Last month Robyn Ironside, the National Aviation Writer at the News Corp Australia Network, published what struck me as an extremely important article in the Daily Telegraph about the work of scientist Patrick De Deckker, who had obtained a sample of a Lepas anatifera barnacle from the French judicial authorities and conducted an analysis to determine the temperature of the water in which the barnacle grew. A snippet:
The same 2.5 centimetre barnacle was used by both French and Australian examiners — but different techniques applied. “For my analysis, I used a laser to create little holes of 20 microns, over the length of the barnacles. In all we did 1500 analyses,” said Professor De Deckker.
Intrigued, I reached out to Ironside, asking if she could tell me more about De Deckker’s work. She very graciously did just that, and shared this extremely interesting nugget, a verbatim quote from De Deckker:
The start of the growth was around 24 degrees (Celsius) and then for quite some time, it ranged between 20 and 18 degrees (Celsius). And then it went up again to around 25 degrees.
This is surprising. The graphic above shows the water temperature in July 2005, which I take to be a rough proxy for the water temperature in March 2014. (I would be extremely grateful if someone could extract granular sea-surface temperature maps for March 2014 to July 2015 from NASA or NOAA databases available online.) It shows that the waters in the seabed search area are about 12-14 degrees Celsius. To find 24 degree water would mean trekking 1000 miles north, above the Tropic of Capricorn.
It has long been known that Lepas anatifera do not grow in waters below about 18 degrees Celsius, and that in order to begin colonizing the flaperon (if it began its journey in the search zone) would have had to first drift northwards and wait for warmer months and warmer latitudes. What’s peculiar is that this particular Lepas would have to have waited a good while beyond that, until the flaperon arrived in water six degrees above its minimum. As I’ve written before, Lepas naupali are common in the open sea and in general are eager colonizers of whatever they can glue their heads to.
Peculiarity number two is that after this period of initial growth the flaperon then found its way into significantly colder water, where most of its total growth took place. What’s weird is that every drift model I’ve ever seen shows currents going through warm water before arriving at Réunion. Where the heck could it have gone to find 18-20 degree water? And how did it then get back to the 25 degree waters of Réunion Island, where it finished its growth?
I’m frankly baffled, and am appealing to readers to ponder historical surface temperature data and drift models to help figure out what kind of journey this plucky Lepas might have found itself on.
@ROB:
Why would the Malaysians not want to find the plane, in your view of it?
@David @Falken @trond @Lauren
The ELT when active is transmitting identification and possition on 406 Sat frequency and aditionally transmits a beacon signal on UHF 243.0 and VHF 121.5. It is very annoying, especially when activated unintentionally and all world tells you tht you yourself are the culprit.
Those last two frequencies are line of sight and monitored by naval and air traffic as well as by civil and military ATC stations. A manual activation of the mobile ELTA 406AP ELT with the serial number 01N65910 should have been noticed by a lot of airborne, seaborne and ground stations on the route segments prior FMT.
My thinking is, that it was not used.
The non activation in a crash scenario is another kettle. The mobile ELT was most probably in the off position, and fixed ELT’s are prone to fail in a severe crash due to the external antenna being disconnected or destroyed. AF447 also lacked the activation of the ELT
The non activatin therefore cannot be counted as an indicator that there was no crash at all.
The temporary allowed / recommended deactivation of the ELT after the 787 Fire was limited to max 90 days to complete the required inspection and concerned only the respective Honeywell ELT. The MAS 777 ELT are from French ELTA company.
@Lauren concerning Robin Olds
When I was performing my first flight 1977 on the Phantom F4-E, Robin olds was a legend and a retired Brigadier General since 4 years. I never met him.
Jeff:
It is fine to question whether a specific piece of debris is actually from MH370, or question how it might have come to have burn marks. But your continuing suggestions that Blaine has been planting debris is ridiculous and harmful. It may also have legal consequences if you have no proof. I recommend that knock off the unfounded and libelous rhetoric about planting debris, and you should publically apologise to Blaine. ATSB has already confirmed a number of the pieces. What is your proof of planting?
Ugh @ventus45 recent post (prior thread) got me reading Ed Baker’s thoughts. I’ve been following the popular news on this accident (CNN) from the outset, and I never realized the digital flight data recorder could be turned off by the pilot. I don’t think the public has been told about this. Voice recorder has been clearly said to capture only last 2 hours.
I don’t see burn marks. I see surface coatings of different colours ie white and buff, over a black, possibly carbon substrate.
@Johan
Self-explanatory I would have thought, Johan.
I’m pretty sure that calling Blaine’s finds “statistically remarkable” is well within free speech limitations, particularly since it’s true. I missed the part where Jeff suggested that Blaine planted debris.
That said, there may be other explanations for his treasure hunting prowess. Perhaps Blaine has inside information, compiled by a main source, leading him to parts that others are unwilling to publicly state that they have found.
For example, if MAS gets a call saying, “hey, we found one your seat backs, do you want it back?” It’s possible that this information is being leaked to Blaine, while MAS expresses no interest. To some extent, he could be doing the dirty work for others who have some reason not to comb the beach.
@Johan
I didn’t mean to be rude. An example among very many: Blaine Gibson says the Malaysians haven’t even bothered to pick up five items found earlier. This despite them declaring several months ago that they would be dispatching a team of beachcombers to Africa. Just how cynical do they have to behave, before the scales fall from your eyes? We would all like to know the details of exactly what it is they are so desperate to keep hushed up. Meanwhile, all we can do is make educated guesses. 😉
@ROB:
Not to me. Because a pilot suicide would be bad business for MAS?
@ROB:
You bet me to it. So disregard the previous.
@MPat:
(on DeDekker and the barnacles) “for me the most worrying thing is that two different analysis techniques (Mg/Ca ratio by De Deckker, and O16/O18 ratio by the French) on the exact same barnacle give different results for the temperature history.”
A dive into an old chemistry text suggests that the oxygen ratio is in fact a signal of the water mass temperature as heavy oxygen is relatively enriched by evaporation at the surface. I still believe that ratio of Ca/Mg laid down in the shell should be a function of the physiological temperature, and should therefore change more rapidly than the oxygen ratio.
There’s pretty good treatment of stable-isotope analysis in Wikipedia articles if anyone wants to check this.
I still think this is the first good glue we’ve had in a while in getting useful information from the drift studies
This should really be reconciled, and the likely error bars in each measurement understood, prior to attaching too much weight to any flaperon trajectory engineered to match Jeff’s reported temperature trend.
@ROB:
No offense taken. I am suspiscious about everything, even about suspiscions. And it is a bit hard for me to say what is what in many regards (if not, the conspirators would not be worth the name, would they). But it is nice to see we are more or less on the same page. I suspect the Malaysians more or less the same way you do it appears. But they do not seem to be the ones most eager to pin it on Z, do they? (although that may take care of itself by way of delegation ). I have always wondered why the Aussies are (seem to be) more eager than the Malay. It is peculiar.
Re: Blain latest piece: Just to add one question, the emergency O2 canisters can create heat, not sure about fire. Or perhaps I should ask” Can they?
@TBill
They can. Two accidents named here due to those canisters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Flight_592
From that latest find. I don’t see burn marks but rather more of scraping during landing/Impact especially if it’s an underside of the airframe.
@JS
Blaine can sue for defamation (slander).
Re ELTs
It is well understood that the operation of the ELT fitted to an aircraft, or rather the detection of an ELT transmission, is not guaranteed in all circumstances. Many reviews of the performance of ELTs have been carried out by various administrations. Some references are at these links:
https://www.cospas-sarsat.int/images/stories/media/Documents/canadianstudyonelt.pdf
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4126629/ar-2012-128_final.pdf
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160009372
One important point that is less well understood is that if an ELT is triggered the 406MHz emergency signal is not transmitted immediately. The transmission protocol delays the first transmission for approximately 50 seconds, and then continues to transmit the data block of 520mS at 50 second intervals. The 406MHz is detected by a satellite and the appropriate emergency centre is notified. The data block contains information that enables the aircraft to be identified uniquely.
There are several reasons why either of the 406MHZ ELTs equipped on MH370 may not have been effective.
@Brian
Thank you for rhe aditional information.
I think the main point of discussion concerning the ELT is not the absence of a signal in a crash, which you well explained. It is the absence of a signal (either Sat 406 or UHF 243 / VHF 121.5 ) from the mobile ELT, which would have been accessable by the cabin or the cockpit crew. There would be no critical time factor involved like in a crash situation with the possible destruction of the ELT or the antenna prior the first transmission.
Imho this points to a situation where such accessability was not possible rather than that the whole flight and cabin crew forgot about such an alerting option.
Why wouldn’t the ELT send at least 1 (one) single ping at the moment of impact ?
(That would already be sufficient for satellite detection.)
Think of a motion detector in a laptop/notebook, which shuts down the HDD (or at least retracts the read/write heads in the parking position) in the split second between the laptop falling off a desk and impact on the ground, so that the HDD is not destroyed by the R/W heads.
I would have expected an ELT to behave in the same manner.
Especially so since lives onboard an aircraft are more valuable than data on a hard drive.
@RetiredF4,
I agree.
The cabin crew would first have to recognize that an emergency situation existed, and then have the presence of mind to access and to switch on the ELT in that emergency situation.
It is possible that the cabin crew were totally unaware of the flight track diversion back across Malaysia and into the Malacca Strait, and that an emergency situation was unfolding.
It is also possible that the cabin crew were prevented from accessing the coat closet.
@Brian@RF4
Frankly, in that situation I doubt I would have thought about it. ELT training is probably a yawner for the cabin crew assuming they get any at all.
@Brian, @DennisW:
What I think RetiredF4 is trying to say is that if it were a technical failure striking mainly at electricity/external communication that forced the plane to turn around, and the pilots communicated this to the rest of the crew and passengers, explaining why they needed to go back, then there would have been time and opportunity and presence of mind enough to switch on that ELT, one could expect. So either the incident was much more dramatic, or the rest of the crew or passengers were t/sold another reason for the turn back, which didn’t call for any specific emergency actions on their part. ( Like an incapacitated co-pilot? Or an unexpected target-practising warship? )
@airlandseaman, I find it very interesting that you are now sharing Blaine’s irrational concerns about his reputation. In point of fact, I have never suggested that Blaine planted debris. I have merely pointed out that the debris that Blaine has collected looks very much as we would expect planted debris to look. He agreed with this assessment in the course of my interview with him after his first piece was found. In fact, all of the pieces that Blaine has subsuquently found share the same statistically improbable characteristics. And now apparently he has a small army of people who he’s enlisted to collect similar objects. Funny how they all turn out the same.
Why is Blaine so concerned about suppressing discussion of the debris he finds? Why are you concerned about protecting his thin skin? Why, for that matter, are you suppressing the 1000-page Malaysian police report? Why have you not acknowledged that your predictions regarding the discovery of MH370 wreckage were wrong?
@Perfect Storm:
What is wrong with hand-cranked and self-dissovable equipment? I am suspiscious about everything since the red diode revolution. We used to fly sitting on the elastic bands, goddammit. And the airlines and pilots need some freedom and slack from surveillance if they want to take the plane for an excursion now and then, if the last rental customer left some superfluos gas in the pipes. Heck what’s the deal with people? They are so negative. Not only do they want emergency beacons, which is for sissies, but they want them to work too, before the plane sinks. I prefer to go with a bang anyway — heck I’m a pilot after all. :-))
It’s highly suspicious that at every “discovery” of new debris pieces there are camera crew right there to capture the moment. Maybe this is all recreations but still highly suspicious.
@JW
Just to clarify since I live with counsel. Defamation is called libel if the alleged act is in writing, and slander if it is verbal. The litmus test is proving that either one caused any quantifiable harm. In the context of the give and take relative to this subject in the press and elsewhere, that would be impossible to prove.
I am not a Gibson fan myself for the reasons you state. What is his agenda? Why the cloak and dagger replete with claims of copyright? I did not even entertain making such claims when my CI theory was unfairly impugned. 🙂
@MH
I am not nearly as suspicious as you and Jeff are. I think the debris finds are what they are claimed to be. I tend to adopt the Nate Silver attitude relative to data and what people say – that is it is legitimate until convincingly proven otherwise.
Like Silver said relative to the Brexit exit polls. Why not believe what people are telling you?
Jeff:
Blaine can stand up for himself. My point is that you are causing a great deal of harm to the community effort by attempting to undermine the credibility of the debris he and his followers have found. When you write “All are small enough to fit in a suitcase…”, it is clear you are accusing him of planting debris. Everyone reading your words knows that is what you mean to imply. If that is not what you mean, then why not say so in plain English?
Simply put, the debris so far found can be divided into two classes, large (not easily or stealthily portable) and small (easily one-man portable).
The only two large items found so far are the flaperon and the outboard flap.
It is highly significant in my view, that not one single piece found so far, has a definitive serial number on it, and I emphasise, serial number. Assembly numbers, even part numbers, are not “definitive” to 9M-MRO, and are not “definitive evidence” in my book.
All the small pieces, are highy suspect in my book, particularly the Roy piece. The credibility of “found once encrusted”, and then “found again clean”, is, in my view, so far out there in the “statistically” non-credible that you would have to use scientific notation to write down the “odds”.
Turning to the large pieces.
The authorities have the two large pieces.
Both should have part numbers and serial numbers.
In the case of the flaperon, we know for certain that the data plate is not where it should be.
The proffered “explanations” for why it might not be there do not wash with me.
To my knowledge, no definitive data was found on the outboard flap, and as yet, to my knowledge, no one has told us where the data plates “should be” on that flap.
It is, in my view, both highly significant, and highly suspicious, that both the French gov, (flaperon) and the Australian gov, (outboard flap) continue to refuse to release any detailed engineering reports on both of them. Why ?
With that said, I do not think it is unreasonable for people to re-raise the spectre of the possibility of planting, of all “debris, large and small” by someone.
Mike, I didn’t read Jeff’s comments as an accusation of Blaine planting evidence whatsoever. When I read the “suitcase” comment, I interpreted it as meaning that this world and its oceans are so huge and vast, but yet ONE GUY alone finds upwards of a dozen pieces which collectively are SO SMALL that they can be contained in a this little space. Surely “bucket” would have been a less troublesome word than “suitcase,” but I think you’re being a bit too harsh here.
@Ventus
But why? There is no motive for such actions. What was on the aircraft to warrant such behavior?
Further, at this point, the official line is the high speed dive.
Mike Exner still holds to the flutter theory for the right flaperon.
If he is correct, (and he may be) it is reasonable to assume the left flaperon also fluttered, and detatched.
Only if the left flaperon subsequently shows up, WITH IT’S DATA PLATE INTACT, and, if that data can then be be traced “definitively” from date of manufacture, to “on wing of 9M-MRO on 07Mar2014”, with no “periods of location unknown”, will I start to beleive the debris story.
DennisW.
Just saw your question when I went to post the above.
Short answer, I don’t know, but the whole thing “smells”.
@Ventus45 and the missing flaperon data plate. Stuck on. Shock would separate like it would account for the crack in the inner web of the outer flap part.
@DennisW “Frankly, in that situation I doubt I would have thought about it. ELT training is probably a yawner for the cabin crew assuming they get any at all.”
Yet a premise for the Union question would be that this would be expected.
If the crew had been alerted it would be the dog that didn’t bark
@DennisW
If only we knew exactly what was and who were on that aircraft we might be way ahead. If any item of debris has been planted, such as the flaperon, it is probably to give the impression that the plane did crash in the SIO or even to try and support the current search area as being the most likely. I am not making any suggestion about which group may have planted debris or whether indeed any of it was actually planted but still think planting is a slight possibility.
Returning to the flaperon and the barnacle analysis. Interesting, but unfortunately the experts cannot estimate the time-span for the barnacle’s growth. Also, we do not know for how long the flaperon floated, whether it did in fact float partly submerged for some time and whether it floated in just one orientation. As @lkr suggested, barnacles in different positions on the flaperon may have different growth patterns. The suggested temperature ranges could be satisfied by any number of paths of the floating flaperon IMO, including one starting W of Sumatra (depending on whether the ISAT data is to be believed or not). Sigh.
@AM2
The physical evidence – ISAT data, debris, and Sim coordinates point to a crash site North of the current search area. It is overwhelming if people just take the time to absorb it all.
@alsm – one cannot make an accusation by implication. You heard what Jeff never said. Don’t blame Jeff for your interpretation – blame yourself.
As for damaging the community, please. This is (was) a scientific discussion. You may be an expert, sir, but if you are suggesting that “undermining the crediibility” is harmful, you are no scientist.
Some of us non-experts come here specifically to watch others tear apart the credibility of the evidence, not to hear “experts” lobby for weak evidence.
By the way, I had never considered the Blaine debris finds in such a light. Jeff’s added color was very interesting, given the fact that the parts were small and that an identical plane is in pieces a suitcase ride away.
@DennisW
Do you have a specific new search area in mind? And even if you do, who do you suggest should pay for a new search? (I am assuming it would not be covered by any insurance but am happy to be corrected on that if anyone knows.)
Noted, critical observations of the way Malaysian authorities handling initial disappearance and subsequent to the disappearance. Nice people but the cultural imperatives deeply ingrained in a post colonial society, to save face cannot be underestimated combined with a laid back approach to life, lack of geopolitical savvy and most importantly not great problem solving.
This is interesting observation of MAS working culture where employees sleep on the job, no wonder, they do 12 hour or longer shifts. http://business.asiaone.com/news/6000-mas-jobs-were-cut-because-employees-were-sleeping
Who was sleeping at KLIA when the plane went missing?
Catching numerous flights in and out of China with MAS over several years I’ve observed numbers of Chinese National passengers do not comply with flight protocols. Even when directives are given in Chinese, MAS always have Chinese speaking flight attendants on the planes in/out of China and relate instructions via intercom in three languages.
There were probably a number of phones still operating on MH370, passengers either forgot or did not comply with the directions to them off. Some passengers would have been asleep when these directions were given. NASA June 2016 updated, report of safety issues and electronic devices, an interesting read.
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf
@AM2
I do have a new area in mind around 24S to 27S based on a number of reasons. I will elaborate in a separate link in the next week or two.
@DennisW
OK, looking forward to seeing that.
@AM2 @Jeff Wise @others
I think a timespan of barnacle-growth can be assumed if one takes the messured temperature drop and rise as results of the seasonal fluctuations in summer/winter/summer ocean temperatures in that part of the SIO.
If you look at the charts ~20S latitude serves as a kind of border-latitude where winter ocean-temperatures of ~18C can reach.
In March summer-temperatures north of ~35S west of Australia are already above ~20C climbing fast and steady going north.
I assume therefore this scenario:
The flaperon started its journey 8 March 2014 between ~35S and ~30S near the current search area in waters above 20C.
It first drifted north-east through steady climbing ocean-temperatures and barnacles started to grow steady in 24C waters.
The first fase of the messured barnacle-temperature.
Then around August 2014 it started to drift north-west and reached ~20S. With the coming winter the colder ocean temperatures catched up with the flaperon and caused the messured drop in barnacle-temperature. It drifted in this colder waters till around January 2015 when temperatures started to rise again.
This is the second fase of the messured barnacle-temperature.
Steady climbing summer-temperatures from January 2015 till arriving at Reunion in July 2015 can explain the last fase of the messured barnacle-temperature.
So IMO the barnacle-mystery can be explained without the flaperon taking strange, more complicated paths.
The messured temperature shifts can be fully explained by seasonal ocean-temperature shifts on those latitudes the flaperon most probably drifted according to ISAT-data and drift-data.
And it can explain/confirm the timespan of ~15 months; spanning a summer/winter/summer.
@airlandseaman
It is easy to get carried away. But I believe Jeff’s critique of Blaine rather raises the credibility of the other pieces. There will always be the scientific analysis. Just because there is a show surrounding it, that does not mean they are fake (which would unwise even for a person like Blaine). And obviously someone has to go to the beaches. But I see no big deal in the critique.
@DennisW,
I agree – locations in the SIO north of the PSZ seem obvious at this point.
@DennisW and Ventus,
Motives aren’t that hard to find. Most government parties at this point want this whole thing to go away because it’s costing them money and/or making them look dumb – two things that put government jobs at risk.
The large debris is needed only to show that some 777 debris is in the SIO. A complete lack of large 777 parts would prolong speculation that the plane landed. Small parts don’t do it unless they can unequivocally be tied to a 777.
However, the small debris, in addition to the large debris, shows that the plane is in too many pieces to bother trying to find it and figure out what happened.
So, there’s a motive – “We found big 777 debris, and only one is missing, so it’s 9M-MRO and we know it crashed. We found small debris, so it’s broken into so many pieces it’s not worth spending more of our money to find.”
@JS
Even if the parts can be tied to a 777 it might not be MH370 but parts from a plane boneyard. Take a look at the incredible amount of stock sitting in boneyards. Easy enough to pull scrap from a plane same model and vintage. Throw it in the ocean in the places where known currents will take it to expected locations according to the authorized version of events.
Or break those small pieces of the original plane, kept somewhere, chuck these bit and pieces into the ocean from a boat of chopper. The parts only act as more smoke and mirrors to get people to buy into the official story.
The experts say the small size of the parts indicates a ditch into the ocean while a controlled glide into the ocean would have rendered less small debris. What is it? More inconsistencies in that do not really support the new official version.
@Gloria:
If only your “experts” were half the men your “villains” are.
I think you are even overestimating the qualities of the experts, which shrink even more in comparison wirh the godlike character of those easily dropping boneyard debris from choppers in waters known to carry away the debris by strong currents to shores on the other side of oceans. And predicting the barnacle growth some 24 months ahead.
@Johan
I have no villains, plenty of questions and related theory and more questions taking into account many things but not much interest in smoke and mirrors detail like barnacles. Johan, really, don’t be silly, straw man!…no one is dropping bits of plane in other oceans to be carried to SIO.
The bits plane/s are relatively small, easily torn off a plane waiting in a scrapyard, then transported by whatever means to a perimeter location on the SIO…then by chopper or boat ride to the relevant current charted by well easily accessed mapping to that current’s location in SIO.
The barnacles are of little interest, more diversionary detail as far as I can see but at least the architects of the authorized version have attempted to put some evidence in the mix, despite this not really matching the official versions being touted on the media of late. That the plane was guided into the ocean by the suicidal pilot which means little small debris, yet what has been found indicates a ditched plane or
as I point out bits torn of the actual plane being held or from a same plane model in a boneyard. There are literally thousand upon thousand planes, ex military and ex commercial in these boneyards, bleached by the heat and sunshine of their desert locations.
They might do well to examine the condition of the paint on those parts the craquelure will vary according to desert location or having been in the ocean, maybe both will leave a stamp. Forensics of paint analysis is pertinent to those parts. Forget the barnacles diversions.
@Gloria:
If you are right then probably the forensics people are in on it too. I hold that for more likely than the planting of the debris. After all it takes much less effort.
Having lived in Asia for decades, the poor handling of MH370 disappearance at the onset and behaviour of the Malaysian government after the fact, does not surprise me at all. The initial disbelief that the plane was lost led, imo, to a domino effect of ill made decisions. Incompetence and ignorance at its best. People were simply not trained to deal with these situations. Once on center stage, the world saw the incompetence for what it was and MY goes into “preserving face” mode. Not surprising therefore, that lies were fed to those in charge throughout the entire chain of command (read: military radar) since keeping your job and standing in society is key. But these cultures do that to maintain face, especially when the world is watching and demanding answers. There is no doubt that the people involved were dealt with behind closed doors, quietly and effectively – as is custom in these countries when you embarrass the government for all to see.
Management of radar stations compared to the west, including the military, is simply laughable. This does not mean that Indonesia may or may not have seen MH370. But at that time of night it is quiet so people go out for a smoke, chat with others or just fall asleep on the floor, even if it is against regulations. It’s the culture. And like Malaysia, Indonesia isn’t going to voluntarily give up any information without embarrassing themselves also. No doubt, many who observed these “third world” events, winced. How can travelling to/from these countries ever be safe? IMO, Malaysia knows this only too well and wants this entire nightmare to go away, pronto.
Notwithstanding the above, I agree with others that there is more. I am shocked to the core of MY complete indifference and total lack of empathy as it relates to human life lost and the families dealing with the aftermath. IMO, they know more but are not saying. Given that money has always been a great stimulus for many, it is just a matter of time before someone speaks-up. As time goes by, the price only goes up.
Hopefully, through science and many great minds the aircraft will be found and questions will be answered.
@Ge Rijn
“I think a timespan of barnacle-growth can be assumed if one takes the messured temperature drop and rise as results of the seasonal fluctuations in summer/winter/summer ocean temperatures in that part of the SIO.”
Well, your idea seems plausible but is probably just one of many possible scenarios for the flaperon’s journey. As usual, we are still awaiting forensics from the French…
Re ELT and cabin crew
The portable ELT is part of the emergency equipment the cabin crew is responsible for. Therefore it regularily has to be accounted for, like for the fire ax or the o2 canisters. It is easy accessable on the back of a cabin door, which is often used. One of the crew would have thought about it.
Re flight path awareness
Each I-phone and other models most probably too come with a compass display. You are not going to be able to convince me that no one of those passengers noticed that they headed in the wrong direction. I always use the compass and the gps for direction and ground speed check when being flown. Cabin crews are very sensible to out of the order movements of the airframe, at least the expierienced ones. They go and challenge the crew for unexplained turns and deviations from used profile. Post 911 they had to adopt some responsibility for the integrity and soundness of the aircrew actions. You cannot feed them bullshit anymore.
Re debris planted?
I would see no use in planting more than a few parts of debris. Any of those parts, if they would have been planted, bear also the risk to be traced to the original aircraft and thus give away the devious act. The more is found, the more it points to a complete destruction of the aircraft upon contact with the water. It brings the piloted ditch scenario to an end, which does not suit all.
@Oleksandr
Ask Jeff for my mail, I have something on the AP system/ modes which might be helpfull.