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: very good effort; dumping fuel to explain the 7th Arc is a new one to me.
But in my view, you still require at least two coincidences:
1. Lack of debris on Oz shorelines: inspection of Dr. Pattiaratchi’s work (posted here last week) suggests that, even at 32.4s, empty Oz shorelines are problematic. You are free to assert either that his work is off base OR that droves of shoreline debris lie undiscovered as we speak; but until I see strong evidence in support of such suppositions (e.g. a better drift model than Chari’s, or a better “discovery prediction model” than mine), I will deem this coincidence #1.
2. Fuel exhaustion 3-4 minutes prior to Arc7. I agree with you that, if fuel was dumped at 00:15, then both the 00:19 reboot data record and impact shortly thereafter become logical. However, in explaining the surprisingly shortened range required to impact at 32.4s, you merely replace one coincidence (MH370 just happened to burn the excess fuel) with another (MH370 just happened to dump the excess fuel). Unless you can explain why such a dumping would be intuitive and logical, we’re still left with coincidence #2.
Re: primary radar: I restate my two distinct concerns, to improve clarity:
A) the apparent zero taken by every military installation through whose range MH370 must have flown AFTER passing through Butterworth’s coverage area (see coverage zones on D. Steel’s blog).
B) that whoever engineered this alleged reboot KNEW (s)he would get lucky on A).
Re: “L’ile aux Bernaches” debris: has anyone found a hi-rez image of its end view (top-right in Jeff’s article, above)?
@Ken Goodwin
Ken, re the Macaneta panel: I stuck my neck out earlier on an said I thought it was from an undercarriage door, because the underside (raised rectangular molding side) looks just like the inner face of an outboard, wing mounted gear door.
There is a small trapezoidal door that moves in unison with the larger outboard door, that could be the source of this piece, but photos only show the outward-facing flat side. The smaller door is positioned too close to the main door, to allow a proper inspection.
It’s been pointed out that undercarriage doors are graphite. The larger, underbelly mounted doors are graphite, but the smaller, flat doors might be GFRP.
@Brock McEwen
Thank you.
1 The finding of some debris on N.W. Australian shores won’t be problematic to defend the case imo. It won’t hardly change it.
It can be expected some debris will land there even if it was 25S.
Only finding debris in South or S.W. Australia would make it problematic imo.
2. With a fuel dump just before the 7th arc you’ll still need a long glide to reach 32.4S 99.5E from the 7th arc. A glide starting point could also be ~30 or 31S on the 7th arc to reach 32.4S 99.5E.
With (uncontolled) fuel exhaustion before the 7th arc this area would be much too far to reach.
On primairy radar.
B. That’s what I suggested; he wasn’t (only) lucky, he knew his radar-business very well.
@Ge Rijn
Re the Goose Island (Isle aux Bernaches):
I agree, it matches up well with the outboard flap trailing edge. If it is from that area, it would have to be from the left wing, if the taper seen in the photos is actual, and not due to exaggerated perspective of the camera lens.
@Brock McEwen
To add. Why such a dumping would be logical.
If the pilot had planned to attemp a glide and ditch to hide the plane he likely wanted to get rid of the remaining fuel to avoid possible explosion on impact and avoid fuel traces.
Over on Reddit Don Thompson has posted the location of the most recent Mozambique find. It’s:
S25º51’46.86″ E32º44’45.55″
Worth noting that all the Mozambique finds are at natural “hooks” in the coast. So if you’re aiming to head that way…
Just add prefix https:// to following links:
B777 nose gear: (prefix)i.ytimg.com/vi/4Apda-7x1xg/maxresdefault.jpg
B777 main gear: (prefix)c2.staticflickr.com/4/3055/2966884448_d787e6f2a5.jpg
And if anyone shares my curiosity where Suzie’s triangular piece fits:
(prefix)alex.xpjets.com/777/emiratesgear960.jpg
@Jeff
Very tempting, but it would mean me cancelling my holiday to Bali (in my dreams)
@Gysbreght
I didn’t know Susie had a triangular piece too. We will have to compare photos.
@Brock McEwen
One last clarification and then off to bed..
Get rid of the remaining fuel in a controlled way I mean. At the time and place he chose.
It would also give him the needed power to firts prepare for a glide and ditch, controlling/setting flaps, speeds and so on before dumping his last fuel (which also needs power to those fuel ejection pumps).
@Brock
You have stated the case for the prosecution, that is that the current search is inconsistent. I will seek to make the case for the defence, that the search is consistent. This is not the same as saying it is the only search logic that could have been pursued.
Firstly, a clarification. You said
>…until it has resolved – by transparent demonstration – each of the stark contradictions such a
>discovery would create.
A discovery of the wreckage would be a successful conclusion of the search, regardless of the methods adopted, and the investigation would proceed with whatever evidence could be subsequently obtained. Therefore, I will assume that you mean that the search has been unsuccessful to date and further is inherently contradictory.
I am working from the state of the search area definition from October 2014, which has remained largely the same to date. Early efforts at defining the search with partial data are not relevant.
I address your list, reordered for clarity.
– 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
The analysis of the possible aircraft paths, speeds, altitudes to Arc7 in the DSTG report is completely consistent. There are other models that could be used, but ATSB have used a model that could be validated on other flights, and is also applicable to flights that clearly under human direction, via auto-pilot. Quite where the fuel was exhausted is irrelevant, as Arc7 was reached.
– 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
Possible manoeuvres of the aircraft early in the flight and the performance of Malaysian air defence are not material to the model used for tracking MH370 to arc7. The last few radar points are relevant as a starting point for the model and a decision was taken to use those data, but this is not inconsistent.
– impact supposedly hard enough to shred the fuselage, without so much as a lifejacket showing up. Anywhere. Ever.
The number of debris fragments from a high speed crash is not known. Given the average size of the parts to date, it could be thousands. The maximum number of lifejackets was around 400. If every lifejacket survived the crash intact (unlikely) and also survived months at sea (also unlikely) then they would still be a small fraction of the debris. Non-detection of lifejackets is not significant.
– non-detection of seabed wreckage by search equipment confidently and publicly certified as up to the job
Non-detection of seabed debris is an output of the search, not an inconsistency in the inputs. Taken at face value, a non-detection would indicate that the ‘Bayesian’ model was not correct or the assumptions that led to the search area with respect to Arc7 were not correct. Again, this is not an inconsistency in the search.
– debris presence (Africa/offshore islands)
– debris absence (during surface search in months 1-2; on Oz shores by month 10)
There are a number of drift analyses available. Given that the number of debris fragments from the crash is unknown, it is not possible to trade-off the location of the crash site against the number of recovered items, particularly since the shore search is so partial.
It is agreed that the lack of recovered items on the Australian coast is interesting. Whether this is significant to the point of ruling out the current research area is very debatable. If just one fragment had been recovered on the Australian coast then this would not be an issue, and one is statistically the same as zero. The chance of one item being picked up on a beach by some individual and then deposited in a bin for whatever reason cannot be used to reject the model. So again, not an inconsistency.
Even given full knowledge of the drift models, I find it hard to believe that a position that such models definitely show the source of the fragments was to the north of the current search area could be defended. The use of the BFO data as a definer of the final position on Arc7 could not defended within the ATSB search effort, and the drift models are no more precise than the BFO data.
In conclusion, this does not prove the ATSB model is correct, but it is not internally inconsistent.
Ge Rijn,
You see how many inconsistencies you have.
In your post 12:44 you wrote “A controlled flight could explain all inconsistencies imo.” In your post 2:58 PM you admitted “Yes motive remains still unexplained but is not all necessary to explain data and facts”.
Well, you need to make them at least consistent.
Now specifically.
Re: “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 ”
Absolutely no. Navigation instruments have nothing to do with SDU. Critical flight instruments are doubled or tripled, or even quadrupled. IFE and ACARS can be switched off from the cockpit according to FCOM. It is not required to reboot SDU to navigate again.
Re: “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.”
If the intention was to vanish, 4 km depth of SCS just 20 minutes away would suffice, no radar coverage. It is silly to risk to fly over Butterworth if the intent was only to vanish. If you want deeper, you are welcome to the Pacific.
Re: “Flight over Penang could have had sentimental reasons with the captain”.
So he did a lot of preparations in advance, committed mass murder, but still had sentimental reasons to fly over Penang in the darkness? This does not hold water.
Re: “Co pilot locked out SDU/satcom shut off, depressurytion of the cabin after IGARI would silence them all within half an hour.”
What is to do with SDU? Why was it required to switch off SDU, and then switch it on again? Wasn’t it easier to switch off IFE and ACARS to go dark? Furthermore, in my understanding if the left bus was isolated, the cockpit door would become unlocked.
Re: “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.”.
No, absolutely not. There are major fluctuations in assumptions, however.
Re: “he wasn’t (only) lucky, he knew his radar-business very well”
Do you imply multi-national conspiracy? Several radars besides Butterworth were supposed to track MH370: Thai RTADS-III Phuket, Indonesian Lhokseumawe TRS2215R and Sabang TRS2215D. ‘He’ would have to know that all these radars were inoperative that night. How? Even if ‘he’ knew that he is out of the reach of the Butterworth radar, how could he knew that ‘he’ was not tracked by other 3 radars? On top of it, does it matter when to switch SDU?
Re: “Get rid of the remaining fuel in a controlled way I mean. At the time and place he chose”
This is nonsense. Why would fuel jettisoning be required during the last 5 minutes of the flight? For what? How would the last ping occur without power? Also, if my interpretation of FCOM is correct, there is minimum remaining fuel of 5,200 kg after jettisoning is complete. Sorry, I don’t buy this.
Just to note that a technical failure (which could generally be caused by sabotage or unsuccessful bombing attempt) explain all these “inconsistencies”.
@Richard
The problem with the current search area and beyond is motive. There is no plausible explanation for that flight path aside from a suicidal perpetrator, for which there is no credible evidence. I just cannot buy into that theme.
I would not assert that the BFO data is more precise than the drift modeling. Even the DSTG got the explanation for the BFO “drift” horribly wrong, largely due to their inexperience with oscillator physics.
@Richard: your attempt was valiant, but falls apart on three grounds:
1) by “dividing and conquering” my list, you seem to miss the entire point of its compilation: that a single path cannot avoid inconsistencies on ALL fronts. Ge Rijn has addressed the challenge head on, by proposing a flight path, and then scoring it against all the list’s elements.
2) you suggest that if seabed wreckage does turn up, the search was by definition consistent. This avoids my central point – made before in this forum, with what you described as clarity – that the search team is not vindicated by seabed wreckage alone – but by seabed wreckage accompanied by a transparent demonstration that it actually have gotten there without breaking the laws of physics. Per 1 above: no matter where wreckage turns up, search leadership will have a difficult time explaining how it got there. Try it, and you will see what I mean.
3) In the same collegial spirit with which you’ve acknowledged the problematic absence of Australian debris, I heartily acknowledge the weakness of mathematical models – particularly those tackling chaotic systems. However, the expectation that Oz shores would by end-2014 receive debris from a sub-35°S impact is not specific to one model, but to all (with the exception of the officially endorsed CSIRO model…).
Nor is this prediction confined to egg-headed academics: the locals expected to receive – and find, and recognize, and turn in – MH370 debris. For this not to have occurred, either the impact point was way north of the current search box, or all these expectations had to have been way wrong. If the former, we start running into other bizarre coincidences re: flight dynamics. If the latter – i.e. wreckage is soon found somewhere inside the 90% Bayesian confidence area – then empty Oz shorelines are an anomaly. Not a mathematical impossibility, I grant you, but a curious coincidence.
One of these coincidences is okay. But not two.
ROB Posted May 27, 2016 at 4:17 PM wrote “…..the Macaneta panel: ……from an undercarriage door, because the underside (raised rectangular molding side) looks just like the inner face of an outboard, wing mounted gear door….There is a small trapezoidal door ………………..It’s been pointed out that undercarriage doors are graphite. The larger, underbelly mounted doors are graphite, but the smaller, flat doors might be GFRP.”
I made a mistake. This panel could also be from an undercarriage door. The H/C is thick to resist air pressure. When the gear is down and the panel is in the air stream there is a lot of air pressure. I would think it is from the wing due to the seals, but it could be from the landing gear doors; If they use seals on those doors. As I stated before I don’t remember.
FYI: Carbon / Graphite / CRFP are all the same. Europe uses Carbon as its terminology for the fiber. The USA uses Graphite for the fiber but has shifted to Carbon. CFRP or Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastic is another name for the complete layup. Carbon or Graphite is the same fiber. The plastic is normally Epoxy for all aircraft structure. Weight reason.
The CFRP comes in two forms; woven fiber or tape. I have seen both on the debris surfaces. Fabric will look like black burlap. The tape will be a uniform black surface. Tape is preferred for it max strength to weight.
The woven fiber is woven in various forms. The simplest form looks like burlap. 1/8 inch wide bundles of fibers woven together into black burlap like shape. Simple over/ under weave. There are other weaves, 8 over then one under, that are more flexible to form over more contoured structure.
The tape is fiber that is oriented in one direction. It is a continuous fiber. It comes in several thicknesses.
Epoxy resin is coated/applied to the surface of both forms. It is then called a prepreg. Either prepreg fabric or prepreg tape. This is stored in a freezer in large rolls till used. This material is layed up in multiple layers to form a skin and then included in an assembly with possibly H/C; cured in an oven or autoclave at 250 F or 350 F at pressure. Nominally 350 F at 45 PSI for 2 hours for h/c layup; 85 psi for solid laminates.
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/anwar001-800×564.jpg
Anwar in one of his many appearances with the head of the Muslim brotherhood(Sheil Al-Qaradawi) – for people who don’t have the stomach to sift through Shoebat.net
Hours after Anwar goes back in the clink a jet flown by a close supporter does a runner. Fast forward and the western govts have shown just momentary curiosity in the matter. My own curiosity is now pretty much confined to where it now lies.
@Brock
Richard is still in a state of denial. Sad really that so many intelligent people fail to recognize the power contained in considering all the evidence.
I am cataloging this episode, and intend to publish a paper on it. It will not reflect well on the usual suspects.
One catch-up item: I had promised this forum I would ask GEOMAR’s Dr. Jonathan Durgadoo for sensitivity testing of the graphics in Figure 4 of their May 2016 drift analysis update. I did, and he responded quickly, but I’d forgotten to post it. Here it is, with Stokes effect set to zero:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72NFlKLUFGenlKN1k/view?usp=sharing
Since Jonathan has indicated to me that 0% (per this supplement) and 100% (per their published report) represent the endpoints of GEOMAR’s plausible range of Stokes+wind effects, the bottom-right images of each effectively book-end their unconditional best-estimate range of impact areas.
The bottom-right image in the attached is precisely the same image as the map GEOMAR published in September, 2015 – but with one exception. In 2015, they censored out of the image all impact points not within the dotted lines; in the attached, this condition was removed. As expected, Maldives-area scenarios are shown to be much more likely than even the northern end of the wide area – with the actual search box seemingly an impossibility. I think it was @AM2 who was as keen to see this as I was.
Note that, regardless of the extent of wave effect (0-100%) modeled, both Maldives-area (NW) and Sumatra-area (NE) impacts are always feasible, while probabilities within the actual search box (SE) range from slim to none.
Search leadership’s failure to extend to GEMOAR so much as the courtesy of a response speaks volumes.
@Brock
Thanks very much for providing this update from GEOMAR. Very interesting indeed. I agree that the current search area, as well as most of the southern part of the 7th arc, look very doubtful as origin.
Unfortunately now, without definite knowledge of how the flaperon floated with barnacles attached and whether indeed any of the recent pieces such as RR did float on the surface (as I would expect) and did have barnacles on both sides, its hard to make any sense of it all. Did the recent pieces flip over often with wave action I wonder, perhaps allowing barnacle growth both sides. BTW the RR piece (as far as the perspective in that earlier photo allows) did seem larger in the earlier picture above the RR (seen right way up) but possibly parts may have broken off against rocks; although we don’t have an earlier image of the reverse side the marks in the sand may indicate barnacles underneath.
@Oleksandr
First motive was not one of the inconsistencies mentioned by Brock McEwen I think for good reasons. It’s not more necessary to know motive for assuming a totaly controlled flight than to assume a partial controlled flight followed by a ghost flight. If fact it’s not necessary to know the motive why one of both happened. Data and circumstances proof there was at least a controlled flight till the SDU reboot.
Not to only to assume but take it for fact that shortly after this event the controlled flight suddenly changed into a ghost flight invited imo the biggest inconsistency of all.
Followed by all other inconsistencies that accumulate after such a decision.
That made and makes the partial ghost flight assumption impossible to generate one consistent flight path and impact area and consequently fails to find the plane.
The assumption of an all controlled flight however leaves opportunitys to narrow or eliminate inconsistencies combined with all the now known data.
About the SDU. I wrote and admitted I don’t know. My thoughts came from what I read about the 7320SDU with integrated GPS and satcom abilitys. I was just looking for a reason why the first reboot could have been done.
To vanish 20min. away would almost certainly have led to early discovery of debris. By flying on to the SIO for 6 hours ‘he’ got everyone searching for two weeks in the wrong areas. To fly to the Pacific would also lead to early and much more detections for it needs to fly past and over densely populated areas, a lot of radar stations, shipping lanes and flight paths.
To fly straight to Penang, fake an approach and then past Butterworth along waypoints would be imo genius for it would attracked the least superstition from Butterworth or other radar stations. Just another passenger plane on its way.
I wrote I doubt sentimental reasons to fly to Penang for reasons stated above.
Offcourse besides the SDU/satcom the transponders and ACARS were switch off. Why the SDU out and on again I don’t know as I explained. Hope someone finds a reason why it happened. Fact is it happened.
Imo he only had to know the range of Butterworth to know no other radar station could track him anymore outside Butterworth range in the direction he chose to fly.
And if I state ‘he’ I admit I suspect the captain but it could be someone else too.
I don’t know why it matters to switch on the SDU again. It was switch on again for a reason imo. I thought it could maybe be to have GPS on line again for navigating to the SIO.
This makes no sence you answered me and I take that for fact. But which reason then?
Getting rid of remaining fuel by dumping it I explained reasons why to do this. A glide could take another ~13 minutes after power loss. Leaving 5300kg fuel after max. dumping seems an awfull lot to me. Like to see proof of that. I thought it’s possible to dump (almost) all fuel to avoid the risk of fire as much as possible in an emergency of a forced belly landing.
The last ‘ping-set’ would occure after engine power loss and a short run of the APU.
Explaining all could have happened the way it did by technical failure or a unsuccesfull bombing attempt changing a controlled flight suddenly into a ghost flight after a (only by human intervention possible) SDU reboot after almost 2 hours of controlled flight leaves a lot more inconsistencies to explain imo.
@GeRijn We all have to deal with our particular perspective/general orientation and hang ups re our cherished assumptions. Yours, if you don’t mind me stating it as such, would appear to be that there was human input (fuel jettison, establishment of a glide path, etc.) up to the point of impact in order to ensure a safe “forced belly landing.” But why the flight to the point of fuel exhaustion or near exhaustion?
Pilot/hijacker suicide: this scenario is rather marginalised by the duration of the flight. Ironically, in terms of Shah being the perp in such a scenario, flying to the point of fuel exhaustion would be congruent with ‘one last long flight’ on the way to paradise. Despite @Matty’s depiction of a plausible motive, however, there is not enough in the record to profile Shah as an islamist, there isn’t anything in his expression/presentation (that we know of) that projects the necessary patterning for such behaviour. A hijacker flying into oblivion after having lost his bargaining position, just to bit a bit of mystery on a malicious act? Perhaps, but this is a bit anomalous in the history of hijackings.
I would still say that the grosser, safer assumption is that the aircraft most likely flew to the SIO with less than full human input in terms of decision making (i.e., the SIO was not the intended destination) . Indicating the SIO as an intended ‘wilderness destination’ to hide the aircraft would then be a matter of fallacious reasoning, more than anything else, I would think.
@DennisW Richard presented an extremely well reasoned argument for the present high probability search box, and, yes, without any sense of motive, as we have none to work with (call the Malaysians, my DAP chief-of-staff contact moved on to other things, and I can’t get anywhere with anyone else). Why your continued beef with the search effort and the IG? Yes, they could be wrong, but then the search is in a whole heap of trouble with nothing but suppositions and drift modelling to guide it.
@Brock Could you tell us, truly, the source of your particular beef with the authorities overseeing the search, as well as others? Is not putting all your chips into faith in the absence of debris on Australian coastlines rather indicative of this ‘disgruntlement’, for lack of a better word? I know I have referenced your green tendencies before, yet could you not consider that the archetypes of this perspective are rather guiding your reasoning? In addition, would forward drift experiments from multiple locations even help, given the more ‘chaotic’ yet simultaneously deterministic effects of wind on drift patterns? You are far more erudite then I am in this regard, and I have only a general understanding of the matter; I also only have a general/grosser understanding of statistics.
The Malaysians need to be pressed on the details of their criminal investigation; this much is clear. The opposition is not tackling it, ICAO protocol won’t allow it, the matter is apparently beyond the resources of investigative journalism and the west is disinterested, for whatever reason. Perhaps only a civil case litigated in Malaysia by NOK will produce anything; anybody heard of any ‘action’ in this respect?
I’ll take my answers off the air…
@Brock McEwen
At observing that GEOMAR update pictures it looks as if they still left out the confirmed debris finds of South Africa and Mozambique.
Shouldn’t they be incorporated in an update drift study?
I can imagine if they did the outcomes and those pictures would show different results.
Is my observation correct or am I missing something obvious here (could well be).
@Brock
“Zero take by all military installations (including JORN) beyond Butterworth” to which I may add NO other military radar data from IGARI to Pulau Perak save Malaysia
Plus no debris in Oz
For some reason you seem to be the most logical one in these parts, at least to me.
Well the most level headed voice by far amidst the unseemly cacophony about doubtful debris, a pilot who cannot defend himself for obvious reasons and a politician being vilified for a long dead past ( hey read up what’s up in the Malaysian parliament to see who’s playing the extremist game)
Rest my case 😀
@Rand
In essence my believe now is an all controlled flight with calculated human input till the end (where ever that may be..) is more logical to assume than a partly controlled flight which went into a ghost flight just after a by human intervention conducted reboot of the SDU.
And it leaves more room to narrow or aliminate inconsistencies together with the new debris and data for determinating another more probable crash area.
The ghost flight assumption hasn’t had any results yet. When it turns out it fails completely in finding the plane it’s time to consider radical new assumptions.
Of which an all controlled flight is a serious option imo.
And not only my opinion. Currently the ATSB stated the same, including the possibility of a glide.
Brock,
Thank you very much for the Geomar link and information.
@ all – Looking at those diagrams, one thing strikes me – if MH370 did come down much further West than the authorities seem to be going with, ie nearer to the Maldives, or even just much further North (Sumatra etc),
Would it be likely that debris would have washed ashore in other locations, closer to those places, as well as where it has (SA, Mozambique, Mauritius etc)?
We need a location where not only is it likely that debris would make it to the locations in which it has been found, BUT also that it wouldn’t make it to anywhere else, where so far, none has been found.
Does that make sense?
@Ken Goodwin
Ken, thank you very much for you reply iro the Macaneta panel.
You wern’t sure if B777 undercarriage doors had seals – I have looked at close-up photos of them on the net, and can confirm that they do have seals, seals looking just ilke the one on the debris item.
If this is an undercarriage door, it must be a small one, because the piece is defined in size by the raised rectangular moulding on the underside. A door would also be attached to an actuator – possibly the actuator was attached where there’s now a chunk missing from the facing panel, in the lower right on the photo.
@Rob
Maybe of help.. Considering the footsteps in the sand I estimate its width around 50cm and lenght around 80cm.
It looks to me it’s a slightly trapezium shaped rectangel (could be the photo too offcourse).
And following those sloped angels on the thickened backside and run them further it seems the piece is not that far from its original size and shape.
Maybe on the right side were the attachment points (hinges?) where it broke off?
Leaves those fastener holes unexplained though.
I assume there could have been a similar row on the opposite side.
Rather a big piece again anyway which tells something too imo.
@ Brock,
Thanks for posting the drift studies. Very interesting. I think (proper!) drift studies are one of the most valuable leads we have.
I cannot believe that my contention to the authorities 3 days after the loss of the mh370 was publicised that it came down “on or close to Madagascar ” is wrong after so many pieces being found in this area, I do not believe the ‘Drift ‘suggestion by the ATSB ,It is a “save – face ” attempt, The Sth Africans are permitting a search in its waters ,That’s the place to find the plane ,I believe that it was originally landed centrally by the pilot and that he remains there in the north- west ,
Ge Rijn
Yes, it’s certainly looks like an undercarriage door to me. The only problem I have at the moment is that it looks slightly too rectangular in shape, especially the raised rectangular underside, to be the trapezoidal shaped door I have in mind. I am going to do some more digging around on the net (one of my favourite pastime) to see if I can pin it down.
Interesting topic. It’s going to tell us something I’m sure, about how the plane hit the water.
When the flaperon turned up in July, I thought there would have to be flap parts floating around somewhere, simply because of the way the flaperon was knocked off the wing. Sure enough, the flap part have begun to turn up, plus an underside door. Amazing!
@Brock
>…“dividing and conquering”
I am arguing from the position of the current search area against each of your criteria, so there is no attempt by me to meet them individually with different solutions.
>…you suggest that if seabed wreckage does turn up, the search was by definition consistent.
No, I am saying that this discussion only makes sense in the context of the sea-bed wreckage not being detected (i.e. the current time). That’s the current status, any other position is hypothetical, so let’s stick with that as the background.
There is no violation of physics in the DSTG paper. The ATSB search area with respect to the DSTG Bayesian analysis is not on the basis of detailed aircraft dynamics, so I don’t see where the laws of physics are relevant.
>One of these coincidences is okay. But not two.
The only point I could concur with from your list is the absence of detected and recognised debris on the Australian coast. You will have to state the other one much more clearly.
@DennisW
On the motive question, I agree that if a pre-determined motive is a necessary condition for any search to proceed then the ATSB search area can be criticised. However, the search for a missing aircraft is normally carried out before the cause of the accident is decided so putting the steps the other way round would be unusual.
On the BFO errors, the DSTG analysis rejected use of the BFO data at the detailed, few Hz level due to the large BFO residuals when fitting the model to the validation flights. You have been saying for years that the BFO data was subject to oscillator drift so should concur with that conclusion – hair-splitting over the technical language used in the report is not relevant to the output of the model.
And thanks for your concern over my mental state. For the record I was always expecting a significant chance of a search failure, since the amount of data was small and errors large. I never understood the certainty that some expressed, including ATSB. Probably ATSB’s position was over-stated by managers who did not understand the probability theory that went into the analysis, in combination with the assumptions made.
I agree that different people’s methods of trying to fill the gaps in the MH370 mystery and come to some conclusion is one of the most interesting parts of this blog. Your approach is certainly on my list.
@Richard
I am not hairsplitting the language used in the DSTG report. Their assumption relative to BFO drift was simply wrong. As I recall (not going to sift back through the report) they were trying to assign it to some location or earth geometry underlier. I agree that it is not relevant to the conclusion.
In the case of MH370 we really do not have any strong reasons to search anywhere. Hence, the inclusion of potential causality at an early stage. Again, not relevant at this point.
As others have mentioned, it will be interesting to see if and how China handles a resumed search after the ATSB wraps it up.
Ge Rijn,
Tried to post response earlier, but Jeff’s blog was apparently overloaded.
Re “First motive was not one of the inconsistencies mentioned by Brock McEwen I think for good reasons.”
We have different views. Similar to Dennis, I think motive or motivation is an essential element.
Re: “If fact it’s not necessary to know the motive why one of both happened.”
This is a common mistake. It is necessary to make some assumption. Two examples: (1) IG has created trajectory by geometric connection of the sections before 18:22 and after 18:41. This allowed them to specify terminus with the accuracy of 1 km. But the problem was that the plane is not there. Why? The reason was clear to me already 1.5 years ago: there was no logic behind this geometrical connection. (2) Dennis’ CI idea. It explains many things, but does not explain why the plane was allowed to run out of fuel and why groundspeed was considerably varying after FMT. So motive he suggestdd turned out to be inconsistent with the result, and it also fails to explain some issues.
Re: “Data and circumstances proof there was at least a controlled flight till the SDU reboot.”
Yes. I already mentioned many times that the most critical is what happened between 18:22 and 18:41. Whatever it was, it determined the fate of MH370.
Re: “Not to only to assume but take it for fact that shortly after this event the controlled flight suddenly changed into a ghost flight invited imo the biggest inconsistency of all.”
See, you became a victim of IG’s assumption. The keyword is “suddenly”. By saying this you imply 18:41, right? The reality is that we don’t know.
Re: “To fly to the Pacific would also lead to early and much more detections for it needs to fly past and over densely populated areas, a lot of radar stations”
No. There are gaps in radar coverages and jungles with probably only monkey population.
Re: “To fly straight to Penang, fake an approach and then past Butterworth along waypoints would be imo genius”
Exactly same is applicable to Langkawi. Zig-zag border, large airport. Just straight to MEKAR. Why not? Especially if passengers were already incapacitated by 18:00.
Re: “Imo he only had to know the range of Butterworth to know no other radar station could track him anymore outside Butterworth range in the direction he chose to fly.”
I did not get your answer. Obviously no. What is special about the Butterworth radar? Btw, we know with some degree of confidence that ‘he’ was not tracked by the Butterworth radar.
Re fuel dumping. It is described in FCOM. But I cant find any logical explanation why dumping would be needed as you suggested? Just enter holding pattern, with the timing accurately estimated by FMC/FMS, or fly extra 5 minutes to burn remaining fuel to get as far as possible.
Re: “Explaining all could have happened the way it did by technical failure or a unsuccesfull bombing attempt changing a controlled flight suddenly into a ghost flight after a (only by human intervention possible) SDU reboot after almost 2 hours of controlled flight leaves a lot more inconsistencies to explain imo.”
There no inconsistencies at all. Name at least one.
MH370 Flaperon report.
https://www.thehuntformh370.info/sites/default/files/mh370_flaperon_failure_analysis_rev_2.0.pdf
Seen before?
Ken, that’s an excellent link. Really helpful –
If anyone’s interested in my ‘part of a flaperon’ theory for the piece found at Ile aux Bernaches, please check page 22 of Ken’s link, ‘Exhibit 21’, which shows that approx. 36% of the flaperon is missing –
I don’t think this part matches up, as Ge Rijn pointed out earlier, but could it have come from the other flaperon?
(If size is approx l.240 x w.160cm, 36% of the width is around 52cm, and the piece found is reported to be around 40cm, but still – allowing for variation – is it possible? I would be interested to know whereabouts the rivet line lies in terms of cm.)
Sorry, 57cm…my maths is failing…I think the found piece is too small.
@ROB @Ge Rijn
The Macaneta panel
I agree it is almost intact. Slight taper lower part to upper in picture. I don’t see an area for a fitting. No potting. Don’t think undercarriage panel. Needs fitting for actuation with landing gear.
More like a T/E fixed panel.
Maybe panel forward of ailerons outbd of spoilers. Serrated edge on top looks like second area for aero seal.
Might be first fixed panel outbd of the row of spoilers forward of outbd ailerons.
@Oleksandr
I’ll start with ‘motive’.
It looks we only have a different definition of this word (maybe it’s my dutch mindset).
In my understanding ‘motive’ is not the same as ‘assumption’.
I agree it’s necessary to make some assumptions based on known data and even on absence of data that would be expected in certain assumptions/scenarios.
But motive is not essential in the investigation as long as data don’t show or proof motive.
F.i. the assumption of a technical failure would be an accident probably without a motive.
Generaly it’s only after the cause of a crash is found that a possible motive can become clear, if there is any.
Motive or motivation in general gives you only reasons afterwards, not the reasons how technicaly spoken a crash happened before a motive (if any) is found.
Germanwings is perhaps a telling example. Only after hearing the voice recordings and investigating the past of the co-pilot they new for certain it wasn’t a technical failure but a suicide-act with a very disturbed motive.
I’ll come back on the rest later, my head starts spinning..
Goodnight/evening/day 😉
As I understand fuel jettison systems exist to bring the weight of a laden aircraft below the max landing weight – not to empty the tanks. On the 777 there is an automatic shut off system with a default minimum fuel level which I believe is set at 5200 kg per main tank.
Others on posting on this blog are far better qualified to calculate how long a 777 200ER can fly after a maximum jettison but it would seem to be in excess of 1 hour.
Jettisoned fuel would be expected to produce a strong contrail (as it vaporizes) and no slick on the water surface … all that far away from where the engines flamed out for lack of fuel.
@Ken Goodwin @Rob
I searched too and found it could also possibly be another panel like the ‘Blain Gibson’-panel of the horizontal stabilizer.
There are four of them on each side and the taper and dimensions could maybe fit.
Also the thickened back reminds of the Blain-piece.
Look at the pictures scroll down this article. The above left one of the four together:
http://www.airlive.net/mh370/
Rand – Shah wasn’t a raging Jihadi but on the subject of Islamism it’s worth noting the modus operandi of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was founded by Hassan Al-Banna who taught that Muslims were chosen by God, that Islam was a logical world government, and that they would rise up at a decreed hour to install Islam to it’s rightful place. The interim was to be spent positioning for such a time. MB adherents are often sponsored through university to study law and engineering. They enter politics and blend in quite discreetly. They are the Fabians of the religious world. No banners, no screaming, they are the educated(on average) Islamists.
The MB is like a giant cell resigned to a long incubation, and it targets people and pulls them in. I agree there is no smoking gun with Shah but did Shah really not know who Anwar was?
The photo is an old one obviously, but his association with Qaradawi is traceable to within a few years.
@Ken Goodwin
@Ge Rijn
Ken,on the Macaneta panel,I cannot see the need for the degree of structural strengthening we see on the back if this panel, ie the deep rectangular noulding, to be necessary for a fixed panel.
The Macaneta panel has more the appearance of a landing gear panel, probably the trunnion door, the small trapezoidal door which closes out a space that remains, following retraction of the main gear bogie.
When lowered, the trunnion door sits almost up against a larger, main door, not allowing much space for the door actuator arms. In the photo of the panel, on the beach, you can see a neat slot in the underside white panel, parallel to the far, serrated edge, where an actuator arm would possibly have been attached. The area where the other actuator would have been attached, is now missing.
Rand – Shah’s T shirt – “democracy is dead”. I interpreted this as a shot at the govt but these days I see it in a different light. MB is an anti-democratic movement but at the time I was beguiled by the idea of Anwar as a beleaguered fighter for justice. With hindsight it’s a jaw dropping slogan for anyone who has entered into the democratic process. Najib might be a crook but it is him – and any semblance of democracy they now have – that is under siege in Malaysia. The Green movement here in Australia express similar sentiments all the time and when the CO2 bogey came along they thought they had the lever to change the world. Their embrace of democracy is convenience.
Also remember that Anwar is a long term politician and claims responsibility for installing the radar that “should have seen MH 370” in 1994. His ties would have been known but they would appear far more ubiquitous in an Islamic society than they would in this one. In other words they live with it, but that tide is getting stronger. Remember that in the 70’s women in Iran/Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan wore dresses, flamboyant hair do’s, drove cars, held positions, got educated and even danced to the Beatles. What happened? And what is happening still?
@DennisW – “I am cataloging this episode, and intend to publish a paper on it. It will not reflect well on the usual suspects.”
did you publish or still going to? Will be looking forward to it !
@ROB @Ge Rijn “Ken,on the Macaneta panel,I cannot see the need for the degree of structural strengthening we see on the back if this panel, ie the deep rectangular moulding, to be necessary for a fixed panel.”
The fixed panels seal the wing surface to prevent high pressure air from below the wing from moving to the top of the wing; during cruise when all systems are stowed. The relatively flat panels must resist the bending force of the pressure differential; thus the thicker core. The seals improve the wings performance. The fixed panels fill areas of the aft wings surface that do not contain other structure (e.g. spoilers, flaps, ailerons). The rear spar of the main wing box is where the T/E systems attach and space is required for actuators, hydraulics, wiring, etc; that are mounted to the rear spar. The spoilers, flaps, ailerons are all attached to the rear spar by various size fittings. The fittings are box shaped to provide the required space and to support the aerodynamic shape of the wing. That aerodynamic surface is filled by the fixed panels as required.
There are other fixed panels on the airplane. Panels will only have the type of seal on the debris if they are adjacent to a moving assembly.
@Ken Goodwin:
Thank you very much for the MH370 Flaperon report. It answers the questions that I have asked here, about the possibility that the aircraft lost the flaperon while flying and that the aircraft can still be controlled without that flaperon. Thank you!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-3613787/Outrage-multi-ethnic-Malaysia-government-backs-Islamic-law.html
Guess if the jihadi argument’s logic holds, then someone else would be as culpable as Shah or even more, wouldn’t he? Whither then the West’s foreign policy.
I would have guessed Shah doing it as a jihadi on behalf of Anwar would have been godsend for the other side to play it to the hilt.
Poor Shah, being dragged through the muck just because you supposedly ditched after a legendary flight that is.
I have followed every aspect of this mystery. I was just watching old episodes of the Australian show, “Border Patrol”, and happened to see MH 370 (9M-MRO) in all her glory, as a passing shot, landing. Nobody in my household appreciates it so thought I’d share it here. Fast forward to when there is 18:53 left in the episode (Season 8, episode 7, link below.)
https://www.netflix.com/watch/80107625?trackId=14184641&tctx=0,0,10a71981-527e-4893-b881-861b88710071-122976917#MovieId=80107618&EpisodeMovieId=80107626