By MPat
(Note: A comment by reader Lauren H brought my attention to an analysis I’d overlooked by reader MPat. As Lauren H points out, it’s as timely now as it was when MPat first aired it back in March. — JW)
The potential arrival of more debris in the East African region is triggering interest once more in the currents and drift patterns in the SIO. To sense check the concept that debris could drift from the current search area to these regions I did a little research of my own, the premise being that the observed behaviour of real floating objects (and I am considering of course the buoys of the Global Drifter Program) should be a useful indicator of possible drift pathways, as a counterpoint to cell-based drift simulation models (which may be calibrated to high level drifter behaviour but typically lack the resolution to reproduce drifter movement in detail).
The full drifter database contains meta-data and trajectories for almost 19800 buoys worldwide (some 1400 are currently active). The meta-data includes timing of drogue loss, and a ‘death’ code to categorise the end of life status of buoys that cease transmitting. It is clear from this that drogues are typically lost in a surprisingly short timeframe. It is also notable that only 20% of all the buoys have ended their lives by running aground, with 66% simply ceasing transmission for undocumented reasons.
I have filtered out buoys that have at any time in their lives passed through the locality of the current search zone, based on a rectangle bounded by longitudes 88 to 96 degrees and latitudes -32 to -39 degrees. None were present in this area at the time of the crash, but I consider in any case all buoys that have ever been in this location (dates range from 1995 to 2014). There are 177 in this category. Of these, 39 are listed as having subsequently run aground. The locations at which they washed up are shown in the plot above.
Of the 39, 31 beached on East African coastlines, only 7 in Western Australia, and 1 in Sumatra. An example of 3 randomly chosen trajectories from the 31 that drifted west are shown below together with the box defining search locality :
The average time for buoys to reach their western beaching point after leaving the search box is 534 days (~ 18 months) with minimum 234 days (~ 8 months) and maximum 1263 days (~ 42 months). All but 3 were un-drogued during this journey, and those 3 lost their drogues en-route. For those arriving in Western Australia, the average time to beach was 362 days, with minimum 79 days and maximum 513 days.
If we relax the criterion that the buoys must end by running aground, and simply look at the locations where they eventually stopped transmitting after leaving the search area, we see the following three plots which display the 54 buoys that ended up west of longitude 55 deg (the longitude of Reunion Island),
the 12 that ended east of longitude 109 deg (coast of Western Australia),
and the 111 that remained in between:
Clearly the transport qualities of the ocean currents and weather systems will vary from month to month and year to year. It is also not clear how representative the buoys would be of the drift characteristics of floating debris resulting from a crashed aircraft. Neverthless I believe it is reasonable to propose from the buoy behaviour noted above across a 20 year drifting history that :
i) there is a strong tendency for objects that have been present in the current search area to remain trapped in the mid ocean gyre over extended periods
ii) a proportion, perhaps as high as 10% of robustly floating debris, might be expected to make landfall within 18 months of the crash
iii) the vast majority of the debris making landfall is likely to do so across the coastlines and islands of eastern Africa, with relatively little beaching in Australia.
For what it is worth, I have more background and analysis in a write-up that I hope to post soon.
Please also note that a vastly more expert analysis of drifter behaviour has been performed in October last year by David Griffin of CSIRO, in which he uses composite drifter trajectories to infer a likelihood function for where the MH370 flaperon may have originated. This is well worth a read.
UPDATE 79/2016: Reader Richard Cole has posted a link to a .kml file that shows the trajectories of the drifters that reached Australia. Here’s a screenshot of what it looks like if you drop the file into Google Earth. Interesting to note that the greater part of the debris winds up on the southern coast and Tasmania rather than the western coast.
That transformation is quite suggestive. What parameters are used, what are they based on?
I can’t see more than a perfectly flat, perfectly rectangular floating object of indeterminate size.
@all
I know this is all very premature with a very slight change of positive confirmation.
But wouldn’t it be wonderfull if it could be confirmed or with high probability before the 19th of july..
@Gysbreght @Barry Carlson
I hope Barry Carlson will give you the answer (and me too).
@Gysbrecht, @De Rijn
I’ll give you an answer in the morning my time – 2100UTC
@buyerninety
Regarding ratios- here’s a rough one from several months ago. I’m sure others have done the same with higher res photos:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/42um3c/the_flappening_pt2/
@buyerninety, Thanks for your suggestion. You can now include up to four links in a comment.
@Barry Carlson, And just to be clear, your dimensions are those of a complete flaperon, not one in the condition of the Reunion flaperon?
@GeRijn, @All
A delayed post of mine is now viewable back amongst the
previous posts, at time July 14, 2016 at 1:43 AM .
The post concerns a possible identification of a debris object
whose picture I found in the FOI information that the poster
‘Aussie500’ (at forum auntypru) made available for download.
(I think Ge Rijn should be prepared to get excited again.)
@Jeffwise
Thanks, just to understand, is there ALSO a limit on the amount
of carriage returns (lines), or either a limit on the amount of
characters, in a post? I’m wondering because Greg Long’s rather
lengthy tirade got passed straight through, whereas my longish
post got delayed for moderation….
Another Boeing 777 cutaway, for your consideration;
http://i.imgur.com/1dJ6bEq.jpg
@buyerninety
I read your delayed post. I saw this post of her before. It’s quite interesting pictures but there are no coördinates or other data to it. The overall satalite picture seems to suggest the piece is from the 44S area. Which is much too far south IMO to be possible MH370 debris. It’s an odd object. Has no resemblance to any aircraft piece to me.
The sides look quite thick, it’s all white and seems floating high on the surface. Looks like a big piece of styrofoam to me.
The first pictures mentions a ‘submerged blue panel’ but the picture is not in the serie. I would be very interested to see that picture.
The flaperon-comparing graphic picture of Barry Carlson includes the date and coördinates that picture was taken.
I would argue those are not correct and the data should be the 16th.
But in this case two days difference won’t be that important I guess, only for the time it had drifted since the 8th of march.
Your observation of the ‘flaperon-piece’ sitting on a wave-flank I find interesting.
It seems the wave was just rolling underneath it causing it to glide down on that flank (a bit like a surfboard).
@buyerninety
I mistook for a moment 28th of march for the 18th.
Then the 16th as mentioned by aussie500 makes quite a difference. I’m sure know she’s talking of another search date and area.
@oriondt’s link also tells 28th of march was the first day of search in a new area for the P3 Orion.
Interesting it says also a ship was dispatched but could not find the piece anymore and retrieve it.
@buyerninety, I don’t think there is a limit on the number of carriage returns, but if there is, I’m not sure I’d want to change it; if someone needs to post something that is important to run at great length, I’m happy to consider a guest post. But often very long comments are just deranged screeds.
On which topic, Greg Long had previously been banned, so I’ve deleted those comments.
@Ge Rijn: I am providing links to two images of the rectangular object as provided to the IG member that requested the RNZAF images. This is the full resolution that is available and includes all metadata.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/18402yfxbhocppq/2014-03-28_U_14-005809.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a66zfyexmow3rnn/2014-03-28_U_14-005810.jpg?dl=0
I am also providing a link showing a zoomed comparison of the rectangular object from both images. The object on the right side appears to be a pallet based on the rectangular features on the edge.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5to5pi0vqgo835d/Flaperon-pallet.png?dl=0
@oriondt
I see you’ve been into this quite deep.
Have you ever heard of other pictures of this piece?
There were two P3 Orions flying there. Did the other P3 also took pictures of the piece?
This one picture is not sufficient enough to make a strong case but there must be more pictures of the piece from different angles that would allow to make better observations.
Can someone obtain them from the NZRAF?
@VictorI, Very interesting, thanks for this info. Question: why do you say ‘the object on the right,” aren’t they two shots (one taken presumably a few seconds after the other) of the same object? I don’t know what rectangular features you’re referring to but I’ll take your word for it, it looks too rectilinear to be a flaperon, especially a broken one.
@jeffwise: Yes, they are the same object extracted from the two photos. From the metadata, the position and time are:
32 28 35S, 97 49 28E, 184 (ft?)
3/28/2014 4:07 AM (UTC?)
@jeffwise: By the “rectangular features on the edge”, I am referring to the cross sectional area that can be seen on the left lower side. The profile is rectangular, not streamlined like an air foil.
@Victorl
You must have heard my call to @oriondt..
While I was typing you answered my request.
That second photo defenitely shows a more square section underneath that edge and also the lines are not visible here (maybe one very fainthly).
Maybe the second photo is somewhat less clear for it seems to been taken through a window near the edge of that window.
I assume this are the only two photos made?
Than this second picture sure does not support the first picture being a flaperon.
If no other photos are available I’m afraid this settles this case then.
Whatever the piece was it cannot be identified anymore which renders it practicly useless.
Can you confirm there are no other pictures?
@Ge Rijn: I can find no other photos of this object. I can’t be sure other photos don’t exist.
@Victorl
Still it’s a bit strange the small square brownish structure beneath the right corner of that edge is not visible at all on the other picture. And I must mention there is a lot of likewise brownish streaks in that picture around the edge of that window and around the piece too.
More distortion by that window edge could also have made this picture less clear then the other one. Pixel interference seems also quite more than the other picture under and around the piece which makes the piece also less detailed and clear IMO.
As said; if there are no other pictures available it becomes a virtualy useless case.
But I would not give up on this until it’s certain no other pictures are available
Unfortunately, I am unable to open the AuntyPru images, however it is a disgrace that yet again another FOI request was apparently met with more obfuscation and obstruction. In what context would the search photos be deemed too sensitive for public release?
If you believe MH370 crashed near the arc, and produced some debris, then there is a small chance some was overlooked in aerial search photos and/or not recovered. It might be an interesting crowdsearch exercise to highlight potential debris then map any ‘hotspots’ using the photo’s gps metadata.
Many sorties were flown between Mar-April and I assume many photos taken. For a quick recap on the aerial search patterns, please see Jeff’s post from last summer. http://jeffwise.net/2015/06/11/mh370-anatomy-of-the-sio-search/
Ge Rijn
I am but just one peanut in the gallery. I applaud your recent efforts and tenacity in carrying the torch of illumination.
@oriondt
I was also unsuccessful with the ‘Item 3 pdf (24th April) (434MB)’,
it only downloaded that file with size 400 MB (419,430,400 bytes),
so I guess it failed due to incomplete download. I will try again
later.
I had no trouble with the ‘FOI Disc 1.zip’ file, and Item 1 is an
odd object as Ge Rijn said. Such a shaped object in styrofoam,
however, would be smashed into smaller pieces by wind+wave action
during the 1st storm it encountered, so I take the view it’s made
of some stronger material. Also, it does appear to be ‘standing’
slightly above the surface of the ocean, as if something
underneath the ocean surface were acting as a support.
It interests me, even though it has no easy ‘resemblance to any aircraft piece’, because the curved side of it – that curve is very similar to the curve seen inside a 777 cabin, it looks like
the curve would match the curve of the 777 fuselage, if it were
a wall extending partially across the cabin, up from the floor to
about where the overhead bins usually finish.
The interior cabin partitioning walls appear to be quite white.
Hey, does anyone know if the MAS 777’s had the ‘inhold’ (beneath
cabin floor) crew rest area modules? (They extended down into the
cargo hold.)
In my former statement concerning the size of the rectangular piece compared to the wave pattern I didn’t express myself clear enough, thus it was misunderstood. I’ll try again.
The height of the waves looks like being 1 to 2 meters, as there are no whitecaps visible. They would with wave height of five meters and more. Granted, that is just a guess. Therefore I asked wether the seastate in that area is known. I’m sure it was reported and recorded somewhere, as it is a planning factor for search and rescue operations.
This wave height taken as a reference I would guesstimate the size of the piece being no more than 1m x 1.2 m like the following plastic pallet
http://www.jigarpallet.com/molded-plastic-pallets.htm
Some here believe that the impact was more of an attempt at a ditching. Others believe that the a/c was in a spiral dive into the water with the loss of certain parts prior to impact.
When I make a left turn in my car, the right wheels cover a longer distance than the left wheels and since the car stays together one could say the right wheels travel faster than the left wheels.
Does this mean that when an a/c is turning to the left (at a bank angle of less than 90°), the air speed over the right wing is faster than the air speed over the left wing? If true, this could be one explanation why the large, relatively undamaged pieces came from the right wing due very high speed air over only the right wing.
@RetF4 – talked to somebody ( ? ) at Jigar about 10 minutes ago re: the plastic pallets….they are positive buoyant…they do float….! G.
Could it be one or more plywood sheets, standard size 4-by-8 ft?
@All
In a 2 plane scenario the decoy aircraft (UAV) flies South transmitting ISAT data (from 18:25 UTC onwards ) spoofing MH370’s AES ID while flying out to the SIO.
In this scenrio it would be possible for the plane to glide (~100 nm) flting under active remote control after a second engine flame-out. This means that this aircraft may have crashed further South near the 43S latitude.
In this case the type of aircraft this plane was is unknown so therefore it’s performance limits and fuel limits would also be completely unknown. I believe this could be one logical explnation as ro why all calculated terminus points along the 7th arc so far seem to be wrong, because they’re using the wrong aircraft data in their calculations.
In this scenario the only data that could be used to locate the impact zone of this decoy aircraft would be the ISAT BTO/BFO data, as well as possible imagery and acoustic data, that’s it! Since we can’t use any data from MH370 it means that our little math problem would be infinitely more complex to solve. Perhaps the only way it could be solved if this other inconclusive data ( imagery, acoustic) is considered in the analysis.
In this scenerio trying to equate any spotted debris in sat pics or aerial photos taken in the SIO with debris discoveries in Africa would be pointless and meaningless, because it’s not the same plane.
All of this aircraft debris, from these latitudes below 40S, would have drifted East towards Southern Australa, Tasmania, New Zealand and nowhere near Africa which is why I believe this debris piece on Kanagaroo Island may be related to this potential debris evidence.spotted in SIO.
If you look at the problem this way then things do start to make sense.
Cheers
@Ken S – a quick look at a Reaper tells me that its range is 1000 nautical miles, and cruising speed is 169 knots.
It would seem to me that the only real candidate for a “2-plane scenario” is another 777 or similarly large, expensive, long range aircraft, the kind that people usually notice when they are missing.
I’m having trouble buying into a theory that somebody crashed a 777 by remote control in order to steal another 777 full of bodies. Even the idea of renting one sounds absurd, especially considering the unavailability of any long range airplane to assist with the search. Just saying.
@jeffwise,
The dimensions I supplied in the both the transformations are the same, i.e. the assumed dimensions of a complete flaperon.
The following image has been obtained by putting the RNZAF supplied photo through some edge detection software. The resulting polygon is obvious.
http://tinyurl.com/gme3mw6
RetiredF4 has commented on the apparent sea conditions; those and other physical aspects of the RNZAF photo will be examined in my next post.
@Ken
The reality is you can get a fit to the ISAT data at just about any position on the 7th arc South of the equator. There is no wrong position relative to the data. There are many wrong positions relative to the actual terminus, of course.
The two plane diversion theory still lacks a plausible motive. If you simply wanted to prevent something on the plane from falling into Chinese hands, it would be far simpler to put a bomb on the plane or shoot it down. Why go to such elaborate lengths? You could also ask the Malaysians to hold the plane from takeoff because of dangerous cargo or any number of reasons, and then go fetch what you wanted. The reason there has never been a hijacking for cargo or passengers in the history of commercial aviation is that it is the hardest conceivable way to get the cargo or passengers.
I do not believe any agency of the US government would intentionally murder 200+ people outside of a military scenario. Call me silly on that if you want to. Just too much risk for anyone in that chain of command to take.
Also, I believe the two plane deception is done more easily with an aircraft flying a mirror image path over Africa.
The simplest explanation, by far, is that the ISAT is correct, that it came from 9M-MRO, and that the assumptions made relative to the flight dynamics require tweaking. There is also the possibility that the current search area is correct, and that the plane was simply not detected.
@oriondt
I’m a peanut that sometimes acts as a walnut..;)
I came to this not only because of this flaperon-issue you threw in here.
It’s more, this are more or less discarded observations now become actual again in the light of the new information on debris, drift studies and possible flight paths that all lead to a more northern crash area.
The piece would fit quite well in all of this and the coïncidence of something like this at that moment floating there I would regard as very slim if it wasn’t related.
But other photos are necessary to make this a stronger lead as you would agree I suppose.
What are those AuntyPru images?
Can you provide a link?
@Barry Carlson: Can you also apply your edge detection software to the second image I posted? I believe the depth of the object can more easily be discerned in that one.
@Ge Rijn
The links to the photos you seek are in this post on Auntypru:
http://auntypru.com/forum/-Less-Noise-and-More-Signal?pid=4656#pid4656
Hey guys. I know there have been some difficult moments over the last few months about what it is and is not acceptible to doscuss on here but please bear in mind just how hard it is to be a single individual modearating this kind of forum. Its HARD. And over time it takes its toll.
I know because Ive been there.
Please take a moment to respect the time and effort it takes just for jeff to keep this blog running. It adds up to months, believe me.
Yes i would rather see that we continue to explore Ken’s theory in detail. Yes id rather we continued to look at Ge Rijn’s images until we reach a conclusion.
BUT please lets not do this at the expense of the person who continues to make this discussion possible.
Please lets not forget that Jeff is one of THE most passionate people involved in this exploration. Yes, he like ALL OF US struggles occasionally to move past bias but SERIOUSLY he isnt the person to attack here.
@Crobbie
+1
Any differences I have had with Jeff and/or Duncan are trivial and insignificant in the scheme of things. Both men were sincere and fair in their treatment toward me, and I will defend them rigorously. Both sites did and do serve an extremely useful purpose, and I think we owe them both a great deal.
DennisW posted “The simplest explanation, by far, is that the ISAT is correct, that it came from 9M-MRO, and that the assumptions made relative to the flight dynamics require tweaking. There is also the possibility that the current search area is correct, and that the plane was simply not detected”
I very much agree with this statement, if the likely assumptions are correct then the simplest expalantion would be the plane should be in the the current zone. However, should it turn out that the wreckage is not in the current search zone then it is reasonable for us to question these likely assumptions all over again.
The assumption that the ISAT data ” that it came from 9M-MRO” may not be correct. That is a fair assumprion to make also but it is extremely unlikely to have occurred.
@DennisW & @Crobbie, Thank you.
@MPat. Being fresh to drift models I have taken up your suggestion of reading what David Griffin and the CSIRO have put forward. Below are a couple of comments in case you find them worth commenting on or of use in your future work:
-When considering the divide between buoys heading east to Australian or west to Africa, there might be a ‘prior’. By including buoys which pass through the rectangle of origin at different times and places, directions and speeds the crash debris start point homogeneity will not be replicated. What I am getting at is that with a high density of debris starting essentially at the same point and dispersing gradually, initially at least, it is more likely that individual items will mostly head east or mostly west than in the Adrift model. Besides, that model will accentuate the dispersal by including drogued buoys, which the ATSB/CSIRO study believes to be less representative, in not allowing for the effects of waves (Stoke‘s drift) or leeway.
Of course once it disperses widely the debris would head in quite different directions but with the delay the general overall east-west divide might be influenced more by probabilities of the setting of east vs west conditions at the start.
-The inclusion of drogued drifters will distort probabilities also by these buoys being delayed, caught in gyres (as you depict) and eventually arriving in different directions and of course elapsed times, compared with the drogueless.
Pottering about at an unearthly hour and came up with this news link:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2016/07/15/mh370-relatives-angry-over-ignored-debris/?google_editors_picks=true
No photos in there but it tells us much about where this “mystery” is heading. Blaine must be kicking himself for hawking his house.
Perhaps the authorities must be tired of sifting through irrelevant debris when the outcome is already known.
@MPat. To make my above point clearer, this could explain the lack of debris in Australia: that is the starting point favoured westerly in this instance.
Victorl
I found another picture of possibly the same piece from the RAAF taken on march 26th according to the linked 106mb pdf file in the post of ‘Annete’ on the Aunthypru blog.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5n8ox3t5110lyrt/panelpiece.jpg?dl=0
Its the rectangled piece in the left under quarter of the photo. When zoomed in on ~500% it shows the same dimensions. It’s the 92WG0008 photo in this file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/txbp5frac16h597/Item%206.pdf?dl=0
@Victorl
Correction: the link is actualy to ‘aussie500’ on that blog:
http://auntypru.com/forum/-Less-Noise-and-More-Signal?pid=4656#pid4656 (Thanks to @ventus45)
I cann’t find coördinates but her post seems to say there are on this picture (and the others in the serie)
She obviously has put a lot of effort in this.
(if she maybe reads this I thank her here for that and for supplying the files)
@David @MPat
I like to mention all the drifters that landed on Australia in both MPat and Griffin/CSIRO models passed the current search box south of 36S 96E.
None of the drifters that passed the box north of 36S reached the Australian shores (but 31 of them reached the African shores and islands).
IMO this is dividing the search box in a part under 36S than can be excluded (with reserve offcourse) as possible crash area and the part up to 32S which then still is a possible crash area (although nothing is found still, suggesting the plane is even more north or somewhere near this part of the box but outside of it).
I’m curious what MPat has to say on your remarks and those of mine stated above.
@Ge Rijn. Yes, thanks but the MPat and CSIRO search boxes extended to 39S.
@David
Yes, with south of 36S I mean the part of the search box till 39S and than the ~dividing line at 36S till 32S.
Only between 39S and 36S (12) drifters that passed there landed on Australian shores. None of the drifters which passed that 36S line landed on Australian shores but 31 one of them on African shores and islands.
Hope this is more clear and if you can agree on this.
@David
Another thing to mention is the MPat model indicates IMO that there probably wasn’t a lot of debris floating after the crash.
And with that there wasn’t a high speed impact.
Brock McEwen predicts in his model based on a high speed impact with resulting 10.000 pieces of floating debris hunderds of pieces should have landed in Africa and on Australian shores in 18 months.
This obviously did not happen for there are only 12 pieces found so far and none in Australia (yet).
In the MPat model only 177 pieces are required to let 31 of them land in Africa and 7 on Australia in the same timeframe.
This is much closer to reality exept from the Australian landing of debris which is never found (yet).
Even only ~60 floating pieces after the crash are required to result in the 12 pieces landing in Africa found so far according to MPat’s model.
@Ge Rijn: If I am looking at the correct part of the image, it looks to me like a wooden pallet. This could be the pallet that was found as part of the air search around March 16, 2014.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26705073
@Ge Rijn. If I might summarise, what you say it is that if debris washed up on Australia from this general area it would have come from below 36S. Since there is no Australian debris there is no point searching below there.
However should it be that the buoys such as you mention arrive there irregularly there might be some years when none did. A westerly starting bias in those years is what I have hypothesised. It might apply to all buoys but have particular influence on those below 36S. In which case lack of evidence is not evidence of absence: ie no debris in Australia is not evidence the plane crashed north of 36S and is not grounds for excluding under 36S searching.
But it is only a hypothesis.