Could Gulf of Thailand Debris Come From MH370? — UPDATED

tumblr_inline_o1ede2chs51truy7b_500

According to FelineNut, who I generally regard as extremely unreliable, Thai media are reporting that a piece of debris has been found off the coast of southern Thailand, not from from the Malaysian border, the Gulf of Thailand. I have no idea how debris from a single crash could wind up in both Réunion Island and the Gulf of Thailand; I certainly have not seen any drift models with endpoints in both places. (Apparently the current through the Malacca Strait runs from southeast to northwest, so it couldn’t have come via that route from the Indian Ocean; maybe through the Sunda Strait?) On the other hand, the piece does look aircraft-like (though perhaps a bit more like a section of rocket casing, as was recently recovered off the UK coast), and the marine life on it is strikingly reminiscent of that on the Réunion flaperon, with scattered clumps of goose barnacles and patchy brown algal film. I’ve spent a short while doing Bing and Google image searches but haven’t found any shots of a Rolls-Royce Trent engine that match what we’re seeing here. Any thoughts?

UPDATE: Reader Gysbreght has just pointed out that AirAsia 8501, and A320, crashed about 800 nautical miles on December 28, 2014. If this is indeed a piece of jet-engine cowling, that would seem a more likely source. Debris from that crash had previously been discovered at a distance of several hundred miles. (Gerry Soejatman points out that the currents in the vicinity of the QZ8501 crash site flow to the southeast, meaning that if this piece did come from that plane it must have taken a rather circuitous journey–not impossible, given that more than a year has passed.)

UPDATE #2: Thanks to some excellent detective work by the Wall Street Journal’s Jon Ostrower, it now appears clear that the debris is from a Japanese rocket. Gerry Soejatman has a nice blog post about it here.

79 thoughts on “Could Gulf of Thailand Debris Come From MH370? — UPDATED”

  1. Jeff,

    This finding perfectly fits into a mechanical failure scenario, some kind of what I was talking for nearly one year. As it could be expected, this piece could fell down around IGARI, but the flaperon drifted from a crash site somewhere in SIO. Nothing strange. These two pieces didn’t come from the same location.

  2. I doubt this is cowling wreckage due to the protruding head rivets shown in the lower right of the photo. If this were a cowling in the airstream, the rivets would be flush. Also the rivet pitch (spacing) is not uniform as it would be on an aerostructure.

  3. The flaperon found on Réunion Island could drifted their through Sunda Strait. It perfectly corresponds with winter currents in the South China Sea. This new debris could come from MH370. I trust Mike McKay and I believe the MH370 is somewhere in the South China Sea near the Vietnam coast west of Songa Merkur oil rig. Note the 7th ring is passing through this area. It can happen that MH370 gently “crashed” there and remains for some time afloat able to send pings. The most common reason is the fire on board.

  4. There is an alleged video of it on YouTube. You can see the numbers 307 and 308 and 323. Won’t these numbers immediately indicate whether it’s a 777 or not (assuming of course the video is real)?

  6. FelineNut has posted backup evidence which appears to prove it’s from a 777.

    So let’s go by the whole “flaperon’s got to be MH370 because no other 777 is missing” theory. Does that then mean that all the wild theories were way off?

  7. Before everybody gets so excited, I’ve yet to see anything persuasive that it’s from #MH370, #QZ8501, or any other aircraft.

    Regarding #QZ8501, the location of the debris is not in the direction of other remains from the crash that were discovered, as you can see in this graphic I created last year.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/oi0786iw3kyddot/Drift%20to%20Sulawesi.png?dl=0

    As for whether it is part of #MH370 or any other aircraft, the protruding fastener heads would be a bit odd for any fuel efficient aircraft as they would induce drag. The heads of fasteners are typically flush or near flush to the skin.

  8. The other thing of note: the finding location is just north of the last reported location of the plane and almost directly in its initial path if you go by the military radar data. They have MH370 flying almost directly over that spot en route to IGREX. The military data has been dismissed.

    So the question is, did the plane actually go that path and then attempt to turn back around, and then attempt to turn back around as part of a partially thwarted hijack?

    Plan was to steal the plane, someone tried to thwart the hijacking, caused stresses on the exterior, plane goes down.

    Which would mean that the satellite data is untrusthworthy. Period.

  9. If you assume average height of Thailand male to be 69 inches. The chord in video at 1:23/2:00 appears to be about 72 inches with height of about 14 inches. That yields a diameter of ~107 inches. I think the Trent 800 fan diameter is ~110 inches. If analysis is close, might pass one initial sniff test… Please back-check this was done fast…

  10. Victor,

    “I’ve yet to see anything persuasive that it’s from #MH370, #QZ8501, or any other aircraft.”

    If it is not from an aircraft, then from what? And if it is from an aircraft, then either from MH370 or not – binary arithmetic. And if from MH370, then mechanical failure is virtually confirmed. Additional drag – yes. That is why 100E.

  12. Amazing! But those barnacles look pretty big. If they’re just three months old, that would really shine a light on how small the barnacles on the Réunion flaperon are.

  15. @Oleksandr: If you believe it is from an aircraft, and a B777 in particular, please show me which part. I don’t see a match to anything. And I point out that the skin of an aircraft, be it on the engine or any part, would not typically have protruding fastener heads, in order to minimize drag. Again, if you can show me an exterior part of an aircraft with protruding hex bolt heads, please do.

    It would be an incredible find if it is indeed a part of MH370. However, I remain very unpersuaded. In time, the facts will come out.

  16. An german engineer i´ve contacted 30 minutes ago who is working with airplane parts every day said :

    “This wreckage don´t look like an piece of metal from the engine access door. It looks more likely to me as an hatch from the gear or the door of the cargo compartment. The NAS bolts indicates this wreckage is an product from the USA, maybe from BOEING.”

  17. Look at the FlightRadar data for TR2638. The plane stopped climbing at FL100 when the crew was notified of the missing part less than 10 minutes into the climb. I don’t see how the part could have drifted to the location of the recently recovered part.

  19. Victor,

    There is honeycomb filling visible in the movie. Also there is a blackened area visible in the second photo, suggesting either exhaust, or dust, or exposure to high temperature. If not from an aircraft or helicopter, then from what? Yes, the use of bolts instead of rivets is strange, unless this piece is removable, for example, for maintenance.

  23. Consider this: MH370’s left engine comes apart (“grenades”), taking some of the fairings and reverse thruster metalwork with it. The pilots see the engine is destroyed and on fire, so they discharge the left engine’s fire extinguisher. While this action takes care of the engine (and prevents damage to the left wing), it also cuts off the left fuel flow, left electrical buses, and flightdeck fresh air.

    This sets the stage for a long trip to nowhere. And one of their last conscious acts will be to point the plane back home and begin descending.

  24. The area where the part was located is downrange of the Indian Satish Dhawan Space Centre at Sriharikota in Andhra Pradesh.

    Launches of the GSLV, geostationary space launch vehicle, have taken place over 2014 and 2015. The GSLV first stage separates at approx the same altitude as the SpaceX Falcon first stage. It was part of the Falcon vehicle that was washed up on the Isles of Scilly, UK.

    An area bounded by the following coordinates is declared as a danger area during launches:

    • 10°30’N, 94°30’E.
    • 10°30’N, 95°30’E.
    • 9°00’N, 95°30’E.
    • 9°00’N, 94°30’E.

    While that area lies in the Bay of Bengal, close to the Thai coast, to the west of the location of this debris find, the GSLV has developed since the date of the publication defining the area (2006).

    Given that the part is held together with large hex headed machine screws, I’m confident it is not a part from any modern airliner.

  25. Why engine? Could it be a panel from the belly or even door of the nose landing gear? Can’t find high resolution photos to distinguish bolts/rivets, but this video might be of interest:
    youtube.com/watch?v=4Apda-7x1xg

  27. GuardedDon,

    Aerodynamically smooth surface as important for a rocket as for an aircraft. The use of bolts is dictated by some reason irrelevant to aerodynamic.

  28. The part is not space quality. Even allowing for damage, the electrical harness in the pictures is not tied in enough points to survive launch mechanical loads – it would need to be held every 10cm or less. The harness seems to include a fibrous tape, also not space quality. The bottom of the structure (judging by the writing) has a simple (crude) hand applied sealant strip that looks like a weather seal where the structure was in contact with a surface.

  29. Victor,

    I don’t see it. It is not possible to say whether bolts are used or something else based on the photos you cited.

    So far the belly of B777 looks a lot more intriguing to me. For example, the second photo shows several attachments to the internal side, which looks like the mechanism supporting functionality of the landing gear door. The edge also appears to be similar.

  30. VictorI,

    Yep, I think Jon Ostrower (or whoever’s image he retweeted) has got it.

    There’s a feint impression on the found part of the circular feature evident his image.

    The cleats on one of the inner edges make sense.

  32. Guarded Don,

    Circular features on the rocket have nothing common with these found on the debris. There is a supportive structure on the left from the rocket, which allows you to judge size. They are by order larger. Or you meant something else.

  33. @Oleksandr: The brackets that encircle the part are consistent with rocket sections connected by flanges that transmit an axial (longitudinal) force. Panels and doors of an aircraft would not need to carry an axial load.

    However, if you can find a picture of a B777 part that is consistent with this debris, I certainly would be willing to consider it. I tried and I could not find one.

  35. To me that part looks very unlike the rocket image.

    Note the numbers inside what I assume to be access port covers. Now look at the writing over top of the covers. On the rocket it’s more information written than on the discovered piece.

    I don’t think it’s from that rocket.

    And as another person mentioned, how do you account for the distance from the rocket launch site?

  37. Whether or not it is a rocket part, for those that believe it is part of a B777, please show us which part. This was done very quickly for what was identified as the flaperon. I have tried unsuccessfully to match the recovered part with a B777 part.

  38. The bolt patterns around the two 307/308 discs match those on the rocket exactly. To the “northwest” of the 307 and 308 there are two smaller unpainted discs. At the 315 and 316 we have the diagonal piece. That’s a lot of identical bolt patterns.

    Thanks, Don, for the picture. I think we’re done here?

  40. Victor – I don’t know that it is from a B777. But FelineNut’s page seems to clearly identify the bolts as those used on a Boeing. An older tweet from Jeff implied that Malaysia discarded a 777 before; ok, if that’s the case, how we do we know that the flaperon wasn’t part of that discard after all (which totally debunks the SIO as a location)?

    The second concern is based on a simple question: What could have crashed or gotten damaged anywhere near this region that would lose such a part that we are aware of? To my knowledge (and I don’t know a lot) MH370 is the only thing that had an incident near here that qualifies.

    Also, this map seems to imply that, at minimum speed, it’s possible for a part to be discovered here:

    http://ogleearth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MH370_Mar17.jpg

    Add to this the sightings which have gone largely ignored, and the fact that nobody can really explain the sheer absence of debris otherwise, plus the timing of when everything got shut off on the plane, and it gets mighty fishy (no pun intended).

    From my perspective, if this turns out to be from a Boeing 777, even if it’s not MH370, it turns the whole thing on its head; because it puts the flaperon under serious scrutiny.

  41. Protruding rivets are just as problematic to hydrodynamics, but the piece would have flexed pretty badly popping the rivets out a little? And maybe also some oxidation or build up pushing the heads up? Are there major drag issues at speed at the rear of a conical engine? Is there an inner/outer

  42. @LouVilla I hadn’t seen that but it looks like a crop from the same image Don linked to. I agree completely. It could be from different segments or versions but it is clearly a very close match to a part that flies. I’m curious where it was supposed to have touched down because the drift data would be useful but we’ll have to wait for a B777 part.

  43. The curvature of the piece when laid down in the video indicates – to me – to be far too much to be part of the rocket. It belongs to something smaller.

    Oleksandr – I agree, the circular features on the rocket are dramatically larger than we see in the video and would not even be apparent on the rocket images at that scale. Also an absence of Japanese writing? Where are these things made?

  44. @Matty Perth: I was not referring to popped rivets. I was referring to the hexagonal head shear bolts that are clearly evident in the photos of the recovered part.

    If the part is from a rocket, as it seems to be based on the close (but not exact) match to the HII-A rocket image, it explains the hex heads. In an aircraft at steady, level flight, the thrust of the engine balances the aerodynamic drag, so it is important to minimize the drag. On a rocket, the thrust of the engine is balanced by inertial acceleration, aerodynamic drag, and gravity, the largest contributor being the acceleration. Therefore, the protruding bolt heads would have less of an effect on the performance of the rocket than protruding bolt heads on an aircraft.

    Luckily, the identification of the recovered part should be known soon, so there is little reason to wage war over this one.

  45. @Jeff @susiecrowe finally a new headline. On a scale of 1 – 10 , how stupid is it to think that…

    A) Someone in fact did commandeer the plane/sophisticated high jack.

    B) Someone Did tamper with the satellite data, spoofing the genuine direction of flight.

    C) …. And instead of burying it at Baikonur Cosmodrone, or refuelling and flying elsewhere for some future terrorist attack. What if they hid the plane by submerging it underwater. And are dumping piece by piece purely to gauge how we the public react to this information.

  46. Victor – The Japanese rocket in question is nowhere as big as I thought, so leaning heavily to this not being anything to do with a plane. The size of it is right – it’s rocket debris…..

  47. LouVilla,

    Yes, the cropped image comparison of the two pieces look similar. Let’s wait for a formal conclusion from the authorities.

  48. @LouVilla,

    You are clearly on the money. The component is definitely not off an aircraft. Just a few points below to start:

    1/ Access panel codes are normally printed so the reader can read them directly (without having to do some form of aerobic exercise). The print implies a vertical standing component (ie a rocket).

    2/ Access panel codes do not comply with ATA convention. If these were from an aircraft (any aircraft) they would be 400 series (they all start with 3). Also there are no letters attached to the numbers; this is part of the normal convention for identifying aircraft access (eg 657BB).

    3/ The access panel fasteners are not typical of an aircraft…countersunk screws should be there not bolt access.

    4/ The exposed honeycomb structure is indicative of a temporary structure that would not be used multiple times….ie a rocket. On an aircraft nacelle (or any other part) these would be edge sealed. Also the honeycomb is not typical of that used on modern Boeing aircraft.

    OZ

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.