Earlier this morning a South African radio station posted a story about a local family that found a piece of aircraft debris while on vacation in Mozambique in December.
18-year-old Liam Lotter has told East Coast Radio Newswatch while they were on holiday in Inhambane in December – he and his cousin came across what he describes as the “shiny object” while walking on the beach. They brought it back to KwaZulu-Natal. Lotter says it was only after seeing news reports last week about another piece of debris found on a sandbank off Mozambique that his family saw a possible link. Liam’s mother Candace Lotter has since been in contact with South African and Australian authorities.
The story included a couple of pictures:
UPDATE: On Friday, March 11 Reuters published more photos:
Here’s an image that provides a sense of scale:
The code “676EB” in the top photograph refers to an access panel hatch in the right-hand outboard flap of a 777. The images below show the equivalent structures on the left-hand side.
Given that no other 777 has gone missing at sea, and that the Réunion flaperon has been conclusively identified as coming from the missing flight, then it’s very hard to imagine that this part didn’t come MH370.
Given that after nearly two years only a single piece of debris had heretofore been found, it’s extraordinary that in the span of less than two weeks three pieces of possible MH370 debris have come to light.
First, of course, was the piece found by Blaine Alan Gibson on a Mozambique sand bar in late February:
Followed a few days later by reports that Johnny Begue, who found the flaperon later linked to MH370 in July of 2015, had found what might be another part of the plane:
One striking feature of these three latest finds, that many people have commented on, is the striking absence of barnacles, algae, or other forms of sea life. That’s in striking contrast to the flaperon:
Some have suggested that the pieces might have been grazed clean by crabs after making landfall, or scoured clean by the action of waves and sand. According to IB Times, one Mozambique official believes that Blaine’s piece probably did not come from MH370 for this reason:
Abreu was also quoted Friday by state news agency AIM, saying that any claim that the debris belonged to the missing Flight MH370 was “premature” and “speculative,” according to All Africa. He also expressed doubts that the debris may not be from the missing Boeing 777 as the object was too clean to have been in the ocean for the past two years. However, he reportedly said that “no aircraft which has overflown Mozambican airspace has reported losing a panel of this nature,” First Post reported, citing AIM.
Hopefully a thorough investigation by the authorities will clarify the issue.
Worth noting that the second Mozambique piece was found 125 miles south of the first one, while both of the Réunion pieces were found on the same beach.
Well, isn’t it the case that when the flaperon was found floating in the water, and then dragged on shore? Even if it wasn’t, such a big piece would be noticed soon after it first washed up, before the action of sand and waves and crabs would have much of a chance to destroy any attached sealife.
I agree with DennisW that in general, things that you find washed up on beaches aren’t encrusted with a lot of stuff. I spent an entire summer marooned on a remote island in
Alaska (getting paid to watch birds), and the beaches there were loaded with all kinds of crazy debris, but as a rule, they did not have barnacles on them.
As for the significance, I found a B777-300ER “Phase Check Work Package” that says the following:
“Perform an Internal Zonal inspection of the Flap Support Fairing No. 7 (EZAP)
PREP: Trailing edge flaps extended, Fairing removed (676AB, 676EB). …
http://i.imgur.com/s2upaby.png
Which possibly indicates that the flaps must be in an extended position for the access panel to even be accessible?
Which in turn seemingly implies that the flaps were extended at the time of the crash?
(Because otherwise, the 676EB panel would be protected by the main wing, and would have gone down with the rest of the ship.)
Very strange these new finds are kinda clean of ocean algae and/or barnacle organisms if they had been in the ocean for past 2 years..
@Jeff;
“The code “676EB” in the top photograph refers to an access panel hatch in the right-hand outboard flap of a 777.”
I’m not quite so sure. A similar panel on another Boeing model could have the same part number. Also I think that “676” refers to the flap track fairing, the boat-shaped fairing under the wing around the track that guides the movement of the flap.
@Gysbreght, Take a look at this document:
http://portal.aersale.com/ECommerce/Documents/Media?f=1%5C113W9250-10%5C1_FAIRING%20ASSY%20SUPPORT%20NO%207%5C2556893%5CA_113W9250-10%20(0)
The extraordinary confluence is of 4 events: the 3 debris finds, and the 2-year anniversary of MH370’s disappearance.
@Warren, the missing barnacles isn’t what irks me. They can have fallen off or been eaten by crabs or birds. But that doesn’t explain why there are no traces of the attachment cement, no algae, no water line and still shiny paint coat. One member of the family even said that they saw something shiny. Look in contrast at the photo of the flaperon. It’s a huge difference. Even if you subtract all the barnacles.
@Jeffwise:
I did, my comment was based on that. I wasn’t aware of Warren’s comment, but that seems to confirm my understanding.
From previous post:
Now we need some serious forensics:
Can these have been in the ocean for two years?
If not, where did they come from, where were they?
Perhaps small pieces of debris get tossed around too much for barnacles and other marine life to adhere.
Would you take aircraft debris from a beach back home and store it there? Just wondering.
Brock,
Re “The extraordinary confluence is of 4 events”
In my understanding this new fragment was found last December.
@Olexandr, that’s what we have been told. But through an extrordinary confluence it only became known one day after the second anniversary – and the reporting of the debris was, if the story is correct, triggered by Blaine’s incredible discovery and maybe Johnny Begue’s as well.
So, yes, it’s all very extraordinary – like the shape the pieces are in after two years in the outdoor elements. And don’t get too hung up on the missing barnacles,guys. That can be explained away. The missing traces of marine life, that’s what’s so puzzling.
‘Would you take aircraft debris from a beach back home and store it there? Just wondering.’
It always surprises me no end when it turns out that the world and its dog is not actually that bothered about aeroplanes, even important missing ones. Some people don’t even know what an aircraft part looks like.
It’s very strange, but it seems to be so.
@Oleksandr: please amend my statement to reference publication date, then, instead of (purported) discovery date.
This clearly contradicts any suggestion that the finds by Blaine Gibson and Johnny Begue were ‘planted’.
I also found a reference to the part of this new find (676EB) as being an access panel for a 777 fairing.
All three parts appear to be of the fibreglass composite with an aluminium honeycomb interior. They are light and fully surface floating, I expect forensic exams to clarify the surface foat level and fibreglass composite surfaces of these pieces are not suitable for barnacles or other marine life taking hold.
@HippipyGirl,
This new piece doesn’t prove anything – one way or the other. Before we can state anything definite we need to know two things: are the pieces from 9M-MRO, and is it in any way credible that they have been out in the IO for two years. After a cursery examination some experts in Mozambique have already stated that the latter isn’t very likely.
As has been said already: serious forensics are necessary.
@littlefoot I agree, we do not know if any of these three pieces are from 9M-MRO. I do agree with Jeff here, the part number matches a 777 so I’m not sure where else it could have come from?
I hope the forensic exams on all three pieces are carried out and reported on speedily.
RetiredF4, Oz,
Thanks for the link; I haven’t previously seen this document. I will take a close look.
I am still puzzled what does prevent realignment in the air. I understand this is not supposed to happen, and there several layers of ‘protection’ to prevent this.
But generally, how can ADIRU know it is in the air from cold start? Pitot? Zero chassis load? Internal detection of motion? Inability to complete alighment as ADIRU cannot properly detect the Earth rotation? Something else? In other words, does ADIRU try to complete alignment, or it finds that certain logical conditions are not met, so it even does not start alignment process? What is different between full and quick alighnments (if applicable to b777)?
As for sea life, if you look at the picture with the 676EB label, there several round, greyish marks that look to me that could have been anchor points for gooseneck barnacles.
@HippyGirl: I agree that such pronouncements may well be in our future. Sadly, the “pronouncers” – of every stripe – have lost my trust. I’d be forced to corroborate first-hand any such claims.
In this case, I’d be skeptical of any claim that these items were clean because they floated higher in the water (is that what you meant – surface “float” level?). If that were true, then how could the flaperon – which according to Jeff’s research (and Florence de Ch’s reporting) was submerged enough to attract barnacles into every crevice – beat these other pieces by 6-8 months in a race around the IO?
This whole news cycle could well be part of a high-level disinformation campaign designed to distract reporters from issues of substance, reminiscent of the post-flaperon maelstrom. With perhaps a dash of the usual low-level hoax activity thrown in, for good measure.
I hope I’m wrong on both counts.
Just a curious aside – since March 7th Twitter (UK) doesn’t seem to be updating tagged MH370 pages at all. Or a tweet appears only to disappear a couple hours later. So annoying, I was just looking to read any tweets about the interim report. Anyway, just me being paranoid, I guess!
From the press coverage I have read about Ms deChangy’s book she suggests MH370 went down in the GOT? Perhaps I misunderstood?
@HippyGirl:
I am glad you brought up the subject of floatation because I have been wondering how the part that Blaine Gibson found actually floated.
The materials of the part are either GFRP (SG=1.8) or CFRP (SG=1.5) and aluminum (SG=2.7), i.e., all denser than water. The aluminum is in the form of a honeycomb core, which will have a very low density if the cells of the honeycomb structure are sealed and water cannot penetrate. The honeycomb core therefore provides the buoyancy, but only if sealed.
If you look at the photos and video of Blaine Gibson’s part that are posted on Duncan Steel’s site, it is evident that the most of the original honeycomb core is either non-existent or not sealed, which is evident when the composite layers of the sandwich are pried open. Whatever buoyancy that remains from the honeycomb core would occur along the edge of the part that with the bolt holes and the NO STEP letters that possibly still has sealed honeycomb.
However, the center of gravity for the part would be shifted towards the corner away from this bolt hole edge. It doesn’t seem possible to me that a part can float flat on the water when the net buoyant force is at once side of the part and the center of gravity is displaced horizontally from that point. These forces would produce a moment which would rotate the part until the part is vertical in the water. That would seem to be the only stable orientation of the part, assuming there was even sufficient buoyancy for the part to float. This is shown in the following photo:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jyc02jdsyj63kva/Floating%20part.png?dl=0
It can be seen in the photo that much of the part along the bolt hole edge is lifted from the water, as evidenced by the reflection or shadow on the water surface. This edge seems also to be curved such that the low point is near the NO STEP letters. Also, you can see that the opposite corner is below the water surface.
So how can the photo be explained? Here are some possibilities:
1. There is a bubble of entrapped air that would escape once the part bobbed in the water.
2. The part is not free floating and perhaps is in contact with something below the surface that can’t be seen in the photo.
3. The part is about to flip to vertical and the photo was taken before that occurred.
Can anybody offer another explanation?
@Brock
History is full of examples of people making independent and almost simultaneous discoveries in science. Wiki has a big article on it. Rupert Sheldrake attributes it to “collective consciousness” which permeates the universe, and uses the Rubiks cube as an example. When the cube first appeared it was difficult to solve, but as time went on it became easier and easier as the universe was “seeded” with solutions.
Sheldrake used rats and identical mazes to show that when a group of rats learned the maze, a second group of rats solved it much more quickly. Identical but physically different mazes so that smell could be eliminated. There is stuff going on in the world that we do not comprehend. Little of it gets published in main stream journals because it does not fit existing paradigms.
@VictorI:”Can anybody offer another explanation?”
Probably the honeycomb core consists of several layers of cells; so even if the top layer of cells is exposed, the central cells remain sealed?
@Warren: Look at the honeycomb core in the photos and the video shown in the Dropbox link below. There are not layers of honeycomb core.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s2y5fnvvzcribgs/AACkvwbnuOJ2PIsLWJCePZsna?dl=0
@Warren
Could be, but Victor’s point is well taken. The floatation force acts at the center of volume, and the sinking force acts at the center of gravity. If these two points are physically separated, a moment is generated which will try to torque the part away from a flat floating position.
@Oleksandr You asked:
But generally, how can ADIRU know it is in the air from cold start?
It doesn´t know it is in the air. It will not align if the aircraft is in motion on the ground. It is even that sensitive, that performing loading during the alignmeent will restart the alignment process. So I think a simple motion sensor like you can find in the I-devices will do the job.
@Dennis, can collective consciousness remove barnacle cement and clean up marine life traces? 😉
@Victorl
“honeycomb core therefore provides the buoyancy, but only if sealed”
It was noted in B777 creation document, that parts are built to be floatable, but I never investigated how, cause I simply trust them. Is it the main purpose of this honeycomb? This small piece suggests me that there would be many/hundereds of such parts in case of crash; and if somebody knows, pls, when such thing floats and is heated by sunshine, are the air cells helping somewhat to acumulate the heat too? Always curious if some military satellites with digital signal/image processing cant see such moving cloud of radio/infra reflective pieces. Do you agree?
@Littlefoot
🙂 I doubt it, but as Warren mentioned (and I originally made the point having a house on a beach). Looking at lots and lots of flotsam shows that the vast majority of it is very clean after it has been on the beach for awhile. I have no idea what “awhile” means. I never tried to chronicle any of that stuff.
BTW, I regret bringing up Sheldrake’s stuff. While he has a PhD in biochem, and was a fellow at Clare College with funding from the Royal Society, his ideas are no longer considerer mainstream.
@VictorI:
”Can anybody offer another explanation?”
The uppersurface is still glued to the honeycomb, the lower skin is detached. When you put the part into the water topside up, the honeycomb does not fill with water, the air in the cavities is trapped inside.
That also applies to the flaperon, even if the internal space is not completely sealed, it will probably never be filled completely with water.
@Victor & DennisW: I see what you guys are saying, but I don’t see the significance. The picture of the part floating flat as a pancake speaks for itself. Also, we don’t know the damage that’s been incurred once it hit the beach. E.g., people could have stepped on it, and crushed honeycomb structures, so it’s current state (including lack of barnacles) is not necessarily representative of its condition during the actual drift phase.
@littlefoot: it looks to me that there are marine life traces. These apparent traces could easily be tested with a simple bottle of 10% HCl acid–a mandatory part of any field geologists tool kit–any calcium carbonate left over by formerly attached creatures will immediately fizz when treated with the HCl.
When DennisW organizes his expedition to Mozambique I will be sure we bring a bottle! 😉
Victor,
“Can anybody offer another explanation?”
Perhaps weight vector is closer to the “no step” edge than you indicated it. There are more honeycomb cells (see photos posted by Jeff above).
@Gysbreght: Do you think the part would float for 2 years without water ingress into the exposed honeycomb core? For most of the core, there is not just a bad seal–there is NO seal, or no honeycomb. Also, Blaine Gibson showed photos of the part floating right side up and upside down.
Oleksandr: All materials are heavier than water except the sealed honeycomb core. Unless the COG is coincident with the honeycomb core, it will flip. Considering how much of the part is overhung to off to one side, I find that unlikely.
@Warren
The picture of the part laying flat seems to show that it is being supported in that position by something under the water. Hard to tell, really. Having said that I did Google lots of images of floating debris, and it was a mixed bag. The part should really be placed in water in a way that the ambiguity is removed.
@VictorI:
I only explained the floating in Blaine Gibson’s test. There certainly is no honeycomb in the bolted flange, it would be flattened when the bolts are tightened. If it floated upside down it was probably not pushed under water to fill up the honeycomb cavities, it floated as a ship.
Didn’t I write earlier that this piece is not a B777 Horizontal Stabilizer Forward Torque Box Top Panel?
Victor,
I mean that you indicated weight vector as applied approximately in the center of “triangle”, while you can observe higher concentration of undamaged honecomb cells towards the “no step” edge visible in photo #6 (“pry open”).
@Warren, that’s certainly the right approach. And there are many ore criteria which can be looked and tested for. We can only hope that competent people will eventually do just that. Also, as Victor’s very interesting observations show, buoyancy tests need to be made – not just for a time span long enough to take a picture, but for much longer – maybe even in moving water – in order to make sure that all trapped bubbles can escape.
We don’t even know if this has been done carefully in case of the flaperon. Florence de Changy claims in her new book that they might’ve been totally useless.
Honestly Victor: What are you suggesting? That the part could not have floated for two years, and therefore must have been planted? It may be the case that in it’s current condition, it could not float for two more years. However,that fact, if true, does not imply that it did not float to where it was found. Just look at the picture you posted: there are buildings and lots of other signs of civilization. Probably the part is marked “NO STEP” for a reason: number one I can think of, that stepping on it would crush the honeycomb material. Yet it was found in an area where people walk around. The lack of marine life is evidence that it’s been lying there for “a while”–who knows how long? Therefore, it’s current flotation ability is not necessarily representative of past performance.
IMHO, the most important information that can be gleaned from these debris is not that they are evidence of a conspiracy that is willing to travel to Mozambique of all places in order to plant evidence, but rather the light such debris can shed on the question of whether the flaps/flaperons were extended at the time of the crash. This has huge implications for the search area: namely, if the flaps were extended, then the gallant searchers are unfortunately barking up the wrong tree….
@Gysbreght: Yes, I understand. But how can the part in that condition cross the Indian Ocean? Yes, it’s a ship, but a ship with a very small draft. The part would “swamp” and flip to the vertical.
@Warren: I am asking very simple questions about how this part could have floated for two years across the Indian Ocean in the condition discovered by Blaine Gibson. I have suggested earlier that there could have been human intervention, which could include a circumstance in which somebody in Mozambique altered the part before Blaine Gibson got to it. There are many possibilities.
Victor, in other words I think COG is somewhere close to where you applied buoyancy force. It is not where you drew it.
@VictorI:
Well, if it is not from a B777, it doesn’t have to cross the Indian Ocean, does it?
Victor,
Why 2 years? Do you suggest that Blaine found this fragment immediately when it arrived to Mozambique? I.e. both the fragment and Blaine arrived to Mozambique simultaneously?
About the absence of traces of marine life: An important aspect of the recent finds is that they were made in local summer period. In mid-day in summer it gets really hot out there with sun burning almost perpendicular.
The first Reunion find was in cooler period of the year.
All,
I think you will find that 676EB is actually the aft fairing assembly. To my eye the lettering is possibly toward rear underside.
If you have another look at the work card it says “Access panels ….required for removal of fairings”.
OZ
Gibson’s piece would have been ID’d by now. As usual, no disclosure.
@Matty
No surprise. Outside investigators are not perceived as helpful, but rather as a group of critics that ask a lot of questions, and require effort to deal with. I actually was on that end of the spectrum in my working career when customers would try to “help us” track down issues. It can be very dilutive.