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
I sent Susie a lengthy post a few minutes ago, and it seems to have disappeared.
@Susie
@Ken
@Ge Rijn
For me, this closing panel is added proof that the flaperon, and therefore flaps, were in the extended position when the plane struck the water.
When the plane ditched, water was initially forced up through the gap between the wing and the flaperon, wrenching off the cove lip door and the closing panel just identified. This explains why the edge of the panel with the seal, suffered the least damage.
The flaperon itself was then wrenched away from the wing. Liam Lotter’s fairing was very close by. This part of the plane obviously took the brunt of the initial impact.
@Rob, Susie, Ken,
It sure does look like the piece in exhibit 3.
Is there any confirmed debris, other than the RR, that comes from any other part of the plane?
Seems like there’s a strong possibility that all the debris to date could have come from a very small section of the plane. Where’s the rest of it? Surely there are other pieces with similar properties.
@Rob, I agree that it may have borne the brunt of the damage, but I don’t necessarily agree it was from a water impact.
It looks a little like AA587, where the tail landed in the water but the rest of the plane kept going, albeit a short distance.
In the flaperon case, has it been determined whether the plane could fly without it?
@Rob. The AMM 27.11.00 page 45 depicts a frame work which would support these panels. There are three bays divided by frames, that at the inboard end to which the brace is fitted (Analysis exhibit 2) securing one the side of one panel at its top flange. The bays taper towards the wingtip so that two inboard are longer longitudinally than laterally. The length of the outer edge of the outer bay looks to be about the same as the length at the rear/seal end.
Judging from the photo of that item, it is longer along the seal the lateral width so would not fit.
While the shapes would be more compatible with two panels, on looking at exhibit 3 it does seem that there could be three.
@MuOne, Ken Goodwin. Much appreciate the explanation of the lines and the glue explanations thank you.The ‘edging’ of the glue on the right side is apparently wher the honeycomb ends.
Ken, about the flaperon trailing edge construction, the flaperon analysis exhibits 4, 16, 26 illustrate my comment. There is no sign of honeycomb there attached to the skin at the rear of the spar. Would you confirm?
My above. The separated section is about 60 cm wide and maybe you mean the TE would not extend forward to the rear spar, in which case I suppose it would be touch and go whether that section would float or sink.
@David Posted June 3, 2016 at 10:19 PM Wrote “, about the flaperon trailing edge construction, the flaperon analysis exhibits 4, 16, 26 illustrate my comment. There is no sign of honeycomb there attached to the skin at the rear of the spar. Would you confirm?”
I see H/C along the T/E of the debris in exhibit 26. The brown colored edge with the attached barnacles. The T/E could be two panelized pieces that come together and are bonded at the T/E to form a full depth piece. Or it could just be panelized with a small spar further aft with a full depth H/C attachment the last foot of the assembly similar to the other debris with a small spar.
By the way; since the Flaperon is used to control the airplane in flight; it would be extended (lower) if the aircraft was trying to level itself as it hit the water. The lower wing would have its Flaperon extended down; attempting to level the wing. If at high speed it would be the primary leveling surface with the outbd ailerons locked out; I think.
@Rob. Correction. The inside panel is split into two, longitudinally. That at the rear where the seal would be looks to be about square. The flaperon is 2.4 m long so if bays are equal in width each is about 80 cm. I have seen no dimensions for the recovered object but would guess from the nearby footprint that when undamaged it would be getting towards that size and roughly square. Angles of both the diagram and photo can deceive so measurements are needed.
@Ken Goodwin. Thanks. Yes I see there is honeycomb between skins of the panel though what I was referring to was the full depth honeycomb between panels as per the TE depicted in the top photo above. Cross purposes.
With the aircraft in powered flight the flaps could be lowered though in a glide that would need to have been done before total fuel exhaustion, ie engines and APU. Without that and with RAT operative I believe the right flaperon would act as an aileron, without much deflection, its outer PCU operative. Both left flaperon PCUs would be inoperative. The right aileron would be locked in low speed flight, the left operative.
With flaps pre-lowered and RAT deployed I think the right flaperon would operate likewise as an aileron, it and the left retracting on hydraulic power failure.
So as I see it the flaperon would be deployed both as a flap and in use as an aileron only during a powered ditching, which I imagine is what you had in mind.
@ Ge Rijn,
There’s a very good site called Weathergraphics. A long while ago the chap there published a series of demarcated sectors showing the larger area at consecutive half hourly points in time on the relevant night.
You can study it to your heart’s content here:
http://www.weathergraphics.com/malaysia/iozooms.shtml
Also I expect you’re aware of the NASA site – EOSDIS – here:
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/
You can add or remove layers, search all available dates and so on.
@Rob
Good find! It sure looks similar in more than one way.
If you zoom in on the picture 600% in PDF you see there are probable three of this panels next to eachother.
Or it’s one panel consisting of three compartments (which I think).
Then this find would be one the compartments broken away from the other two.
If you estimate the overall lenght of the found piece ~80cm this would match the width of the flaperon for 3 x 80 would be 2.40.
If you look close you can even see two rows of fasteners where you find one on the found piece and where you would expect the other one also visible on the opposite site in the picture.
I was also looking extensively in this area allready but you’re eyes must be a lot better then mine 😉 I think you nailed it.
But offcourse we still have to be carefull.
Exhibit 2 shows when zoomed in on 600% clearly the side of a black seal at the trailing edge quite similar to the one on the found piece.
If realy confirmed to be a piece from above the flaperon I agree separation of the flaperon together with this piece by a relatively low speed impact on the water surface becomes impossible to ignore any longer and highly likely.
@David
Re estimated dimensions of the panel:
I remember someone earlier in the week, I believe it was Ge Rijn, estimating the size of the piece for me, extrapolating from the footprint in the photo. The result was an estimate of 50cms by 80cms! That’s where it came from, without a doubt.
@Ge Rijn
Yes, It’s great that we can nail where the piece came from. Please note, I see only two panels there, not three. In the Exhibit 3 photo, one panel is largely hidden behind the flaperon actuator fairing. The lens foreshortening reminds me of a Google Earth satellite image of a building, with exaggerated, distorted perspective.
I have to admit that Don Thompson and Ken Goodwin were both a great help, because it was they who were telling me it must be a closing panel. Joint effort, I’d say!
@Susie
Thank you! But to be honest I was only hoping you could give a summary of how you came to those coördinates using weather radar data.
I’m not able or willing to do a study myself for I haven’t got the skills or knowledge to make any sensible sence of those data.
And for you seem to have done this allready it would be overdone anyway won’t it.
So still hope for a summary from you sometime.
@Rob
If you look in perspective and regarding the visible end of the flaperon there must be another similar third part/compartment which is not quite visible in the picture.
But you can see the very edge of it with the row of fasteners deviding this part/compartment from the second just like the row of fasteners dividing the first and second part/compartment. You have to zoom in at 600% in the PDF version to see it clearly.
And thanks for giving me credit on that estimation for you are right it was me who made it this way.
Besides also the comparison with the ‘Blain Gibson’-piece indicating it looked to me some kind of closing panel early on in this topic but concerned about that loose end with the black seal.
But it’s not for the credit I post offcourse.
It’s for the ‘thinking together’ coming to solutions like this which makes it realy worth and nice posting here.
@ Ge Rijn,
It’s really not scientific. I just looked for contrails. Which may or may not even be contrails.
It was intended to be a lighthearted guess, not a serious proposition – it’s something I’ve mentioned before on here, and no one was bothered, and rightly so.
I just mentioned it because it fits nearby with the places other people seem to be looking at.
I am sorry to disappoint you. I wish I had something better and more substantial to offer.
@Susie
Not at all disappointed.
Sounds sensible to me looking for contrails during that night on a route to the south.
It would have been the only flight at that time span in that direction I suppose.
Are those contrails visible on weather radar?
Did you find any in that direction and time span?
I would be very interested if you could show any radar images of them.
Can you? Or give a link?
@Ge Rijn
You weren’t to know, but in a in a previous life I was a reconnaissance photo interpreter! 🙂 It nearly ruined my eyesight, though.
@Rob@KenGoodwin@David
Exhibit 2 shows a flange with a small rod connected. I assume this flange is attached to the panel edge with fasteners on the other side of this flange so not visible in the picture. Then this flange could be ripped off by this rod when the flaperon detached or when this panel detached first followed by the flaperon.
Thoughts on this?
Hi,
I just want to say thanks to you all for keeping this going, you’re all brilliant, especially those who have been at this since the ds days. I love reading this site every morning.
I had a thought, reading ds New article this morning, if people are swinging towards a more northerly and easterly crash site on the 7th arc, that means mh370 would have been flying for up to an hour after sunrise. I wonder if we could get satellite images for dawn on March 8th 2014? It’s a long shot but maybe a satellite caught her in flight before she crashed!
@Ge Rijn
I think that most of the cove door hinge would have stayed with the wing when the cove door and flaperon were ripped off. The flange and bracing rod would have remained in place, imo.
GE Rijn, when you see where the panel was located, tucked away in that position, you have to agree that the only way it could have been forcibly dislodged was by water forced up through the gap in front of the fully lowered flaperon. No other explanation makes sense.
@Rob. I do hope you are right. I need to be clear.The inner bay framing of three parallel bays is split in two longitudinally, so there are four bays in all. The rear bay of the inner two is about square with the seal side 80cm. 50 cm on the non-seal side is well short of square, though interpreting photos and diagrams in three dimensions is driving me batty. But as I see it, if the item, when visualised undamaged, is not approaching square, 80 X 80 (or more on the lip side since the lip looks to overhang the frame) my visual estimate is that it will be too short for that bay, the most promising.
So I hope that better information than I have becomes available to confirm its origin.
@Brock McEwen
Maybe this article is of interest to you. Open the ´read more´ ´Making waves´ part.
At least A447 was not detected by CTBTO it says and it offers some insight (to me at least) how surface impact sound waves behave.
http://www.nature.com/news/sound-clue-in-hunt-for-mh370-1.15390#/trackers
@David
I the coming days, hopefully when additional photos and/or diagrams come to light, the layout will become clearer. I am totally confident about the identification.
@Rob@David
If the flange and rod would have stayed in place those would still be attached on the found piece which they clearly are not.
Other explanation?
@David. I think the picture shows a max. of three parts-compartments on one bigger panel. But I agree it´s very difficult to make estimates on sizes from this picture for perspective is very deformed especialy in the longitudial perspective.
To follow on from my previous comment, if she’s flying at high altitude shell be lit up by the sun just before dawn while the sea below would be dark and possibly free from reflection on a satellite image. If cloud cover is low she should be much easier to spot on a satellite image just before dawn. I’ll ask digital globe for help. They’ve probably thought of this already though.
@Robster
Are you my alter ego? 🙂
@Ge Rijn
They stayed in place, attached to the wing.
I see no need for an alternative explanation!
@Rob @David
I did some searching and found the panel above the flaperon is one big panel of ~2.40m x ~1.50m divided in three segments of each ~80cm. Only the trailing edge of this panel seems to stick out ~50cm of an end spar the panel is attached to there.
Some time ago I downloaded this photo of the upper wing in which this panel is clearly visible with the rows of fasteners which divide it in three segments.
I cann’t post the picture here and I cann’t find it anymore on the net.
Maybe one of you has more luck?
@ Ge Rijn,
I’ve not got Dropbox or similar in order to link to my own screen grabs – I must get around to setting up an account, but the few items I think I have found, are probably not worth it. It’s a personal obsession and I doubt would help find the plane.
If you look on the WG images I linked to earlier on, at approximately the location I told you about, you will see a long line of cloud – separate, and above the layer of lower cloud, which it casts a shadow on.
It’s a broken trail, and what I think is possibly an enlarged one, though that may not fit with the timing of the images – would it have had time to expand – it all depends on the humidity and condensation in that region, at that time.
I sent it to the guy who runs the site, probably a couple of years ago now, (at the time he had published these images with partly the purpose of enrolling PPRuNe members to search for probable contrails) and as far as I recall, he said that it could be a trail, or perhaps it wasn’t – which was good enough for me to keep it in mind.
I’ve studied these images over and over – and it’s my favourite possibility. The location is good, at least.
It may just as well be cloud, though.
Regarding EOSDIS there are some absolutely beautiful contrails to be seen – many in the wrong places at the wrong times, but still, a few that could just possibly be the one, all other things lining up and so on.
There’s a particularly glorious one in the Bay of Bengal which I don’t think (could be wrong) follows a usual flight path. It’s around 4am so would have to have been hanging around suspended in the air for a few hours, and I think that’s unlikely.
The resolution on EOSDIS is far nicer than on WG though.
As I said, it’s good for passing time and pretending to be helping, but likely achieves very little.
Still – now you know!
@Ge Rijn. The flange tie rod is connected at the bottom end to structure secured to the wing. A panel torn off the top of the flange would leave the flange and tie rod intact. That structure, which supports the flaperon hinge, did not break off with the flaperon: the hinge broke as seen in the analysis.
@robster @Susie There are only a few Sat images available to the public (through person to person) of SIO from 8th March 2014 (a few around midnight). None from what I’ve seen can be 100% confirmed to be a plane or trails of any kind. There are so many aspects some include cloud movement, light quality, hightest 1KM*1KM quality and some images are scanned over a period of time and not a one shot pic usually west to east for Polar Satellites.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/malaysia-airlines-mh370-australian-scientist-says-missing-aircraft-can-be-found-by-tracking-1470504
Nothing more heard about Aron Gingis.
Simon Proud, Kirill Prostyakov and Bobby Ulich are the best people to speak to as regards sat images and plane trails.
Also note that there was another flight a few hours behind near where is said MH370 crashed coming from west to east (JNB to Perth) SAA280. Note SAA280 would have not seen anything as flying at 40000 feet above clouds.
At the time MH370 went missing there was no high quality imagary Zoomd in satelite Imagary of the SIO that could define a particular object. At the time they weren’t looking for MH370 no-one knew it would have been in the remote SIO so no Zoomed in definative images.
@all just for a break; what else?
why this grey clown liooks like L.R.Hubbard? ))
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPw8WIwgaxI
@ Joseph,
Thank you – I concur – there are very few sources for any images of the region from the correct time, let alone anything where trails can be clearly identified or defined.
I think Bobby Ulich used some sort of infra red imaging. I’m not sure.
But I enjoy looking, anyway.
@David
Yes that hinge broke off on the flaperon.
But we are talking here imo about one side of the possible panel Rob has identified.
The found piece (and exhibit 2) shows either one side or the other of that panel. In any case if a flange was attached on the side visible on the found piece it’s not attached anymore.
So either it was on the other side or it was ripped out and is possibly still attached with the rod to that broken hinge on the wing.
The piece could be one piece of three compartments attached with fasteners on one big panel (as explained before).
This panel is visible on a upper wing photo with the two rows of fasteners dividing it three parts. The leading edge of this panel seems to stick out ~50cm of an end spar of a box that is covered by this panel.
I’ll give a link with a B777 cutaway where you can see the structure of this box but it’s a pity it’s so small without much detail.
You have to download the picture and zoom in substantialy to see it.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/547680004664028169/
@David
Another link that has higher resolution it seems:
http://www.zona-militar.com/foros/threads/cutaways-cortes-esquem%C3%A1ticos-de-aviones.24700/page-126
@David @Rob
Yes that later link shows it much clearer.
You can see the box divided in three compartments, the end spar of that box and the ~50cm trailing edge part of that panel sticking out from that end spar.
I suggest it’s this trailing edge part of the panel that broke off of which the found piece is ~one third.
Just wondering if this excerpt below contradicts an earlier claim above that the search will be extended::
“Already, Malaysia, China and Australia have agreed not to continue the search for MH370 beyond the extended July/August deadline unless new evidence emerges on where the ill-fated plane exactly lies.”
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/06/04/expert-mh370-may-be-in-thousands-of-pieces/?google_editors_picks=true
crude model, of an ANOKO-BEDAX-ISBIX-180_Mag route…
RMS BFO error <5Hz, the computed headings match those visualized with PowerPoint overlays & transparencies, etc…
I chose an airspeed at ANOKO equal to 867kph, Inmarsat's fast cruising speed. On a heading of 200, the BFO match is exact. But, after that, the ghost-flight begins at only 800kph, identical to that of the Inmarsat JoN. Over the course of the ghost-flight, the TAS shows a gradual decrease, down to 675kph… does that make any sense? Is there any reason why airspeed would decrease, perhaps to decrease lift as fuel weight decreases ?
lat (°N) lon (°E) hdg (°ETN) TAS (kph)
==========================================
6.90 96.20 278 676
7.14 94.43 200 867
1.75 93.81 181 803
-5.50 93.63 177 810
-12.85 93.97 173 800
-20.00 94.90 167 744
-23.55 95.81 165 721
-29.50 97.63 158 675
-30.30 97.99
@Erik Nelson
What would a gradual decrease in altitude of a constant ~1 degree from starting point 7.14S at ~30Kft till 30.30S do to the speed over such a distance? Will speed decrease? Which altitude would it ~end up?
@Erik – Hopefully VictorI will chime in as he has a much better understanding of AP speeds than I, but I believe your hunch is correct. I believe that as weight decreases due to fuel burn, the pitch changes to reduce lift. Then at a certain point, the pitch cannot be reduced further so the air speed is then reduced.
Looking at Table on page PI.21.3 of the FCOM for FL350 and a start weight of 240,000kg you’ll see a speed of 287KIAS. At a weight of 220,000kg the speed remains at 287KIAS. However, when the weight gets down to 200,000kg, the speed drops to 281KIAS and then down to 270KIAS at 180,000kg.
@Lauren H: “Looking at Table on page PI.21.3 of the FCOM for FL350 and a start weight of 240,000kg you’ll see a speed of 287KIAS. At a weight of 220,000kg the speed remains at 287KIAS. ”
At high weights, the LRC speed is limited to max M.84 (above FL300) or max 325 kIAS (below FL300). Except for those limits LRC speed varies approximitately as the square root of weight, i.e. constant lift coëfficient and angle of attack (angle of attack equals pitch attitude in level flight). Those speeds are used to optimize range (99% of max range), there is no lower limit on pitch attitude. At low speed such as used for holding, when the speed gets too close to the 1g stall speed, the attitude (actually angle of attack) can be limited to a maximum value, defined by the maneuver speed.
@Lauren H
I’m not an expert on this too but to my knowlegde pitch by loss of fuel weight or the changing of gravity center balance gets compensated by the adjustable horizontal stabilizer.
It would be unexeptable an AC would loose speed when it becomes lighter. I guess you mean if weight loss, center of gravity and pitch are not compensated (by the H.stabilizer).
I read before it’s possible to set any constant descent rate from the cockpit.
My simple thinking is descending means denser air, more air resistance and with it (gradual) loss of speed.
Offcourse I’m willing to hear the total refute of this by the specialist.
I’m possibly getting an addict to this and in need of seeing that video clip of Falken..
If it gets all confirmed.. It seems to me the right wing engine got sheared of took the flaperon and this latest piece with it and after that the ‘Blain Gibson’-piece off of the right horizontal stabilizer in between disintrageting the engine cowling leaving the RR piece.
Maybe even the flap fairing got struck resulting in the other two similar pieces found..
Now I’ll stop for a moment and watch that Falken-clip.. 😉
@Ge Rijn: “I read before it’s possible to set any constant descent rate from the cockpit.”
Yes, that is possible, but it can only be set in steps of 100 fpm. The lowest setting of 100 fpm wouldn’t get you very far.
However, the flight path angle can be set in steps of 0.1 degree. VictorI has been looking at that possibility for a speed of M.84/310 kIAS, IIRC. You are correct that at constant IAS the true airspeed reduces with reducing altitude.
@Gysbreght
Extracted again offcourse. The Falken-clip was too short for me I guess..
Interesting. So the flight angle can be set constant to a gradual descent.
Can this possibly explain the question Erik Nelson asked about this gradualy decreasing speeds from 7.14S till 30.30S?
Ge Rijn,
All the ‘legitimate’ modes are described in FCOM, though quite messy.
The autopilot manages control surfaces. The autopilot can be controlled by FMS or AFDS. The former provides high-level automation; the latter provides relatively low-level automation. Pitch modes include V/S multiple of 100 fpm and FPA multpile of 0.1 deg. SPD modes inlude IAS (330 KIAS max) and Mach (0.87 max). During ascent temperature is dropping, so that Mach is increasing at constant TAS. At TAS corresponding to 0.84M SPD automatically changes to Mach if it was IAS. During descent SPD Mach mode automatically changes into IAS at TAS corresponding to IAS = 310 knots if before SPD was Mach. One more thing: V/S or FPA automatically change into ALT upon reaching the altitude selected on the MCP.
@Oleksandr
Thanks for your simple answer to an apparently difficult question.. 😉
Can you translate it to understandable language relating to my question for me being not a pilot?