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:
Warren Platts:
Normally it does. But apparently it does not function after a flameout, even after the APU comes up and the AP power is restored (but not engaged). Here are screen shots: https://goo.gl/yBsuG1
I’m just pondering again so ignore me but is there anywhere at all that’s been postulated previously, that the latest pieces could rule OUT of the potential crash sites?
I’m thinking it would have been quite difficult for these bits to have drifted from the SCS, for example. So that pretty much discounts the reported sightings of an aircraft falling into the sea there.
I realise there will be more drift modelling being worked on as we speak, but I’m just impatient to rule out something…
ROB: I did mean BTO data, which as you know, is basically a radial distance measurement from the satellite position. Brian and I have published papers on the subject, and posted them widely. I won’t repeat all the details, but basically, a straight path on a 186 degree heading (or similar), or right turn after fuel exhaustion, would require higher speeds than possible to reach the 7th arc. ATSB was the first to point this out to me. A left turn OTOH allows MH370 to make it to the 7th arc in fewer miles, consistent with the timing.
Rob: Here is a link to one paper. It is slightly out of date in that ATSB revised some of the APU restart timing by a few seconds in Dec 2015. But it basically lays out the reasons why there must have been a left turn after fuel exhaustion. https://goo.gl/uPqdxy
I was curious when the two “Mozambican fragments” could be washed up on the shore, so I overlapped ENE-ESE storm events on top of the tidal predictions at Inhambane:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qbdmizor700ekof/wl_and_storms_mozambique.pdf?dl=0
The most probable dates appear to be Sep 30 and Dec 24, when spring tide coincided with the storms.
If the recent RR fragment found in SA is confirmed to be from MH370, this would mean that it was carried by Agulhas current. However, the key question remains whether the debris cloud passed by the northern or southern tip of Madagascar.
However, the key question remains whether the debris cloud passed by the northern or southern tip of Madagascar.
There’s one easy way to find out!
Warren – 60+ year old plane pieces from the ocean in good condition? And pigs can fly.
Remember that Australia has almost neurotic quarantine laws and that was the first step – put it in quarantine and basically sterilize it. Visible macrofauna can be a bit of weed. Glad to see it’s getting the treatment though.
In those screenshots it is interested to note that selected speed was 200 kt, which happens to be the speed the airplane maintained during the first 5.5 minutes after the second engine flame-outin the experiment you posted. Why was 200 kt selected?
Note also in the right-hand screenshot the actual speed (below the speed tape) of 655(6) kt IAS.
@Gysbreght,
Back to the question of the achievable climb rate for 9M-MRO at high altitude, here is a useful document written by Rolls Royce for the B777-200 with Trent 892 engines (like 9M-MRO):
http://www.smartcockpit.com/download.php?path=docs/&file=Derated_Climb_Performance.pdf
See Figure 3 on page 3. It shows the climb rate versus altitude for two cases: (a) maximum take-off weight (297.6 MT), and (b) take-off weight of 235.4 MT.
MH370 took off at 223.5 MT, but it did not climb straight away above FL350. At 17:07 its weight was 218.2 MT. By FMT at about 18:28, I believe the altitude was near FL410. The aircraft weight then was then 209 MT, assuming the intervening ~1.35 hours was flown at LRC (ECON = 180). This high speed is necessary in order to be consistent with the last radar contact position at 18:22.
Thus the weight during a climb at FMT is ~209 MT. Since this is significantly lighter than what it was for the two cases shown in the Rolls Royce report, the maximum climb rate for 9M-MRO would have been somewhat higher as a result of its smaller weight. The equivalent take-off weight for a continuous climb to ~FL350 at FMT would have been about 9 MT less than 223.5 MT, or 214.5 MT.
The curve you estimated based on a similar Airbus aircraft has a similar shape to the Rolls Royce curves and is not far off the 235 MT case. All three climb rate curves are actually lower limits to the maximum climb rate for a FMT climb by 9M-MRO since it was lighter (as a result of burning a more than one hour of fuel at LRC between diversion and FMT), and it could therefore climb a bit faster. I will try extrapolating the two Rolls Royce curves to an equivalent take-off weight of 214.5 MT and see what I get. It is clear, though, that above FL360 the climb rate will be significantly limited to just a fraction of 2,000 fpm. This has significant implications in fitting the BFOs at 18:25-18:28 for any route that includes a climb during this period of time.
@Airlandseaman
@Matty-Perth
Airlandseaman-thank you for explaining
Matty – The Aussies are very strict on what comes into the country, and from state to state, as I found out.
As an innocent abroad, I took a banana with me on a flight from Alice to Perth. I ate the banana before landing, but the sniffer spaniel took an unnatural and unwelcome interest in my hand luggage at Perth, and I had to do some very quick explaining, to avoid the handcuffs!. They weren’t messing about, either.
@DrBobbyUlich:
” The equivalent take-off weight for a continuous climb to ~FL350 at FMT would have been about 9 MT less than 223.5 MT, or 214.5 MT.”
The FCOM states that the LRC Maximum Operating Altitude at ISA+10°C with 300 fpm residual RoC at 209 MT is 41200 ft. Isn’t that a better ‘anchor’ for your estimated climb performance than a guestimated fuel burn during climb from brake release to FL350?
@ warren @oleksandr. dowload the goolge earth links here https://blog.csiro.au/what-does-our-ocean-modelling-tell-us-about-the-fate-of-flight-mh370/ and watch for yourself the fate of the drifters dropped along 7th arc. basically, they went S of madagascar. note rather poor likelihood of reaching reunion – although drift characteristics of buoyant flight debris obviously differs from drogued drifters…
Nonetheless, my view is that the a/c went in way (300NM) south of there. Some debris went N then W towards Africa. Most of it would go east. Some might fetch up in S Australia or South Island NZ
@airlandseaman: “A left turn OTOH allows MH370 to make it to the 7th arc in fewer miles, consistent with the timing.”
…unless, as the ATSB now asserts, the first engine flamed out 15 minutes before Arc 7. If they are correct about that, MH370 would have rapidly shed first speed, and then altitude starting from 00:04 or so. The mathematics of your own papers prove that the plane would be going too slowly between Arcs 6 and 7 to cover the required distance in the required time – even with a left turn.
So now the only way the official working hypothesis could possibly be correct is if the latest official fuel analysis is bunk.
(Just documenting all the logical impossibilities, for those who care about those, too.)
@Paul
You should really take a look at CSIRO reverse drift modeling from Reunion as Brock has done. You will see there is almost no co-mingling of debris that is reverse modeled (almost all of it stays above 30S) and for forward modeling of debris originating near 38S.
The problem with forward modeling is that you do not know where the aircraft terminated. Any such model will be subject to confirmation bias no matter how sparse the drifters reaching Reunion are. On the other hand, a reverse model is based on the known location of the flaperon debris, and paints a much different picture.
There is almost no possibility the debris, either the flaperon or the other unconfirmed pieces came from the current search area or below it.
Likewise with ALSM’s left turn toward the 7th arc. It assumes he knows the direction 9M-MRO was flying before the turn was initiated. There is no evidence to support that his assumed pre-turn direction is correct. Of course, that goes unstated in his flat assertion that the plane turned left.
Perhaps it is time we all tried to be a little bit more clear about what assumptions we make before claiming something did or did not happen.
@Gysbreght,
Actually both methods agree rather well.
Extrapolating the Rolls Royce curves to my estimated 214.5 MT equivalent take-off weight, the maximum climb rate at FL412 is 400 fpm at ISA+0C. I think this result is fairly consistent with the FCOM value you quoted of 300 fpm at ISA+10C.
Brock McEwen: Once again, you misquote reports and twist the facts to achieve your preferred narrative. Your statement that the ATSB “…now asserts, the first engine flamed out 15 minutes before Arc 7…” is not true, and you know it. What they said was:
“In the case of MH370, due to the individual engine efficiency, it is likely that the right engine flamed-out first followed by the left engine. Given the amount of fuel uplifted in KL and historic fuel burn data for each engine, it is estimated that the left engine could have continued to run for up to 15 minutes after the right engine flamed-out.” (Dec 3, 2015 ATSB Update)
Any reasonable person reading this statement understands that they are providing additional information, not a revised estimate. It’s a worst case upper limit scenario, not a revised estimate of what actually did happen. Detailed published analysis have shown that the most likely time of the first (right) engine flame out was ~5 minutes before the second (left) engine flameout, not 15 minutes. There is nothing inconsistent about these statements. The 15 minute estimate is one from Boeing based on historical averages, MH370 PDAs, etc. It is a maximum upper limit, not a most likely value. The 5 minute estimate is based on the actual fuel burn rate on the March 8th flight, derived from data in the FI. It is the best estimate we have. Of course, it could be 6 or 7 minutes, but 15 is very unlikely.
DennisW:
You state “Likewise with ALSM’s left turn toward the 7th arc. It assumes he knows the direction 9M-MRO was flying before the turn was initiated. There is no evidence to support that his assumed pre-turn direction is correct. Of course, that goes unstated in his flat assertion that the plane turned left.”
“…no evidence…”? How can you say that? You must be kidding! Everyone that has studied the question quantitatively is in agreement that plane went generally south. I just provided a link with detailed analysis and data. Did you bother read it?
Do you seriously think the plane could have been on a 90º heading at the 6th arc? That is what would be required to come up with a right turn estimate. Whether it hit the 6th arc on a heading at 170 º, 180 º or 190 º degrees is hardly significant to this question. The plane had to turn left after fuel exhaustion (~00:10-00:12 UTC) to reach the 7th arc at any reasonable estimated heading and speed.
I would also note that the left turn was first estimated by ATSB and every ATSB update has reaffirmed that estimate. Do you seriously believe they have no evidence?
Dennis, I apologize in advance if I come across too impatient or rude, but frankly, as a long-time observer, you must know this is true. These troll like attacks become tiresome.
@a
There are no shortage of links to analytics pointing to 38S. Anyone can stick in the map near 38S with their name on it. Those analytics are relatively trivial. I almost stuck one there myself, but thought the better of it, and I am glad I saved myself from that embarrassment.
I also agree the plane went generally South after the FMT, and was traveling almost due South at 19:41. After that there are many paths that can be supported analytically. Actually, I do happen to believe the plane was traveling East of 120 degrees when it crossed the 6th arc.
No need to apologize. We are all grown-ups here. The ATSB, DTSG, IG, SSWG, and unaffiliated individuals I could name have provided no plausible motive or causality for why the aircraft would have taken that path. Their collective credibility is near zero. All such paths are the result of making the same constrained AP assumptions relative to the flight path – an assumption that is proving to be wrong, and has cost the taxpayers of Australia over 100M USD.
I suggest you take a look at Brock’s Drift Summary. In particular the forward/reverse CSIRO models. You might also take a look at the Geomar model.
I am not a troll. I am not looking (trolling) for a response from you or anyone else. My posts are a public service to people who might otherwise be misled by the standard narrative.
If we want to verify whether or not pieces have been salted along the East African coast we should be checking with local villages. We know locals actively scavenge the beach for anything they can use so we would be lucky to find anything on the beach. We might find seat cushions being used for chairs and wing pieces for cover. Some places will be too dangerous, but others may be approachable. Has a Blaine Gibson visited villages?
Australia has confirmed that both Mozambique pieces are from a Malaysia B777 aircraft.
My question : Why were IG members dismissing the ”No step” debris ?
@ir1907
link??
@DennisW
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35888405
@ir1907
Thx. Sounds like Chester has bought into the standard narrative. No surprise there. Why would he even make such statements (consistent with drift modeling, searching in the right area etc.)? They are simply not relevant to the facts in the announcement. Does anyone beside me find this to be incredibly self-serving?
ir1907: I’m not aware of anyone in the IG that dismissed “No Step”. Victor and I have both been in close touch with Blaine and he has been very helpful and open. No reason to doubt *his* story. When Lotter’s piece showed up (also missing obvious biological material) we did not dismiss it either. Liam has also been in communication and very open about his experience. No reason to doubt him either.
Some of the IG discussion has been over the question: why was there little biological material apparent in the photos? But that never led to a dismissal of the finds as unimportant or irrelevant. It’s just an observation we would like to better understand. It is still a valid question. I’m sure ATSB will have more to share about that soon. We look forward to that analysis.
It is true that one theory discussed was the possibility of a plant (but not by Blaine or Liam), but frankly, no one really believed that was likely. We try to consider every angle when faced with unanswered questions. We still have an interesting question to answer: Why did the flapperon have so much, and the other two pieces have so little bio? The answer could provide additional insight into the most likely path these parts took.
Clarification to last Post: The debris reports have been coming in so fast, I’m loosing track of who found what and when! To be clear, we have been optimistic about all three pieces below:
• Mozambique – Horizontal Stabilizer (No Step) (Blaine Gibson)
• Mossel Bay SA – Rolls Royce (Neels Kruger)
• Mozambique – Flap Fairing (Liam Lötter)
I meant to refer to Neels’ piece as having no Biological material, but obviously, we have three likely pieces now with little bio mat’l.
(FWIIW…It has been a long day digging out of the Colorado front range blizzard.)
Timeline
——–
09:10 – right engine flameout, deceleration
09:16 – left engine flameout, descent
09:19 – APU flameout during SDU login
09:20 – RAT deploys, powers AP ???
09:55 – glide starting from FL410+ at 500kts near 6th ping ring now impacts SIO at most 120NM further down range from 7th ping ring (~180NM from 6th) near 42S,84E ??
Would it be possible to drop off various buoys near various impact sites to monitor drift trajectories? Any flotsam “deployed” and available already ??
@all
I am not the least bit surprised by the apparent absence of biofouling on the recent debris finds. I expressed that opinion consistently. Anyone who actually lives on the ocean would have a similar opinion. If the flaperon were laying on the beach for a few weeks, it would look as clean as the Mozambique pieces. Trust me on that.
That was bloody quick – no mention of anything really other than it looks like 777.
From the Australian:
The government says debris recovered from Mozambique is “highly likely” to have come from missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.
Transport Minister Darren Chester said examination of the two pieces of debris had been completed and the investigation team found they were “consistent” with panels from a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft.
“The analysis has concluded the debris is almost certainly from MH370,” Mr Chester said.
“That such debris has been found on the east coast of Africa is consistent with drift modelling performed by CSIRO and further affirms our search efforts in the southern Indian Ocean.
“The search for MH370 continues. There are 25,000 square kilometres of the underwater search area still to be searched. We are focused on completing this task and remain hopeful the aircraft will be found.”
The announcement comes just two weeks after the second anniversary of the plane’s disappearance on March 8, 2014, while en route from Kula Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board.
More than $200 million has been spent on air and sea searches using the latest equipment.
The debris arrived in Canberra on March 20, with investigators from Australia, Malaysia and specialists from Boeing, Geoscience Australia and the Australian National University assisting with the examination.
The news comes after Malaysian authorities said they would examine a piece of debris found by a South African archeologist with part of an aircraft engine-maker’s logo.
“Based on early reports, there is a possibility of the piece originating from an inlet cowling of an aircraft engine,” Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said. A team would be dispatched to retrieve the debris.
Neels Kruger, 35, was walking along a lagoon on South Africa’s southern coast, near the town of Mossel Bay.
“Being an archeologist, I’m always looking for things with my nose to the ground,” he said.
He recognised the brown honeycomb structure from photographs of other pieces of debris believed to part of the missing Boeing 777.
“When I flipped it around, I didn’t know immediately what it was, but just thought: ‘Oh, my word,’ ” Mr Kruger said.
On the flip side, he said, he recognised what remained of the black logo of Rolls-Royce, the manufacturer of jet engines.
The piece was about 70cm by 70cm, “with chunks gone from the side”.
@DennisW
“Trust me on that.”
if you say so.
@airlandseaman
“The answer could provide additional insight into the most likely path these parts took.”
by what i have read from the experts there are always something to be found. items been out in the ocean for that long are never clean.
and shells dont ever let go. so why on earth would these two items take a whole different path than the flaperon?
@Matty
Sorry to say, but Chester is a knob. Not very impressed by your PM either. Why are you guys bending over for the Malays? Are they that important to you?
why was the id-plate on the flaperon gone?
https://img2.fastenal.com/productimages/0172720_hr4c.jpg
@Trond
You obviously don’t live on the ocean.
@Paul Smithson
“https://blog.csiro.au/what-does-our-ocean-modelling-tell-us-about-the-fate-of-flight-mh370/”
interesting comments as well as they suggest mh370 never touched the ocean. it never disintegrated it never sank intact.
Paul,
“and watch for yourself the fate of the drifters dropped along 7th arc. basically, they went S of madagascar.”
From the professional point of view I agree most with NOC (UK) modelling studies and buoy drift studies. There is no “straight” circulation as many imagine; instead there are many vortices moving towards Madagascar in this average circulation. I can also confidently state that backward drift studies are rubbish in this case: (a) because of confluence of oceanic streams; (b) because of multiple vortices; (c) because of turbulence.
With regard to forward drift studies, please note:
1. There are many studies and approaches, which show different results. You can check Brock’s summary.
2. Result S or N of Madagascar depends on the point of origin at the 7th arc.
3. Results depend on coefficients of models.
4. Wind is not accurately known.
The issue with S of Madagascar is that the average surface current in the Mozambique Channel is from N to S. On top of it the two storms I pointed in the plot came from NE. Of course, the other possibility is that the two pieces were entrained by eddies in the Mozambique Channel and travelled from S to N. Finally, it could be that some debris passed by S tip, and some by N tip of Madagascar.
Warren,
“There’s one easy way to find out!”
Don’t keep us suspended. How?
Dennis – Not much idea about Chester but the PM I can’t stand. If Chester is one of his faction that might explain it.
airlandseaman,
“Victor and I have both been in close touch with Blaine and he has been very helpful and open. No reason to doubt *his* story.”
How come? Of course there are many reasons to doubt his story.
@Dennis
I may be mistaken but were there not various reports at the time the flaperon was discovered suggesting that it had been lying around for a while, used as a seat on the beach etc?
I have no idea if any of these reports were accurate.
http://www.therakyatpost.com/world/2015/08/02/mh370-was-flaperon-actually-found-in-may-on-reunion-island/
This speaks of it having washed ashore twice and the barnacles being dead the second time…also describes suitcases and cushions having been found in the same location.
Obviously we don’t know whether these could have been from the plane – but if they were the mind boggles as to how a packed suitcase could have floated any great distance.
Article from the local news :
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/aviation-buff-may-have-found-mh370-debris-near-mossel-bay-20160323
@Everyone
Suddenly a veil has lifted. We now learn that the flaperon (undoubtedly from MH370, lets not kid ourselves on that) is a drogued drifter – makes sense – and that’s how it got to Reunion while the other pieces are surface drifters. All from the RH side, so the controlled ditching is a cert. Yes, a cert.
The plane crossed the 7th arc at S37.62, E89.08, both engines running, having deliberately set up the SDU log on to confuse, cut the engines after firing up the APU, and made sure there was enough fuel for the APU during his extended glide of up to 20:1 ratio.
A 16:1 ratio glide would end nominally at S39.14, E88.82, neglecting wind, possibly a spot the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution could make a note of. It might be a project for them one day.
ROB,
“The plane crossed the 7th arc at S37.62, E89.08”
Go get it.
I’ve thought from the beginning that this search in the ocean had a really! small chance of succes. Too small to do it in fact. Hope I’m wrong though.
The info that could really (have)shed light on the fate and whereabouts of MH370 would be IMO
– Proper analyses of the barnacles ot he flaperon to help determine path taken in the ocean. So far; no indication this has been done at all.
– Drift analyses for all pieces found. What are the implications for the assumed ditching location of the plane on the seventh arc if the debris is likely to have passed north of madagaskar? I don’t think that it compatible based on what I’ve read.
– A coordinated seach for material that has washed ashore along the coast line(or just the areas that are most informative in relation to drift analyses/ current search area), probably has better chances to turn up info than the curent search. It can hardly be more expensive than the current search.
The EXCEL file you posted at that time also noted rudder trim 1 degree rt.
Please explain the difference between your statements.
Two of the recent finds were made by people who were closely following the MH370 story. One by a kid dragged it home from a holiday on a hunch, then left it in a shed for months, which sounds like a very odd thing to do. You either report it or discard it? Taking it home?? If they can’t be traced specifically to the missing plane these folks have to be taken on trust.
So if I bobbed up with a piece now would it look a bit strange? Maybe do a Forrest Gump run around the Bight and grow a beard collecting debris?
Sorry if I’m overly suspicious but most UFO sightings are made by people who are fascinated by UFO’s. Seems sort of odd – and all with writing on them. Hopefully they can be traced, because I don’t like the sound of “almost certain”.
@Susie, Those reports were inaccurate. The barnacles were very fresh at the time of their discovery, as can be seen in high-res images of the flaperon.
@DennisW, Gibson found his object on a sandbar covered twice a day by the tides; it could not have been lying their for weeks getting bleached in the sun. What’s more, he says his captain told him that the piece could only have been their a short time. Likewise, Lötter says that the found his object on a stretch of beach that he walked every day, and it had not been there before.
If you are finding flotsam on your beach that is not encrusted with marine life, then unless it is highly buoyant or made of smooth plastic (as I describe in my blog post) it most likely has not been in the water very long. That’s why I concentrated on marine experts who specialize in tsunami debris: the amount of time in the water is a known quantity, as it should be for MH370 debris.
Everyone agrees that for the issue to be settled, experts must examine the debris up close and release their findings. The NYT today is reporting that Malaysia and Australia will release a detailed report of their findings; here’s hoping that they address this issue in full. In the past, Australia has done back bends to fit the evidence to their interpretation of events–I’m speaking of their assurance that the wreckage would be found in the 60,000 sq km search area, and when it wasn’t, assuring with equal certainty that it would be found in the new 120,000 sq km search area.
@Oleksander
“Go get it”? Would that I could Okeksandr, would that I could. But that will be a task for “others undiminished somewhere” to quote Philip Larkin (sad steps)
But thank you for your endorsement☺
Matty,
“One by a kid dragged it home from a holiday on a hunch, then left it in a shed for months, which sounds like a very odd thing to do.”
I don’t really understand you. Any teenage boy must be excited to bring back from his trip something unusual, such as a piece of aluminium honeycomb. It is light, but very rigid. You can step on it without damaging it. You can show it to your friends. Throw it away as a garbage? – no way! Report to authorities? – that is what he did when he realized what he found.
The lawyer, who did not take a proper care and did not follow procedures he must be well aware of, is a different story. I am surprised so many people trust in his fairytale.
Jeff,
“Lötter says that the found his object on a stretch of beach that he walked every day, and it had not been there before.”
He was on vacation, right? How could he walk there everyday? If you take a look at my plot, there were actually two NE storms: on Dec 24 (40 km/h wind) and Dec 28 (30 km/h, evening). It could be very possible the piece was washed up on the shore on Dec 28 and picked up by Lötter in one or two days. Can he remember exact time (an hour accurate) when he found this piece?