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:
Observations re “…IC” panel (big-V):
Originally dismissed as a high tech surfboard. Back then drowned out by flaperon discovery and not revisited. Even burnt. It died and dissapeared from the interweb thingy’s conciousness.
Recently discovered debris with, on face value, similar internal structures, re-ignites discussions. And up again comes discussion about high tech surfboards.
One argument uttered to dismiss the “..IC” panel’s aviation heritage was the fact that after umptienth month, no ID has been forthcoming.
Well, from where I am sitting, no such ID appears to be forthcoming for high tech surfboards either.
There was also a re-iteration of an assertion, that B777 structures are exclusively Nomex and not Alu H/C. That assertion was used to cast doubt on one of the previous debris discoveries. Until @aussie500 discovered a video of a B777 break up, which clearly showed metallic H/C in the main wing section of a B777.
What it all boils downt to is, that whatever we are able to extract from publicly available sources, needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Anybody who expresses near absolute certainty in anything claimed on the basis of his/her expertise/experience/knowledge deserves to be taken with the same grain of salt.
@MuOne,
The area you have indicated is the spoiler/speedbrake panels (747). A warning decal can be applied to the spoiler panels to cover various conditions (depends on the aircraft).
These can include: to warn that the surface is hydraulically powered; in some instances that connector plugs should not be removed with power on (FBW aircraft) and another instance that spoiler locks should be removed (and accounted) before flight.
A lot of operators have no decals because the area often gets damp with hydraulic fluid.
An example for a 777 is at:
http://en.responsejp.com/article/img/2015/02/27/245316/672616.html
OZ
RE the honeycomb material discussion: Perhaps it should also be borne in mind that the cabin interior is not part of the airframe structure. I believe most of the interior furnishings is not manufactured or even designed by Boeing, and can even be BFE (Buyer Furnished Equipment) e.g. passenger seats. To some extent that also applies to items like galleys, lavatories, storage or wardrobe cabinets, etc.
OZ – I had a peek at Varial the other day and for honeycomb designs it’s designated as under development. It sounds gimmicky to me and I can see issues with using it and not much payoff. They are already remarkably light these days, but maybe for big waves you can get a bit more strength?? As you said it’s not going to be cheap and having cavities would catch up with you after a while I reckon. They are always trying new stuff like hi-speed finish etc(which was total gimmick) but most of the time it doesn’t catch on. The basic 3 fin design hasn’t changed much in 36 years. I don’t like the idea and I haven’t noticed them in use in competition but maybe I’m not looking that hard. That would be the test of it. Dennis seems to be saying there are a few around his way but overall not a common item?
Littlefoot,
“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?”
Firstly, as I mentioned I discussed this problem with other specialists in acoustics and they converged to the opinion that detection of the seabed impact would be very likely, probably more likely compared to surface impact. But nothing more definite.
Secondly, Dr Duncan admits by himself: “It is impossible to be certain that the Scott Reef IMOS recorder arrival at 01:32:49 UTC is from the same event as the arrivals at HA01 and the Rottnest IMOS recorder”. In other words, it is not possible to conclude that the event near Maldives really took place, which is being presented as a fact (“Curtin boom” near Maldives) by some commenters at this forum.
Thirdly, what other acoustics specialists can say about the contradictory statements of Dr Duncan with regard to HA08? Either yes or no; nothing in between. Also, what can they say about the absence of data at Scott Reef?
Fourthly, even if the signal is due to the same event, it would be of geological nature rather than the surface impact, and it would likely occur a bit earlier than 00:20, subject to the exact methodology of calculation. Of course, if you are willing to throw not only BTO data but also Inmarsat timing, it will not be an obstacle.
In other words, triangulation itself is not flawed. The problem is again with the assumptions made.
Matty,
How is it going with the observation of aviation-related litter at your beaches? Anything from MAS?
@Olexandr, I have no problems per se with the assumption that the Curtin Boom was more likely caused by a geological event rather than a plane crash if the careful interpretation of the recorded data leads to that conclusion. But if you solely reject that the boom might’ve been caused by a crash because that would contradict the sat data, I’d regard that as highly uncritical and I’d say you try to sell your educated but nevertheless subjective opinion for a fact. The sat data might be flawed. I know that you and many others consider this to be highly unlikely. But it can’t be ruled out conclusively. I could come up with many good arguments why the Curtin Boom might’ve nothing to do with mh370. But that it contradicts the sat data wouldn’t be one of my arguments. But since you consider it possible that the recordings captured the crash under the premise that Dr. Duncan’s given location is wrong you seem to have no intrinsic data driven arguments against the notion that the recordings captured the crash.
Hi Brock,
” I made no claim “IC” would reference “static port”. ”
No that was purely my supposition. My best guess was related to static ports or static discharge in some way. Have also looked at connection points for grounding cables for static protection during re-fueling without much success. Yet again we seem to have been provided with some lettering to chase, would expect that if it really is a MAS 777, we should be able to come up with some sort of candidate decal / stencil from available images.
Matty – something that piqued my interest when this debris first materialised was the Fanatic surf range. They apparently adopted nomex honeycomb construction in the early ’90s. And their older logos were almost boring enough to be an approximate match. But I subsequently managed to convince myself that it looked much more aviation related. Hint of an aerofoil shape (though its hard to tell from the few images we have). Similar construction to other debris. And that bare font in that colour looks much more like the sort of thing you would see on an aircraft.
http://cdn.coresites.factorymedia.com/boards/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/30YRS_Fanatic_EN.pdf
RE the honeycomb material discussion:
Also a material used in the interior may be less suitable in a structural part, e.g. ailerons, spoilers, flaps, elevator etc.
@Olexandr
BRING THE DATA – we can all criticise the analysis (as you do) but please stop spouting opinion.
As littlefoot suggests – stop trying to ” to sell your educated but nevertheless subjective opinion for a fact.” It isn’t fact and your voice is wearing thin. OR simply state “IMHO …. “
Littlefoot,
“But if you solely reject that the boom might’ve been caused by a crash because that would contradict the sat data”.
Which of the 3 (or even more) recorded “booms” in question are you referring to?
The contradiction to Inmarsat data is nonsense. Actually it is even funny: first some created this contradiction in their minds, then they are trying to throw Inmarsat data based on their imagination.
I thought “Big-V” was a surfboard of some sort at first, myself.
I wanted to be the first one to find the logo lettering. My first impression was that this was a cruel hoax – and I wanted very badly to punish the perpetrator.
I invested hours cross-referencing. I could not find anything close.
Had I known about “Little-V” at the time, I would have spent those hours searching images of 777-200ERs.
Thanks for the image, MuOne. Hoping we can get a better image of that possible red font.
@Oleksandr
There you go again being both pushy and picky (with DATA).
The Curtin analysis raises (without you – you’re just amplifying without further justification) doubt about Scott Reef (1 of 3 data points) and thus you make that central to dismissing the whole analysis? If you might apply the same level of scrutiny to your “pet theory” & you’d have less.
Your earlier question – “which assumption or data”?
Answer: Mindset
Lighten up and open your clever but rigid mind …… please
@Brock, As I’ve said many times before, there is simply not a shred of credible evidence to think that MH370 went anywhere near the Maldives, and every reason to think that it didn’t. Continuing to talk about it is simply a waste of everyone’s time. This discussion is about trying to carefully work through the evidence rationally, and a big part of that is putting things aside once they’ve been assessed and determined to be irrelevent.
Many people will remember that this discussion used to be frequented by a commenter named Nihonmama, who felt that every idea that ever flitted through her head was equally valid. Talk about the Maldives is Nihonmama-worthy. This is not a Little League game where everyone gets a trophy for participating. Some ideas have to be left behind.
In short, Maldives: didn’t happen. Let’s move on.
re H/C discussion…
“…There was also a re-iteration of an assertion, that B777 structures are exclusively Nomex and not Alu H/C…”
I am not aware of anyone asserting that B777 structures are exclusively NOMEX. What I have reported is that the principal control surfaces (flaps, ailerons, speed breaks, rudder…) are fabricated using NOMEX, according to Boeing. That is what the Boeing B777-200 Training Manual Manual states. In that 6000+ page document, NOMEX is can be found in a document search many times. It is used extensively in the cargo bay too. Aluminum H/C is used in only a few places, as seen in NoStep.
@GortoZ
“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.”
7th arc is huge and they are obviously searching the wrong area, being very stubborn with their ghost flight assumption.
Moving the search to the projected origin of debris on the 7th arc would be rational but I don’t expect rational things from hotheaded bureaucrats.
Barometric altitude constraints must be below the cruise altitude to be valid (FCOM 11.31.18). During climb the FMC respects the waypoint speed/altitude constraints until the cruise altitude on the MCP is reached and the cruise segment begins.
When a waypoint with an altitude constraint below the cruise altitude is approached during cruise, the FMC calculates a Top-of-Descent point at which a normal descent is started to meet the altude constraint at that waypoint. For subsequent waypoints with altitude constraints the FMC calculates a vertical path that connects the next waypoint/constraint with the preceding one. If the MCP altitude is reduced during cruise as you suggest, the FMC starts the descent immediately, levels off at the altitude constraint for the next waypoint, and continues from that waypoint to the next as described above.
(See also step climb and cruise descent described earlier).
I think the TIC part is quite possibly part of one of the several? twin otters which have crashed in recent years in the area. JMHO.
@jeffwise
Shocked to see the one most benefiting from this spendid open Crowdsource forum (you) dismissing valid options and opinions so casually – don’t be such a bully Mister.
“ I’ve said many times before, there is simply not a shred of credible evidence to think that MH370 went anywhere near the Maldives, and every reason to think that it didn’t. Continuing to talk about it is simply a waste of everyone’s time. “
-is pure arrogance.
The Maldives has 3 data points: Curtin boom, wreckage and eye whiteness and your pet theory has what exactly? Oh yeah, the Malaysian authorities suggestion? ………
Bring back Nihonmama please and less of this arrogant git-talk. Bring valid DATA to the table, not shouty “I know better than everyone”.
@GortoZ
Frankly, I think Jeff has shown an amazing amount of patience relative to the Maldives discussion.
@GORTOZ
Careful. If you dont cheer for the megarich, corrupted, untouchable westerners, and not being anti-putin/russia you might get banned.
Aside: there is not a single live scenario – north, south, or west, each with any culprit you please – under which the absence to date of debris along the east coast of Madagascar is expected.
Because both west-to-Maldives and south-to-SIO predict this – albeit at different times: the time is about right for Maldives, a few months late for SIO, unless VERY far SW on the Arc.
(Ditto scenarios in which the plane landed; IF someone DID plant debris in the five spots already reported, then logically they should have done Madagascar as well.)
Nearly every drift study I’ve seen has Madagascar saturated by now – from nearly every posited IO start point. And lots of people live (and vacation, presumably) on that coast. I get that both local and vacation populations might be RELATIVELY sparse, but it is still odd to me that we have nothing so far.
An impact near Maldives appears to come closest to predicting this phenomenon, since debris would tend to drift east for almost a year in the northern hemisphere, before looping back around.
@jeffwise: sorry – I hadn’t read your stern admonition prior to posting just a minute ago. I’m sure it could have been read as an act of defiance – this was not at all my intent.
@Brock, No offense taken, we both know you like the Maldives a lot more than I do, and that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion. What concerns me is that new readers sometimes come here and haven’t been following the discussion, and start rehashing issues that were laid to bed a long time ago–often without any grasp of the underlying technical issues. That’s when I feel I have to channel things back on track.
BTW tourism in Madagascar is concentrated at the northern end of the island, the rest of it can be quite trying for Western visitors and I don’t think Western tourists (who have accounted for all of the recent ‘debris storm’) spend much time on that coast. So I don’t know if I’d read too much into the absence of Madagascar debris. On the other hand, I would be quite happy to see you elaborate the idea you’ve expressed, that if the plane went into the SIO near the 7th arc it’s almost incoceivable that nothing could have washed ashore in Western Australia.
@Trond & GortoZ, if you had been reading this blog for longer you know that it is a very big tent but I have limited patience for rudeness or the pushing of agendas that have no technical rationale. Consider this a first warning.
@brock. Moreover there is a late-season cyclone rocking up at N. madagascar next week that should throw up some ocean detritus way above the normal high water mark.
http://www.passageweather.com (select Indian ocean, then SA to Seychelles, then cycle through wind and [next page] wave forecasts to 19th …)
@Paul Smithson, Forgive me if this has been addressed already, but were there significant storms near Mozambique last December or February?
@Jeff I can’t answer that from memory, I’m afraid. Typically tropical cyclones sweep across equatorial regions of the Indian Ocean between Dec and April each year, like 5 or 6 per year. Most turn south before they cross Madagascar. The southern end of the Moz Channel is much more influenced by low pressure systems sweeping the other way – from West to East around South Africa (we just had a deep system come by that way last week) and this is capable of producing winds to 30kts in S Moz channel up to, say, Bazaruto/Villanculos. I don’t think you need storms of any sort, though, to account for landfall of debris that is travelling across the S.Equatorial current in the general direction of E Africa. My own guess is that the Moz debris came around the bottom of Madagascar and sucked in on the counter current with some assistance from one of the South Westers (associated with a low pressure system sweeping around SA).
I guess if it’s possible to spoof a satcom to fake a route to Kazachstan (Jeff Wise), it also must be possible to fake a route to the Maldives? Why give up on the Maladives-option? There are credible witness accounts of people there who saw a big passengerplane flying low to the south. There is this airplane fire suspensionbottle that washed up a beach there https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/03/28/mh-370-the-maldives/ 2 years ago. What happened with that?
Oke, no evidence. But what evidence is there realy thussfar besides the found parts lately? Are the Inmarsatdata real evidence? Are the primary militairy radardata 100% reliable evidence? I think at least we have to wait till the whole search area has been covered before ruling out other possible options. Including the Maldives.
@Paul, The reason I ask about storms is not that they are required to make landfall, but the possibility has been raised that the reason the three African pieces are largely devoid of marine life is that they had previously been beached, picked clean by crabs/bleached and dried by teh sun/etc, and then been washed back out to sea in a storm. This eventuality seems less likely if there were no particularly large storms in the area in the month beforehand (since the marine life comports with a time at sea of less than a month).
@Ge Rijn, Yes, some evidence is more “real” than others, and yes, the Inmarsat data and the satellite data are the gold standard. As for the fire bottle, it doesn’t come from a 777.
I really don’t buy the “picked clean” explanation for lack of aquatic growth. Nor the washing up and down a sandy beach (which would change their appearance considerably). Assuming that these pieces are for real (which I do) I think it is more likely that they simply didn’t extend deep enough under the surface to be attractive to barnacles.
@Jeff Wise. Thanks for replying. And before that, thanks for all your interesting work on MH370. I’ve been following the story from day one. It won’t leave me till it’s solved I guess. The Inmarsatdata,flightdata, primary radardata, satelite telefonedata, currentdata were/are the only objective data to work with. And now the found parts will contribute to this. I agree it’s not of much use to speculate on the Maldives in this stage of the searcheffort. I just wanted to make a point of view.
@Paul Smithson. I took snapshots of the Rodrigues-part from the youtube movie. If I zoom in on the taken snapshots there are actualy a lot of barnacels attached. Also on the Blaine-part by the way.
@jeffwise: thanks for understanding. To me, mutual respect matters far more than does agreement.
Yes, no debris on Australian shores by the end of 2014 was strongly counter-indicated by the IPRC data I received (I’m holding off on publication of any hard results until I hear back from the very busy folks there, whom I’ve pestered for a ream of yet more clarifying info, lest I misinterpret their very raw data).
To guard against the risk I was choosing a bad model &/or assumptions, I chose IPRC at 1% windage: that combination of model & assumption came closest to validating the flaperon’s journey, given buoyancy test results vaguely reported from Toulouse (and your barnacle/algae conclusions). If I use another model – OR a lower windage – the physical evidence fails to support a 7th Arc impact for a DIFFERENT reason (flaperon fails to reach Réunion in time).
I added adjustments to reflect that Pr(reaching shore) > Pr(staying on shore) > Pr(discovery) > Pr(recognized potential) > Pr(turned in), by applying reducing ratios at each stage, per crowd-sourced estimates.
I also allowed for the fact that (the latest IG estimate of) 10,000 pieces GENERATED had to be scaled down considerably to “only” X-thousand robustly BUOYANT pieces. I invite expert input on what this ratio might be (From memory: I recall testing between 20-30% floaters, to get the ball rolling).
Preliminary results appeared to me to suggest we should have expected many, MANY pieces reported from Oz shorelines.
Finally: to test the theory that the model was fine, but reality was just unlucky, I ran a Monte Carlo simulation, in which the model probabilities were used to generate thousands of random debris distributions governed by the IPRC probabilities – and then randomly turned in or not, based on crowd-sourced estimates of the above probabilities. At least SOME debris was reported on Oz shores roughly 100% of the time. While I still need to clarify two key assumptions (degree of independence among IPRC pieces after 6-10 months adrift, and propensity of an IPRC-modeled particle to hit multiple shores), the results seemed quite disconnected from reality.
Which is entirely consistent with what IPRC said in their August, 2015 release; lack of influx in Western Australia was their primary head-scratcher.
And it jives with the consensus view of both the locals and experts you canvassed for your 2014 article, Jeff.
In fact, that’s precisely why I’ve turned “outside the (search) box” for an explanation to this mystery.
There. I’ve talked about the portion of the surface debris evidence which supports BOTH your theory AND (theory-who-must-not-be-named).
You had given me the go-ahead to revisit the latter on occasion, provided evidence was both new and compelling. The resemblance of “Little V” to Rodriquez was brand new. And compelling, to judge by your readership, (on whom the coincidence of “Big-V” being found on the same atoll is not lost) – particularly when weighted by the light:heat ratio of each comment. But it’s your forum.
@All
Has anyone tried to develop a BTO spoofing scenario, so we are free to discuss E and W besides N and S?
I’m waiting for an expert to weigh in to explain it is not possible.
Sorry for my cynical mood; I’m shocked by some of the developments here of the latest days. This goes much further than agreeing or not agreeing on scenarios or technicalities, and it is not good for the case.
Without and open mind and a broad, multi-disciplinary perspective it cannot be addressed properly, IMO.
picture of Zaharie and Fariq, maybe taken on 08/03?! Zaharie’s body language is strange here.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CfuCoaVXIAEiHJU.jpg
@Paul Smithson. Excuse me. I forgot to add the youtube movie on the Rodrigues-part. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJEvqExMHbE&feature=youtu.be
Take snapshots in the screen. Save them, open, zoom out and you’ll see a lot of barnacles. Not on the surface that much but inside and under the cracks.
So far no one has produced any evidence that projects even the shadow of a doubt on the significance of the Inmarsat data. Those data do not guarantee that the wreckage will be found as there are many reasons why it could be outside the searched area, or if it is in rugged seafloor terrain that it may have been missed by the search. The fact that nothing has been found to date does not prove that the Inmarsat data are anything other than what they appear to be. Please come up with some convincing evidence that the Inmarsat data are spoofed, fabricated or otherwise misleading in any way.
@Brock, Well, as I’ve said before, I’d love you to do a guest post on this analysis once you feel you’re ready. FYI, the word on the street is that the French were unable to get the flotation experiment to “work.” I interpret this to mean that either the whole thing sank or it floated in such a way that some of the barnacles were left high and dry.
@Niels, I think there’s a general consensus that BTO spoofing is possible at least in theory. However, there’s a big leap between postulating a BTO spoof and imagining that MH370 flew low over the Maldives and crashed nearby. To spoof both the BTO and BFO values would require an even more incredibly high level of sophistication than spoofing BFO alone, which many already find implausibly high. Are we then supposed to believe that actors with state-level resources carried out this incredible feat, only to wind up flying low over a village where everyone could see them? And then crash and die? Remember, too, that 1) the BTO value at 18:25 matches the radar data at 18:22, 2) prior to March 8, 2014 nobody outside Inmarsat knew that BTO values were logged, so why would they bother to fake them?
I think the thing that bothers me most about the Maldives as a hypothesis is that it’s a dead end. It doesn’t support any idea of who took it or why. It’s merely a supposition dangling helplessly in the void, contradicting the highest-quality evidence and demanding that we accept the most spurious evidence, providing no ultimate answers. It’s sterile. I think it’s appealing, frankly, to those who would prefer that the mystery not be solved.
Niels,
We have already discussed this, though I am not aware of any explicit attempts to simulate spoofed BTO. In brief:
– Spoofing BTO is a way more complicated than spoofing BFO;
– It was not widely known that Inmarsat recorded BTO besides BFO before MH370 disappeared;
– The aircraft could be anywhere within its fuel performance range if BTO is spoofed;
– Spoofing BTO does not make any sense because of the previous reason.
– BTO 18:25 cluster is consistent with radar data, meaning either correctness of 18:25 BTO immediately after SDU reboot or fake radar data (implying multi-national conspiracy).
@Brock
For what it’s worth, my own opinion on why there’s no debris in Western Australia (I’m biased I know):
Far less debris generated than IG assume, far less than 1000 floaters. Only a few floaters in fact, the consequence of a controlled ditching.
Warren has given a good explanation for how the Rodrigues panel came adrift. But with all due respect to Warren, I don’t think it’s quite the whole story.
Re the Ethiopian Airlines B767 that crashed off the Comoros; the aircraft turned over when the left wingtip hit a reef, breaking off the tail section.
With MH370, if the right wingtip had dug in enough to make the pivot (cartwheel) about the left wingtip, then the impact would have been severe enough to break the fuselage, and there would have been more debris from the interior than just a panel adjacent to the door.
Because we have just this panel, another explanation is necessary. Controversial possibly, but could be the pilot unlocked door 2R a short time before impact then rolled it right on ditching to burst the door in, to make the aircraft sink quickly.
@Brock
I meant of course a pivot about the right wingtip.
@jeffwise
“nobody outside Inmarsat knew that BTO values were logged, so why would they bother to fake them?”
Is there something more to this if “they” knew?
@jeff: even though the Maldives theory is not my leading theory, your last comment to Niels hurt me.
It hurt me deeply.
@Cheryl
Regarding the ATC-cockpit exchanges, that you can find on youtube, after hearing it twice, here are my remarks :
Yes, the pilot/copilot doesn’t readback the last frequency of Ho Chi Minh radar. Not unusual IMO. Sometimes experienced pilots do not read back frequencies that they know from years of experience flying in the same area. The job of the ATC is to make sure the pilot/copilot repeats it correctly in case they got it wrong.
You say that they repeat everything right except the last one : not true. They actually do not readback HALF of the frequencies they were given during the journey (ground, approach, Ho Chi Minh radar), if you take a close look at the transcript.
The tower controller doesn’t even give him a frequency to read back !! Assuming the MH370 knows it already. I’m not 100% familiar with airport ATC but this may be standard operational procedure, favored by the fact that the MH370 is a regular flight, that it’s nightime, heck, maybe the controller even recognised the voice in the cockpit and knew it was a regular pilot familiar with KL airport ! I’m not sure.
Regarding the “drawers” and “banging” noises that you mention, I can’t hear any. There are many static noises like some sort of hissing and overall background noise in the recording ; reminded me of my years of training, when we listened to hours of audio recording like this one to develop phraseology and frequency skills. The background noise is explained by the poor quality of the several tape recorders/microphones used to take the recording from the source, in the control room, to youtube.
If you point out at specific times in the recording where you hear strange noises, I would be glad to hear it again.
All in all, in my opinion (as an ATC) a perfectly normal, routine radio sequence.
The only thing that bugs me is the fact that MH370 says twice to the ATC that he is levelled at flight level 350. Very uncommon procedure where I work, pilots almost never call us back when levelling off at a specific flight level. Unless asked by the ATC, or in specific instances, but not for “normal”, cruising flight.
I don’t know why the pilot would say twice something that useless : the ATC knows it from his radar.
It may be standard procedure in specific parts of the world, that’s my guess. Or it could be part of Malaysian Airlines recommandations to do so. Maybe someone can shed some light on this.
If it’s not standard by any means, then it raises a yellow/orange flag in my mind : why would they say that ? Twice ?
@Niels, sorry for your cynical mood, but I don’t understand very well what you wanted to say or allude to in your latest comment.
As to faking the BTOs, too, so that we’re free to explore into all directions: we have discussed this yesterday. If a decoy plane or drone carrying a SDU with 9M-MRO’s ID was sent southwards in order to create pings which suggest a SIO crash, then 9M-MRO was free to go in complete dark mode wherever the perps wanted to take the plane. That is so far the alternative to an after-the-event inception of completely fictive sat data into Inmarsat’s logs. This was actually the first scenario which has been explored in the early days when first doubts were raised re: the validity of the sat data.
@Brock. Have you looked at debris trajectories if it started where I believe it did – namely 45S, 89E? From the CSIRO “Reunion backwards” model it strikes me that this is (between two low-probability options) marginally more likely than the current search area. Unlike start points north of there, not so much would be expected in W Oz and would circulate further offshore then onwards on the S Equatorial current. A good portion, possibly even majority, would get carried E by circumpolar current. There’s a chance it would fetch up on S Oz coast (the E end of the Bight, near Adelaide seems to be something of a magnet for drifters).
@Jeff, I agree that the supposed sighting in the Maldives doesn’t make any sense; its far more likely to have been some sightseeing trip IMO, albeit in a larger than usual plane.
What bothers me a lot is that no acoustic evidence has been found from in or near the current search area in the time-frame given by the ISAT data. Dr Duncan and associate researchers have done their unbiased best with the acoustic data IMO and admitted areas where doubt exists. Should we completely ignore their papers?
As the current search comes to an end and if the plane is not found then surely we will have to reconsider the “gold-standard” evidence or should we just give up?
This is your forum and I respect your decisions about suitability of content. Many thanks for providing this for us and for your hard work in attempting to solve this mystery.
Very interesting “word on the street” about the flaperon BTW. I am not surprised and this may explain the official silence on the matter.
Littlefoot,
“If a decoy plane or drone carrying a SDU with 9M-MRO’s ID was sent southwards in order to create pings which suggest a SIO crash”
No drone or decoy plane was needed: fake AES station, which mimics BTO and BFO, could be installed on a boat or some remote island, like DG (DG is convinient location because it is just “under” Inmarsat satellite). This was also discussed early days.
that would have to be a very fast boat @Oleksandr
@Matty: you’ve spoken before about Inmarsat refusing to “guarantee the data”. Can you please elaborate? Do you have a reference I could read?
Thanks in advance.
Paul Smithson,
Think again. What would be needed is a laptop with simulation software and USB to AES connector.
P.S. Throw away backward drift models – they are not applicable in this case. I already explained why.