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.
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.
Here’s an even better shot, via @BBCwestcott. Note the color of the fabric around the “COAT HOOK” button:
@Rob
I think you’re right. That whole panel-section from outboard flaperon till wingtip is called 661 (or 561 for left wing).
I guess you found also this page from the manual? Scroll down and you’ll spot it:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/print.main?id=6464768
Could you provide a link to your source on 661ab, bb, cb.. etc.?
@Ge Rijn
Thanks, I’ll get that Inventory address shortly. You might be able to bring it up under B777 Inventory. page 7 of 89!
@Rob @others
Some very clear pictures from the underwing (photo 31,32) and various other B777 photos among some other planes:
http://www.lairdkay.com/exterior/wttp0n87b8nelmz927ix219g27j7zx
@jeff
I’m not going to argue too hot and heavy about this (I’m still trying to convince myself), but at least I can take the advocacy…until the end is clear. If you don’t mind…..
The BTO data fit/miss isn’t that bad…as one could maybe argue that what happens AFTER the hourly pings isn’t known. Plus isn’t there a plausible theory that the glide occurred after electrical shut-down? How far could that last?
Isn’t a controlled ditching still a “high-velocity event”…and the likelihood of violent impact and structural disintegration still likely outcomes?
The idea I put forth is that this violence was perhaps judged to be non-lethal…and manageable (due to the skidding into low depth waters).
Lastly — I am not sure why you think a controlled ditching necessarily indicates a suicide. In fact, I’m offering the same event…but with opposite intent (to survive!).
@Rob @others
What’s also interesting to see on those underwing pictures; there are three panel structures visible that have the same general apearance as the two found (flaperon) panel pieces.
You can spot them on the left next to the last outboard spoiler.
@Rob @rijn
Sorry, but so far have you identified the original location of the parts retrieved?
Curveball may have something there. Has anyone looked at this place yet? One more territory for Blaine Gibson to visit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8Ele_Saint-Paul
@Rob @Ge Rijn
Sorry — to be clear — I meant to ask: What portion of the plane do those various parts seem to come from?
My understanding is that they are all from one side…plus some additional damage to the rear from parts flying off. Is that correct?
@Matt: Thank you for comment. I am constantly trying to classify each piece of evidence as information, misinformation, and disinformation. Some of the evidence seems to be contradictory, e.g., coordinates to the SIO found on the pilot’s computer, and the distress call in the SCS. My desire is for more evidence to be officially released so we can conjecture about the meaning of the evidence rather than conjecture about the authenticity of the evidence. That’s the only way I see us making real progress.
@Matt: I should say I am using the term “evidence” in a fairly broad manner, including unattributed leaks of information, which may or may not be true.
I’m not, obviously, a pilot, or anything approaching one, but I do think that trying to ditch a triple 7 just short of a tiny island and then ‘steer’ it in through a relatively small opening, into a lagoon surrounded by steep roacks on all sides, is pushing it a little.
That’s kind of what makes me doubt that Ile St Paul would have been a likely destination.
I could be wrong – but it just looks too difficult.
@Ge Rijn
@Ken Goodwin
@Curveball.
Slight qualification read iro the inventory. What I was looking at was the UAM inventory for B777 parts. They are a parts distributor for the industry. So 9 panels is a minimum, there could be a few more, not in UAM’s stock
@Curveball Not doing too bad with the placements. Most of the items so far, are from the wing trailing edge, bits that would be ripped off if they were dangling down (to put it crudely) Pretty clear pointers to a high energy ditching, under pilot control
@Susie
The idea isn’t to make a perfect skid into the caldera; it’s that it’s the “safety net”. (BTW, the opposite wall is seemingly comprised of soft undergrowth.)
The depth of the sloping underwater island is still shallow. Thus everything/everybody is retrievable. Where the end of the skidding occurs is not key.
Plus the huge wall actually acts as a huge wind-blocker, right? Thus one might theoretically have an easier time hugging the horizon just above the waves…and for as long as possible…while slowing down.
This scenario only makes sense if there was someone/something of great value on the plane. Many people would have to be sacrificed in order to achieve the nefarious goals.
@Ge Rijn
Very nice pictures of wing underside. I see the panels you are referring to, but they don’t look like our flaperon seal panels.
@ABN397, @Curveball, If you’re just going to ignore the Inmarsat data then the plane could be absolutely anywhere at all, there’s no reason to look in the far southern Indian Ocean. You might as well look in the Maldives, or New Jersey.
@Curveball
I’ll spent one comment on this scenario.
It’s far off (Inmarsat) data but besides that just too far off regarding any credible action necessary in a story like this.
A pilot must have belly landed it through a 100 meter gap between the rocks into a lake of ~800m wide. I admit; that would take a lot of practising on a home flight similator.
The whole operation has to be planned months ahaed in detail with the coöperation of France authorities and its militairy in total secrecy.
The retrievel of the wreck, all its occupants and cargo from the bottom of this 50m deep lake would take a huge time consuming operation with many people, ships, equipment and (ship) movements involved.
Two Ukrainian divers won’t be of much help and they would have lost their gear also anyway with the sinking of the plane 😉
Total secrecy must be guaranteed forever by everyone involved. The only way to reach that goal is to kill most of the involved too.
Compliments, for it has all ingredients to write a new thriller about but as a credible scenario in this case it misses all logic imo.
@Rob
No they are not the same I agree but they sure have the overall construction and shape imo.
This picture can at least prove again those kind of panels are used at the trailing edge of a B777 like your earlier picture from that flaperon area.
Did you also see the (661) panels behind the outboard flap? Dimensions could fit the smaller Blain Gibson panel imo.
@Ge Rijn
Yes, I saw the outboard flap closing panels, and I thought they looked narrow in width, front to back, compared to the aileron closing panels. So after looking at the underwing photo, I’m not really confident about where to place the 661FB panel, outboard flap or aileron?
On the other hand, if zone “FB” is adjacent to zone “EB”, working outwards along the wing, then the panel couldn’t have been located far away from Liam Lotter’s flap fairing 676EB. So you could conjecture that both the flap fairing and closing panel were torn away with the outboard flap
@Rob
And at the far right in that picture next to the first spoiler behind the outboard flap there is another panel with similar shape.
Also not like the ‘flaperon’ panels but again; the type of construction is used in at least 10 similar pieces (including the other wing).
@Ge Rijn
Yes, I can see what you mean. Everywhere you look there are panels, each one tailor made for a specific purpose. I suppose there’s a solid wing in there somewhere! The mind boggles at the complexity of the design. Orville and Wilbur had no idea what they starting.
@Rob
Good thinking! Yes, the Liam Lotter flap support fairing was fairing number 7.
Then it can only be the panel next to flap support fairing 8 on the outboeard site of it if you count inside out from 661AB to 661FB.
The 661 serie of panels is starting right next to the outboard flaperon area.
‘When you search you will find’ is such a saying from an old book they taught me long ago.
The saying though never promised you will find what you are looking for. 😉
@ROB: ” if zone “FB” is adjacent to zone “EB””
661 is the zone, FB and EB are panels, not zones.
@jeffwise – Neeeww Joisy? It’s underneath the goalposts in Giant Stadium for sure.
BTW, thanks for the answers to my plane and wind questions.
I believe this indicates that for a ghost flight, depending on the settings, the AP either corrected for wind so the plane proceeded on a great circle route or it started pointing in a southerly direction but was blown off-course by the wind. Per Dr. Ulich’s paper there was a 50kt west wind between the 5th and 6th Arcs that might have affected the track and pushed the plane about 75 nm to the east.
@Curveball – In addition to the BTO & BFO data there is general agreement that there was only enough fuel for an endurance to about 00:17 so the A/C did not have the range to reach Ile St. Paul.
@Greg Long – Thanks for the support. Gysbreght’s comment was not typical for him.
You are correct that my simplified situation was intended to have Gysbreght & Oleksandr agree on the effects of crosswinds.
@David – Thank you for your support but I have one correction for you: I’m a “he” not a “her.” My name was suposed to be the french ‘Laurent’ but my mom dropped the “t” for fear that it would be included in the pronunceation here in the US. Also, my last name is Hutton but I only use the first letter for this blog so others would not confuse me with the model/actress of the same name.
@Dennis W – In case you haven’t heard this but, when you see an oversized moon rising turn around with your back to the moon, bend over and look at the moon through your legs. Its apparent size returns to normal.
@Ge Rijn
@Gysbreght
Yes indeed, and them Gysbreght comes along to put out our bonfire! 🙁
There’s a moral in there somewhere.
@Gysbreght
In Holland they would call a comment like this; ‘screwing ants’.
I react before Rob I know but since we discuss this matter I feel obliged to.
You’ve got the point of the matter don’t you?
So why starting an argument about ‘zone’ versus ‘panel’?
@Gysbreght
I’m seriously not thinking you do this on purpose but this kind of argumenting can lead to ‘ants’-discusions you had with Oleksandr lately.
Which sadly lead to the leaving of him from this blog (imo).
@Ge Rijn:
I have the impression that ROB understands me better than you do.
@Ge Rijn: ” this kind of argumenting can lead to ‘ants’-discusions you had with Oleksandr lately.”
I’ll respond to that later.
@Ge Rijn
Cool your jets, GE Rijn.
It’s not that bad. Gysbreght didn’t want us to labour under a misapprehension, that’s all.
I’ve forgotten it already. Pour yourself a drink, and relax. We can get our own back in due course, no doubt.
@Ge Rijn
Cool you jets. All’s fair in love and war.
You are very welcome, Lauren. I think your approach was very constructive and merits support (rather than disparagement).
I for one would find the pursuit of their discussion useful and important.
(… I mean the discussion about the effects of crosswind.)
@Oleksandr
@Greg Long
@sk999
@RetiredF4
@MuOne
@LaurenH
@David
and everybody who was not bored to death by the endless discussion I had with Oleksandr on the aerodynamic aspects of sideslip and crosswind:
In the following brief note I comment on the treatment of those aspects in Oleksandr’s textbook.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t0p4zifd9s346hx/Sideslip_aerodynamics.doc?dl=0
@Lauren H. Thank you for your correction. Things are not always what they seem.
Another example is the term ‘mooning’. Your guidance to Dennis now makes clear that what they have been doing is not what I thought.
@Lauren
The next full moon in Cali is on June 20. I will give it a try (on the privacy of my own property,of course).
@Rob @Gysbreght
I took that drink with a small ‘tic’ if you donn’t mind..
I guess we understood eachother well.
So I suggest we leave it and go ahead with the knowledge that some crabbing mixed with sideslip will also be unavoidable in some discussions.
Even sometimes forcing a ‘go around’ and give it another try.
As long as we don’t run out of fuel we should be fine.
@Susie Crowe
I refer to your earlier comments and references about General Sutarman, Indonesia’s chief of police who is alleged to have made the following comment in a September 2014 Huffington Post article;
“I spoke with the Chief of Police of Malaysia Tun Mohammad Hanif Omar, I know what really happened with the MH370,” he is cited as saying by Indonesian news site Kompas.”
My interpretation at the time when I read this was that General Sutarman had specific information about MH370 which he passed onto Chief of Police of Malaysia Tun Mohammad Hanif Omar and not the other way around, as has been inferred in this discussion.
General Sutarman would be ideally placed to have knowledge of Indonesian radar data, which officially did not see 9M-MRO.
Also in early phase of the disappearance Indonesian sea and airspace was off limits to international search efforts.
@SteveBarrett
Wow, my embarrassment of misunderstanding is only overridden by your clarification which gives this story more authenticity. I am grateful you set the record straight. This link details it a bit further
http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/11149/20140917
@SteveBarrett
Thanks for that vital info pertaining to Indonesia radar.
Yes Indonesian radar did not see the plane and it was a powerful radar as per report sourced in this respected news agency
http://m.antaranews.com/en/news/93270/indonesian-military-radar-did-not-detect-missing-airplane
as did Australian military radar. As for Thai military radar, there is confusion as initially they denied seeing it but later spotted it heading northwards over Surat Thani:
http://anilnetto.com/governance/accountability/thai-radar-surat-thani-spotted-diverted-plane-flying-butterworth/
And there is a different version here:
https://theaviationist.com/2014/03/13/can-you-believe-neither-malaysian-nor-thai-radars-see-the-malaysia-airlines-mh370-crashing/
Maybe the Thais were being diplomatic but silence on sighting after 10 days??
The only military radar that tracked the flight but we also have on record the RMAF chief initially saying that was not the case before he issued a retraction a few days later.
My humble opinion is that provenance of MT radar sighting is vital before other things come into the equation but that’s just my personal viewpoint.
@jeff @Lauren
I have put forth this scenario with the understanding that a sophisticated analysis will likely render it invalid. I have no problem with that.
However, I am not sure I agree with you comments. Lauren, there was ample fuel to reach Ile St Paul…as it is located well within the 7 ping range. Right?
In fact, the BTO/BFO problem isn’t that the plane may be in New Jersey, it’s that the island is closer to the satellite than the last known ping. Thus, it may be argued that the plane was headed “inwards” from the arcs of the last two pings and towards the arc of the 5th ping. That, in and of itself, may be problematic. But let us see the conclusive evidence.
In any case, it seems that a pilot would fly the same path down the 88th longitude and then fly pretty much the same distance as what is typically accepted…but go in a SSE rather than a WSW instead.
@Ge Rijn
it would take a lot of practice and planning — check.
But why would this plot entail coordination with French military authorities? Why would they know anything? Or be told anything? One of the reasons I concocted this scenario is that I don’t believe there were any state actors involved in any of this. No mega-conspiracy.
Additionally, there is no reason to retrieve ALL of the plane’s contents — just the desired parts/people. The Ukrainians would have this all set up by the time of the actual ditching. Some broken off parts would float away, but the bulk would sink.
Yes, many people would have already been killed.
@all
I don’t mind invalidating a novel theory…even if it’s my own. But I think the counter facts need to be solid and evident, as well.
At the heart of this, I think the problem is with BTO…but only slightly…and might possibly be explained away. Possibly.
Anyway, I don’t think it would be that hard to just go take a look at the site itself. When is the next scheduled expedition?
I would think that an exchange of Indonesian (military) radar data would have been a matter for the respective military authorities, rather than a police matter.
According to media reports at the time, General Sutarman was escorting the mother of the Indonesian housemaid of the Zaharie family to Malaysia, because the housemaid had refused to answer questions from the Malaysian police.
@Curveball
Long ago, this was my favoured scenario.
Like everyone else, the IG’s CONFIDENCE in the BTO’s seduced me, and I went looking for other answers.
Since the 7th arc search has failed (miserably), perhaps it is time to reconsider the accuracy of the “recorded” BTO’s.
If you step back, and ignore the currently accepted BTO’s for a minute, it is worth noting that the island of Saint Paul is certainly within BOTH range AND time constraints from the FMT at 7N95E @ 18:25 zulu.
FMT 7N95E @ 18:25 zulu
FMT direct to Saint Paul
2900 nautical miles 198 degrees true
If 9M-MRO Averaged @ 480 kn ground speed = 6 hrs 2.5 minutes
FMT Turn Time = 18:25 zulu
Saint Paul Time = 18:25 + 6:02.5 = 24:27.5 = 00:27.5 zulu
If 9M-MRO Averaged @ 485 kn ground speed = 5 hrs 58.75 minutes
FMT Turn Time = 18:25 zulu
Saint Paul Time = 18:25 + 5:58.75 = 24:23.75 = 00:23.75 zulu
If 9M-MRO Averaged @ 490 kn ground speed = 5 hrs 55 minutes
FMT Turn Time = 18:25 zulu
Saint Paul Time = 18:25 + 5:55 = 24:20 = 00:20 zulu
If 9M-MRO Averaged @ 495 kn ground speed = 5 hrs 51.5 minutes
FMT Turn Time = 18:25 zulu
Saint Paul Time = 18:25 + 5:51.5 = 24:16.5 = 00:16.5 zulu
The “problem”, as statded, is that it doesn’t match the BTO’s, as they stand.
However, if we accept the possibility that the “recorded” BTO’S “may” be in error by one, two, three, or four “20us bins” too many, then the arcs are “contracted”, and the following, (in addition to the above) is possible.
Option (A)
Penang direct to Saint Paul
2910 nautical miles
210.78 degrees true
Average @ 480 kn ground speed = 6hrs 4 minutes
Penang Turn Time = 17:52 zulu
Saint Paul Time = 17:52 + 6:04 = 23:56 zulu
Option (B)
Penang direct to Uprob then direct to Saint Paul
2960 nautical miles
Uprob to Saint Paul 200 degrees true
Average @ 480 kn ground speed = 6hrs 10 minutes
Penang Turn Time = 17:52 zulu
Saint Paul Time = 17:52 + 6:10 = 24:02 = 00:02 zulu
Note that in both cases, (A) and (B), if averaging 480 kn ground speed, there is plenty of “time to spare” (of 15 to 20 minutes), for a conscious pilot to descend and slow down to ditch.
@Ventus45:
Can you think of a reason that the recorded BTO’s of this flight would be flawed, and not that of the other flights that INMARSAT and DSTG have independently examined?
Does anyone have access to recent satellite imagery of
island of Saint Paul ? If there isn’t debris would be interesting to see if any landing skids marks along the crescent crater beach.
For those who haven’t seen it, here is a debunk of the “Police Chief who knew” story
http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/asia-pacific/indonesia/69251-indonesian-police-chief-what-happened-mh370
Gysbreght,
I still continue reading Jeff’s blog due to inertia. Although after Jeff’s suggestion I am reluctant to answer, I feel obliged to respond your last comments to defend my paper:
1. “Oleksandrs textbook.”
I am not the author of this textbook. I only used it in my work. I trust you may contact the author and discuss issues with him.
2. Most of your comments are immaterial, and related to the terminology and unconventional (in your opinion) definitions, e.g. crabbed landing, cross wind, etc. I don’t know who is right: you or the author of this book.
3. “The sideforce Fw results from the sideslip that is maintained by deflection of rudder and ailerons.”
What you wrote is only a possible reason of sideforce, which has nothing to with the problem in question. Don’t mix up things.
4. “As said earlier, this calculation of sideforce is simplistic, but surely the speed in equation 12.113 must be the component of airspeed perpendicular to the plane of symmetry of the airplane, rather than the windspeed Vw.”
This is why earlier I said your understanding of my ATT and CTS papers is wrong. Please check description of coordinate systems (section 2, p.7) in my paper. Then look at Eq (11). Note in which system my formulation is given. What is denoted as Wy’? Compare with your statement. Same, right? Simplistic – no doubts. If you have anything better to suggest within a reasonable level of complexity (sorry, can’t plugin CFD solver), let me know.
In summary, I did not find anything in your comments that would conflict with the assumptions or formulations of my ATT paper.
@Curveball
There was a memorial service by the French on the island in november 2015.
I assume they saw or found nothing suspisious:
http://www.taaf.fr/En-memoire-des-Oublies-de-l-ile-Saint-Paul
“here is a debunk of the “Police Chief who knew” story”
Is it a debunk or a denial?
@Gysbreght
aerodynamic aspects of sideslip and crosswind:
Your first comment is spot on and nails thempronlem. As for the rest I can tell you that flying is easier.
@Oleksandr
The picture you used is not applicable for enroute flying but for landing in strong crosswinds with a combination of the crab and side slip method. You then used the wrong definition for side slip angle and thus your conclusions are wrong.
Although I seldom use wiki, the following explanation is simple and easy to understand.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crosswind_landing
@Oleksandr: ” I don’t know who is right: you or the author of this book.”
You could do some research. There’s plenty stuff on this subject on the internet. Admittedly, you have to use your judgment to separate the chaff from the corn.