Recently two pieces of debris that may have come from missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 were found on the coast of Mozambique.
The first piece was discovered on February 27 by American lawyer Blaine Alan Gibson on a sand bar near the town of Vilankulo (top left). Composed of fiberglass skin around an aluminum honeycomb core, and bearing the words “no step,” the piece is widely presumed to be a part of a 777 horizontal stabilizer. A fastener found attached to the part carried an identifying number that is consistent with, though not exclusive to, a 777. Soon after the find was made public Malaysia’s transport minister Liow Tiong Lai tweeted that there was a “high possibility debris found in Mozambique belongs to a B777.”
The second object was reported on March 11 by South African teenager Liam Lötter, who found it on a beach near the resort town of Xai Xai in southern Mozambique in December. Approximately a meter long, it carries the stencilled code “676EB,” which is written on the right-hand outboard flap farings of Boeing 777s. Its material, a hybrid of fiberglass and carbon fiber, is also consistent with a 777 flap fairing.
The fact that MH370 was the only Boeing 777 lost over the ocean lends weight to the supposition that both parts come from that aircraft.
The pieces’ appearance, however, is quite different from that of the first (and so far, only confirmed) piece of MH370, the plane’s right-hand flaperon, which was found on Réunion on July 29, 2015. Every edge of the flaperon, and much of its broad surface area, was encrusted with goose barnacles of the genus Lepas. The flaperon also had been settled across much of its surface by a brownish algae. Both of the recently discovered pieces are relatively free of marine growth.
This article will explore what the presence or absence of marine growth indicates about how the three pieces traveled through the ocean.
Marine Fouling
When man-made material is immersed in an oceanic ecosystem, a number of plant, animal, and microbial species will begin to settle and grow upon its surface, a process known as “marine biofouling” because historically the process has attracted the most attention as a nuisance to mariners.
Marine biologists study the process using devices called “settling plates” or “fouling panels,” rectangles of material which are put in the water and then observed as time goes by. “The first thing that settles is microalgae, which looks like a slimy brown scummy scuzz,” says Cathryn Clarke Murray, a marine biologist who studies floating debris at the North Pacific Marine Science Organization. Out in the open ocean, microalgae is followed by bryozoans, moss-like filter feeders, and goose barnacles of the genus Lepas. “I’ve found paper bags that have blown into the Pacific and have barnacle larvae on them,” says Bloomsburg University professor Cynthia Venn, who has been studying marine organisms for decades.
Given the great size of the Earth’s oceans, and the relatively slow speed at which objects drift (on the order of dozens of miles per day), objects encountered on the open sea have plenty of time to become colonized. During a survey of debris in the Pacific, marine biologist Miriam Goldstein collected 242 objects and found that all had organisms growing on them except for two that were one square inch in size. University of Florida biologist Mike Gil conducted a similar survey voyage in the eastern Pacific and says that “we didn’t find any clean debris, bottle cap size and larger.”
The mix of species present on an object can yield clues about how it has drifted, a process that renowned invertebrate biologist James Carlton, director of the Williams-Mystic Maritime Studies Program, has labeled “bioforensics.” In his study of marine debris washed out to sea during the Japanese tsunami of 2011, Carlton says, he found “we can track debris across the ocean using two species of bryozoans. One’s cold water, one’s warm water. When I get a boat that lands in Washington or Oregon and has the warm-water bryozoan, it tells me that it went well south before turning north.” Similarly, Carlton has been able to identify debris that traveled south along the coast of Japan before crossing the Pacific by the presence of sea life endemic to that area.
Unfortunately, the flaperon discovered on Réunion Island has been closely held by French investigators since its discovery, so is not known if such a bioforensic analysis has been conducted.
While the presence of certain species can indicate the route its home drifted, the size of individuals can indicate how long an object has been at sea—with some important caveats. Water temperature and the presence of nutrients both affect how quickly an organism will grow. Those on tsunami debris that was carried along through the nutrient-rich waters of the Aleutian chain and wound up in the Pacific Northwest grew faster, and in greater profusion, than those which grew on debris that followed a more tropical route and came ashore in Hawaii.
In order to gauge the time that an object has been in the water, then, it’s important to have a baseline against which to measure. For instance, here’s a boat that spent eight months drifting from Australia to the island of Mayotte in the western Indian ocean.
By comparing the size of the barnacles with the known dimensions of the boat, it is possible to ascertain that they have a maximum capitulum length of 3.5 cm.
And here are Lepas barnacles that grew on the Réunion flaperon.
Given the similarity in latitudes between Réunion and Mayotte, and the fact that the flaperon is believed also to have begun its journey off the west coast of Australia, the temperatures and nutrient levels experienced by both objects should be roughly the same. Applying the same photographic analysis yields a capitulum length of 2.3 cm. Adjusting known Lepas growth rates for the age and size of the Mayotte Lepas specifimens, the size of the Lepas barnacles on the Réunion flaperon suggests it was in water between four and six months.
This technique cannot be applied to the objects found in Mozambique because there are no identifiable forms of marine life visible on them. This absence of visible growth, however, allows us to put an upper bound on the amount of time they were in the water.
“If I put a piece of fiberglass into the ocean, I would expect to see that kind of scummy scuzz about a month after,” says Murray. However, in photographs the pieces of Mozambique debris “look pretty clean to me,” she says.
Shown an image of the new debris and asked how long the pieces look like they’ve been in the water, Jim Carlton says, “My gut instinct would be [that these pieces have been] not long at sea. Not long at sea, because we presume that if you are at sea, you’re going to get Lepas and bryozoans and other oceanic species on you. If you drift in the coastal zone, you’ll pick up coastal barnacles.” Given all that, he cites a possible immersion time of “a couple of days.”
Sam Chan, who studies invasive species at Oregon State University and regularly conducts settling plate experiments on the Pacific coast, says that he finds the clean condition of the honeycombs to be telling. “Not to see marine growth in the honeycomb structure was surprising to me,” he says. “The settling plates we put in the water actually look very much like the honeycomb structure, because it’s a good environment for them to settle.” He says the amount of time the objects have been in the water “could be a couple of weeks. It’s certainly not indicative of something that has been in the water for multiple years, let alone even half a year.” He adds, “If there’s no fouling, was it even in the water?”
Local Mozambique officials who were able to examine the Gibson piece firsthand were similarly skeptical. Joao de Abreu, the director of Mozambique’s National Civil Aviation Institute, was quoted by his government’s official news agency as saying that the object was too clean to have been in the ocean for two years.
Henry Carson, a marine biologist at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, points out that fish sometimes congregate around floating debris in the ocean and can reduce the populations of organisms growing on it. “A colleague of mine encountered a piece of a boat in the middle of the Pacific–I believe also made of fiberglass–that had very few barnacles–and a lot of fish,” he says. “Presumably the grazing fish had kept the barnacles from becoming established. Your pieces could also have sheltered a substantial fish community. Not sure the fish would keep it 100% clean, though, especially of all algae and bryozoans.”
In the Pacific Northwest, it’s not uncommon for beachcombers to find pieces of tsunami debris that have no significant accumulation of marine life on them, but these tend to be highly buoyant objects like pieces of polystyrene foam or smooth, round buoys and floats. “I can only think this stuff rolls on the sea surface,” says Carlton. “Between the UV and getting baked and dried out, dessication’s going to do a job, these things come in whistle clean.”
Obviously that neither of the Mozambique pieces would fit that description, but Carlton points out that it might be possible to imagine a scenario in which they floated across an ocean and then became beached, whereupon it dried out, was foraged upon by terrestrial animals and scoured by wind and sand, then washed out to sea again for a few days before becoming beached again. “One can imagine these scenarios,” he says. “Their probability is another matter.”
Other biologists disagree that weathering and predation could plausibly erase all trace of prior colonization. “We usually see some evidence left, even if it’s been dried out on the beach for a while,” says Murray. “You would see barnacle shells, or the byssal threads from the mussels, even if the mussel’s gone. Usually you see something. I can’t see anything in these pictures.”
“Even if beached and tumbled and baked for some time, I would expect to see a lattice of bryozoan skeletons, barnacle attachment scars, and some staining from where algae had grown. A lot of those things are pretty resilient,” says Carson. “I don’t see any of that in the close-up pictures.”
Says Chan, “There could be some time of feeding or predation, but within that honeycomb structure you would probably still see some remnants, and I just don’t see any.”
Carlton agrees that the condition of the Mozambique debris is puzzling. “Without any bioforensic evidence,” he says, “it’s just a headscratcher.”
Conclusion
The absence of biofouling on a piece of suspected aircraft debris recovered in Mozambique in December, 2015 suggests that it entered the water no earlier than October of that year. The absence of biofouling on a piece of suspected aircraft debris recovered in Mozambique in February, 2016 suggests that it entered the water no earlier than January, 2016. It is entirely possible that one or both of the Mozambique objects were never in the ocean at all.
All of these results counterindicate a scenario in which these pieces of debris were generated by a crash on March 8, 2014 near the area currently being searched by the ATSB. It is incumbent on all the relevant authorities to make public the details of a close examination of the parts, in order to determine how these objects could have arrived in the western Indian Ocean.
Update 3-17-16
I’m adding a couple of videos that Blaine very graciously shared with me, to show how his piece floated in the water. It should be fairly clear that this is not a spherical-float kind of situation. One end of the piece is denser than seawater and is going to be submerged whether or not the piece is occasionally flipped by waves.
Update 3-18-16
David Griffin, an oceanographer with Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), has expended considerable effort working with drift models to understand how ocean currents may have dispersed debris from a crash site in the southern Indian Ocean. In response to Blaine Alan Gibson’s Mozambique find, he writes on the CSIRO web site: “this item is not heavily encrusted with sea life” and therefore “time at sea is therefore possibly much less than the 716 days that have elapsed since 14 March 2014.”
A number of readers have speculated about various factors that may have kept marine organisms from taking up residence on these objects. The fact is that unless a piece is made entirely of smooth unbroken plastic (and usually even then), it is going to acquire a coating of marine life after a certain amount of time at sea. To see a lot of examples of how objects of different size, shape, and material accumulate debris, here is a gallery of Japanese tsunami debris found washed up in Hawaii. And here is a gallery of stuff that washed up in the Pacific Northwest of the USA.
It’s always puzzled me why so many individuals have a pet theory almost to the exclusion of all others including some of the most probable.
I have every faith in the calculations, especially those using BTO/BFO made by most of our experts and their conclusions and even the ATSB. However, I also agree that it’s begining to look as though MH370 did not end up in the SIO. It’s not 100% conclusive but if that’s the case it suggests to me that the BFO and possibly even the BTO data were falsified. That requires quite sophisticated intervention and foreknowledge (of the possible use of them) and points to only one thing.
This possiblity has always been one of the many that I’ve kept an open mind about. If the aircraft had been taken (succussfully) by what must be a sphisticated organisation and they do have MH370 and its contents concealed somewhere why wouldn’t they attempt to keep “us” all chasing “our” tails in the SIO by nothing more complicated than planting a few debris items from the actual aircraft. Indeed, almost 18 months ago, when every one was griping about “no debris” it occured to me that if the perps read it, wouldn’t they be wise to plant a few such parts from the actual plane in the SIO to reinforce the false BFO/BTO data to keep us loooking in the wrong place. The first day after the plane was lost I recal an interview where it was pointed out that after a crash at sea where the aircraft breaks up, it’s common to find many lifekackets and cushions floating or washing up as they are almost permanently bouyant. Where were(are) these? If the perps read this, we can expect to start finding some of them (except now we won’t as it might give the game away).
We can debate for ever what the motives were (are). These have already been discussed many times.
Let me make it clear, I DO NOT claim this is the only possible scenario but it must be one of the more likely.
I just want to add one other puzzle that always niggled me. I don’t think it implicates any one or group. I remember how frustrated I felt seeing all the search aircraft flying for (going from memory) about 5 to 8 hours to get on station, 5 to 8 hours to get back, leaving a very short time (~2hours?) to actualy do anything useful. I kept thinking, “how many aircraft carriers does the world have – surely at least one or two could be spared”. There was no incident gong on at the time that needed even a single carrier group, just Putin being agressive in Crimea.
While I’m at, didn’t any one but me think how disgraceful it is that we don’t have ping locators on 24/7 standby to be on site within hours? It was almost a month before the first one was operating by which time the batteries would were decaying. I dn’t recal any complaints about this and would be the same today?
If the recent debris originated from one of the crashes in the ocean near the east coast of Africa, it could have washed up on the shore relatively quickly, an just stayed on land where it was until someone found it.
@Gysbreght and Dennis
The debris could not have washed ashore relatively quickly. The currents are not that badly understood, even if some variation is possible due to weather conditions and nature of the debris. I would suggest that you look at all available drift studies again. Even if you favor the one which predicts the shortest drift, this time will be long enough for allowing a certain degree of biofouling. And even if you were correct and both pieces only drifted for a week and stayed on the beach for the rest of the time: the pieces would be dirty and the honeycombs would be full of sand and other beach-typical dirt. Not the missing barnacles but the stae of the honeycombs are the biggest problem with the new debris.
But besides the usual drift patterns which predict drift times much longer than a few weeks, there are other pragmatic reasons why the pieces can’t have been sitting on the beach for almost two years: the sandbar location where Blaine found his debris doesn’t favor a two-year long stay on dry land. And Blaine’s captain said himself that the piece couldn’t have been there longer than 2-3 days, because this was a favorite beachcomber location. I read that in Africa every substantial kind of debris gets picked up very quickly because people are in need of raw material. The debris will be incorporated into almost everything. Some people even used these custom for explaing why not more debris has been reported from East African coasts. That would be especially true for Liam’s debris since it is a substantial sheet of raw material. Even if the drift times itself were implausibly quick for both pieces, it’s highly unlikely that they spent the better part of two years sitting on the beach without getting picked up.
Correction:
I meant to says “the state of the honeycombs are the biggest problem with the new debris”.
My keyboard has it’s own mind and started recently to skip or mix up letters.
@DrD, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Regarding the possibility of a vast cover up such as Dr D suggests;
If it’s that huge, then the consequences of it are likely to be very undesirable, and in that case, I would simply rather it remained covered up.
I’m only interested in finding out the answers if it’s got a reasonably innocent explanation, ie something that isn’t liable to cause a massive conflict between powerful countries.
Would it be worth getting the truth if that was the result? I don’t think so.
@DennisW, While the open ocean is relatively nutrient-poor, it is also the favored habitat of Lepas barnicles, which are an extremely fast-growing species. Take a look at the Mayotte boat–that’s an example of an object that spent most of its time out in the pelagic zone. As for the size and stability of the object, I would again refer you to the work of Mike Gil and Miriam Goldstein, who found that everything larger than about the size of a bottle cap supported some kind of sea life. If you want to see a lot of examples of how objects of different size, shape, and material accumulate debris, here is a gallery of Japanese tsunami debris found washed up in Hawaii:
http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/marine_and_tsunami_debris/sightings.php#Daini_Katsu_Maru
And here is a gallery of stuff that washed up in the Pacific Northwest of the USA:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jtmd/page1
Littlefoot,
Re: “The flaperon would’ve been coatex, too, but showed distinctive growth after all. And even if the plane had a special coat it wouldn’t explain the empty and clean honeycombs.”
Do you see distinctive growth on the external undamaged surfaces of the flaperon? The honeycomb material is made of aluminium or its compounds, which is glued by epoxy-kind material. Inner surfaces are also usually treated to prevent corrosion. What do we know about chemical interaction of all this stuff in salty seawater under strong UV light? Flushing of honeycombs would be minimal, so I would expect elevated concentrations of toxic stuff due to desorption into the seawater filling honeycombs (if desorption really occurred).
In general, options we have on the table are:
(a). Marine life did not like Mozambique fragments for some reasons. “Chemical reason”, UV, or frequent flipping appear to me the most likely reasons.
(b). Planted. What would be a motive? What goals could be achieved? So far I did not hear any explanation. Why would the flapperon be insufficient? Why would potential perps treated different fragments in different inconsistent ways? Planting barnacles requires a lot of time. In addition, one fragment was found by a boy, who did not initially realise importance of his finding, so that the world could never know about it. Why would not ‘ensure’ a proper finding?
(c). BTO data are not valid. If I recall correctly, the 7th arc also crosses Reunion, or close to it. If the crash took place somewhete there, some small buoyant fragments could reach Mozambique relatively quickly, while bulky fragments would stay in the water for prolonged time.
Here is one more paper/review on antifouling published by Elsevier:
http://www.sailingteam.tuc.gr/TUC_Sailing_Team/INTERESTING/Entries/2014/2/6_MOURABIA_files/antifouling.pdf
Matty,
“Jets spend a decent part of their lives well below zero? That might take care of some cling-ons? Malaysian automobiles don’t seem to struggle?”
Dirty aircraft surface may significantly increase drag, and speedup corrosion. In contrast, fungue is not an issue for cars (btw I have heard antifouling paints nevertheless are used for coating cars in Singapore, though I am not aware of the effect and how popular antifouling paints are). Cold air does not pose risk or remove fungue – it just stops growing. A proper cleaning of an aircraft is a way more expensive than washing a car.
From @Phil’s link earlier
That sounds quite suspicious :
Hamid Arabnejad, Gholamreza Mahmoudi, and Ali Moattar: Three Iranian citizens who held positions at Mahan Air and were alleged to have conspired to import U.S.-made Boeing aircraft into Iran on behalf of their company.
[…]
the three Mahan Air officials used a front company to obtain three Boeing airplanes on behalf of Mahan Air through a leasing arrangement.
Sounds like back in 2014 they were quite desperate to get some Boeing aeroplanes (and not just parts!). This might explain why the first contract they signed was for aeroplanes.
Desperate enough to hijack a plane?
IF so one would understand that the big nations involved with negotiating the treaty would keep it quiet.
Oleksandr – do anti-fouling coats work perfectly for two years? In aluminium honeycomb? Boat owners seem to be saying no.
There will be an explanation of course why the bits are so clean and the obvious one is being overlooked maybe. There are people out there who would enjoy this, but it doesn’t look like simple mischief.
The glue angle is a bit hard for this layman given the constant irrigation over such a long period. I thought these glues were very stable, which is why they work?
Dennis – you sound like you don’t need to hear from a marine biologist any time soon?
One other little thing about the most recent bit that bothered me – the 676EB is front and centre – like a sign.
@Oleksandr, I think you’re unnecessarily twisting yourself into knots. The significance of these pieces is brutally simple. There is no chemical reason that fouling organisms stayed away: for one thing, each is made of a variety of materials; for another, they come from different parts of an aircraft and are made from different materials; for a third, there is nothing toxic about cured polymers. “Desorption into seawater” is a fantasy–just look at all the tsunami debris covered by tons and tons of barnacles. And UV light isn’t going to penetrate into the interior of a piece.
Now, having said all that, there is one viable option that would allow the presumed SIO impact to stay on the table: that neither of these pieces came from 9M-MRO. Indeed, we still don’t have reliable confirmation that “no step” came from a 777.
@all
I think most of you misunderstood my post. I postulate that the Mozambique finds did, indeed, spend a lot of time in the water drifting from somewhere on the 7th arc to Mozambique. However, the vast majority of that time was spent in the pelagic zone. Referring to the flaperon, the majority of the biofouling consists of barnacles from the pelagic zone. I am not aware of what other organisms are present – have not seen them catalogued. Apart from the barnacles the flaperon appears to be relatively “clean”.
If one excludes pelagic zone barnacle growth due to the geometry and size of the Mozambique debris (not stable enough to produce an environment suitable for colonization), then I would expect that debris to be relatively “clean”.
While not having any “credentials” relative to marine biofouling, I have the opportunity to see a lot of similar debris by virtue of owning property on the beach in NorCal. The condition of the debris finds in Mozambique is consistent with impressions formed from simply looking at a lot of debris.
@Jeff
At this moment I am prepared to accept that the debris came from 9M-MRO, and was not planted. Of course, I will abide by expert examination and their conclusions.
@jeffwise
“Indeed, we still don’t have reliable confirmation that “no step” came from a 777.”
We don’t have that confirmation for 676EB either.
@Olexandr, is it so difficult to understand that whatever may grow or not grow inside the honeycombs – and Jeff’s experts DID predict some growth – they should at least be clogged with sand and dirt, since they were found on sandy beaches. Also, Jeff didn’t draw his conclusions re: biofouling out of thin air. He consulted experts who have ample experience.
As to the possibility and motives of planting: haven’t you yourself suspected foul play in connection with Blaine’s piece and haven’t you voiced it more than once and with some very convincing arguments, I might say. You even accused Blaine himself – nobody else here went that far.Therefore I do not understand why you suddenly reject the possibility of a plant out of hand. If Blaine’s piece wasn’t convincing (experts who have handled the piece in Mozambique agree btw), then the outer appearance of Liam’s piece is equally unconvincing, especially since he declared that he did no cleaning whatsoever. I should add that really no one here suspects Liam himself. That would be totally unwarranted.
There may be many motives for a plant, the most obvious one is of course: boosting the SIO or at least the IO crash narrative. There may be other motives and I agree with you: it’s indeed puzzling why the pieces haven’t been prepared more convincingly and why they are so different from the flaperon. It’s not so much the missing barnacles, it’s the overall appearance which is puzzling. I can’t explain it, especially since it’s not so difficult to stick them into ocean water for a while. Professional fakers of antique artifacts use those weathering procedures all the time. It’s a whole and well developed craft. But that the pieces might be badly faked doesn’t lend them more authenticity.
@Matty
you said:
“Dennis – you sound like you don’t need to hear from a marine biologist any time soon?”
True. If you owned property on the Cali coast and had to deal with the California Coastal Commission you would not want to hear from either. I post signs that say “If you can read this sign, you are in range.” to discourage them, but it does not do much good.
@Littlefoot
If the debris was planted with the intention to mislead, it would have been “prepared” in a manner consistent with the debris origin. People capable of perpetrating an operation of this scale are not stupid i.e. in the common vernacular they are “smarter than the average bear.” They would know that any debris plants would be scrutinized by experts.
@all — It’s agreed then, if we find MH370 the party is at @DennisW’s house.
Dennis – And possibly Cheryl – apologies if I have the posts mixed up – most of the stuff you see on a beach has no big exotic story to it. It’s just litter bumping around the shore till someone puts it in a bin, or it gets buried by sand, or it washes back out. It generally hasn’t come from across the sea. As the biologists relate, they have specifically studied pieces from ocean catchments – way out there, and if they are stable enough and bigger than a couple of inches they will support life.
@Jeff
I would consider it a privilege. Of course, Ami would insist on attendees signing a liability waiver. At my age you tend to think you have “seen it all”, but our parties always seem to produce a fair number of surprises.
@Matty, Just to underline your point, the reason I specifically sought out biologists who work with tsunami debris is that, unlike most stuff that washes up, we know how long it’s been in the water and where it came from. Usually there’s no way of knowing if something is shiny because it was thrown in the water yesterday at the next beach around the corner.
Littlefoot,
Re “I would argue however that at a big airport where planes start and land until late at night and where the runways are illuminated, the landing and subsequent starting of one more airplane has a lot more chances to go unnoticed than at Car Nicobar where the sheer size of a B777 would stick out.”
I would disagree. Banda Aceh is a crowded place, but the airport does not opearate after the midnight. The airport is international, meaning presence of foreign tourists. A lot of locals are still awake after the midnight. Someone would likely notice unusual activities.
In contrast, would villagers of Car Nicobar be curious about an aircraft landing and taking off at the military airbase? I am sure – no. Those, who stay near military aerodromes got used to this sort of things. Perhaps night training, perhaps some goods are shipped, or new personnel. And B777 is not big compared to cargo aircrafts used by military. Usual sort of things.
Re: “Also, since this is an Indian air base, at least some of those stationed there must’ve gone rogue in such a scenario”
When it is about military, it could be well planned in advance. There were several Indians onboard, all with “interesting” biographies. One worked in North Korea. The other one was grandson of an Indian politician (minister), killed in air disaster, if I recall correctly.
Re: “Also, the whole Banda Aceh area in Sumatra has a big percentage of muslims, many of them belonging to the more extremist fringes.”
I would downplay the role of Muslims in this case. Extremist Muslim fighting against moderate Muslims are rather exceptional cases (I mean ISIS). Indonesian Muslims have no reasons to hijack Malaysian Muslims.
Re: “Have you made a detailed plan which is compatible with the sat data?”
No. I did not invest much time in this scenario mainly because time is not sufficient if you assume 18:22 radar position is correct. But I do have some trajectories starting 19:41 and 19:25, which would likely be consistent with Car Nicobar.
Re: “In a re-start scenario the pilot who took off with the plane needed to exit the plane after all before it went on it’s way towards the SIO. Why then even land the plane? ”
To unload passengers and/or cargo indeed. Hide them temporarily at the military airbase, then relocate to the mainland later, when nobody is watching.
Concerning feasibility of escape – I don’t know. I guess this might be possible shortly after the takeoff when airspeed is not high.
@Oleksandr
I did reply to your original post relative to Car Nicobar. I looked at this possibility with RetiredF4, and concluded it was feasible relative to the ISAT data. RetiredF4 discarded it for a good reason which I cannot recall. I was hoping he would weigh in on the discussion.
My thought on why the flapperon was better prepared than the later debris is that the prolonged prep hadn’t convinced the experts, or not all of them, so why waste time repeating a long prep procedure that hadn’t worked anyway, after all, it’s only intended to create doubt. Also, it might be that the operation isn’t being controlled by a single individual.
The motives were given and very obvious.
I believe all of the BTO AND BFO are consistent with the main endpoints (even the so called anomalies), so much so that I see it as a significant counter argument to the theory that they were manipulated.
Jeff,
Re “Desorption into seawater” is a fantasy”.
Sorry, you are wrong. I specifically posted two links to the papers, which explain how antifouling paints work.
With regard to other aircrafts, I guess biofouling affects all of them. Or all these fragments came from three different aircrafts (the second Reunion fragment is also from some aircraft)?
@Matty, agreed. Dennis has no way to know the history of the pieces he finds at his beach. Therefore it might be like comparing apples with oranges. Jeff did well by selecting the tsunami debris for comparison because they have a history of having crossed the ocean.
@Dennis, I have no explanation why the pieces seem to be a rather unconvincing fake. But that they are not convincing doesn’t lend them more credibility. But it does raise the questions: who were the fakers and what was their motive?
And what do you think about a beach party at your place for the mh370 crowd? I think, Jeff’s idea is very charming.
And we could all convince you in person that nobody here dislikes you – contrary to your frequently voiced suspicions 😉
@DrD, you have some very convincing arguments re: why is the new debris so different from the flaperon, and you might well be right in all points. I have problems to understand, though, why not even a minimum of fouling – by dirt or by local algae – has been done. It’s hard to make any crucial mistakes there. Maybe there was no time for some reason? And hey, who says that everything was always done perfectly?
@Littlefoot
I already endorsed the party venue. Great idea, and everyone will feel even better after signing the liability waiver.
I am not a big fan of the notion the debris was planted, but hopefully we will have some answers soon.
Littlefoot,
“Jeff’s experts DID predict some growth”
Could you point out where these experts discussed marine growth on epoxy and surfaces painted with antifouling agents? Not plastic, not wood, and not corroded metallic parts?
DrD,
“My thought on why the flapperon was better prepared than the later debris is that the prolonged prep hadn’t convinced the experts.”
Why would less prepared fragments convince experts? ATSB was convinced by the flaperon; Malaysians also were convinced. What is the motive/purpose to plant additional fake debris? Your arguments simply do not work me.
Littlefoot,
I do not suspect Gibson presented a fake fragment or planted it. I suspect he and his team found it much earlier. Do remember last August or September NOK requested to allow them to search the shore of Reunion, but they were refused? Motive is obvious to me.
@Oleksandr, fouling organisms are like the honey badger — they don’t give a sh*t. It gets on absolutely anything and everything, so long as it isn’t smooth and/or super buoyant. Look at all the tsunami debris in the links I added to the post.
@DennisW: If Mr. Gibson’s part was planted, it was to persuade the public at large, not the experts, who seem to be doubting the scenario in which the part floated across the Indian Ocean. The fact that so many here are adamant against even considering the possibility of a plant despite what the marine biologists are saying tells me that the plant, if it occurred, was successful. There will always be convoluted technical explanations, as unlikely as they are, to explain away the evidence.
It doesn’t help that the lead investigator, Malaysia, seems hell-bent at slowing or derailing the investigation at every step. It has been 3 weeks since Mr. Gibson’s part was discovered and we still don’t have an official determination of whether the part is from a B777. The part was shipped from Mozambique to Malaysia despite the ATSB’s belief that it would be shipped directly to Canberra. At this time, the ATSB has stopped making predictions as to when Mr. Gibson’s and Mr. Lotter’s parts will arrive in Australia because they don’t know.
Yes, I am more suspicious and skeptical of the official narrative than most. But that suspicion and skepticism are borne out of watching the actions of officials over the course of many months. The secrecy and lies surrounding the flaperon investigation and the radar data are two prime examples.
Here is what Marnie O’Neill has to say about the uncertainty surrounding the disposition of the recovered debris:
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/why-is-suspected-mh370-debris-taking-so-long-to-reach-australia/news-story/9c844b8265f70732cd08980daf66bf59
@Olexandr, growth is simply very likely because the space in between the honeycombs is an ideal resting place for all sorts of material. A lot of organic stuff as well as dirt gets trapped in there mechanically. And then provides and ideal base for further growth.
Maybe, before we continue this discussion you should provide some evidence that everything is indeed treated with antifouling stuff and how that would affect long term growth. It’s used on boats and it never prevents marine growth completely. But since we should stick with airplane parts: I remember that after the flaperon was found people at the Maldives found parts of a drone. And before anyone jumps to unintended conclusions : this part only interests me insofar as it was completely covered with barnacles and marine growth – very similar to the flaperon.
@Victor
Good link.
I have been critical of the Malay government from the time of the initial search in the SCS. There has been a continuum of suspicious behavior which has been quite obvious from before the SSWG/IG were sticking pins a map at 38S. It is only recently that people have come around to the conclusion that this problem will take more than a spreadsheet to solve.
I am also very critical of the Aussies for not being more hard nosed with their Malay neighbors. I insisted earlier that it would take several “come to Jesus” meetings with the folks in Kuala Lumpur before I would toss $100M+ plus in the toilet. I am very disappointed in the behavior of the Aussie politicians, not the ATSB or SSWG or IG who have been behaving in good faith (naive behavior, but sincere nonetheless).
Ok, on request of Dennis I chime in on the question, why Car Nicobar did not make it on my list for a possible landing place.
The risk of detection immidiately and in the aftermath is just too big with a landing on an airfield like Car Nicobar, Banda Aceh, smith island or the like. You would need an contingency plan how to deal with a discovery on the spot or later on. Any nation involved with the hijacking would have to consider, that China with most passengers on board could harm them badly if discovered.
At that time I was looking for some remote and well controlled place, my favorite was the airfield at great coco island, Myanmar. The plan was, that China itself caused the hijacking. But nobody could make the ISAT data fit.
In our private discussion then we drifted to the option, that the aircraft did not land at all, but the team got from the aircraft whatever it was by airdrop in the general area, where Kate reported her sighting.
Concerning the debris I pose the advocatus diaboli question. What if the new debris was deliberately planted not to support the previous find, but to discredit it? Would the search then continue?
If the debris would be confirmed to be from MH370, this would end the search, crash confirmed, case closed?
@RetiredF4,
Your idea what the motive for planting the new debris might’ve been, is intriguing. How exactly do you think it could work?
1) People who have an interest in discrediting the flaperon (maybe because they really believe it’s planted) place the new apparently quite clean debris on the beach. They figure that everybody will work out in no time that it must have been planted. And they hope that those rather obvious plants also raise new doubts about the provenance of the flaperon- by association so to speak.
2) The hoaxers want to test the investigators. If the investigators can’t even tell for sure that the new debris was faked, how can we trust them that they assessed the flaperon correctly?
3) People in general accept the new debris as genuine and and start to think the flaperon might’ve been a grossly exaggerated and overdone fake.
What exactly did you have in mind?
@RetiredF4
Thank you.
I have long believed that high ranking Malay officials are very much aware of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of 9M-MRO. I have been beating this drum almost from the get-go as you know,
They Malays are hiding behind the wall surrounding a sovereign state, that is almost impossible to penetrate. They know that public opinion has a short half life, and that this whole incident will eventually fade from the concern of the world.
It is not a physics problem. It has never been a physics problem or else Duncan and his colleagues would have solved it a long time ago.
@Phil
Sorry for the delay in replying to your earlier question iro the 2nd SDU reboot. I’ve only just found this site, with the help of Mr Exner.
At the risk of being presumptuous, this is what happened in the closing stages of the flight:
I found that he did not slow down as he approached the 7th arc, His airspeed remained constant at Mach 0.804 (if my estimated headwind of 33Kts is correct) which suggests that both engines were running normally up to that point. If the engines had flamed out some time before 00;19;30,then his airspeed would necessarily have dropped.
5th arc to 6th arc: 692.2Nm, 461.5Kts ave groundspeed, 10Kts est ave headwind = Mach 0.804 (Mach 1 est at 586.5Kts averaged over the distance)
6th arc to 7th arc: 61.5Nm, 434Kts ave groundspeed, 33Kts ave headwind = Mach 0.804 (Mach 1 est at 581Kts)
I think it went like this: as soon as he received the low fuel level warning, at 00:18:30 say (both engines running), he momentarily isolated the LH Main AC bus to make the SDU reboot and issue a log-on request. He also started up the APU and when it came on line, he switched off both engines and began the extended glide. The APU would provide hydraulic power via the electrically driven hydraulic pumps. The RAT alone would not have provided sufficient hydraulic power to extend the flaps, as I understand it. Deception was the name of the game all the way through.
@RetiredF4:
“If the debris would be confirmed to be from MH370, this would end the search, crash confirmed, case closed?”
Since the objective of the underwater search is not simply to confirm that the airplane crashed, but to find clues as to why the accident occurred, confirming that the debris came from MH370 would not only intensify the search effort but, if it was ostensibly planted, provide directions as to why the accident occurred.
As a sideline, looking for confirmation that B777 zone numbering is similar to that on other Boeing aircraft (e.g. the B767), I came across the following. Zone 573 is the left wing inboard flap track fairing (see photo’s 4 and 5):
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/184925/
The figures just quoted are in respect of the IGOGU/ISBIX/7th arc geodesic.
If you find any substance that will prevent marine growth then you could be rich beyond your wildest dreams!
Look at steel seawalls in the US. There is no grown on that steel. Why? because marine growth does not like iron oxide and the copper content in Cor ten steel.
Marine growth happens in stages in a matter of days on most objects.
If the plane part was down very deep then worked its way loose you would have to account for that delay in growth of marine life.
Who knows what that honey comb material is made of.
It could be that marine life just does not like it.
I lived on my steel boat for 14 years and I learned a lot about the ocean and marine growth.
@littlefoot
What exactly did you have in mind?
At the moment I have not made up my mind. I see several possibilities. The order is just by chance.
1) The debris has no connection to MH370
2) The debris is from 370
3) The flaperon is a fake, the new debris is planted to prove it
4) The flaperon is real, the new debris is planted to support it
4) The flaperon is real, the new debris is planted to discredit it
In the end we do not know yet. But there must be some action behind the scene, why the last report lacked anything concerning the flaperon find.
@RetiredF4:
“But there must be some action behind the scene …”
Did you mean inaction?
@Gysbreght
“But there must be some action behind the scene …”
Did you mean inaction?
Lawyers answer (although I’m none): That depends…….
ROB,
“I found that he did not slow down as he approached the 7th arc”.
Who is he? Or she?
Jeff,
“fouling organisms are like the honey badger”.
So, why no biofouling? Regardless whatever aircraft they came from?
Littlefoot,
“growth is simply very likely because the space in between the honeycombs is an ideal resting place for all sorts of material. A lot of organic stuff as well as dirt gets trapped in there mechanically.”
There is not much dirt and nutrients in the open ocean.
With regard to sand: Gibson did some buoyancy experiments with his piece, during which sand could be washed out (not talking about my speculations with regard to his discovery). And the boy, who found the second piece, could possibly clean it a bit. I do not mean brushing, polishing, etc. – just basic cleaning to load it into car. If you ever walked on a sandy beach and found something of interest, do you clean it before putting it in your pocket? Or just dump it together with sand?
I have to say that I only “injected” an idea why these pieces could be clean. I might be wrong, and there was nothing toxic for the marine life. But this remains to be seen. Do you have any other explanation?