After a Boeing 737 operating as Flydubai Flight 981 crashed in the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don Saturday, preliminary accounts suggested that the plane had clipped a wing or struck the ground with its tail while attempting to land in stormy weather. Indeed, in a story published later that day, RT.com quoted Rostov region governor Vasily Golubev as saying, “The plane was descending and then suddenly dived down. Experts say this was an air pocket that dragged the plane to the left of the runway center. And the plane debris were scattered to the left as well.” Obviously, there is no such thing as an “air pocket.” But it makes intuitive sense that a plane attempting to land in high, gusty winds might succumb to shear at low altitude and low airspeed as it nears touchdown. But this, it appears, is not what happened at all. Frequent contributor Victor Iannello has created a graphic based on ADS-B data transmitted by the plane during its final moments. What it shows is that the plane had descended to land, then aborted the landing and climbed, accelerating as it went. It had already gained 3000 feet altitude and reached a speed of 200 knots when it suddenly plummeted from the sky. Here’s the data in graph form:
This security-camera footage offers a visual sense of what happened:
Mar19 #Rostov, #footage of FZ981 crash, view from Aleksandrovka micro-ds @Eisenhoden pic.twitter.com/TqIdvOmMys
— English Lugansk (@loogunda) March 21, 2016
What happened? Authorities on the scene have found the black boxes and hopefully will have answers soon. For the time being, some have speculated that the plane encountered severe windshear or a microburst, causing it to stall and plummet. But the plane’s descent was nose-down at high speed, so the pilot should have been able to at least attempt to pull up. Personally, I’m reminded of AA587, which crashed in 2001 on takeoff from Long Island after the pilot flying applied to much rudder after encountering wake turbulence from the plane ahead of him on climbout, causing the vertical stabilizer to rip off; the plane dived nearly vertically into the ground. If something similar happened here, parts of the tail should be found at some distance from the main wreckage. Another case that may offer parallels was Kenya Airways Flight 507, which crashed in 2007 while on climbout in bad weather. The pilot lost situational awareness while the autopilot was only partially engaged, the plane entered into an increasingly steep bank, and plunged into the ground. What’s different in the present case is that the plane impacted right on the runway it had been trying to climb away from, implying that it stayed on the same heading the whole time. (That is to say, it hadn’t gone into a roll.) Another unusual aspect of the case was the fact that the pilots had been holding for two hours before making a second landing attempt. I asked Phil Derner, an aircraft dispatcher and aviation expert, for his take. He replied:
For me, as a dispatcher, 1 hour is my max to let an aircraft of mine hold. It’s just a waste of gas; might as well divert and wait for conditions to improve. Shit, even fitting an additional 2 hours of holding fuel to a flight is tough as it is, and then to burn it away in a hold? Also, I only let my flights sit in a holding pattern if I think they WILL get it. If conditions don’t look to be improving right away, I won’t even have them hold…I divert and would rather have them wait it out on the ground. It saves gas, and is safer on the ground. But then again, I don’t know all of the conditions they were facing, what conditions were at their alternate airports, etc. There are so many variables and we just don’t have a lot of info, so it’s tough to determine or judge. But 2 hours….damn.
Meanwhile, on an unrelated topic, I might as well put up a picture of the latest piece of aircraft debris, this one found on a beach in South Africa. Not many details forthcoming yet, but it’s worth noting that MH370 was equipped with two Rolls-Royce Trent 800 engines. 
A quick glance at there not-very-high-res images suggests that the piece is roughly similar in appearance to the two pieces recently found in Mozambique, though perhaps somewhat more discolored/weathered. Apparently the piece is on its way to Malaysia.
UPDATE: Here’s another picture that @Susie provided a link to in the comments section:
@ROB
Kiss, kiss, kiss,…
ROB, this is a tough group.
I am guessing you are still fairly young, and it still matters to you what other people think about you. You have to get over that. You also have to get over worrying about being wrong. It happens to everybody – a lot.
One of my favorite things to do is go back 10 years or so and revisit presentations I had made (yes, I kept every single one of them). Humbling experience.
@RetiredF4
Matt is right in his summing up, although I’m not sure if he is just taking the p..s, it’s difficult to tell.
What impressed me was the first Malaysian press conference, straight after the disappearance. They looked to me to be in a state of shock. I could tell they knew what had happened, but the didn’t know how best to control the situation. They had to admit that radar indicated that he may have turned back, but they were embarrassingly non committal.
@George
That’s ok by me George, I think possibly half a bottle of good Australian chardonnay might have been responsible for the kissing invitation. Please be assured, that was the wine talking?
Richard Godfrey, are you there? If so, thanks for the interesting drift post on Duncan’s site yesterday. You mention that about 1000 pieces of surface debris from AF447 were retrieved. The number I found from looking at footnote 80 in Wikipedia was 640. (BEA first interim report, section 1.12.1 “Localisation of the bodies and aircraft parts”: “All the debris known to the BEA was referenced in a database. By 26 June, this database included 640 items.”)
What is your source for about 1000? (I prefer 640 because it agrees better with the 400+ pieces of surface debris spotted by satellite after MH370’s demise.)
@ROB, Dennis, George
I’m simply pointing out that it is hubris to state so *categorically* what someone’s motives *must clearly* have been when you don’t know them personally (and often, even if you do).
Ironically, the mere suggestion that Rob may be trolling, as it appeared to this observer based solely on some internet postings, upset him mightily… since it apparently turned out to be a mischaracterization (my apologies, no harm meant). Do you not consider that you may be erroneously mischaracterizing the pilot in the same fashion?
I would note that simply tempering the language of your conclusions would likely satisfy most observers in this regard.
@Dennis
Actually I’m not quite young (I wish) I actually quite an old boy to be honest. The young impression must be due to my Aspie traits (only recently diagnosed) which results in me being a very late developer. We Aspies don’t fit the usual mould, unfortunately
Ok, that’s out of the way, I wont mention the A word unless someone else brings it up.
@Phil
I wouldn’t be honest if I now said I had mischaracterised the Pilot.
Sorry, I cannot go along with that.
@Phil
I would be less concerned about a particular motive than I would be about having no possible motive or causality as is the case with the current search area.
As far as a particular motive is concerned, a Shah diversion (gone wrong) for political leverage fits very well for me. I don’t think Shah was a bad guy, and I don’t think he intended to harm anyone. Of course, I could very well be incorrect, but like ROB states above there is little doubt that the Malays know a lot more than they are revealing. I really do believe that negotiations were taking place while the aircraft was still flying.
@ ROB
In that case, I stand by my characterization as well. The defense rests 😀
@Dennis
“I don’t think…. I could very well be incorrect… I really do believe…”
Much less inflammatory, glad someone got my point 🙂
@All, Lately there’s been a fair bit of talk about what motive might have impelled Zaharie to the SIO, and how debris might have drifted from there. I’d be curious to know how people feel about the very small amount of marine life founding growing on the Mozambique debris. Could this suggest that the debris didn’t drift across the Indian Ocean? That, ergo, the plane didn’t fly into the SIO?
@jeffwise – the very small amount of marine life on the Mozambique is very concerning and needs further investigation as to its source. One would expect similar growth as other object collected throughout other oceans therefore I would place high weight that it did not fly into the SIO (or even IO).
Jeff, in that comment do you mean the SIO search area, or Southern Indian Ocean ie. south of the equator across all longditudes?
@Jeff
Mike says a debris report will be forthcoming relative to the Mozambique debris. Hopefully that will happen.
Like you, Victor, and others have said, the debris looks cleaner than I would have imagined, although I am not quite as suspicious as you are. I would not expect barnacles on pieces that do not appear to have a preferential submerged surface (pieces were probably being flipped continuously by wave motion).
As several of us have speculated there my be something that can be said relative to corrosion history, but maybe not. When I was checking the towelette survival likelihood I was surprised that certain materials (PE and PET in the case of the towelette packaging) can be in seawater for 100 weeks or more without any noticeable chemical changes.
@Dennis
Quick question re: the negotiation idea… why skirt the FIR boundary and/or avoid radar (presuming you believe that is what was done). Flying at cruise altitude over unpopulated terrain would not impart a sense of urgency upon the other negotiating party like for example, flying back over KL would. In addition, having some sort of private conversation then quietly flying out into oblivion does not seem like a well-conceived political statement, compared to say, broadcasting your opinions across the airwaves; seems inconsistent from a psychological perspective with his M.O. on FB.
@Phil
I think the negotiations were going on between a third party or group of third parties and high ranking government officials in KL, not with Shah himself in the aircraft. The group probably reasoned that Shah would be busy enough flying the aircraft, and that it would not be practical for him to be engaged directly.
I have been lead to believe that Shah had a menu of landing choices along a route generally below and paralleling the coast of Sumatra which included Banda Aceh, Cocos, CI, and Bandung. Which one was selected depending on the status of negotiations in KL.
wrt- the Malaysian Press Conference and
their being in a state of shock…
It would seem to me they are acting as a result of being caught by other powers in doing something resulting in MH370 disappear but they had to tread carefully as these powers are directing the Malaysian gov’t could say/do at that point.
The M.O. might be with what happened between the Malaysian Gov’t and this/these “powers”.
@jeffwise – I’ve gotta go with DennisW on this one. These pieces flipped often and the typical marine growth couldn’t become established in direct sunlight. The sandal pictured a while ago stayed upside down with growth only to the side not exposed to direct sunlight.
@Dennis
Interesting… how do you suppose they would let him know in a timely fashion if the negotiations were successful?
@All
It’s my opinion only of course but to me the Malaysian officials at the first press conference appeared totally confused, and were trying to get their heads round the situation. But I think they must have been aware of the Captain’s political activism, and were linking the event in their minds to the Anwar trial.
There was something else I thought afterwards as a possibility. It could be the Malaysian authorities were already putting pressure on Zahire to make hin tow the line. His actions that night may have been precipitated by this pressure to shut up. A senior captain with the national carrier is a position that would carry a lot of respect in Malaysian society. Remember the photo of him with a “democracy is dead” slogan on his Tshirt. He would have been a thorn in their side.
@Phil
HF radio or satcom. The fact that Shah was not broadcasting does not imply that he was not listening.
Diverting a plane is a terrible statement, no matter what. It would go down like a fart in an elevator. Your own political Party will disown you, the public would be aghast, the govt will jail you. It’s like taking hostages at the Kindergarten. Even in jail you would be an idiot. And that’s if no one got hurt!
Jeff – Victor may be on the money with his forecast about the marine life report being politically trepid. I only hope the anomalies are big enough to warrant some blunt reporting of it.
Sinux – maybe my suspicion overdrive, but, the guy in your link is related to Kruger(RR) piece? Same seems to happen with UFO claimants. Often a connection of some sort with such people……..
@Dennis
Thanks… certainly listening without broadcasting could have been possible, wasn’t implying otherwise. Just trying to follow you down the rabbit hole.
So when there was no signal received via radio or satcom, he would simply assume no positive outcome and fly off into oblivion? What if something went wrong with communications? What if negotiations were going well but they needed more time to confirm arrangements from the powers that be? It would seem to leave a lot to chance if one’s hope is to return following a positive outcome. It would also seem inconsistent for someone optimistic of returning safely to abandon that optimism in absence of signal and simply give up… wouldn’t you try to make contact at least once? “Ummm… anybody there? Are you guys sure?”
@Matty
Hostage taking has a very long history dating back to Roman times. You should Google it. There are several long articles on the practice, and how it has been used.
So wouldn’t flying along parallel to the coast of Sumatra which included Banda Aceh, Cocos, CI, and Bandung… give a great chance of being detected by RADAR?
@ROB: “the Anwar trial”
I understand the morbid fascination. But is that all there is? Give me one concrete prediction that specifically derives from Zaharie’s mind itself versus alternative hypotheses–sophisticated hijack, unsophisticated hijack, other flight crew, evil tiger spirits, aliens, Ukrainian hackers–that offers something new and different? I’d like to see something like: Well, his buddy was gay, and he was mad about that, so since “69” is a slang term for a form of sodomy, he likely programmed in the waypoint 69 69 into the FMC after RUNUT because we also knew he had a dark sense of humor…
We’ve all seen the fb posts and the pictures of the T-shirts, and the ground beef and newspaper headlines on his little construction projects. A fresh take is all I ask. Not recycled news items from 2 years ago. Thanks…
@Phil
Therein lies a mystery for me. Something had to have gone wrong, no fully developed idea of what went wrong, for my scenario to hang together. The lack of a position report (at or before fuel exhaustion) is also inconsistent with my belief that Shah did not intend harm to anyone. I am working on both of those issues – running out of fuel before landing and no position report.
If you highjack a plane intending to negotiate a settlement, you must do everything possible to avoid harm to passengers and crew. That means that you cannot turn off ATC transponders, you must stay in contact with ATC, you cannot depressurize the cabin to kill everybody, and disabling ACARS and SATCOM makes no sense at all.
@jeffwise: for over two years, I have deemed the probability that the plane did not go into the SIO to be well into the “plausible zone”. I based this on the dodgy way in which whoever was in charge was behaving.
I was branded a heretical conspiracy theorist.
Everything that has happened since has supported that initial assessment. Pristine debris is merely the latest in a very long series of coincidences that I think are better explained as something other than a very long series of coincidences.
While it is tempting to get depressed over the pace of movement toward “on the record” support for this view (glacial), I take considerable heart nonetheless: Florence de Changy this month joined a very long list of MH370 authors who have risked their reputations in order to pointedly question the official story.
With your typical conspiracy, the more one engages in proper research, the more the conspiracy theory unravels. With MH370, it is the other way around.
@ Jeff: Re: Russian sophisticated hijack:
If those special forces guys commandeered the a/c, why is it absolutely necessary that they go north to Kazakhstan? Have you considered the possibility that there was a rendezvous with a submarine or “fishing trawler” in the SIO? In several ways, it would be easier to pull off, and easier to avoid detection IMO.
@MH
Yes, there was risk (and reported actual detection by the Malays) before rounding the tip of Sumatra, but what if he was detected? It is unlikely that interceptors would shoot down a commercial airliner (although there is precedent for that). My guess is that before turning South, Shah was counting on being in a relatively high traffic area and not raising any alarm bells (which seems to have worked out).
@DennisW – without the navigational instruments operating, it would be very difficult to get back over Malaysia and the Malacca straights without colliding with another aircraft or mountain.
I suspect if Malaysia was not under threat from another “Power” this whole MH370 saga would not be so secret.
@Gysbreght
I have never said anything about depressurizing the cabin.
The other things you mention are consistent with wanting to disappear, and did present risk, albeit a very small risk. As it turns out none of those risks materialized, and the ultimate demise was running out of fuel.
@MH
The risk of colliding with another aircraft or a mountain is unimaginably small.
I do harbor the possibility that events prior to or around 18:00 may have effected the aircraft navigation systems, and that Shah was navigating by compass only, and that was the reason he missed Christmas Island – flew South of it while looking for it, and ran out of fuel not realizing he had passed it.
@Lauren H,
You addressed me two days ago and cited Johnny Begue, who decribed how he found the flaperon. If it was half in the sand and half in the water, how does that contradict the notion that the flaperon was a recent arrival? In that position the barnacles wouldn’t dry out and fall off, but they most certainly would get eaten by birds and crabs very quickly. The open-ocean barnacle population would also get replaced by local barnacles which would attach themselves to the flaperon if it would’ve hung around longer in the waters of La Reunion. But as far as the experts could make out there were no local barnacles on the flaperon – only open-ocean barnacles. But if the flaperon hung around longer in the local waters of La Reunion there should’ve been local barnacles as well.Therefore we can pretty much exclude all those scenarios. The flaperon can’t have been long at La Reunion. This isn’t just my opinion btw. I merely repeated the main arguments. Johnny Begue himself said that the flaperon can’t have been there for long. I will look it up if necessary. He argued also with the location of the beach and the local currents which according to him weren’t conductive for prolonged lingering and multiple beachings. Right after the flaperon was found there were stories that the piece had been seen before and was used as a fish-deboning table. But all those stories were quietly withdrawn since they were not supported by the evidence of the barnacles. Some even tried to argue that people might’ve seen the plane’s other flaperon because they accepted that they couldn’t have seen the eventually discovered piece that much earlier.
@Olexandr, if those arguments are perceived as childish by you, you aren’t addressing the right person 😉 I didn’t make that up but just recapitulated the accepted line of reasoning which I find very plausible.
Anyway, it’s probably not worth arguing about. We and others have done that extensively last year.
@DennisW
What is the benefit of turning off transponders, communication with ATC, ACARS and SATCOM, if you want to negotiate something with the authorities?
@Gysbreght
There was scene in the US movie “True Grit” where Jeff Bridges shoots one of the bad guys in a cabin in the chest as he is emerging from a cabin, and literally blasts him back into the cabin. He tells the little girl companion at that point “We want to let them know our intentions are serious.”
Same logic applies. You can’t achieve the same effect by circling the sky above Kuala Lumpur.
Dennis – hostage taking is nothing new granted. It only works if Shah wants to martyr himself. As a pilot he then has many ethical issues to cross. It had no chance of success and he was smart enough to know that. Hostage taking for a senior 777 pilot is about as unhinged as mass murder – in my view of course.
@DennisW,
Sorry, but you are avoiding my question. Is it necessary to do all those things just to let ‘them’ know that your intentions ‘are serious’?
@Matty
Yes, I think Shah realized that. I don’t think seeking asylum was in his plan. He was doing it for love of country and what he believed in. I agree it was a drastic act, but anything short of a drastic act had little chance of success (not saying this act, if it went down as I am speculating, had a great chance of success either).
@Dennis, well the SDU sprang back to life as soon as the plane was out of radar reach. Sat phone calls would’ve been possible. But we know that no sat phone calls have been made from the plane – unless the hijackers (whoever they were) brought their own set. And the lack of any sign of life from the plane is still my main argument against your idea that Shah couldn’t land on CI for some obscure reason and was therefore forced to ditch the plane. He would’ve made his predicament known in order to increase the survival chances of the passengers. In order to make your scenario workable you have to add so many highly unlikely events and unlucky coincidences that I find a run into the SIO more plausible. And you know that I’m not a fan of that scenario.
@Warren
Seeing as we’re talking dirty, which is quite ok by me, where I come from, Soixante-Neuf is s mutual hetero oral sex position, not related to sodomy, but as I’ve heard that the Orientals do things slightly differently, I stand to be corrected.
I see him as being the prime suspect, simply because to me he seems the most likely one if you look at it logically.
He best knew the B777 systems, he had to work alone (if he didn’t, who else could have been in on it?) No one has come forward to say they were in on it, not even a whisper after two years.
Following the takeover at the FIR boundary, the aircraft appeared to take the path of least resistance (least likely to provoke suspicion or intervention)into the SIO. He went dark, with no indication that he tried to make contact with anybody at any stage.
This could only have been the work of an experienced B777 pilot.
To me the evidence indicates he depressurized the plane for one hour to kill the passengers. He switched off the Acars and Satcom. He kept the Acars off for the duration, but reconnected LH main AC bus (re-energizing the SDU as a consequence) when he no longer needed to monitor the cabin with the surveillance video. If he had simply switched off the IFE connection from the overhead panel, he would have switched off the video as well. All this points to one person in the cockpit controlling the flight for one purpose, and you already know my views on that one.
As for the TShirt etc, all circumstantial I know, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered.
At the risk of being branded a troll, that is what does it for me.
@Jeff
The official statement re: the Mozambique debris (dated 24 March) states that the examination was completed 23 March, i.e. it only took three days for the various experts including Boeing, ANU, GA to do their work! If this was a proper scientific process I suggest it would take much longer and conclude with a full written report. http://mh370.gov.my/index.php/en/396-media-statement-by-yb-dato-sri-liow-tiong-lai-minister-of-transport-malaysia-2
While further analysis may indeed be going on as ALSM mentions, I think the chance of the results being made public soon are very small. Perhaps something will be included in the final report after the search has finished. Victor was right in his prediction of a few days ago.
The speed with which Malaysia has announced that the debris are probably from MH370 and consistent with drift studies reminds me of how overly fast they were to announce that the flaperon was from MH370. This behaviour, the apparent lack of marine growth on recently found debris and the fact that these have visible identifying letters/numbers all tends to confirm (to me) that the current search area is not correct. Unfortunately, IMO, there is no clue how to proceed.
@Gysbreght
I don’t have an opinion on what would constitute a “threshold for seriousness” in that culture. I am just giving you a possible reason. I am not trying avoid your question. I never avoid questions. I would say I don’t know rather than avoid a question.
@littlefoot
Yes, I am struggling with the same issues as you are. A run to the SIO has never been anywhere near a fallback for me. It has to have much less than a 10% probability for reasons I have already articulated.
@Rob (and everyone who favors a suicide scenario): Apart from the problems I’ve addressed in blog posts, there is the rather significant one that de-powering anything by isolating the left AC bus is a risky operation; as I’ve previously written, Boeing makes it quite difficult to figure out what exactly is wired to what, so even very experienced professionals are taking a stab at the dark in doing that. So the log-off and log-on of the SDU is considerably more problematic for the suicide scenario than for the spoof scenario.
Needless to say, the absence of marine life on the Mozambique debris (which, notwithstanding the claims of some commenters, cannot be explained by the regular flipping over of the pieces) is a very big push in the same direction.
I’ve noticed that the reaction that many have to these two pieces of evidence is the same, if they don’t fit in their preferred theory: they simply pretend that they do not exist. “Oh, well, I guess some things just don’t gather biofouling!” No.
@Brock: You wrote, “With your typical conspiracy, the more one engages in proper research, the more the conspiracy theory unravels. With MH370, it is the other way around.” Couldn’t have put it better myself. Time and again, the new data that emerges turns commonsense expectations on their heads. We should stop looking for simple explanations to things that are manifestly not simple.
@Jeff
I would not be so quick to call “foul” (pun intended) on the Mozambique pieces. I am inclined to wait and see what the forensics tell us on that issue.
Also, I think the lack of additional commentary from the French relative to the marine life on the flaperon has to do with a belief that there was, indeed, something strange going on behind the scenes in Malaysia, and they are still turning over rocks. You can imagine how difficult that process is in a sovereign state that is not cooperative.
@MH @Matty @all
I concur with you on the separate points you’ve made.
Firstly – those initial press conferences with Hishamuddin and PM Razak… It goes without saying that each person reads things differently looking at the same scenario (preconceptions, intuitions, whatever you call it). But I personally got the impression these men were desperate to share the truth, to release the noose round their necks, but simply couldn’t. It seemed, as MH said, events far beyond their control were now dictating their actions but they were struggling to keep up the façade.
Can anything be inferred from this?
The simplest answer, as Wazir Roslan said, is that some sort of routine military shootdown occurred (accidental or not). A slightly more complicated solution is an extraordinary military maneuver occurring using advanced technology not yet public (as hinted by Trond?). And yet another possibility is a major international power prizing the aircraft away and simply telling Malaysia to keep it zipped (Victor’s Chinese suspicions? Jeff’s Russia theory?)
After five months of deceit, could the Malaysians no longer keep up, thus requiring a not-so-gentle reminder to keep on track (MH17)?
Do we all agree that there is at least a possibility of a cover-up? (Some of course wholeheartedly believe one has occurred).
So working backwards from this assumption… “a cover-up may definitely have occurred,” can anything be deduced?
(Below are a few of my own thoughts):
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Scenarios that would definitely require a cover-up:
* Military shootdown or maneuver
* State-sponsored hijack of the plane
* Non-state hijack/mafia: (problem being that most mafias or non-state actors never work entirely independently of the state)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Scenarios that wouldn’t require a cover-up:
* Technical failure
* International terrorism: no Malaysians involved (ie foiled AQ plot to ram DG)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
Scenarios that could fall either way:
* Suicidal pilot: depends on region. Some cultures would want to ‘save face’ while others would value transparency (a la Germanwings)
* Politicized suicidal pilot: as Matty said, wouldn’t it be a massive blow to the Malaysian opposition if Zaharie hijacked the plane for political purposes, killing everyone on board? Surely the Malaysian establishment would milk such an opportunity to totally discredit the Opposition? (On the other hand, the unwanted attention may bring about the need to save face)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
There are of course overlaps in each scenario and more than one event may have occurred with MH370, which confuses things even further.
@littlefoot – I must not have been clear. My statement that the flaperon was still partway in the water when found was in support of your position not against it.
@Lauren, thanks.I must’ve misunderstood you.
Erik Nelson / RetiredF4,
So the gradual transponder disabling thing could have been you guys say to SHOW a turn (right)and then to HIDE a turn (left). That makes more sense to me than the “methodical” Shah inadvertently just forgetting the last turn of the transponder switch which doesn’t fit. It sure seems it points to a deliberate act of making it look like they headed in the direction of Beijing. Wow, great find guys, it doesn’t bode well for the PIC, but great find.
JeffWise,
My take on the barnacle population of the recent Mozambique pieces, perhaps they had a more turbulent trip flip-flopping about and were not “entre deux eaux” like the flaperon but were more above the surface.