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
The discolouration looks to me as just the paint there was removed by wear through scraping over beach sand many times.
It looks to me this made the underlying carbon visible.
@Rob
is it the Philip Birtles book?
@Ge Rijn,
I don’t know, but none of the other parts have shown this pattern of surface loss. And many of them have been chucked about on beaches too.
@Rob,
this is the only close up of an UC door I can find at the moment. It does have a raised section.
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6096068.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/LandingGear.jpg
@Susie
No, it’s by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner. Enthusiast’s Colour Series Boeing777, published by Motorbooks International. Page 74.
From the BBC photos, the piece is flat on one side, and has a rectangular moulding or bulge on the other side. This raised moulding id not particularly aerodynamic; it’s there for strengthening purposes. So B777 undercarriage doors have seals, confirmed!
@Brock McEwen
And I see a contradiction in two of your statements or I misunderstand.
In one you state; non radar detection at Butterworth and in the following statement you question the stunning synchronisity between just out of radar range and the reboot of the SDU.
I guess you see what I mean; if you state the first the following statement makes no sence.
Misunderstanding by me?
Question to who knows..
Is the SDU necessary to recieve GPS navigation data?
@Rob, thank you, I can’t find the image but I’ll take your word for its having a seal, especially as Ken wasn’t totally certain that UC doors didn’t have seals.
Nine pieces so far.
@Susie
To the uninitiated, the piece we’re talking about could just as easily be from the back of a washing machine, as from a B777.
The take away from this that to rip off undecarriage door, the impact/ditching was definitely on the high energy side.
@ Susie i checked the fuel stories that have floating around and due to cost cutting measures and that the airlines inforce top up in the cheapest country the aircraft could have had full tanks and the fact the aircraft only had about 227? personal on board plus a tail wind plus the aircraft we seen was only cruising the motors were not working hard. The plane may well of been able to make the distance this point was brought up with CASA when i spoke to them and the person i spoke to did bring up this fact but later a report was released saying that the plane may gone further than they thought.
@Ge Rijn,
No.
@ROB,
Undercarriage doors are CFRP.
OZ
@OZ
“Rubbish!” Matey
@ROB,
Have you had a look at the link I posted?
OZ
Looks like landing gear doors are Graphite.
@OZ
I didn’t see a link
BTW, I was only returning the compliment, from last time 🙂
No offence meant.
@Oz
Oh the earlier link. I will look at it when I can get to a free pc.
Thanks
Rob
@OZ
I take that answer was on my GPS/SDU question.
I read GPS recievers are integrated in the SDU so my thought was, if you shut down the SDU you also shut down the GPS reviever.
But this is not the case taking your answer.
Thanks
Brock McEwen,
“I challenge anyone to find an impact coordinate that runs the gauntlet, and explains each of the above apparent inconsistencies.”
Do you read this forum or only write? Seriously. No offence intended. Because if yes, you would not ask this and other questions again and again. There no inconsistencies. The answer is 25 to 30S. I would risk to give a practical recommendation to ATSB – check the area around “Curtin boom”. It is relatively small, and it will take less than 1% of Fugro’s budget.
He Rijn,
“Is the SDU necessary to recieve GPS navigation data?”
The things are a way more complex and there was no clear answer yet. There are 2 GPS on B777. One of them can use backup battery power. Information from GPS goes to dual-redundant FMC. The latter primarily relies on data from triple-redundant ADIRU, but periodically updates ADIRU with accurate position data from GPS. FMC also integrates data from SAARU. The question is where does SDU take data? I would guess from FMC. SDU does not need to be directly connected to GPS, especially given that SDU is not considered as a critical equipment.
So the answer to your question is both yes and no. SDU needs data from GPS if ADIRU fails.
I am sure others will correct me if my understanding is wrong.
Ge Rijn,
Sorry again for misspelling your name. This autocorrection is very stubborn, and it always attempts to change your name in some unpredictable manner.
@all
in relation to A320, how realiable are the ELT in acse of accident?? its really weird that they cant locate anything yet; is there more ELTs with VHF/UHF transmissions? are they floating? pages 234+ of following documents mentions them, but pros here probably can comment better; what about ultrasound (37.5kHz) underwater emergency transmitters on this plane? why itsd so difficult to triangulate it if it works and why we dont know if it was working? why this for sure cheap things arent in more instances on the plane? or I am wrong… can anybody clear it somehow? tnx
https://www.scribd.com/doc/24949816/AIRBUS-a-320-321-ATA-23-Communication
@Susie
@Oz
Susie, I have looked at the diagram on Oz’s link and I can see what he means. But not all the undercarriage doors are necessarily the same construction. I agree, the larger ones are graphite.
Anyway, I can’t be the door I saw in my book photo, because I can now see from images on the net, that this door is triangular in shape.
However, there is a small trapezoidal undercarriage door I can see on the net images which I’m thinking could be it, but I cannot see the inside face, to confirm.
I will do some more digging
@Ge Rijn,
GPS receivers are separate to the SDU, as are the antennas. Have a read up on Multi Mode Receivers.
OZ
@Oleksandr
Thanks for answering.
Don’t mind about the name it seem to look chinese too;). ‘He’ is actualy a greeting word in Dutch when calling someone by name. So in a sence it’s even acurate.
About GPS/SDU (SATCOM) I think basic as you can see.
Beeing GPS a form of satelite communication I made this link and asked the question.
On your 25 to 30S I would be realy curious how you would answer the challenge done by Brock McEwen without inconsistencies. Or do you consider this a waste of time on this blog?
We are obviously not all experts but the experts are the ones who can throw new detailed light on old questions in a new context.
For old answers didn’t work out and are not satisfying anymore.
I hopr you take the challenge here.
And to be more specific about why I asked this GPS/SDU question.
I considered maybe a reboot of the SDU (and maybe also the IFE)was necessary at that point to navigate to the SIO for you would need the GPS data then.
I thought the stretch before, till out off radar reach, could have been done without GPS.
I know all simple thinking of a non expert.
But that’s why I ask.
@OZ @Oleksandr
Here a SDU example of why I was thinking about a GPS relation.
https://www.cobham.com/media/630951/sdu-7320.pdf
Ge Rijn,
What really puzzles me at the moment is that autocorrection automatically changes your name in a random way.
What inconsistency among mentioned by Brock was not resolved? I am a bit tired to repeat the same things, as it has been proven this has no effect. Brock McEwen is trying to marry a batch of apparently wrong assumptions with apparently correct data and observations. Change assumptions and you will get rid of inconsistencies.
n.b. This 7320 SDU is also used in B777 aircraft.
(see B777 SDU 7320 Google links)
@Jeff
Just to mention, and you’re probably already aware – the BBC reporter you quote posted he images on twitter yesterday, asking ‘engineers’ to comment as to whether the item could have come from a plane.
He was lucky to get hold of Don Thompson.
It’s an awful report though. He’s just mangled various things others on twitter (including me – not an engineer) said.
He really can’t be bothered. Plus he’s been sitting on the images since the day he interviewed Blaine, which is goodness knows how long, yet the BBC reports he only received them the other day.
Not quite sure whether his report is just a bit of damage limitation going on.
All the info he has, and the BBC has, came from twitter and presumably a convo with DT.
I don’t think they can be considered a proper source on this in their own right, if this makes sense.
@Oleksandr
I guess the biggest inconsistence not resolved is there hasn’t been found anything yet in that area while the whole undertaking was based mainly on a ghost flight scenario.
I understand he challenges the consistency of the 7th arc and it’s near surroundings.
Many things in a way are resolved to a certain degree (debris finds and absence of it, drift patterns, Inmarsat data to a certain degree, primary radar data) imo.
Assuming a controlled flight from beginning till end imo can explain the left inconsistences and leave the 7th arc intact.
The coördinates I mentioned are offcourse based on my own assumptions but I believe could fit as would do some other areas.
I guess your 25 to 30S would do also in a controlled flight scenario leaving the 7th arc intact.
I’d just liked to see you making this consistent in a ghost flight scenario with the 7th arc with all the other inconsistencys mentioned by Brock McEwen.
Ge Rijn,
Re: “I guess the biggest inconsistence not resolved is there hasn’t been found anything yet in that area while the whole undertaking was based mainly on a ghost flight scenario.”
Inconsistency with what? With FMT+TRK/HDG HOLD+constant FL assumptions, right? I came to this conclusion 1.5 year back based on the analysis of the events between 18:22 to 18:41. So, why would someone wonder that the plane is not there?
Re: “I guess your 25 to 30S would do also in a controlled flight scenario leaving the 7th arc intact.”
No. Ghost flight, ADIRU failure, 7th arc. I also think engines or some other heavy fragment must be resting at the “Curtin boom” location (~28.5S), which is relatively easy to check as the “suspect area” is well-defined and thus small.
Jeff. Regarder en bas et droite sur le lien ci dessous.
http://www.tomnod.com/campaign/mh370_indian_ocean/map/16gxwy59
@JS:
“A carbon fiber or honeycomb garage door? I’m not convinced.”
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/fiberglass-fiberglass-honeycomb-panel-garage-door_60054789746.html
@ Marc,
That looks like it’s made of plastic. It’s not the same sort of honeycomb.
Also I would be more inclined to think an object found in these circumstances came from a crashed airliner than someone’s trashed garage door, which may sound strange, but that’s how it is.
Who smashes up garage doors on a beach? : )
@Susie:
Please look carefully at the photo of the debris:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjYxTt8WkAExiGB.jpg
There is a typical garage door rectangular pattern in relief. Where can you find such a pattern on an aircraft? That’s anti-aerodynamic. Unless this is an internal separation door in the cargo area perhaps, but I doubt it.
“Who smashes up garage doors on a beach?”
Maybe a typhoon in the Philippines…
@ Marc,
I’m sorry – I disagree that it’s the same profile as the garage door.
Also I have seen a profile similar to this on other aircraft and parts.
We can agree to differ.
@ John,
Sorry I didn’t see your post earlier – I think it was stuck in moderation.
It’s interesting with regard to the fuel top up situation you’ve researched. I wasn’t aware of that.
Perhaps it could have been… if only someone had taken a photograph of it at the time, anywhere in the world.
I doubt I would have the quick thinking to do so myself.
@Marc,
I believe the Alibaba link is an interior garage door, not a roll up door.
I agree the scale does not rule out a garage door, though. However, if it is, the lower edge will have a stringer or channel along it. I don’t see that in the picture, but it could be in the sand.
@ROB,
I wasn’t thinking of the triangular panel but the trapezoidal panel. Both have similar raised sections. The triangular one appears in photos more often because one fell off. The trapezoidal one, at least the raised side, seems a bit camera shy.
@Oleksandr
Inconsistency with what? Brock McEwen only challenges imo why the current data could be inconsistent with the 7th arc or nearby.
Your research found another possibility which would leave the 7th arc intact (as I understand it). Based on a ghost flight.
Like the ATSB your calculations and thoughts seem to be only based on a ghost flight.
Which imo can not explain all the coincidences that occured.
Imo it’s a different mindset with possibly same plausible outcomes but totally different ones.
Yours is based on a large amount of coincidences imo.
A controlled flight could explain all inconsistencies imo.
@JS
Camera shy, but we might be able to coax her to turn around.
This new debris is part of a spoiler panel. It is a little less than half of a spoiler panel. Center of panel is where the H/C is exposed. Almost 100% sure.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjYxTt8WkAExiGB.jpg
The underside of the panel will be flat. It has an aero seal on the aft side. The fitting that controls the movement of the panel was on the lower right side. It is gone. There should be a hinge line on the right; looks like it has been ripped off.
The shape of the honeycomb is very typical of spoiler assemblies. It is there for strength. It picks up air loads and channels them to the fittings and hinges. H/C should have some a-symmetrical taper to it.
There are other similar panels on the airplane but they don’t have the dramatic thickness of the spoiler h/c. The spoiler is deployed directly into the airstream and must resist high air loads.
@susie
Blaine Gibson says he gave the interview to the BBC yesterday.
FWIIW…I think Ken is probably right about the Macaneta Peninsula piece found by Luca. The seal, materials and shape are consistent with a spoiler panel piece.
Good news: Blaine reported a couple of hours ago that Luca sent some friends out to retrieve the part and they found it on the beach where Luca photographed it and left it on Sunday.
Je ne vois rien…
Hmmm…. Maybe not….
In my haste; I now see it has taper on both sides. Not a spoiler…
More like an aero panel near the spoilers.
My mistake.
Ge Rijn,
Yes, ghost flight. After ~19:00. It has only one major drawback: absence of VHF communication prior to that time. Everything else has reasonable explanations.
If you consider controlled flight, you are facing even more challenges. You are wrong by saying “A controlled flight could explain all inconsistencies imo.” Absolutely no. How do you explain, for example:
– Motive;
– Reboot of SDU – why would it be needed at all?;
– Coincidental reboot of SDU 3 minutes after disapperence from the radars;
– Flight over Penang instead of Langkawi if intended destination was SIO as far as possible;
– Absence of any distress message from the cabin – they had 6 hours and 10 electronics engineers to figure out something;
– Trend line of BFO in conjunction with BTO.
Note, while you may have be able to answer a particular question, you will not be able to connect the pieces.
In summary, I prefer to have one weird coincidence rather than a batch of them.
@Ken Goodwin
At least those spoilers seem to have that black seal strip. Guess you are on the right track.
http://en.responsejp.com/article/img/2015/03/02/245548/673905.html
And now I look more closely at that picture, the new trailing edge piece could be a trailing part of that extending outboard flap.
There is a distinct seperation line between that trailing edge and the rest of that flap.
The B777 spoilers look like this:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hvrrws197o2thu2/Screenshot%202016-05-27%2019.54.48.png?dl=0
@ Kaz – thank you, I was too quick to jump to conclusions.
I’ve apologised to Richard Westcott for assuming he had had the pictures a while; I still think the article he wrote about the new piece was awful, though.
@ Serge, @ Jeff,
I can’t see anything either.
Pouvez-vous l’expliquer en plus, Serge?
@Oleksandr
Yes motive remains still unexplained but is not all necessary to explain data and facts.
What was the motive to execute a controlled flight right after IGARI going dark not contacting anyone and not attempt to land at Penang but fly straight on known flight paths afterwards till out of reach from primairy radar?
And 3 minutes later suddenly after SDU reboot changing into a ghost flight? Why?
Is there any logic in this?
We don’t know.
We only have assumptions, data, currents and some debris.
Reboot of the SDU. I asked you. I don’t know.
I only saw the 7320SDU used in B777 has integrated GPS and all in flight satcom abilitys. If you shut this SDU down I figured you loose those all.
And you will need them again if you want to navigate into the SIO for there are hardly waypoints there that are stored in the FMS to go by (is what I thought).
If it was a controlled flight with the intention of letting vanish the plane it’s plausable to assume no distress calls would be made. Co pilot locked out SDU/satcom shut off, depressurytion of the cabin after IGARI would silence them all within half an hour.
Flight over Penang could have had sentimental reasons with the captain (he was born there) but I doubt this.
Faking a landing there would distracked attention and if intercepted before leave a way open to land anyway and have the excuse of a emergency situation occured.
Trend of BFO with BTO.
There seems to be so much fluctuation possible in those BFO and BTO data that even your 25 to 30S as 44S is possible with those data.
So what’s the exact worth of that?
It seems to me a batch of hardly exact data which defined common sence logic for the sake of it.