With every passing day, the odds go down that searchers will find the wreckage of MH370 on the Indian Ocean seabed. (Indeed, many independent researchers suspect that the game is essentially over.) If nothing comes up before the search’s scheduled wrap date this June, then the entire case will hang on a single piece of physical evidence: the flaperon that washed up in Reunion Island last July and is now being held by French judicial authorities at a facility near Toulouse, France.
The good news is that the flaperon could provide a wealth of information. I’ve seen photographs of the serial numbers located inside the plane, and I’m convinced that, despite my previously expressed reservations, they do indeed prove that the piece came from MH370. And experts have told me that the sea life found growing on it offers a number of different clues about the airplane’s fate.
The bad news is that the French authorities have apparently made little effort to follow up.
As I’ve described earlier, the predominant form of life growing on the flaperon is an accumulation of goose barnacles of the genus Lepas. In all the world, the number of marine biologists who study these animals is tiny; those who have carried out peer-reviewed research specifically on animals of the genus Lepas could fit in an elevator. Each has contributed something unique to the field; each has a unique body of experience with which to inform the investigation of this important Lepas population. Yet the French authorities have reached out to none of them. (I have been informed that they have contacted two French marine biologists, one of whom is unknown to me and the other of which is an expert in crustaceans of the southern ocean; Lepas belong within this much broader category of animal.)
That’s a shame, because only by tapping the world’s leading experts in this little-understood species can we hope to wrest the most information from this solitary piece of evicence. Here’s what we could learn:
- Hans-Georg Herbig and Philipp Schiffer in Germany of the University of Cologne have carried out genetic analysis of the world’s Lepas species to understand their geographic distribution. By examining the animals on the flaperon up close they could determine the mix of species growing on it, they could derive a sense of were the flaperon has drifted. The image above shows Dr. Schiffer’s best guess of the identities of some barnacles in one small section, based on photographic imagery alone.
- Knowing the species of the barnacles, and measuring their exact size, would allow scientists to gauge their age, and hence the amount of time that the flaperon has been in the water. Such an analysis has been performed forensically before: Cynthia Venn, a professor of environmental science at Bloomsburg University, helped Italian researchers identify the how long a corpse had been floating in the Adriatic Sea, as described in their paper “Evaluation of the floating time of a corpse found in a marine environment using the barnacle Lepas anatifera.”
- By measuring the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the animals’ shells, scientists could determine the temperature of the water through which they traveled as they grew. “All one needs in an appropriate shell, a fine dental bit in a handheld Dermel drill, a calculator and access to a mass spectrometer,” says legendary marine biologist Bill Newman, who helped pioneer the technique at the Scripps Instition of Oceanography in La Jolla. In the past, this technique has been used to track the passage of barnacle-encrusted sea turtles and whales. But again, it would require access to the flaperon barnacles.
Why haven’t the authorities been more proactive in seeking help from the world’s small band of Lepas experts? One possible answer is that they’re befuddled. As I’ve described earlier, photographic analysis of the barnacles’ size seems to suggest that they are only about four to six months old. This is hard to reconcile with a presumed crash date 16 months before the flaperon’s discovery. Something weird might be going on—which would not be that surprising, given that the case of MH370 has been tinged with weirdness from day one.
After nearly two years of frustration, the key to the entire mystery may well lie in this single two-meter long wing fragment. But if the authorities don’t examine it—and publish their findings—we’ll never know.
PS: In my aforementioned piece about the barnacle distribution on the Reunion flaperon, I argued that the piece must have been completely submerged for months—an impossibility without human intervention. However, it’s been pointed out to me that barnacles sometimes grow on surfaces that are only intermittently awash. A very vivid example of this is a section of SpaceX rocket that was found floating off the coast of Great Britain last November. The piece (pictured below) had spent 14 months floating across the Atlantic with its top surface apparently above the waterline, yet sufficiently awash to support a healthy population of Lepas.

A section of rocket casing found floating in the Atlantic after 14 months.
While this suggests that the Reunion flaperon could have accumulated its load of Lepas while floating free, it also provides another example of how thickly covered by large barnacles a piece can be after more than a year in the ocean.





@DennisW
your few last blogposts are interesting; ya, enemies making mistakes; this is it, IMHO
R.E. EY440, another aircraft, EY9937 (cargo) diverted to Hanoi the same day; then to Abu Dhabi. Common theme is that both avoided Thai airspace. Someone (can’t refind the post) claimed it was because Etihad didn’t have permit to overfly.
Here’s one thread of comments:
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/685191879361703941
@sk999, Thanks, good catch! I’ve emailed my Etihad contact to see if she could shed some light.
OT, but Air France did yesterday last regular flight of 747; I can imagine that when lifetime of it will be ending together with spare parts production, some plane can replace even Air Force One; and then, why not 777 as prooven and probably most realiable thing ever; watch the wonderful 5x1h documentary “Jet for the 21 century” on youtube
@Bruce
The “propagator” is very crude, and will never be a tool used to guide a search. You need the detailed analytics of the type done by Richard Godfrey (and others) for that. The motivation for tinkering with a propagator was to explore the general sensitivity of flight path to starting point on the 19:40 arc. I have long felt that the ambiguity of this starting point is the weakest link in all of the calculations performed to date (by everyone – me, IG, SSWG, DTSG, and others). The propagator is not going to provide a “eureka” experience.
Dennis,
Sorry, you are wrong. Perhaps you forgot that quite a few of us follow residual minimization approach, which is indifferent to starting point.
@Oleksandr
I might be wrong. It happens a lot, BTW. However, it is unlikely that I forgot what most of you are doing.
A simple way to look at it is as follows. Suppose you have your path all nice and minimized for a speed, S, and a heading theta. Then you move your starting point one degree North on 19:40 ring. Your heading, theta, will have to drift Eastward to arrive at the 20:40 ring on time or your speed, S, will have to increase. Take your pick. It is one or the other or a combination of both.
MuOne – hacking ticked a lot of boxes and was looked at here a few times over a year ago and a heap of crunchers kicked sand at it predictably, even after the exploits of Ruben Santamarta and others were presented, but at that stage it was still a BFO frenzy and people were positioning for the trophy. I agree – if this Etihad plane(CEO Al Baker)plane did an involuntary diversion you would not be reading about it.
@DennisW
If the speed and starting point are highly correlated, can one use your calculated 408 knot speed at 19:40 to then determine the starting point? And then the rest of the flightpath?
(Off topic)
I got inspired by a twitter convo with Ed Baker (@edward_767) about the cockpit door.
My google search came up with the following links:
(Add http colon slash slash etc.)
37000feet.com/report/597055/B777-200-crew-found-the-meled-fortified-cockpit-door-could-be-opened-from
smartcockpit.com/docs/B777-Airplane_General_and_Emergency_Equipment
The first link is purporting to be a 777 crew failure report extracted from a nasa database about an inoperative dead bolt mechanism, which was unrepairable, at least in the short term.
If MH370 had a similar problem, a lot of people (crew, maintenance personnel, supervisors) would have known about it and word could have gotten out to the wrong people. Question is, how prevalent are such failures? Does it happen often enough to make a “plan and wait for it, then act” approach viable?
The second link has a graphic about the cockpit door security features on page 1.30.14. Features of note are
– lower break away panel allowing emergency egress
– panel is held by SHEAR pins (emphasis mine)
– openable compression panels, alas secured by security grills
The doc states “shear pins retract from break away panel when levers rotate down”
Reading between the lines, (shear pins are designed to be shearable, i.e. disintegrate under force and release whatever they otherwise hold in place) one could argue that a sufficient impact force applied to the right door area from the passenger side could shear those pins and release the break away panel, providing access to the cockpit with dead bolts in place.
A second, less violent, option would be to remove the compression panels and reach through the security grid (might need appropriate tools) to rotate the shear pin levers to release the break away panel.
Matty,
I also thought then (and still doo) that the hacking angle should be explored much more than it was/is.
DO (darn)!
@Bruce
No. The Doppler shift produced by aircraft motion at the position of the satellite is not a sensitive function of the position of the aircraft on the 19:40 ring. The Doppler shift is dominated by the speed and heading of the aircraft. The 408 knot speed is minimally required at a heading of 180 degrees. Headings on either side of 180 degrees would require a higher speed to produce the observed Doppler shift.