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.
Eric,
There are 3 VHFs. One of them goes down if both the IDGs and APU are not operational.
Also one of the two GPS is on standby power, and it can be powered from battery.
My suggestion does not solve the mystery indeed, but I found it remarkably interesting that SATCOM would not work, ACARS would not transmit, and it would likely be impossible to dump fuel in such a case.
Does anyone know quick answers:
– How long FMC can operate on the batteries?
– How long ADIRU can operate on the batteries?
– If TAS specified by a pilot is not achievable due to thrust/drag limitation, would engines be operating at the maximum thrust to achieve as high TAS as possible?
You still don’t seem to understand the ATT mode of the autopilot.
What is “cross-wind drag”?
The pilot cannot specify TAS, he can select IAS or Mach. Selected IAS/Mach cannot exceed Vmo/Mmo. The autothrottle thrust is limited to the selected thrust rating, i.e. max cruise thrust in cruise. The controlled speed will depend on the selected autothrottle and autopilot pitch modes, but will not exceed Vmo/Mmo.
@Oleksandr: If the AP pitch mode is ALT, the AT mode is SPD, and the available thrust is not sufficient to achieve the selected speed, the engines will operate at the maximum thrust for the selected rating.
What makes me wonder is why this DGA-report as part of a criminal investigation is, till now the only official information that is allowed to go public. Why this report and no other informattion on the flaperon?
Why send out a report whit such conflicting information which raises only more questions than giving any answers?
And keep all other very important information (i.e. how the flaperon seperated?) secret?
Regarding the high status of authorities involved, there must be a well considered reason to do this this way.
But for what reason?
It looks to me it could be a well thought over tactic to mystify the search-problems even more. But then agian; why?
Gysbreght,
Re: “You still don’t seem to understand the ATT mode of the autopilot”
Maybe, but based on your comments you seem don’t understand either.
Re: “What is “cross-wind drag”?”
Aerodynamic force acting on an aircraft is a 3D vector. In the aircraft-fixed coordinate system these components are the lift, head drag and lateral drag. The latter is caused by cross wind. Perhaps my explanation is fuzzy. The book you discarded as not worthy of your time provides a clear explanation with illustrations.
Thanks for the explanation with regard to TAS/IAS/Mach. So, can a pilot specify M=0.86, say, at FL10? Are Vmo/Mmo dynamic parameters for given ambient conditions?
Gysbreght,
“If the AP pitch mode is ALT, the AT mode is SPD, and the available thrust is not sufficient to achieve the selected speed, the engines will operate at the maximum thrust for the selected rating.”
Thanks, this clarifies. Additional questions:
– If pitch mode is V/S?
– If pitch mode is ALT and AT mode is SPD, and one engine flames out: will ALT mode stay, and will the thrust of the remaining working engine be increased to the max?
What I mean is that the report actualy says the plane could be almost anywhere in the Indian ocean depending on which of the 5 possible states the flaperon drifted in.
It gives higher probabilitys to certain regions but does not rule others out at all.
The message it brings (and wants the public to believe?) is in my ears; we actualy don’t have a clue where the flaperon came from and whit that, where the plane could be.
Is it a coincidence the report comes into the hands of a well know journalist with connections to CNN and many others?
You are probably referring to the Méteo France report. As Jeff writes above: “This report was not officially released to the public, as it is part of a criminal terrorism case.”
In France the victims of an accident can demand to be associated with the criminal investigation as “parties civiles”. Their lawyers then have acces to the file of the investigating “juge d’instruction”. That is how Jeff probably got access to the document.
@Gysbreght.
Yes I refere to the Meteo report.
It was not officialy released to the public but making it available to a well known journalist is in fact making it available to the public. And they know that I asume.
A lawyer may have access to classified information but has no permission to share this with anyone outside the criminal investigation unless its given to him/her.
How Jeff Wise got the document I don’t know offcourse. But he got it. And imo it might have been no coincidence this report got public and he got it.
You seem to confuse crab angle due to cross wind and sideslip angle. Excepting take-off, landing, and asymmetric engine thrust conditions, sideslip angle is always zero.
“So, can a pilot specify M=0.86, say, at FL10? Are Vmo/Mmo dynamic parameters for given ambient conditions?” No, because that would exceed Vmo of 330 kIAS. The Vmo/Mmo cross-over altitude is 29879 ft.
“Additional questions:
– If pitch mode is V/S?
– If pitch mode is ALT and AT mode is SPD, and one engine flames out: will ALT mode stay, and will the thrust of the remaining working engine be increased to the max?”
If the pitch mode is V/S the AP will control pitch with the elevator to maintain the selected V/S. If the AT mode is Spd the autothrottle will provide the thrust that provides the selected speed. If the selected speed cannot be attained, the engines will operate at the maximum thrust for the active rating. If the speed obtained at maximum thrust drops below minimum maneuvering speed – see below.
If pitch mode is ALT and AT mode is SPD, and one engine flames out: ALT mode stays initially, and the thrust of the remaining working engine will be increased as required to maintain the selected speed, up to to the max for the active rating. If the speed drops to the minimum maneuver speed, the AP pitch mode will change to SPD and the pitch will be controlled to maintain MMS at max thrust. The AT mode changes to THR REF. The pilot can select Max Continuous thrust rating with the CLB/CON pushbutton on the MCP.
@Gysbreght.
I like to come back on this ‘sideslip’.
I made this comparison with a sailingboat firts through crosswind and later to ‘side-drift’ in a water mass. If you don’t correct for this side-drift and ‘go with the flow’ keeping your sidedrift angle to zero you’ll keep your heading but you’ll arrive far from your destination depending how strong this sideslip/drift is.
Maybe the comparison between a submarine and a plane is better.
@Oleksandr:
I should add that if the AP is in V/S mode, and Vmo/Mmo is exceeded at idle thrust, the AP mode changes to SPD and the AT mode changes to HOLD or IDLE.
@Oleksandr,
“I think Don or someone else earlier pointed out that ACARS was set to SATCOM channel on this flight. Please correct me if I am wrong.”
That’s correct. In fact, the ACARS (SITA) logs (FI, app. 1.9A, 2nd entry, 15:54:53 UTC) indicates “VHF lost”. There is no indication that ACARS was reconnected via VHF mode at any point later during the accident flight (FI, p. 1). There was an ACARS logon via SATCOM at 15:54:41. Shortly after, at 15:56:08, the flight information and aircraft number were keyed in manually by the crew (FI, p. 43). I assume if ACARS logs on in pre-flight preparation, the standard/default setting is auto (VHF is preferred, SATCOM if VHF is unavailable). VHF coverage in the area is described as good. Does that mean ACARS/VHF was disabled manually by the crew at around this time?
“So what does ACARS do if it is switched from SATCOM mode to VHF mode, but finds no coverage? Will it continue attempts to transmit? If yes, what is the period/delay before next attempt to connect the network?”
All I can say the time interval for retransmitting the ACARS text message at 18:03 (ground to air) was 2 minutes, although the Inmarsat logs indicate it may have been 90 seconds.
@Oleksandr
Iro your question about FMC and ADIRU endurance on battery power:
For the ADIRU, it appears to be about 30 minutes, not sure about the FMC, but probably the same.
Info gleaned from B777 -11 Navigation System 1/8 AIr Data Inertial Reference System ADIRS
Please note, I will not be held responsible for any inaccuracies in the content of this material
@Oleksander:
RE crab angle and sideslip angle: see Automatic Flight Approach and Landing “Runway Alignment” FCOM 4.20.13/14
Gysbreght,
Re: “You seem to confuse crab angle due to cross wind and sideslip angle.”
No; but it seems you are. There is a difference between these angles, clearly demonstrated in the book you disliked.
Re: “Excepting take-off, landing, and asymmetric engine thrust conditions, sideslip angle is always zero.”
No, that is where you do mistake. You are always considering only steady-state case, and forgetting that wind may vary. Imagine a simplified example: hot balloon. Does it have the same velocity as wind? It takes some time for a balloon to gain the same velocity as ambient wind, so that relative velocity becomes close to zero. This time depends on the balloon area and mass.
You can also take the example of EY440. In the holding pattern its trajectory was clearly affected by wind, wasn’t it? Perhaps because during turns bank angle was >5 deg and temporal mode was “ATT HOLD”. If what you say was true, the loops of EY440 would be identical. Any other explanation?
Thanks for your other helpful answers.
Nederland,
“Does that mean ACARS/VHF was disabled manually by the crew at around this time?”
I can’t recall exact Don’s comment, but could be the case. Nothing malicious; just standard procedure for MAS or in that region (my speculation).
http://787updates.newairplane.com/Boeing787Updates/media/Boeing787Updates/Aviation%20Experts/787-BATTERIES-BACKGROUNDER.pdf
787 batteries are 65 Amp-Hours, car batteries are 80 amp-hours
In the B777 Electrical pdf, graphics show batteries draining at 28V, 12A and 27V, 10A. Dividing 65-80 AHr / 10-12A = 5-8 Hr
Main Battery may be able to power core equipment for many hours, however the graphics may refer to situations with primary power supplying most of the electricity and charging one battery, so divide by two at a minimum, but still hours plural (?)
ROB,
Thanks; that is also interesting. I mean time scale of 30 minutes you cited. Because if ADIRU was on battery, and power eventually run out, the plane would not be able to continue in HDG, TRK or LNAV mode.
@Oleksander,
This seems to refer to this quote by an anonymous pilot:
“It is Mas procedure to switch ACARS, VHF, and High Frequency selection off but this is only for flights to China as the service provider for Mas does not cover China. Some if not all pilots switch them all off for a while and then later switch SATCOMM back on to force the system into SATCOMM mode.”
It has been discussed here:
http://jeffwise.net/2014/11/07/mh370-evidence-points-to-sophisticated-hijackers/comment-page-2/
Not sure if this, if true, applies only to the time before entering China as SATCOM is more expensive.
An official statement on this would be helpful; bit odd in view of the later loss of SATCOM event.
Your reply illustrates your misunderstanding of crabbing in crosswind versus sideslip. EY440 was an A330 whose AP doesn’t have an ATT mode let alone an “ATT HOLD” mode. The turns were flown by the AP at 25° of bank in ‘managed’ mode. That is how the AP effectuates heading changes per default (unless a lesser bank angle has been selected on the MCP). It does not imply a mode change. The airplane ‘crabbed’ relative to ground when flying with crosswind, but always maintained zero sideslip in the turns and the straight legs. The FMGS calculated the heading and duration of the straight legs and turns according to the defaults or pilot entries on the holding page on the MCDU, so as to compensate for the crabbing, so that the pattern as a whole did not drift downwind.
Gysbreght,
“Your reply illustrates your misunderstanding of crabbing in crosswind versus sideslip.”
You have a problem of distinguishing between crabbing and sideslip. Let’s try again. There are 3 unit vectors: (1) aircraft’s velocity, (2) wind velocity, (3) orientation of aircraft’s fuselage (roll axis). These are different vectors. You insist that (1) and (3) are the same.
There are 2 targets during crabbed landing: (a) keep aircraft velocity parallel to runway, (b) keep the moment of aerodynamic forces close to zero to prevent yaw rotation. Crabbing has nothing to do with EY440, but the existence of the lateral forcing does have. In the case of crabbed landing rudder and orientation of the plane have to be adjusted to compensate for the later force caused by criss-wind. In the case of EY440 lateral force deformed looping pattern. Still confusing?
“so that the pattern as a whole did not drift downwind.”
I am not talking about drift downwind as you could have a chance to notice. I am talking about “slightly” varying loop pattern. Each loop is unique, different from the previous. If there was no lateral force, loops would ideally coincide.
You insist that A330 performs turns in other manner than B777, and you might be right. You already mentioned that ATT modes of A320 and B777 are different. Could you please provide a reference to more detailed information you based your conclusion on? What is ‘managed’ mode?
No, I never did. If I may refer to Figure 6.1 bin Bayesian Methods, then I take it that your vectors (1) and (2) correspond to “aircraft ground velocity” and “wind velocity”, respectively, in that Fig. 6.1. An airplane has zero sideslip when its longitudinal axis is aligned with “aircraft air velocity”. In steady rectilinear flight it is than aerodynamically symmetrical, i.e. there is no aerodynamic sideforce. Aerodynamically the airplane is oblivious to a steady wind, it only matters for the airplane’s track relative to ground. Of course, if you want to confuse matters, you can always consider non-steady wind condions.
“I am talking about “slightly” varying loop pattern. Each loop is unique, different from the previous. If there was no lateral force, loops would ideally coincide.” As I recall it, the loops were quite consitent, with only ver small variations, except for the turns at entry and exit from the holding pattern. If there are small varations between loops, then these are probably due to variations in wind speed, because when the FMCS calculates the pattern it cannot predict what those varations will be during the loop.
“You insist that A330 performs turns in other manner than B777” I didn’t.
“You already mentioned that ATT modes of A320 and B777 are different.” I didn’t. Each of the three ADIRU’s of the A320 has an “ATT” mode where the IR output is attitude/heading only. To my knbowledge the A320 does not have an autopilot “ATT” mode comparable to that on the B777.
“What is ‘managed’ mode?” In Airbus parlance the automatic flight systems can be used in either “selected” or “managed” mode. In selected mode these systems follow the selections the pilot makes on the MCP, in managed mode they are controlled by the FMS similar to Boeing’s LNAV and VNAV modes.
Thats what I meant. The sideslip angle is zero if the plane is corrected for sideslip.
It matters for the airplane’s track relative to the ground (and its destination point).
If not corrected also in cruise flight you won’t keep track at your destination point is what I thought.
But comparing sailingboats and submarines with airplanes makes you shake your heads I suppose..;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_%28aerodynamics%29
Something I like to mention also about the Meteo report.
It’s the first time I read the name Diego Garcia in an official report.
Given the sensitivity of this name in relation to MH370 I find it rather remarkable the name is mentioned. It could be easily avoided not to fuel conspiracy/other thinking anyway.
A bit careless? Or could there be more to it?
What does he mean by specificaly stating; ‘east of Diego Garcia’?
20 miles east or 2000 miles east?
I mean there are many ways to avoid the name Diego Garcia to make your statement about this.
Is he giving an indirect hint whith this clueless report?
There is also a French documentary, L’enigme du vol Malaysia Airlines MH370, in collaboration with the BEA. It mentions Diego Garcia (in the sense it could have been a failed terror attack on Diego Garcia). But it is probably more a description of the results derived from the simulation.
@Nederland
You must be dutch also but offcourse I’ll keep it in englisch 😉
Can you provide a link to this documentary?
@Oleksandr
One more point iro battery only power:
The Standby Flight Instruments would be powered by their own dedicated battery for a further 150 minutes (once the ADIRU stopped functioning after 30 minutes) which seems to imply that the SAARU standby attitude reference would also be kept powered up during this time, as it supplies the standby attitude reference.
So although the ADIRU is required for Track and LNAV mode, the SAARU could maintain Heading Hold, although it needs heading updated at regular intervals from the standby magnetic compass, which means that Heading Select and Heading Hold modes could in theory be operable for up to 180 minutes (shades of ETOPS) following total generator failure.
@ALL
It seems strange that we’ve had no word from the ATSB about the Rodrigues interior panel. They were supposed to be giving it an expert evaluation, as they did with the two Mozambique items.
@Ge Rijn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0kzcTyZCk8
You want to start at minute 31:30.
I generally find the scenario, failed hijacking/passenger insurrection/depressurisation not implausible.
@ROB
Likewise, the “ROY” item in South Africa; if confirmed, it would severely weaken the likelihood that the ATSB is searching in the right area. Not best news perhaps, given that there are 15.000 square km to search left, in an area that has been agreed before the items were discovered.
It is inconsistent with any drift study; something the French report also seems to suggest.
@Nederland
Yes as you say, just 15,000km left to search and their official line is still “we remain confident of finding MH370 by July”!
I would like to be a metaphorical fly on the wall in their office when they discuss what to say next.
@Nederland.
Thank you for the link.
I think the current search zone is not inconsistend with ANY drift study but particulary with the drift study’s in this report.
They all more or less exclude the current search zone.
And I just wonder why, for mentioned reasons.
@Brock
The link @Nederland posted to the French documentary mentions your paper ‘Time to Investigate the Investigators’.
See ~48.00 onwards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0kzcTyZCk8
@Oleksandr
There’s some general background information on the 777 flight controls and electrics here – see chapter 11:
http://www.davi.ws/index.php?link=avionics&link2=
@Rob,
Rubbish!
OZ
@OZ
What?
A few simple calculations related to the buoyancy of the flaperon indicates how it may have floated almost totally submerged for many months without any risk of sinking – it was not floating on a knife edge ready to sink without trace when the a few more barnacles made it their home. The mistake made by others posting here was to assume, for buoyancy considerations, that it was a homogeneous body with uniform density throughout – that is it was like a log.
First consider the images of the flaperon being retrieved from the beach … 4 guys carried the flaperon from water’s edge, to the grassy field. Average guys, nobody obviously struggling and a couple of them appearing to guide rather than just lift the thing. Estimate weight of flaperon at 100 to 150 lbs. And they are carrying it upside down … later it gets flipped and most images then show it right way up …but initially it is upside down. More on that later.
Scaling off Boeing data gives the average span of a flaperon as 6.7 ft and average chord 4.8 ft. It is a thick section, estimate at 20% so max depth of section just less than 1 ft. Part of the trailing edge has been broken off on this flaperon but that does not materially change what follows.
Drawing a 20% airfoil section of 4.8 ft chord length and you arrive at a sectional cross section of 2.4 sq ft.
So this flaperon, if fully enclosed and fully immersed, displaces 16 cubic feet of water or 1000lb displacement. But it weighs only 150 lbs. So it floats very high. Initially.
But the flaperon is not fully enclosed and some of the internal spaces have drain holes that let water out and water in. So the internal spaces slowly fill and let us assume they fill totally over time leaving only cored composite as viable flotation. How much composite would that need?
Assume the all the skin is composite and remains a fully viable buoyant material. Not true of course as some of it may be violated but then the internal structure provides buoyancy too so the assumption is not unrealistic. Surface area is 64 sq ft from my measurements (top and bottom) so just ½ inch thick skin displaces 2.7 cu ft of sea water which equates to a buoyancy of 170 lbs.
Given that there is internal structure providing added buoyancy and the skin is general in good condition it is not too difficult to reach the conclusion that it will float even if all internal free space is eventually flooded.
Look too at Air France images of the fin from that plane … and not too surprising it is floating nearly awash and likely has an internal structure not too dissimilar from the Boeing flaperon.
So how would it float? Nearly awash in one of two stable states (either upside down or right side up) and with just enough core left above water to allow the submerged core and internal structure to provide 100lb to 150 lbs of buoyancy. Upside down is possibly a little more stable I think. Just 1/2inch or so of freeboard perhaps but that freeboard gives a reserve buoyancy of 80 lbs (guesstimate) enough to support a lot of barnacles which anyway bring with them some small contribution to the overall buoyancy..
But the entrained mass of the flaperon is 920 lbs on the basis of these estimates so it I has high inertia and does not flip easily. It is truly water logged but not in any danger of sinking.
So as for flipping over and over frequently … not likely. It would take the breaking crest of a large storm wave to summon up the energy to do this … not your casual passing roller. I would not argue it never flipped but I would argue it could spend several months without flipping. Perhaps that is why the marine growth looks to have only grown for a few months – what you see is only a snapshot of the 6 months from the last flip, not the lifetime afloat.
Would the French investigation have looked into this … one might think so but if you happen to float the flaperon the right way up when you are testing then the rate of water ingress might be slowed as the drain holes are now under water. Depends how quickly it fills, how long they waited.
Anybody wish to argue against these suppositions?
@OZ, @DennisW
( Hmmm… methinks this could be a ‘secret squirrel’ encrypted communication that only the cognoscenti have the abiity to decipher and reply to … 🙂
@OZ
Rubbish!
No worries. As I always say, you win some, you lose some. I’ll put it down to experience
@Mike Gibbon: I bet it occurred to the expert testers to turn it over.
@Middleton, @Nederland: thanks for the link.
@Susie, @Jeff: Susie’s otherwise accurate summary of a recent Reddit exchange should have attributed the “slumming it” quote to me – though anyone who knows of my faith in the wisdom of crowds will correctly guess it was mere sarcasm. Don had just put forth an argument that required him to know more about the limits of buoyancy testing than did the buoyancy experts themselves – so I wondered allowed what he was doing commenting on Reddit, when he should be directing a re-test of the flaperon. A valid point, I thought (and think), but not the most respectful tone I’ve ever struck.
It is sad to see ANY people of science resort to psychological intimidation and character assassination. While they’ve had much undeserved scorn heaped on them by Monday morning quarterbacks (which I condemn, in the strongest terms), I do wish ALSM and GuardedDon would treat me as respectfully as I’ve treated them. The “know-nothing” and “sewage” public statements seemed particularly savage.
It is doubly concerning to see people of science erring on the side of UNDER-investigating apparent anomalies – the backbone of scientific advance has always been hard challenges to status quo theories.
And it is trebly concerning to see floated in public so many arguments resting on obvious misstatements of fact. If the truth is no longer a barrier, we are well beyond scientific argument, and well into the realm of used car sales (apologies to all used car sales folk out there who never distort the truth…).
But I continue to assume these IG gladiators are, like me, simply trying to put the puzzle pieces together as best they can – and that any lack of civility, curiosity, or correctness can these days be put down to a perfectly understandable frustration over how badly search leadership has abused their trust.
And I therefore continue to extend to everyone in the IG an invitation to formally join forces with those of us who seem to have uncovered a bit of a serious issue with the SSWG’s credibility, merely by shining bright lights in dark places.
@Mike Gibbon.
You say barnacles will add to its buoyancy.
I think it’s the other way around but can you explain?
And I would like to see pictures of those drainholes in this flaperon.
If you look at pictures of a new B777 flaperon you don’t see drainholes where you would expect them. In fact you don’t see any drainholes. This flaperon is right behind the engine maybe that’s a reason it’s got no drainholes or at least not regular ones?
@Brock McEwen.
‘I bet it occured to the expert testers to turn it over’.
Yes you would bet they tested every possible situation. But only two floating states were observed and mentioned; trailing edge sticking above the the surface or leading edge. The submerged state is only assumed in the report not mentioned observed.
So betting the experts tested all the possibilitys (which you sure can assume), isn’t it reasonable to conclude a submerged state did not happen in their tests?
Isn’t it reasonable then to conclude they concluded the flaperon did not drifted submerged?
And doing so, leaving other experts and non-experts with rather conflicting information?
Do you, as an expert, have an opinion on this?
Are you going to integrate this Meteo report and conclusions in your own drift study?
I would be very interested.
Yes, at least some of them. I agree that the flaperon has two stable floating position: flat in the water and either upside down or right side up. Upside down is probably more stable than right side up. ALSM and myself confirmed that with model experiments in the bathtub. I also agree that wave action would from time to time flip the flaperon over.
I disagree on the filling of the internal volumes. The main body of the flaperon is completely sealed. The skin is a sandwich of honeycomb between skins of composite material. The sratches that can be seen probably damaged only the outer skin of the sandwich. There will be a few tiny drainage holes at the bottom of the flaperon to let condensation water drain out overnight.
To fill the internal volume with water requires not only to let water in, but also to let the air out. The air does not get out with the flaperon floating right side up, so the water does not get in. When the flaperon floats upside down the drain holes are high above the water, so the only water that gets in is from the occasional wave washing over it. So after many months the internal volume is perhaps partly filled with water.
In my view concerning the flaperon the lack of information after almost a year and the conflicting information that now got public becomes more telling than the information itself.
The ATSB being a goverment agency I hardly can imagine they don’t have already more specific information on the flaperon.
Which they (still) don’t want to share.
Also the goverments of Malysia and China won’t except crusial information is withheld by France. It’s too important on many levels.
So I assume with almost certainty the ATSB and those goverments are already in the possession of much more detailed information on the flaperon.
But have a very important reason not to share this with anyone (yet).
The big question is then ; for what reason?
If the complete results on the scienetific study off this flaperon will not be made public, it will be there where a big part of the solution to this mysterious drama can be found imo.
Hopefully they bring the more detailed information after ending the search.
I guess it’s all we can hope for now.
Perhaps this picture will do?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/siphhzw9m4zfhan/drainhole.png?dl=0
@Mike Gibbon,
The internal structure of the Airbus fin is similar to the B777 fin, but they are both very different from the flaperon structure. They utilize integral stiffened skin panels instead of honeycomb sandwich panels.
OZ
@Gysbrecht.
Tkank you. I saw that picture before but did not reqocnise it as a drainhole. It looked to me like a tiny spot and there seems to be no other one on the other side. But it’s so tiny..
And you are right!
Found another picture this morning. And where else you’ll find the best pictures..;-)
http://jeffwise.net/2015/08/27/what-are-the-discrepancies-in-the-reunion-flaperon/