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”.
@Ge Rijn – yes, they are certainly stacking up aren’t they – control surface parts vs interior parts.
I hope we have some more info soon on these pieces.
Vroendlijke groete on this summer evening.
(excuse my Dutch! I’m sure that’s wrong)
But no distinguishing marks on these new pieces to aid identification. It’s as if the best bits got picked up first. People have become more debris focussed, the not so distinctive bits are now receiving due attention.
@Susie
Haha! Thats not bad at all! Only one letter wrong and only one missing. Just like my englisch sometimes..;-)
Vriendelijke groeten terug (is: in return;-)
@Rob
On the first ‘trailing edge’ piece there are certainly a lot of features visible.
For a Boeing expert I guess it should be not too difficult to identify the piece. (Ken Goodwin got a clue?)
And high resolution pictures would offcourse be of help too.
Hope they soon show up.
As will more not so distinctive bits now the focus hopefully got more attention as it seems.
Ge Rijn
Ik hoop dat u gelijk!
@Ge Rijn
But the pieces all have the same general appearance. I mean the state of the surfaces, the paint coatings all generally resemble what we saw on the flaperon. They all look like bits of flap or fairing, to my mind. I know its early days, but these items tend to reinforce the controlled ditching theory.
Check out this guy – journalist for the BBC. He has been sent photos from someone in Mozam. Asking if they could be from a plane.
https://twitter.com/BBCwestcott
@Ge Rijn – thanks for your kindness!
@Rob
You have it almost right too! U heeft ook bijna gelijk!;-)
Truly people of the world around here:-)
@Susie
Wow! From a plane? You bet!
I think it’s both sides of one piece @Rob
Have told him it looks possible – no idea when it was he got the photos, apparently on the day he interviewed Blaine someone sent them in.
@Susie
But Susie you realy keep bringing up new pieces almost by the hour!
I guess you’ve got Jeff allready working on another update..;-)
The piece reminds me most of the ‘no step’ piece. It’s imo definitely another ‘wing’ piece.
It looks both pictures are from the same piece from each side one picture (see the fastener holes on the upper edge on both pictures).
@Susie
To mention: you’ve got to download the images to see the whole picture and the fastener holes on both pictures.
@ Ge Rijn
I think Jeff is busy…
and I am working hard in my hangar full of used T7 parts, here. With my tank of slimy creatures as well.
Don’t knock it : )
Oh and btw – does anyone know what part of an AC would have a seal strip like that?
Ken – are you lurking at the moment?
Oh good point!
The curved debris could be fairings from under the wing; flap fairings.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=boeing+777+fairing&view=detailv2&&id=4476D5F6D6C309DF64BC077C1907AE2DF305D1A8&selectedIndex=0&ccid=Ht3bspw8&simid=608004719717388078&thid=OIP.M1edddbb29c3cf632acb8b38e7f05f4d3o0&ajaxhist=0
I realize it is early days but if there now are 8 likely pieces from MH370 does it add any credibility to drift analyses on where they came from? If I read the drift analyses correctly the crash location is North of the current search area.
If the Chinese are going to continue the search it will be interesting to see what area they search, unless they are really searching for an area to add an artificial island to expand their empire :).
@Susie and Ken,
Take a look at the Westcott photo, with the rubber seal, and compare it against the far wheel housing cover in Ken’s photo. You’ll notice a similar “trapezoid-like” raised section.
The wheel house cover may also have a seal but I would be speculating.
@JS
That looks promising. It does have the raised/moulded section and also a dark rim which could, I daresay, indicate a seal but as you say, speculation.
Only another 9,783 pieces and we’ll have the whole thing : (
@Susie
Does that mean you’ve got a Hawker Hunter or a Gloster Meteor parked in your backyard?
That ‘seal strip’ is awkward. No rivets or anything in it that would attach it to something would make it a loose edge.
To me it looks like a covering panel like the ‘no step’ piece but a loose edge like that on a surface panel in high speed air makes it unlikely imo.
@Jeff
about the turn off of the SDU, and what else is powered by the left AC bus, you write:
“There is only one piece of equipment on this list that someone who is in the process of stealing a plane might be strongly motivated to shut off, and that is the cockpit voice recorder”
I’d prefer instead to choose this from your list:
“IFE (in-flight entertainment system, which includes passenger satellite phone service)”
reason: This would prevent passenger and crew to try to call for help
@FabioF, That’s true, but my understanding is that you can turn off the IFE by itself from the cockpit.
To come back short on MS804:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/26/middleeast/egyptair-airbus-signals-detected/index.html?adkey=bn
@Jeff
what else can be turned off from the E/E bay?
Transponder also ? Radio also ?
If somebody is in the E/E bay, can he isolate left AC bus in order to disable the “Cockpit door lock” (second in your list) and gain access to the pilot cabin ?
Somebody can try to disable the cockpit door lock by isolating the left AC bus, as without power the cockpit door lock will be left in unlock position (to avoid people being trapped in the cockpit in case of power failure), but as I understand, the cockpit door lock is not a simple electromagnet with a spring that locks or unlocks the door, but has is own electronic circuit with digital code. That means that if powered from AC, it has its own power supply that convert AC to low voltage filtered DC. It is possible that the circuit includes a small rechargeable battery that can power the lock until the aircraft land in case of power failure. That’s how electronic safe locks work. Now I don’t think that the cockpit door lock power supply / battery is located in the EE bay, it may be rather located inside the cockpit door.
If I read the drift analyses correctly, and it is a bit bold to do so with such a tiny debris “sample population” to work with, then it looks to me as if we have two SIO choices. Either some ways north (main “highway” towards Mauritious, Reunion, onwards S of Madagascar towards SA. Or some ways south (ref CSIRO model reverse drift from Reunion) that indicates a faster “round the outside” route from area ~44S beyond 7th arc.
My bet is that the lighter, more wind-driven pieces travel faster and further north. And the bigger/slower/more OSC-driven pieces will fetch up at the eastern end of the great Aus Bight or even NZ.
@FabioF,
There was a portable ELT onboard. The crew could active that at any moment and give away the plane’s location to the world. But they didnt.
Why ?
a)They were dead
b)They were not suspecting anything
c)They were confused and forgot the portable ELT
My own guess is they were confused with panic ensuing in the cabin.
@Ge Rijn
Signals detected, presumably by satellite, from the aircraft’s emergency locating devices. It’s my understanding that ELT needs to be on the water’s surface to communicate with the satellite.
IR1907,
In my understanding portable ELT has antenna inside (that is why it is portable – ref FI). Apparently its signal may not go through the walls of the fuselage if activated inside. Inside = inside the cabin.
The second ELT can be activated from the cockpit, not clear only or not. All other ELTs do not have satellite link.
IFE can be switched off from the cockpit according to FCOM.
Paul,
“more wind-driven pieces travel faster and further north. And the bigger/slower/more OSC-driven pieces will fetch up at the eastern end of the great Aus Bight or even NZ.”
Exactly in opposite way in terms where fragments end-up, as it is actually evidenced by the fragments found up to date. Light and small – WA; heavy and bulky – Reunion, Mozambique.
Sunken Deal – In the previous thread I posted some links to a site that suspect many did not really take in due to the nature of that site – and I understand that. But here is something relevant from it – I believe.
“This is one discussion amongst Islamists which the West are ignorant about. Westerners need to remember, Islam, its students, its fascination, its goals, everything about the religion is linked to stories in the past. A Muslim is an elephant who never forgets the past history. When I was Muslim, the story is known of the suicide of 700 Muslims on a ship which they deliberately sank and committed mass suicide.
Why suicide? Instead of surrendering the ship to Richard The Lionheart, they chose to poke holes in it and drown with it. They were considered “martyrs”. All one has to do is read the works of the famed terrorist, Anwar Al-Awlaki’. Al-Awlaki was finally killed by an American drone. He tells the story:
“If the intentions of the Muslim are good and for the sake of Allah then he [the one who drowns] is a shaheed [martyr] whether he died by the enemy or by his own hands. It is the intention that counts … Salahudeen counted the [700] casualties as martyrs in the path of Allah.”
Many of the silly comments I get, comes mostly from naive Americans who ask “why kill Muslims on board”? This is rather a stupid question, especially when these Americans who ask have witnessed 911. The pilots in the Muslim view are actually doing their passengers a favor. They are assuring their salvation since they died by drowning, all who drown are “martyrs” and are assured paradise.
Under the Muslim jurisprudence of Muruna and “the necessities of the group,” the spiritual head of Egyptian Islamists, Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi himself explains:
As Sharia considers the individual needs, it permitted many prohibitions and considers the necessities of the community.
Qaradawi is not short of examples and even commands the “killing of Muslims whom the unbelievers use as shields”:
Leaving these unbelievers is a danger to the Muslims, so it is permissible to kill these unbelievers even if they killed Muslims with them in the process.
Only the stupid in Egypt is unaware of all this. Everyone who is Islamist knows this jurisprudence.”
The “Al-Qaradawi” that Walid Shoebat is referring to is the same one Anwar Ibrahim is seated next to in the photo and indeed the two are close. The two have consorted for years. Qaradawi even wrote a letter to the Malaysian Parliament endorsing his candidacy and I’m sure he would count Anwar as one of his flock.
To what extent did he influence Shah? Political Islam crafts itself as an outlet for the politically disaffected and Anwar clearly is a man with two modes. For the Brotherhood, participation in democracy is classed as “Muruna” – playing your enemies game as long as necessity dictates. He would have had a big circle and a much smaller one. One for the media and public and one for a trusted group. It’s not hard to suspect that Shah was in the smaller one.
Not everyone here would remember Spencer, a poster who got himself rubbed out for going on like a stuck record but he had some good material on Shah’s internet musings and poetry. Stuff about “the lone soldier” and “time to act” etc etc. I gave it very little weight at the time but I would view it differently this time around.
@Ken Goodwin
Ken, I agree about the curved pieces. The new piece from Mozambique definitely could be part of a flap fairing possibly outboard fairing from inboard flap. Do you think the dark discoloration could be hydraulic oil staining (acquired while in service) on the inside surface of the fairing?
MS804:
I mentioned this morning when the news broke about the ELT contact that some government broke out some serious technology. I read the translations of the Egyptian press release which said the info came from Airbus. Everyone wants to know when the transmission came through and if it didn’t come through at time of impact, how the heck is it being picked up now.
Can someone explain a possible scenario?
…
Airbus would not comment when asked about the signals, saying: “We are supporting the parties in charge of the investigation and we can’t comment, nor do we contribute to any kind of speculation.”
“The most important element of this is we’ve heard from the wreckage and that they’re able to narrow the search area down,” said NBC News aviation analyst John Cox, chief executive of Safety Operating Systems of Washington, D.C.
“What kind of signal and what device located it is of less consequence,” Cox said. “It’s how we can fix the position of that transmitter and help us locate the wreckage — that’s really all that matters.”
@Sue
Seals on the landing gear closure panels are unlikely. Seals are used to stop air from moving from one side of a lifting surface (high pressure side) to the other (low pressure side). Thus the seals on the flaperon.
The wheel well does not have that issue. Not much pressure differential. The closure panels fit close together, to provide an aerodynamic shape, but are not sealed (based on my knowledge – could be wrong).
The debris flat / curved panel, from above, (e.g. “The items are picture below, courtesy of Kathy Mosesian at VeritasMH370”), could easily be part of the closure panels for the landing gear. There is a small panel above the forward and center wheels, near the bottom of the wing, in front of the large panel, at its top, that is part of the various panels that seal the wheel well. It looks both curve and flat to fit the other panels/structure.
The far large panel in the photo, right side of airplane, is also the large wheel well closure panel in the foreground. There is a large strut that pulls this panel open and closed. It can be seen in the photo, left side. I see no mounting point on the debris. So, maybe not this panel.
The dark areas most probably are exposed carbon layup. Especially the jagged edged dark spot. White paint blown off.
MS804 ELT signal report by Airbus…
ELT’s are attached to life rafts. They operate when raft is deployed.
Raft or part of it could be on the surface of the sea. Timing: At time of impact or when it floated to surface from depth.
Pure speculation…………
Or maybe they meant pings received…….
Susie yes i do the plane was heading i would say ESE along the line 0f the top of cockle creek south of i think it is Bruny? island light house. The time of day was late as we were in the shadows of the mountains the plane came from the west the rough time daylight savings time was around 1745 to 1830 i was not the only witness that day. there was a party of us. as far as i know no large aircraft fly west to ESE and not land in Hobart if it was going to Hobart it should have been at least 30 klm more up the river toward Hobart. These Questions are for CASA to answer.
Re: debris drift analysis: other than Geomar – who stated that debris items 2-5 confirmed their initial view (well north of search zone, unless strongly wind/wave-aided) and CSIRO – who stated that “no step” had them shifting further north, as well – I am aware of no expert drift analysis which has attempted to reverse engineer an impact distribution from anything more than just the flaperon.
However, excellent sites such as adrift.org.au can perform forward/reverse analyses from any starting/ending point one wishes.
For example, I used it a week ago to check whether the Curtin Boom could explain the debris record to date – even after re-dating the SA “Roy” piece to reflect the recent dubious claim that a barnacle-encrusted version of it was beautifully images late last December before being washed back to sea for 2 months, to be scrubbed clean. Turns out the Curtin Boom would remain just as feasible.
When I get time, I may check the other potential impact site (near Sumatra), to see what adrift thinks of it as a potential source.
I don’t have time to check places already rendered implausible by other evidence. I include the entirety of the 7th Arc in that set.
Here’s why: every region on and beyond the 7th arc now has a fatal flaw with respect to consistency with:
– debris presence (Africa/offshore islands)
– debris absence (during surface search in months 1-2; on Oz shores by month 10)
– ISAT data indication of fuel exhaustion 2-4 minutes prior to Arc7
– ISAT data indication of realistic path (track and altitude – & changes in both over time)
– ISAT data indication realistic speed
– implausibly sharp turn immediately post-IGARI implied by published radar maps
– non-detection by primary radar post-Butterworth
– stunning synchronicity between end of reported radar and supposed SDU reboot
– impact supposedly hard enough to shred the fuselage, without so much as a lifejacket showing up. Anywhere. Ever.
– non-detection of seabed wreckage by search equipment confidently and publicly certified as up to the job
I challenge anyone to find an impact coordinate that runs the gauntlet, and explains each of the above apparent inconsistencies. I will even give you one exemption (heck, coincidences are always possible) – but not two. Good luck.
If MH370 wreckage is found anywhere on the 7th Arc, I will rejoice at the possibility of closure for next of kin.
Then I will set about – in earnest, this time – the task of holding search leadership accountable, until it has resolved – by transparent demonstration – each of the stark contradictions such a discovery would create.
@Jerry M. “If the Chinese are going to continue the search it will be interesting to see what area they search…….”
From The Australian, May 26th, “The underwater search is expected to be completed around July or August.
A media report earlier this week suggested Nanhai Rescue Bureau from China’s Ministry of Transport may continue the search for MH370, having ordered deep-tow systems.
But an Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman told AAP that had been denied by Chinese officials.”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjYxTt8WkAExiGB.jpg
Sorry, that’s a part of a garage door:
http://www.canuckdoorsystems.com/photogallery/wayne/stu_s_garage_door_pictures_038.jpg
Sorry, this part:
pbs.twimg.com/media/CjYxTt8WkAExiGB.jpg
comes from a garage door like this one:
http://www.canuckdoorsystems.com/photogallery/wayne/stu_s_garage_door_pictures_038.jpg
@Marc,
A carbon fiber or honeycomb garage door? I’m not convinced.
@Ken,
Seems to me a seal would make sense anywhere there’s a high likelihood of objects preventing tight closure. A tire coming up off a runway is bound to occasionally kick up debris, and a seal allows closure without being so tight that it bends parts if something is stuck in it. Just my lay opinion – waiting to hear from a 777 expert on here.
Here’s a link that helps nail down where things are from based on structure (scroll down to the picture at page 12).
http://www.nap.edu/read/11424/chapter/3#12
There are some better versions on the net but this one is good for those who may be colour challenged.
The latest photos in this post are CFRP (graphite is the term used in the graphic).
The photo in the link provided by Susie is GFRP (Glass fibre). The rubber strip and no fasteners leads me to think its a trailing edge panel.
The Liam lotter piece was a hybrid; if you go back to previous photos where the edge material is exposed you can see light and dark (black to dark gray) layers.
OZ
Just to clarify trailing edge; I mean wing or stab. Refer to the graphic I’ve linked to and you’ll get it.
OZ
Surely this is a little underwhelming. Someone finds debris from a plane that everyone on the planet knows crashed years ago. The best brains in satellite technology and electronics confidently predicted where it would be found, and it wasn’t there. Now a generation of ‘drift modellers’ plot imaginary paths across the Indian Ocean, with much less hope of determining the origin.
In all likelihood, the plane will never be found, and no-one will ever discover why it disappeared.
4th piece found (in addition to the 3 mentioned above) making a total of 9 (potential) pieces.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36394864
@John,
The direction you state is inconsistent with a routine flight to NZ, so I agree with you it sounds like a bit of an anomaly, especially coupled with the altitude.
I hope you get somewhere with the authorities.
I don’t know whether MH370 would have had enough fuel to get as far as South Aus. though, that’s something I can’t answer.
Thank you for providing further details.
@Ken,
Thank you very much for the detailed information. It’s really useful to have someone here who knows about the materials and parts involved.
When you say ‘blown off’ – do you mean, as in a blown laminate, or as in explosion?
I wondered whether the darkened section might indicate fire damage but with such a low res image how do you begin to tell?
None of the other pieces found so far have had that discoloration.
@Oz,
Thank you for the information regarding the GFRP. I saw in Richard Westcott’s report on the BBC this morning that he mentions the finder stating it was not metal, so I wondered what else it might be.
@Suzie,
The piece is made up of what appears to be a reasonably thick Nomex honeycomb core; this would probably rule out the stabilizer. The part is light grey again which rules out the fin.
It looks to be about 18+ inches wide from the rubber seal to broken edge; so intact maybe somewhere from 20 to 24 inches wide.
OZ
@Brock McEwen
For the sport of it I take your challenge.
Coördinates compatable with the 7th arc:
32.41S 99.50E Broken Ridge. Depth near 5km.
-Debris presence: consistant with time passed, currents and places where and when debris was found.
-Debris absence: North enough to exclude S.W. Australia and low probability of debris landing on Northern West Australian shores including all other regions where nothing is found; Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India etc.
-ISAT data on fuel exhaustion: There was no fuel exhaustion. Remaining fuel was dumped 3 to 4 minutes prior to 7th arc followed by a long glide.
-ISAT data on realistic path with changes in time etc.: It was a controlled flight with specific chosen settings to reach a specific end point.
-ISAT data on realistic speed: as above.
-Sharp turn just after IGARI: It was a controlled flight manouvre ment to take place just after IGARI to confuse ATC Malaysia and ATC Vietnam and bide time.
-Non radar detection Butterworth: ? It was detected at Butterworth Penang till out of radar range. (you have other evidence it wasn’t?)
-Stunning synchronicity between just out of radar range and reboot of SDU: The pilot was familiar with the radar range of Butterworth Penang and had a distinct reason to wait with rebooting the SDU after being out of radar range (reason still unknown to me at least).
-Impact hard enough to shred the fuselage:
The fuselage was not shredded. The plane ditched and lost mostly flap and other wing parts (regarding pieces found till now).
The R1 door got open(ed) letting just a little cabin debris escape (closet panel).
-Non detection on seabed: The plane is outside of the current search area lying in one of the deepest parts under Broken Ridge at near 5000 to over 7000m virtualy undetectable by current search equipment.
So, I had my go:)Awaiting any’s debunk.
@Susie
@Jeff
@ALSM
@Everybody
I’m pretty sure I’ve identified the latest piece from Mozambique (BBC-Macaneta Peninsula) It’s from an undercarriage door. I have a book on the B777; in a closeup of the undercarriage, I can see part of a door that looks a very good match, complete with the seal and rivet fixings.
This photo might be on the net. It is a closeup of the blown out tyres, after the maximum energy rejected takeoff test of Nov 1994.