The photo above is from an article on a French-language website. It says that the object was found two weeks ago by a French tourist, who gave it to a boat captain, who only gave it to the authorities on Tuesday, May 24. The piece is 80 cm by 40 cm and was discovered on a small island called L’ile aux Bernaches, which lies within the main reef surrounding Mauritius. It is now in the possession of the National Coast Guard, who will pass along photos to the Malaysians and, if they deem it likely to be a part of the missing plane, will send experts to collect it. (According to a second story here.)
The photograph above is the only one that seems to be available so far, and is quite low-res, but it seems to lack any visible barnacles, but has quite a lot of the roughness that barnacles leave behind after they’ve detached, as seen in the Mossel Bay piece. Perhaps worth noting that so far, pieces found on islands (Réunion, Rodrigues) have had substantial goose barnacle populations living on them, while pieces found on the African mainland have been bare. This piece breaks that trend.
Also worth noting, I think, is that all of the objects discovered so far were found by tourists, with the exception of the flaperon, which was found during a beach cleaning of the kind that only happens an tourist destinations. Drift models predict that a lot of the debris should have come ashore on the east coast of Madagascar, but this is not a place that tourists generally frequent. There are also large stretches of the southern African coast that probably see little tourism. All of which is to say that a concerted effort to sweep remote beaches should turn up a lot of MH370 debris.
I haven’t seen any speculation yet as to which part of the plane this latest piece might have come from–any ideas?
UPDATE 5/25/16: In a surprising coincidence, another piece of potential debris has also turned up on Mauritius. According to Ion News, the object was found by a Coast Guard foot patrol along a beach at Gris-Gris, the southernmost point on the island. It was found resting about six meters from the water.
UPDATE 5/26/16: In another surprising turn of events, Australia’s Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chesterhas issued a media release in which he “confirmed reports that three new pieces of debris—two in Mauritius and one in Mozambique—have been found and are of interest in connection to the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370.”
The release goes on:
“The Malaysian Government is yet to take custody of the items, however as with previous items, Malaysian officials are arranging collection and it is expected the items will be brought to Australia for examination,” Mr Chester said. “These items of debris are of interest and will be examined by experts.”
This means of announcing findings related to MH370 marks a departure for the Australian government, which in the past has provided updates from the ATSB (Australia Transport Safety Board) itself. The items are picture below, courtesy of Kathy Mosesian at VeritasMH370:
Meanwhile, a reader has provided an image analysis of the second Mauritius fragment in order to provide a sense of scale:
He observes: “Some rough scaling puts it at around 14 by 26 inches. Those boulders in the other photo look like pebbles; makes it look the size of one cent piece. Note the increasing curvature left to right; ups the bet on a chunk of flap!”
UPDATE 5/27/16: Another piece turned up yesterday, making it four altogether since Wednesday. I think this qualifies as a “debris storm.” At the rate stuff is turning up, there should be a lot more to come. There hasn’t even been an organized search yet!
The BBC reports:
Luca Kuhn von Burgsdorff contacted the BBC on Thursday to say he found the fragment on the Macaneta peninsula.
The authorities have been notified. The piece must be examined by the official investigation team in Australia.
Experts say it is consistent with where previous pieces of debris from the missing plane have been found.
Mr von Burgsdorff took two photographs of the item on 22 May, and sent them to the BBC after reading a story on Thursday about other debris finds in the region.
He said the pieces were “reasonably light, did not have metal on the outside, and looked extremely similar to photos posted on the internet of other pieces of debris from aeroplanes”.
I’ve asked the website for better photos, though I doubt it will net anything.
It’s some kind of flap isn’t it?
Could be a section of aileron possibly?
A bit too big to be the flaperon cove door.
By the way, wrt MH370 this is awful:
http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1814955
Looks as though the NOK have requested logs (inc ACARS) and other comms between MAS and the plane, and it’s been granted by a court however MAS are going to appeal against it.
What the actual [] would they have against sharing this information with families of those who were lost?
I am starting to see why people consider MAS are hiding something.
There’s a guy on Twitter who suggests it’s part of the rudder.
@Rand
Re Synchronicity: thanks Rand, I will have another go at understanding what its all about 🙂
Tail section/rudder
https://twitter.com/ashren/status/735460280063295490
The rudder seems to have a top and bottom section – does this photo look like the bottom section could be the right size?
No idea of scale tbh.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/AeroMexico/Boeing-777-2Q8-ER/1688507/L/&sid=53e6c3b8e371ceef86826576da2a7c9b
Too big for it to be from the wing section.
Correction: I mean too small.
I think it’s actually too small to be the rudder tab.
Yes susie, i having the same thought. But i still believe its part of the tail section of the aircraft.
Susie,
Re: “By the way, wrt MH370 this is awful”.
A lot of things point out on mechanical failure. No wonder that MAS and Boeing are reluctant to share information if they suspect something.
Looks like this is the only piece with no markings.
I don’t think its a rudder part, because of the curving profile. More likely to be aileron or flap. Ailerons droop when flaps are lowered, and the curve looks as if its designed to droop into the airflow.
But definitely has the look of an aircraft component. Mr Goodwin might recognize it.
I thought the Goose debris might be part of the rudder trim tab, and it is possible, but the Goose piece is much smaller than the trim tab. OTOH, the width of the Goose piece looks to be about the right size for the top of the rudder itself.
Physical Description
The rudder tab is a light weight composite material structure.
The skin is reinforced graphite/epoxy bonded to a core of
Nomex honeycomb. The overall dimensions are approximately
50 in by 128 in (1.3 m by 3.2 m). The rudder tab weighs
approximately 110 lb (50 kg).
https://goo.gl/ArLPxR
Another report of a different debris piece, on south Mauritius this time.
http://ionnews.mu/un-debris-suspecte-de-provenir-du-vol-mh370-retrouve-a-gris-gris-250516/
Found Tuesday afternoon, 6m from the sea, from the report.
@Richard Cole:
that could almost be the next section of Lotter’s piece, couldn’t it?
@Warren
RH side or LH side? that is the question.
The piece appears to have a taper, a narrowing in width but that could be the cameras perspective, so it’s difficult to say at this stage.
BTW what exactly is a meniscus crater?
Please forgive me, I’ve been snooping around on the net.
@Rob: on the left photo, it looks like the side facing the camera is the underside, and the edge facing the camera is the front. But it looks like the width tapers away from the camera, which entails that the inboard edge is facing the camera (but that could be a trick of perspective as you say). Thus, if it is not a trick of perspective, to visualize it, you got to flip it over, and then you have to turn 180 degrees so that you are facing the same direction the flap is going. In that case, it would be from the left hand wing this time.
This is not fatal to the botched ditching/cartwheel hypothesis. The Hudson River ditching lost fragments of the flaps from both wings. They seem to be relatively fragile.
@all: re questions of scale: the photo on the left: the guy is holding a ruler with his thumb that looks to be calibrated in both inches and centimeters. I just measured my own crooked thumb and get about 1 3/4″, so that’s about right. Thus the ruler would be 2 feet long. The weird thing is the spacing of the rivets: they don’t seem to be regular intervals of either cm or inches.
Re: meniscus hollows, a.k.a. rimless pits, pseudo-calderas, or irregular mare (pronounced “MAH-ray”) patches–which makes the best acronym IMPs. Yeah these are (non-impact) craters on the Moon that are thought to be the result of violent outgassing events that might be good places to extract extraterrestrial resources. I’m supposed to deliver my theory of how explosive process actually occurs at meeting at the Colorado School of Mines soon. I hope Jeff won’t begrudge me this brief plug for my project so I’ll be able to buy a return ticket home!
https://www.gofundme.com/23y6y8k
@Warren, If that piece is from the left hand side, we’re in trouble, or I’m in trouble!
I’ve found one, crater Ina. Absolutely fascinating. In a volcanic area. Areas have collapsed between the meniscus features, it looks as if the material has been reworked as if its been heated from below, over time, and undergone a metamorphic change.
It’s ok, I haven’t gone mad. I’m just an amateur astronomer with a special interest in lunar geology.
Interesting stuff, Warren.
Although, actually, now that I take another look at the right picture, it looks like it tapers away in the opposite direction, which also makes it look like it comes from the LH side, but this time the opposite end looks like the inboard side, so there are tricks of perspective going on. Maybe if someone had some precise calipers, you could use the ruler to actually estimate the width at both ends of the object.
@Rob: Thanks! Kind of weird though that two lunar geology buffs independently arrived at the same MH370 theory… Wonder that means! 😉
@Warren
Yes I agree, that really is spooky, and we can’t blame it on synchronicity!
And Duncan Steel is an astronomer as well, but I don’t think his speciality is lunar geology, though.
When you said return trip, did you mean to Colorado or the Moon? My little joke, ha ha!
@Warren Platts: “Kind of weird though that two lunar geology buffs independently arrived at the same MH370 theory”.
I suppose you don’t have to be a lunar geology buff to aareive at that theory, but it apparently helps!
@Gysbreght: Yes, Dennis W will love that–now the botched ditching theory can now be officially called the lunatic conjecture!
Re: the 7th object found in today’s debris storm, if that is an airfoil of some kind, I have to say it also looks like it may have come from the left side. Hopefully they will find some inscriptions.
Interesting that neither is from the interior, however….
“Looks like this is the only piece with no markings.”
Hm… First we said here that it is strange that the RR piece was clean while the flaperon was covered with bernacles, and then a photo of the RR piece with bernacles appears;
We said here that all debris bear “made-for-TV” markings, and now a piece without markings appears;
We said here that almost all if not all debris found until now come from the right side of the aircraft, and now this last debris seams to come from the left side…
It’s like the person planting the debris (if they were planted) are reading our posts here, maybe even is one of us (It’s not me!)
Maybe the next piece of debris will appear in a beach in West Australia or in Madagascar, because we said that is is strange that no debris was found there until now. I wonder what will happen if we begin to say here that it is strange that we have not yet found the body of the pilot…
@Warren
I have been pedaling into the wind my whole life.
I do find it amusing that people can say all sorts of things about the moon and its geology, but no one has a clue why the moon looks bigger on the horizon. Humbling, if you are a humble person such as myself.
New Potential MH370 Debris Found on Mauritius
Difficult to determine its origin from the photos. On initial inspection it looks like the trailing edge of a larger part. As I have said before; the trailing edge is usually a full depth honeycomb part that is attached (fastened) to a larger panelized box with upper and lower H/C panels, spars and ribs. Flaperon is a good example. This part has a fore to aft taper to it. No leading edge shape on part. The part has full depth Nomex H/C composite construction with a forward spar. The part does not appear to be symmetrical in its taper. Thus it is a wing or horizontal stabilizer part. Not rudder (rudder parts are symmetrical). The part will taper inbd to outbd. Can not tell from photo. Right photo; upper side of part maybe on the right if wing; opposite if stabilizer (wing surfaces push up in flight / Horz. Stabilizer pushes down slightly.
This is my guess; I have seen similar parts in the factory; location; don’t remember.
@Ken Goodwin. Possibly trailing edge component from an outboard flap?
If it were part of an aileron, it would have a leading edge wouldn’t it?
Ken, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Really helpful.
What do you think of the second find as linked to by Richard Cole?
I’m supposing it’s part of a fairing but could be totally off track there.
Marc,
“Maybe the next piece of debris will appear in a beach in West Australia or in Madagascar”
I am almost sure the towelette found in Thirsty Point is from MH370. It does perfectly match the predictions of UWA for the origins from 24S to 28.5S. It is in a good agreement with the predictions of IPRC and Deltares as well. What else do you need? A stamp that it came from MH370?
If someone is going to Madagascar to search for debris, I would suggest starting from Ambatoharana or Anaovandrano northward up to the Northern tip: 500 km of the shore.
The Fat Controller clearly follows these discussions. But he is probably smart enough never to post anything 🙂
For those who keep thinking of the MH towelette found near Perth: There have been daily flights (MH 124/125) between Kuala Lumpur and Perth for quite some time. The MAS towelette is more likely to have reached the beaches near Perth by this route rather than MH 370. It cannot be proved that it was from MH 370, but it cannot be disproved that it was from MH 125 (or any other MH flight to Australia) either.
Just in addition to my previous post. I hope Brock McEwen will not mind if I post here overlapped figure based on the PT analysis he received from Prof. Pattiaratchi (UWA):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/52xajg0z1oxgy9d/mhlc18_overlapped.jpg?dl=0
Curtin ‘boom’, Haixun01 pings, Aaza Dana, 23:15 BFO, the towelette, confirmed fragments found up to date, ATSBs “data driven” approach,… Too much or too little?
The straight edge of the debris from the wing trailing edge is nearly perpendicular to the trailing edge. That fits only inboard flap and flaperon. Elevator, outboard flap and aileron ends are all at a different angle.
Following up to my last comment: MAS flies to all major cities in Australia (including Cairns and Darwin but not Hobart) so there are many ways that MAS towelettes and similar things could make their way to beaches near Perth. An extract from MAS’s destination list:
At April 2000, from its main hub at Kuala Lumpur–International the company operated scheduled services to domestic destinations including Alor Setar, Bakalalan, Bario, Belaga, Bintulu, Ipoh, Johor Bahru, Kota Bharu, Kota Kinabalu, Kuala Terengganu, Kuantan, Kuching, Kudat, Labuan, Lahad Datu, Langkawi, Lawas, Layang-Layang, Limbang, Long Lellang, Marudi, Medan, Miri, Mukah, Mulu, Penang, Pulau, Sandakan, Semporna, Sibu, Tarakan, Tawau and Tomanggong; international destinations served at the time included Adelaide, Amsterdam, Auckland, Bandar Seri Begawan, Bangkok, Beijing, Beirut, Brisbane, Buenos Aires, Cairns, Cairo, Cape Town, Cebu, Chennai, Chiang Mai, Darwin, Delhi, Denpasar Bali, Dhaka, Dubai, Frankfurt, Fukuoka, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Hat Yai, Ho Chi Minh City, Hong Kong, Istanbul, Jakarta, Jeddah, Johannesburg, Kaohsiung, Karachi, London, Los Angeles, Male, Manchester, Manila, Melbourne, Munich, Nagoya, New York, Osaka, Paris, Perth, Phnom Penh, Phuket, Pontianak, Rome, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Surabaya, Sydney, Taipei, Tokyo, Vienna, Xiamen, Yangon, Zagreb and Zurich
ABN397,
Re: “The MAS towelette is more likely to have reached the beaches near Perth by this route rather than MH 370.”
Why would it be so?
ABN397,
I have difficulty to link the towelette with Buenos Aires and Rome.
Dennis W. It’s called the moon effect. Perspective trick that your eyes do. When your brain knows its further away it appears bigger. Which is why the “biggest” moonrises occur over a long vista with some distance cues. Experimental psychology, Oxon.
@Rand
To come back on your book excample of Jung’s synchrynosity with the beetle. And then the spontanious remark of your daughter.
I think you put it so clear and nice.
Jung was only intuitive speculating on synchronicity. But since quantum mechanic research has evolved, quantum estranglement is proven and so is synchronicity in a way.
Minds might be tuned in time undependend on distance..
These new pieces also seem to be aileron/rudder/wing pieces. Anyway pieces that could detatche during a ditching and too big for a high speed impact.
Awaiting further details but I think the puzzle of how MH370 came down becomes clearer with every find.
@Olexandr. I beg to differ. Will you offer me odds that any bits arriving in Madagascar will fetch up on the southern third?
@Paul
Yes, I know the various names by which it is called, and I have been looking at the phenomenon for almost two decades now, There is no general agreement on the cause. Naming something does not explain causality.
It falls into the same category as the “two envelop problem” and the “Bertrand Paradox”. Lots of WAGS but no cigar.
@Paul Smithson,
Interesting about the moon. There’s an offshore wind farm near here. As you drive down a narrow avenue towards the sea, you can see just one windmill in the distance – centrally aligned to the avenue. It looks fairly large and close as though it were just a short distance from the beach.
As you reach the end nearest the sea, the view widens and the windmill appears to shrink, even though you are nearer to it.
(They are actually sited a mile or so out to sea)
I’m still trying to figure out what causes this illusion.
Off topic, I know, sorry.
@Oleksandr
I just wonder. Why hang on to this towelette?
On itself it hasn’t got any link of evidence to MH370. In the context it does not fit, for it would be the only (unconfirmed) find on the whole south west and west Australian coast.
It’s one of hundrerds other items not exclusively linked to a specific MAS flight.
For that reasons the item is totally useless in this investigation unless other debris is found in Australia.
So why hang on..
Ge Rijn,
“Why hang on to this towelette?”
Strange question. Say, you have 3 observations: A, B, C, and 8 versions:
1. Inconsistent with A, B, C;
2. Inconsistent with A and B, consistent with C;
3. Inconsistent with A and C, consistent with B;
4. Inconsistent with B and C, consistent with A;
5. Inconsistent with A, consistent with B and C;
6. Inconsistent with B, consistent with A and C;
7. Inconsistent with C, consistent with A and B;
8. Consistent with A, B, C.
The current search area corresponds to version 1. The area from ~25S to 30S corresponds to version 8. Which one you chose? The towelette is a critical piece, which will unfortunately keep silence about its origin.
@Susie
@Paul
Susie, I think you’ve hit on something there.
When the Moon is low down near the horizon, you see it next to some distant trees for example. Your mind is able to focus on the Moon and the trees, and blank out the wider view. This concentration is helped by the dimming and yellowing effect of the atmosphere. However, subconsciously you know the Moon is a distant object, and so your mind thinks “wow that’s big”
A few hours later, when the Moon is high up in the middle of a big black sky, there’s nothing else close to it, it’s much harder for your mind to focus on it, so it recedes back into distant space and shrinks in size. It’s much brighter too when high up, the eye finds it more difficult to focus on. The mind thinks “gosh, that must a long way off”.
Paul,
Sorry, I would not rely on these odds. The northern third of the eastern shore is much more promising. I would give >50% to find at least 1 fragment there.
I think one has to be careful to differentiate the types of debris found when doing drift modelling. So far we seem to have seen two distinct forms of debris.
1 a flaperon which I believe to be an enclosed, free flooding, object that has inertia due to the enclosed water and has low freeboard.
2 The “no-step” like objects that are essentially also low freeboard but also low inertia.
I think it quite possible that the “no step” piece would be easily disturbed, blown hither and thither if you like, while the flaperon sits in the water almost totally impervious to short term transients. No step is lifted on the crest of a small wave, trailing edge is caught by a gust and it flips twice in the air and lands 10 metres further on all in the space of 10 seconds. Not so the flaperon. No step is hostile to large form marine growth (barnacles) since it never knows which side is up … flaperon just sits there, day and day out.
Now “no step” had part of one surface detached and acting like a sea anchor but in principle, in generality, the dynamics differ and hopefully the drift modelling did not simply class all debris as simply “debris”.
Drift modelling that shows the flaperon at Reunion and then is overlaid to support the Mauritius debris find at a different time has a weakness, IMHO, unless the Mauritius overlay takes into account the differing dynamics of the debris found there.
And Western Australia … a good place for light weight, wind influenced objects to land … or would they, in the early months after the crash, possibly get blown elsewhere?
Perhaps this has been asked before, but why is there not a modest bounty for finding debris — a small tip for bringing it in and more if it’s authenticated?
The emphasis would be modest: perhaps 1-5 USD for bringing a piece in that has one or more announced criteria [honeycomb+skin, for instance, but also criteria that make it equally likely that interior pieces would come in. Flyers with pix of patterns would help]. Both individual and jurisdiction-wide bounties could be quite low: 1-5 USD for anything matching the flyer pix, and maybe 50 USD [and a commendation?] if authenticated. And a low ceiling on total funding for any jurisdiction. Low enough, in other words, to make individual or organized fabrication less attractive.
As noted above, these pieces are being picked up by tourists [with a strong bias toward pieces that ‘look like something’, eg, lettering, recognizable airfoil]. Even then, these pieces have generally gone through several hands over days of weeks before someone brings them to a cognizant authority.
I’d love to see some NGO in Mozambique or Madagascar take this on. It would have a better chance of course, if local governments made it a point of pride to solve things that baffle the rich world.
Of course, we may never learn much from these fragments. But a larger, less-biased sample would at worst put a limit on how much went to the bottom, and at best could suggest speed of impact.
[First post here, but I’ve been looking in over the past couple of months.]