Almost immediately upon Blaine Alan Gibson’s discovery of the “No Step” debris fragment in Mozambique, questions were raised about the relative scarcity of marine life growing on it. These questions were redoubled after two more finds came to light, one from South Africa and the other from Mozambique, which both looked surprisingly pristine for objects that had been in the water for two years. I explored the issue in a post on this site entitled “Bioforensic Analysis of Suspected MH370 Debris.”
This weekend IG member Richard Godfrey addressed the question in a post on Duncan Steel’s website. “One possible explanation for this obvious difference between the flaperon and the other items,” he wrote, “might be linked to the differing routes taken by the floating debris.”
As a point of reference, I’ve reproduced the current chart from that post (above). Though in reality the currents are not nearly as deterministic as depicted–there is a randomness to the motion of floating objects that causes them to spread out, like a drop of ink in a bucket of water–it does accurately portray the overall movement of things. The black bar represents the area where Godfrey thinks the plane most likely impacted the water, northeast of the current seabed search zone. He points out that to get to the locations where they were found on the coast of Africa, the pieces would have to have either passed around the northern end or the southern end of Madagascar.
In the image below I’ve sketched out what these paths might look like, more or less. The pink oval represents the central gyre seen in the current map above. The yellow line is a hypothetical path proposed by Godfrey that the flaperon might have taken on route to Réunion. The orange line is a hypothetical path that the capsized boat which washed up on Mayotte may have taken during its eight-month drift from northwestern Australia in 2013-2014. I suggest this is a plausible example of a “north route.” The purple line is an even more hypothetical proposal for a “south route” that I just sketched out freehand after watching some drift simulations.
In the first part of his post, Godfrey tackles the question of whether the African debris might have traveled through water too cold to allow the growth of Lepas anatifera, the species of goose barnacle found on the Réunion flaperon:
If floating debris took a path passing slightly further south of Madagascar then it could remain in colder waters (especially between July and October) below 30S, under which circumstance barnacle attachment and growth is contra-indicated. Thus it might be that the three items found on the coast of Africa reached their destinations via such more-southerly routes… The Paindane item (‘676EB’) discovered at around 24S may well show some evidence of marine life, even though it most probably arrived via the southern route past Madagascar, mainly occupying cooler waters… The Mossel Bay find (‘Rolls Royce’) might not be expected to show evidence of marine life because it was discovered at around 34S and may well have spent most of its ocean transport time in the cooler waters below 30S.
To evaluate this idea, I consulted the newly published paper “Endorsing Darwin – Global biogeography of the epipelagic goose barnacles Lepas spp. (Cirripedia, Lepadomorpha) proves cryptic speciation” by Philipp H. Schiffer and Hans-Georg Herbig of Cologne University in Germany (preprint available here). According to this source, Lepas anatifera can be found in waters where the temperature is greater than 15 degrees Celsius. South of this line a sister species, Lepas australis, is found:
To get a sense of where this transition zone occurs, I traced it out on Google Earth and superimposed a surface-temperature chart lifted from Godfrey’s post along with the previously described drift routes.
The southern boundary of anatifera’s range is the red line that passes through the seabed search rectangle:
As is quite readily apparent, all the routes lie entirely within anatifera’s range. Note also that the southern boundary lies well south of the gyre, meaning that anything that drifts beyond it is going to be swept eastward. It’s entirely possible that a piece of debris might have neared Africa and then been swept south into cold water that killed the anatifera, but after that the piece would have been carried back towards Australia. In order to move back west it would have to have first drifted north back into anatifera habitat, where it would have had approximately a year to get re-colonized. Remember, Lepas reach sexual maturity in 60 days and achieve full size in six months to one year. So these pieces should have been carrying a load of biofouling similar to the Réunion flaperons even if their initial population was killed off by the cold.
Godfrey also raises another possibility: that the African pieces are clean because they passed through ocean regions too low in nutrients to permit the growth of marine organisms. To check this idea, I consulted with a NASA website that archives world-wide chlorophyll concentrations, which can be read as a proxy for ecosystem nutrient level. Here I’ve overlayed the same set of drift routes over a nutrient map for March 2014, when the water is near its warmest:
And here are the nutrient levels in September, when the water is near its coldest:
Broadly speaking, there is an area of relatively low nutrient levels in the middle of the SIO that grows and shrinks with the seasons, being biggest when the water is warmer. In the warmer latitudes transient high-nutrient patches can be found, but they are transient in time and space. The southern end of anatifera’s range experiences consistently higher levels of nutrients, as does the ocean between Madagascar and the African mainland.
Godfrey writes:
Although it appears likely that the floating debris from MH370 was carried westwards towards Africa by the Indian Ocean South Equatorial Current through warm waters (i.e. where barnacle attachment and growth is feasible), these waters have relatively low concentrations of chlorophyll in the maps above, and therefore limited amounts of phytoplankton, and this militates against substantial barnacle growth.
The problem with this analysis is that the piece of debris which spent the greatest amount of time in the center of the Indian Ocean, with its low nutrient levels, is the flaperon, which has the greatest accumulation of Lepas, including some which have reached full size. The clean pieces, by contrast, have spent considerable time in the nutrient-rich waters near Madagascar.
Finally, I’d like to address an addendum to Godfrey’s piece by Don Thompson, who writes:
An alternative reason for the Réunion and Rodrigues items being barnacle-encrusted but not the other three might be as follows. The lepas (goose barnacle) colonisation may be a feature of proximity to coastlines inhabited by lepas colonies. Therefore, debris ‘dropped’ into a mid-ocean region (i.e. the crash site) might be expected to be ‘clean’ of lepas barnacles until free-swimming barnacle nauplii, released from reproducing coastal colonies, are encountered.
Again, Thompson has the situation reversed. Lepas are pelagic creatures which are adapted to rafting on the open ocean. Buoys placed far out to sea become heavily settled by them.
UPDATE 4-7-16: There seems to be some confusion about the lifestyle of the Lepas. Unlike some other genera of goose barnacle which can be found living in intertidal zones of the seashore (such as Pollicipes, a delicacy in Spain), those of the genus Lepas are obligate rafters, highly adapted to life floating free in the open ocean. Here’s an excerpt from Barnacles: Structure, function, development and evolution:
@All: here is a side-by-side of “Little-V” and the Rodrigues piece:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72ZzBfLTVNRHNJaEU/view?usp=sharing
My contention is that the similarities are sufficient to at merit at least a deeper analysis, by inviting global scrutiny of Little-V (which latest reporting places in Malaysian custody). Scrutiny which was denied back in 2015, when the flaperon story completely drowned out any serious discussion of this piece.
ALSM’s contention is that we should NOT bother scrutinizing further, because it “could not be more obvious” that the two pieces are of a different honeycomb material (and that this, apparently, rules it OUT as belonging to MH370). Oh, and also because I’m a frothing-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorist who refuses to accept facts.
You be the judge.
@Ken Goodwin: re: “Big-V” profile from different angles:
My understanding is that the four images posted by Mohamed Wafir are all we’re ever going to get, because it was picked up by ex-pats soon thereafter, apparently to be disposed of – some reports say “burned” – at Thilafushi Atoll, the local garbage dump.
Here they all are (click images for higher rez):
https://www.facebook.com/modrindo/posts/10152868169331503
Let me know if you have any difficulty accessing. Thanks for your help.
@airlandseaman
On Saturday you said:
“Contrary to most of what I read here, the August 2015 Maldives debris was carefully checked out by authorities at thew time and it was determined that the large piece made from honeycomb was not from MH370, or any other Boeing aircraft. It had certain markings and lettering that allowed investigators to rule it out.”
When asked for a verification link you never responded.
April 8 @ 11:23PM responding to someone on Twitter you said;
“Your suggestion that Isat data is fraudulent is offensive, hurtful to NOK and dead wrong. You have zero proof.”
It is important to protect the NOK by respecting certain boundaries of discussion in an open forum. At times, scenarios may be described where subject matter is hurtful for them. However, it was baffling the NOK are offended and hurt by discussion of whether “ISAT data is fraudulent”.
Today you use the word “conspiracy” to Brock which most of us agree is a connotation that rarely applies here, generally describing a renegade opinion construed from fantasy. I would hardly put Brock McKuen in that category.
Some here have more intelligence than others but ignorance is best displayed when personal opinion (based on whatever information) is portrayed as fact.
“can you identify the honeycomb on the Rodrigues piece?”
The photo, web page, of the Rodrigues piece is hard to read. I see; what looks like white potting compound at bottom of picture in some of the core cells for greater strength or to attach a fitting in that area. Non-white areas in between don’t require reinforcement. Green film adhesive, upper left, to attach the skin to the core through secondary bonding or to fill gaps between the skin and core during co-bonding. A photo of a small part looks like carbon tape plies bonded to the core. Core could be Al or Nomex; can’t quite tell. I did not work on many interior parts; just secondary structure.
@George Connelly This is actually an embarrassing matter to discuss in a control room. Sorry to disappoint you, but nobody that I talked to had a miracle idea that enlightened me.
Though, the 3 things that I can think of are :
1. “Malaysian ATCs must be the Third World of ATC to lose a plane on their radar and not worry that much about it.”
I checked the requirements to become an ATC in Malaysia :
“Apply through ‘Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Awam (SPA)’ by using online form.
Successful candidates from SPA will sit for the following tests before being shortlisted for an interview:
IQ Test
Voice Test
English Test
Psychology Test”
So…… basically anybody not too stupid, who can speak a little English can pretend to be an ATC there. It doesn’t surprise me that since the requirements are very low, at the end of the training the skill acquired would be very low as well.
2. Most ATCs I know are very wary of their airspace. When a plane is supposed to call you but doesn’t (i.e. previous controller forgot to transfer it to you), it takes maximum 5 minutes in very busy situations to figure out that this particular plane didn’t call you and start worrying about it. If the previous controller says he transferred it on to you in the appropriate timeframe (i.e. the pilot entered one wrong digit and is calling a wrong frequency, which is called “being lost on frequency”), then it’s immediately
a serious matter that needs to be reported to your supervisor. If it’s the night time and your supervisor is sleeping, you have a direct phone line to wake him up to investigate the problem. I read (while googling “MH370 supervisor asleep”) on many websites that the supervisor was asleep during the disappearance of MH370. Standard routine IMO, and irrelevant, since you are supposed to be able to wake him up at any time.
When an aircraft suddenly disappears from your radar screen, it is a very urgent matter that needs to be addressed rightaway. (happened to me once, happy ending)
3.Maybe in Malaysia control room the ATC thought something like “MH370 disappeared from radar screen ? It MUST have some kind transponder failure. Plus it’s in Viet airspace now, so not really my problem anymore.”
Maybe in Vietnam control room the ATC thought “I can’t see MH370 ? Well, it must have been delayed on the ground or something. I will try to call in a few minutes the Malays to see what’s up, let’s not worry about this now.”
@little
“While this is bad enough, it is a complete mystery, why such a computer program which should make it’s extrapolations by using the data of the filed flight plan, would show the plane flying over Cambodia, which was never part of the filed route. This is one of the vexing mysteries which have never been adequately explained. And unfortunately there has been very little investigative journalism which at least tried to find some answers.”
Where do you get this from?
@George Connelly I read it, very informative book. She addresses every aspect of the problem and every official statement, very effectively. (Especially the “Maldives visual identification” supposedly made by a fisherman)
I hope you guys can get your hands on it in English very soon. She’s just waiting for an editor at the moment.
@Steve, unfortunately my French is only rudimentary. As soon as Florence de Changy’s book is available in English I will read it 🙂
OK, I would like to advance a theory. I know it has been shot down many times. I might be completely wrong. But; here goes:
I looked at the proposed possible route of the MH370 airplane if it went over the Maldives as observed by the eye witnesses, and the relationship of the Isat satellite to the airplane as it flew. See graph on web page.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191134/Has-MH370-debris-washed-Maldives-Investigators-examine-items-isles-locals-saw-low-flying-jet-day-plane-vanished.html
This graph shows the airplane going North for a while, moving away from Isat satellite, after loss of radar contact, then Southwest to the Maldives towards Isat satellite. The going Southwest is not shown, but that is the only way to get to the Maldives. The airplane first flies away from the equator, where the Isat satellite is located, then South, toward the Isat satellite which sits above the Equator, past the Equator, and then away from the Isat satellite.
http://ogleearth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/inmarsatarc.jpg
I looked at the Ping data, showing the various arcs and associated times. The ping data as calculated shows the airplane getting closer to the satellite then moving away from the satellite. What if the analysis of the data wrong; sorry, but the theory only works if the analysis of the Isat data is wrong!
https://olivermcgee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Seventh-Arc-Google-Globe-Map.jpg
If I assume the 2:28 arc is the start, near loss of contact, and the 3:41, 4:41 arcs are actually further North of the Isat as the plane flies away from Isat, then, after the plane turns South, the 5:41 arc is close to the same distance from Isat as the original 2:28 arc, and the 6:41, 8:11, and 8:19 arcs were when the plane has passed the equator and was moving further and further South of Isat. The eye witnesses saw the airplane over the Maldives around 6:25? Fits timing.
By assuming a flight time that is related to the arcs a line from the sighting over the Maldives, in the direction of airplane travel, as observed by the eye witnesses, using the arc times for distance should give a location of impact for a searching South west of the Maldives.
Just had to get it out. Call me 100% wrong again. No problem.
@Susie: thanks much, but no worries: anyone who’s seen Brave Heart knows that sending a Scotsman’s body (or reputation) to the four corners of the land can sometimes backfire…
@AM2: if the Curtin Boom was MH370, the time is more likely to have been 00:25 UTC than 00:39, per Curtin’s September, 2014 paper (not published, but re-linked below) – so perfectly consistent with official endurance assessments. Any of a long list of explanations are possible: circuitous route via well-travelled waypoints further north, a mid-flight landing and takeoff, or even (per Victor’s fuel analysis) a low-and-slow path due west all could bring MH370 to fuel exhaustion at the southern Maldives by ~00:17, with impact ~8 minutes thereafter. Heck, low-and-slow from IGARI seems pretty plausible, given the required bearing (due west), and whatever of the primary radar data hasn’t yet been retracted.
@M Pat, @Bugsy: I made no claim “IC” would reference “static port”. Pat Janssen has speculated this could be a warning to grounds crew regarding static electricity which routinely builds to dangerous levels on some parts of a commercial aircraft wing. It could also be “magnetic” (forget who suggested this).
@Neils: yes, extreme northern parts of the arc do remain compatible with the Vabbinfaru pieces – but are improbable for other reasons (which I admit I weight more heavily than you do).
@jeffwise: “for some reason”. Yeah.
@AM2: whoops: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72X0lqWWQtZEtFRTQ/view?usp=sharing
@Trond, all I said can be extracted from officially available information like the official document “Factual Information” as well as statements made by Malaysian officials to the press. Jeff made inquiries as to how the computer program used by MAS would work which extrapolated mh370’s route after the transponder signal was lost.
Just a few recent posts:
“Malaysia is becoming a more conservative Islamic nation under Najib Razak, who is prepared to back Taliban-style criminal punishments such as amputations”
“extreme northern parts of the arc do remain compatible with the Vabbinfaru pieces”
“I turned the Tv off coz I thought Speith had it won. When I read you comment I turned it back on”.
Brrr… the discussion is getting disgusting.
ALSM – If the Maldive piece is corroded aluminium then it won’t be a surfboard…right? Or a yacht?
I have complete curiosity in every piece presented that might resemble a bit of aircraft. I think everyone does really. Or nearly everyone. Seems geography matters.
You said – “The simple fact is these parts did not come from MH370”
Why is that a simple fact? If it is also a simple fact that the searchers have missed the plane which sits right on your hot-spot right now then I no longer trust you with simple facts. I’m sorry.
@Ken, It doesn’t fit the data, but I have a feeling you knew that!
Thanks for your insights on the honeycomb–it seems like it usually comes in sizes of 1/4, 3/16, or 1/8, and if I could figure out which it would be easier to get precise measurements of the size of the barnacles.
@Brock,
Thanks very much for your reply and the link. Given the failure to find 9M-MRO in the search area so far, lack of debris on the WA coast, various behaviours of Malaysia in particular, its well worth considering that the ISAT data may not be what it appears to be IMO. Not blaming anyone in particular as there are so many ways this can have occurred. So FWIW I don’t believe the sightings in the Maldives can have been 9M-MRO but the possibility it caused the “Curtin Boom” W. of the Maldives is still worth considering. I don’t have any particular theory on what happened with MH370 but the set of options involving a terrorist hijack and a determination to fly West seems most reasonable to me if the radar data are to be believed.
@AM2, while I also believe that the sat data may be possibly be corrupted or not created by 9M-MRO, I don’t believe that such scenarios are compatible with the idea of a terrorist hijack. I don’t think that terrorists have the resources and knowledge to corrupt the sat data or invent them from scratch and rope Inmarsat into accepting them. If terrorists took over the plane, then I believe, something went very wrong after the plane rode up the Strait, and that’s why the plane ended up in the SIO. I don’t think that terrorists took the plane westwards, because in that case they would have needed to have done something about the sat data, and I can’t believe that this is a realistic scenario in connection with terrorists.
@Matty – Perth,
ALSM – If the Maldive piece is corroded aluminium then it won’t be a surfboard…right?
Well it could be….I found some detail around a surfboard called HYDROEPIC. The surfboard had a Kevlar outer and made up of carbon fibre layers. Has a unique air center which is …. aluminium honeycomb.
OZ
@littlefoot, I agree with you that terrorists probably wouldn’t have the technical sophistication or means to spoof the ISAT data but if it was a terrorist action and it has been foiled by XYZ authorities then we could be into cover-up territory; perhaps quite appropriately. If the ISAT data have been spoofed then more likely by a state.
As to the “Curtin Boom”, Scott Reef signals used for that analysis by Dr Duncan et al. were those recorded in only a relatively short time period, 01:00:00 UTC to 02:20:00 UTC. If we disregard the ISAT data then there is a window of several hours within which a crash could have occurred in the Indian Ocean before fuel exhaustion and could have been detected acoustically… So many possibilities 🙁
I have said too much already and prefer to consider where the evidence we have (meagre as it is) leads us rather than speculate about detailed scenarios. That seems to be your MO too 🙂 Cheers.
@AM2, yes, it’s of course possible that that terrorist activities have been covered up for some reason, but I have a hard time to believe that such a cover up would go as far as inventing sat data from scratch.
But on the whole I admire your restraint as far as speculation goes. I have a very different approach and I always try to arrange all data in a kaleidoscope of speculative scenarios in the hope that eventually the right one will be included.
@OZ, Good find re: HYDROEPIC but the letters look more like TIC or perhaps FIC than PIC?
Almost all Boeing interior parts and many secondary structure parts are made of 3 lb 1/8 inch cell Nomex. The interior part looks like 1/8 inch 3 lb Nomex. Larger parts have stronger H/C core that is built up in blocks with Larger cells then machined.
I guess 1/8 inch cells for this part.
Awesome, thanks Ken
@Jeffwise
“@Middleton, Very interesting, this is new to me. Bears further investigation, I think. I wonder what restrictions apply, for instance, can you specify any speed at any altitude? Or could this only be used after, say, transition altitude?”
As far as I know so far (and I’m no expert) it seems possible from minimum AP engagement level (c. 400ft) on take-off through to landing. At least I haven’t seen anything to the contrary so far, but then there’s a lot of detail in the Flight Manual for a 777, and one setting sometimes changes/affects another.
Speed/altitude waypoints seem to be over-ridden by the MCP settings though – on ascent, any altitude set on the MCP will be the limiting altitude (will override the FMC settings – ie. altitudes programmed above the MCP altitude setting will not be actioned – the aircraft will stop ascending when the MCP setting is reached).
(Again, AFAIK) it would seem once at cruise, lower altitudes/speeds will only be activated if the altitude on the MCP is set to or below the legs/waypoint setting(s) programmed into the RTE legs/waypoints. So (to link to my initial thought) a pilot could (theoretically) activate a set of programmed speed/altitude waypoints once at ‘cruise’ (whatever height that was, provided above c. 400ft for AP engagement) by reducing the altitude set on the MCP to at/below the height(s) programmed (or to zero). Then once the waypoint(s) were reached, the aircraft would descend to the programmed altitude/speed. This perhaps would also be called a ‘Descent Profile’ or ‘Approach Profile’ – as the manual refers.
It may be that the *speed* set on the MCP has a similar overriding effect – ie. overrides any speeds programmed on waypoints/legs. That would make sense in order to comply with new ATC instructions en-route which may be different from the altitudes/speeds in the flight plan.
It may also be that the FMC will limit speeds to what is appropriate for the programmed altitude and the computed aircraft weight/economy setting – ie. so you can’t programme 150 knots at FL350, nor 480 knots at 150ft.
But as I said, just a thought – I’m no expert at programming an FMC 🙂
Re red writing on wings.
Please see the image in the following link, which shows the underside of the wings of an aeroplane with flaps extended. The plane is probably not a B777 (as per my google search), but may point the better plane spotters here to where to look.
The red writing appears to be on every trailing edge foil attached to the main wing section. The resolution is not high enough to make what it actually sais, but, it may be worth looking for higher res images of a similar area of B777s.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pylons-under-these-wings-and-what-do-they-do-The-long-ones-under-the-wings-that-extend-into-the-flaps
@all
Re Maldives. Yawn. I thought this area of consideration was shelved when we said goodbye to Nihonmama.
Total waste of time. Follow the physics.
Brock, you are embarrassing yourself.
@dennisW – if only we had clean data of the event that truly represents the physics.
@DennisW
Which (selective) physics is that Dennis?
The physics of the Curtin boom identifying an area close to the Maldives?
The physics of debris found around the Maldives region?
OR, the (selective) physics for the dubious (custodian-chain & spoof-able) Inmarsat data leading to an ever expanding search area that has produced zero results in 2 years of search – with not a single piece of debris found?
@MuOne,
Where is the writing in relation to the fuel tank access panels?
OZ
@GortoZ
It is not “selective physics”. It is what it is. I have said over and over again that the ISAT data is not a predictive tool. It is like trying to turn a sows ear into a silk purse.
Still, it is valid and useful as a tool to qualify flight paths. The Maldives are not even remotely feasible.
A man has been arrested for trying to assassinate the chief forensic expert in MH17 probe:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/suspect-arrested-over-attempted-assassination-of-chief-forensic-expert-in-mh17-probe-a6978681.html
Steve,
Bonjour Etienne et bienvenue ici.
Glad we have a qualified ATC on board. You have pretty much confirmed what I have said from the beginning, that the shame so far is on the agencies (ATC/MAS) involved that night and their non reactions. KLATC and HCMATC wasted some 17 minutes playing ping pong until the ball was dropped, and MAS is looking at a flight projection not suitable for tracking. WHAT? One of your fleet isn’t where it is supposed to be, hasn’t checked in after the “curt” handover answer back, cannot be contacted, isn’t responding and that is not a huge red flag? From what I have read also I think RMAF and KLATC were in the same building but not the same offices. I should think that by 17:30 they should have awaken a supervisor and MAS their head and called RMAF.
Why Steve do you think that the final line spoken was so abrupt and did not repeat the HCM frequency back to KLATC? They repeated most everything prior so that seems to stick out in my mind since that was the last time the plane was heard from verbally.
Speaking of the offices, Steve, in the audio recording are you familiar with that, in section 2 or 3 there is an abundance of noise that sounds like drawers and banging, what is that do you know? Is it regular ATC office noises?
GortoZ,
I agree with Dennis. There is absolutely nothing pointing on Maldives, except village rumours.
“The physics of the Curtin boom identifying an area close to the Maldives?”
No. Curtin boom indicates a curve of possible locations. Nothing more. The intersection of this curve with the 7th arc is around 100E, 28.5S in the southern hemisphere. The rest is imagination.
“The physics of debris found around the Maldives”
What is that? Debris as debris. If I recall correctly it was confirmed by Malaysian investigators that Maldivian debris was irrelevant to B777. In addition, keep in mind it is also possible that some debris from SIO could drift to Maldives.
Dennis,
Yawn+.
@Oz,
Here is a marked up image, with possible red markings circled:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ol1u8oglvlxwm0/RedMarkings.pdf?dl=0
Brock McEwen,
What is your purpose of promoting “Maldives” conspiracy? You are good in statistics, but apparently you did not read Duncan’s paper you cited, or you did not understand it.
@Oleksandr
Agreed, we all select the evidence we want and rubbish the rest. You have your opinion, as others have theirs.
I hope for the sake of NoK someone is right as +2 years looking on the same location based on a single piece of subjective evidence without a single fragment of local debris looks blinkered.
Perhaps its time to consider all alternatives rather than tenaciously clinging to a failing dubious theory (and calling it “physics”)?
@Oleksandr, The 4th Sept 2014 Scott Reef paper by Dr Duncan et al. is clear enough for me. They were a bit “lucky” as the recordings started every 15 mins and each went for only 5 mins. Also, there is some doubt whether the signal in question was from the same event as those signals received at the other 2 locations; however the authors do point this out very clearly. I have no doubt that Dr Duncan and fellow researchers analysed and reported the data very professionally.
Whether this so-called “Curtin Boom” was caused by 9M-MRO is very unclear but its still on my “table” as a possibility.
AM2,
What Dr Duncan refuses to discuss and Brock McEwen prefers to ignore is that the peak pressure amplitude at Scott Reef station is ~8 times higher than at HA01 and RCS.
Also I am puzzled by the inconsistency in the statements with regard to HA08S in the two Duncan’s papers. And also by the methodology and exact input data, as the NW triangulation solution appears to be extremely sensitive to them.
Finally, I strongly disagree with yours “they were a bit lucky”. On contrary, they were very unlucky to have such an ambiguity.
@ GortoZ
well said!
GortoZ,
“Perhaps its time to consider all alternatives rather than tenaciously clinging to a failing dubious theory (and calling it “physics”)?”
ATSB and IG have made a plenty of assumptions. In conjunction with Inmarsat data, these resulted in a trajectory, which appears to be wrong as no debris was found where it was predicted to be. What do you need to change first: assumptions or data?
OZ – aluminium honeycomb surfboards – I was mainly remarking about the corrosion. Rusty used to be a popular board brand years ago but in this case it really would be….rusty? Would you need the best ally going around? I’ve had waterlogged sections of board before after a few bingles and the only way to get it out is to cut the bloody thing open and do a major repair. Same deal with a yacht. It would be like cancer once you did get some water penetration inside the panel. Just me guessing here.
@Olexandr, if you are so convinced that Dr. Duncan’s triangulation of the boom’s point of origin is flawed: why don’t you take the publicly available data to another underwater-acoustics expert and ask for second opinion? Can’t be that difficult. Jeff is doing just that constantly when we are confronted with ambiguous data which need a second look. That’s better and more productive than airing your grief re: Dr. Duncan’s non-responsiveness to your questions here amongst us non-experts, who have no reason whatsoever for doubting Dr. Duncan’s expertise. Especially since he has promoted a CIO point of origin of the boom right away. And the additionally retrieved data only confirmed this opinion. I would be much more suspicious of outside pressure having been applied if he would’ve revised his findings drastically after the additional data had been analysed.
Perhaps the FMC will let you ‘program’ any speed, but –
VNAV will not command an economy target speed greater than 314 knots (VMO/MMO minus 16 knots) or a pilot entered speed greater than 319 knots (VMO/MMO minus 11 knots).
The airspeed may decrease to minimum maneuvering speed. Subsequently, VNAV commands the airplane to fly below the path to stop the deceleration. If VNAV can no longer maintain the airplane within 150 feet of the path without further deceleration, speed reversion occurs, the pitch mode annunciation changes from VNAV PTH to VNAV SPD, VNAV resets the target speed to 5 knots above the greater of best holding speed or minimum maneuvering speed, … (ref. FCOM 11.31.23/24).
(Speeds are IAS or Mach)
@OZ Did you try contacting the makers of the Hydro Epic Surfboard to see if they recognised it?
I had a bit of a look through the company and copyright/Trademark databases and can see that the Hydro Epic Trademark application was filed on 19th Jan 2006 but was subsequently abandoned due to late response. However, this application does link back to the parent company being Hydro Epoch Inc.
Whilst I can’t actually find any listing for Hydro Epoch Inc. on the US company databases I can see that several of the publicly available listing sites have the company listed as being in Cali run by Peter Mehiel. My feeling from the lack of listing on the US Companies DBs is that they are no longer in business, however the listing sites still list a phone number. Would it be worth a call?
http://hydro-epoch-inc.carlsbad.ca.amfibi.directory/us/c/1833619-hydro-epoch-inc#
From the small amount of information I have found about them I believe that this surfboard is unlikely to have been being made post the start of 2007. I am basing this on the ditching of the TM application. This would make our fragment at least 10 years old.
Does this sound possible?
Hydro Epic Trademark application link
http://www.trademarkia.com/hydro-epic-78794811.html
@GortoZ
there is something called “reasonable doubt”, what we can conclude beyond reasonable doubt here is the plane finished on the 7th arc in SIO and that it was deliberately diverted
unless we want to turn this blog into another david icke mental playground
@Matty-Perth,
I found it an interesting find along with subsequent articles; not a surfer myself but found some interest in the engineering aspect.
Aluminium honeycomb is one thing; the aluminium used in most aircraft applications is alloy. Similar in yatchs, copper content affects corrosion resistance.
The fact someone decides to use aluminium with carbon fibre is crazy as it can set up galvanic corrosion. Some of the articles implied $2000 plus (sounds a lot for a board that could corrode away).
From some of the articles I’ve seen, the aluminium honeycomb experiment has moved on.
Do you have any knowledge of surfboard manufacturers that toyed with carbon and aluminium? AQUATIC, PACIFIC, TACTIC?
OZ
@StevenG
Fully agree … and at what point (after +2 fruitless years) might others have this “reasonable doubt” that the current search area along the 7th is utterly barren based on misguided assumptions?
… and don’t bring soccer into it, please.
@Crobbie,
Thanks, I abandoned the search once I found the linked websites were shut down. Most of the articles I found dated between 2003 to 2007. An innovation that may have died but I have seen Alibaba come up in a search with high quality aluminium honeycomb for surfboard and snowboards (didn’t pursue).
Apparently an outfit called Varial had some success with aluminium honeycomb surfboards, but they used fibreglass and not carbon fibre. More successful from what I can gather (and cheaper, also no galvanic corrosion).
They used a particular type of foam in the side section which has now completely replaced the honeycomb though.
OZ