oleksandr,
You mention white balance. Can you adjust any combination of 1) the Reunion pics with 2) stock pics of 9M-MRO so that the color of the flaperon matches between both pictures, without making the surrounding objects out of color? I can’t.
Considering that most of the stock photos and most of the Reunion photos are taken in bright sunlight, I simply don’t see a white balance setting as a factor.
I don’t have an alternative theory. The best I can come up with is that the water or extreme friction lightened the paint without removing it. But admittedly both are far fetched.
I join others in suggesting that the color mismatch remains unexplained and significant.
@RetiredF4 From your post: September 4, 2015 at 3:56 PM & September 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM.
Hurray! Someone else has noticed the colour of this Reunion Flaperon appears different to what it should be. I posted an image on Facebook a couple of weeks ago pointing the anomaly out and got shouted down.
I have 10 x fairly hi-definition images of the flaperon – and in 8 they look a very light shade of blue. The other two look to be a cream. None look to be grey as per MAS colours. I realise that normally the wings retain the standard Boeing colours and only the fuselage is painted in the Airline’s colour scheme, but have a look at this image that shows a clear definition between colours underneath 9M-MRO http://m.airliners.net/photo/detail/id/1924309 Maybe it’s a trick of light… I don’t know, but until any of the posters on this site actually see the real item, I think they need to keep an open mind on this one?
I’m not prepared to say exactly what colour the Reunion one is, but it needs to be kept in mind….
Remember the “What color is the dress?” controversy from last February? Is it black and blue or white and gold? The perceived color of a photographed object as viewed on a computer screen can vary a lot.
@DennisW
I assure you, I am not one of these ‘conspiracy theorists’ you speak of, but I have found over the years that it pays to keep an open mind. Everyone has something to put into the discussion and who knows… dare I say it… they may be right!
The travesty is when someone closes their mind, believes they know it all, and shouts other people down that have differing ideas to their own!
I don’t know whether you are actually guilty of this, but over the time I have observed these discussions, I’ve certainly got the impression you are?
Lighten up man, and stop trying to chase everyone away!!! Your negative comments of people that differ to your ideas are not appreciated!
@Dave Reed
Yes, I realise this, but when you see both colours in the same image as the link I posted above?
Here it is again: http://m.airliners.net/photo/detail/id/1924309
@Dave Reed,
The dress was not surrounded by reference points like green grass or blue sky or a fuselage with grey, white, blue and red.
My challenge remains the same – adjust both a Reunion image and a stock photo image so the “gray” from the stock images and the “white” from the Reunion images match. You will either make the beach look moonlit or the stock photos look washed out.
That said, it’s quite possible that abrasion would whiten a painted part. Using fine sandpaper on even black paint results in a fine white dust. So If the part truly is the wrong color, I’m leaning towards abrasion as the culprit.
Gysbreght – Strictly speaking for myself, you seem to sidestep the question Victor has posed.
He says:do you think it is possible that the French authorities would arrange a meeting between the NOK, the French anti-terrorist judge, and a commissioned aeronautical expert, and then have the expert express a personal opinion that is not in concert with the results of the official investigation? Wouldn’t that be cruel and confusing to the NOK?”
You say: I have no doubt that both will have made it clear to the NoK that the investigation is ongoing and all information they give is to the best of their knowledge, must be considered as preliminary, and does not exclude or dismiss other possibilities.
In my mind at least to introduce the idea of a twisted flaperon, attributable to a ditch, in that setting would be a monstrous misdeed if it was not anchored in the substance of the investigation.
A ditch would be a bombshell. It would mean our data interpretation is all over the place and the assumptions are faulty. And I can see why some people are virulently against even contemplating it. If that was indeed said(twisted flaperon) it’s jaw-dropping.
As you probably guessed, I have been one of the biggest sceptics around when it comes to this Reunion flaperon, and one of my posts (Sept 3, 2015 at 11.42 PM) I asked this question:
@Dave
I’d say the motor would have no option but to pivot up backwards and smack into the flaperon, but if that were the case, where is the damage underneath the flaperon?
There is damage on top, which has really puzzled me.
If it came off in flight, it could well have hit the tail of the plane in the process, and this could well explain the the damage on the leading edge, but there also appears to be a puncture through the top skin just behind the front spar as though it hit something hard and small. From this puncture, you can see a fairly long split curving out and then along parallel to the spar towards the outer end, and also three slashes in the top surface as though a sharp object has cut into the top layer peeling the upper layer of the honeycombed skin back.
I just can’t see anything on the tail of a 777 that could do this.
Anyone got any suggestions?
After the recent revelation by the French saying words to the effect of it being a “Twisted flaperon”, I would now have to concede that this flaperon IS off 9M-MRO!
I’m not sure how many hydraulic rams operated this flaperon as in the images I have only shows one, yet the cut out on the leading edge above the outboard hinge suggests that maybe there was two? Does anyone know?
Anyway, even if there was two there is still an explanation that fits to explain this – it’s just easier to explain if there was only one on the inboard hinge.
The answer is simple to explain this damage in that if this flaperon did hit the water with only the inboard ram holding it in the down position, then it would most certainly twist the structure and that would then explain the ‘dent’ in the leading edge (collapsing downwards of the aluminium), the slash/split across the top and the split in the honeycombed surface underneath near the outer rib. This damage simply could not happen from flutter. The apparent peeling back of the top honeycombed upper skin could be also explained by the force of the water smashing the “Cove Lip Door” into it as it was departing. Of course the trailing edge has broken away at the rear spar along the weak point – ‘dotted line’ caused by riveting, and the way it has broken away from the upper skin is consistent with the way composites break.
I have racked and racked my brains for any other explanation and I cannot come up with one… hence my belief that MH370 did in fact come down in the water, as there is no other explanation that I can see that could explain this damage…. Sure someone could try to build a scenario that somehow someone managed to substitute a flaperon by subjecting it to this sort of punishment and conveniently had it wash up on Reunion, but that would be a real stretch of the imagination!
So I now agree that it had to come down into the sea in a controlled ditching and as Matty said, “It’s jaw dropping” as now there are going to be some real interesting explanations to some of the crazy ‘last minutes of the flight’ scenarios that many of the ‘experts’ have tried to feed us.
Does this mean I now think it is in the SIO? Maybe… but if it is where they are looking it will be a real long shot, based on what they seem to have overlooked in their own evidence, but that is another story for another day.
Ever since june 2014 I’ve pointed to the arbitrariness of assuming an ‘unresponsive’ crew after fuel exhaustion or (even worse) the absence of control inputs after the second major turn South (naming it “Final” is part of that misinformation). The flutter theory rests entirely on that same misinterpretation of the available facts. Statements that a ditching in the ocean is impossible are a demonstration of ignorance.
This draws the question that for the flaps and flaperon to have been extended, shows that someone was still in control of the aeroplane at the end and was trying to make the impact survivable. The Autopilot cannot perform this function…
@Gavin,
The flaperon is controlled by two hydraulic rams, one on each side. Why do you dismiss flutter so lightly. The failure indications on the flaperon would fit this possibility very well.
@Gysbreght,
An unresponsive crew after about 18.28 is one possibility. The others are just as arbitrary. Flutter (of the flaperon alone) is a distinct possibility, and does indeed fit the available facts. A controlled ditching would cause significant damage and break a lot more things off, like the inboard flaps, and the engines. A controlled ditching with no fuel, engines out and minimal hydraulic power. Really?
@Dennis
I’m not going into this “personal” fight with you for no reason. But it is noted though.
@all
Here is a pic of another MAS 9M-MRH in the “visit Malaysia 2007” livery with the leading and trailing edge part of the wings painted in very light grey. This nearly white paint was on the top as well. It also shows the difference between the two colors..
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Malaysia_Airlines_Boeing_777-2H6ER,_9M-MRH@ZRH,28.01.2007-449bf_-_Flickr_-_Aero_Icarus.jpg
I do not know wether 9M-MRO once sported this paint as well. If the repaint was done with not enough care then it could be, that the exposure to salt water washed the grey off and the very light grey remained.
@Flitzer-Flyer
The reason I dismiss flutter so lightly is obviously due to the damage to the flaperon.
These composite carbon fibre controls are extremely strong and the hinges and ram attachment points would give up long before the carbon fibre structure would.
If the flaperon came off due to flutter, there would be no damage on the top of it as per what is there. As I’ve said, yes, the flaperon hitting the tail could explain the dent in the leading edge but not the other damage.
To be honest, I just can’t see a 777 getting up to enough speed in a dive, especially when it is out of fuel, for a flaperon to get flutter. Maybe if it still had fuel, the pilot pushed the throttles hard forward and pointed it at the ground?
“Maybe if it still had fuel, the pilot pushed the throttles hard forward and pointed it at the ground?”
such an impact would produce a huge debris field that wouldn’t be missed
@Gavin,
Have you watched any videos or read any papers concerning aeroelastic flutter? The maximum bending moment of the flaperon, in flutter, would occur right along the fastenings of the rear spar. Don’t underestimate the severity or the speed of the flutter.
Damage to the top is more likely he result of beaching at Reunion. The sim tests done by ALSM show speeds in excess of 550 knots indicated during spiral dives. Doesn’t need someone in control.
The printed journal, Edition Weekend, of Le Monde today carried Florence de Changy’s piece with a few minor corrections relative to the latest Internet version dated 4 september.
@Gavin
A flaperon construction with the weakest point being the attachement to the aircraft would be a safety hazard. Imagine the whole part coming off due to excessive airloads, damaging hydraulic lines and hitting the tail could bring down the whole aircraft. To migitate this risk the attachement has to be the strongest part and the part itself has to be weaker. The damage to the trailing edge like we see here would reduce the loads on the structure and thus minimize the risk that the whole part comes off.
That is another point if my list. Look at the picture below of the Asiana B777 SFO crash. None of the trailing edge flight control surfaces stayed with the left wing, except the flaperon. Although badly damaged it is still there on the wing after such a crash.
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/07/08/1226675/741163-us-boeing-777-crashes-at-san-francisco-airport.jpg
Flutter is a different thing. As some knowledge person had explained to me once, the forces act simultaneously on all parts and in more than one direction. This weakens the material gradually and might damage the hinges and support structures as well as the flaperon itself up to the point, when simultaneous failures occur.
@Flitzer-Flyer
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying it can’t happen (flutter). I know it does nasty things, but in this case I don’t think this is what happened.
If you can prove my thoughts wrong… great!
I’m happy to be wrong…
It’s finding the truth that matters.
If you have a close look at the photos of the flaperon, you’ll see all the scratches caused by the beaching on the rocky shore on the bottom of the flaperon.. not the top. At least a 1/4 of the top has barnacles on it and these would have been ground or knocked off by the wave action sliding it back and forth over the ground if it had beached that way up.
@RetiredF4
Point taken, although I don’t think a flaperon is designed that way. It is designed to be strong enough for none of it to break away. If a flaperon was extended and hit something as hard as water at speed, then everything is going to go – doesn’t matter how well it is designed.
Unfortunately there was a problem where this front linkage was not up to scratch and there was an AD put out Jan 2006 for remedial work and periodical inspections to ensure that the flaperon did not become detached from it’s linkage to the PCU and depart the aircraft. The only way I could imagine that this flaperon would come off in flight was if this maintenance was overlooked, then if the a/c did go into a dive, I could understand it coming off as a combination of the extra speed (which wouldn’t need much more) and the faulty maintenance.
@ gavin
you stated – “To be honest, I just can’t see a 777 getting up to enough speed in a dive, especially when it is out of fuel, for a flaperon to get flutter. Maybe if it still had fuel, the pilot pushed the throttles hard forward and pointed it at the ground?”
I can’t imagine a 777 free falling from 30,000 ft picking up speed unless it had gas. Your hilarious
@Anthony
Read it in the context. Enough speed to get flutter. Sure it will come down in a hurry, but with the design of the 777, I would imagine it would be near to the speed of sound to get flutter…. but then again, who would know? I’m sure they have never had flutter in a B777 to know?
Gavin: Actually, it is known. Flutter in a B777 can start around 0.96. It is tested as part of the certification process (for all aircraft). I can’t find the paper now, but will look.
@all
Sooner or later everyone “snaps”. For me it was yesterday.
The Malays confirmed the flaperon came from 9M-MRO. The JACC made a strong collaborating statement. Now the BEA, a highly respected forensic organization, has confirmed the flaperon came 9M-MRO. These are all people who have touched and breathed on the part. None of us have anything but pictures to base our opinion on. It is truly inconceivable to me that people would still be raising doubts about the origin of this component.
Having an open mind is one thing, quibbling over whether a picture of the recovered flaperon can be used to question the integrity of the people who actually have the part and the qualifications to determine its authenticity is truly bizarre.
You may as well say that the JACC, Malaysia, and the French are choreographing a conspiracy for some as yet to be determined reason. Of course, Boeing and the NTSB are complicit by their silence.
Some facts from the LeMonde article of Sep 4 by Florence de Changy “Le flaperon retrouvé à La Réunion appartient bien au Boeing 777 du vol MH370”
– the flaperon does indeed belong to MH370
– An antiterroriste judge is in charge of the French investigation.
– A technical expert affirms that the ‘samples’ taken thus far cannot the answer the question of whether there were traces of explosives
– The technical expert also affirms the manner in which the flaperon was ‘twisted’ suggests a ‘water landing’ rather than a ‘crash’.
– The analysis of the barnacles suggest 2 things: first, the flaperon was in the sea for ‘at least one year’; second, the flaperon came from tropical or temperate waters because these barnacles don’t survive below 18 deg. Celcius.
– flotation studies of the flaperon confirm that it floats lightly just below the surface of the sea
– these observations permit the refinement of the drift model for the flaperon
– these observations have made 2 German scientific groups suggest that the search zone for the aircraft should be much further north than the current search zone
Light relief: most of first heard of barnacles from him: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/122019471124116519/
The information from the Sept.4 article by de Changy in Lemonde suggests the following:
– MH370 was diverted and ‘landed’ in the waters of the SIO in a controlled manner by conscious perpetrator(s)
– the investigation has moved beyond a simple crash investigation, and to an antiterrorist investigation,
– this in turn suggests that the identities and motives of the perpetrators have come to play a crucial role in the investigation
– the perpetrators were on the plane, so the background and state of mind of all those on board will have to be examined once again
– the pilot and crew as well as most of the passengers can be exonerated based on what has been learnt of them so far
– the few remaining passengers of whom we know little or nothing will become the prime suspects of this investigation
The article printed in the September 5 edition of Le Monde puts it more positively: The expert declared that no trace of explosives has been found.
The parquet de Paris has appointed three “juges d’instruction” to look into various possible charges of criminal acts. The antiterrorist judge is one of the three. The article does not suggest that you can draw any conclusion from the fact that he travelled to Seville on wednesday and received the NoK on thursday. It may have been a matter of convenience and availability.
@Dennis
Your tone at times tends to be egotistically aggressive and condescending. This illustration of disputing the flaperon connection is spot on for anyone still on the fence. Thank you for the effective simplicity
Cliffg, thanks for your contribution
Dennisw, i agree 100%. It is shocking to see guys like Wise and Iannello becoming conspiracy theorists.
Alleged fact: “The technical expert also affirms the manner in which the flaperon was ‘twisted’ suggests a ‘water landing’ rather than a ‘crash’.”
Of course, you read another article and get the opposite information:
http://rmc.bfmtv.com/emission/vol-mh370-un-debris-c-est-bien-mais-un-debris-c-est-louche-912142.html
“L’expert nous dit que ce débris est tordu, donc il y a eu vraisemblablement un crash”
My very rough translation: “The expert told us that the debris is twisted, therefore it was in all likelihood a crash”
sk999:
If you listen to that remark in its context, it does not contradict the Le Monde article.
IR907: What exact conspiracy did I promote?
There have been a series of stories with inaccurate facts from unnamed sources. Even the journalists acknowledge that is true. I questioned whether the French knew about the provenance of the part earlier than their public statement. I have no reason to question the French conclusion that the part is from MH370. I have requested that the technical details of the investigation be published so there is clarity and the facts are not misunderstood relative to the failure mode of the flaperon and the barnacles.
Does that make me a conspiracy theorist in your mind?
@Victorl
re: IR1907
Your valuable contribution time is wasted responding to this clearly nonsensical and unsubstantiated statement served as bait.
Iannello,
Do you realize that the French investigation team are NOT obliged to share the investigation process with the public ? The fact that the media is speculating has nothing to do with the French they have actually been very professional and refrained from commenting before their ”Identification analysis” was complete. Now that it is complete you are accusing the French of falsely spreading information… calling it ”disinformation”.
No sir, there is no disinformation going on, the point is that we are dealing with aviations greatest mystery ever and there will be shortcomings but when decisions are made they will be done professionally like the French have demonstrated. And like i said the French have no obligations to share every single detail with the public while the investigation is still going on.
Crowe,
You have no right calling my justified criticism as ”bait”. I am trying to find out why educated guys like Iannello are thinking that they have been ”fooled” by the French.
I just cant expect such behaviour from educated folks so i have to ask what makes them think like that.
And Btw, no one asked you to jump in and comment on a conversation that has nothing to do with you.
Thanks.
May I remind some posters who are going a bit overboard here, that a conspiracy is a plot hatched by two or more people to dupe one or more other people. Happens everyday. There’s the benign version like surprise birthday parties and there are less benign versions like the Watergate Scandal or at worst 9/11. Unfortunately the human mind seems to be uniquely well equipped for lying, betraying, duping – although I’ve heard even chimps are endulging in conspiracies.
So, developing scenarios which include elements of a conspiracy maybe just common sense. It all depends on the presented arguments and how valid they are. They should be judged by their plausibility like any other theory. Just wielding the conspiracy axe might well suggest that someone has run dry of good arguments and just tries to wiesel out of a discussion.
IR1907, you display all the symptoms of someone who has run dry of good arguments or isn’t even interested in a fruitful conversation in the first place.
If so, this blog might not be the right place for you.
@IR1907, I should correct myself slightly. Maybe you are interested in a fruitful discussion but your tone isn’t conductive or suggests otherwise.
Victor is one of the most reasonable and intelligent commenters here. If you present valid arguments I’m sure you will receive well reasoned answers.
littlefoot,
I am not interested in nonesense. I asked Iannello why he believes that he is getting fooled by the French. Thats it.
@IR107, if you want to know why Victor thimks we were getting fooled you are indeed not interested in nonsense. It’s a valid and important question 😉
I think Victor has layed out his arguments already. So, it’s up to him if he want to engage in a conversation with you.
When the smoke clears, I expect to find that the flaperon was definitely from 370, it separated in-flight at an altitude low enough to have generated a high speed following fuel exhaustion, but still high enough to decelerate to a flaperon terminal velocity before impact, around 80 mph. Thus, it fell into the SIO close to the 7th arc, probably between S32 and S39. If someone was in control, the plane could be up to ~80NM from the 7th arc, but it is much more likely that no-one was in control after fuel exhaustion, and the plane went into a left turn following fuel exhaustion, the bank angle and speed became extreme, and the impact came only 6-8 minutes after fuel exhaustion, circa 00:22.
The jury is still out on the time and place of the flaperon separation, but I believe there is a good chance it separated about a minute before the fuselage hit the water. Perhaps the steep descent produced speeds high enough to cause the right flaperon to separate first at the actuator attachment points (wasn’t there an AD?), remaining attached only by the hinges. Once “untethered”, the flutter speed would go way down, the TE fails first, followed by what remained, separating from the hinges.
It is important to note that the flaperon scenario is consistent with the Inmarsat data driven descent model, the simulator results, and B777-200 pilot testimony, but none of these prove the other. OTOH, I don’t believe such coincidences occur very often in nature. Neither does ATSB.
@IR907: First, show some politeness by not referring to commenters by their last names. I can’t do the same to you because you cowardly hide behind a nick.
Read my comments. I never said the French conclusions regarding the flaperon were wrong. I am lamenting that journalists are publishing stories with wrong information from unnamed French sources that are close to the investigation. There are journalists reporting on this incident that are in agreement with me. Those include Miles O’Brien, Ben Sandilands, and Marnie O’Neill, not to mention Jeff Wise.
First there were stories that no numbers could be read from the flaperon. Then stories that the numbers could be read but could not be traced because the French subcontractor was on vacation. Then a story that the subcontractor came back from vacation but it was nonetheless impossible to trace the part. Then the story that the flaperon was definitely from MH370. This chronology of reporting is factual.
Either you have a cognitive disability or you are not interested in substantive dialogue. In either case, I am done with you.
@IR1907
Will you please provide the quote from either Jeff or Victor stating being “fooled” by the French as you did put this within quotations. “And Btw” you did not “ask what makes them think like that”, you made a sarcastic accusation.
Victor….Iannello,
Maybe you live in a other universe but here on earth we call our friends and relatives by their first name. It is actually very impolite if i start calling you by your first name, you are not my buddy or relative, are you ? Or do we know each other ?
Anyway, starting your point by ”First there were stories” followed with ”Then” s it became immediately clear to me that you have comprehension problem and the fact that you can not seperate rumours from facts is your problem, not the French or even the journalists.
I think you are a bit confused.
Crowe,
I am done with this conversation.
Have a nice day.