After French authorities retrieved the MH370 flaperon from Réunion Island, they flew it to the Toulouse facility of the DGA, or Direction générale de l’Armement, France’s weapons development and procurement agency. Here the marine life growing on it was examined and identifed as Lepas anatifera striata, creatures which have evolved to live below the waterline on pieces of debris floating in the open ocean.
Subsequently, flotation tests were conducted at the DGA’s Hydrodynamic Engineering test center in Toulouse. The results are referenced in a document that I have obtained which was prepared for judicial authorities by Météo France, the government meteorological agency, which had been asked to conduct a reverse-drift analysis in an attempt to determine where the flaperon most likely entered the water. This report was not officially released to the public, as it is part of a criminal terrorism case. It is available in French here.
Pierre Daniel, the author of the Météo France study, notes that the degree to which a floating object sticks up into the air is crucial for modeling how it will drift because the more it protrudes, the more it will be affected by winds:
This translates as:
The buoyancy of the piece such as it was discovered is rather important. The studies by the DGA Hydrodynamic Engineering show that under the action of a constant wind, following the initial situation, the piece seems able to drift in two positions: with the trailing edge or the leading edge facing the wind. The drift angle has the value of 18 degrees or 32 degrees toward the left, with the speed of the drift equal to 3.29% or 2.76% of the speed of the wind, respectively.
The presence of barnacles of the genus Lepas on the two sides of the flaperon suggest a different waterline, with the piece being totally submerged. In this case we derive a speed equaly to zero percent of the wind. The object floats solely with the surface current.
This suggests a remarkable state of affairs.
Inspection of the flaperon by Poupin revealed that the entire surface was covered in Lepas, so the piece must have floated totally submerged—“entre deux eaux,” as Le Monde journalist Florence de Changy reported at the time. Yet when DGA hydrodynamicists put the flaperon in the water, it floated quite high in the water, enough so that when they blasted it with air it sailed along at a considerable fraction of the wind speed.
As point of reference, Australia’s CSIRO calculates that that the drifter buoys that it uses to gather ocean-current data pick up a 1.5% contribution from the wind. Here is a picture of one such drifter, kindly supplied to me by Brock McEwen. You can see that more than half of the spherical buoy is out of the water.
It is physically impossible for Lepas to survive when perched up high in the air. Yet the buoyancy tests were unequivocal. So Daniel pressed on, conducting his analysis along two parallel tracks, one which assumed that the piece floated high, and the other in which it floated submerged. For good measure, he also considered scenarios in which the flaperon floated submerged until it arrived in the vicinity of Réunion, and then floated high in the water for the last two days. (Note that he doesn’t present any mechanism by which a thing could occur; I can’t imagine one.)
After running hundreds of thousands of simulated drift trials under varying assumptions, Daniel concluded that if the piece floated as its Lepas population suggests, that is to say submerged, then it couldn’t have started anywhere near the current seabed search area. (See chart above.) Its most likely point of origin would have been close to the equator, near Indonesia. His findings in this regard closely mirror those of Brock McEwen and the GEOMAR researchers which I discussed in my previous post.
Daniel found that when simulated flaperons were asssumed to have been pushed by the wind, their location on March 8, 2014 lay generally along a lone that stretched from the southwest corner of Australia to a point south of Cape Horn in Africa (see below). This intersects with the 7th arc. However, as Brock has pointed out, such a scenario should also result in aircraft debris being washed ashore on the beaches of Western Australia, and none has been found. And, again, the presence of Lepas all over the flaperon indicates that such a wind contribution could not have been possible.
Pierre Daniel’s reverse-drift analysis for Météo France, therefore, presents us with yet another block in the growing stack of evidence against the validity of the current ATSB search area in the southern Indian Ocean.
The most important takeaway from this report for me, however, is the stunning discrepancy between how the flaperon floated in the DGA test tank and the “entre deux eaux” neutral buoyancy suggested by its population of Lepas. No doubt some will suggest that the flaperon may have contained leaky cells that slowly filled as it floated across the ocean, then drained after it became beached. However, I find it hard to believe that an organization as sophisticated as the DGA would have overlooked this eventuality when conducting their wind tests. Rather, I read Daniel’s report as evidence that the French authorities have been unable to make sense its own findings. I suspect that this is the reason that they continue to suppress them up to this day.
@Rand
He did not quote say that. I Googled. Dont be like Ted Cruz. Do a truthful quote.
@Rand, Indeed that Geoffrey Thomas piece was based on information that was since discounted–the flaperon was never used as a fish-cleaning table, and there was no temporal ambiguity about its arrival.
Oleksandr – Per the FCOM the B777 has a fuel jettison (dumping) system.
@Sajid, Wow!
@Jeff Thanks for the clarification re the flaperon never having been previously used as a table, but I was rather referring to the claim that there are problems associated with reverse drift modelling exercises.
@Rand, I think the point Thomas was trying to make is that reverse drift modeling is not possible if you don’t know when the piece came ashore. But in point of fact we do know when it came ashore.
The larger point I think is that while some here have denigrated the utility of reverse drift modeling, the French authorities seem to have taken it rather seriously. The scientist at GEOMAR also don’t seem like they just fell off a haywagon.
@Sajid UK Interesting. Perhaps AF1558 did in fact have communication problems (i.e., it was failing to respond to ATC) and the scrambled interceptors redirected it out to sea and away from any population centres. 7 minutes isn’t all that long to signal the need and get two Typhoons into the air, is it? Boom, boom.
In the US, post 9/11, protocol grants the commander of the Northern Command the authority to shoot down an unresponsive airliner without White House or any other approval higher in the chain of command. I guess nobody really second-guesses errant airliners any longer, with the apparent exception of Malaysia.
@Ken Goodwin,
You implied that a depressurized cabin would be smaller diameter than an 8k pressurized cabin, at altitude. Is that an accurate interpretation?
Would this effect impact fuel consumption, even by a very small amount?
Just wondering if it could put the plane just outside of the search area, and I’m also wondering if it was factored into the ghost flight models.
Re: Why no debris in Oz: some have suggested the lack of debris on W Australian shores may be explained by seasonal trends in its onshore/offshore winds. If MH370 debris missed its one “window of opportunity”, offshore winds would shut the gates to any onflux.
Not only would such patterns be taken into account by all drift experts worth their salt, but the onshore window of opportunity and the IPRC-indicated arrival timing appear to be in perfect sync:
WA onshore season: Jun-Oct
Central mass of IPRC landfall probabilities: Jun-Oct, 2014
Per IPRC site, “West Australia” = bottom link, second table:
http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/MH370_debris/IPRC_MH370_debris_models_accumulation.php
@Gysbreght, @VictorI,
The Boeing Flight Performnce and Planning Manual for the B777-200ER with GE 90-94-B engines is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aURHlDWkhTMUM5cmc/view?usp=sharing
The footnote at the bottom of the LRC table on page 133 (Section 3.2.13) shows the 3%/10C fuel flow factor.
The LRC Table in the Boeing Flight Crew Operations Manual for the B777-200ER with Rolls Royce Trent 892 engines is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUM016bm85NkZOYUFJRWVrdGVnbm16cFJjQTd3/view?usp=sharing
This table has no footnote regarding the high-temperature increase in fuel flow.
The increase in fuel flow with temperature is expected for airliner engines. The fuel flow roughly varies with the square root of the ambient temperature. At 228 K, (10C above ISA 218 K), the fuel flow will be 102.3% of the ISA temperature fuel flow. Victor estimates 2.5%. It is possible this is more accurate than the 3% given in the table, but I am using the 3% in my fuel model since that is the only number I can find from Boeing.
@Brock, Thanks, that’s a big help.
Re: forward starting from different hypotheticals, AND reverse vs. forward:
I had a long and (I feel) productive chat with Dr. Charitha Pattiaratchi on both topics 9 months ago, after the flaperon was first discovered, and drift analyses were popping up all over. To relate it to our discussion:
1) he gave me a zip file of forward drift analyses starting from EACH of 20 discrete starting points within a broad range of possible start points along arc 7 (roughly s20 to s40). I’ve already broadly characterized what they say – both in this forum and in my paper – but given the renewed interest, I will ask him if he minds my posting them to this group.
2) the strong sense that the weakness he sees in flaperon reverse drift analyses relative to their forward counterparts was an artefact of SIO currents, not some fundamental conceptual weakness. Near Sumatra, several current “streams” happen to join up into one “river”, and then proceed WSW toward Africa. Running time backwards from Réunion thus tends to produce a much bigger distribution of results, and thus much less actionable intelligence. That’s all. I did not explicitly confirm this with him, but got the strong impression that if even the OVER-sized probability distribution ruled out the search box, then we DID in fact have a strong result.
3) Due to seasonality in current patterns, drift analyses do need an accurate start date, or it is “garbage in, garbage out”. But A) this is true of drift studies in EITHER direction, and B) Rand, I agree with Jeff, and go one step further: you should have known that you were raising undue concerns, by posting to this forum old doubts about timing which were subsequently removed.
When reading of the 7 minute reaction to AF1558 it is chilling comparing the 5+ hours before requesting help for MH370. Imagine if you had a wife, husband, parent, son, daughter or any other family member or friend on MH370, how do you except the actions that allowed their plane to fly unreported for hours. It seems at times that people do not grasp the magnitude of ineptness and this incident Air France 1558 makes it crystal clear how horrendous the lack of response to MH370 was
@Brock
Brock McEwen wrote: “If expert barnacle analysis suggests the 6-12* months immediately prior to the flaperon’s discovery were spent fully immersed, and expert buoyancy testing indicates that this is not even close to its natural state, then some other force held it underwater for the 6-12* months leading up to its discovery. What was this force?”
One scenario that I could imagine, to explain this additional force, is that the Flaperon may not have become fully detached from it’s wing part immediately on impact.
It’s possible it may have been damaged and jolted on impact causing it to partly detach from it’s wing part but it may have remained tethered to it on one side. If this did happen the large wing piece that it remained attached to would float on the surface while flaperon could have dangled below the water surface, fully submerged, being pulled along by the larger wing piece it was attached to.
After 6-12 months floating like this at some point the larger piece becomes water logged, loses it’s buoyancy, then sinks and at this point the flaperon separates from this piece,the forces break the tether, and the fully encrusted flaperon with barnacles drifts slowly, on it’s own, towards Reunion Island.
My point in showing you this scenario is that no one knows exactly how this Flaperon and aircraft broke apart so many scenarios are possible which is why I don’t put much faith in any drift analysis based on barnacle growth, too many unknown variables.
@DrBobbyUlich:
The reason for my question was that I couldn’t find your fuel flow adjustment in the FCOM. The FCOM for GE, RR and PW engines doesn’t show it for any of those engines.
In the meantime I found it in the FPPM (Flight Planning and Performance Manual) for the GE engine, Long Range .84M Cruise Tables. Just before those, the Long Range Cruise Enroute Fuel and Time table doesn’t have that footnote fuelflow adjustment for off-standard temeperature.
As you say, theoretically the fuel flow varies with the square root of the ambient temperature. At FL350 that would correspond to 2.25% per 10°C. Due to second order effects such as Reynolds number and the effect of bleedair and power offtakes for aircraft services, the actual variation may be somewhat greater. Therefore I have no objection to VictorI’s estimate of 2.5% per 10°C. As I wrote earlier, 3% is probably the result of rounding up conservatively to the next integer.
The footnote also says: “Increase KTAS by 1 knot per 1°C” where 11 kt per 10°C would be more accurate.
@DrBobbyUlich: You have to be careful about differentiating between total air temperature (TAT) and static air temperature (SAT). The ambient air is at SAT. The 3%/10K value you cite refers to 10K TAT. The TAT is related to the SAT by
TAT = SAT (1 + 0.2M^2).
At M0.84, the ratio of TAT to SAT is 1.141. Therefore, at M0.84, ISA+10K conditions would increase fuel fuel by 3%/1.141 = 2.63%.
Not forgiven yet I guess but for things being on a very interesting topic I’ll try agian to contribute in a positive way.
Two things:
1. The statement reads the flaperon floated in two possible positions. One with the trailing egde sticking out of the surface and the other with the leading edge sticking out. In both positions they picked up wind speed. This was clearly tested I assume.
The contradiction emerges with the coverage of barnacles which suggest the piece was completely submerged. But this was clearly (as I read it) not happening in the buoyancy tests they discribe. So this barnacle-problem is not explained in this article.
But a firm observation from it is that the flaperon only floated in two possible positions in which both it picked up wind speed. It did not float submerged or in another position mentioned. I read this as the only factual statement in this article which might be more important than the barnacle-problem for now regarding drift-patterns.
2. It might be usefull to consider, after two years, not only to look at the debris found and their locations in modeling possible drift-starting-areas but also to look more closely at the areas where no debris has been found yet after two years.
All those areas (West-South West Australia, Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, coasts north of Mozambique)can exclude certain drift models/possibilities for now, and by doing that, can possibly contribute more to the narrowing of a search area than the found parts can do at this time on their own.
@VictorI: Thanks for that correction. I overlooked the TAT in the footnote.
@Ge Rijn, You don’t need to be forgiven for anything, there’s always a bit of give and take in the discussion here, that’s just how it goes.
Regarding the buoyancy situation, one way to look at it is this: before the flaperon was found on the beach, it was floating fully submerged. It was picked up, put in a jeep, then put on a plane, flown to France, put in a tank of water, and lo and behold, it’s significantly positively buoyant. How did this happen? As I predicted in my post, some are guessing that it had become waterlogged, then drained out once ashore. But for an object that’s 2.3 m long and about 1 m wide, if it rose just 5 cm out of the water, that’s a difference in buoyancy of 100 kg. Someone once gave me a waterlogged Sunfish sailboat, the fibreglass hull had leaked and the foam had filled up with water, and in that kind of situation, where the water gets in slowly, it gets out slowly, too–even slower, probably. So we had that thing for a year, and it weighed a ton at the start of the summer and it still weighed a ton at the end of the summer.
So yes, I agree that this is an imporant problem.
@Ken S: unfortunately, unless the tether broke only a couple of days before Johnny found it on his beach on July 29, 2015, your scenario can’t explain live barnacles found on it ABOVE its water line. Jeff’s experts say they start to die off within hours.
A multi-state buoyancy scenario has to be “high in the water, THEN low in the water” – not the other way around.
Considering that the Mach varies across the table, “standard TAT” is a somewhat strange concept.
@Brock
Right, so it would have to remain tethered almost right up to shore and break away floating high in water for not more than a day or two for barnacles to still be alive ABOVE it’s water line, could be. Thanks!
@VictorI
“Forward drift simulations from multiple hypothetical start points.”
OK, that too..although I still can’t see why would they differ that much if you use the same dataset.
@Jeff Wise. Thank you first for your consideration.
I only look at this report. If the flaperon was waterlogged found at Reunion at a amount it drifted (almost) submerged the thing must have been leaking on many sides and this sure should have happened in France too during testing.
I asume they tested this thoroughly.
The report does not mention this waterlogging/submerge-state observed. It only mentions the observed two floating-positions.
The flaperon is essentialy watertight sealed as a whole. It must be for you can not allow water building up somewhere within during service/flight. This offcourse would effect greatly on weight, performance, corrosion etc. I don’t know if it’s got separate sealed compartements. It could be.
If one would leak it fills up with water and will effect the gravity-point which influences the position it would float.
But by the shifting of this internal water mass this gravity point shifts also and easily can flipover a drifting piece.
Imagine a drifting box half filled with water. As long as the water surface is flat and there’s little wind it will drift one side up. As soon waves and/or strong winds come in it needs just a little push to flip over.
I guess this case remains unclear if the flaperon was almost completely waterlogged in Reunion and was not during tests in France. Which is to trust more?
If the first is the case it would render the France report rather useless imo.
@Brock
>… the onshore window of opportunity and the IPRC-indicated arrival timing appear to be in perfect sync: WA onshore season: Jun-Oct, Central mass of IPRC landfall probabilities: Jun-Oct, 2014
That effect is not obvious in the undrogued buoy data from Griffin at CSIRO. Of the set of around 100 buoys that passed through the search area in the months Feb to April, none landed on the Australian west coast, three landed on the Great Australian Bight and one further west on the south coast.
I agree that the lack of detected debris on the Australian coast remains an important point, but absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
> reverse vs. forward:
Firstly, I agree that any published reverse analyses must be consistent with its corresponding forward analysis, otherwise it should have been rejected by the authors. That doesn’t necessarily mean that all forward analysis techniques can be reversed.
I think there is a potential trap looking at reverse analyses of single objects. The Meteo France paper treats the flaperon as a single object (that is, the only object from the crash) and emphasises solutions that give a high probability for the original position. However, any solution for the crash site has to fit all the parameters, including the number of original floating objects, which is not known and hard to estimate. High probability origins for the start position of the flaperon might be a good or bad solution to the total dataset.
@StevanG: Here is a simplistic example of why reverse drift studies are hard to interpret. Consider the case of converging streams starting at points A and B. The probability of starting a Point A and ending at a Point C might be 100%. But run the simulation backwards starting from Point C, and you’ll get a PDF for various starting points (end points in the reverse drift calculation). The only meaningful way to compare the probability of starting at Points A and B and ending at Point C is to run forward simulations starting from A and B.
@Ge Rijn: I agree and made this point earlier after experimenting with a plastic lunch box. It is higly improbable the flaperon internal spaces are ever filled completely with water. Turn it over and some water will flow out.
The term ‘waterlogged’ applies to the honeycomb in the skin of the flaperon, but cannot be applied to the internal spaces. How many ribs are there between the endribs in the torque box, and how open or closed are they? Same question for the leading edge.
@VictorI, put a different way, it’s like finding a paper cup in the river and trying to figure out which storm drain it came from. The storm drain leads 100% of the time to the river, and the cup will always end up in the river. But that doesn’t mean you can work backwards because the trunk of the storm sewer system destroys information about where the cup entered.
Note that the situation would be much different if there was a stream of debris or liquid. Municipal authorities are actually pretty good at tracing pollutants backwards to their sources, just not single objects.
If there was any fuel left it might have been a lot easier.
@JS. Yes, that’s also a good way to explain it.
StevanG,
“I still can’t see why would they differ that much if you use the same dataset.”
Imagine confluence of two rivers/channels, which have the same cross-section, but twice different flow speed. Imagine a fragment (= particle) is found somewhere downstream.
1. Forward model. You know there are potentially two origins, one in each tributary. You run simulations starting from a number of points in each of the tributaries, and eventually find two potential origins. The model, however, will not answer which one of the two solutions is the one you are looking for.
2. Reverse model. Suppose mixing is sufficient to make particles evenly distributed across the river in the place of joining of the tributaries. Then 2/3 of particles will move into the tributary with higher flow speed, and 1/3 of particles will move into the tributary with slower speed. What conclusion will you make? Will you conclude that the point of origin is twice more likely located in the tributary with higher speed?
The real ocean is a way more complex system of vortices and confluences.
@Richard Cole.@Gysbrecht.
Sure the abcense of evidence makes no evidence on its own, but after more then 2 years imo this becomes a factor of growing importance.
I mean; if something is not found in 90 out of 100 possible places than there are only 10 left.
The fact, till now, nothing proven has been found in Australia, Indonesia, India, Thailand, Maleisia, Sri lanka. North of Mozambique, shrinks the amount of possible drift patterns of the debris found so far.
South of circa 32S could be excluded for the reason nothing turn up in (South) West Australia thussfar.
Much more north could also be excluded for nothing turned up on the coasts of Indonesia or those other countries.
The debris found so far are still in line with a drift pattern originating more north than the current search zone. But not that much north of it imo. Between 32s and 30S would imo be sufficient to explain the lack of debris found in Australia and all those other countries based on the ‘absence of evidence’ and the evidence (found debris).
@Gysbrecht. I know generaly those ribs are quite open made, for weight-reasons and even strenght (I made them myself). I don’t know the construction of this flaperon exactly but on pictures it looks rather tradional.
Anyway ribs, spars, skin, everything is seperately sealed very thoroughly watertight.
Brock,
Re “the strong sense that the weakness he sees in flaperon reverse drift analyses relative to their forward counterparts was an artefact of SIO currents, not some fundamental conceptual weakness.”
The problem is that these “artefacts” result in the “fundamental conceptual flaw” in this particular case.
Re “Due to seasonality in current patterns, drift analyses do need an accurate start date, or it is “garbage in, garbage out”. But A) this is true of drift studies in EITHER direction”.
This is another issue with reverse drift models. You know accurate start time to feed into forward drift models, but you don’t have accurate start time for reverse models.
@ JS and Olexsandr – I think we get the picture…and the chance of the paper cup having been ” planted ” hasn’t even been addressed….or the idea that these parts could have been on their 2nd trip around the IO …( would time permit, given speed of ocean currents..? )…and the wheel goes round and round …
Ge Rijn,
“Between 32s and 30S would imo be sufficient to explain the lack of debris found in Australia and all those other countries”.
You are getting closer. 30S is a very suspicious location from many points of view, isn’t it?
@Ge Rijn:
“@Gysbrecht. I know generaly those ribs are quite open made, for weight-reasons and even strenght (I made them myself). I don’t know the construction of this flaperon exactly …”
So how can you pretend to “know” that any flaperon internal ribs are “quite open”? The endribs look quite closed to me.
George,
“or the idea that these parts could have been on their 2nd trip around the IO.”
I guess in 4 years you may plan vacation in Mozambique, SA or Madagascar. But do remember if you find some debris, you will immediately be accused in planting.
@George,
Yes, if there is a loop in the system, it would complicate things.
While the reverse model is a nightmare, it doesn’t mean you couldn’t reverse back to the trunk. Whether that helps or not is a different story. A rough model of tributaries and branches would be helpful but very complicated, though I’m sure this is the basis for the PDF.
One thing to keep in perspective – reverse drift modeling along the Columbia River, in 34 years, has failed to locate (or has it?) the remaining $191,500 that DB Cooper jumped out of an airplane with. And that’s a mostly unidirectional body of water.
@Oleksandr,
“You are getting closer. 30S is a very suspicious location from many points of view, isn’t it?”
Yes, and the route taken by the Flaperon may well have been undertaken in two stages. The first with a higher freeboard and subject to high leeway effects until arriving and getting beached in the shoal areas of southern Île Rodrigues.
The second stage was the acquisition and growth of the Lepas in the warm shoal waters, and at an appropriate time – dictated by tides, wind and sea conditions – it continued its journey in a near neutral buoyancy state until beaching again, but this time on Réunion.
Lauren,
Thanks a lot. Previosly I did not search it on “jettison” keyword. Questions:
– What does it mean “if dump system is not available” in this context? Does this mean jettison may not be available on some B777?
– Which bus does supply power to jettison pumps?
@VictorI,
You said: “You have to be careful about differentiating between total air temperature (TAT) and static air temperature (SAT). The ambient air is at SAT. The 3%/10K value you cite refers to 10K TAT. The TAT is related to the SAT by
TAT = SAT (1 + 0.2M^2).
At M0.84, the ratio of TAT to SAT is 1.141. Therefore, at M0.84, ISA+10K conditions would increase fuel by 3%/1.141 = 2.63%.”
I think you have applied the correction the wrong way. At M0.84 and SAT = ISA+10K, then TAT is increased by 10 X 1.141 = 11.41K. Thus the correction is (+3%/10K)* 11.41K = 3.42%. So I believe the fuel flow increases by approximately 3.42% per 10K of SAT increase above ISA.
Wouldn’t aircraft components be designed to not hold differential pressures, i.e. have bleed holes or similar built into them. As an aircraft changes altitude a build up of differential pressures would “use up” some of the components strength. If there are bleed holes or similar, then I would expect that a component once in the sea would gradually fill with water become less buoyant.
@Barry Carlson, No, it would take weeks to go from Rodrigues to Réunion, and in that time the barnacles lifted out of the water would die.
@ JS – Nightmare on its good days….I think there are just some “ideas” the pragmatic, realistic thinker has to eliminate ( not all ideas by any means, just some ) time and other resources limit us to the more coherent evidence before us….drift analysis, especially reverse drift analysis means well, but it’s….well….it’s….like you said, a nightmare…( makes for intriguing conversation…tho )
BTW…..where was D.B. the night of March 7, 2014….?
@DrBobbyUlich: Yes, you are correct. At M0.84, the fuel flow increases by 3.42% for ISA+10K ambient temperature. Thanks for catching my math error.
@all, @Rand, @Susie Crowe
As regards the 7 minutes, it seems good compared to the Malaysians’ 5 hours as Susie said, but just imagine if that jet had gone dark over the English Channel. The UK is tiny in comparison to Australia, or the US, or Canada. Within 10 minutes that plane would’ve been deep within Central London, the heart of the City (London’s financial district), Whitehall even. Which is why I was quite surprised with the apparent 7 minutes of inaction. 7 minutes for ATC to inform the military, probably 15 minutes for the military to arrive at the scene.
But this is not about lack of competency or being ‘bad’ at your job. Its about an innate desire within (most?) humans to avoid responsibility, to hope for the mundane even when things appear to be going wrong.
Check this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l39IKt3tlQk
And 5 years later (not the same airport I must add):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqIW6U4MWV4
And many of us will have done the same – ignore what might be a potentially disastrous situation because we simply don’t want to kick up a fuss. And so it may have been with MH370. Malaysian ATC and military left staring at each other hoping it would all be okay in the morning.
Jeff said “…was flown to France…”
Those few words made a random neuron of mine fire. The 8k atmosphere/pressure during transport could induce a forcing of de-hydration of a soaked flapperon, which’ rate could be of magnitude(s) higher than that of the soaking rate during drift. To compare buoancy during testing in France with actual buoancy just prior to landfall, one would have to take account of this effect. I have no idea of what the difference in soaking and drying rates is. It may well be rather negligible in the overall picture. But, if the flaperon’s buoancy was/is near neutral, small effects like this may be significant.
On a totally different subject, I have seen, here and on other forums, that the Meteo France drift study was being dismissed on the grounds of “what do meteorologists know about drift”.
This to me seems an unfair or even dishonest denigration of the capabilities of Meteorolical Bureaus the world over. In many places, these offices are charged with a wide range of responsibilities, including the reporting and forecasting of oceonagraphic phenomena, such as currents, tides, wave conditions, etc., etc.
It is fair to assume that these organisations employ the required high caliber experts in these fields. FWIW, in my Uni days, I was employed at the “Institute for Mechanics” at RWTH Aachen, Germany. At that time, their main focus was research into “combustion of carbon in fluid flow fields” and the numerical simulation thereof. On the face of it, the area of research was far removed from what the institute’s name would suggest.
In other words, the name, i. e. the apparent field of expertise, of an institution does not necessarily give grounds to dismiss that institution’s expertise or credibility in another field.
@Sajid
@Jeff
Re British Airways flt 108 on 4/30 and Air France Flt 1558 on May 5: my understanding is that it is common for flights to go quiet and that most instances of this go unreported. Both flights reestablished communication after fighter jets were scrambled. Could these incidents of going quiet be caused by pilot inattention? I wonder if MH370 incident has led to more attention to ac that go quiet. Maybe MH370 outcome would have been very different if someone had scrambled some fighter jets.
@jeffwise,
“No, it would take weeks to go from Rodrigues to Réunion, and in that time the barnacles lifted out of the water would die.”
With near neutral buoyancy, which would be the case with the Lepas fully grown, the Flaperon will have minimal freeboard and it would have water washing over it most of the time. Such a condition would also mean that it could easily roll over from time to time, depending on the sea conditions.
@Barry Carlson, I’d long assumed that it must have floated across the ocean more or less awash, due to the distribution of Lepas, but this seems to be counterindicated now by the DGA buoyancy test.