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”.
@Susie,
Nice of you to clarify, no offense taken and no toes stepped on, you made the distinction in one of your first comments.
@Matty-Perth
As mentioned earlier by both Rand & Rob, maybe a break to clear the mind. As a veteran here, you have been vested mentally for a very long time
@buyerninety. On the flaperon, thanks. I agree that the high “holes” would be invisible in that photo. I note too the extra two black marks. The chunk missing you refer to joins the evidence as does the distortion of the web to its rear, ie that with the lightening hole.
I notice there are other black marks in your second photo on the bottom of the rib at its rear and also up in the crushed front section below the lightening/access hole there. There are some also on the inner rib, Analysis exhibit 19. This does suggest that all are indeed marks.
The photos provide meagre evidence and require interpretation and speculation which would be unnecessary to investigators (eg holes vs marks). It is frustrating to devote effort two years later to establishing what would be quite evident from even a preliminary investigation report on this item.
There was a premier of Queensland who called his press conferences “feeding the chooks”. Cock a doodle do!
@JeffWise you sound miserable lately… No one would think less of you for taking a step back from all of this. Can’t be healthy fixating on one subject all the time. Plus you must be sick of everyone after all this time lol.
Hang in there @Everybody I’m always quietly in the back ground, reading obsessively. I still think we’ll never find the plane 🙁 I’d love to be wrong about that. But that’s my honest opinion.
Ge Rijn Posted June 2, 2016 at 2:13 PM wrote “That seal-panel? Does …”it”…. match an aircraft panel precisely?……… the material by that wrinkle on the back side. It seems too flexible to me leaving such a dent without cracking.”
I don’t have access to a 777 to check; so, match precisely; No. It looks very much like the panels we approved for production. Even has the white coating on the vacuum bag (inside) side. Those types of panels are made by suppliers.
Boeing developed some very damage resistant composite materials. Required for the weight savings. It is all in the resin systems. If it is made from BMS 8-276 primary structure systems, or BMS 8-256 a secondary structure systems; the resin systems are a combination of thermoset resins for strength with thermoplastic resins added for damage tolerance. Easy to see the system used; with a micrograph of the cross section. The article I posted yesterday from our Materials group shows a slide, page No. 44, with and without damage tolerant resin systems; Dramatic difference. Hitting toughened panels with hammers had little effect.
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~jps7/Aircraft%20Design%20Resources/Structures/Boeing%20777%20materials.pdf
@Ge Rijn
pls, keep out of conspiracy theories about the governments (well selected) as the root evil of all; governments are here in fact for us, they are voted by us, they are monitored by us, they are (at least now, finally) working for us in most countries; media and commerce is different thing, there can be far more of dirty things in private hands and this is the problem; in fact, democracy is too open and so too vulnerable that it effectivelly defends also any bas*ard with lot of money, nio matter of country; and they are around for sure, they can even control media in some cases – which equals to fingers on mind-nukes; but at the same time, there are good people with money and power too and most of them, I believe, sure; but very few bas*ards can pollute and poison minds and lives of majority quite easily – in case there are involved money; so, what is happening now is that money impact of bas*ards goes down; and they are in danger, they know it, so everything bad pops up too; but they are already destroyed, although they dont know it yet; at least I think so
@buyerninety. About a left engine relight potentially using all the residual fuel otherwise available for an APU autostart, yes very conscious of this thanks. The ATSB explanation for the 7th arc log-on has it that the APU needs a minute to start and another minute for the SDU to reboot and transmit the log-on request. This does not take much fuel but with all residual spent the APU would be dependent on fuel in its line for this. On the ground it can draw fuel from the left tank through the line without fuel pumps running (http://www.smartcockpit.com/aircraft-ressources/B777-Engines_and_APU.html. Page 29) However it is unclear to me that it could do this at altitude, with vapour lock a risk, even were the quantity in the line sufficient.
I have brought this to the ATSB’s notice but without reaction, so possibly the potential problem has no foundation or else they are busy with what-nexts, or both, my alert being too late to warrant priority.
Your diagram is similar to that at the Training Manual 28-25-00 page 13 accompanied by explanation of APU fuel pump operations. Thanks for that; and the manual looks interesting.. The “by-pass” check valve in your diagram is a separate gravity draw down suction point, for when left main (boost) fuel pumps are not working. I assume that this suction point will not access the residual fuel: if it could and in sufficient quantity the residual fuel would be gone before flame out.
Besides the above I believe that the ATSB has not allowed for the 30-40 seconds for the APU air inlet to open in its overall timing from fuel exhaustion.
I do not think the effect of all this on the search area would be major unless recourse was needed to a pilot being present to explain the seventh arc log-on. About this, the only alternative explanation I can offer for the 7th arc log-on request, unmanned, is AC being generated in a dive by engine windmilling. Over a minute of this would be needed for log-on to complete, and the SDU antenna would need to be accessing the satellite in what might be a spiral dive. Other than that, manning in the cockpit would provide the explanation, in which case a glide becomes more likely.
A quite different alternative, and feasible, explanation for the 7th arc log-on is OXY’s postulation. If left engine AC generation had been disconnected when both were running, the right engine providing AC to both buses then failing at fuel exhaustion, the APU would autostart at that point and reboot the SDU. The left engine would continue running for up to fifteen minutes (the ATSB estimate) to its own fuel exhaustion, some 90 or more air miles, albeit without autopilot. With a pilot onboard, adding this to a glide could take the aircraft 180 miles beyond the 7th arc. However an explanation would be needed for why the IFE would not connect in that scenario, SDU power continuing for that. The evidence is that it didn’t.
@Serge
Sorry, I don’t see evidence of anything plane-related in those photos, even with your clarification and even with looking and thinking closely.
@Ken Goodwin. I hope these points have not been raised and I missed them. The panel in Jeff’s bottom photo has dual lines evident running down either side of the hump. There is one perpendicular if not two at the top. They may be blue? There may be faint shading also on the hump. Are the lines from manufacture? At first glance they have a cosmetic look to them.
It is curious there is a black mark to the left (seal side) of the hump which aligns with the perpendicular mark, an abrasion or witness mark of some sort with some connection to the line?
Also if you would care to access a like photo on this site, https://twitter.com/BBCwestcott this shows more of the object’s right side. You will see what looks like a green substrate to the right, under the outer skin. It looks to be separate to the outer skin but maybe that is an illusion. Perhaps a standard element of manufacture?
I notice that the right lines on the hump appear in this photo to be tracks.
About your point on the likelihood of the hole through the control surface trailing edge being caused by (what I would call) a high speed projectile it certainly has that appearance in which case that might be evidence that this was a crash at high speed, a dense object striking it, probably having at least one edge.
One further thing, re “T/E parts have H/C”. There appears to be none in the flaperon trailing edge, looking at the Reunion Island photos of the damaged skin behind the rear spar, not that this is a candidate for that. The flaperon piece would be around 60 cm wide and without honeycomb would not float.
@David,
The dual lines look like kind of seams to me. Seams resulting from multiple layers of cloth used in making the outer skin of that panel, which are smaller and smaller in later layers. The shading of the lines are due to, well, shade from obliquely falling light on the faint steps between the layers. The same pattern is present in the “No Step” panel.
@falken
I feel generaly the same the way you discribed.I won’t fall in full blown conspiracy thinking easy for I’m aware my perception too is at risk of becoming distorted if I feed myself only with ‘real news’ brought by commerce-priority-based media or government controlled ones.
This ‘real news’ is not necessaraly untrue but often very selective in chosen topics and framed in suggestibel contexts to appeal to as much viewers possible gaining the highest possible advertisement revenues.
Government controlled media on the other hand pic and frame their news only with the goal of letting people believe what they want them to believe. Both are prone to distort the perception of reality in people but with different motivations.
The way information about MH370 has been handled thussfar by the mix of both, resulted in the confusion which changed the perception of many people towards conspiricy thinking and conspiricy theories.
Imo they are not all to blame for this in this case but much more those media the way they processed and/or manipulated the ‘real news’.
Interesting new piece by Richard Godfrey regarding drift modelling to include all nine of the items.
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2652
Seems to suggest that the most likely starting position is around 29/30S, 98/99E.
Many other locations do not support the eventual destination of several of the items so far discovered.
However this does present certain issues when considering the flight path taken – it might indicate some ‘loitering’ around Sumatra, alternatively (and I think more likely) it could mean it was flown fairly low, and fairly slow – which would fit with Don Thompson’s suggestion that avoiding other aircraft would have been a consideration – or it might support Victor’s suggestion that the 18:40 BFO was caused by a descent.
I’m just trying to summarise here, without having a full understanding of these issues, so forgive me if I have got it a bit mixed up.
@Susie
Thank you for that.
My earlier suggestions f.i. to Brock McEwen have suprisingly been carried out.
And the results give suprisingly (not quite to me) almost the same coördinates I challenged Brock McEwen with a week or so ago; 31:40S 99.5E.
I assume this blog gets read by certain people who never place posts here or it’s another case of ‘telephatic synchronicity’ 😉
@Serge, @Alexandra, Me either.
Buyerninety, VictorI, Paul Smithson,
Please consider a slight modification to VictorI’s suggested flight-path, namely …-ANOKO-BEDAX-ISBIX
ISBIX is almost due south from BEDAX, and is part of the Jakarta airspace…
Swift suggestion, WITT chosen as primary emergency landing site, Jakarta International as the next, ISBIX was the last waypoint entered…
Pilots chose one primary & one alternate landing site, tried to make onboard repairs, partially successful but ultimately unable to slow below 400kts or descend below 20-30K’, something (perhaps descent?) triggered severe mechanical failure of the fuselage & pressure hull, inducing incapacitation by ~18:45 and ghost-flight in “Route Discontinuity” after ISBIX ~20:00 ??
@ Serge,
Peut-être si vous pouvez superposer la forme de l’avion, ce que vous voyez, sur une capture d’écran de la carte que vous avez lié à – cela pourrait nous aider à visualiser ce que vous êtes en mesure de voir?
(Je m’excuse de mon Francais)
@ Ge Rijn – that’s really interesting – I wonder if we could draw a map with all the ‘best guess’ locations of the people here, and others whose views we might consider, and see where the most seem to meet up?
Susie (and Ge Rijn),
Re: “Seems to suggest that the most likely starting position is around 29/30S, 98/99E.”
Well, see my September 2014 paper, where I first predicted this location. I have recently revamped the model, AP in ATT+V/S mode, and the terminal locations are still around 99E. I will post a note in coming days, hopefully.
As you could notice, this location was also a subject of my arguing with Brock McEwen with regard to the drift studies and possible location of the “Curtin boom” (roughly 100 km away), as well as with regard to the towelette.
Susie,
Correction: 2015, not 2014.
@ Oleksandr – we really do need a map! I’m not aware of your papers – would you be happy to link to them, for the benefit of those of us who joined the forum later?
That would be fantastic.
Btw my own favourite best guess is around 32S,102E.
Not that far off.
Susie,
Click “New York: How Crazy Am I to Think I Actually Know Where That Malaysia Airlines Plane Is?”. See the 4th last comment with the link. There was a December’s revision, not much different.
The work of Richard Godfrey suggesting the timing and location of the recovered debris suggest a crash point along the 7th arc around 29S-30S has some interesting implications.
The ATSB in its detailed report issued on June 26, 2014, proposed a search zone along the 7th arc and centered on 29S-30S, which was based on a permitted turn to the south later than 18:40 UTC. If we attribute the dip in BFO data at 18:40 due to a descent rather than a turn to the south, that ATSB analysis is still valid, although the 18:40 data is inexplicably ignored in the report. If the descent occurred, it would also invalidate the DSTG study, which implicitly bounded the turn south between 18:28 and 18:40.
There is no need for a system failure to explain the path. The features of the path inferred from the radar captures as presented in the DSTG report suggest a plane that was operational and hand-flown, with slight variations in track and significant variation in speed, most likely from climbs/descents. Statements from Thai officials claiming that radar captures were intermittent, the “hole” in the Malaysian radar data shown to the NOK at the Lido Hotel, and the BFO value at 18:40 are all consistent with a climbs/descents along the path.
Looking at the entirety of the data, one possibility is that the plane was hand-flown at high-speed after IGARI, turning back towards Penang, then up the Malacca Strait, turning to the south in the vicinity of the Andamans, and crossing the 7th arc between 29S – 30S. At times during this path, the plane was climbing and descending at high speeds.
If that occurred, it’s almost as though the pilot was flying the plane as though he was on one last joy-ride, similar to other flights he had taken on his simulator many times.
This is all conjecture, of course. But other than the unexplained mindset of the pilot, it does offer a simple scenario that is consistent with the evidence we know. And if this scenario occurred, it is not surprising that Malaysia would hide additional evidence that was discovered during its criminal investigation. Perhaps reports that appeared in June 2014 citing FBI sources claiming that simulated flight paths to the SIO were found on the pilot’s computer were true. Miles O’Brien, somebody not known for wild speculation, continues to insist that these reports were accurate.
@Oleksandr
I was more refering to my suggestion done here to Brock McEwen (and others) to attempt a new drift study in which all till now found debris confirmed and unconfirmed was incorporated.
The location I gave on his challenge is based on other assumptions as yours but it’s interesting to me how different roads can lead to the same area/~coördinates.
At least now there is a more realistic reverse drift study (not only based on the flaperon) which can be matched with the ISAT data, explain lack of debris found on other shores and even match with your ‘Curtin boom’-event.
Imo when different roads based on different assumptions and information all start to lead to a same outcome, put together they might well come a lot closer to a solution.
@Oleksandr
Please consider the path
IGARI-Penang-VAMPI-MEKAR-NILAM-ANOKO-BEDAX-ISBIX… route-discontinuity w/ MAG HOLD
The following graphic displays a contour-map of Magnetic Anomaly across the SIO, please note ’tis not a map of field-lines.
The a/c enters route discontinuity past ISBIX near the equator on a heading of almost due south. As the plane travels southwards, increasing magnetic anomaly deflects the instantaneous heading increasingly eastwards.
Straight-forward mechanical “turn the crank” plotting of the path, from Magnetic Anomaly contour-line to contour-line, deflecting the path 1deg eastwards per contour-line…
generates a path straight to 29.5S on the 7th ping ring, as you are welcome to observe on my graphic, and verify for yourself:
http://s33.postimg.org/iabzc2izj/Curtin_boom_path.png
@Susie
I like to know where your coördinates 32S 102E are based on.
Are you willing to explain?
please permit me to add, that the above-posted image also display a blue path, heading out into the CIO, on an initial heading of 200-deg from ANOKO-BEDAX, including deflection due to magnetic anomaly only (no wind FX).
One observes, that such a path projects far too far out into the CIO to be consistent with the BTO ping rings. Thus, some additional turn, due southwards, is required. The 19:41 ping-ring resides at, or very near, the exact longitudes of BEDAX-ISBIX, throughout the equatorial region. That appears to be a most conspicuous coincidence. Waypoints ANOKO-BEDAX-ISBIX are a sensible string of coordinates to enter into the FMC. Moreover, the curving path to 29.5S is almost identical to Dr. Duncan Steel’s 400kts constant-speed path, equivalent to 720kph, very similar (~10%) to Inmarsat’s JoN article path at 800-830kph.
A slower path could be construed as consistent, with a descent for landing attempt, and also a “cabin disintegrating” scenario with dramatically increased air-resistance & drag, amongst many others
@ Oleksandr – many thanks, I will take a look.
@Victor – if only we could see what was on Zaharie’s simulator.
@ Ge Rijn,
Sorry, I forgot to refresh the page so didn’t see the last few posts.
Does Richard’s latest agree with the Curtin noise line? That would be even better if it does.
Please do not get excited about my favourite location. It’s based on an extremely unscientific, but thorough, examination of weather radar images. It’s all I am able to do, to stare at images…no mathematical skills, no aviation knowledge worth a jot.
As I said – don’t be excited. But I would be very pleased if it did turn out to be correct.
Olexandr’s TC_CTS-Rev1.0 article fig.5 shows a flight-path qualitatively similar to a constant MAG HOLD path south from BEDAX-to-ISBIX. Wind FX could drive the aircraft eastwards. And perhaps relevant wreckage & debris could have drifted northwards, towards the “Chinese ping”, prior to sinking towards the seabed ?
Military radar track… to ANOKO-BEDAX-ISBIX… to Curtin-boom event… seems more-than-less consistent with plausible scenarios, satellite data, drift analyses, acoustic data, and ocean searches.
2Susie – Not sure what type of map you would like but two years ago I drew a map in Google Maps that included impact points as suggested by various contributors to this forum.
Unfortunately when I started this effort I didn’t know how to use layers so the base layer has so much information that it is hard to follow. Here is a link:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?hl=en&authuser=0&mid=17oFAjKpXbCVwlImsLBHKs2a-afQ
@Erik Nelson: A path following near BEDAX-ISBIX and then following a near constant 180M deg heading is worth exploring, even if varying speed is required to match the BTO. The possibility of a manually flown plane throws out all assumptions of constant speed.
@ Lauren – wow. That’s incredible. It must have taken a huge amount of work.
I was only fantasising about a simple, quick sort of version of that – with the most recent conclusions of various people, who appear to have come at it from different directions, and still many of whom have ended up with similar co-ords.
Just to see if there appeared to be a consensus. Also perhaps showing the current and previously searched areas.
I would not presume to ask anyone to do this, and don’t have the skills to myself (I wish I had)
Your map is really impressive.
@Susie
Don’t worry I’m not getting too excited, just curious at your thoughts and data.
And if they are based on weather radar images that makes me only more curious even a bit excited 🙂
How can you possibly abstrahate coördinates from weather radar data? I realy like to know.
With my mentioning of the Curtin boom event in previous post even possibly matching the ISAT-data I gave a leg to Oleksands’s words with his bringing the event near to area 30S 99E (as I understood).
As you read before maybe I don’t add much (if any) weight to this Curtin boom event.
But you never know and if it would fit (which it still doesn’t well imo) it could be another event which could underline all current data that point to this area around 30S 99E now.
@VictorI: ” The possibility of a manually flown plane throws out all assumptions of constant speed.”
In that case, what is the merit of a constant magnetic heading?
@Victorl
To throw out all assumptions of a constant speed, altitude and even constant heading after FMT based on a ghost-flight, wouldn’t that be a relieve now?
Wouldn’t it open up possibilities not all seriously looked at before to investigate further?
Even now allready specialists like you and others seem to be able to fit the Inmarsat data with a (more or less) controled flight till the end according this new drift study and other new information.
Hopefully all those efforts will result in the continuing of the search effort.
If specialists like you and those others will together be able to come forward with a new search area based on convincing data and thoughts it might stand a change imo.
@Gysbreght: A piloted plane is probably flown to somewhere or along some heading. I am conjecturing that the pilot flew towards magnetic south. It is just a theory that many others will certainly disagree with, but as you have heard before, I am fond of BEDAX-South path because of the tangency to the arc at 19:41. I was mostly considering true south paths at constant speed, but magnetic south at varying speed should also be considered.
@eric there is a magnetic course projection tool at aqqa (magnetic heading hold) that you might find useful. i have also adapted this for magnetic track hold.
David Posted June 3, 2016 at 12:23 AM Wrote …….. Jeff’s bottom photo has dual lines evident running down either side of the hump. There is one perpendicular if not two at the top. They may be blue? There may be faint shading also on the hump. Are the lines from manufacture?”
“It is curious there is a black mark to the left (seal side) of the hump which aligns with the perpendicular mark, an abrasion or witness mark of some sort with some connection to the line?”
“ https://twitter.com/BBCwestcott ….this shows more of the object’s right side. You will see what looks like a green substrate to the right, under the outer skin.”
“T/E parts have H/C”. There appears to be none in the flaperon trailing edge, looking at the Reunion Island photos of the damaged skin behind the rear spar, not that this is a candidate for that. The flaperon piece would be around 60 cm wide and without honeycomb would not float.”
MuOne Posted June 3, 2016 at 3:21 AM wrote “The dual lines look like kind of seams to me. Seams resulting from multiple layers of cloth used in making the outer skin of that panel, which are smaller and smaller in later layers.”
========================================================
Correct; They are the edge of plies of carbon fibers. Probably composite tape as opposed to fabric (cloth). Composite parts are made up of layers/plies of “Prepreg – Resin with fibers”; the layers are oriented in +45/-45/0/90 degrees of fiber direction, based on a compass on the drawing. Zero degrees for the compass is usually in the long direction of the part. For H/C panels plies are layed up on the tool surface, in this case the flat side of the panel, then the core is added, then a bag side layer of “Prepreg” in an opposite / mirror image orientation of the tool side layup of “Prepreg” material. They are oriented in a balanced way so you have an even number of orientations of the plies through the depth of the part. This is all done to reduce warpage of the part during fabrication. Depending on how many plies one has to work with the orientation is balanced within a layup or at a minimum within the total panel itself.
The “blue” lines are edges of plies. They should be ½ inch or more apart. Think of a picture frame shape (donut shape with a hole in the middle) for a ply of “Prepreg”. As noted by MuOne; of various sizes. More plies are added to the ramp/tapered area of H/C for the design requires more strength as the H/C gets thinner near the edges of the panel. The thinnest composite skins will be in the middle of the panel. Usually at “Minimum Gage’ design requirements.
Adhesive is usually added between the H/C and the composite plies. Adhesive can also be added to the tool side surface of the part (flat side) to improve the wet-out of the resin system to improve surface smoothness. Typical adhesive used is FM-300 which has a green color. The green on the part looks a little brown/green so it might not be FM300 but a variant that is browner.
Black marks look like impact damage, etc. Not from manufacturing.
The Flaperon debris is only the main box of the part. The T/E has come off. The T/E should be full depth H/C with a possible potted or solid T/E area a few inches wide at the very T/E to improve damage tolerance. The main box is made of Composite H/C panels. They provide the bulk of the flotation.
Just a quick reply to @Ken:
The image at the top of this page, which you have just been discussing in regard to @David’s earlier post, has two what I think are rectangular ‘holes’ along its ‘top’ (as per image above) edge.
They remind me of the series of rectangular holes down the RH side (per linked image) of the confirmed interior piece:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/7295302-3×2-940×627.jpg
I’m not sure about the scale though – similar, or different?
Erik,
I have abandoned magnetic heading scenarios long time ago. There are two major problems with them:
– Both ADIRU and SAARU rely on the data from laser gyroscopes. Magnetic compass is the last resort if nothing else does work, implying a major failure of flight instruments.
– It makes no sense to assume that MH370 was aviated/navigated manually to the SIO for several hours using magnetic compass, especially if before it used high-level LNAV automation mode.
@Susie Posted June 3, 2016 at 1:12 PM “…rectangular ‘holes’ along its ‘top’ (as per image above) edge.”
I don’t see the rectangular ‘holes’. All I see are 4 fastener holes at the top of the debris.
The rest looks like damage.
Links to the front and back of the panel; below.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjYwruzWgAEJTFa.jpg:large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjYxTt8WkAExiGB.jpg
Victor,
Re: “There is no need for a system failure to explain the path.”
True, no need. But it does explain almost everything.
Re: “And if this scenario occurred, it is not surprising that Malaysia would hide additional evidence that was discovered during its criminal investigation.”
Now I am more interested what else MAS and Boeing are hiding. Software glitches, maintenance/budget related issues, security related issues, MBAs,… All these things already poped up.
Re: “The possibility of a manually flown plane throws out all assumptions of constant speed.”
In such a case SIO also can be thrown out.
@Ge Rijn
@All
I think I’ve found where that closing panel comes from, the piece with the seal and the raised rectangular moulding on its underside.
There appear to be two of these panels immediately forward of each flaperon, closing the gap between the upper surface of the wing and the flaperpn
Look closely at the photo of the underside of the fully drooped (extended) flaperon, labeled Exhibit 3, on page 4 of Tom Kenyon’s M370 Flaperon Failure Analysis report. Look up through the gap between the flaperon leading edge and the raised cove lip door, and you can see them, albeit highly foreshortend by the camera lens. Enlarge the photo, and you can even make out a line of rivets or fasteners along the shorter sides. The seal meets the upper leading edge of the flaperon, when it’s in the raised position.
The dent in the rectangular moulding was caused by the cove lip door, as it was forced upwards when the aircraft hit the water.
@ Rob – not sure what a cove lip door is, but would this mean that if this is the correct ID of the piece, the corresponding flaperon (whichever side it was) must have been in place when it hit the water?
Also – I’ve only just found this article which talks about a sonar image that a rival company (didn’t get the tender for the search) reckons ought to be re-examined.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/10/21/mh370-search-sonar-debris-images-should-be-urgently-reexamined-us-firm-says
I hadn’t heard of this at all – does anyone have further details? Location/co-ords, what the eventual upshot was?
Or was it agreed to be non interesting, and abandoned?
@Rob – I can see the panels you’re talking about in the exhibit 3 photograph.
@Rob @Susie Actually if you look at the same report, same page, but Exhibit 2 you will see the panel you are referring to as the cover panel, on edge, with a stiffener attached, with a linkage, to the inbd? end. The panel is horizontal and is at the top of the picture. The seal will be on the right side adjacent to and touching the Flaperon upper leading edge surface. As it is on edge you do not see the structure of the panel.
This may or may not be the debris panel; but it is a leading candidate.
For anyone seeking a break from the latest: do we have any past history to draw from re: hydrophonic detection of an aircraft crashing at sea?
I am interested in both numerator (detections – which may well be zero) and denominator (OPPORTUNITIES to detect; how many ocean impacts have occurred since CTBTO listening stations have been operational?).
If the numerator is greater than zero: were detections of
a) surface impact,
b) implosion while sinking, or
c) hitting the seabed?
Thanks in advance.
Re: 28-32°S impact: either we have significant path circuity near Sumatra or we don’t.
If we DON’T: yes, this impact location is a physical compromise between ISAT+CAD analysis suggesting parts south, and drift analysis suggesting parts north. But if the two analyses are DISPARATE, a compromise is of little value – it puts the impact in a spot counter-indicated by BOTH camps. This calls to mind the idea of a “compromise” regarding which side of the street we should all drive on…
If we DO: why have we now been searching for 20 months (Oct/’14 to Jun/’16) in a zone which cannot even be REACHED if MH370 loitered or landed near Sumatra?!
These circles are, in my opinion, hard to square.
@Susie
I’m glad you can see the two panels I’m referring to! I couldn’t believe it when I first spotted them, talk about eureka moment!
The cove lip door is that narrow panel positioned upstream of the flaperon leading edge. It is connected to the flaperon hinges by a linkage mechanism. The cove lip door acts like a louvre, and allows air to flow from the undersurface of the wing, to the upper surface of the flaperon when it’s in the lowered position, to ensure a smooth airflow over over the flaperon.
The flaperon was attached to the wing, and in the fully lowered position when the aircraft ditched. Water was forced up through the gap between the wing and the flaperon, ripping off the cove lip door and the closing panel (our piece of debris) the edge of the panel with the seal, suffered the least damage in the process, as you would expect.
Moments later, the flaperon itself was ripped away from the wing.
So we have the flaperon, the rectangular closing panel, Liam Lotter’s flap track fairing, and a section of flap, all from the same area of wing trailing edge. It’s nothing short of extraordinary.
@Ken Goodwin
Ken, in the photo exhibit 2, the closing panel(s) is/are actually behind that flange that has the linkage attached. You can just glimpse the trailing edge of one of the panels, beyond where the flange (for want if a better term) finishes. Photo exhibit 3 shows them much better.
@Susie
Susie, I sent you a reply, but it didn’t get posted. Gremlins again!
The gist of it was, yes the flaperon was attached when the plane ditched.