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.
At 210 t VREF30 is 139 kIAS.
@Victorl + Gysbreght
Here is the flap load relieve schedule for the B777 -200 ER
http://i.stack.imgur.com/lIGvV.png
Have people read …
http://thehuntformh370.info/content/was-disappearance-mh370-cia-false-flag-operation
Sugggest you don’t junk it until you’ve read it all.
JohnV – It’s seemingly never been treated as a simple plane crash, the posture of the US has puzzled me sometimes, the French got shut out early(now look at em), and we were very quickly dependent on drone technology. And my gut feeling always was that this plane wanted to go west and that the rebooted data wasn’t real, or wasn’t MH370 – pure hunch.
It didn’t get me any kudos but I was tantalized by the Maldive thing. It fell outside the time envelope it was pointed out but my thinking was an aircraft disposal scenario. Maybe one that deliberately implicated the Maldivian/Islamist elements into any investigation or media narrative. In other words it was there to be seen and it was. And before people get offended I have no strong convictions here.
And no word from the French…..
And Malaysia is the funnel for stolen technologies headed for Iran/China/assorted Islamist groups.
An aircraft full of people: it’s hard to say it isn’t it, “aircraft disposal scenario.”
Matty I (can only speak for myself) have found a number of your posts highly informative.
America killed 2 million people in Vietnam (for what benefit?). We shouldn’t think they would not countenance killing 200 (to the nearest) people for strategic purposes.
@Arthur Sorkin
It seems to me that anyone capable of highjacking or otherwise diverting an airliner, with all the technical know-how it required to navigate off flight path, shut down all manner of communication equipment, turn comms back on at just the right time, etc., would be prepared enough for an assisted bailout, meaning supplemental oxygen or otherwise
JohnV,
Please go away. Your posts are bordering on anti-america slander and nothing more. They aren’t helpful, thoughtful, or novel. That idiotic theory you posted has been making the rounds since this mystery began, and is one of the most baseless theories out there–grounded on zero factual evidence–but if you have an irrational hate for america then I guess it works for you.
Jay
“one of the most baseless theories out there–grounded on zero factual evidence–but if you have an irrational hate for america then I guess it works for you.”
Point taken Jay, but I have little idea whether you are correct or not, therefore I keep an open mind, attempting a global perspective.
No, I don’t hate America, there is much wonderful about it (will be spending largish amounts of dosh there next yr). Though big normally wins, big isn’t always right. I assume you’ve read something re Iraq. This isn’t the best forum, I prefer to desist from further comment.
Jay ‘This isn’t the best forum’
That should have read ‘This isn’t an appropriate forum.’
I’ve previously directly thanked Jeff for running an excellent forum.
That was during the Vietnam War, not diluting.it !!
Continuity of data is important. It is possible there is no credible data after IGARI. The spoof is possible with a drone, a clone or a hack. I see no reason to accept the reboot as factual and therefore it need not complicate any theories.
The aircraft, post event, appears to have gone west, which makes me think it did not. More than one nation has the ability to hide an aircraft from radar during flight. In which case why fly as reported “avoiding radar”?
Why release partial data?
Why no action in real time?
“Where’d he go? – where’d who go…”
@JohnV excuse me, but your site/theory has all atributes of full-scale hateful conspiracy – not welcomed here, I think
falken, thanks for your thoughts.
As always, I’ll try and keep an open mind.
ya, no wars; break to imagine something positive; this works for me too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDVAQI-4lto
New News at Reunion – flight AF642 spots floating object … Could be anything and nothing…
http://www.airlive.net/2015/07/breaking-piece-of-wing-found-on-la.html
@Jinow, Press statement here:
https://twitter.com/a_forestier/status/643741052386574336
Long and short, a commercial airline pilot saw some debris floating off the north coast of Reunion as he was coming in to land; a ship in the area was asked to take a look but didn’t see anything, despite the sea conditions being favorable. Just to be sure, they’ve launched a reconnaissance plane to take a look.
@all
Anyone following this?
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/565335-flaperon-washes-up-reunion-island-40.html#post9116976
How mysterious..Seems to be a part from an unmanned US Drone. This mystery has all the makings of fiction. However, Occam actually would say that this is a coincidence.
@scott It is not the O2, it is the air speed. 250 kias seems too fast for manual egress,
@Jay, I’m not saying this in connection with this photo of the drone part. But in general Mr. Occam seems always to support one’s own views while conveniently labeling other people’s opinions with a conspiracy sticker. And it saves us from having to come up with actually good guments 😉
That last word of my post should read “arguments”.
My tab swallows whole syllables today. Must be the weather…
@Arthur Sorkin
250 KIAS for a jump would be too fast, we are in agreement there. With flaps down the speed could be as low as 170 KIAS.
I would not consider a high altitude jump as a suitable option, as it gets complicated in a lot of areas. The following link describes the MC-4 RAM – AIR Parachute System in great detail in its operational military environment. For a jump from around 10.000 feet you just need a suit, a helmet with visor and the chute pack. When planing on a high altitude jump you have to consider all sorts of things aditional to the equipment, like physiological implications on the body due to the exposure to lower pressure at higher altitudes.
https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-211.pdf
Not hat I know that much about it, as it was always one of my main objectives not to exit a fully functional aircraft when still flying.
It’s been awhile, but I have 210 jumps. Even a DC3 jump at 100 kts is…well…more exciting than your average Twin Beech or C206 jump. Leaving an aircraft from the rear stairs while going 250 kts would be very difficult without special gear. Doing that from a hatch in the floor would be close to impossible.
At 18:22 Z the weight was 210,000 kg, giving a VREF30 of 139 kIAS. VREF30 is the recommended final approach speed with Flaps30, the normal landing configuration. VREF can not be less than 1.23 times the 1-g stall speed, nor less than 1.14 times the 1-g stickshaker speed.
At the weight at 18:22 with flaps 30 the speed could be as low as 122 kIAS without encountering stickshaker.
P.S.
170 kIAS is the maximum speed for Flaps 30. At 171 kIAS the flaps retract to 25.
@Gysbreght
Thank you for the important correction.
@Airlandsman
Could you give your POV concerning jumping at that speed from the EE- bay door without the ladder (i think that is an option MAS had not opted for).
RetiredF4:
I think it would be near impossible.
One thing most people don’t think about is the fact that the pressure under the fuselage is high and it has a tendency to push anything you put down a “camera hatch” or similar opening in the floor, back into the airplane. I think a person attempting to exit any hole in the floor would have a very difficult time pulling it off without special equipment and a lot of luck.
@ALSM – could you elaborate on that last point? Logically it would seem that there was *lower* pressure outside the hull, first because the air is moving and second because of any residual pressurization of the inside. What mechanism would cause a pressure differential, higher on the outside?
@airlandseaman
Thank you for your assessment. I would not have expected it to be a walk in the park, and if such plan existed by somebody that such fact would be known and measures would be taken to minimize the risk.
If I remember correct the spaceshuttles were retrofitted with some extendable pole at the exit hatch to get the bailout crewmember clear of the fuselage while still being exposed to considerable higher airloads than we are talking here, although dressed with a space suit. The optional exit ladder sure would be helpfull. Does anybody know wether MAS had this ladder installed?
If we consider such an hijacking and aircraft exit being a possibility the jumper/ jumpers would be trained in such a stunt and would have worked on migitating the asociated risks.
My thoughts concerning the feasability of such an exit option was more, if the opening is big enough for a average sized jumper with a chute on his back.
With the hatch open the pressures inside and outside would necessarily be equal.
I would have thought, if the pressure underneath wasn’t higher it would fall out of the sky?
@Matty
That is a common misinterpretation of aerodynamics of an airfoil. The longer way over the top of the wing (due to the wing profile and the AOA) forces the air going over the top to a higher speed, thus reducing the pressure on the top side of the wing, which in turn sucks the wing upward. Pressure changes on the lower part of the wing are negligable at subsonic speeds.
What we would see on the underside of the fuselage, where the EE-bay door is located, would be blast effects like encountered when putting your hand outside the open window of a driving car at 130 mph. Compression effects which would change the pressure itself are present only with high mach numbers.
I’m pretty sure the pressure is higher on every bottom surface of an aircraft by aerodynamic design (except possibly the horizontal stabilizer in some aircraft). I know from personal experience. Once tried to put human remains out a camera hatch in the floor of a C185 and the cockpit instantly went IFR. Not pretty.
It is mainly the low pressure above the wing that keeps the airplane from falling out of the sky. The pressure below the fuselage will depend on the angle of attack. Whatever it is, there is no pressure differential across an open hatch.
Gysbreght:
“low pressure above the wing that keeps the airplane from falling out of the sky”…It is the pressure differential, right? That means lower pressure on top of a wing (or fuselage) and higher pressure under.
That said, you might be correct for an aircraft that is very tightly sealed, like the 777, but definitely not correct in the case of the C185!
@airlandseaman:
I guess that in the case of the C185 you were observing airflow, not pressures.
A typical wing section pressure distribution:
https://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/airfoils/images/AirfoilCp.gif&imgrefurl=http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/airfoils/airfoilpressures.html&h=199&w=441&tbnid=ccPZS3L5_zEkQM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=199&usg=__LWSDbrH9RQvk0ZqMiYiXhW_zLz8=&docid=lp_EiSo_RVs8cM&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ9QEwAmoVChMIuaHx6sD7xwIVAT8UCh3A8w3g
Gysbreght:
“…airflow, not pressures.”? Well, that explains your confusion.
This whole pressure discussion is another needless distraction from the core question: Did anyone exit MH370 via a hole in the E-Bay? The answer is no.
@airlandseaman:
Who talked about pressure under the fuselage?
@Gysbreght and @ASLM:
I have some observations:
1. There will be a distribution of pressure around the fuselage, so whether or not at the camera hatch there was inflow or outflow might depend on where the fuselage was vented.
2. For steady, level flight, the wings would have positive AoA to produce lift, which would mean the fuselage was pitched up relative to the flow over the fuselage. This would produce a higher pressure at the underside of the fuselage. (I suppose the fuselage contributes slightly to the overall lift force on the plane.)
3. If the size of the camera hatch dominated the venting between the interior and exterior to the fuselage, the inrush of flow would cause the fuselage pressure to rise and the inward flow would continue until the pressures equilibrated. What Mike observed might have been a transient effect.
4. Even if there were no inward flow at the hatch of the E/E bay, a jumper would still experience the force from the dynamic pressure due to the flow field around the fuselage. At 130 KIAS, this is about 6.3 times greater than the pressure from a car traveling at 60 mph = 97 km/hr = 52 kn. This would be challenging.
@VictorI:
“a jumper would still experience the force from the dynamic pressure (…)At 130 KIAS, …”
Sure, once he was outside the airplane.
“This would be challenging.” Sure, but maybe he didn’t have much choice?
Or maybe he attempted to jump, but failed?
@Gysbreght said, “Sure, once he was outside the airplane.”
Most concerning is when he is partially outside of the plane and the resulting shear stresses on body parts. It’s not as though he can get a running start as he exits the hatch.
Jumpers jump.
Gysbreght: Please remind me…how many jumps do you have?
airlandseaman: Please remind me… when you jump out the side of an airplane, do climb out the door or do you jump?
@Gysbreght, if we contemplate a jump with the aid of a parachute, we can safely neglect all scenarios where the jumper had no other choice. If he managed to bring a parachute along and deposit it so he could get to it later, this was carefully planned. So, if we come to the conclusion that it isn’t possible to exit the E/E hatch with a paraglide/parachute successfully then we can safely conclude that it didn’t happen that way. Unless the perp miscalculted grossly. Which seems rather unlikely.
Btw, after taking a look at the interior of the E/E bay and the location of the tiny hatch to the outside I think we can eliminate Shah as a hatch jumper. He simply didn’t have the right figure for it – even if there might be a quite literal slim chance of survival.
@littlefoot:
Two opinions do not equate to a conclusion.
The blast at 130 KIAS should be managable.
Here in Germany you can drive a car or a bike on many parts of the Autobahn as fast as you like and the traffic allows. I’ve stuck my hand and arm out the side window going 220 km/h, and it is still attached to my body. I know that 130 kts equals about 250 km/h, but when prepared and properly dressed it will be sustainable.
A crew from my squadron ejected at 150ft AGL going 540kts. The frontseater suffered bruises and a broken shoulder, as he was not prepared when the ejection initiated from the rear seat took place. The rear seater had bruises and a broken leg from landfall.
@ littlefoot
I agree, such a jump would have been a deliberate planned escape plan and I would not count Shah in the game. Because that would make him to a mass murder from the beginning. If he was part of such a plan in the initial part of the hijacking then he was duped and had no knowledge of the jump part.