In the weeks since MH370 debris began washing up in the Western Indian Ocean, I’ve struggled to understand the condition in which they were found. Particularly baffling were the three that washed ashore in Mozambique and South Africa, which were almost completely clean and free of marine fouling. I’ve talked to a number of marine biologists who study organisms that grow on floating debris, and they told me that given their pristine appearance these pieces couldn’t have floated for more than a few weeks.
Some observers have suggested that perhaps the objects had failed to pick up significant fouling because they drifted through waters that were too cold or low in nutrients, but further examination showed that this could not be the explanation.
One commenter on this blog suggested that the pieces were too shallow, or too small, to permit the growth of Lepas barnacles. This, too, is an unsuitable explanation, since Lepas can grow on bits of floating debris that are as small as a few centimeters across. The photograph above shows a small but vibrant community growing on a piece of pumice spewed from a volcano in Tonga; the largest Lepas (goose barnacle) in the image is 23 mm long.
In acknowledging the very obvious problem that this lack of biofouling presents, David Griffin of the Australian government’s science agency, CSIRO, has written (referring to the first Mozambique piece) that “this item is not heavily encrusted with sea life, so it has probably spent a significant length of time either weathering in the sun and/or washing back and forth in the sand at this or some other location. The time at sea is therefore possibly much less than the 716 days that have elapsed since 14 March 2014, and the path taken may have been two or more distinct segments.”
The idea then, is that these pieces washed across the Indian Ocean, were deposited on a beach, were picked over my crabs and other predators, bleached in the sun and scoured by wind and sand, the were washed back out to sea, then came ashore again within less than two weeks and were discovered.
One problem with this scenario is that while we might just about imagine a sequence of events happening to one piece, it seems incredible to imagine it happening to three pieces independently, in different locations and at different times. (To be fair to Dr Griffin, he proposed this idea at a time when only once piece had yet been found.)
Another problem with Dr Griffin’s idea is that no major storms took place in the two weeks preceding the discovery of each of the pieces in Mozambique and South Africa. Indeed, the region has been experiencing a drought.
In short, there is not plausible sequence of events by which the three pieces found in Africa could have arrived there by natural means.
What about the piece which turned up on Rodrigues Island? As I wrote in my blog post, the size of the barnacles blatantly contradict the possibility that the object was afloat for two years. And given that Rodrigues is surrounded by a reef, hundreds of miles from the nearest land, the idea that it might have washed ashore somewhere, gotten re-floated, and then came ashore again to be discovered is close to inconceivable.
Taken separately, these objects defy explanation. Taken together, however, they present a unified picture. Though discovered weeks and months apart, in locations separated by thousands of miles, they are all of a piece: they are all wrong. They do not look–at all!–like they should.
There is only one reasonable conclusion to draw from the condition of these pieces. Since natural means could not have delivered them to the locations where they were discovered, they must have been put there deliberately. They were planted.
In fact, we can go even further than that. Whoever put these pieces on the shores where they were discovered wasn’t even trying very hard. It would only have taken a little bit of imagination and a small amount of effort to put these pieces in the ocean for a few months to pick up a healthy suite of full-sized Lepas. This clearly was attempted in the case of the Rodrigues piece, but no effort at all was expended on the African pieces.
Why? Were they being lazy, or simply overconfident? Or did they know that it wouldn’t matter?
Perhaps the events of last July influenced their decision. After the flaperon was discovered on Réunion Island, it was whisked away by French authorities, given a cursory examination, and then hidden away. The public were never told what the investigators found, or didn’t find. No one seriously questioned whether the flaperon could really have come from a crash in the Southern Indian Ocean. (Well, almost no one.)
Six months later, the failure of the seabed search was looming. The Australian government had already begun saying that it might not find the plane, and preparing the public for the decision to call off the search. The narrative that the plane had nonetheless flown south to some unknown point in the southern Indian Ocean needed bolstering. Given how little inquiry had been directed at the Réunion piece, whoever planted the most recent four pieces might reasonably have assumed that the public would accept the new pieces uncritically, no matter how lackadaisical their preparation.
Maybe they were right. Past experience has shown that people have a remarkable ability to squint their eyes and avoid seeing the obvious ramifications of evidence plunked down in front of them. A good example was the seabed search that took place after acoustic pings were detected back in the spring of 2014. The frequency of pings was wrong, and the physical distribution of the pings indicated that they could not possibly have come from stationary wreckage. So it was clear from the data that the pings were not coming from black boxes. But numerous experts twisted themselves into knots explaining how the deep-sea hydroaccoustic environment was very weird, with salinity gradients and underwater valleys that channeled sound, and so on. I was on a panel on CNN one day when famed science communicator Bill Nye explained that the sound waves probably were refracted by passing through water masses of varying densities, and refraction causes frequencies to change. When you have to start changing the laws of physics to justify your interpretation of the data, it might be time to start looking for a new interpretation.
I’m not saying that people’s attempts thus far to explain the condition of the MH370 debris through non-nefarious means is misguided. Far from it–as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and when presented with evidence like the MH370 debris which invites such an uncomfortable (some will no doubt say outlandish) conclusion, it’s necessary to carefully rule out simpler explanations. However, once that has been done, we must not avert our eyes and say, “Well, I just can’t accept that conclusion, it’s not reasonable, there must be some explanation you’re missing,” or come up with a Nyeism that posits as explanation some phenomenon previously unknown to science.
If the MH370 investigation has taught us anything, is that restricting the discussion to “acceptable” explanations is a fatal trap. Early in the mystery, Duncan Steel hosted a discussion on his web site for people to exchange views and information. He had a rule, however: it was forbidden to discuss any scenarios which posited that the plane had been diverted intentionally, as he felt that this was disrespectful to the people on board. Of course, we now know that the plane was certainly diverted by someone on board, so effectively what Steel was outlawing was the discussion of any scenario that might possible be correct.
This mindset is alive and well. Recently on a discussion forum, one of the participants flatly stated that she was not interested in hearing about any theories that involve a hijacking. The ATSB has shown itself to be equally narrowminded. It has on multiple occasions declared that its interpretation of the Inmarsat data is unassailable. First it said that there was 100 percent chance that the plane was in the first 60,000 square km search area. When it turned out not to be, they drew a 120,000 sq km search area and declared that there was a 100 percent chance it was inside there. Come June, they will find (as we know now because of the condition of the African debris) that it is not there, either. Yet their recurring failure has not shaken their faith in their “reasonable” belief about what happened to the plane.
So maybe whoever planted the debris in Mozambique, South Africa, and Rodrigues weren’t lazy–maybe their understanding of human psychology simply allowed them to take the minimum steps necessary. Whether their calculation was accurate or not will now become apparent.
@Trip I think some of these ideas have merit. Understanding motivation can be crucial in an investigation. For my part, as mentioned in an earlier post to which you responded, I clearly understand the motivation that the Uyghurs may have had. But even so, and even if they had an intended destination in Xinjiang, this does not mean that ultimately they did not end up on the sea somewhere (IO or SIO).There is plenty that could have gone wrong. What I would like to know (or ask if someone can help) is this: how would a hijacker (or the pilot) negotiate with perhaps Malaysian officials without having that conversation potentially overheard? Would they use a radio other than VHF or UHF? Some other means?
@Shadynuk
Negotiations could not be effectively carried out by any wireless means. They would have to be done by third party co-conspirators on the ground, and then a wireless signal given relative to the state of those negotiations.
@Victor: re: “Both had serial numbers that could be traced back to 9M-MRO”:
My “1 of 3” comment (and Florence’s “1 of 12” sleuthing) referred to the endoscopy, per the French prosecutor’s formal statement of Sept. 4, 2015:
“…permet d’associer formellement l’un des trois numéros relevés à l’intérieur du flaperon au numéro de série du flaperon du boeing 777 du vol MH370”
I’m choosing the same stat the prosecutor deemed key, and quoted the batting average he gave us. I was not expecting to be corrected.
@Brock
Nice. My better half is fluent in French, and her reading supports your view.
Still, I don’t have any doubt relative to the flaperon coming from 9M-MRO.
@ Dennis Thanks Dennis. If there were indeed negotiations, I think I would rather be looking for one of those guys than looking for the plane. Better odds? I must say that I am both astounded and impressed by how much time and thought many people are putting into this. Someone, somewhere knows something crucial and is withholding that.
Dennis – you said to Victor – “Your question raises a point that has had me astounded from the get-go. There have been virtually no leaks from any major player (“insider”) involved in this episode – Boeing, Rolls, BEA, ATSB,… the list goes on and on. It would seem that the insiders are terrified to even post anything much less speak out in public. I cannot think of any major event that parallels this event in that regard. We still do not know the identities of the SSWG. Truly bizarre.”
Bizarre indeed, to the point of getting scary. I started on about this a few months after it disappeared. I think I bored everyone silly with that same old line many times over – “there is something wrong with this picture”. The picture has never resolved itself, it’s deteriorated further and I don’t believe it’s all for the benefit of Malaysia’s dignity or any diplomatic consideration. I realize it’s two cents from the gallery but I ended up with the impression that someone did a number with the plane and it wasn’t amateur. That was then. It’s extraordinary(to me) to find most crunchers have not moved one inch from those early days.
Under FOIA, the NTSB was supposed to respond to my request for radar data within 20 working days of March 9. Sad to say, I haven’t heard anything. Today I sent a reminder.
At least they haven’t said no.
Yet.
@Shadynuk
I agree. Our only hope at this point is for a whistleblower to come forward or for “feet on the street” to uncover the plot.
Crime solving stats (as I have mentioned before) show an incremental probability of solution approaching zero after 100 days or so. I am a firm believer in stats.
When the search expires in June or July, that will be the end of it for all of us. The only thing to look forward to will be periodic reunions.
@Matty
Yes. It is unprecedented in my experience. A true slap in the face to investigative journalism. Where is the outrage?????
Maybe the cargo is key. The one thing that was kept secret was fruit, and the weight was too heavy to have been fruit.
@ Bloke
I don’t understand how you think a T7 could approach a target in a large advanced nation without being detected on primary radar, no matter the status of its transponder.
@AM2, Oz,
Re RR debris. I don’t see holes. I see remains of barnacle attachment points.
They look very similar to what you get on boats, after neglecting them for too long, pull them out of the water and scraping/waterblasting off the marine fouling.
Typically, they are circular or doghnut shapes, sometimes not fully formed, moon crescent like.
The RR pice seems to have a pattern of them. The “Roy” portion is covered and to the left and up of it. It could indicate the preferred attitude of floating and hence barnacle attachment.
In other words, this piece is not one of those “pristine” pieces.
On another note, re debris being planted or not. I think the near future will bring more indication either way.
Given the recent acceleration of debris finds, one could surmise, that we are seeing the beginning of the land fall of the edges of a vast debris field. If of natural causes, we should see many more pieces beach, being found and reported in the near future.
If for some reason, nothing, or very little turns up in future, it would be a strong indication for recent debris finds being the result of debris planting.
The French journalist Florence de Changy, in her book ‘Le Vol MH370 n’a pas disparu’ writes in the introduction, the following description of the 2 passengers of interest to Jeff Wise’s theory.
‘they arrived in the last minutes of boarding the flight, much more energetic than their fellow passengers’
In a recent article on the ATLANTIC magazine titled ‘The Drugs That Built a Super Soldier’, there is the following description of the impact of amphetamines on soldiers just before departing on missions:
…….’He recalled a description he’d heard from a navy commando, who said that the drugs “gave you a sense of bravado as well as keeping you awake. Every sight and sound was heightened. You were wired into it all and at times you felt really invulnerable.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/04/the-drugs-that-built-a-super-soldier/477183/
@Susie
“I don’t understand how you think a T7 could approach a target in a large advanced nation without being detected on primary radar, no matter the status of its transponder.”
You are right in one sort of way. In the first days of the disappearance, before the ISAT data shed a differnt light on the possible flightpath, I posed the exact question to myself, and the obvious answer was, that this nation was a player in the disappearance. My favorite result from this thinking led me to a further routing through Myanmar to China. They have the capability in terms of knowledge and assets. They behaved strange in the early days and they imho still do. They distracted search efforts more than they supported them. They can control information and they permanently demonstrate their will and ability to do so.
Radar coverage of stationary air defence radar systems at lower altitudes during peace time is like a swiss cheese, only in a reversed way. The radars and their coverage are resembled by the holes, the cheese itself represents the radar free areas. In times of tensions tactical air defence systems like mobile radar and missile systems and airborne AWACS aircraft are deployed to the areas of possible intrusion or for special border and objects protection to fill up the peacetime gaps.
A flight through Myanmar to China would have been easy game, if China was behind the plot. Let me add, flying along FIR borders works as deception only over water, over land the borders are more defended than the inlands.
As long as the ISAT data after the reboot at MEKAR are seen as original and valid I see no way that I could be right with this initial idea. But to add, no other presented scenario until now did make much sense to me either.
Victor – scripted by the Chinese govt and some of these guys will be operatives for sure – despite what the source in the story says. I doubt anyone will have a bigger intel apparatus than China these days. ASIO had to tap an Australian defence minister a few years back(Joel FitzGibbon) as the Chinese woman he was having a fling with was a spy. They are notorious for using honey for intel purposes. It was a big lapse.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/chinas-patriots-among-us-beijing-pulls-new-lever-of-influence-in-australia-20160412-go4vv0.html#ixzz45eiP9Kvc
Relative to MH370, a background summary might read like this:
China/Russia/Iran all have a Sunni Islam problem. They also resent the US and want to challenge it militarily/politically but have a large technology gap to bridge, and all are united on the next Middle East redraw and the intention to lock the US out. Sunni groups are known to be using MAS to move stolen technologies and hardwares from the west via KL(so is Iran/China/Russia). Al-Qaeda/ISIS are known to be seeking nuclear materials and associated technology from wherever they can. If there was something/someone on that plane of real importance there is joint motivation to keep it out of Sunni hands and render it to themselves. Then it would be a case of waiting and swooping, and it would need to be done exquisitely well or not at all. Or Freescale? They wouldn’t need to be scientists, just be able to get access. Like Inmarsat it’s the kind of firm the Chinese will be snooping continually and if it’s people you are after you can’t nab them on the tarmac. Could it explain the deafening silence from Obama? From France? I was confident that Australia would not obfuscate on MH370 – off their own bat anyway.
Oil dependant China cannot tolerate a situation where the US remains the dominant military player in the Asia-Pacific and wields clout in the South China Sea. Their govt is anticipating a war and I know there are Japanese naval brass who want to do it sooner rather than later, for fear that it just won’t be manageable later. Iran is planning for war against Israel-Saudi Arabia, and ready to joust with Turkey re the redraw. China wants expanded regional influence and to give the US a major haircut in this neighbourhood. Russia is already engaged in war and expansion of power. All are looking after their interests in concert atm, and Russian planes buzzed a US warship the other day – again.
Neglected to say that Russian bases in Syria will be there courtesy of Iranian backed Syrian govt(Assad), and that Iranian oil will flowing is large quantities to China through some contested waterways to our north.
Hi @all, yesterday, in Baltic sea 2 Suchoi jets again did close fly by USS Donald Cook, similar as 2 years ago in Black sea, but back at that time, USS was quite seriously locked by coastal defense system and u-turned then, while russians told clearly they set it all up visible by US-army from space and the action of pilots was something unexpected (“ani razchuliganilis” told Putin, winking clearly – translated as “went unrestrained/wild/”topguned”” or so…), so yesterday probably “razchuliganilis” again, having all the media shows we see around and if they wanted to do wake-up for your president to watch russians colleague annual Q&A too, then probably may succeeeded, who knows (humor, as always); at least Putin commented last TV interview of president Obama quite well, mentioning him as strong man and pointing to work together enhancing (including the economic sanctions, highly welcomed by their growing businesses, … just to catch California sooner, ya Dennis, humor again, not easy, ya)… in relation to captains last words and “all right” phrase probably planted from scratch too (as I expect almost all intensive contradicting media actions at the begining was provided to confuse absolutelly everybody and to “mix the cards” for all to have equal opportunity to start S&R process), as by my oppinion, its the “deep search process itself” what is reason of whole case; so no pure hijacking but with military precision carefully planned hide&seek game with pilots and affected countries involved, including finally also passengers (hardest point, where they are and how well???), including some unexpected parties yet, and of course Inmarsat too, although I dont believe that company of such reputation and global reach and importance can produce something nontrue (the same Boeing, all the agencies etc.), so I trust theirs data are valid, for this reason only, but who knows; as the level of conspiracy seems to be absolutelly extreme, unimaginable and totally crazy; but I think it was one of US army generals who told that extraordinary situations require extraordinary approaches(??), with totally unpredictable actions of one side against other, the more crazy, the better (and here one side are we hopefully good guys and other side are all the unfortunatelly bad guys, no matter of country, this stereotyped division is not relevant anymore)… and finally it might result simply in somethink like global shock (I had one quite big, really)… who knows, sure, I dont know anything for sure, but only feel something, based it all on huge amount of small hints (with prevalent vector in one “good” direction – or its affected by confirmation bias and wish, I agree) scanned from media environment, mostly political, between the big players, and I mean several years back in fact and as I told already, its related to climate change issues, to new political climate settling slowly in multipolar/multipartner world, so new economical relations, then UN SDG, also climate and wars driven migration crisis (equator to north mostly because of water, droves) and also embedded EU bureaucracy crisis as well, not to mention violent coup on the Ukraine which had real potential to be spreaded even inside Crimea and there was absolutelly blitz victim-less action from russian army to help Crimea people (opposite to civic warfare with separatist areas of Ukraine, where ppl dont share quite simplified and naive view about nice and easy Europe, and probably knowing nothing deep about whats going on really in Russia – the same vector as in EU, more and more reforms and heading to growing market economy, and also, inevitably, away from fosil fuels exports as primary income source, sure…) – although it might sound crazy from someone who knows that my own country was occupied by “very similar “friendly” action” of our own alies back in 1968 and that we was nibbled and asimilated by nazi Germany in 1938… and so I was also 2 years ago completelly on “western-only-assured-truth-no-question-asked” side, until I finally at some break point started thinking deeper what is really happening there and why, bypassing effectivelly ugly ukrainian (sorry, sad but true) propaganda-feeded media, while not noticing/seeking-for any russian one (still not sure about level of participation of them in this whole case though – but one thing is clear: Russians absolutelly hate war, be sure, I cant count number of WWII documents watched during last 2 years and nothing is more obvious that this fact, based on what all they experienced just inside their country; they dont want to start anything imperial again; Soviet Union is AWAY – but even in our country its hard for most people to forgive them and even many good guys are still afraid of russinas too, and I understand also what happened to Ukrainians by crazy bolsheviks back between world wars – but this is not positive and usefull way to future, to dig the old troubles out again and again… at least, my 2c)
Sure, whole this may be also quite crazy fiction of me and I am aware of that, but if anything really bad happened to all the people (cant believe still), then at least even the fiction spread here (and hopefully silently monitored by some) can have some positive effect, if nothing other, together with inevitable positivity induced by that “allright”-scenario and some small local support FB operations too. BTW, scientologists are bad guys, no questions asked, sorry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQ_3sBZEm0
@Victor: re: “Both had serial numbers that could be traced back to 9M-MRO”:
The magistrate speaks of three “numbers”. We don’t know if these were “serial numbers”, and if they were found on one part or different parts. An assembled composite part baked in an autoclave oven becomes a single part, it does not have separate parts as such bearing a “serial number”.
BTW I spent part of last night reading Florence de Changy’s book and it is not clear where she got that notion of twelve numbers. There are contradictory statements about that.
@Steve
“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 […] If it’s not standard by any means, then it raises a yellow/orange flag in my mind : why would they say that ? Twice ?”
@Cheryl
“Yes agreed the repetition FL350 line to me is “glaring.” The lines are about 6 minutes apart as well. It could be several things, the effects of hypoxia perhaps, not realizing they said it once? It’s been suggested they wanted to be at FL390 and were prompting ATC for that level? Who knows what was happening in those 6 minutes and if it was even the same person? Were the instruments giving them a false reading of the FL? If something unique to MAS procedure, I have no idea? And to me I hear a nuance of urgency in the second repeated line as well, it seems more intense to me.”
“I am a linguist and have scrutinized the audio recording fine tooth combing it some 25 times or more already. I do hear them repeating most everything back to ATC other than the HCM frequency. Also they misname the flight number (370) or slur over it 4 times in the recording, on the second repeated FL350 line, there is one of those slurs.”
I noticed this too. Both pilots throughout the flight seem to have trouble with the flight number. I think Jeff’s explanation for this is reasonable. (“Essentially, the pilot is rattling off a standard expression, then has to stop for a few milliseconds to figure out, “Hey, what’s the number of this darned flight, again?””)
12:42:30 take off
12:42:48 MH370 (H/Z?): Okay level one eight zero direct IGARI Malaysian one – err – Three Seven Zero
01:01:14 MH370 (Z/H?): Malaysian – uh – Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero
01:19:29 MH370 (Z/H?): Good Night Malaysian – uh – Three Seven Zero
In the repeated FL350 line, Zaharie (Hamid?) misremembers the flight number and corrects himself. Additionally, part of this transmission is cut off.
01:07:55 MH370 (Z/H?): -ysian .. Eight Sev- Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero
It seems possible that something has affected his cognitive state.
@RetiredF4
Makes sense – I can certainly go along with at least some of what you suggest.
I had meant the point regarding primary radar in response to @Bloke’s idea of the aircraft being used as a weapon. I just don’t think that’s very realistic.
@RetiredF4
“Absent from a linguistic POV I consider that call as normal.”
@Cheryl
“So we have a pilot’s perspective that the repetition is normal and an ATC’s opinion, Steve, that it is not.”
@RetiredF4
“In view of the following events though there should other reasons be considered. My first one on the list would be outside forcefull influence on the crew. In that case we may consider that the noted non standard and sloppy radio prodedures were intentional to raise the suspicion of ATC.”
The repeated line is curiously timed:
–:-7:5- ==> 7500 (squawk code for hijacking)
I ignore the last digit because there would be too many factors (clock synchronization, latency) to precisely time the transmission to 7:50 and not have it appear to ATC as, say, 7:48. To communicate ’75’ in the timing of this redundant message, it would seem best to add a couple of seconds to 7:50.
However, I struggle to imagine circumstances under which they would attempt to communicate a hijacking in this manner and how they could hope to have ATC understand their intent.
Here is audio with the two FL350 lines: http://vocaroo.com/i/s131uC8HbCu9
@airlandseamana
“As I have already explained, it is *technically possible* to do it. But as a practical matter, it requires a James Bond script…too crazy to imagine…plus detailed insider knowledge of how the entire Inmarsat system works, man-years of Senior Engineers working on it, an AES + additional microwave hardware, not just software, located close to the sub-satellite point, $$$, etc…”
A much simpler option would be to use social engineering and/or 0-day exploits to gain access to the Inmarsat servers and database. The task is then simplified – reduced from years to weeks or days – or even hours with help from someone as knowledgeable as you.
As you note, it’s incredibly unlikely any perpetrator would understand the significance of the BFO data (since nobody did). Anomalies or inconsistencies with the BTO data should therefore be expected.
@Broke. About the numbers. The stenciled part number(s)on the flaperon could soon be confirmed of the part coming from a B777. A maintainance number was added during a maintainance in Spain and could later be directly linkt to MH370. At least that what was stated and show in pictures back then.
The ‘problem’ now with some pieces they have, only (as we know of till now) one part number (the pylon piece), a stenciled ‘NO STEP)and a Rolls Royce logo, is why those pieces still only can be confirmed of belonging to a B777. And till know only the pylon piece and Blaine-piece are confirmed that way. Still not officialy linked to MH370.
@Matty Perth. Like to comment on the ‘no leaks’ if you don’t mind. In my view its a lot more logical to assume that after more then 2 years without substantail leaks with so many people involved, there is not much to leak. Imo this approuch is making things only more complicated based on more or less paranoid thinking (don’t mean to be rude).
@Mu One. I saw the little ‘barnacel’-rings too on the RR-part. They also are visible on the pylon-part (a stretch at the bottom of one end of it) and I agree on the rest of your comment. The now found pieces could well be the start of a landfall of more pieces coming and found soon.
Dennis – you said to Victor – “Your question raises a point that has had me astounded from the get-go. There have been virtually no leaks from any major player (“insider”) involved in this episode – Boeing, Rolls, BEA, ATSB,… the list goes on and on.”
Perhaps they don’t have anything to “leak”?
@Gysbreght,
Your are completely correct, serial numbers are normally attributed to assemblies or a subassembly/part that is readily transferrable. Within the assembly there may be individual part numbers that are legible (that might include production dates and even quality stamps).
Just look at the commentary on 657BB; it is still being quoted by many commentators as a part number.
OZ
@falken
The incident with the USS Cook and the SU 24 is not something to worry about. It happened before and it will happen again between different nationalities in international uncontroled airspace. Both parties know, that it was not part of an agression, but part of a never ending game. The russians have now some more informations about the Elint capabilities of the Cook, if they unprudently used it instead of switching it of.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/malaysia-airlines-insults-mh370-families/news-story/2f44249ccf053f0bedb4798cd37e9b92
This was in the Australian today and the family of some victims are understandably upset at some of the questions being asked on their compensation claim;
“Despite our best efforts to supply all of the requested information, the airline is distressing us further by asking ridiculous and incredibly insulting questions. We understand the court process allows them to ask for further particulars, but some of their questions are incredible, including asking us where the crash occurred and what caused the crash,” the Burrows family told The Australian.
@Gysbreght
“Perhaps they don’t have anything to “leak”?”
You know, that is certainly a possibility I had not considered. Good one.
@Oz Its a number on a part. But what does it realy mean?
Is it only a position number?
Like to know, thank you.
@Richard, You wrote, “it’s incredibly unlikely any perpetrator would understand the significance of the BFO data (since nobody did). Anomalies or inconsistencies with the BTO data should therefore be expected.” One would indeed… and as I noted in this space long ago, one indeed does see just that kind of inconsistency. The BTO data suggest an impact point south of Broken Ridge; routes that best fit with the BFO data suggest an impact point north of Broken Ridge. This discrepency caused much internal debate when the ATSB was trying to figure out where to establish a seabed search area, in mid-2014; the argument was finally won by proponents of BTO data, quite likely with the help of the IG. Now that that search area has been scoured and nothing found, some, such as the IG’s Richard Godfrey, are proposing that a search area to the north might have been correct all along. Oops! What neither the IG nor the ATSB seems yet willing to concede is that this discrepency between the BFO and the BTO data might be indicative of a fundamental problem with the data–and, indeed, a clue in and of itself.
@jeffwise,
I would add to your eminent description of the “discrepancy” that the BTO data only point in a particular direction with certain assumptions regarding autopilot dynamics, in particular regarding the airspeed and altitude. Yes, the BFO’s point to a lower speed or altitude, but then there is the potential problem of oscillator drift that Dennis has pointed out.
@Gysbreght, While in theory a flight route can be found to any point on the 7th arc that matches the BTO values, in practice the BTO values tightly constrain where the plane could have gone. This was explained in the DSTG “book” but continues to be widely misunderstood. I’ll try to clarify matters in a forthcoming post.
@Jeff Wise.
Excuse me if its a silly or old question. But is the changing of thickness of earths atmosphere regarding lightspeed and doppler shift also taken into account? Can it matter? On a long route from the equator towards the poles the atmosphere would generaly change from low pressure to a higher pressure for instance depending on temperatures.
I mean for lightspeed slows a bit down depending on conditions of the medium also the dopplershift would.
Or am I talking totaly rubbisch here.
@Richard
I am 100% sure I would personally never get a hint of an undergoing hijack in real-time work with just specific, elaborate message timing by cockpit crew ! Arbitrary heading or flight level changes, being unable to correctly readback a message multiple times, arbitrary change of the squawk (which would trigger an alarm on the radar screen) ARE much safer signs IMO to try to warn ATC that you’re being hijacked. (yet it’s arguable that you would have any leeway to do so)
@Cheryl
After hearing the tape for the 3rd time, I’m starting to think that the “Malaysian, errr– Three seven Zero” could just be the normal way that the pilot/copilot talks.
As far as I’m concerned, some of my colleagues change drastically the way they speak on the radio frequency VS the way they speak in real life. (Just like the “Chuck Yeager” syndrome mentionned earlier.)
Some pilots too, even from the same company (and assumed to be of the company’s nationality), can take very strange or unexpected accents, sometimes giving us on the ground a good laugh !
I don’t think that we can conclude that the speaker’s “cognitive state” was altered with just a repeated slur on the “an” of the word “Malaysian”.
I stick with my previous post, which is that this is quite a standard radio communication sequence ; the only thing bugging me is the fact that he repeats the flight level twice after level-off, with a few minutes delay. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation about this ? (e.g. company recommandation ?)
@Ge Rijn, That question could be better answered by @airlandseaman but my impression is that the independent engineers who’ve reverse-engineered the Inmarsat data have taken everything remotely relevent into account, even slight perturbations due to the effects of Einsteinian relativity. The upshot is that the BTO data is fairly simple and its implications for the aircraft’s position relatively precise, while the BFO data is fundamentally fuzzy and turns out not to be very useful for determining where the plane was precisely at–only for determining whether it flew to the north or to the south. So it’s been a long time since anyone has rolled up their sleeves and gotten under the hood of the Inmarsat data–it’s pretty much “case closed.” Thank god. (It was a lot of work.)
@jeffwise:
You cannot have it both ways. You say in one post that “the BFO data is fundamentally fuzzy” and in another that it reveals a “discrepancy” that puts the credibility of the INMARSAT data into doubt.
@Jeff Wise. Yes offcourse I have to assume they took every possible factor into account. So this one, if it would matter, also.
But as you know, in this whole complicated proces several times the conclusions on data were changed for different reasons. One of them was not earlier known or thought of factors were taken into account. Which is only human I guess.
Still hope for an anwser by @airlandseaman or someone else, for I’m still curious about this.
Cann’t find anything on this matter on the net regarding MH370.
Anyway thank you for answering.
What if the parts washed ashore in Africa and were picked clean by locals and left on the beach to be scoured by sun and surf?
http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Lepas_anatifera/
Economic Importance for Humans: Positive
Lepas is the only genus of barnacles eaten by humans, and is considered a delicacy in some parts of the world. (“Goose barnacle (Lepas anatifera)”, 2010; “Goose barnacle (Lepas anatifera)”, 2010)
@Trip, There weirdly seems to be a fair bit of misinformation about goose barnacles on the internet. The only genus of barnacles commonly eaten by humans is not Lepas, which floats in the open ocean, but Pollicipes, which lives on rocks in the intertidal zone.
@Gysbreght, Fair point. I should have been clearer. The BFO error bar is so big that it permits just about any part of the 7th arc in the Southern Hemisphere; the area of peak probability, however, lies north of Broken Ridge. So the BFO and BTO values neither “line up” nor contradict one another. If that makes any sense.
@OZ
“Just look at the commentary on 657BB; it is still being quoted by many commentators as a part number”.
Well, it actually is a part number.
The following reference might be of help.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_20/configuration.pdf
But these numbers do not identify the part to a special single aircraft, more to an aircraft type and location on the aircraft.
Concerning the flaperon maintenance records of Malaysia it comes to my mind, that their maintenance center burned down and most of their documentation was lost, accidentally after the loss of MH370. Afai no record of this special maintenance, identifying the flaperon as genuine MH370 part, has been provided.
@Ge Rijn + @Jeffwise:
The physics related to L band (1.6 GHz) signal prorogation is well understood and extensively documented. There are no mysteries or secrets here. I have spent a good deal of my career working in this field, first on Mobile Satellite Communications (like Inmarsat) and later on GPS RO (Radio Occultation). When engineers and scientists look at the effects of the atmosphere on propagation, we consider:
1. Refraction (due to ray path bending caused by air density gradients)
2. Reflections (due to inversions)
3. Absorption (attenuation)
4. Multipath (due to reflection from the ocean, etc.)
5. Water Vapor delay
6. Liquid Water delay
7. Ionospheric electron density
To illustrate how well we know the exact effects of all these factors, I would point to the work of the JPL, UCAR, UNAVCO, NOAA, and dozens of universities around the world…all of which have had a hand in advancing the use of GPS signals (same frequency band as AMMS) for the measurement of atmospheric water vapor, liquid water, temperature profiles, ionospheric electron density profiles, and more.
As it relates to the MH370 path models, the sum of all these effects is negligible. The effect on propagation delay is less than a microsecond. The effect on ping arc location is less than 100m. The effect on attenuation is < 1db. There is no effect on the frequency or Doppler.
@RetiredF4
“The incident with the USS Cook and the SU 24 is not something to worry about.”
I couldnt agree more, enjoying the greetings the same as guys on the USS, lol; to pick one of better comments:
“Bravo! Bravo! And Brava! Brava! (Just in case the pilots are female).”
But the media are crazy copying the warning headlines, while wording of every citation of authorities is nothing but funny.
@RetiredF4
forgot again, sorry
https://www.rt.com/news/339507-aggressive-interactions-russian-jets/
meanwhile, things like that happened too
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34217707
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjX4yW4i-rI
@Brock McEwen, @Oz, @Gysbreght: My statement about serial numbers was not based on confusing news reports, but based on reproductions of the evidence I was able to obtain. The serial number, inspection date, and quality data for the front spar was clearly visible. The same for the rear spar is blurred but distinguishable. There are other part serial numbers, but as they are not recordable, they cannot be used for traceability. The matching (handwritten)serial numbers are found on the relevant production sheet, which can be traced back to the order number, the flaperon serial number, the line number, and finally back to 9M-MRO. I was doubtful, but after examining the evidence, I am very sure the flaperon is from 9M-MRO, although I can’t explain the missing identification plate.
@Brock McEwen, @Oz, @Gysbreght: My statement about serial numbers was not based on confusing news reports, but based on reproductions of the evidence I was able to obtain. The serial number, inspection date, and quality data for the front spar was clearly visible from the borescope inspection. The same for the rear spar is blurred but distinguishable. There are other part serial numbers, but as they are not recordable, they cannot be used for traceability. The matching (handwritten)serial numbers are found on the relevant production sheet, which can be traced back to the order number, the flaperon serial number, the line number, and finally back to 9M-MRO. I was doubtful, but after examining the evidence, I am very sure the flaperon is from 9M-MRO, although I can’t explain the missing identification plate.
That should have been “quality stamp”, not “quality data”.
Coming back to the flaperon-was its presence on Reunion (instead of other places in that part of the world) somehow linked to some deliberate planning by the alleged planters:
“An interesting point of coincidence (or deliberate manipulation, if you are a conspiracy theorist) is that this piece of debris reached the one spot in thousands of square km which is under the control of a technically advanced country which would thoroughly examine it.”
More general information here: https://wordpress.com/post/abn397.wordpress.com/2383