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.
Victor wrote: “I am aware that Dr. Charitha Pattiaratchi, an oceanographer at the University of Western Australia, has proposed that the lack of barnacles on NO STEP could be explained by “sandblasting” on the shore. I view this as highly unlikely because there would be other evidence of this abrasion, such as scratched or scuffed paint, and parts of the NO STEP that were protected from the wind should have evidence of sea organisms.
We need to see marine biologists explaining the condition of the part, and not physical scientists trying to understand life sciences.”
Oceanography and marine biology are not two separate sciences. You can’t do one without doing the other. Anyway, Pattiaratchi has biological creds, as a quick look at his publication list shows. He’s published on everything from blue whales to sea turtle hatchlings to microscopic invertebrates colonizing millimeter sized plastic debris. His opinion on the state of the NO STEP piece cannot be lightly dismissed.
As for other evidence of “sandblasting”, people here have been going on and on for days now about how the paint on fastener got removed. It’s pretty obvious to me: the same process that removed any barnacles living on the object also removed the paint on the fastener. (Also, by “sandblasting” I don’t think he was mainly referring to windblown sand, but to general abrasion by sand in the beach environment.)
Perhaps ‘crumble’ is not the right word in English. What I mean is that at some compressive loading the walls of the HC cells load start to develop wrinkles, which then progressively reduce resistance to compression.
I studied the ocean currents and believe that the towelette found on the beach of Perth belongs to the ill fated plane. In considering this I suggest that we might be able to some debris in Tasmania.
Beside that I belive that the floating debris that did not make it up to Africa should be now following antarctic circumpolar current.
@ Gysbreght – you have my permission, and i would be honored, if you used the term ” scrunched ” ( aka: implode )…Gg
@Victorl@George Connely.
Yes I agree the water pressure would add a minimum to density and only at greater depths
(from 1021kg/m3 regular to 1070kg/m3 at great depth is what I found) and yes salinity and temperature would rather have more influence in this regard. With temperatures plumming rather fast going deeper.
But I was thinking of a slightly out of balance situation where small factors like this might have significance.
I don’t think the buoyancy would decrease drasticcaly and fairly quickly as long no trapped air in the honeycomb escaped while descending. But this certainly will be the case beyond a certain depth.
I think this will depend on the flexibility and tuffness of the honeycomb material and overall structure.
@Warren: You misunderstood me. I was not saying that Pattiaratchi is not qualified because his expertise is not in the correct field. The statement I made about physical scientists trying to understand biology wasn’t meant to apply to him. I simply don’t agree with his explanation. The paint on the skin shows no sign of sand abrasion, wind-blown or other. I was hoping that marine biologists might offer a better explanation than his.
@ Gysbreght – as one of the few eye witness’ to this phenomenem, i feel it necessary to point out that the terms scrunch, and implode, connote a more sudden, and immediate implication…. the effect is more gradual as the item descends, as the hunk of styrofoam, or in this discussion, the A/C parts, i would think would collapse over a given time…until all of the air was squeezed out of the item….( kind of reminds me of my first marriage )….oh well…G.
@Warren, Pattiaratchi’s idea should not be dismissed out of hand, but neither should it be accepted out of hand, either. There is a temptation with evidence that fits poorly with a popular interpretation to give it a quick look, say to oneself, “I can imagine this not holding up,” and then forgetting it. What we need to do — and what I’ve tried to do — is take a careful look at all the possible explanations which might lead us to dismiss it. Pattiaratchi’s idea is similar to the one I quoted CSIRO’s David Griffin about, which I would call “refloating” scenarios: the piece goes ashore, gets weathered/scavanged to a pristine condition (would this really happen, though?), then is washed back out to sea within about a two week time window of being discovered on a different beach. This kind of thing does happen, and I talked to a marine biologist who studies the marine life that colonizes pumics clasts and he said he’s seen it happen to pumice. He cautioned, however, that the larger the piece, the more energy will be required to refloat a piece of beached debris. For pieces this size, he said, a storm event would be required. And no storms took place during any of the required time periods.
The ultimate point being that while Pattiaratchi’s idea certainly looks plausible at first blush, it does not bear up under more careful scrutiny. I’m not saying that some other explanation might exist, but I neither I nor anyone else has been able to come up with one, so the only scenario on the plate right now is deliberate planting. So I think we should hold off on further ditch vs. crash quarreling until this issue is resolved.
I do find it curious, given the urgency of this issue, that France, Australia, and Malaysia are all sitting on marine fouling analysis of these pieces which they refuse to inform the public about–even while they are happy to go into great detail about stencil fonts. I cannot imagine that anyone who has a sincere interest in the fate of MH370 can find this an acceptable situation.
@ Victorl – got to agree 100% with what you are saying….any item spending much more than a couple ( ~ ) months in the salt water would, with out question, look a whole lot different than those two or three pieces….keep in mind, there are not a lot of people that their area of expertise would include bio-marine growth, and environmental wear and tear, and forensic investigation and deduction, aircraft parts, and on and on, who would be considered authoritative in this realm….so we’re just going to piece info from here,and info from there….and step back and rely on some good old fashion detective work….i think the time to do it the old fashioned way is at hand ( Sherlock…..where are you when we need you..? ? )
@Cheryl, Thank you for your lyrical recapitulation of our struggle. It’s the perfect way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of William Shakespeare’s shuffling off this mortal coil.
George Connelly – I’m not so sure that styrofoam and honeycomb have the same resistance to compression. A HEXCEL datasheet for NOMEX honeycomb materials show compressive strengths varying from 0.6 to 15 MPa.
1 Mpa equals 145 psi or 102 meters of water at 4°C.
@ Gysbreght – no…no i’m just drawing a visual parallel concerning something under pressure collapsing… ( like my first mar….never mind )… by the way…any surfboard mfg. will tell you , don’t underestimate the power of glassed over styrofoam…not that its in the same category as NOMEX….i was only using it as an example.
Question for the marine biologists: At what depth will the barnacles die?
@George Conelly
“..the effect is more gradual as the item descends, as the hunk of styrofoam, or in this discussion, the A/C parts, i would think would collapse over a given time…until all of the air was squeezed out of the item…”
The air is not needed to be squeezed out of the item. Air is compressible, and this compression reduces the volume of the air, which in turn reduces its influence to bouyanncy . Imagine a bottle with compressed air, it will not float. Release this air into a raft, and the raft will float with some passengers and the empty bottle.
@Gysbrecht.@Jeff Wise. So impressive max. depths of 1500m could be reached before collapsing. It suprises me.
I than can imagine a partly barnacle covered piece who reaches more coastal regions with depths under max. 1500m, grow in those maybe more nutriant waters even more or bigger barnacles, then sink to the bottom and the same happens as to those Japanese glass bowls?
Or do you regard this possibility of sinking and refloating debunked allready?
@Jeff: yes, the marine biologists’ observations are compelling. I join you in calling for expert analysis, to narrow down the list of possible explanations.
The most perfunctory dismissals of your work on this subject tend to come from entrenched “theory camps” – groups who’ve fallen in love with a particular theory, consider it the “null hypothesis”, and won’t budge from it until every possible objection has been run to ground. (And sometimes, not even THEN!)
But aren’t we ALL vulnerable to this affliction, and apt to prematurely dismiss any evidence inconvenient to a beloved theory?
Example 1: I now mistrust every statement and decision MH370 search leadership will ever make – not just because of its track record, but because of its strong hints that all marching orders coming from the shadowy SSWG. Heck, I even mistrust folks who surface online every once in awhile to patiently assure us that a cover-up is simply unthinkable. But I should concede that I might mistrust TOO much, and see darkness in minds which are merely empty.
Example 2: anyone who is certain MH370 did NOT impact the ocean NORTH of the equator (a kaleidoscope of disparate theorists sharing only an abiding trust in the BTOs) has without fail been quick to dismiss the Vabbinfaru, Maldives debris. Evidence is beginning to mount that this might have been VERY premature.
@ RetF4 – thats what i meant…the air is compressed within the closed cell configuration of what ever the cell walls are made of …styrofoam, metal, fiberglass….imploding the structure inwards, which usually squirts the air outwards….by the way a bottle will float with a certain… amount of air under pressure..but as you increase the pressure there comes a point where the compressed gas, in this example, air, due to the weight of the air, pass’ the positive buoyancy ( bottle floats ), then neutral buoyancy ( bottle doesnt float ), then negative buoyancy ( bottle sinks )….remember how much heavier those scuba tanks were putting them on the boat…?..then coming back to the dock….10 lbs lighter….all that compressed air gone… and they would actually float….anyway back to the point…being that if the barnacles weighted the part to negative…down it would go to cell wall failure/collapse…air escapes…down to the bottom…this is assuming the parts were more dense than the H2O, which they were…. G.
Blaine’s “NO STEP” has an interior layer into which the (now missing) honeycomb pattern has been imprinted.
1) What is this layer called? “Resin?” “Adhesive?”
2) Its colour ranges from green to brown; to my eye, this variation corresponds to what I would expect to have been its relative exposure to the elements. If so, could experts use its colour(s) to infer time exposed?
(Apologies if this was “asked and answered” elsewhere.)
”but perhaps the intent was rather to re-power the the left AC bus.”
But why ?
@ Brock I totally agree! Don’t believe anything MAS has said, let’s go back to day one, where was the huge oil/gas slick located if the a/c dumped fuel or oil early one, then it couldn’t have flown as far! Where was it the woman flying to India thought she spotted a plane in the ocean? I scrolled through some of the pics from mh17 wreckage spotted the No Step debris, could it be the same piece? It wouldn’t surprise us if and when the plane is found if in the ocean it may be empty!!
@Victor@Jeff@all
I simply cannot take it anymore on the bio-forensics. It is time for a rant to bring people back to hard reality. I have been unkind in my characterization of marine biologists for a very good reason. A reason based on experience. In my working career I was running a segment, a group of five divisions, that were all characterized by high volume and high tech deliverables – mostly GPS products with a few laser products in the mix.
begin rant//
If you cannot measure something, it cannot be fixed, controlled, or used in any meaningful way. My high volume runners were typically at 50,000 per week at a sell price of less than 10 USD. At that price you cannot test each and every product – you sample test. The sampling is carefully designed to detect manufacturing trends so that you can avoid tossing 10’s of thousands of pieces in the garbage can. You cannot possibly fix anything you are selling for 10 USD (manufactured in China, of course).
So it is that I have an extremely low regard for opinions and anecdotal BS from biologists (and second guessers) relative to the condition of the parts found. It is simply not quantitative, it is extremely qualitative. Would any rational person base a course of action on this drivel? I would hope not.
end rant//
I have long since held the same beliefs as you, Jeff and posted about it in my own blog.
I also believe that MH370 was part of either a military or political issue and not, a pilot suicide. There were just too many actions or lack of them, taken by Malaysia and MAS. There were too many “screw-ups” by both the airlines as well as the military and government. Exactly what that purpose was, I have no real clue. I simply know that it’s not what it is wanted to appear to be.
As for the more recently found pieces, I also agree that it’s likely that they’ve been planted for all sorts of reasons/to quell all sorts of things. “Oh look…there’s the pieces where we surmised they would show up!”
Pilot suicide? Not buying that either. Had the pilot wanted to do that, he would have done so right after sign-off with Kuala Lumpur’s ATC. Why fly the plane BACK of Malaysia, go to the trouble of dismantling communication systems, flying off radar etc. and fly another several hours? He’d have downed that plane right after sign-off.
There’s something definitely pointing to military or government issues and likely, Malaysia either as the root of it or, as a hostage of some other country. I don’t profess to know.
Now, of course, there has to be some showing of wreckage so, toss in some planted pieces in areas where people will find them and call them “washed up”. The search is winding down. Something has to put an end to this. We’ll likely never hear of the black boxes as they are long in other’s hands and we’ll likely never hear of them again. “Lost Forever At Sea” will be the deemed fate of this plane.
Keep on digging Jeff. Good work.
@Brock: The CF ‘prepeg’ cloth is impregnated with resin. Between those and the honeycomb is a layer of adhesive film before the whole is baked in an autoclave. (shown in a dwg from the Structural Repair Manual discussed earlier)
Dennis – you normally make a lot more sense than that. Marine Biology is the basis of all fisheries management and if it’s useless so is medical research? So is a lot of forensics that are admissible in a court. It’s the same sorts of science being applied here. People and fish are made of the same things at the end of the day. Same chemistry set, different physiology.
About the use of alu honeycomb in boeing 777. This is a pic of MH17. This part looks like it has alu honeycomb, not the red nomex.
Jeffwise said (replying to ROB);
“I guess from your answer you still believe that objects can float in the ocean for years at a time and not accumulate any biological material. This is not the case, as David Griffin of the CSIRO and Richard Godfrey of the IG acknowledge and as the many marine biologists I’ve spoken to have confirmed, in great detail”…
Perhaps readers should include their own experience in this consideration.
Overwhelmingly, I’ve noticed on shorelines that from about below the high tide mark to the low tide mark has
numerous mussels, slime, seaweed, etc. attached to anything that remains immersed for a good part of time.
At the high tide mark & above however, even if the area gets occasional drops of seaspray, there is no ‘sea’
biological material visible to the eye (except occaisionally something like faint attachment marks where
something like suckers or mussels adhered?) if the sun has a chance to completely dry a surface out.
We know ‘NO STEP’ was found on a sandbar, furthermore, a sandbar that (Blaines’guide stated) was frequented by
fishermen – isn’t it reasonable to suppose that fishermen had removed any (edible) barnacles and ‘NO STEP’ was
discarded to dry out in the sun? (And as noted previously, e.g. looking here;
https://tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/mh370-debris-6.jpg
https://tribkcpq.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/mh370-debris-8.jpg
there were originally ‘lighter’ marks on it’s surface that could have been the attachment marks of since detached
sea life such as barnacles.)
Liam Lotters’ ‘676EB’ also probably dried out whilst sitting on the beach near Xai Xai before he found it – by the
time he returned with his family from that holiday, isn’t it reasonable to assume he or his family had given it a
good surface clean?
@buyerninety, The finders of all three African pieces indicated that the pieces had been ashore for a very short time. I asked Liam Lötter specifically whether he had cleaned the piece at all and he said no. Lepas barnacles are not traditionally viewed as a food source.
@Jamie, Thank you!
All the debris recovered after the flaperon were very light. Weren’t they simply floating too high in the water to offer a habitat attractive to barnacles? Remember Jeff’s first post on the subject with an algae line and a barnacle line on it. IIRC there were several inches between those lines.
DennisW asked, “Would any rational person base a course of action on this [marine ecology] drivel?”
In isolation, no. For me, the determination of whether “No Step” floated for 2 years across the Indian Ocean is based on: 1) Structural integrity 2) Buoyancy 3) Corrosion/aging 4) Marine ecology 5) Circumstances surrounding the find. To date, I’d say the determination is inconclusive. I’d like to know more in all areas and let the facts speak for themselves.
I thought it had been deleted, but it’s still there in the Aviation Archive:
http://jeffwise.net/2015/10/09/the-flaperon-flotation-riddle/#more-4267
See Fig. 2: A close-up view of the skiff in Figure 1, showing the waterline (green) and “Lepas line” (orange)
RE: VictorI’s items 1 and 3: I’ve some difficulty understanding the mechanics of how the NO STEP item separated from the horizontal stabilizer. The damage of the trailing edge (containing the single remaining fastener) is consistent with the panel having been pushed upwards until the trailing edge either broke or the fasteners failed. But what caused the delamination of the inner (lower) skin separating from the honeycomb? It is possible that it was caused by upwards bending of the panel due to impact pressure from below with the leading edge free and the trailing edge still attachedto the stabilizer front spar. It is also possible that corrosion during many months in seawater was largely responsible.
The extract RussellM provided of the Structural Repair Manual indicates that for cum line numbers 423 and on “corrosion inhibiting adhesive primer” was added to the aluminum honeycomb of the same type as used for cum line numbers 1 thru 422.
@VictorI
“let the facts speak for themselves.”
Agree completely with the statement, we just have a divergent view of what constitutes a fact.
@Gysbrecht. As I look at the inside of the piece I see from the leading edge on, a lot of honeycomb is gone and towards the back a lot is crushed. The leading edge length is quite small compaired to the trailing edge length.
It seems to me a incoming force on the leading edge (air/water?) could have found a way to seperate that part of the leading edge and push it upwards tearing it to the trailing edge and removing/crushing/seperating a part of the honeycomb and sides before the whole piece broke loose. Maybe it fluttered for a while before breaking loose completely? It looks clear the leading edge seperated before the trailing edge. The break edges on the trailing edge have a clear angle that points to this. To an upwards front to back bending of the piece before breaking loose.
And about the fasteners; a part of it must have been broken off regarding the remaining holes visible and the biggest part stayed attached to the frame while clearly most of the trailing edge attachment row is gone completely.
But as you say; if the piece was in the ocean for a long time it must have had hard times by corrosion, waves, storms that could have deformed it also.
@Ken Goodwin: Can you please help us determine what aluminum alloy would be used for the honeycomb core? Some aluminum alloys are more resistant to salt water corrosion than others at the expense of strength. For this reason, marine and aerospace aluminum alloys are often not the same, but there is some overlap.
@Gysbrecht. If I look again on the same panel from a photo of MH17 (scroll down)
http://www.abeldanger.net/2015/08/2414-sercos-boeing-bait-and-8a-switch.html
I see I have to correct something. The supposed ‘trailing edge’ cann’t be a trailing edge regarding this photo. It’s then the left side of this panel according to the position of teh ‘no step’ stencil.
That would change involving force and its directions.
@VictorI. My understanding (from aluminium boats and alu on boats) is that aluminium per se is not subject to much corrosion directly by seawater even if not anodised. Alu hulls are quite well known in France (Ovni being an example). I believe they are simply polished on the topsides. The main issue is electrolytic corrosion from “more noble” metals nearby (and particularly anything adjoining). You don’t want to drop a coin, a stainless washer etc in the bilges of an alu boat – you end up with a hole in the hull.
Unfortunately, without knowing if there is some unaccounted for environmental
or predatory factor in & about the vicinity of the Mozambique Channel, we
can’t progress further with an answer as to why there were no Lepas barnacles
on the items found in the vicinity of Mozambique, as Jeff & others believe
there should have been.
A logical thought process would give rise to the following question;
Did any OTHER similar size debris on the shorelines in the vicinity of the
Mozambique Channel also exhibit this lack of Lepas barnacles?
Cheers
Thanks, but the word I intended is “crumple”. Just got my spelling wrong.
@VictorI Wrote
——————————————-
@Ken Goodwin: Can you please help us determine what aluminum alloy would be used for the honeycomb core? Some aluminum alloys are more resistant to salt water corrosion than others at the expense of strength. For this reason, marine and aerospace aluminum alloys are often not the same, but there is some overlap.
——————————————-
I don’t specifically know the alloy used in Boeing H/C designs. May have in the past. However, AL H/C can be made from several alloy series. I have seen 3000 and 5000 series. Here is a good link to explain alloy series.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_alloy
Alcore is a supplier to Boeing. Link to data sheet that mentions Al H/C material. Note: BMS stands for Boeing Material Specification. 5000 series called out in these BMS H/C parts.
I would guess 5000 series.
http://www.thegillcorp.com/alcore/products_qualified.php
Also, Al is quite resistant to corrosion in salt water directly. It is the close proximity of other materials that cause galvanic corrosion to occur. E.g. Carbon fiber material and thus its isolation from the aluminum. The alloying materials within the Al can cause corrosion from within. For typical AL H/C designs; The Al is enclosed completely within the panel or sealed; thus corrosion is not of great concern in the design, less the galvanic corrosion between materials within the panel.
Side note on H/C panel flotation. H/C unlike a foam material, will initially resist crushing, but as soon as the cell walls buckle, the force to continue the crushing will be lower but constant until almost completed. A foam will crush at a certain force and then that force will slowly rise till almost completed. Also, tapered H/C panels that are undamaged will have a slight vacuum within the cells due to processing at temperature in oven or autoclave. E.g. drilling a hole in the H/C panel will allow air to rush in. Even years later.
@Ge Rijn:
ATSB report “Debris examination – update No.1” identifies the panel as “No. 3 upper” on the right-hand stabilizer. It is located between the stabilizer leading edge and the front spar of the stabilizer torsion box. The NO STEP stencil is at the trailing edge of the panel, where it was attached to the torsion box.
I’m not sure what your MH17 picture shows, possibly the left-hand stabilizer?
@Gysbrecht.
On the link the photo is in mirror-image, you can see it on the red text ‘safety line attachement point’. So I switched the photo around.
It is the right hand stabilizer.
While MH17 is also a MAB-plane the ‘No STEP’ stencil will be on the same location as on MH370.
And this is as you can see not on the trailing edge of the piece but on the right side edge of it (in mirror I saw it on the left first..)
Missing something still?
@Paul Smithson: Aluminum alloys used on marine applications tend to have low composition of copper (less than 0.1%). On the other hand, high strength aluminum alloys like 7068 may have copper composition between 1.6 – 2.4%. Aluminum alloys with copper can suffer from pitting in saltwater.
The aluminum used in a honeycomb core of a composite panel for an aircraft might not be designed to float 2 years in saltwater without corroding, and as such, a high strength aluminum alloy with copper may have been chosen. I was hoping Ken Goodwin might have some facts so we don’t have to guess.
I believe something in nature will prevent the addition of so many barnacles that the item will sink, killing all of the barnacles. Instead, I suggest that while the capitulum is more dense than water, the peduncle is not. As barnacles join the colony the buoyancy of the object decreases. The barnacles sense this decrease in buoyancy and respond by increasing the length of their peduncle (aka stalk). I have searched the web to see if this is possible and could not find any information, one way or the other.
As to the lack of barnacles or significant marine growth on some of the piece, the topside was in direct sunlight and too close to the surface preventing any growth. On windy days the piece would get flipped killing anything that might have started to grow on the underside.
@Ge Rijn: “Missing something still?”
Yes. I’ve looked at Jeroen Akkerman’s photo album MH17#3.
It’s definitly the left-hand stabilizer. In the linked mirrored photo the tip is at right. In the lower-left corner there is a hinge support for the elevator, and the rear spar of the main torque box. The red-circled safety line attachment point is aft of the main torque box near the tip of the stabilizer.
There are photos of the leading edge of the same left stabilizer. There are also a few photo’s of the right-hand stabilizer lying upside-down and covered in mud.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/sets/72157645853477595/
@Gysbrecht. It’s confusing and all wrong.
The photo I linked to was described somewhere as being a H.stabilizer.
By your comment I looked agian and found another site with different pictures.
http://nawlasneoczy.salon24.pl/598775,mapa-tragedii-zestrzelenie-mh-17
To be short; it must be a photo of the left wing tip that I found and not a H.stabilizer.
Took the description red before for granted too soon…
Ge Rijn,
O.K. you’re right. It’s the left wing tip, with navigation lights.
Since the discussion seems to be primarily eddying around two things lately i.e ditching vs high speed impact and barnacle free debris, let me wade in on the latter albeit briefly.
Seems to me, NOMEX given its plastic base :
http://www.explainthatstuff.com/nomex.html
would have been ideal chowder for them barnacles 😀 :
https://peerj.com/articles/184/
And the drift model probably hints that the debris floated in subtropical waters conditions similar to that of the North Pacific in the link above.
But they were surprisingly absent. Guess they must have chalked off MAS stuff off their menu as it must have not been very appealing to their tastebuds…..hehehe just kidding ;D
There is something really odd about the stencilling of the recovered debris vs the Boeing standard stencil. I am not sure if they belong to same aircraft.
Also when/if 9M-MRO enters an ocean it looses its human engineered lifecycle and becomes influenced by marine ecosystems thus it’s important to include as much of marine biology sciences as possible to help solve (get clues) this missing aircraft.
I’m back! You guys found the plane yet???
@all
re MH17 just posted:
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/mh17-plane-crash-new-bbc-documentary-to-air-new-claims-the-flight-was-targeted-by-a-ukraine-jet/news-story/c51654dd594df38aa6e935b8c071fdd9
particularly:
The lawsuits come as Malaysia Airlines’ CEO Christoph Mueller came under fire last week for quitting his job early, as a union blasted him for “abandoning ship” saying his departure threatened the ailing flag carrier’s recovery.
He was picked last year to rescue the airline after it was hit by two disasters in 2014 involving its planes.
But he said he was leaving before the end of his three-year contract for unspecified “personal reasons”.
The National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM) issued a statement accusing Mueller of “abandoning the ship”.
“It’s like now there is a huge crack in the ship and when there is a leak, all hell will break loose again,” it said, warning darkly of “another chapter of leakages.”