Blaine Alan Gibson Finds 3 Possible MH370 Debris Pieces in Madagascar

8733949
The “second” piece

 

Hot on the heels of a reported possible MH370 piece in South Australia, news reaches us that Blaine Alan Gibson has found three pieces of suspected MH370 debris in Madagascar. This article says, in part:

Three new fragments which could have come from Malaysia Airlines Flight 270 were discovered on the morning of Monday, June 6, on the Island of Nosy Boraha, in the northeast of Madagascar…

These fragments were found by Blaine Alan Gibson, an American businessman, while he was accompanied by a from the France 2 TV show “Complément d’enquête.” They were on a long, almost deserted beach near the village of Sahasifotra, where tons of waste arrive every day from the Indian Ocean.

One piece in particular, 77 cm wide by 50 cm, apparently made by composite materials, strongly resembles another fragment which Gibson found in February on the coast of Mozambique.

” These two fragments are very very similar: the same paint color, the diameter of the attachment holes is identical. and on the back the texture is the same. I believe that it is a piece from MH370,” Blaine Alan Gibson told our colleagues. Two other parts were also found, a smaller panel with the inscription “FB” as well as another plastic part which could be the frame of an economy class seat’s video screen.

8733895
The “first” piece

 

8733957
The “third” piece

UPDATE 6/9/16: Here’s a screengrab of a YouTube video showing a Malaysia Airlines 777 economy class seatback (thanks to reader @sk999). The coat hook in particular looks like a good match for the third piece.

Economy class screen

Here’s an even better shot, via @BBCwestcott. Note the color of the fabric around the “COAT HOOK” button:

westcott

774 thoughts on “Blaine Alan Gibson Finds 3 Possible MH370 Debris Pieces in Madagascar”

  1. @falken

    My God.. this clip.. I think I understand you better now also regarding the investigation of MH370..
    In this way the persistence of Jeff and many others it’s truly ‘on topic’.
    Thanks again.
    Foo Fighters, wonderfull band.

  2. Came across a weird Facebook profile today. Go to facebook. In the search box put “mira d ismail mh370”. It is the only one that comes up.

  3. @Ge Rijn,

    “Do I understand you well when you say the APU will automaticly start when the left engine stops operating even when the right engine is still operating?”

    That is correct provided the aircraft is in the air, the fuel control switch is in RUN and there is no feed manifold pressure to the left engine.

    OZ

  4. @RetiredF4
    Thanks for your follow on MA capabilities. I was just going on my gut feeling instead of
    a proper research for info. In reality they have the capability; but was it available at that point in time.
    The Indonesians are not too worried about using the trigger. Even having a shot at some Chinese
    fishing boats up in the Spratly Islands. When I get my end of FinYear accounts done I will get to do a bit more reading.
    Cheers, and thanks again
    Tom L

  5. @Crobbie
    Looked that one up and is certainly a strange posting.
    Three thing 1-The Avatar used 2-Same Arc as the Russian Cosmodromes 3-The MH370 Tag & Pic
    I don’t use any social media so I would not be able check anything out. Maybe just thought it ‘Cool’.

  6. what happens to an aircraft, on a HDG HOLD, in a cross-wind…

    the plane tries to “crab” due to the cross-wind…

    but yet must maintain its heading ? Or is heading not defined by the nose-to-tail axis of the a/c, but the net velocity vector ?

  7. @Erik,

    Seems to me that for a single point in time, heading could only be determined by a compass or by using fixed points of reference like radio beacons or stars or other landmarks.

    If you have two locations over two points in time you could use the delta to determine your most recent heading.

    An inertial system could get a relative heading from the initial heading.

    I can’t see any other way to follow a heading. Of the ways I mention the only one not dependent on other systems is a compass, which would indicate the direction of the nose, not the direction of travel.

  8. Erik Nelson,

    If the cross-wind is steady, the plane will will fly HDG HOLD relative to the air as if all was calm with the world. No crab – the plane knows nothing about the ground track.

  9. @Lindsay

    I never invest in companies whose fiscal year deviates from the calendar year (i.e. AAPL). The philosophy has served me fairly well. I regard it as a smokescreen.

  10. @DennisW

    True for you but in Aust the holiday season is mainly Christmas & New Year. Everybody has the same time hear 1Jul to 30Jun In fact the country virtually shuts down until the end of Jan.Also the hottest. Good time to invade!!
    Cheers Tom

  11. https://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370-pages/updates/operational-update/
    In this 22 Jun update from JACC, nothing new on the current search commitment and no indication of future extension. The item of debris found on Kangaroo Island, SA, has been examined and is not from a Boeing commercial aircraft.
    In other news from various unofficial sources, there will be a ministerial-level meeting after our Jul 2 general election here in Aus. (IMO a change of government here would be unlikely to bring a change of policy towards the search and financial commitment.)

  12. @AM2
    I agree with you, that nothing will change after the election on 2nd of July, regardless of who wins, or who the new minister will be.

  13. Blaine has found some more aircraft parts. I’m not going to link but it’s on twitter with some clear photos (as we have come to expect)

    I hope I don’t jinx it by posting this. Every time I’m organised enough to retweet to everyone, it turns out to be a false alarm.

    But anyway. I’m sure Blaine hasn’t let us down this time.

  15. @Erik Nelson

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Track_heading.svg/491px-Track_heading.svg.png

    Heading is, where the longitudonal axis of your aircraft points to. It is named magnetic H when referenced to magnetic north, true H when referenced relativ to true north. The difference between TH and MH is the magnetic variation. simplified Heading is the direction of travel of your aircraft relative to the surrounding airmass you are flying in.

    Track is the travel of your aircraft projected on the ground below. Without wind the track would be the same as heading. With wind the aircraft will still have the same heading, but the moving airmass will cause a different track. The difference between heading and track will be drift. To correct for drift you have to change your heading and crab into the wind (wind correction angle).

  16. sk999 Posted June 21, 2016 at 10:00 PM: “If the cross-wind is steady, the plane will will fly HDG HOLD relative to the air as if all was calm with the world. No crab – the plane knows nothing about the ground track.
    ”

    The plane will will fly HDG HOLD if that is the selected autopilot mode. HDG is the direction the nose of the a/c is pointing at (the nose-to-tail axis) relative to earth. It is obtained from the inertial reference part of the ADIRU. Crab is the angle between HDG and ground track. The inertial reference system also determines the ground track and groundspeed. By comparing that to airspeed and heading it determines the wind speed and direction.

  17. @Susie

    Interesting find. Can you say which twitter account you found it on?
    I cann’t download the pictures from this dropbox link and I like to.
    Indeed a bit weird he still seems to possess the other pieces.
    Are the ATSB and the Malaysians not interested anymore?

  19. @OZ

    Thank you for answering.
    So it’s possible and likely the APU will start up after the left engine shuts off in flight when the right engine is still operating.

    Now for the SDU being primary powered by the left engine generator would this cause a power interuption to the SDU between left engine shut down and starting of the APU?

    And then would the starting of the APU trigger a new SDU log on request?

  20. @AM2

    I think it’s strange. Those earlier pieces are obviously (the panels and LCD mounting) quite interesting as are those new two pieces especialy the carbon one with those hi-locks.

    It can mean they are not in a hurry anymore on the debris collecting for they know enough.
    I’ve got the gut-feeling something very important has been discussed in those talks between Australia, Malaysia and China which is not disclosed yet.

  22. The piece with the fasteners in it looks convincing at a first glance (based on the fasteners).

    I think what is most notable for me is the expression on BG’s face. It speaks a thousand words.

    I agree with him. Why the hell is he still the one finding these things on his own with staff from a local hotel.

    Where is the international presence? Where is the official interest?

    And to learn he still has the pieces in his possession as no-one has come to collect them yet is appalling.

    No matter whether or not we think structures, bags and personal effects are or are not likely to be from MH370 I want to see them treated PROPERLY as the potentially important pieces of evidence that they are.

    The process being observed is so far removed from standard forensic / scene of crime protocols as to make it very unlikely that any forensic analysis of the components could stand up in court.

    That seems extremely convenient and I would go as far as to say is “evidence” in its own right. Evidence that the governments and organisations involved in the search are deliberately derailing the investigations.

    I believe that one of the strongest and most effective things this community can do now is to get the media to start putting pressure on – ask WHY this neglect continues.

    In the media BG is being heralded for the tenacity of his investigations but almost no time/space is being given to ask WHY the HELL the authorities aren’t doing something and formalizing an investigation.

  23. @Ge Rijn, @Susie
    Yes, it would have been interesting to have been a “fly on the wall” at that meeting.

    Maybe an opportunity to get those debris items that may have come from the plane itself (not the bags etc.) analysed independently 🙂

  25. @Tom Linsay

    Yes agree all those things are odd. What you can see is all anyone who is not connected to them can see.

    The name in brackets is a formerly-known-as name. It is normally used by people who have changed their name due to marriage or who have longstanding nicknames that everyone knows.

    If I saw a profile like that trying to enter any of the groups I’ve moderated I would flag it as suspicious.

  26. @ Crobbie, @ AM2 – Perhaps Blaine should list them all on ebay at a 99p starting price. That would give Malaysia a kick up the arse : )

  27. @Susie

    Thanks. I managed to download 2 pictures with thanks and credit to Blaine Gibson!

    @Crobbie

    I suspect a lot of (forensic) investigation on the debris has allready been done by the ATSB and -lets not forget- the French on the flaperon, behind very closed doors.

    I’m almost certain they know a lot more allready. And I think the reason of all this smoke and mirrors is because this information is very very sensitive on more than one level.
    I have the gut-feeling the involved parties by now are in a very difficult situation how to bring the information to the press and the public.

  28. VictorI Posted June 19, 2016 at 3:15 PM: “I had some private discussions with @Oleksandr about the BTO and BFO values at 18:25 – 18:28. Some of us have proposed manoeuvers such as a “jog to the right” to fit the data. @Oleksandr has proposed a different, interesting explanation based on a constant bank turn combined with a descent. I am including the link below in case some of you are interested in this work.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/3eais38phjo9h0j/descent_1822_1841.jpg?dl=0 ”

    Looking at bottom-left table, I don’t understand what “Residual BFO” means. During the attempted telephone call the logged BFO was essentially constant at 88 +/- 2 Hz. Using Yap’s BTO & BFO Calculator I get the following BFO’s for Oleksandr’s speeds in that period:

    Time, UTC

    w

    Vgs

    HDG

    BFO

    (hh:mm:ss)

    (fpm)

    (kt)

    (deg)

    (Hz)

    18:39:55

    -600

    384

    143

    87

    18:40:23

    -600

    383

    179

    80

    18:40:56

    -600

    383

    222

    89

  29. Apologies: WORDPRESS messed up the table format in HTML. The BFO values are 87 Hz at 18:39:55; 80 Hz at 18:40:23, and 89 Hz at 18:40:56.

  30. @Gysbregt

    May I ask, practicaly spoken what is the differance in your outcome of calculations between those of @Oleksandr?

    Do you come to a different heading at 18:40:56? Or something else?

  31. Gysbreght,

    Yes, I was a bit too glib. Crab is angle between heading and track. I guess I have only seen the term used in the context of a cross-wind landing, where one would presumably not be using HDG HOLD.

  32. @Ge Rijn:

    The difference is that Oleksandr lets the airplane turn from heading 142 to heading 222, whereas the 86 BFO values in the INMARSAT log do not indicate a turn in that 1-minute period.

  34. @Susie

    That ABC report is iro anything new. They are just reporting the weekly ATSB report, verbatim. Each week, the ATSB use the same wording to say there are no plans to extend the search.

    There will be a tripartite Ministers’ meeting next month, when a decision will be made on whether to extend the search.

  37. @Susie

    That’s ok. Whenever there’s a lack of real news, the Press become creative, or should that be “become desperate”?

    Either way, it’s extremely misleading!

  38. @Gysbrecht

    Taking @Oleksandrs diagram is it possible that turn happened before 18:39:55?
    According his figures the greatest descent of ~2200m was made before that time somewhere between 18:28:14 and 18:39:55.
    In those last ~60 seconds the descent was ~600ft with the numbers assuming (to me) it was not leveled out yet still descending.

    If the descent rate was ~600ft/min over that whole descent of ~2300m starting after 18:28:14 till 18:40:56, the plane was descending at that rate for the past ~11 minutes.
    Then if you assume a turn was made during that descent the FMT as an ’emergency descent’ would have started at ~18:29.
    Maybe that last minute recorded the end of the turn allready made still descending but flying in straight line again?

    Just thinking loud, hope you don’t mind if I make obvious mistakes in interpretation of the figures.
    Try to relate those figures to an emergency descent with a shut down engine before FMT.

  39. @Gysbrecht

    Taking @Oleksandrs diagram is it possible that turn happened before 18:39:55?
    According his figures the greatest descent of ~2200m was made before that time somewhere between 18:28:14 and 18:39:55.
    In those last ~60 seconds the descent was ~600ft with the numbers assuming (to me) it was not leveled out yet still descending.

    If the descent rate was ~600ft/min over that whole descent of ~2300m starting after 18:28:14 till 18:40:56, the plane was descending at that rate for the past ~11 minutes.
    Then if you assume a turn was made during that descent the FMT as an ’emergency descent’ would have started at ~18:29.
    Maybe that last minute, recorded the end of the turn allready made still descending but flying in straight line again?

    Just thinking loud, hope you don’t mind if I make obvious mistakes in interpretation of the figures.
    Try to relate those figures to an emergency descent with a shut down engine before FMT.

  42. @Ge Rijn:

    Can you explain to me what the numbers in the bottom-right table, column “Residual BFO” mean?

  43. @Gysbregt

    No I have no clue. I like to know.
    It seems connected with ‘residual distance/km’.
    Frequence translated in distance?

  49. @OZ, buyerninety. RR engine relight once more.

    OZ you say that besides igniters, “The APU dc fuel pump also turns on when there is no pressure on in the left engine feed manifold and…. when the engine speed is below idle.” You are clear the APU pump has been turned on not for an auto-relight after a flameout but for a restart after engine shut down.

    In turning on the igniters after a flameout there is obviously an expectation in ‘normal’ operations that there will be fuel. Yet with the engine dropping beneath idle the generators, which come on line at idle, will come off line and the AC powered fuel supply with them.

    If the APU fuel pump supply was just for a subsequent restart, why would it not be started at engine shut down, when N3 reaches 35%, rather than during run down?

    To me a purpose in supplying fuel to the left engine is to supplement suction feed/gravity draw down (more later) in an auto-relight attempt; that is besides being there as you say for a restart attempt during normal operations.

    With MH370 it is unlikely any residual fuel could be accessed for suction feed as it would be by the APU pump. The pump would use its limited flow rate in getting the left engine relit while also fuelling the APU in auto-start, once its intake door opened. While in normal operation the APU pump would access the normal left tank fuel, in this instance the supply would be limited to a meagre 30 lbs, maximum. The engine might fire up briefly before being shut down.

    One caveat I place on this access to residual fuel by the left engine is whether the engine starting envelope would inhibit a relight attempt at high altitude, as it might a start, and whether it might do the same if engine speed were beneath that for a windmill start.

    The place of suction feed is outside the scope here but if you are interested here is a glance at some considerations:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/9xgeh4nrxswictq/Suction%20fuel%20feed..docx?dl=0

Comments are closed.