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. @Victor: thanks for the quick reply.

    By contrast, I DO wish to persuade you – on one front, at least: that the Maldives debris is worth a closer look. Here’s what a quick analysis has turned up on the one Vabbinfaru piece, alone:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72amRwTGYyTDFUV3M/view?usp=sharing

    The disinformation campaign swirling around this piece (surfboard, capsized barge, ‘Malaysians ruled it out’ – all provably false) persuades me to dig deeper even more so than do the striking resemblances in the montage.

    I hope you agree.

  2. VictorI Posted June 10, 2016 at 8:40 AM: “Part of the problem is that Malaysia has not made any official statements regarding any clues from its criminal investigation. Perhaps they uncovered evidence which incriminated the pilot or MAS, and for political and/or financial reasons, chose to keep the information sealed. ”

    Remember “I actually know what actually happened” ?

    Since I read that and did some googling on the identity of the person who made that statement to the press, I am convinced that the Malaysian authorities know the identity of the person responsible for the turnback at IGARI. But as to where the airplane entered the SIO, I believe the Malaysians are as much in the dark as everybody else.

  3. @Nederland: At the end of March 2014, the FBI disclosed nothing sinister was found on the pilot’s simulator. That changed in June 2014, when there were reports of a route to the SIO that was deleted from the simulator just prior to the disappearance. In some of these reports, there was mention of a route to a remote island. Miles O’Brien, for instance, never made mention of a remote island, but did indicate that the deleted route was the exact path to the SIO, citing information from two sources. (I don’t know what is implied by “exact”.)

    I’ve been talking about this for a year because of its significance. I think there is high probability that Miles’ sources were correct, and if true, this severely implicates the pilot. I have asked Miles whether the ATSB was aware of this route, and whether it was used to help refine the search area. Miles said he did not know.

  4. @Brock McEwen: I am in total favor of learning the origin of the debris found on the Maldives, and I applaud efforts to do so. If from MH370, we will have to re-assess the impact site, not to mention the satellite data. But I am not in favor of using this debris as proof of anything before we know its origin.

  5. “I actually know what actually happened”

    i believe this was a statement by an Indonesian Police Chief stating he had a conversation with a person of equivalent status in Malaysia. The dis-information machine went into full run cycle to cover this up with denials/etc.

  6. @VictorI

    That’s interesting, however, I am aware of only two British newspaper articles (no tabloids) in June 2014 and subsequent reception, indicating the SIO island landing as practised and deleted later in February 2014.

    Could you, please, refer me to a publication by Miles O’Brien on this?

  7. @MH: Correction:
    Not “an Indonesian Police Chief” but The Chief of Indonesia’s Police at the time, since forced into early retirement on a political issue with the President of Indonesia.

  8. @Gysbreght and @MH: Yes, the Indonesian Police Chief made this statement based on what he learned from the retired Malaysian Police Chief, which made the current Malaysian Police Chief go ballistic. I agree that all indications are that the Malaysian investigation has turned up more than has been disclosed.

  9. @VictorI

    Thank you. It seems Miles (in July 2014) is referring to a CNN report from 22 June, which itself is based on the article by the Sunday Times earlier that day. So, he is basically correct to say that the report claimed such a path has been plotted, but he seems to omit the additional information that it involved landing on an island:

    “The story also said evidence from the flight simulator at Zaharie’s home showed he had plotted — but then deleted — paths to the deep southern Indian Ocean and landings on short runways.”, citing the Sunday Times, which claimed that Zaharie’s alleged practising landing on a remote island in the Indian Ocean has aroused suspicion.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/22/world/asia/malaysia-mh-370-search/

  10. @Nederland: No. Miles has two sources that he himself has talked with. He is not referring to the Sunday Times article.

  11. @VictorI
    The question still remains whether or not the alleged flight path involved a landing, there is no indication of this in the thread quoted, potentially the information could have come from the same source(s) and therefore be identical with the published newspaper reports (indicating a landing). If the alleged route involved a crash, obviously that would be big news, why then not publish it?

  12. just to interject an observation of “consistency”

    Any “mid level person of authority” who might have spoken a “truth” gets put into “forced” “retirement” …

  13. just to add from what I remember : the malaysia airforce chief at the time of disappearance was “removed from duty” when he said the radar did not capture MH370 flying back over Malaysia.

  14. @Nederland – likewise, if the route involved an island, which one? Seems like it would relevant whether it’s a crash or a landing.

  15. @JS
    The name of the island has never been made public, for example, the Telegraph wrote:

    “Sources close to the investigation confirmed to The Telegraph on Sunday that a deleted flight path had been recovered from Capt Zaharie’s simulator which had been used to practice landing an aircraft on a small runway on an unnamed island in the far southern Indian Ocean.”

    Speculations are this could be Cocos or Christmas Islands as there are few others who fit the bill – and recent drift analysis and debris finds may also point to a more northerly path close to Cocos Islands.

    But I’m personally not convinced that this, if true, is necessarily suspicious, although deletion of files is somewhat odd in context and CNN quoted a source as claiming that the files were destroyed rather than just deleted and apparently difficult to retrieve.

  16. Aren’t those files deleted by default and then overwritten, unless the user explicitly wants to save them? Why would the user want to save a flight he has done and then delete it?

    “Sources close to the investigation” are renowned for their ability to spread dirt.

  17. Aren’t those files deleted by default and then overwritten, unless the user explicitly wants to save them? Why would the user want to save a flight he has done and then delete it?

    “Sources close to the investigation” are renowned for their ability to spread dirt.

    I also recall that ALSM was unable to save the files of his experiments in a professional multi-million dollar flight simulator, but had to use a GOPRO camera videoing the instrument panel to have a record of what was done.

  18. @Nederland, It’s very hard to understand what can be meant by ” a small runway an unnamed island in the far southern Indian Ocean.” As far as I know there are no islands with airstrips in the far southern Indian Ocean (neither the Prince Edward Islands or the Kerguelen Islands have a runway); I don’t think anyone plausibly could have used the words “far southern Indian Ocean” to refer to Cocos or Christmas Islands. Especially as this report was never confirmed, I don’t think we can place any stock in its accuracy.

    That is not to say that is necessarily untrue, but I think that we should all accept the general principle that data that is not demonstrably true cannot be used to argue for or against a scenario. I would put in the category the deleted flight simulator session, the Penang cell phone connection, the Maldives debris, and the proposition that the MAS towel packet came from MH370, among many others.

  19. Apologies for the repetition. Usually the Comment window is emptied after posting. This time it wasn’t so I thought I had forgotten to click the “Post” button and could still add something.

  20. Wow; I didn’t realize one of the pieces was from Australia. This is getting comical…

    The gap between the debris record to date – Maldives included, or not…Kangaroo Island included, or not – and what the drift models predict remains Grand Canyonesque: this piece should have landed 18 months ago or more. Together with dozens of others.

    Does not add up. At all.

    A cynic might note with interest the degree to which debris recently making news seems to align – with almost perfect, 1-to-1 correspondence – to objections recently publicized by concerned researchers seeking a stiff audit of search conduct. Just like the faked info on the co-pilot’s cell phone connect, the “flew faster” BS, the sexed up LANL hydrophonic “study”, the eyewitness engineering, and the contrail/Tomnod ephemery, it seems the strategy of pseudo-corroborating Arc 7 is destined to continue until those of us who seek full disclosure on models and data are beaten right to the ground.

    At least, that’s what is feels like to me. And looks like.

    If so: good luck.

  21. @Victor
    ” My current leaning is the pilot was performing high-skill manoeuvers to misdirect and evade radar. ”

    Possible ‘non-standard’ descents during the turns might have resulted in ‘dropping off the radar’ while the aircraft changed directions.

  22. I think I couldn’t get my point across as I was trying to say that not much faith can be put in the allegedly plotted flight path to the SIO either way – and part of this is because the rumour seems to involve a landing rather than a crash in that area.

  23. @Susie Crowe:

    In the Indonesian paper it looks that as the result of knowing what happened to MH370:

    “Sutarman calls for the airline companies to be able to use the necessary and competent force of experts in the operation of all aircrafts”, and that “in his discourse, Sutarman also swears that [he] will do [what is necessary for] securing the safety of air transportation in Indonesia.”

    No doubt he knows something…

  24. @Susie

    Come back on your kind words. Thanks.
    And your gentle style is appreciated for sure 🙂

    All kinds of information from different research and views seem to come to a certain point of agreement on possible crash areas, flight scenarios and possible motives/causes.

    Hopefully just in time to find a convincing concensus that will convince authorities to extend the search effort.

  25. Regarding one of the pieces of debris, which posters here
    apparently believe to be a wing/aerodynamic part, I would
    like to suggest an alternative origin on (and from) 9M-MRO.
    The L’ile aux Bernaches debris piece, known to readers here
    from this picture;
    http://031c074.netsolhost.com/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/debris_avion.jpg
    Now, open in a concurrent window this picture;
    http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4Apda-7x1xg/maxresdefault.jpg
    (which is of the front undercarriage doors of apparently,
    JA732A, a 777-381ER.)
    Visualize the debris (left picture) rotated such that it
    is oriented the same as the left undercarriage door. Look
    closely at the positioning of the debris two holes, their
    relative distance apart and the diagonal angle between them.
    See how the debris holes closely match the position of the
    door attachments, specifically the rod end attachment and
    the door hinge lower attachment on the door. Also see how
    the debris panel size matches the size of the door, allowing
    for damage and some portions of the debris panel being missing.
    If the rod attachment (impact) punched through the door, it
    could make a through hole of about that size as on the debris.
    If the hinge lower attachment ripped from the door, it could
    cause a (non-through) hole on the door as on the debris.
    Now looking at the debris (right picture), there does seem to
    be a mismatch in the thickness of the debris – the debris
    seems to (perhaps aerodynamicly) taper to a thin edge, but
    the door appears to have no such taper. I believe this can be
    accounted for by taking the following into consideration –
    the apparent tapered edge on the debris right picture view,
    when viewed on the left picture, shows that this area up to
    the edge is severely cracked, as if it had been severely
    compacted (particularly compacting the honeycomb in the
    debris between its surface ‘skins’ in that area). Therefore,
    the taper is not in fact the original form of the debris,
    but is rather the result of that area having been crushed
    against the front wheel (metal) suspension (or the tyre,
    although to my eye the tyre, when retracted, seems to sit
    a bit too far forward to have an impact on that door).
    _
    You can confirm the door picture is a still from this video;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Apda-7x1xg
    I also found this video;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIyzCdBkiy0
    which is of TC-JJN, a 777-3F2ER.
    Unfortunately, the only relevant video of a 777-200
    that I could find was this;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNcXmxgogO4
    but it is not clear enough to discern the attachment points.
    _
    I have viewed video or pictures of door(s) for the APU intake,
    APU (service underside) access, and RAT deployment, but they
    do not match the debris picture. There may be an (inboard
    underside facing) door on the engine9s) clamshell I have not
    found a picture for, so I cannot rule out such a door as a
    candiate match for the debris.
    Nevertheless, all the above factors suggest to me there is
    an equal (or greater) likelihood that the L’ile aux Bernaches
    debris is the right rear front undercarriage door (there are
    actually four front undercarriage doors on a 777-200).
    Cheers

  26. About the latest closer “like” panel found.

    The MH17 photo link has several photos of the outbd wing forward of the aileron. Aileron missing. Main wing panel and stringer in yellow primer paint. It is a dry bay; no sealant thus no fuel. You can see places for both upper and lower closer panels aft of the rear spar where the aileron was attached. Even possibly one closer panel on the ground with some of the edges and hardware still attached. Looks similar to debris shape. The debris does not have any of the flat attach surfaces/points remaining. Could be a panel further inboard.

    MH17

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/albums/72157645853477595/page1

    Note: Repaint?; Anything can happen. Example: American Airlines repainted airplanes years ago with paint rollers. Then later complained about the paint job. Effective coating method but not aero smooth.

    Question: 1 FB? Don’t remember. F usually stands for Forward, but Front will do. B usually stands for Buttock line or Bay or Body; don’t know about Bottom. S for Spar or Station. R for Rear or Rib or Right. W for Wing; sometimes Waterline. ORSS for Outbd Rear Spar Station in photo. Quite hard to put a panel in the wrong position. Most wing parts are unique except simple brackets and small parts. Weight savings again.

    So many Letters define things at Boeing could easily miss a definition.

  27. @Oriondt: Yes, the intermittent nature of the radar captures, as suggested by the Malaysian radar image and the Thai statements, could be from manoeuvers with climbs/descents.

    As for your suggested waypoints following Broken Ridge, this seems possible.

  28. @Marc
    Thank you very much for your translated summary. The meeting where Sutarman allegedly made the statement took place 6 months after MH370 went missing. It involved Indonesian police and “senior airline officials” from Lion Air. Is it made clear in the article that the meeting was to discuss security issues regarding Lion Air? It certainly would provide an explanation as to why Sutarman made the statement when and where he did. There was probably a level of comfort there to share his comment and coincide with his assurances of air safety.

  29. @Nederland
    @JS

    Why would it need to be a real island ?

    As I understand it, in the various flight simulator programs, there are what are called “scenery files”, where (with a developers kit) you can “create” an airport, runways, terminals, nav-aids, everything.

    What if Z had “created” his own “imaginary island and airport”, in the flight simulator program ?

    Let’s say, for arguments sake, that he put it at 45S-90E.
    He could then use the “real world data” in the flight simulator program to plan a flight, say as far as (for arguments sake), Runut, and then create his own wayoints to his own “imaginary island and airport”.

  30. @Victor

    You’re contributions since I have been following this log have been both invaluable and, at times, deflating. Deflating only in the senses that I personally felt you were allowing yourself to be somewhat ‘caught up’ in the ‘mystery of it all’.

    In fact, I even recall one poster (Spencer, who I believe was justifiably banished), as imploring you, almost begging you, to use you immense talents in a manner consistent with focusing on Shah and Malaysia. It’s nice to see that you have at least pivoted (if not entirely) in that direction. It is a fruitful pursuit. I would love to se you construct some flight paths with a zoom near IGARI and the plane being flown in a manner exceeding it’s performance envelopes up until the FMT. Manually> Quite a ride what with the time constraints. Cheers mate.

  31. I remember @VictorI has done some deep analysis for what occurred at or near IGARI. I wonder if the turn back was not taken into account how would the flight path appear. There seems to be some information back then that the Chief of Malaysia’s airforce said the turn back did not happen only to be contradicted officially.

  32. @Ed, thanks for posting that link. Interesting to note that Blaine now describes his Mozambique find thusly: “Then one ordinary day in Mozambique, scanning a coastal sandbank, he saw something that didn’t belong there.” When I intervieed him he said that he found that piece just 20 minutes after beginning his first-ever beach search in Mozambique. Hardly an ordinary day! I suspect that Blaine realized the eyebrow-raising nature of that aspect of the discovery and has decided to downplay it.

  33. @Brock
    Somewhat off the topic: I remember you were looking into what could be detected acoustically with aircraft hitting the surface of the water/ reaching the ocean floor. Following up some info that was provided on Reddit, I wonder whether you have come across details of Swissair flight 111 which crashed near Halifax Nova Scotia in 1998 and was detected at a regional seismic center
    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/force-of-swissiar-plane-crash-registered-at-seismic-center.aspx?pageID=438&n=force-of-swissiar-plane-crash-registered-at-seismic-center-1998-09-12
    One limitation of Dr Duncan and his team’s work is that they looked for signals in only the time period given by the end of the ISAT data. While many would argue that the 7th arc etc. cannot be disputed, I think its time to consider other possibilities too. So, would a high speed crash in the SIO, or indeed NIO, be detectable by their recorders or not? Any thoughts?
    Also re the Vabbinfaru piece: although the main piece was apparently thrown on a garbage tip, there was a report that a smaller section was to be sent to France for analysis (not sure whether this is correct) and I agree with you it is well worth further investigation. As to the Oz piece, I rate the chance of that being from MH370 and floating from the crash site at near zero; I expect we will have to wait several more days for news as its a long weekend here.

  34. The SIO route that was plotted into Zaharie’s simulator may have been to a fictitious island called ‘The Commonwealth of New Island’. It is merely an online art project.

    http://www.newisland.net/

    The lat/long for the island is given as:
    35 deg 40 min S, 98 deg 5 min E:

    http://www.newisland.net/2012/12/why-isnt-new-island-on-my-gps.html

    It even has a runway that is maintained for “…emergency landings only.”

    http://www.newisland.net/2009/10/how-to-get-there.html

    Perhaps Zaharie stumbled across this fictitious island and, just for the exercise, put it into his simulator.

    Curiously, the location of this fictitious island is only a few hundred kilometres from the search area.

    Probably just a coincidence, but with a poetic edge: fictitious island; fictitious data 😉

  35. @Susie Crowe:

    Here is the whole article (please excuse my poor English, my English is not better than my Indonesian):

    JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com – National Police Chief General Sutarman admits (lit. “confess”) he knows what really happened with the Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, missing since last March.

    I spoke to the Chief of Police of Malaysia Tun Mohammed Hanif Omar, I know what really happened to MH370, “said Sutarman to (in front of) the Lion Air company and a number of high-ranking police officers in Discovery Hotel, Ancol, North Jakarta, Friday (12 September 2014).

    Nevertheless, Sutarman was unwilling to mention to the reporters what he knows about the plane, carrying 239 passengers on that flight Kuala Lumpur – Beijing.

    Until now, the public do not yet know (where is) the location of the aircraft. Moreover, the airline experts until now don’t know [anything] about the cause of the loss of the aforesaid passenger plane.

    In the meeting, signing a memorandum of understanding (being of the same opinion) with the airline PT Lion Mentari (Lion Air Corporation), Friday afternoon, Sutarman calls for the airline companies to be able to use the necessary and competent force of experts in (for) the operation of all aircrafts.

    In his speech, Sutarman also promised that [he] will do [what is necessary for] securing the safety of air transportation in Indonesia.

    According to him, maintaining (take care of) the security of flights is part of the responsibility of the police.

  36. @Marc
    Your response is very much appreciated.
    The man General Sutarman referred to, Tun (Tun is a title, Malaysia’s highest non-Royal award) Mohammed Hanif Omar, retired in 1994 as Chief of Police (or IGP, Inspector General of Police), he had been with the Malaysian Police Force since 1959. This man seemed to remain very much “in the loop”. Easy to presume he stayed privy to highly
    sensitive information, some of which could have included details of what happened to MH370

  37. I was digging through all the pieces-pictures again and found that also the ‘Liam Lotter’ piece and the first ‘Blain Gibson’ panel have those distinct knife-like punctures through the skin.
    Also the flaperon shows signs of those.
    Especialy the ‘Blain Gibson’ panel has a very distinct one on the back. I link a previous Jeff Wise-page with clear pictures:

    http://jeffwise.net/2016/03/10/mh370-debris-storm/comment-page-7/

    This is not material you can put a knife through with only hand force.
    I assume they could have been caused by small sharp objects hitting and penetrating with high speed.
    Considering also the hole through that trailing edge piece it might be significant imo.
    Exploding/disintegrating engine?
    Maybe even shrapnel from something exploding outside near the plane?

  38. @Oz, OXY. End of flight.

    Oz. On windmilling hydraulics. I would expect simulation of double engine failure at normal speeds (from ash, rain, hail) with fuel remaining would be realistic and I have not heard of simulation showing AC or hydraulics persisting due to windmilling. Instead there has been APU autostart and RAT deployment.

    Of interest would be 777 flutter envelope (737 here from Silk Air investigation report, with two successive stabiliser/elevator flutter points at two assessed frequencies:

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/le783j5rraikw5b/737%20flutter%2C%20Silk%20Air%20Investgn%20Report.pdf?dl=0 )

    and whether at high speed in a dive all flaperon (and other) PCUs would be taken as operative in a 777 assessment, since this would affect high speed flutter amplitude and frequency.

    OXY. Fuel to extend unmanned endurance. Depowering of left engine AC generation (possibly including AC generator disconnect?) would reduce its fuel consumption. Cross linking the right to the left bus temporarily or starting the APU would reboot the SDU, amongst other things, for the 18:25 log-on). After an APU powered 00:19 log-on following right engine failure the left thence would be left fuel to extend its operation beyond the ATSB’s “up to 15 mins” after right engine failure. If unmanned, depressurising the aircraft for a last long leg, would reduce fuel consumption in both engines also.

    As before, there could be fuel savings if manned too.

    The APU running out of fuel before IFE connection at 00:21:06, if able to access just the fuel in its pipeline, would explain that failure to connect.

    So there could be endurance beyond that estimated, manned or unmanned and that hypothetical is not ruled out, at least on these grounds.

  39. I’m going to try this again…perhaps to my own embarrassment.

    I just try to read all the arguments, theories and analyses bandied about in here and try to see if I find any pieces emerging which may fit together.

    It seems that there is some widespread (but by no means, unanimous) credibility in the following views:

    1. There was a planned, purposeful deviation from the original flight plan. Most likely at the helm was the captain (or possibly the co-pilot).

    2. Without triangulation (due to single satellite coverage), the BTO data is probably accurate, but the BFO is more debatable. Changes in speed, direction and altitude cannot be accurately concluded.

    3. Nonetheless, the data seems to indicate a route into the SIO.

    4. A pilot-controlled end-of-flight scenario seems to be increasingly accepted. The problem is — where was the pilot flying to? Landing on the islands with a runway would work…but there are none other than the Maldives, Diego Garcia, CI, Cocos and the like…all of which have been shown to have problems with the narrative and data.

    5. The idea of a controlled ditching has also gained some traction. Problem is — where? The seas are likely too rough, a meeting spot with a ship is too unmanageable, and the possibility of sinking before removal of people/things is too likely. After all, why go through all of this unless one wanted to keep someone/something?

    So I offer Ile Saint-Paul.

    It seems like it might fit the data and the calculations re fuel, distance, etc.

    The approach could be long and low from the NNE and with a decrease in speed (or reverse thrust???). The shape of the island and prevailing winds/currents (I think) allow for smooth water and low winds, no? The big wall’s contours actually block the wind and the tides, right?

    So here is the genius epiphany of the scheme’s plotter (if one existed) — one could arguably skid the plane right into the crater lake. There is a 300 foot-wide entrance and the plane isn’t that “deep” that shallowness would be an issue. It’s akin to landing a water plane on a lake! (But one would need to practice, practice, practice…..)

    Sure, some parts would shear off during water touchdown, but the waiting boats (inside the lake and outside) would be very near-by. The plane might only sink a few feet and be retrievable.

    Didn’t Jeff say that the Ukrainians were cold water, deep water divers…with gear on-hand???

    Please don’t ban me. I’m just testing the edges….

    Note that I think the drift analyses which support the African landings would be applicable to this area (38S, 77E). In fact, it would simply take longer to make the big round counter-clockwise trip to Reunion and he like.

    BTW, Ile St Paul is officially uninhabited, but it is under the authority of…Reunion Island. Gee — I wonder if the two destinations have a natural flow from one to the other???

  40. @Mark, Interesting! A couple of points:
    — The idea that flights into the southern Indian Ocean were found on Zaharie’s flight simulator amount to only speculation and rumor at this point.
    — Obviously, Zaharie did not fly to an island in the southern Indian Ocean, so if he practiced such a route on his flight simulator, it was not in preparation for the flight made on March 8, 2014.

  41. @Curveball, I’m right with you up to point #5. The small size of the debris pieces recovered so far, and especially the presence of small pieces that orginated inside the cabin, suggests that the plane impacted the surface at high velocity. You are correct in pointing out that ditching scenarios had been gaining adherents recently; among the attractions of a ditching scenario is that it provides a rationale for the person in control of the airplane to hold the plane in a glide after fuel exhaustion. If this is no longer a tenable supposition, then what we’re left with are two possible scenarios: 1) plane flew straight and fast to the current search area, then the person in control held the plane in a glide for a while, then pointed the nose down and crashed into the sea at high velocity, 2) flew a slow, curving route a la Richard Godfrey to some point north of Broken Ridge, then either crashed the plane quickly or did as in #1.

    PS, While I applaud your creativity in devising the scenario you describe, it doesn’t fit with the BTO data.

    PPS, Another part of ditching’s appeal is that it would fit into a scenario in which a suicidal Zaharie wished to leave as his legacy an unsolvable enigma: he’d fly the plane as far as possible into the remotest, untrafficked ocean, then glide it to a gentle touchdown and let it sink intact. That now seems off the table. Some will no doubt now argue that his intention was rather to crash the plane at such high speed that the plane would be practically vaporized; indeed in the murder-suicide SilkAir crash, the only debris that was recovered was material that had slammed into the riverbed, the rest was swept out to sea and never found.

  42. @Ge Rijn
    @Ken Goodwin

    Have been trying to pin down Blaine’s closing panel “1FB” a bit closer, with some limited success (my opinion)

    Seems likely the full zone reference for this piece is 661FB, going from the B777 Maintenance Manual wing layout (06-30-00, page 220) Area 661 extends from outboard end of flaperon to outboard end of aileron RH wing Would be 561 for LH wing. So far so good.

    But the B777 Inventory lists 9 panels for 661; they are 661AB, CB, DB, EB, FB, GB, JB, NB and QB.

    Tentative conclusion from this is the panel is almost definitely an underside, trailing edge closing panel, located at a guess, approx half way between flaperon and outboard end of aileron.

Comments are closed.