Earlier today, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau issued a report entitled, “Debris examination — update No. 1: Identification of two items of debris recovered in Mozambique.” The report confirms that the pieces are consistent with a right-hand flap fairing and a right horizontal stabilizer, pointing out that the lettering found on each part matches stencils used by Malaysia airlines. In the case of the piece found by Blaine Alan Gibson, shown above, the report says:
The fastener head markings identified it as being correct for use on the stabiliser panel assembly. The markings also identified the fastener manufacturer. That manufacturer’s fasteners were not used in current production, but did match the fasteners used in assembly of the aircraft next in the production line (405) to 9M-MRO (404).
This wording is ambiguous–does “current production” mean production at the time that 9M-MRO was built, or now? If the fastener wasn’t used when 9M-MRO was built, one wonders what it is doing in this piece. Hopefully the ATSB will clarify what it means. At any rate, the report concludes that both pieces “almost certainly from the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft, registered 9M-MRO.”
Naturally, I was particularly keen to hear what the ATSB would say about the marine life found on these pieces, or lack thereof. The report contains a section entitled “Quarantine and marine ecology” which reads, in its entirety:
On arrival into Australia, both parts were quarantined at the Geoscience Australia facility in Canberra. The parts were unwrapped and examined for the presence of marine ecology and remnants of biological material. Visible marine ecology was present on both parts and these items were removed and preserved. The parts were subsequently cleaned and released from quarantine.
Later, in the “Conclusions” section, the report states: “At the time of writing, ongoing work was being conducted with respect to the marine ecology identification as well as testing of material samples. The results from these tests will be provided to the Malaysian investigation team once complete.”
The key here seems to be to reinforce the idea that the results of the biofouling examination will go to Malaysia, and not released to the public. Which raises the question: why does Australia feel empowered to release a fairly detailed report explaining why they think the pieces came from 9M-MRO, but not to say anything about the marine life on them? Is there a legal distinction between these two kinds of assessment, as pertains to ICAO protocols? Perhaps some legally-minded readers can shed light on the matter.
@jeffwise: As I said in the previous thread, I see nothing worrisome about relating the fastener from LN404 to that used on LN405. A mismatch would have much more troubling.
@All: Independent of the questionable effectiveness and durability of anti-fouling paint, would it be applied to the aluminum honeycomb core of a composite part?
@Paul Smithson: By looking at the images for the NO STEP part, I am sure that the captions for the fastener images in the ATSB report were not accidentally switched.
@all DuncanSteel.com has a new article analyzing the controlled ditch scenario. No attempt at placing motive but a good read. I have always thought that if the data are not spoofed that the idea of this disaster being an accident is not credible. There was some sort of intervention and if it was by a human onboard then the controlled ditch seems likely to me. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like the search area will be widened, even the relatively small amount that this new article suggests would be fruitful.
@Jeff
My guess (actually my lawyer SO’s guess) is that the reason for not reporting directly on the biofouling is that there are no well developed standards applicable to such reporting. Basically it reflects the immaturity of the bio-forensices relative to the maturity of the mechanical forensics. There is no accepted template for how such forensics should be conducted, what specific tests should be done, and no commonly accepted metrics against which conclusions can be drawn. it basically gets back to what myself (and others) have suggested. That is you can’t tell anything with any degree of certainty from the marine “science”.
Having a bunch of marine biologists look at photos and render opinions falls into the anecdotal category. Likewise comparisons with other debris are of questionable value due to material and geometry differences.
@DennisW, Why do you put scare quotes around marine “science”? Do you feel that the study of ocean-dwelling invertebrates is a scam cooked up by greedy academics?
On a serious note, I am flabbergasted by the reaction of people (of whom you seem to be one–correct me if I am wrong) whose reaction to the debris found in the western Indian Ocean–the only physical evidence we have about the fate of MH370!–is to say, “We don’t want to look at it.”
I have two thoughts. One is why they didn’t use a better preserved example from LN #405 in their comparison picture. Were they all that bad? Which if so leads me to ask why the one on the No Step piece was so good.
Second thought is that the one on No Step may have been a more recent replacement, but in that case it shouldn’t have matched the originals from LN #405 anyway.
Actually, a third thought – if it were a more recent replacement it might explain partly why it stayed intact rather than shearing off.
But as I said, if it were newer than the rest it ought not to match the original ones.
Someone untangle this for me please, I’m no good at complicated stuff…
all I know is I would really like to have a close look at an active THS from one of these adjacent line numbers, and see how many of the fasteners look as shit as the one they showed a photograph of.
Jeff, most of us took the story of the flaperon hook-line-and-sinker. Although I was skeptical at first, because Malaysia seemed in such a hurry to proclaim it factual, while France hesitated. Now I am doubting it again.
….but here is my point: What would be gained by ‘planting’ debris? I can think of only 1 thing. It would ‘confirm’ Flight MH370 crashed in the Southern Ocean, and it would eliminate many of the conspiracy stories, including ‘the Northern Route’, the plane was hijacked and landed somewhere, etc. But, if this is a coverup…it is not something being done by some small group.
@Robert, You’re right, the intent of a plant would be to reinforce the SIO scenario, which even the IG in today’s latest post on duncansteel.com acknowledges has started looking shaky given the failure of the seabed search. And yes, such an undertaking would be beyond the capabilities of a small group.
@Susie, I share your confusion! I do have a gut sense that this is going to be one of those signature MH370 quirks that doesn’t take us anywhere, but of course we should do our best to nail it down. That LN#405 fastener sure looks like it had a hard life, didn’t it? I’d hate to see what the bathrooms look like on that plane.
Here is Mr. Gibson’s response to those that question whether a plant of No Step was possible. I am glad he chose to expound on the circumstances of the find, even though he chose to dramatically exaggerate questions that have been raised. This did not need to be a lawyer’s presentation to an impressionable jury. The facts would have been sufficient.
https://goo.gl/gQZieZ
@Jeff
I have expressed the opinion previously that biological sciences are not in the same category as the hard sciences. We cannot create a living organism from a collection of organic molecules, as we can create an aircraft from materials mined from the earth. They are two completely different categories of knowledge.
No, I do not think people who study ocean creatures are greedy academics. In fact, most of them are out of work, except the few employed my nonprofit government organizations. One does not study marine biology to get rich.
I think you are expecting answers from the bio-forensics that are not compatible with the maturity of that science.
@VictorI, thanks for providing this link. It’s an interesting document. I feel like I’m a character in an operatic melodrama–the villain, unfortunately. As I wrote to you privately, I don’t quite understand why Blaine feels so emotionally invested in whether this piece was planted or floated across the ocean.
@Robert Mac
No one within the search authority is sniffing around a Northern route. What we be the point of reinforcing the current search area when it is not in need of reinforcement? The search is going to end with little fanfare in a very short time.
Plus that, the debris locations do not support the current search area, but rather an area farther North on 7th arc.
@DennisW, Your disdain strikes me as a convenient way to avoid a conversation that you don’t want to have.
@jeff
I’ve been very engaged in the biofouling conversation. I am concerned that my disparaging remarks relative to what I think marine biology can or cannot do are offensive to those engaged in the soft sciences – biology, psychology, astrology, and the like. 🙂
I’ve gone on record as saying that the bio-forensics will not be useful, and that chemical analysis relative to salt water corrosion is likely to be more fruitful.
🙂
@DennisW: My guess is the corrosion analysis will never be done.
@jeffwise: “That LN#405 fastener sure looks like it had a hard life, didn’t it?” Not necessarily. I guess ATSB asked El Al for the particulars of a particular fastener on that particular aircraft. So at the next opportunity someone climbed up the stairs, got on top of the vertical stabilizer, scratched the paint off from that particular fastener, took a photograph, and that was subsequently sent to the ATSB.
Sorry, that should be horizontal stabilizer, of course.
@All
I have just read the latest article posted on Duncan Steel’s website. It is entitled “Considerations of a controlled ditching scenario for MH370”.
The signs are the IG are going to cut their losses, ditch the uncontrolled descent scenario and get into bed with the controlled ditching scenario.
“Salutem tribuet perseverantissima” Napoleon Bonaparte
@ROB
I see more in the vein of completeness, which is good. The dive scenario is still very much on the table until proven otherwise.
The recent post you are referring to does not address the location of the debris finds and the associated drift models, however. It would be hard to postulate a terminus even further South than the current search area when the lack of WA debris is considered.
I don’t think Blaine was complicit in a planting scenario. If the parts were planted I would think they would have been dropped off in the ocean and not placed on the shore individually. That would mean there are many more parts waiting to be found. However I do like his idea of StarTrek transponders to plant parts. Maybe they came from the future. Why does he feel so defensive? What’s going to happen when he puts a goose barnacle on the witness stand?
You could be correct, Gysbreght.
Perhaps the state of the example wasn’t really the priority, more the similarity in terms of markings and so on.
I’m still a little bit interested in the condition of the found fastener, though, in relation to those still in everyday use.
As for Blaine, I love Blaine, and I can’t hear a bad word said about him, and if I thought anyone here really thought he had something to do with planting debris I’d be pretty annoyed about it. But I don’t think anyone does.
I should add, I don’t know the guy. I’m just a closet fan of his.
Does anyone know where 9M-MRD (MH17) was in the production line? Another question I have seen asked several times but do not recall ever seeing answered: where exactly are the corresponding components from that aircraft? They would presumably have the same stenciling.
She was much younger I think. I’ll have a look.
No, it’s the other way round, I’m mistaken.
She was line number 84 – first flight 17th July 1997. Which is odd.
@All
The fastener in the “MH370 part” looks brand new to me ! Where is the residual paint on its face as compared to the El AL part ? Also its circular edge is perfect . This is plant in a plant me thinks !
@DennisW
“I am concerned that my disparaging remarks relative to what I think marine biology can or cannot do are offensive to those engaged in the soft sciences – biology, psychology, astrology, and the like.”
Non sequitur laugh of the day 😀
I’m sure the scientists mapping the genome appreciate being lumped in with Nostradamus.
Interesting paper on Duncan’s site by Yap Fook Fah.
Unfortunately, the paper seems uninterested in predicting the obvious questions it begs. If this scenario is correct, then how does one explain…
1) the BFO values at 00:19, which at face value REQUIRE a steep descent (Doppler shift points to a motion-relative-to-satellite far too severe to be explained by horizontal motion alone)
2) the empty surface debris search, March 17-27, 2014 (smack dab on that spot)
3) drift model consensus that the flaperon – unless F. de Changy’s reporting is wrong – lacked the leeway to sail that far, that fast
4) sea states (10-foot-plus swells) which suggest an explosive contact with the ocean regardless of pilot intent
5) Duncan’s own view that the size of the March debris discoveries implies high-speed impact
I would have appreciated at least an attempt to address the glaring logical gaps the ditching theory opens up – not just the ones it attempts to close.
Indirectly related to Yap’s paper: I would like to audit the ATSB’s change in reboot time (from 220 +/-10 seconds to 120 seconds), introduced 21 months after the fact. Does anyone know who I might contact to get an outside opinion on the duration of this reboot process?
We wouldn’t want the SSWG left open to the challenge that this change was engineered specifically to generate an extra few miles of “reasonable doubt” to the south of the search zone, would we?
A. Mellifera said:
“Does anyone know where 9M-MRD (MH17) was in the production line?”
There’s a serial No. / line No. list here:
https://www.planespotters.net/production-list/Boeing/777?p=8
(Click the column headers to sort ascending by line number – page 8)
@Phil
The genome mappers come from the same camp that believes man and apes have a common ancestor. Even though the DNA (man and ape) is very close the differences combined with the known rate of mutation are about an order of magnitude disparate (given the age of the earth) for the common ancestor theory to be true. It takes the back of a small envelope to demonstrate that phenomenon. Does not stop it from taught in school, however. I am an atheist, BTW. At the end of the day, you have to be able to make the numbers work. The bio guys have no appreciation for that, and it drives me nuts. I have lost no use for them.
Don’t get me started on dark matter.
@Jeff: while I have the mic: thanks for what I infer to be a shout-out on the flaperon drift analysis (penultimate post). Appreciated.
Re: “I feel like I’m a character in an operatic melodrama–the villain, unfortunately.” Welcome to the club. Though never by Blaine, I’ve been fitted for a black hat and curly mustachios many times, by many people, for having the temerity to use cold science to independently test official claims.
It happens, for example, every time I point out that the “Flight DQA149” explanation for the Maldives mass-sighting makes no sense whatsoever, and may well be a cover story.
We should start up a support group:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxeR95aYer0
@DennisW
So…
1) Man and apes have no common ancestor.
2) “Genome mappers” believe they do.
3) Therefore, the field of biology is equivalent to astrology.
4) Christmas Island!
I would love to hear you expound on dark matter, but I think it’s beyond the scope here 😀
1.obviously marine biologists would not have a clue as no one have studied the area which it is believed to be drifted.I believe the barnacles on the flapron found was not accumulated during its drift, but likely that it was stationed on a reef without moving for reasonable time before being washed on the shore.
2.IG Group trying to prove their stupid calculations are making sense..Duncun Steel is good at physics but he is not a palmist. but he trying his best…
3. Every time something (debris)is found ATSB use to say it matches the drift model.
@ROB
“Salutem tribuet perseverantissima” Napoleon Bonaparte
“Napoleon parlait français et votre orthographe n’est pas bon.” Phil
@Brock
Re: “I feel like I’m a character in an operatic melodrama–the villain, unfortunately.”
A Far Side Cartoon is a better metaphor, IMO.
@Phil
Point pris, j’ai eu excité
(Wonderful devise, the online translator)
@DennisW
Funny enough, I was wondering if Midvale was your alma mater 😀
This is both a rhetorical and a serious question: why conclude that the failure of the underwater search makes the SIO scenario look shaky when they can’t even find their own tow-fish?
And why is it so hard to accept that we are not yet the Masters of the Universe, and that certain things are unknown and/or unknowable, such as where something drifted from and why some things that entered the ocean at the same time have more marine life on them than others?
I posted under the previous article that it would alienate and make people feel uncomfortable.
So now they make up their own reality, because they have not trained their godgiven abilities.
@Phil: “bonne”, not “bon”
Namibian report says LAM Mozambique Airlines ERJ-190 crash was pilot suicide
http://news.aviation-safety.net/2016/04/15/namibian-report-says-lam-mozambique-airlines-erj-190-crash-was-pilot-suicide/
@VictorI
Let’s not engage in gender bias 🙂
(Mais serieux, merci de la correction; je suis vraiment embarrassee maintenant.)
@Phil: Did you deliberately conjugate “embarassée” to be feminine to show that you don’t have gender bias? If so, you are quite progressive.
All kidding aside, the air has been quite heavy here lately so a little humor might what is in order.
@Brock
“1) the BFO values at 00:19, which at face value REQUIRE a steep descent (Doppler shift points to a motion-relative-to-satellite far too severe to be explained by horizontal motion alone)”
yupp, but what if at that point PIC was not going in the same direction but rather NE/N/NW?!
2/3/4/5 I agree with, but more northern parts of the 7th arc cover those
@Jeff
I can understand why Blaine is so defensive. He has given a lot of time over to being part of the team that individual MH370. When he found that part i think genuinely he believed that he has found part of MH370 placing him in a very solid position in history as a key part of the group who solved the greatest aviation mystery of all time.
If the planting theory is true then he actually becomes a pawn in the story and actually complicit in the very deception/mystery he is trying to solve.
From reading this article I believe he is fully convinced he can’t see a way it can have been planted without some of his memories being simply wrong or untrue. And of course he may be right. It is sad though that he won’t even participate in the discullion about possible planting as this would enhance the quality of information either way.
I’m sad to see there has been so little discussion relevant to the subject about the last 2 posts on this blog. I personally think it is worth exploring in detail although am not wedded to a theory either way. Discussions have gone round and round the same topics without moving forward despite thesee additional topics being put on the table.
@Brock
it seems we topguned today; great video from you; completelly coincidentally, I found also something (while reseeking other MP thing), but considering it too much black humor to post here, only saved link… but here it is too; we all probably feel the same (meanwhile, I also read today something crazy about mormons and illuminati (one mad guy on the net was linking local politicians between everything from hell or so… they acted in your piece too, lol), hating them in the same bag as other crazy pseudoreligions, while having nothing much against christians and muslims – simply, too crazy is too crazy, and real science is real science, you know)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAic3SY6i_U
@VictorI
1) How do you know I’m not feminine… this blog is no place for wild assumptions.
2) How does one produce accents on here, anyway… 😉
3) I thought embarrass had two r’s, but my spelling is not always exemplary.
4) *Humour* is all I have to offer today.
@Phil: Touché.
@Phil and Victor
Amen to that
@StevanG: At 00:19, as the subsatellite position moves close to the Equator, the Doppler shift caused by lateral velocity of the aircraft is almost exactly canceled, independent of the speed and direction. For that reason, we can fairly accurately determine the vertical speed for different positions along the arc. See the following, which was calculated for a horizontal speed of zero, but really doesn’t change much for other horizontal velocities:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/r0ozzivz0vxiajn/BFO%20vertical%20speed%20on%207th%20arc.png?dl=0
Thanks VictorI
interesting to see that descent rate drops to ~3000 fpm around CI, which is typical for civilian aircraft during landing approach…