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”.
@Jeff
So it is your position that the most ‘sensible’ scenario, the requires by far and away the fewest inconsistencies, absurdities and unlikelihoods in all matters and manners understood, remain only superficially looked into.
Are you a journalist. or just a profiteer? To what extent have you looked into the background of our Zaharie? 2 years later and you have had almost nothing of note nor worth to opine about him and his ‘coincidental’ relationship to the airplanes disappearance.
Yet you choose, very deliberately, to focus on ‘planting’ debris to name just one of the despicable and flat out fabricated (and spare me with the barnacle and reverse drift models as evidence) ‘worthwhile’ topics of discussion. Shameful/ and with this I bow out.
@Matty—Your willingness to be malleable and agenda free is admirable. Sincerely.
A last parting shot. The IG is a JOKE. Mike Exner, lets bet a retirements worth on flutter? What an utter disservice to the NOK. Truly unconscionable. Sara Bajc…these clowns are leading you further into the abyss, if one could ever believe that possible.
Jeff – Sounds like I’m moving on then. But seriously, if Shah’s associations don’t matter then I don’t know what to say other than….this doesn’t matter, anymore. And there was no repetition in that last post by the way – but kudos for keeping this forum open with all the brickbats.
Before I push off I will say that from where I now stand the subject of spoofing is every bit as absurd as ALSM(apologies for the sand kicking) tried to tell us and I’m happy to quote him – “it didn’t happen”.
If the matter can be explained without invoking Putin, China, plane switching, ID switching, technology theft, SDU hacks, DG……..then it should be. So long to all.
Another thought. If this piece turns out to be a part of a trailing edge and belonging to MH370 it would be the second trailing edge that broke off a flap-like part.
Could the flaperon trailing edge braking still be explained by possible flutter, this one by its width, attachement and breaking edge hardly can imo.
And also two trailing edges breaking off like that from two different pieces by flutter would be a highly unlikely coincidence imo.
@ Matty,
I think Jeff only meant move on from the topic in question – not leave the discussion entirely.
I hope you will stay around.
@ Ge Rijn
Yes – perhaps you are right. I was just struck by the straight lines, if that makes sense. Most of the impact holes one sees seem to be more random with ragged edges and ragged fracture lines around them.
I am also flummoxed as to what could have made the holes, though.
Thank you for your thoughts.
@Matty-Perth
I hope you will stick around too. The scenario you have been putting forward lately is just one of many possibles I feel. Alternatively, the pilots may have been heroes and tried to save the passengers and plane in the face of some sort of terrorist hijack. Or the plane got shot down by accident in the military exercise in the SCS. Or, or, …
BTW, re: MS804, what do you know of Phoenix Express 2016?
@JS:
Burst Time Offset (BTO) is related to the distance between the airplane and the subsatellite point on the earth surface. The rate of change of that distance with time represents the speed at which the airplane is moving towards or from the subsatellite point. The locations of airplane and satellite define the direction of that speed, and therefore the east-west component of the airplane groundspeed.
@Jeff Wise
Like to come back on your comparison of the found debris with the debris of Germanwings. You will be right on the general sizes (apart from the flaperon imo) but do you take the amount of deformation into account enough I wonder? Imo there is a substantial difference between them.
I suggest it might be more realistic to compare the debris with what is left after the MS804 impact for it was also a water surface impact instead of a high speed ground impact.
That (very few) MS804 floating debris is substantialy more deformed as the found MH370 till now (like Germanwings debris).
But I think you could be on a realistic save side with a 345knots impact speed as a starting point. It takes ~the middle of a very high impact speed and a more ‘ditching like’ impact speed.
Although imo this speed must have been lower than 345 regarding the amount of deformation and the kind of debris found till now.
We’ll see. It’s still all guessing mostly I realize..
Hopefully this kind of allready known information on allready investigated debris gets released soon.
@Eric a heading of ~200 at 1840 could work if it was magnetic not true
JS,
On the BTO & BFO.
We have discussed this topic earlier many times. Both you and Gysbreght are correct. What Gysbreght and Eric say essentially is an approximation good for analytics. The difference from the exact formulation is immaterial, like up to 2 Hz for BFO if I recall correctly. So it is just a matter of taste.
@Matty-Perth,
I second @Susie and @AM2.
Hang in there. Always enjoy your insights.
@buyerninety. The 5th down second from left of my reference to a Reunion Island photo of the flaperon might not have identified the right photo. It shifts about. A second try at what I meant:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=mh370+flaperon&rlz=1C1ASUT_enAU597AU600&espv=2&biw=1253&bih=632&tbm=isch&imgil=8BkxMDTjOUXNjM%253A%253B4qmqP3lTW0RrgM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fcfrankdavis.wordpress.com%25252F2015%25252F08%25252F01%25252Fmh370-flaperon%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=8BkxMDTjOUXNjM%253A%252C4qmqP3lTW0RrgM%252C_&usg=__Mg6reseTQ-TZnoc80xEO5qCkTQg%3D&ved=0ahUKEwjuss2Rx4jNAhWEJZQKHUK2AYAQyjcINA&ei=xbxPV668OYTL0ATC7IaACA#imgrc=VRsQO-yqBrSuPM%3A
Please say if that does not do it and I will try Dropbox.
@Matty
You Mustn’t go. We need your insightful inputs, and your unique, wonderfully Aussie turn of phrase as an antidote to some of the esoteric, dry-as-dust textbook stuff we have to wade through here.
@Dr Mike Hunt
I’ve discovered myself how difficult it is to identify some of these objects.
I originally thought the piece with the seal and raised profile was an undercarriage door, the MLG trunnion door to be exact. I now realize (after conferring with Don Thompson) that it cannot an undercarriage part. Apart from being the wrong shape, undercarriage doors are quite beefy in construction, while the piece in question is of lightweight, according to the finder.
Yes I agree. It would be a miss when someone so close to ‘the fire’ and is able to scroll beaches now and then looking for towelettes;-) would leave a diverse blog like this one.
I know more of us get upset sometimes..
So please get over it.
Matty-Perth
I suggest the Wizard of Oz cast a spell and your important/insightful posting remain active.
You must not go – Jeff meant a pull back, though I disagree, not dispatch to an alien existence.
@Rob
Besides that the undercarriage doors like that whole area are painted grey. This piece is white.
I searched everywhere still cann’t find a possible place where it could fit.
That loose end with the seal is the problem.
Besides the spoilers I cann’t find any part yet with such a ‘loose end’.
And it is said it sure is not a piece of a spoiler (which I agree on).
@Jeff Wise
Maybe you could contact this guy about identifying parts?
Lives in San Fransisco.
He seems to know the 777 in every detail..
Watch this.. rather unbelievable..
http://www.tzibele.com/777-paper-model/
@Ge Rijn, Wow, you’re right, that is almost literally unbelievable. It’s amazing (and a little terrifying) what a human being can do with enough time and ingenuity.
@Gysbrecht, Oleksandr,
So we’re not quite saying that BTO is a measure of E/W velocity, but that the rate of change in it is. Right? I get it – if the movement is entirely E/W, there should be no BFO because of the compensation.
What caught my attention was the idea that a single BTO value yielded an E/W velocity. That was how I interpreted the comment.
The reason I raised it is because a long time ago in another forum somebody was suggesting that BTO and BFO values were simply encoded longitude and latitude values, which clearly they are not.
@Matty – really hope you stick around.
@Ge Rijn
A real teaser this one. It cannot be a spoiler, I agree.
Ken, and Don Thompson (in a personal communication) are inclining toward a wing or tailplane closing panel. I’m tempted to agree.
A forensic scientist with the right knowledge would have a field day with this one. The piece is telling a story about how it got separated from the wing – if only we could decipher it!
The LH edge (in the photo with profiled side uppermost) with the seal is relatively undamaged, while the RH edge is badly damaged. What would have been the near edge is missing altogether. Evidently the near edge and RH edge took the brunt of the force when it was broken off. There is also a crease across the raised profile, suggesting it was subject to torsion or bending as it was broken off.
If I were a betting man, I would say it came from somewhere in the vicinity of the flaperon or outboard flap, as this region of the trailing edge appeared to have come off worse during the impact, but I must stress this is my personal opinion only, influenced to some degree by dreaded confirmation bias.
@Rob
Yes I also thought of a closing panel.
I mentioned in an earlier post one of the four panels from the upper side of the hor.stabilizer next to the ‘Blain Gibson’ panel.
There are front/back similarities and the dimenssions could maybe fit.
But that loose sealed end.. won’t close a gap tight and leave it to flutter.
And the ‘Blain Gibson’ panel has alu-honeycomb, this one hasn’t.
But it’s also not carbon reinforced.
And it’s not tapered afterall.
I decided for now it cann’t be a closing panel like that.
Maybe one from the back of the wing that seals off a flap or aileron when retrackted?
A kind of cove door?
I see it also consists out of two seperate layers; a thin honeycomp top-panel and the thickend bottom piece seemingly glued and bolted together. Assuming the other missing sides where also bolted but you cann’t be sure. Could well be sealed and gleud edge too.
Afterall it could even be a kind of (floor) hatch from within the cabin with on one side (the visible one) a piano hince attached.
Or it’s not from a plane at all..
But I wonn’t give up still 😉
@David said;
” I notice the “holes” of the Analysis exhibit 13 are not in the
same place as the marks in the same area in the Reunion Island photo”
I can understand how it may ‘seem’ that the holes are not there –
it may be helpful to compare those photos with this photo;
http://www.franceinter.fr/sites/default/files/imagecache/scald_image_max_size/2015/08/05/1134981/images/aile.jpg
wherein it can be seen that the ‘large’ hole is actually next to
the fourth (counting from the bottom) fastener. Therefore the
‘large’ hole (and two of the smaller ‘holes’) are too high to
be seen in the Reunion Island photo you cited, and only the
lowest of the small holes can be seen.
(I am using now this larger version of the Reunion Island photo;)
http://031c074.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Outboard-end-cap.jpg
_
Another helpful guide is to note the position of the chunk
missing from the vertical support (line) between the large and smaller holes, and helpful to understand that the additional
holes in the Reunion photo (the holes nearest to the green circle
marked ‘B’) are actually (in the Flaperon report picture on
page 16, almost hidden) behind the strip that can be seen in
the Reunion photo between the numerals marked ‘2’ and ‘3’.
_
I acknowledge your suggestion that the ‘holes’ may instead be
merely exposed black material that exists under the flaperons
surface… mmm, guess I will say ‘black marks’ from now on
instead of saying ‘holes’. (I don’t abandon my suggestion as
to the cause of the ‘black marks’, as contact with the bolts
as previously identified could cause such ‘black marks’.)
Incidently, the ‘large’ ‘black mark’ that you have trouble
seeing is there, it is just touching the (line of the) trailing
edge of the outboard Flap.
You’re right, I was mistaken, it is a Flap that is next outboard
to the flaperon, not an aileron.
@Jeff
Kudos for you not getting involved in a flame war with the
Matty-smear-Shah-show. Given the one minute difference in
the post by ‘Matthew’, I’m wondering if you allow multiple
(user)names to be used by one (possibly same) poster.
I for one would be delighted to see ‘Matty’ depart, not
least because of his pivot to attack YOU (and this forum) –
gee, whose kneejerk reaction is that when they are
challenged…
@buyerninety, Thanks for your support. I wondered the same thing, but Matty — Perth is from Australia and the other seems to be from California. Maybe separated at birth…
I wouldn’t have used the name Susie had I known there was already a Susie Crowe. So I apologise for that and hope she isn’t offended or feels her toes have been trodden on.
It just seemed like the obvious choice at the time, being my name : )
Does anyone want me to change it? I can if you like. I think it may have caused a little confusion at the start of my (very amateur) contributing life.
@David
Incidently, I didn’t forget about your comments re APU,
e.g. APU using about 2 lb/min fuel, if APU attempted to
pressurize fuel line to left engine (as you have found it
should have) and if igniters actually did ignite the fuel,
fuel use by the left engine should exhaust (remaining) fuel
pretty quickly, thereby quickly depowering the APU.
(Approx. estimate of fuel used by a 777-200ER Trent 892B
engine on a lb/min basis in flight cruise might be able to
be arrived at if ACARS msgs from other Trent 892B engined
777-200ER’s could be found on the net.)
Just in case you weren’t aware of it, here is a ‘representative’ diagram of the Engine and APU Fuel Feed lines (on page 10-8);
http://www.aviationlearning.net/files/B777 REFRESHER GE RR.pdf
Cheers
@Susie
I think you are ok just as you are.
Buyerninety – if Matthew were indeed Matty from Perth, he would have to be a bloody fast typer to get all that down in under a minute.
If you note their posts consecutively at the top of this page you will see what I mean.
As far as I’m concerned, different name = different poster and I think it’s wrong to accuse someone of sock puppeting with no evidence.
YMMV
@Rob,
Thank you : )
@Ge Rijn
Yes, keep at it. I think it’s definitely from the aircraft, most likely from the wing.
It doesn’t appear ( from the photos, at least) to have any trace of camber or curve in shape. It’s flat, in other words.
Edit;
Reference my last post, about;
http://www.aviationlearning.net/files/B777 REFRESHER GE RR.pdf
view instead ‘representative’ fuel diagram on page 10-7.
@Jeff – @Susie – @Marc + + +
Regarder bien ces 4 images dont les liens se trouve ci dessous:
http://www.casimages.com/i/160602023959327368.jpg.html
http://www.casimages.com/i/160602024021764399.jpg.html
http://www.casimages.com/i/160602024024499120.jpg.html
http://www.casimages.com/i/16060202402763632.jpg.html
Maintenant aller sur ce lien :
http://www.tomnod.com/campaign/mh370_indian_ocean/map/16gxwy59
Vérifier par vous même ces images.
1: Position de l’image avec les coordonnées GPS .
2: Toujours l’emplacement mais d’une altitude supérieure en haut a droite ce petit point regarder les nuages a gauche .
3: Ce que vous n’avez put voir la première fois
4: Observer sous les cercles violets les traces et les remous du a un objet que l’on peut appeler “Avion”
Maintenant Réfléchissez OK.
@Erik
I understand your reasoning in (the incapacitation) scenario
you are evaluating – but perhaps try to put yourself more
fully in pilot Shah’s shoes.
IGARI to VPG or VAMPI (or just offset from VPG or from
VAMPI) – this is understandable as overflight of the
Malay/Thai border takes you over a hilly/mountainous region
with a proportionally lower density of population (and
delivers your aircraft near to an airport in case you fix
‘whatever the problem was’, whilst finally overflying water
in case ‘the problem overcame you’.
In THAT case, you may have programmed the autopilot to then
direct the aircraft along the Straits and out into Ocean
(instead of ‘programming nothing’ after VPL or VAMPI which
exposes the risk the autopilot will simply onfly the
aircraft past nearby VPG or VAMPI and on to overfly heavily
populated Indonesia).
If programming to fly along the Straits from vicinity VPL or
VAMPI, wouldn’t you choose next Waypoint to be such that
there is no ‘established linking corridor’ from VPL or
VAMPI to it i.e. so there’s least likeihood of your aircraft
encountering other aircraft. (Or, if next possible waypoints
all had established linking corridors, could you easily
program a parallel but offset flightpath to the vicinity of
the next waypoint?).
Following on with this intention in mind, (although I don’t
suggest the intermediate waypoint(s) ), I would suggest that
the waypoint at the final turn south, must be a waypoint
whereat, if the autopilot onflys from that waypoint (either
onwards to another more southerly waypoint or on a definate
programmed heading south), there must be thereafter no
overflight of land.
Cheers
Ge Rijn Posted June 2, 2016 at 12:51 AM wrote “@Susie Yes I see what you mean about this hole through the piece.”
The sharp straight edges of the holes in the part reminds me of very high speed impacts with hard objects that can cut a part; seen in Boeing testing. Not a cut caused directly by water impact. Looks like a secondary impact with other parts of the airplane as it disintegrates. I don’t see potting compound in the core; usually needed for a fitting. Part would not have a fitting in that location. (i.e. Small airplanes have trim tabs that are mechanically linked to the main control surface to provide trim forces; thus could have fitting on small slow speed aircraft. Example: http://www.theairlinepilots.com/forumarchive/principlesofflight/balancetab.jpg )
Multiple trailing edges breaking off? Unusual? Caused by flutter?
T/E parts have H/C. H/C helps them float. Floating parts are what we are finding. Mostly external parts. A very high speed impact would cause the interior H/C luggage bins, interior H/C dividers, H/C floor panels to breakup and possibly float free. T/E is lightest weight structure. More likely to break off. Flutter; maybe; but highly unlikely during an accident as a separate event. Probability issue.
Bottom line: Anything can happen in a crash landing at speed. We did ballistic testing. Interesting results.
@ susie – a song from i believe the 1950’s ….Oh….Oh…Susie darling….( etc….etc..) well, you being the darling of the site …I could humbly suggest..: “SusieDarling”…whatcha think…? ? G.
or ” DarlingSusie “
@Susie
or this one maybe? 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1fImXAeS-s
@GeRijn, @George Connelly, @everybody, Please, please, please, let’s not go down this path. I like ’50s rock n’ roll as much as the next guy but @Susie is @Susie. Like Cher and Fabio the one name is enough.
@Ken Goodwin
Have you got any clue on that seal-panel?
Does that kind of honeycomb and construction match an aircraft panel precisely?
I’m starting to have my doubts.
Also with the material by that wrinkel on the back side. It seems too flexibel to me leaving such a dent without cracking.
@Matty-Perth
since your last comment on me, I was away but noticed quite interesting development in opening of your mind here – sorry, but I cant think that Hishammuddin Hussein is some kind of bad guy… for sure not that he is “dreaming about killing anybody else” or what, I cant remeber the discussion; and dont want such hate too; WHY? He is defence minister, there are trainings (as everywhere on the globe, but, you know, exercises only, maybe preented more in media than before, nothing else), ya, and they all are our alies, and partners in fight against terrorism (believe or not, including China, and of course, including Russia) – particulary in such asia hub against nuclear material illegal trade; Obama told it already during Malaysia visit few weeks after MH370 vanished (on youtube, as usual); SO, WHY?
https://www.facebook.com/HishammuddinH2O/
@GeRijn, @George Connelly, @Jeffwise, @everybody
WHY NOT?, remembering today the John Denver’s versions (and his 1983 PMRC hearing, sure – all found in context of this case, somehow), but this another one music video pushed by youtube easily after entering the song name…?
at least, for break… again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbt2G71uT1M
@ Jeff – Susie started it…. @the rest of youse guys….we’ve been warned…
LOL! I didn’t anticipate this. I must apologise, yet again.
Sorry Jeff.
The rest of you…behave : ) And thank you for the suggestions, and dare I say it, the videos.
Most unnecessary, but great fun on a slow debris day!
@falken
Beautifull performance.. and very sad in the context.. I guess we all realize this behind the laughs.
I understand Jeff’s intervention though.
@Matty – Perth,
Please don’t go, you were always the voice of sanity and humaneness in this forum. I liked very much reading your comments.
The involvement of Singapore air force in MH370 disappearance indicates this affair is bigger than a hijacking by Shah or any plot the Malaysian opposition could field. As an Israeli I sympathize with your point of view but a lot of circumstantial evidence suggests Singapore did it for us, possibly as part of an operation to penetrate Iranian air space.
@Ge Rijn
excuse me, I am not laughing at all; if you look around into real news, then its there; something is changing; but its crazy, as Jeff told
deep impact of emotions from music and lyrics; but I dont know, no; I cant even understand and describe all the associations coming into mind; but it all sparked inside the week of main events…; better doing something else and real, sure; I am trying
@ All – when you have some friends over, a nice demonstration for them to get a “realistic” feel for the Isat coverage , or footprint, if you will: equipment needed is one world globe ( 14″ or bigger works best ) and one fairly bright flashlight….place the globe on your coffee table, and shine the flashlight from a point roughly duplicating the position of the sat. down on the surface of said globe….move closer , or further, depending on focus of the beam….voila…you have your arcs, move closer for 1st arc, and further for your 7th arc…its better if you take a sharpie and mark on the surface of the globe the aprox. location of the 7th arc…and you can see the completed circle of the arc…up the ctr. of Africa….east tip of the Med. around and through S.E. Asia….nice visual….G.
Oh….it does work much better if you remember to turn the flashlight on…
@falken
Yes something is changing with no reason to laugh about at all.
But I wonder: is it by ‘real news’?
Or is it by the news offered by media controlled by governments and/or commerce changing our perception of reality?