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:
After all the theories I’ve heard, it makes me wonder if this event is something that has never happened before, whether it an accident or deliberate act. One thing for sure, is nothing is at it appears, well to me anyhow.
I tend to think something bad happened, but Malaysia is covering it up. Wasir said pretty much what I’ve been thinking, that it is most definitely some type of cover up. After reading all the crap about Najib lately and saw the four corner interview the other night, its looking more to me like something did happen that they don’t want the world to know and that they are just the puppet in this game.
I’ve always questioned the Inmarsat data and wondered why nobody could pinpoint an exact location in the south indian ocean. I’ve seen so many arguements on this forum about who is right and who isn’t right, that it makes me wonder if anyone will ever know the truth.
Now enter the debris found….its obvious that this place did indeed crash, but where i’m just not buying the search area. I’ve seen so many different drift patterns and they all say they are right, um excuse me but WTH, come one now, who is really right? I don’t think anyone really knows and can pin point exact where the debris originated from.
Its a crying shame that so much bullshit has reigned surpreme from the start….but one thing I do know and my “spidy” sense tells me that Najib and his henchmen know precisely what has happened and why. They’ve done all they can to change the narrative constantly and keep people so confused. Many people forget all the early info BS they put out, but I didn’t. Many others aren’t fooled by their shitstorm of misinfo.
Jeff you said that the log on was problematic for a suicide scenario and I agree…why the hell turn it back on if you were flying into oblivion anyhow. Of course he couldn’t know about the Inmarsat data which I still question, but so much doesn’t add up.
Now that the debris found has been confirmed to be from a 777, we can not only assume it came from 370 but know it did. Now to figure out where it actually came from and why.
@am2 I agree with you suggested numbers for Mozambique. The beaches are frequentEd all along the coast. Interestinglynne.pinfold@swft.nhs.uk as I remember them they were pretty clean and barely tidal with only a little wave action. Storms are the only thing to disrupt the shoreline debris really. That or human action. My experience was that they are also pretty small probably due to the low tidal range. A big chunk would be pretty obvious.
As to identification and reporting, the ‘first’ language of Mozambique is Portuguese so it depends how much mh370 info made it through translation. Radio is an important media so images are not as prevalent. Many people may never have seen a plane up close.
South Africa is of course different in that respect with English widely spoken and communications technology better so Internet is more viable.
@Crobbie. Thanks for your reply. Do you think the numbers for the South African coast (SA) should be different from those for Mozambique? Maybe my numbers are far too low, especially for reporting. I pretty-much plucked numbers out of the air by guessing that there would be much less news coverage of MH370 in SA than in West Australia. Also, when I was on holiday there I was surprised to see so much recycling of materials into all sorts and friends who live there said the same. It would be good to hear from someone who lives in SA too.
Could a scenario be forced to fit around a case where authorities on the ground hacked into the aircraft systems to take over control from a hijack or rogue pilot situation? In turn those on the aircraft may have started flipping switches, pulling breakers or whatever to get control back in their hands, eventually snowballing out of control with the aircraft flying off into the distance with nobody on the aircraft or on the ground able to save the plane. I’m not smart enough to know if this could fit in with the evidence at hand, but this was just a thought developed by combining a couple of different theories out there.
@Sajid UK, well said and good way to keep track and tie together some of the loose ends. Let’s keep collaborating ideas and share for feedback.
@bugsy – it is good to keep collaborating and compiling facts so they can be fitted from another angle of view. I wonder if he was so suicidal why bother fly back over Malaysia with a supposed plan to do it undetected. Usually these are for making a statement.
people who are suicidal looks for the quickest way, not sitting in a plane for hours waiting for the fuel to run out and then prolong it by gliding.
@Cheryl
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.”
If we follow this line, then we must also ask, why the altitude reporting mode was disabled first. It could indicate, that an altitude deviation was planned and executed right after the partial switch off and prior the start of the left turn. What for? Did it serve to accellerate in a shallow dive to have more speed available for the documentedm tight left turn and / or a zoom to the initially reported altitude anove FL400?
@Trond
Yes, you have a lot of professional company in that opinion. Since the probability of a mechanical or related failure is so low, it makes the current search area look ridiculous, which it is, and has been since first proposed.
Littlefoot, Lauren H,
Re: “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?”
How could it be “buried in sand” if it was a recent arrival? It takes either a storm or some time to cover a half of 2m-size piece by sand.
Littlefoot, under “childish” I meant all your arguments for all the 4 fragments. Sorry, I don’t buy them as a “set”. Most likely time intervals between beaching of these fragments and discovery were different.
ROB,
“I was really hurt by the troll accusation.”
First of all I was asking whether you were trolling or arguing, which is not the same as accusation.
Secondly, I hope it will be a good lesson for you. Because you accused Z. in the murder of 230 people, but failed to provide any supporting reason. Just imagine if Z. family, his kids, read this forum. Would they be hurt? The truth is that nobody knows whether their father is a hero of a muss-murderer.
@jeffwise
Re your last post, WELL SAID.
It needed saying (much of it,again).
I watch these comments daily and Duncans before he closed them.
I keep hoping for something new and concrete but so much is just going over the same old arguments and even the ones that have been put to bed over and over. I some times wonder if they’re the same individuals coming back under diffferent id’s.
I’m a bit surprised we havent recently heard the one about it floating in the SCS for 7 hrs.
It amazes me how people can be so closed to any theory and evidence that doesn’t fit with their own pet theory and so often their theory isn’t really based on facts but on what they seem to want to have happened. They don’t even seem to understand what a “fact” is. Where’s the forensics on the latest debri? I despair, I fear it will never happen and we will be none the wiser from it, just continuous argument and denial.
I could go on but enough said.
@Olexandr
Good to have you back Ollie. Yes, It has been a lesson for me – never jump to conclusions is what I’m taking away from this.
What are your views on the latest debris finds? Do you think as I do that they are more likely to be false alarms? Seems to me now that the world and his wife are now out on the beaches of Southern Africa, looking for bits.
@DrD
I agree with you entirely on the confirmation bias thing. It’s so difficult to avoid and people have fallen foul of it down the ages, me included.
@Cheryl, RetiredF4
The issue of the gradual transponder switch was discussed here in october 2014 from a reddit entry. ALSM made very good remarks about it and dismissed the value of this data point entirely. He was right to state, that Alt rptg Off postition will not stop the GPS Altitude value, which takes over the altitude reporting if the barometric altitude stops.
RetiredF4,
I have no idea why the altitude part first of the transponder, it’s technically beyond me. They supposedly wanted FL390 anyway right not getting it? If they were doing some sort of “load shedding” circa IGARI would it be necessary to include the transponder in that and get it off to isolate the cause of something? If after the traversing and let’s say hypothetically going over a checklist during the traversing, at 18:25 if it was time to start getting stuff back on, how did they succeed with the AES/SDU but none of the other comms? And were all those other comms compromised in some way including the rebooted AES/SDU?
If the RMAF were on their toes that night wouldn’t an unidentifiable squawk stick out more than an identifiable one?
@Olexandr, I’m merely following the available clues and facts supplied by those who found the debris. Johnny Begue, Blaine Gibsin’s captain and Liam Löter all said that the debris can’t have been around long before they found it. For me their arguments are logical and convincing. If you buy it or not has no bearing on my line of reasoning.
@Cheryl
“If the RMAF were on their toes that night wouldn’t an unidentifiable squawk stick out more than an identifiable one?”
That is not how a normally the air defence system works in oeace time. Transponder issues are not uncommon, they can have many causes. As long as the asociated primary return can be corelated to a former secondary radar return and the actions of this target make some sense, there will be no need to launch fighters.
In this context we need to look how the system is set up. People seem to think, that each radar system is not only operational, but also manned 24/7. In reality those systems have operating and manning hours pending on the demand for military training and some surveilance tasks. It is unlikely that the loss of transponder identification of an aircraft like MH370 would trigger any action within the military system on its own. ATC would be responsible to act according to SOPs on such a happening and would alert the military system if the SOP demands such an action. The military would then react accordingly by manning the respective radars and bringing the Quick Reaction Alert forces (Command structure, Fighters, AA-missiles) on a higher readiness state, if their SOP demands such an action.
The decision making process is not that simple like “we have an unknown target, lets launch the Fighters”.
What I’m getting at, the missing transponder signal is only one out of several points, which could or would lead to an military reaction. If ATC is reluctant to take timely action, and the information about the ATC communication shows this might have been the case, then the military might have not been informed about the situation or the information reached them to late.
Rob,
I greatly appreciate your objectivity and common sense. Every scenario other than Zaharie acting as a lone actor essentially requires multiple elements of complexity upon complexity, absurdity upon absurdity And to what end? Only something more unlikely, The risk/reward ratio inherent in these scenarios is so far out of whack that it amazes me to ‘observe ‘serious-minded’ people lending them credence and legitimacy. The only scenario that does not require a profound delving into the surreal land fantasy is the PIC murdering 238 people right under the noses of the Malaysian govt, and MAS.
The arguments made by some to debunk and neuter this likelihood seem to lack a) an understanding of the predicament Zaharie felt his actions would squarely place the regime in. This notion that UMNO could use Z’s actions as fodder against the PKR and further crushed the opposition and consolidated even greater power is not only simplistic, but also completely naive and devoid of understanding.
And can we please stop with the ‘suicide’ terminology and the ‘why not just point the nose down and do it’. I think people here are smarter than this, which leads one to question why the disingenuous misrepresentation continues to be framed as such.
@Warren
As for evil spirit, pleeeease. Get on with it. And BTW, everything Zaharie did, posted, ect in the years leading up to the event is germane, and must be scrutinized with great care and attention.
Trond: people who are suicidal looks for the quickest way, not sitting in a plane for hours waiting for the fuel to run out
DennisW: Yes, you have a lot of professional company in that opinion
Not necessarily. It’s happened before:
Craig David Button (24 November 1964 – 2 April 1997) was a United States Air Force pilot who died when he crashed an A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft under mysterious circumstances on 2 April 1997. During the incident, Captain Button inexplicably flew hundreds of miles off-course without radio contact, appeared to maneuver purposefully and did not attempt to eject before the crash. His death is regarded as a suicide because no other hypothesis explains the events. His aircraft carried live bombs which were never recovered. It took three weeks to find the crash site. During that time, there was widespread public speculation about Captain Button’s intentions and whereabouts…
And it’s not the only such incident.
@warren
dont just copy&paste without a source.
@ Trond:
Here ya go:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=craig+d.+Button&l=1
@warren
that is just rude. you are blaming me for your own fault. by replying like that that tells me you dont take your own research seriously, and so i will not take YOU seriously!
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/18/us/jet-s-crash-in-april-still-a-mystery-to-air-force.html
a mystery at first, and not finding the bombs
to
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/25/us/airman-s-flight-to-his-death-is-laid-to-mental-anguish.html
clearing things up and the bombs were dropped.
this incident cant be compared to mh370. there were too much complicating things happening with mh370 whereas the other he killed himself without doing a lot of sophisticated stuff to make it look like aeroplane problems to disguise that he infact commited suicide. he didnt want to be trained to kill humans as one of the mental issue he was struggling with, as any sane human would. killing is always wrong but at the same time as we intellectual know that we dont have love in our heart.
@Cheryl
Not sure if you understood my post about the Zahrie Shah interview well (not your fault, though). I never thought he did anything bad, based on all info I fetched about him, including his FB timeline (you cant imagine how angry I am against the scientologists tries to inject politics, about all the bad guys here, who steadily try to destroy our current government – finally good one, fighting all the bad guys in wide spectrum, after many years of “weird mood” here… and you can see many positive changes worldwide too). When I spoke about his mind, it was more about his mood and distress by something, than about his mental health – I never question that he is perfectly OK. But anybody can be stressed heavily by something… If he simply was ordered to realize something and had to train it for few weeks and dont tell anybody about it while knowing he would be away may be for years, then I can imagine that… (my confirmation bias and wishfull thinking involved)
@Rob anybody here tries to lay down some pieces of evidence or tips or hints; but its questionable to state/predict definitelly what happened, as nebody but “they” knows; I perfectly understand why you focus on the minds of all related people and how they presented about the case – especially Malaysian PM and former TM (now DM; not Depeche Mode, no), I personally think they cant lie well, and so are in fact quite good guys both… who knows
@jeffwise
“We should stop looking for simple explanations to things that are manifestly not simple.” – Golden words also in relation to Ukraine (they are under pressure and surrounded now by us all, to do some right things finally – everything is absurd there); can you please try to change the variable flaging Russia as a bad guy and try to peek again into my emails? I catch small pieces of evidence everyday, that something related to my opinions is in fact happening, but, you know, the consequences are crazy
I was determined to ignore any debris stories cropping up on 1st April, but this one originates from 30th March and looks quite interesting (and clean….)
http://www.lexpress.mu/article/278815/rodrigues-decouverte-dun-debris-davion
Rodrigues island is east of Reunion / Mauritius.
As @DennisW said “it makes the current search area look ridiculous”
I agree… and the first moment when I first heard the news as I was viewing satellite imagery in the SCS/GoT…
however if not suicide nor mechanical failure then it must have been purposefully diverted from its flightpath… by whom?
I remember reading something maybe two years ago about MAS not having an agreement with the company that sells? forwards? provides? satellite communications over China and it was routine to shut-down certain types of data transmissions. Perhaps it was routine to switch from satellite to VHF or something like that?
I wonder if it might have been customary to start shutting down certain communication systems when approaching China?
Jeff : “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?”
I’m with Dennis and Lauren on this one.
We have good evidence that MH370 crashed somewhere in SIO (sat data and flaperon) and the expectation from ocean current models and observations of drifter buoys that debris from such an event would reach the regions where further debris is currently being found in the timescales observed.
I’m not sure I yet accept that there is some law of the ocean that states that every floating object will become encrusted with large barnacles, and I’m not sure that the sort of arms length analysis by photograph that people are attempting carries much weight. To jump from this to the idea that the debris is planted, and that this in some way supports a spoof/northern landing scenario is a massive stretch for me.
Lets imagine what might be required in ‘planting’ the debris :
– access to real parts of MH370 (flaperon in particular)
– faking damage to flaperon consistent with a real impact (mounting points, trailing edge etc)
– ageing flaperon in water to allow some barnacle growth (but failing to satisfy some observers who feel they should be slightly longer)
– making the flaperon really hard to identify by removing the id plate (though possible it never had one)
– generating other credible small B777 fragments presumably by some high energy process
– failing to age these in water to a degree that would satisfy casual observers and in apparent contrast to the flaperon
– Quietly motoring around the widespread fringes of the SIO with a (large) bag of suitable pieces and throwing them overboard at appropriate locations over a lengthy time period without drawing attention (you don’t carry a flaperon in your pocket..)
– failing to place easy to find debris on the Western Australian coast (a slam dunk guarantee that MH370 went into SIO for observers like Matty)
– placing debris in ‘likely’ locations like Reunion, but then choosing the Southern African shore for other pieces instead of eg Madagascar
It all looks a bit too random to me.
Better pics here
http://www.clicanoo.re/517170-un-couple-de-reunionnais-decouvre-un-curieux-debris-sur-une-plage-de-rodrigues.html
And on first look, i would estimate it being the rudder part of a boat. The rectangular fixture on the upper left could be the conection to the rudder linkage.
@M Pat, thanks for your list. Many points are well worth mentioning. I don’t think, though, that your requirements make planting highly unlikely. But they highlight well, what needed to be done and what kind of perps could’ve done it. Also, some requirements are probably much less problematic than they sound and can well be handled. I will answer more detailed later.
@RetiredF4, I agree.
@MPat,
“We have good evidence that MH370 crashed somewhere in SIO (sat data and flaperon)” — well, the question before us is, were these items faked? Victor has shown how the BFO values can be altered. The flaperon is currently being held incommunicado by the French, and the word on the street is that its examination did not turn out as the investigators expected.
“debris from such an event would reach the regions where further debris is currently being found in the timescales observed.” — certainly. But all at once, after only a single piece was found in two years? Mere days before the second anniversary, and months before the entire investigation was slated to be terminated by Malaysia?
“I’m not sure I yet accept that there is some law of the ocean that states that every floating object will become encrusted with large barnacles.” As I wrote, biologists who have studied hundreds of floating items say that everything over 1 square inch had something growing on it. So yes, it’s pretty close to a law. Maybe not large barnacles, but something. Australia and Malaysia had no hesitation declaring that the Mozambique pieces were from a 777, so why are they being so coy about this issue? Based on past experience, it’s because the data does not match what they expected to find. Indeed, David Griffth at CSIRO said as much, as did a Mozambique official on the ground.
“To jump from this to the idea that the debris is planted, and that this in some way supports a spoof/northern landing scenario is a massive stretch for me.” We are faced with two unprecedented possibilities, one of which is extraordinary (spoof) and the other which seems flatly impossible (virginal two-year transoceanic flotation, times two). Why is the former stretch more uncomfortable for you than the latter?
As to the hurdles you enumerate for planting:
“access to real parts of MH370 (flaperon in particular)” — Right, whoever did the planting clearly has the plane.
“faking damage to flaperon consistent with a real impact (mounting points, trailing edge etc)” — I find it particularly interesting that neither the French nor the Australians have anything to say about how the damage was occured, based upon microscopic examination of the breaks, etc. You are assuming this consistency exists; I’d say, show me.
“ageing flaperon in water to allow some barnacle growth (but failing to satisfy some observers who feel they should be slightly longer)” Are you complaining that they made an attempt at making the amount of time the flaperon spent in the ocean seem plausible, or that they didn’t spend long enough? Which ever the case, they clearly spent a lot more time with the flaperon than they did with later pieces.
“– making the flaperon really hard to identify by removing the id plate (though possible it never had one)” I don’t think this is dispositive in one direction or another.
“– generating other credible small B777 fragments presumably by some high energy process” There are lots of ways to turn big things into small things
“– failing to age these in water to a degree that would satisfy casual observers and in apparent contrast to the flaperon” Are you arguing against planting or fort it?
” Quietly motoring around the widespread fringes of the SIO with a (large) bag of suitable pieces and throwing them overboard at appropriate locations over a lengthy time period without drawing attention (you don’t carry a flaperon in your pocket..)” Again, the fact that the later pieces are all carry-on size whereas the flaperon needed five or six men to carry it implies that the second time around they invested a lot less effort. Which turned out to be prescient, because even while implausibly clean there has hardly been a ripple of protest, certainly not in the mainstream press.
“– failing to place easy to find debris on the Western Australian coast (a slam dunk guarantee that MH370 went into SIO for observers like Matty)” No, it would be really weird if stuff turned up in Western Australia after two years; it should have turned up after a few months.
“– placing debris in ‘likely’ locations like Reunion, but then choosing the Southern African shore for other pieces instead of eg Madagascar” It’s all equally likely after two years.
“It all looks a bit too random to me.” It all looks a bit too non-random for me!
@RetiredF4, Thanks for that link with the new image. Seems to be a little colony of Lepas growing at the southern end there.
@RetiredF4
May I bring to your attention an article by Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-airplane-investigation-idUSBREA3A0NS20140411
The upshot is that military sources said they were informed by the ATC around 2 am local that MH370 was missing. However, they were reportedly told it had diverted due to mechanical issues and was trying to land on an airport.
This is a bit odd (to say the least) as the ATC seems to have been working on the assumption that MH370 was atually in Cambodian airspace and had not diverted from its scheduled flight route. It may, however, explain why no jets were scrambled. Military commander Rodzali also said the target was identified as a civil aircraft, and thus it was not a military operation and no jets were therefore scrambled.
Hishammuddin later confirmed to 4 Corners (Australian ABC) that the Butterworth Basis in Penang was informed about the incident, although he did not specify the time.
The location it was found seems to be South-East of the island, near Port Sud-Est – might be relevant to the drift patterns,not sure.
It also occurs to me that none of the pieces found so far, confirmed or not, show signs of fire or heat damage. Just apropos to nothing.
Thanks F4, those better photos look rather less encouraging.
If it crashed in the SIO, I agree with @jeffWise: “No, it would be really weird if stuff turned up in Western Australia after two years; it should have turned up after a few months.”
Again, there should have been debris on Western Australian beaches long before Reunion.
Again, there should have been debris on Western Australian beaches long before Reunion.
Not if there were never many pieces to begin with.
@Falken
I never had any bad vibes about Najib, Hishammudin or his successor, Liow.
I truly believe they just didn’t now how best to deal with the situation, and was an unprecedented situation, let’s be honest.
Najib comes across as a very personable guy, actually. I think his show of emotions was totally genuine. My personal impression, of course.
I will be honest with you now and tell you I felt really sorry for him at the time,still do (and for the relatives of course)
@Warren
Why would the number of pieces even be a factor? What MH is saying is that debris, whatever its population might be, should have turned up in WA before Reunion. Does not matter if it is three pieces or three thousand pieces.
@M Pat
And they must have failed to read articles on barnacles since the flaperon was found…lol
@ROB
I put Najib in the “scumbag” category, and think he has been a lying obstructionist from the get-go. Just another opinion here.
@ Lauren H
“I wonder if it might have been customary to start shutting down certain communication systems when approaching China?”
This is exactly what was reported repeatedly in the early days.
It might explain why they waited so long before actually looking for the plane.
@DennisW, I find my empathy for person goes down once the value of the funds they’ve embezzled goes over $1 billion.
@DL, @LaurenH: Also bear in mind that IGARI is far enough out to sea that ADS-B coverage often started to drop out around there, depending on meteorological conditions.
@jeffwise – you said, “There are lots of ways to turn big things into small things.”
You are probably correct but I couldn’t think of ways to rip sections apart without leaving any evidence such as clamp marks, burn marks, cut marks, indication of local explosion, etc. For example, you have the complete forward engine fairing. How do you get the piece with the RR logo?
Brussels:
“Even today, there are at least 50 supporters of the Islamic state who work at the airport. They have a security badge and have access to the cockpit of a plane. In the past, a number of people had their badges revoked because they had IS sympathies. But clearly not everyone, especially in store personnel, cleaning services and baggage where we find the most suspicious people.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3517493/At-FIFTY-ISIS-supporters-working-baggage-handlers-cleaners-catering-staff-Brussels-airport-claim-police.html
It’s obviously very easy to get on board of a plane and into the cockpit with a security badge. Is it the same in Kuala Lumpur? Maybe the highjackers, among them a pilot, entered the plane before it even took off. It would explain why the passengers didn’t send any messages. Who spoke the final words to ATC? Shah or Hamid or somebody else? Maybe crew and passengers revolted and the Final Major Turn was the result of a struggle. No pilot, official or highjacker pilot, survived the struggle and the plane flew south. Or the plane was shot down and it’s a cover up. I remember that Hishammudin said in an interview that what happened was so terryfing that it must never be revealed to the public. This would imply that he knew exactly what happened. I’m unable to find the interview again, but I remember it very well.
I’m not sure that Jeff is correct in his assertion that, “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.”
Leaving aside the ambiguities (e.g, does he mean visible coating? over the entire surface? regardless of the amount of time on the shore?) I did not find a direct or implied statement to this effect by the experts Jeff cited or by other experts online.
Jeff has posted pictures of debris with marine life coating, but there are also pictures from his experts in which debris looks relatively clean. E.g., figure 1 of Cathryn Clarke Murray’s report on Japanese tsunami debris at http://www.nowpap.org/data/ML%20ref/impact%20of%20tsunami%20debris%20(PICES%20project).pdf (Note that Murray goes no farther in Jeff’s piece than saying there is “usually” a marine life coating.)
Miriam Goldstein’s 242 objects were collected in order to find out “(a) What taxa are associated with drifting plastic in the North Pacific? (b) Does the number of taxa associated with plastic debris vary with the size of the ‘debris island?’”. I infer from this inquiry that visible marine life was a selection criterion, which of course would render meaningless a finding that all 242 plastic debris pieces were coated with marine life, even if that had been in her paper.
The only suggestion I found in Goldstein’s work as to the frequency of marine life on debris was that “more than 50 % of [pumice clasts from an eruption in Tonga] were inhabited by rafting organisms.” (She also reports that pumice has a complex surface which “may provide better habitat than items with a smooth surface [like a plastic bottle].”)
Mike Gil’s study also was not concerned with the ubiquity of marine life coating; he was examining what was probably Japanese tsunami debris for the impact of Lepas barnacles as “foundation species” and competitors for other marine growth.
As was previously stated I think by Dennis, Japanese tsunami debris is minimally instructive because much of it probably left Japan with pre-existing marine growth. (The MH370 debris presumably had none upon impact.) (Likewise barnacles on a boat that drifted from Australia to Africa would not provide a baseline for comparison to the flaperon barnacles.)
Note that besides Murray, the other experts Jeff interviewed also were not categorical as to a marine life coating (“within that honeycomb structure you would probably still see some remnants”; “it’s just a headscratcher”; “[u]sually you see something’; “[o]ne can imagine these [clean debris]scenarios . . . [t]heir probability is another matter”; “[m]y gut instinct would be [that these pieces have been] not long at sea.”)
This caution is prudent, because as Jeff’s expert James Carlton said in February, “The biology of the debris is one thing we haven’t been studying . . . . What’s on the debris could tell us a lot more about its history, its origin and its potential to move species, which is one of the invasive species issues.”
Whether all the MH370 debris does or did at one time have a marine coating is unknown to us, but once it is known, if ever, still all we will have in my opinion is additional evidence that the plane crashed in the Indian Ocean. If anyone qualified would say that absence of a marine life coating on this debris is more than “unusual” to a reasonable scientific certainty, I am not aware of it and Jeff has not reported it.
Until then I regard Jeff’s assertion as an interesting hypothesis.