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.
@Matty, that’s indeed very strange. No word whatsoever from Boeing so far. I hope some Boeing experts will take a look in Malaysia or Australia.
@Oleksandr and @Gysbreght: My initial post simply inquired about the floating characteristics of the part that Blaine Gibson found in Mozambique. I then offered if that trapped air allowed the part to float, it is unlikely that water would not displace the air in a trip across the Indian Ocean. In that sense, it does not matter if it arrived in Mozambique after it was at sea for 16 months or 24 months.
And yes, if it is not from MH370, it might have neither crossed the Indian Ocean nor have been at sea for an extended period of time.
@Warren: You are mistaken. The part was found on a sandbank that was reached by boat offshore. The pictures that were taken of the part floating were in Vilanculos well after the expedition returned.
@Oleksandr and @Gysbreght: In my last post, I was referring to whether the part would float flat, not whether it would float.
Isn’t it possible that some larger piece of debris was damaged by a passing boat or ship, so the first part of its voyage it was able to float but then once ripped apart it could have spent far less time near the surface?
Now that landing areas for the debris seems to be in line with the drift models, would drag netting be useful to try to catch more debris?
There’s one logical possibility as to the barnacle/algae discrepancy: the different parts and pieces didn’t hit the same waters.
Makes me wonder if the speed calculations need to be accounted for again and whether it would add strength to the possibility that the plane curved deeper into the crash rather than a straight-ish line. In other words, much further north than the current search zone.
@Matty, See this story in the WSJ, which mentions the photos going around the offices of Boeing engineers. I’d think that if you’d designed this piece, it would take you as long to recognize as it would the face of your own child.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/officials-probe-plane-debris-from-indian-ocean-1438194628
@all
The question of how a part will float (or sink) is quite complex. It is dependent on the distribution of lighter than water areas located throughout the part, and how that distribution might change over time as water intrusion progresses, and displaces trapped air. At the end of the day, an experiment is the simplest way to answer the question.
http://thetechjournal.com/tech-news/airbags-to-prevent-ships-from-sinking.xhtml
If there is going to different sea life growths on various debris maybe the aircraft crashed into an island with some inner lagoon leaving some parts in the lagoon while the rest of airframe skidded off where the shore shelf was steep and deep. Once in a while a storm may move a part into the NIO currents. The lagoon system may not always habitable to barnicles or algae.
Greeting interested Gentlemen and ladies, if any.
I hope to ST*U unless I can contribute in some minor way…
Gysbreght, March 10, 1:35 PM, said;
(ref code 676EB”) …”A similar panel on another Boeing model could have the
same part number.”
Anyone have a source listing part numbers for Boeing 767-200ER (Ethiopian
Airlines Flight 961) and Airbus A310-324 (Yemenia Flight 626)?
(shrug – also None of jeffWise’s aersale.com links work for me)
VictorI, March 10, 6:27 PM, said;
(referring to Blaine Gibson’s) …”part was found on a sandbank that was
reached by boat offshore.”
and this webpage has Gibson explaining;
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/blaine-gibson-cautions-people-on-expecting-mh370-find/news-story/5ba2b00a3fff5713471afd0b56701bd0
“because it was where fishermen would go to scour for ropes and other items
that are washed in from the open sea.”
Here is a pic of the track of (about the only drift) satellite drogue ever
released to specifically study the currents in that part of the sea (i.e. the
Mozambique Current). (Note; the very straight lined portions of the track, I
would suggest, are where fishing boat(s) have retrieved the drogue or spent
time removing it from their netting.)
http://www.oceanafrica.com/satellite%20drogues/channel/channel.html
If the three new items are from MH370, fiberglass seems to be a common link to no obvious sea life growth.
OZ
Regarding fiberglass boat hulls,
https://www.auroramarine.com/ask-the-skipper/viewtopic.php?t=1129
“I left my boat in saltwater too long and ended up with an infestation of barnacles.”
I don’t own a boat (fiberglass or otherwise), so can’t comment on whether this person’s experience is common or not.
Fiberglass is immune to marine fouling?
Interlux
Antifouling 101
http://www.yachtpaint.com/LiteratureCentre/antifouling_101_usa_eng.pdf
Some quotes:
When barnacles adhere to the bottom of a boat, they continually grow and exert considerable pressure on the area where they are attached. Fiberglass hulls are very hard and tough, yet they are not impervious to the destructive nature of the barnacle. Left unattended or uncorrected barnacles can do considerable damage to the gelcoat surface. When scraped off they usually leave a ring of glue on the surface and sometimes their adhesion is so great, that the force necessary to scrape the barnacles, tears the gelcoat with it. (page 4)
A form of fouling that is particularly deadly to wooden hulls is the teredo worm. Teredo worms are the termites of the sea. They can destroy an unprotected wooden hull in a short period of time and needless to say, their appetites are never satisfied. Although they are particularly destructive to wooden vessels they can colonize a fiberglass hull as well. (page 4)
A picture of Tube Worms on a fiberglass hull (page 5)
@VictorI:
In the ply specification (Table 3 of RussellM’s extract from the B777 SRM) there is an “adhesive film” between the honeycomb and the epoxy-impregnated glass fiber layers. Perhaps the honeycomb cells are still sealed at both ends.
Last year, it was stated over and over, that the flaperon would need to be submerged for Goose Barnacles to grow.
….so, if these other ‘lighter’ parts were floating on the surface, it only makes sense that they would not have barnacles.
Dennis – Yes, the media can be a pain in the neck, which is why you manage them, and large corporations and govts have people especially for that role. You prepare and release info in an orderly way. “Feed the chooks” as they say. Be it any other incident, info gets released in a predictable way and it all stays sensible. MH370 never fell into that category. I don’t actually like jumping into the deep and crying out conspiracy/cover up etc, but something was never right about it.
I’ve used the 9-11 comparison many times because it is another case where it made sense to keep people informed and they did. We are talking “civil aviation” here, not some prototype 6th generation stealth craft that got swiped by a Chinese hacker. It’s why I keep deducing that something is up with it.
@Gysbreght,
The film adhesive bonds the honeycomb core to the face sheets; so yes it effectively seals both ends of the core.
The problem with aluminum honeycomb is that moisture at the bond interface sets up corrosion followed by separation from the face sheet.
OZ
Regarding my previous comment, it seems that many fiberglass boats have a gelcoat finish.
Wikipedia says that many marine craft and aircraft are manufactured using composite materials with an outer layer of gelcoat. Gelcoat is usually made of epoxy or unsaturated polyester resin that is applied to the moulds in the liquid state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelcoat
If the debris found is “shiny” it may be due to gelcoat.
Note that gelcoat is resistant to ultraviolet degradation and hydrolysis but not to marine fouling.
@Matty
I had a long reply, and erased it. The simple truth is that this is a very tough group, and the officials in charge have to take great care in “packaging” released info.
This is especially true of info which might reflect poorly on previous decisions. I really think the radar data falls into that category. It will probably never see the light of day.
@Ron,
No Gelcoat but it has a protective layer bonded on the inner surface call Tedlar; resists fuel and hydraulic oil amongst other things. Outer surface is painted.
Flaperon uses Tedlar and is also painted.
OZ
@Marty-Perth
Ditto – that too is what reeled me in. This horrifically fascinating event had an apparent oddness in it’s representation almost immediately. It is a terribly flawed system that allows arbitrary determination of the process, especially an accident of this magnitude which should dictate the highest standards of investigation and presentation.
@OZ,
Isn’t Tedlar used in airliners interiors?
@Ron,
Yes it’s also used on lots of interior applications. Not just aircraft either.
OZ
@OZ,
I understand that DuPont produces Tedlar as a thin film. How do you coat with it curved surfaces like the flaperon? Use the controlled shrinkage variety and apply intense heat? What about the corners?
@Ron,
Inside surfaces only prior to final assembly.
OZ
@Ron,
Sorry was in a rush; left out the Tedlar is the final layer on the layup of the component parts in their mould tool during manufacture. Parts are vacuum bagged (to apply pressure) and baked.
OZ
The horizontal stabilizers of the B767 and B777 have similar construction, with a main torque box and a forward torque box. An extensive discussion (69 pages) of construction and assembly methods can be found in this book:
http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/fdscontent/uscompanion/us/static/companion.websites/9780195157826/Chapter_19.pdf
A presentation built around the figures in the book can be found here:
[add prefix here]ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-875-mechanical-assembly-and-its-role-in-product-development-fall-2004/lecture-notes/cls24_767_case04.pdf
Dennis – An Australian political luminary now retired once said – in politics, the truth will generally do.
And it’s so much easier as well. This ordinarily(MH370) is an instance where the adage should/could have been applied. OK, Malaysian politics is a different arena but there were a lot of nationalities on that plane. If they (Malaysians)have set this tempo why no interest/pressure from the countries involved? Nobody cares, and this is why I don’t blame Malaysia. I agree the radar data might stay hidden forever, but the same seems to apply to the debris. Bits turn up and then they disappear? Nothing more is heard? I’m no longer optimistic on that front either. I wasn’t surprised with the flimsy three page interim report and very nearly went out on a limb to predict just such a shemozzle, but no one was interested in a bottle of Margaret River Red way back at the commencement of the expanded search so I didn’t bother issuing any more challenges.
If the truth is the easy way out, you take it. Anyone who flies has a stake in this one, but that’s not how they are behaving.
Re the barnacle discussion: could be the flaperon got infested because it floated just below the surface due to its density. Barnacles are intertidal creatures, they might not attatch to flat objects floating on the surface. Also very interesting that debris all comes from right side of the aircraft
@Robert, The entire part doesn’t need to be submerged, just the portion of it that the barnacle will grow on. For a while I thought that Lepas barnacles can only grow beneath the waterline of a floating object, but some people have argued that they can grow on an area that is above the waterline but regularly awash, as the whole surface of the flaperon would be if it was riding low in the water.
Thank you Jeff, I will demur to your knowledge of barnacle habits. There is a worry that people could be keeping parts as souvenirs. Quite understandable really. A good talking point at the dinner party would be the section of flap on the wall-an interesting change from the usual Wildebeast head. But to be serious, these finds might help the search along, If they shed light on how it entered the water.
Real smart guy you quoted there Jeff. Abreu should be given the Darwin award for 2016 for the daft comment “no aircraft which has overflown Mozambican airspace has reported losing a panel of this nature”. Does this guy not follow the discussions on drift patterns of MH370 debris. I would normally say he’s lost the plot, but I don’t think he was ever in the ball game to begin with with such an ignorant comment. And for you Jeff, to quote such a daft comment makes me seriously wonder whether you too have lost the plot.
I think more to the point of these pieces being so clean raisers the serious question of the time and length these pieces have been floating in the water.. I remember reading about the guy who found the Flaperon said he may have have burnt a seat which was blue in color some months earlier which could have been a seat from MH370 (they have blue cushion seats)Also German scientists from ocean Research in Kiel, Germany, did drift modeling from the flaperon and their research suggests likely impact zone is much further north and west.. That would also support the underwater impact recorded on the day MH370 went missing.. This page I have found is very resourceful and maybe ATSB should pay more attention this..
http://www.astonisher.com/maps/news/mh370_map.html
@Velocity, your attack on Joao de Abreu and Jeff for that matter is quite unwarranted. Abreu merely wanted to point out that to his knowledge no plane had reported recently losing a part which could match up with the debris found by Blaine. Therfore it was unlikely that Blaine might’ve found a part from an airplane which had been lost recently. This remark shows actually that Abreu is quite smart, since his colleagues noticed that Blaine’s debris doesn’t appear as if it had drifted for a long time. Abreu pointed right one of the problems with that piece of debris!
Correction: “Abreu pointed right AT one of the problems with that piece of debris”.
@littlefoot, Sorry, I disagree with you. That is not a part that can fall “off” an airplane. It’s obvious to anyone that both pieces are fragments from a larger piece that shattered on high impact in to the ocean and it got there after months of drifting in the ocean.
It very much appears that you and a number of people who comment on this blog don’t like the idea that these parts may have drifted to Mozambique and La Reunion Island from elsewhere? Could you kindly explain why?
@buyerninety,
As to you comment from March 10, 09:14pm:
Yes, there are quite a few ladies here.
Somestimes their moniker tells us so, sometimes it doesn’t. But this enigma appeals to both sexes. And we probably need all brain power available in order to have a chance to get to the bottom of this mystery – where ever this bottom may be located 😉
@Velocity, you don’t have to say sorry for disagreeing with me. Lot’s of people do – and I disagree with you, too 😉
As to your question why I dislike the idea that the debris drifted quite naturally and unassisted by human intervention to Mozambique and La Reunion: I don’t dislike the idea. This isn’t about personal preferences. But because of a few very puzzling facts and seemingly extraordinary coincidences I have grave doubts and I think it’very important that some serious qiestions are answered. Read the comment section of this and the previous threads and you will understand our arguments better. Pay good attention to Victor’s comments who voiced some critical thoughts in a clear and precise way.
Just a thought. I think Mozambican authorities should search 125 miles-long beach between the two locations. There should be more such small fragments from the same wing (based on their condition), and it would be reasonable to expect more debris from the same ‘cloud’ to land on this section of the shore.
@Velocity
I suggest its way too early to say these parts drifted to Mozambique and La Reunion…we need them to be examined properly by experts to see whether there is any evidence of barnacles, algae etc.. Also to say whether its realistic that they have been in the water for anything approaching 2 years. Also, of course, Boeing to determine (if possible) that they came from a 777. Whether anyone can prove they came from 9M-MRO is very doubtful IMO. Even with all of these things proven, the drift modelling I have seen indicates that such debris could have come from the search area, or further north in the SIO, or even the North IO. So frankly, I doubt whether we will get any further clues about the location of the plane from this debris.
@Brock, please correct me if I am wrong about the drift models and could you perhaps give us a quick summary of the reverse drift models.
@AM2: The International Pacific Research Center in Hawaii has generated a drift analysis for the pieces found in Mozambique and Réunion.
“The IPRC Ocean Drift Model has simulated the drift of the possible MH370 fragment found end of February, 2016, on Paluma Sandbank, off the northeastern tip of the Mozambique Island Benguerra. The place where this second piece was found is consistent with the drift of the flaperon found on Reunion last July. Both pieces appear to have drifted low in the water, consistent with an 0.8% model windage.”
http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/MH370_debris/IPRC_MH370_News.php
It’s also interesting to note that identical pieces of debris can start drifting at the same moment in the same place and wind up coming ashore many months apart:
https://marinedebrisblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/movement-podcast/
Finally, a brief excerpt from a Discover magazine story about how floating debris picks up marine life in the open ocean:
“Gil and his colleagues traveled by boat from California to Hawaii, sampling plastic debris in the ocean as they went. Whenever they could haul a piece of trash aboard, they examined it for barnacles, as well as other forms of life. The researchers found a lot of smooth debris. “Think buoys, drinking bottles, toy balls, pieces of siding,” Gil says. They judged that much of it had been swept off the coast of Japan in the 2011 tsunami. They found a refrigerator holding food with Japanese packaging, for example, and a capsized Japanese boat. Despite the inhospitable nature of these smooth pieces of debris, they teemed with life. The researchers found clinging masses of gooseneck barnacles all over the place.”
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/2016/02/22/barnacles-plus-plastic-trash-make-rafts-for-ocean-animals/#.VuLRJ2BhjOH
RetiredF4, Oz,
Reading the ATSB report you cited, I can make some preliminary observations:
– ADIRU has a switch “On/Off” on the hardware unit itself.
– If aircraft electrical system is shut down for good and then restarted, ADIRU is also restarted.
– ADIRU software can be manually uploaded (for upgrading purpose). And it is ADIRU software, which is responsible for redundancy and hardware health checks, and final output.
I was also surprised to learn that if an internal fault is detected by ADIRU, maintenance may still be postponed until the number of faulties exceeds certain limit. The myth of triple redundancy.
@Marty
I share your feelings relative to disclosure. Just trying to rationalize how the current situation might have evolved and why.
maybe there is an aircraft breaker company near the IO region which is using the IO as its dumping grounds of disassembled aircraft. it could be they did a disposal recently …
@OZ,
Thanks for the interesting info!
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/newer-surfacing-films-reduce-surface-on-demolded-composite-parts
DuPont (Wilmington, Del., U.S.A.) Tedlar polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) has been used in aircraft since the late 1960s and is considered the benchmark in the industry for interior surfaces. The aircraft industry has adopted Tedlar because it is durable, cleans easily, and is impervious to all cleaning solvents, including those that are no longer legal in most places but are still used in some parts of the world. Even magic marker will readily clean off. Tedlar also is very tough, and airlines like it because it doesn’t chip when interiors are removed for corrosion inspections. The material passes all burn, smoke and toxicity requirements for the U.S. Federal Aviation Admin. (FAA), Boeing and Airbus.
There are three primary uses of Tedlar in aerospace composites: as a decorative surface for aircraft interior panels; as a protective surface on the inside surfaces of some exterior parts; and, in its untreated state, as a release film for manufacture of composites (a subject not covered in this article).
Boeing, Airbus, Bombardier and Embraer aircraft use Tedlar-surfaced interior panels both as original equipment and aftermarket replacement panels. Just about all Boeing interior surfaces, including ceiling panels, stowbin doors and interiors, printed pattern on sidewalls, lavatories, galleys, and so on are Tedlar-surfaced.
Tedlar comes in two kinds: clear film that is optically transparent; and pigmented film in a variety of different colors. Clear films range from 0.5 mil to 2 mils, and pigmented films range from 1 mil to 4 mils. For typical sidewall use a print is screen printed onto opaque Tedlar, then a layer of clear Tedlar is laminated on top to protect the image.
Tedlar’s second surfacing film use is as a protective surface on exterior composite fairings such as wing to body fairings, flap track fairings and so on. A sheet of Tedlar (usually white or grey) is laid on either the tool side or bag side of the laminate – whichever surface will be interior when the part is installed.
The material adheres well during cure to epoxy and other prepreg resins, which allows the part manufacturer to avoid painting the inside surface and protects the parts from attack by hydraulic fluids and jet fuels. Pigmented Tedlar also substitutes for paint on surfaces that are occasionally visible, such as the inside of access doors on wings and empennages and on landing gear doors.
This is a unique situation because we have the Malaysians being responsible (apparently with a little help from their friends ie NTSB, AAIB,ATSB etc) for the investigation, and a separate organisation, the ATSB, responsible for the search, and they obviously havn’t been sharing information. While the majority of the passengers were Chinese.
The resulting confusion has helped the pilot achieve what he set out to do, ie. lose the plane. It’ as simple as that.
@Velocity
When referring to Mr. Martins you said:
“Real smart guy you quoted there Jeff….Does this guy not follow the discussions on drift patterns of MH370 debris….”
I’m still trying to determine why Commander Joao de Abreu Martins, chairman of the Institute of Civil Aviation of Mozambique WOULD “follow discussions on drift patterns of MH370 debris”?
One more picture of the same part:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/11/mh370-debris-found-by-teenager-on-holiday-to-be-tested-in-australia
This fragment was found on Dec 30 (Victor pls note).
Here are more photos. This part looks like it would float.
http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/south-african-teen-finds-suspected-piece?articleId=USKCN0WD1QT&slideId=1124092556
If these new findings are confirmed to be from the MH370, then it further provides evidence that what the people in Malaysia and Maldives saw and heard were most likely the MH370.
1. Mr. Mike McKay witnessing a burning plane at 1AM (Malaysian) time. As per the DailyMail, “He observed the flight going Southwest rather than The general position of the object, he said, was south west of the normal flight paths of aircraft he and his co-workers saw every day and at a lower altitude than the normal flight paths”
2. The loud sound that the villagers heard when they were seated on a bench about 400m from the Marang beach well past midnight which sounded like the fan of a jet engine.Their location was “north-east of Pulau Kapas” Interestingly, Pulau Kapas is located NE part of the main Malaysian island, so I am wondering if the plane was actually trying to head back to KL and instead was being diverted further southwest.
3. The people in the island of Kuda Huvadhoo (Maldives) witnessing a low flying very big plane in the wee hours of the morning…
4. Finally, Mozambique.
These are eye witness accounts and there is a pattern emerging from these accounts that the plane was indeed heading southwest whether by a conscious pilot or auto-pilot, it is very strange that the search team is going by Inmarsat data and looking for debris in SIO.
@Ken
The ISAT data is irrefutable (unless spoofed, which I rule out on the basis of motive). The plane cannot have been seen from a Maldives location.