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:
@Olexandr, it doesn’t matter if Liam’s piece has been at the beach for one or for two days. The point is: it can’t have been sitting there for very long. Therefore the idea that the piece might’ve been dried and bleached for months is probably not correct. Trip brought up another reason why that debris can’t have been out there for long: local people pick up very quickly simply everything which might be useful since raw material is scarce and expensive in those regions. Liam’s piece was probably the largest and most useful sheet of material. If genuine the investigators were very lucky indeed, that the piece was picked up by Liam. It was much more likely that local people would pick it up and put it to good use in many ingenious ways. I’ve seen a documentary once which covered the subject of recycling discarded junk in Africa. It’s often done in very clever and practical wayys.
@Oleksandr: To be clear, although I was once in communication with Blaine Gibson, once I started asking questions on this blog about the circumstances and condition of the part, Mr. Gibson blocked me from further communication, and then @h1ppyg1rl admonished me in private and removed me from the FB group. I completely accept this as it was their right to do so, as it is my right to continue to ask questions that I feel are warranted. I only mention this because somebody reading @ALSM’s post might believe I am still in communication with Mr. Gibson.
littlefoot,
“it doesn’t matter if Liam’s piece has been at the beach for one or for two days”
No, it does matter a lot. Not in terms of barnacles, but in terms of where it came from. It could a very valuable input into drift studies.
“It was much more likely that local people would pick it up and put it to good use in many ingenious ways”.
Kids could pick it up for sure. I am not so sure about adults: how can it be used? And how long could it stay unnoticed / untouched?
Someone on Twitter (@intelligence_i1) says more ‘wreckage’ has been located on Flat Rock Beach, Wilderness, SA. They are waiting for more information. I have no idea of their source.
@VictorI,
Maybe your questions/statements were offensive to Mr.Gibson ?
I sent him a message on facebook and he replied back in a friendly manner. I guess it is how you communicate.
Victor,
I meant his “luck” to find debris in 20 minutes, “coincidently” one week before March 8 (anniversary an deadline for claims against MAS), meetings with NOK before and after (as a lawyer or not?), quick trip arrangements, express-arrangement of the meeting with the Australian consul in Maputo, absence of photographs of untouched fragment, his confidence that there were no more debris, initial delay in sharing photographs… followed by blocking you when you began asking questions.
ALSM says nothing suspicious. Really nothing?
@Olexandr, no the piece would’ve been useful in many ways for adult local people. Therefore it would not stay on a beach unnoticed for very long. You would be surprised what local people could do with this relatively large sheet. As I’ve seen in this documentary: pieces of discarded junk are picked up by people who are not rich and can’t afford to buy new material. These things go into everything: huts, furniture, tools, toys – you name it. Blaine’s captain alluded to this when he said that Blaine’s debris can’t have been there very long because locals would’ve picked it up. Liam’s piece was much larger and potentially much more useful than Blaine’s debris. It’s reasonable to conclude that it can’t have been at the beach for long when Liam found it.
That people living near the beach in East Africa would pick up everything and put it to good use has actually been used for explaining the lack of reported debris from those areas.
Littlefoot,
“These things go into everything: huts, furniture, tools, toys”…
I have to disagree with you. Looking at photos of Inhambane, I think you mistaken it with some other poor African village, for example in Swaziland. Sorry, your argument does not hold water. I don’t see any reason why this piece would be picked by locals in Inhambane immediately; why couldn’t it stay say, for 3 months?
Sorry Olexandr, but that notion is pretty ridiculous. First of all, then Liam would’ve noticed it much earlier – no matter if he walked there every day or every second day. Then there’s the fact that those beaches are constantly scavenged by beachcombers who come from less affluent neighborhoods. No chance at all that this was sitting there for three months.
While you ask important critical questions re: Blaine’s debris, as far as Liam’s debris is concerned you’re trying to bend the facts to your liking – and can’t even make up your mind. Didn’t you just say that there was a storm which might’ve deposited the piece at the beach 😉
@Oleksandr: My list of coincidences would be different than yours, but nonetheless I agree that the whole incident is quite extraordinary. I am surprised that more people aren’t willing to openly raise questions. There is no harm in challenging evidence, other than upsetting some people that don’t like questions. If the evidence survives the challenge, so much the better.
a second piece was picked up on the beach at Flat Rock, Wilderness.
According to the George Herald’s information, it is a one-metre long piece of wreckage that looks like part of a window frame.
It was handed in this morning to Civil Aviation authorities.
http://www.georgeherald.com/news/News/General/160553/Piece-of-Air-Malaysia-plane-found-in-Wilderness
And another one :
http://www.georgeherald.com/news/News/General/160553/Piece-of-Air-Malaysia-plane-found-in-Wilderness
Darn I live right between those two last finds! Tomorrow I’m going to the beach!
“… looks like part of a window frame.”
I predict it will turn out to be another false alarm.
Re: the Mozambique objects not being where they were found for longer than a day: All that means is that it’s been moving around, getting abraded by sand. For all we know, those pieces could have first washed ashore in southern Somalia, and have been bumping down the coast for months.
Littlefoot,
I am not sure what you tried to say.
What I am saying is that I don’t see anything suspicious in Liam’s debris. If he passed by that place many times each day and did not see the debris, this would indicate that the debris was likely washed up on the shore on Dec 28 – an important piece of information. The piece could come on Dec 24 if Liam cannot make sure that he did not miss it. Sorry, your argument that the fragment could not arrive 2 or 3 months earlier because it would be used by locals to make huts or furniture does not work for me.
With regard to Gibson – totally different story.
@VictorI, Indeed. Like you, I suspect that much of what passes for outrage is really a discomfort at being presented with data that is incompatible with one’s preconceived beliefs. I am struck by the remarkable ongoing insistance on the part of many commenters to see precisely what they want to see. First people were saying that if the wreckage wasn’t found in the SIO, it could only be because the searchers must have passed over it without seeing it. Now folks are saying that it is completely normal to find honeycomb in a virginal condition after two years floating in the sea. While I accept that occasionally a chain of unusual circumstance might cause much accumulated debris to be removed, the idea that this would happen not once, not twice, but three times (and counting!) would require nothing short of divine agency.
@Warren, the pieces might well have made several land falls. That’s much more likely than that they sat unnoticed for many weeks at a beach frequented by tourists. But in this case local marine life would accumulate. One marine biologist mentioned that in that scenario local barnacles would attach themselves and leave at least discerneable traces behind. Algae smear and sand clogged honeycombs would be expected, too.
I think, Jeff said it well: we have been presented with some evidence which can’t be easily explained. Therefore we all try to come up with scenarios which might be compatible with the new evidence. And we tend to come up with scenarios which fit into the framework of our beliefs. So far that is very normal. But we shouldn’t come up with a totally unlikely chain of events.
@Olexandr, I don’t suspect Liam and his family of any foul play whatsoever. And it’s great that he reported it after he heard about Blaine’s debris. But I don’t exclude the possibility that the piece was placed at the beach. Personally I regard this as more likely than that it has been sitting there unnoticed for three months and was sandblasted or otherwise cleaned of all visible dirt traces and was shiny again.
Others will disagree and believe that a highly unlikely chain of random events is still more likely than human intervention.
Littlefoot,
There were two NE storms: on Dec 24 and Dec 28. If I am not mistaken Liam found the fragment on Dec 30. Of course, you may say that someone used this opportunity to place the fragment on the beach, but I think things are a way simpler.
@Olexandr, we just have very different ideas of what we regard as a simple scenario.
@littlefoot & @Oleksandr – I’m not sure what you are arguing about but it sounds like neither of you have seen Liam’s statement that when he first found the piece, “It was so waterlogged at that time, it was quite heavy. I struggled to pick it up,” In recent photo’s, it appears that he has no trouble lifting the piece.
I agree there is something suspicious about Blaine’s find. Perhaps the boat captain had found the piece a while ago but didn’t contact authorities? Then Blaine visits to search for debris and says to the boat captain, “I’ll pay you your $200 to search for debris tomorrow plus I’ll give give you an extra $100 if we find anything that looks like it might have come from MH370.” A bit far fetched but not impossible.
These are questions which do not seem to have come up yet. Though various items have been identified as coming from a MAS 777, it is only the flaperon which has somehow been linked to the specific aircraft (9M-MRO). Is there any chance that the other items have any feature which would clearly link them to a particular aircraft? And where is the MH 17 debris stored now? Still in the Netherlands or somewhere else? How was it transported to its present place of storage? If there is some sort of a conspiracy of planting debris, who had the opportunity to pick up bits of MH 17 and plant them here and there? Is anyone looking into this aspect?
Continued: I am not saying there is any link between the disappearance of MH 370 and the destruction of MH 17.But the existence of the MH 17 debris may have given someone an opportunity to create confusion if this was felt necessary.
@jeffwise: We’ll never reach consensus about whether the plane crashed in the SIO and the search missed the debris field or it was never there. Frankly, I am interested in both possibilities, and I am not emotionally attached to either. However, I am emotionally attached to asking questions and getting answers, however unconventional and uncomfortable those questions might be.
Things I find strange:
– Victor on the outer with Blaine. Of all those who question, Victor has to be the most neutral, level headed of all those who challenge a scenario. His intentions are nothing short of sincere. I can see the hackles raised by the tone of others who question. But Victor?
– against your parents best wishes, you strap a 1m long piece of waterlogged debris to the roof rack for a 1000Km road trip home (assuming they travelled by road – checking this as baggage on a flight would be beyond strange). Then you leave it to dry out in a shed for 3 months, without doing any research on what it may be, surely knowing an aircraft has been missing for 2 years. Not doubting Liam’s story, but it is a bit odd to say the least. More odd then Blaine’s find. Then again, MH370 is the pinnacle of strange.
Not long ago, we were asking for debris. Now it seems, the debris storm has hit. I cant help but feel those sat images of potential debris was opportunity lost. It would be an interesting benchmark: target those same sat’s in the same region about now (which is the same time of year as those finds in 2014) and see if debris can be found. Of course, mh370 debris would be long gone, but it could show if they potentially targeted aircraft debris,other ocean junk or just white wash.
My thoughts on the new debris:
1) the pieces are much smaller than I thought they would be. Apparently this sort of composite honeycomb “shatters” upon impact
2) the rolls royce emblem and the no step pieces would have hit the water more directly than the larger access panel found by Liam and that may account for their smaller sizes? I was expecting things the size of the flaperon but I think I am wrong.
3) I personally see no reason to take bits of plane parts and place them on Africa’s coast, especially if the posters above are right that the locals would quickly repurpose them for some other use. Lots of effort for what gain? (although I respect your opinion if you differ)
4) it is interesting that the debris so far are wing/tail pieces and not from the fuselage and in particular no seat cushions, suit cases, etc. Potentially says something about the nature of the crash into the ocean and also that there may be a large object sitting on the ocean floor for the searchers to find.
5) finally, if the floating debris after days was small bits and getting dispersed then it is no wonder search planes didn’t discover it.
When the flaperon was looked at the experts said the plane most definitely glided. Now there are tiny pieces found and those concludes with a crash landing. Now which is it?
As for the searches missing the debris because each bit of the 1000’s took its own path towards Africa? Well then so that is why nothing was spotted on the calm ocean.
Really strange that the pieces found all are from a 777 but no id link to mh370.
“Really strange that the pieces found all are from a 777 but no id link to mh370.”
It would be more suspicious if one of those pieces did have an ID saying it came from MH370.
Jeff wrote: “I suspect that much of what passes for outrage is really a discomfort at being presented with data that is incompatible with one’s preconceived beliefs…. Now folks are saying that it is completely normal to find honeycomb in a virginal condition after two years floating in the sea.”
@Jeff: let’s take a look at your own sources of journalistic bias: you wrote a well-written, very persuasive piece in a major, prestigious publication about how a sophisticated hijack could account for the available evidence. If your described scenario was ever to be proved true, it would be worth at least a Pulitzer, would it not?
As for “virginal condition” of the found objects, that certainly would not be my description. To me, they look like they’ve been through the wringer of hell.
There is no outrage here. My opinions of the conditions of the African objects are based on my formal training as a geologist, in addition to my personal experience. The libaries of pictures you linked to of tsunami debris do not show any definite pattern of colonization of marine organisms: roughly half of the objects with kanji writing on them (implying they were not of local origin) did not have obvious signs of macrofauna.
What I will confess to, however, is a bit of impatience: if these objects were taken at their face value, they could potentially tell us something about how the crash occurred. This discussion about whether they were planted or not has muddled the discussion about what the parts actually mean, if it is the case that they are genuine. Time is running out. This pussy-footing around is not helpful IMHO.
@Warren said, “This discussion about whether they were planted or not has muddled the discussion about what the parts actually mean, if it is the case that they are genuine.”
Nothing has been muddled. Both lines of inquiry can proceed in parallel as the people and the skill sets are different. We need answer to ALL the questions.
Lauren H,
Re: “I’m not sure what you are arguing about”
We are arguing whether the fragment found by Liam was washed up on the shore by storms on Dec 28, Dec 24, or earlier (Sep 30 is an excellent ‘candidate’ as spring tide coincided with storm), or it was planted.
Based on your comment Dec 28 or Dec 24 (also nearly spring tide) are the most likely dates.
Re: “Perhaps the boat captain had found the piece a while ago but didn’t contact authorities?”.
We are on the same page. That is what I suspect, but somehow people prefer to believe an American lawyer rather than believe in logic.
@Gysbreght
i know what you’re saying. i should have put (id) because of marine life one cannot directly link the other pieces to mh370.
but according to the investigation they now say the pieces are highly likely from mh370 because mh370 is the only 777 that have crashed in that part of the world, and all other 777 crashes has its parts counted for — without looking closer into these pieces about the information they can reveal. like marine life.
Littlefoot,
What is a point to place a fragment on the beach where it can be picked by locals, who are likely unaware of mh370, and who will use it to make huts, furtiture or toys?
Sharkcaver,
“Not doubting Liam’s story, but it is a bit odd to say the least. More odd then Blaine’s find.”
What is odd in Liam’s story, and what is not odd in Blaine’s story?
here is crazy theory. long time ago i read from a single comment on youtube that mh370 didn’t fulfill its prophecy. mh370 was suppose to detonate its cargo over israel to start ww3. the pilots weren’t suicidal, they are infact heroes for stopping this terrorplot.
@Trond
Israel was well beyond the fuel range, so if that was the plot, it was rather ill-conceived.
@victorl out of all the possible pieces, don’t you find it at all strange that the pieces found to date, have all contained a number, writing, emblem? None are plain.
@ Trond and Phil – the 7th arc, at least the N.W. quadrant of the arc would just brush the far eastern tip of the Med. if my recollection of the “great 7th circle” were extended to that area….still out of range, but just a thought; for what its worth. G.
I’ve emailed the SACAA to ask politely if the report (Flat Rock) is true. It’s probably out of place for me to do this and I doubt they will want to reply to Joe Public, but if I hear anything I will let you know…
It won’t be true. Even if window frames from the 9M-MRO were broke out as a result of a high-speed impact, they would sink….
I imagine you’re right…sorry.
Looks like they are all shut for the Easter holiday in any case.
As you were.
@Warren,
Agreed, but the rumour may refer to an interior panel.
i also read an article about two cia agents or was it navy seals getting killed over the cargo long before the mh370 incident in malaysia.
mh370 would have to land in one of the terrorist controlled area in the m.east and then blast the nuclear bomb over israel once ready.
i wont refer to any links. it is on google, and it might turn up to be conspiracy articles connecting the deaths to a cargo to be a nuclear bomb.
@warren
I think you put the case well. At things stand now, the situation is reasonably simple.
1. As indicated by the Inmarsat data, the aircraft flew for an extended period and crashed somewhere in the Indian Ocean.
2. The aerial search stated late, was fragmented and was at the edge of what was possible. It did not result in the recovery of any debris. Debris of the type/size found to date would likely not have been detected by the aerial search.
3. Two years later debris is being found around the coast of the Southern Indian Ocean. The condition of the debris needs to be assessed, but is not obviously out of step with being in the water for an extended period, particularly since there are no quantitative studies of what happens to aircraft type debris under those conditions.
As you say, the first thing is for the agencies to assess if the recovered debris can give any clue to the fate of MH370 and its current location. I don’t think they will have been diverted by talk of the debris not being what it seems since they have their own identification process. It is not surprising that the uncertainty of the last two years has left a heritage of distrust amongst the public, but the major issue two years ago, absence of debris, is at least resolved.
Of course if people wish to show that the debris is not consistent with the simple interpretation, that is up to them, but it will need solid evidence to be presented, not yet evident. If an external agency is required to plant the debris, more than doubly so.
None of this means the current search area is correct, but at least there are a few more facts than there were.
@ the Group – just like to throw out a positive thought ….I know this whole “mystery” is like trying to find a haystack in a needle factory, but we’re getting closer, every minute, every day, maybe tomorrow…lot of good people out there on the ocean beatin’ their brains out every day…good for ya…we are pulling with you…
@kazlee, yes it has been noted by some of us that all three pieces of new debris had some writing on it which was crucial for connecting it to a B777 and/or MAS – which might’ve been difficult or impossible without the writing. If you wish you can include the flaperon whose internal registration numbers allowed a connection to 9M-MRO – although Florence de Changy claimed that this identification done by the French investigators was rather dubious and a lot less clear cut than it was presented to the public.
So, how likely or unlikely is it that all four pieces of confirmed B777 debris have a written marker which allows it’s identification? If you consider how little of the B777’s surface has something written on it, then this seems to be quite extraordinary. On the other hand: the debris might’ve gotten picked up and reported exactly because there was something written on it. But since people reckognize at least the honeycombs by now and would also report pieces without letters or numbers -and have done so, it still seems to be quite a coincidence that all reported debris had something written on it’s surface or in case of the flaperon on it’s insides. If the pieces had broken up a bit differently none of them might’ve been identified as plane debris.
All the comments here relate to MH370, but I have a question about FZ981:
Is it possible that the plane ran out of fuel just prior to the final dive? Seems like if that happened while it was in a steep climb, the risk of stalling would be magnified and without thrust, pulling out of the resulting dive would have been much more difficult or impossible.
From the charts provided it looks as if airspeed initially declined even as the plane began it’s dive. Given how long they were holding, this seems like a plausible answer.
No debris – conspiracy. Debris with marks – planted. Debris without marks – cannot be linked to MH370. Debris with barnacles – suspicious. Debris without barnacles – even more suspicious. What is next?
When engineers invented the train, a crowd was screaming “It will not go!”. When the train began to move, the crowd was screaming “It will not stop!”.
@Richard Cole, I agree that the situation looks fairly simple at present, but I see it in a somewhat different light. To address your numbered points:
1. The Inmarsat data is subject to two possible interpretations: either it was altered by hijackers, or it was not. To label one of these choices “more reasonable” is not meaningful.
2. The absence of wreckage on the seabed in the southern Indian Ocean indicates that if the data was not spoofed, the pilot must have been suicidal. However, what is known about his personality and state of mental health does not match that of a mass murderer. Furthermore, as I’ve described, a known group had the technical skills to pull of a spoof, a landing facility near the endpoint of a BTO-defined northern route, and a demonstrated predilection for destroying Malaysia Airlines 777s within a narrow time frame around MH370’s disappearance. Therefore, the more reasonable interpretation of the Inmarsat data is that it was spoofed.
3. The debris that has been discovered in the western Indian Ocean does not show the accumulation of marine life that one would expect after several months in the ocean, let along two years. This has been stated unambiguously by marine biologists who specialize in this topic. If you prefer quantitative analysis, then I refer you to the work of Miriam Goldstein, who collected 242 objects floating in the Pacific and found that all of them greater than one square inch in size had identifiable marine life growing on them. Some have speculated that some pieces may have spent a long time ashore and been blasted bare by sun, wind, and sand, but one was found on a tidal sand bar and the other was described by its finder as “waterlogged.”
Given the simply evident state of the debris, the default interpretation should be that they did not drift to shore of their own agency, and those who believe otherwise should bear the extra burden of proof in explaining how they could have arrived in their extraordinary condition.
@Scott, As we’ve learned from the case of MH370, if a plane runs out of fuel, one engine will run out before the other, so there would have been plenty of time for the pilots to declare an emergency and set up for a landing.
@Warren
In the middle ages, scholars spent vast amounts of intellectual energy arguing about how many angels could dance on a pin head. Sounds vaguely familiar, doesn’t it.
The Malaysians have no problem with this, of course. As far as they are concerned, the muddier the waters, the better.