Today, March 8, 2016, Malaysia’s Ministry of Transport released its second annual interim report into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, as required by international treaty. This document was highly anticipated within the community of independent MH370 investigators, as many of us hoped that it would close some of the huge gaps in our understanding. Unfortunately, it was only three pages long and contained no new information about the disappearance itself. Instead it merely restated the most basic facts of the case and indicated that a more complete final report would be issued “in the event wreckage of the aircraft is located or the search for the wreckage is terminated, whichever is the earlier.”
Given that Martin Dolan, chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, has said that the search will end if nothing is found by July, and that the high-probability zones of the search area have already been scoured, it seems likely that we will have to wait at least four more months before a substantial reckoning is made.
The new report is not entirely devoid of information, however. For one thing, it acknowledges that while the main wreckage of the plane has not been found, “a flaperon was recovered in the French island of Réunion on 29 July 2015 and was determined to have been a part of the MH370 aircraft.” No mention is made of two pieces recently discovered in Mozambique and Réunion which may or may not have come from MH370. A cryptic undated press release recently issued by the Ministry of Transport both suggests and denies that the Mozambique piece came from a 777. So the possible relevance of these new finds remains ambiguous.
The final page contains a list of eight subjects on which “the Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370” (aka “the team”) will be working on in preparation for the final report. One of these items is “Wreckage and Impact Information (following the recovery and verification of a flaperon from the aircraft).” Again, no mention is made of the new pieces, and the emphasis on “impact information” suggests that the focus will be on what the deformation of the flaperon indicates about the nature of the crash, rather than what the marine life found on the flaperon tells us about how the flaperon floated and where it drifted. On the bright side, the inclusion of this item suggests that the French are sharing information about the flaperon with Malaysian authorities, and so the public will learn at least something about this important clue in the foreseeable future.
Another item is “Flight Crew Profile.” As it becomes increasingly likely that the plane did not fly south on autopilot alone, the possibility that the plane was flown on a suicide mission by one of its two pilots comes increasingly to the fore. The “Factual Information” report issued a year ago indicated that the captain’s psychological condition had been evaluated, and it was determined that he showed no signs of suicidality. It seems to me that the inclusion of this item suggests that investigators are looking at this topic more closely.
Other items include “Air Traffic Services Operations” and “Organisation and Management Information of the Department of Civil Aviation (DCA), Malaysia and MAS.” These, hopefully, will examine some of the curious goings-on that occurred after MH370 disappeared, such as the fact that Malaysia Airlines told air traffic controllers who were looking for the plane that it was flying over Cambodia. Likewise, the item “Aircraft Cargo Consignment” should explain why the plane’s manifest showed that it was carrying a large quanitity of mangosteens, when this fruit was not in season at the time.
While these latter investigations may shed light on chronic irregularities at the airline and at the civil aviation department, I don’t think that they will tell us much about MH370’s disappearance. Others, no doubt, will disagree.
Finally, one of the biggest takeaways for me in the report is the notable absence of radar as a topic of discussion. There is a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding the primary radar trace that MH370 made after it turned around at IGARI and headed west toward the Andaman Sea. We hoped that some of these riddles would be cleared up in today’s report; instead, it seems likely that they will never be resolved.
@Oz,
Thanks for your response. However, I must have missed the identification of the panel as an “aerodynamic fairing section” and “GFRP” rather than “CFRP”.
Can you elaborate or point me to it?
@Oz,
You wrote:” You will probably find that the fasteners have pulled thru the panel; this is evident in the reverse image of the hole next to the intact fastener.”
When looking at the close up image showing the fastener, the adjoining hole and the letters “no”, I see no evidence of the fasteners having pulled through. The hole is much smaller than either the fastener’s head or collar diameter.
There is a crack visible going through the “n”, down the “o” then ending in the empty hole. One could argue that the panel is indeed cracked through and hence it could have opened up enough to let the fastener pull through.
However, the other 6 empty holes do not show such a crack and their diameters appear too small to let the head or collar pass through.
@MuOne: No disrespect towards your mechanical engineering prowess was intended!
I understand the point you are making. Another considering is material compliance, which will compensate for manufacturing tolerances and tend to even the load sharing between the bolts for two plates in shear.
That said, as interesting as the topic is, I agree that we are straying off topic.
I’ve been following the release of Florence de Changy’s book, ‘Le vol MH370 n’a pas disparu’. Here are some interesting facts:
– the sister of one of the French victims (Ms.Wattrelos) is a lawyer, and had the right to participate in the investigation into the flaperon, and had asked to do so, but was denied access by French govt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lzf6nHLdQ-s
– the mangosetin cargo is suspicious, … BUT, there were 20 other flights to Beijing AFTER MH370 was lost with the same ‘mangosetin’ cargo.
http://www.rtl.fr/actu/societe-faits-divers/l-enigme-du-vol-mh-370-7782232018
– she had seen the video of the passengers entering the flight, and nobody fit the profile of highjackers EXCEPT for the 2 Ukrainians who boarded the plane at the very last minutes. She describes them as very energetic, both fully fit, of military build, wearing identical black tee-shirts with large carry-on bags, which they hoisted onto the X-ray machine with practiced ease.
http://www.amazon.fr/Vol-MH370-pas-disparu-lhistoire-ebook/dp/B01CHXWP6O/ref=sr_1_1_twi_kin_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1457494442&sr=8-1&keywords=le+vol+mh370
@all
Getting back on topic, I have seen Dolan quoted in several places as saying it it very likely the plane will be found by July. What is up with that?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/mh370-head-of-search-says-very-likely-plane-will-be-found-by
There is absolutely no basis for such a claim. Why would he even say such a thing? Anyone??
@DennisW,
3 Options:
1. His head is in the clouds
2. He is with the fairies
3. He knows and is hiding something
Maybe 4th: He was misquoted.
@MuOne
It just seems terribly irresponsible to me. Maybe he is just losing it? You would think that someone would real him in on statements like this.
What else is he supposed to say? Call off the search, send Fugro home, but pay them anyway?
Sorry to return to the bolts, briefly, if I may – but I’d been wondering about this – basically as to why some of the holes are broken (meaning the panel failed before the bolts) while some, as discussed, appear to be intact.
I’m trying to imagine in which order this would have happened and hope this is a relatively quick question to answer, given the previous posts.
Thank you.
@MuOne @ Gysbreght
Some thought on the no step panel. The underside of the panel looks like having some shaping, which you described earlier. Following the term “form follows function” I ask myself what this function could be. I can think of aerodynamic reasons, which on the other hand would imply, that the underside of the no step panel was exposed to airflow, like a spoiler. In that case we have to look for an aircraft wing, where the spoiler is directly attached to the walkable part of the wing and the no step is painted on the spoiler.
@MuOne,
“There is a crack visible going through the “n”, down the “o” then ending in the empty hole. One could argue that the panel is indeed cracked through and hence it could have opened up enough to let the fastener pull through.”
You saw that…that’s good!
The six empty holes reveal nothing; I’ve been to ‘Spec Savers’ and to my eyes most look enlarged, you differ (that’s your opinion). There is insufficient detail to make a determination from the photo (that’s why I said probably).
My experience over a couple of years has shown that fastener pull thru on GFRP panels in incidents I have been involved in is quite common.
I have expressed an opinion based on that experience. I would not make any conclusive determination on the failure of any component without having physically examined it.
The “photo evidence” might tell us possibly where it came from (on the aircraft) but it will never tell why it came off. (Duncan Steel and others pay attention!)
Your other question…refer to RussellM’s post; the material is GFRP (if it is off a T7).
The “NO STEP” is there for a reason.
OZ
@Susie,
The implication of intact holes would be that it cannot be a part which failed while mounted on an aircraft during flight. The fasteners would have had to be removed maually.
In short, the part would be planted or some unrelated discarded something.
@Susie and @RetiredF4
The panel flange is bolted to a flange on the spar of the center torque box. Imagine the panel being pushed upwards, then failure will basically occur in one of three modes. Either the panel flange breaks along the centerline through the bolt holes, or the bolts fail in tension, or the bolts are pulled through the holes. The last mode may leave the bolt hole seemingly undamaged because glass fiber is not only strong but also very elastic, meaning that it does stretch a lot before rupturing or showing permanent deformation.
“Form follows function” in this case means that the bending stiffness of the panel is provided by the stresses in the inner and outer Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) skins of the panel. Both skins are joined in the flange and the honeycomb filling is therefore chamfered to zero thickness near the edges. The inner surface is not exposed to the airstream and has no aerodynamic function.
Thank you MuOne and Gysbrecht for your clear and helpful replies.
Gysbreght, I apologise…you would think I’d know how to spell your name by now, having read your posts on the pprune for so long.
@Susie:
“Gysbreght van Aemstel” is the hero of a 17th century screenplay by the dutch poet Joost van den Vondel, commemorating events in the early history of the city of Amsterdam. There are many ways to spell his name.
The third potential failure mode for the attachment made by the fasteners is thread pull out. This could leave neither damage to the sheet nor the head/shank of the fastener, nor require human intervention.
The length of engagement between the thread in the titanium fastener and the tapped hole in the material to which the sheet is attached is necessary to understand whether this is a likely failure.
It looks from the fragment that there is a mixture of several failure modes in play here.
@MuOne
may be all your 3 options are valid; to paraphrase Dolan: “the balance will be found in the next four months”; may be some extraordinary issues require extraordinary approaches
@Gysbreght
To explain a bit better, I’m referring to the following picture. The bubble to the right does not look like distortion damage, rather a built in feature. This looks rather odd detail foe a pure fairing fixed to an an aircraft structure like the discussed portion of the stabilizer.
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/8bb5f414387dde7890630a9b77f6be0a?api_key=zw4msefggf9wdvqswdfuqnr5
It looked odd from the beginning, being the same color on the outside (exposed to the elements) and on the inside (hidden in the stabilizer structure). The outside paintjob is done when the aircraft is finished, so why would such a panel have the identical colour, or even a white color, or even being painted at all?
My thought therefore is, that the part is not a fairing but a movable panel of the upper wing structure of another aircraft, where the underside of the panel is exposed to the elements and therefore is aerodynamically formed and accordingly painted. If that is the case, then we have to look for an aircraft where the stepp zone of the wing boarders to such a movable part / spoiler.
For comparison there is a link to a 757 spoiler (it is not the one we have to look for).
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/like/351662539346?clk_rvr_id=994536508212&item=351662539346&lgeo=1&vectorid=229508&rmvSB=true&ul_ref=http%253A%252F%252Frover.ebay.com%252Frover%252F1%252F710-53481-19255-0%252F1%253Fff3%253D2%2526toolid%253D10044%2526campid%253D5337607145%2526customid%253D123%2526lgeo%253D1%2526vectorid%253D229508%2526item%253D351662539346%2526srcrot%253D710-53481-19255-0%2526rvr_id%253D994536508212&clk_rvr_id=994536508212&item=351662539346&lgeo=1&vectorid=229508&rmvSB=true&ul_ref=http%253A%252F%252Frover.ebay.com%252Frover%252F1%252F710-53481-19255-0%252F1%253Fff3%253D2%2526toolid%253D10044%2526campid%253D5337607145%2526customid%253D123%2526lgeo%253D1%2526vectorid%253D229508%2526item%253D351662539346%2526srcrot%253D710-53481-19255-0%2526rvr_id%253D994536508212&ul_noapp=true
That may also show folks how easy it is to aquire such parts.
RetiredF4, you could practically build your own, looking at that link! I too had wondered about the parallel lines on the picture of the ‘no step’ piece, but had not noticed the ‘moulded’ appearance until now, if such it is.
Gysbreght – I had always wondered – thank you for the explanation. Looks like I have some reading to do…: )
@RetiredF4:
What would be the function of the bubble you believe to be a built-in feature?
The B777 Horizontal Stabilizer Forward Torque Box is a structural element, and the Upper Panel is not a “pure fairing”. The Structural Repair Manual states the material of the finishing layer of the inner surface as: 0.001 inch thick white bondable tedlar film.
The following picture taken by Jeroen Akkermans on the MH17 crash site shows some structural details of the horizontal stabilizer. The picture is taken from behind the stabilizer, looking in flight direction. Note in particular the upper flange of the main torque box front spar.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7l13vd1acxqkwpy/Screenshot%202016-03-08%2015.35.29.png?dl=0
BTW, RIP Nancy and Ronnie, thanks for love and humor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlBIa8z_Mts
@RetiredF4: Please look at the video around 1:40 where Blaine Gibson is handling the part and prying it open. It can be seen that the bottom surface is no longer attached to the honeycomb stiffener except at the No Step edge, which might explain the bulge as buckling deformation.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fhp4bwvq37t2wn7/Blaine%20w%20part.mp4?dl=0
Also, if you look closely at the texture of the top and bottom of the part in some of the photos, you will see that the bottom is relatively rough, with a hexagonal pattern visible. It looks as though the top surface was finished smooth while less care was taken for the bottom, as if the bottom surface was not designed for air flow.
One final note. When I first saw this video, I was struck at how flimsy the part was. I would expect that if the part traveled across the Indian Ocean on a 2-year journey, what remained would be relatively robust.
Like they say in Donnie Brasco a lot. Forget about it.
@Gysbreght
“What would be the function of the bubble you believe to be a built-in feature?”
I have no idea, if we talk about a fairing.
Concerning the pic I can see that the trailing edge fairing looks like being a flat panel and the leading edge fairing is not visible.
Could you please explain again?
It’s natural that we want to see the part belonging to a B777, but we should not forget that there are other possibilities too. That the reason I’m raising this subject.
I hope no one minds me bringing this post over it got left behind in the topic change and struck me as worth repeating I have not seen much on this topic myself .
sinux
Posted March 8, 2016 at 4:05 AM
It seems that the “full” cargo manifest is now available (might have been before but I only noticed today) :
http://www.mh370.gov.my/index.php/en/mh-cargo-document
1. Document no3 is missing…
2. If you look at the first page of document 9, Total weight in syst is 9947kg, actual weight is 10’800kg difference is 58kg!
By my calculation difference is 853kg!
Why is that?
@RetiredF4:
What do you want me to explain?
Figure 1 of RussellM’s extract from the B777 SRM shows the location of the HS Forward Torque Box Upper Panels between the leading edge and the main torque box.
Yes, the forward torque box and leading edge are missing in the MH17 picture, it only shows the flange of the front spar of the main torque box to which the panel would be bolted.
However, as I wrote earlier, I do not believe the Mozambique find is from one of those panels, because the “NO STEP” edge is not straight, but recessed.
@Ann:
It is not clear what the differences in the last column represent. It is clearly not the difference between “syst” and “actl”. Each column adds up to the total in the bottom line.
From the Structural Repair Manual it says part no 3 (same for part no 4) has two different thickness of aluminium core 0.8 & 0.9 (respectively 0.3 & 0.6) inches.
Interestingly this area was also damaged on G-YMMM.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/777/63ca3add.jpg
I don’t quite understand how it was damaged… The other side is fine.
Could anybody find a picture from the top? or at least a daylight picture?
@sinux,
The right main landing gear separated and was found with parts of the right HS embedded in it. See fig. 27 of the AIIB accident report.
Some info on Boeing 777 fasteners
http://lms.aeroflot.ru/data/Part145/Structure_Reapair/Boeing%20fasteners.pdf
Don´t know if it is of any use.
@Oz,
I am a bit surprised by your reaction to my post.
You said, “The six empty holes reveal nothing; I’ve been to ‘Spec Savers’ and to my eyes most look enlarged, you differ (that’s your opinion). There is insufficient detail to make a determination from the photo (that’s why I said probably).”
Well, I am wearing my prescription reading glasses and none of the empty six holes look enlarged to me. I agree that there is a lack of detail on the photo and the part needs closer inspection to make a definitive call, but on face value, there is grounds for having a closer look, don’t you think?
“Your other question…refer to RussellM’s post; the material is GFRP (if it is off a T7).”
RussellM kindly posted an extract of some technical documentation of B777 horizontal stabilizer panels. That extract contained a drawing of one panel. That drawing and the features of the “no step” panel do not match.
So in my understanding there is no positve identification of the “no step” panel yet what so ever. We don’t even know, whether it is a B777 part or not, let alone a part of MH370.
What is the basis for your absolute claim of that panel being GFRP rather than CFRP?
In any case, if it was indeed a GFRP panel (GFRP being the weaker cousin of CFRP), my assertions about the panel material failing well before the fastener would be strengthened.
“experience over a couple of years has shown that fastener pull thru on GFRP panels in incidents I have been involved in is quite common.
I have expressed an opinion based on that experience. I would not make any conclusive determination on the failure of any component without having physically examined it.”
Neither did I make any conclusive determination. I merely posted observations and posted possible conclusions for comment.
You say that you have a couple of years experience of incidents where fasteners pull through GFRP quite commonly. Would you like to enlighten us about in what field you have gained that experience? Again, you state GFRP as if it was fact. There is no determination yet on what the “no step” panel’s material is. Indeed, there is no determination yet on whether it is even a B777 part.
As I said, I am a bit surprised…
@Gysbreght
Thanks! Fascinating report! I really doubt we’ll get something so detailed from Malaysia (granted it’s much easier when you can see the aircraft from the control tower 😉 )!
Would have this piece come from a result of a tail strike type landing similar to what occured to the Asiana hard landing at SFO?
@MH:
Like this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA5FMFVbVZ0
Aditional info on the fastener.
http://www.aviaquip.com.au/pdf/hiloc/hl1013.pdf
As can be seen, this type of fastener has to be tightened from the inside of the panel it was fixed to, as the head is blank except for the part number. How could this be done on a panel for an enclosed compartment? There are other type of fasteners available for such task, like
the pic of the stabilator from MH17, which Gysbreght posted before, shows. Those fasteners are different in design.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7l13vd1acxqkwpy/Screenshot%202016-03-08%2015.35.29.png?dl=0
So I would say we are looking at the wrong place or the piece does not come from an B777 at all.
@Gysbreght, perhaps an aquatic like in video but must hit reef and contort at impact.. but problem is this debris hasn’t enough aquatic life attachments it appears so far.
Retired4F – The HI-LOK fastener is tightened from the collar side. A hex head breaks away at a predetermined torque assuring repeatability. An Allen Wrench in the end of the shaft on the collar side holds the bolt in place while tightening.
I could have used some of the various bolts shown on Page 139 of your aeroflot link after messing up the holes drilled on a recent home project. I really liked the one that was counntersunk on the wrong side. BTW, I have actually sold “Step Studs” so I know THEY do exist.
@Lauren,
I have no intention to question your expertise.
If this installed pin is tightende from the collar side with the mating part shearing away, wouldn`t there be some mark visible where the shear occored? There is none visible.
Afaik a tightening tool for those pins for tightening from the nut side does exist since 20 years, or do I misinterpret the following patent?
http://www.google.com/patents/US5305666
Retired4F – I am in no way an expert. I just wondered how they work and Mr. Google sent me here:
http://www.lisi-aerospace.com/products/fasteners/internally-threaded/collars/Pages/nut-hi-lok.aspx
From the Patent pictures, it looks like the “special” tool combines a Hex wrench with an Allen wrench that stops the bolt from spinning while turning the nut.
I do not see the evidence of the hex nut either. I suppose that means the break was clean.
@Lauren
See the following link, I think that clears it up.
http://www.jet-tek.com/hi-lok-pins/Hilok_Hitigue_Installation.pdf
What I called nut is named collar. The pin head, which is stamped HL1013-6, is blank, no hex nut on that one, and nothing sheared of. The tool prevents the pin from turning by inserting the hex nut into the pin from opposite the pin head while turning and tightening the collar onto the pin.
There are collars, where part f the collar sheers off once the torque is reached.
That should do. What I tried to say is that the panel could only be mounted to the structure from the inside, and not like shown in the pic of the stabilizer from MH17 crash, which shows different hex pinheads for top tightening.
Does it seem a little coincidental that China is putting out there first homegrown passenger jet to compete with boeing and airbus.Maybe with boeing technology.Just a thought if what i read is true about this subject.
@VictorI,
“It looks as though the top surface was finished smooth while less care was taken for the bottom, as if the bottom surface was not designed for air flow.”
During manufacture of these panels they are layered on a tool plate and then a vacuum sheet is placed over the piece and sealed. A vacuum is applied and the bagged piece place in autoclave. Essentially the component is baked under pressure.
The resulting component has what is referred to as a tool side and a bag side. The bag side allows partial compression into the honeycomb, thus the textured effect, the tool side is the airflow side.
The aluminum honeycomb would be the cause of its poor condition. Corrosion at the bond surface causes separation of the face sheets.
@MuOne,
The difference between CFRP and GFRP is black and white.
OZ
@Oz: Thank you. That makes perfect sense. By the way, the hexagonal impression from the honeycomb core can be seen on the underside of both the part found in Mozambique and the new part from La Reunion.
@debris_probers
We have a confirmed MH370 flaperon found on Reunion. It has not had a measurable impact on any facet of the search operation.
If the new debris is confirmed to be from MH370 what value does that have relative to finding the aircraft? In other words, what would we do differently if the debris is from MH370?
The DSTG’s Bayesian probability cloud has never looked supportable to me. Here are the problems, as I see them:
1) If any material weight is being placed on the signal data, then the probability density should either still be tightly hugging the 7th Arc (if they believe its -15K feet/min BFO-indicated altitude drop) or loosely hugging a line some expected glide distance south of Arc 7 (if they believe it was piloted for maximum range). As a plausible impact site, points in between make even less sense than those two bookends, and so a proper Bayesian analysis should show a “hole in the doughnut” between them. By contrast, the DTSG plot shows a uniformly decreasing density propagating in all directions.
2) The density is now symmetrically distributed inside and outside the 7th Arc. If the reason for expanding search zone WIDTH is that glide scenarios are being given more weight, you’d think a post-flameout 180 turn would be multiple orders of magnitude less likely than continuing south. Yet the density is symmetric, suggesting equal weight was given to all glide directions.
3) the most obvious issue is the apparent absence of any weight on the deep sea scan results. As noted by many observers, a proper Bayesian analysis would use the searched out area to refine a priori weights assigned to each potential theory and assumption. Yet none of the key assumptions appears to have been revisited.
What is the RESULT of the odd shape they’ve published, relative to one that would more duly respect the data on which it purports to be based? They have produced a directive to search a very narrow set of longitudes both inside and outside Arc 7 – because those are the only unscanned-yet-high probability areas.
By sheer coincidence, this unsupported extra search zone is precisely where the Geelvinck Fracture Zone is located. This zone is where Havila Harmony has been focusing its entire year of operation.
What is Harmony’s mandate? According to the latest theory put out by the ISAT data rainbow chasers, hundreds of volcanos and deep crevasses have suddenly and magically appeared with frequency and intensity sufficient to make it LIKELY one of them has hidden MH370 from towfish detection, so we need Harmony to focus on these areas.
Even if we set aside the bathy scanning designed to address this risk, one still arrives at the clear expectation that such features would be scattered across the search zone. If the flaperon is to be paid any attention at all, the focus should be on the NE, or “Go Phoenix” end of the scanned zone – yet an AUV has yet to TOUCH any of the areas it covered.
In fact, 98% of Harmony’s work has been in the GFZ – a valley running NNE to SSW at 87-88 degrees E longitude.
I submit that this is a pretty stunning coincidence.
Two more unrelated facts: fracture zones are good places to look for geothermal vents, and vents are good places to look for valuable mineral deposits.
For clarity: I am NOT for a moment suggesting resource prospecting as a direct MOTIVE for MH370’s disappearance. But if – IF – the search were known (at high levels) to be a charade, then it stabds to reason subtle efforts would be made to extract secondary value out of it. An example of PROPER Bayesian analysis might be to take Harmony’s track – and the bizarre, unsupported DTSG probability cloud which permits it – as increasing the “a posterior” probability of a fake search.
Especially when added to the large pile of similar indications, elsewhere documented.
@Brock
I am more concerned about the Springer royalties. The DSTG people have DSTG wives to feed and little DSTG’ers.
I was planning to buy a bunch of copies to send to the “regulars” on this site for their coffee tables. it now seems unlikely that the “book” will be published. They even have cover art selected, but no advance purchase options on the site.
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9789811003783
I was planning to autograph each of them with
“To xxxxx, so that I might have the gratitude of the world.”
DennisW
Very disappointing.
On a more serious note. The DSTG analysis is deeply flawed by flight dynamic constraints. Also the probabilty density shift between the flaperon finding and no flaperon finding is almost indistinguishable. This is very Duncanesh (i.e. not believable).
@DennisW – You said “…what would we do differently if the debris is from MH370?”
Ships wouldn’t move an inch off track if the piece is confirmed or denied. Most of the useful forums will probably keep posting about ping-pong data and rubber duckies. Mind you, that’s not an insult in the slightest to the brilliant minds who post here and elsewhere as experts in their fields.
People, the data is bad. The assumptions are bad. You know this. Yesterday’s report is a joke.
@Brock – I like the idea of a boycott, it could work. Apathy is the obstacle though. We need more souls like Begue and Gibson. I’m half tempted to book an exotic trip myself to some of these locations. Maybe do a little fishing while I;m there.
The Aussies predict that they will find the plane in July. Perhaps they have already found it and are simply burning up all the money allocated to the search, making lots of money from various associated contracts and obtaining very valuable high definition sea bottom maps for use in offshore oil/gas exploration. Come July and the money is gone, they will ‘find’ the wreckage.
@TheDrop
I firmly believe (a la Kalman) that there is no such thing as bad data. It (the data) just has to be weighted properly.
Excluding information (even if is implied or based on speculation) such as the IG/ATSB has done is shameful.
“we don’t need no stinking motive”
@Shadynuk
The ATSB has not found the aircraft. They could not find the aircraft if it were parked outside their offices. They are hopelessly lost, and Dolan is making nonsense statements.