The search isn’t officially over yet–the crew of the Fugro Equator still has a Christmas and New Year’s at sea to look forward to, as well as most of the month of January–but it looks like Australia is throwing in the towel on the current seabed search as it issues its First Principles Review looking at what it learned during the last three years and where it thinks the plane’s main wreckage still might be.
The upshot of the report is quite similar to the postmortem posted here in September entitled Commentary on Neil Gordon Interview. In short, the First Principles report argues that the debris most likely is located in a small (25,000 sq km) area to the northeast of the 120,000 sq km search area, and that if it isn’t there, the ATSB has no idea where it is.
Personally, I’d like to see them go ahead and search that area, but as I read the tea leaves Malaysian and China will not allow it. They’re done. (They’ve heard the “we’re absolutely certain it’s in this area but oops it’s not so we promise it’s in the next area” line before.)
So what did the report contain that was new?
What we didn’t learn, to my great dismay, was anything about the biofouling or anything more about the mechanical breakage of the debris, and what it could have told us about how the plane came apart. Patrick De Deckker’s findings might be buried forever.
There were, however, some interesting revelations:
- For the first time, the ATSB went into some detail explaining just how much of the seabed it might have missed because the seabed terrain was too steep or rough. They reckon this to amount to about one percent of the total.
- Search team members agreed that “the distance required to be searched from the arc could be reduced to 25 NM from the 7th arc.” At one time officials believed that the plane could have gone as far as 100 nm, so excluding that possibility greatly reduces the search zone size.
- For the first time, the ATSB has said that the quantity of debris collected in the western Indian Ocean by itself is useful in reducing the search area: “From the number and size of items found to date from MH370 there was definitely a surface debris field, so the fact that the sea surface search detected no wreckage argues quite strongly that the site where the aircraft entered the water was not between latitudes 32°S4 and 25°S along the 7th arc.”
For me, the most exciting part of the report is the section provided by the CSIRO discussing how the debris might have drifted. The piece de resistance is a photograph provided by the French showing how the actual Réunion flaperon floated when put in the test tank (above). There are two stable states, both of which require heavily-encrusted parts of the flaperon to stick out well clear of the water. This is clearly impossible–barnacles can not live high and dry.
In the past, during discussions of this topic on this forum, people have said, “but wave action might flip the flaperon over so the whole thing might stay wet.” I’ve pooh-poohed this, saying that the flaperon looked quite heavy, and riding low in the water it would be no meant feat for a wave to flip it over. But lo and behold, the report contains a fifteen second video of a replica flaperon being tossed around in a choppy sea by 20 knot winds, and by god if it isn’t flipping over all the time. And therefore I acknowledge that it’s easy to imagine a flaperon getting continually flipped over, so that no barnacle would stay out of the water for more than a few seconds. However, what I cannot imagine is that a state of 20 knot winds is going to persist for 15 months. At some point, the wind is going to die down, and all the barnacles on the high side are going to die. Then the wind will pick up, the flaperon will get flipped over, and the barnacles on the other side will die. The only barnacles that would be able to survive such flip-flopping would the those in the band between the two exposed “poles.”
This is a really obvious problem that the French addressed in their own original secret report (though as I’ve written they couldn’t reconcile it). I find it a little surprising that CSIRO didn’t engage in the topic at all. I wish they’d let me write the questions for their FAQ!
As it stands, I feel that the photograph above provides a huge clue as to what happened to MH370.
UPDATE 12/20/16: To clarify this “huge clue,” here are some pictures of the trailing edge, which according to the French tank test should have been sticking out of the water (right-click to expand). (You can see a video of a replica floating in this way here.)
Like you, I’d like to see this area searched. But I think also like you, I can totally understand the lack of faith in Australia’s probabilities. My reading made me glad to see the ATSB takes seriously some simple truths rather than just high math logic. The surface search failed to spot a debris field. Hence, give weight to areas not covered by a surface search. I am not sure if their original Bayesian analysis took that into account. Did it? Just one example of a couple things that interested me.
Differently, and I don’t mean to discount the SATCOM data as I don’t pretend to know enough, but there is no doubt that the ATSB is 100% wedded to its infallibility. As you’ll see in the study they asked for from CSIRO, the procedure was to start at the seventh arc and float from there. Perhaps I’m a simpleton, but it’s clear that the resultant draft data is then only as good as it’s foundation (an assumed end point on the 7th arc).
Finally, having read the whole report in a few minutes, what the hell took them 7 weeks to write? What’s presented is claimed to be what was presented at the review. The only additions are a few lines saying everyone in attendance agreed with what the ATSB reported to them…am I missing something?
@ErikN, I don’t think you’re missing anything.
Well, @Jeff, so much for a ground up first principles review, I guess.
Jeff:
Possibly the most important new information from the CSIRO Report is the effect of the satellite radar altimeter data on the fine scale trajectory analysis. That data added the knowledge that there are short segments along the 7th arc where the debris started out headed NW instead of east. Take a close look at the map for S34.75 to S35.50 and the maps on each side of that one. Clearly, the surface flow around S34.75 to S35.50 on March 8 was to the NW, unlike the segments to the north and south of that segment. That S34.75 to S35.50 segment was unique in that it did not produce any WA coastline debris. This was one of the main reasons CSIRO concluded S35 is the best overall estimate from the debris drift analysis.
It is worth reminding…Inmarsat’s original best guess was S34.7.
These maps are found here:
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~griffin/MH370/tracks_nonflap/index.html
Scroll through the last 17 to see which 7th arc origins do not produce debris on the coast of WA:
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_02.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_03.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_04.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_05.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_06.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_07.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_08.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_09.gif (34.75-35.5)
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_10.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_11.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_12.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_13.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_14.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_15.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_16.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_17.gif
mapwent_tp3l1p2dp_arc7_4422_23_18.gif
JW: re your statement: “For the first time, the ATSB went into some detail explaining just how much of the seabed it might have missed because the seabed terrain was too steep or rough. They reckon this to amount to about one percent of the total.”
I don’t know where you got that 1% number, but from MH370 – First Principles Review, bottom of page 13 and top of page 23: “The overall confidence of detection of the MH370 debris field within the current search area is >95%.
…and
“The area has been searched to a level of confidence >95% without identifying the aircraft debris field.”
Thus, the probability of missing it (for all reasons) remains ~5%, as previously stated by ATSB.
I think coverage and probability of detection are often confused. They may have covered >99.9% of the search area with confidence, but there are many reasons detection may fail, notwithstanding perfect coverage. Think MH370 confetti vs. relatively relatively larger parts in the case of AF447.
Warren Chester has said today:
“The information in the ATSB report, however, does not give a specific location of the missing aircraft….As agreed at the Tripartite Ministers meeting in Malaysia in July we will be suspending the search unless credible evidence is available that identifies the specific location of the aircraft.”
If ‘specific location’ means they require the lat/long of the debris field before extending any ship activity, that sounds like a formal rejection of any more work.
Is that your assumption or something you know for a fact ?
What is the expected lifespan for barnacles when out of water ?
@Jeff:
Great to see a report. I’ll take that into the holidays. Hope you can get off your schooner at some point.
Thank you, but your link doesn’t really provide an answer to the question posed above.
The link only states: “Only model particles originating from this region 16 months before were considered.”
But
1. No rationale was provided for how the region’s limits were decided, which makes it appear as a completely arbitrary decision.
2. They say they only considered this specific area (delimited by a dotted line), yet go overboard on long stretches of this self-imposed arbitrary border, thus not obeying their own arbitrarily set assumptions, which is downright absurd.
Obviously nothing ever changes if one never leaves the time-expired dogmatism of autopilot constraints and unresponsive crew.
It seems to me barnacles start to grow all the time. When they are eaten away new ones start their lives.
When some die and disappear while being to long above the surface other ones replace them when a surface is submerged again for considerable lenght.
The flaperon flipping over several times could explain the mix of very small to larger barnacles this way perhaps.
Seeing the flaperon in both floating conditions at least the inboard leading edge was always submerged it seems.
Expecting the most and oldest barnacles in that area.
Overall I think it will be very difficult for this reasons to put a time line on those barnacles that can say anything for sure about the total lenght the flaperon was in the ocean.
Unless they can determinate one that survived and can be proven to be older than one year at least.
@Ge Rijn, Anytime the flaperon is floating in calm conditions, whatever’s topside, baking in the tropical sun, is going to be dead in about 24 hours. I direct your attention in particular to the trailing edge. Acccording to the float tank tests, when the flaperon is floating upside-down (left side), the entire trailing edge is out of the water. I’ve added some images to the post so that you can see there is a very healthy population that seems to be at least a month or two old.
@airlandseaman, “>” is a mathematical symbol meaning “greater than” that has a particular nuance when used by the ATSB. When the ATSB says “the completed search area is greater than 110,000 sq km,” this is widely interpreted as meaning “~110,000,” but what it really means is “just a shade under 120,000.”
Likewise here. As the ATSB have bluntly stated, they are very confident that the wreckages is not in the 120,000 sq km search zone.
@Jeff,
Where’s the video you mention, of the flaperon flipping over? Can’t seem to find it anywhere…
@Will, It’s on page 7 of the CSIRO paper, third paragraph. Here’s the link: http://www.marine.csiro.au/%7Egriffin/MH370/P1170623.MOV
@all
My impression of the latest ATSB report is that it is broadly consistent with the tone and flavor of previous reports. In particular how can any meaningful first principle review exclude?
1> Any mention of bioforensics
2> Any mention of the simulator data
3> Any mention of the 1000 page RMP report
4> Any mention of radar data (i.e. correction of Lido graphic)
5> Any mention of the SDU reboot ~18:25
6> Any mention of why the 00:19:37 BFO value is believable when the companion BTO value is clearly flawed.
The last point, of course, forms almost the entire basis for their assertions of where the terminus lies relative to the 7th arc. I was hoping that Inmarsat or Thales would have something reassuring to say on that subject.
This latest effort falls in the “more of the same” category from my perspective.
Jeff –
Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment:
If we’re to believe (as a result of the barnacle distribution) that the Reunion flaperon did not float naturally from the 7th arc, what would be a potential explanation for the fact that the barnacles grew on areas that should have been floating above the water?
In other words – are we to believe that conspirators held certain sections of the flaperon in the ocean for months at a time, to give the appearance of having been on a long journey? Why wouldn’t they just drop the flaperon in the ocean 20-30 miles off the African coast? Logically – what would be the benefit of falsifying the distribution of barnacles in such a way that the flaperon could not have floated naturally?
@BigMac, I think the piece had to be held underwater, perhaps clamped at that spot on the upper inboard side that looks like it was less exposed. Perhaps it was attached to the hull of a ship that was sailing around in the Indian Ocean, to give it the appearance that it had been at sea a while. My supposition is that they didn’t want to be driving around with this piece of aircraft debris sticking out of the water. And they couldn’t just throw it in the ocean, because then they’d have no idea where or when it would wash up or who would find it.
@DennisW, Couldn’t agree more.
@All, It’s evident that the ATSB has separation anxiety if only because their report card sucks. Without MY and CN support they are on their own if the search would be continued and that won’t happen. They know they screwed up. “if it isn’t where we looked, it must be somehwere else”, well duhhhhhhhhhh. Everyone has been saying that for more than 2 years.
@all
From a Microsoft Flight Sim perspective, obviously ATSB is saying McMurdo path is ruled out because the 26.9S terminus and all points north of about 32.5S are ruled out due to absence of debris in satellite photos and drift analyses.
Obviously it would be interesting to get VictorI opinion on that. I am expecting some observers may not agree on where the satellites saw potential debris.
The sentence I focus on was that LNAV ghost flight is apparently now ruled out (nothing found in search zone) so that leaves Mag heading ghost flight with a slight curvature. What I preliminarily see in FS2004 is something like 190 South heading from IGOGU hits 7th arc around approx 34.7 South and 93.1 East. I have not calibrated FS2004 for 2014 magnetic heading so this is just first pass guesstimate.
How do we calc a defintive magnetic heading path? Does SkyVector do that? In any case the mag heading does appear attractive in terms of staying west and popping into the daylight only at the very end of the flight. Although on the other hand, it looks like an intentional ditch in the middle of nowhere, which I theorize might not be the logic if one is trying to avoid appearance of that.
@JeffW
When at the end of the article you say “huge clue” you have to spell it out (for me least) the implication.
Jeff –
Thanks for the reply. Makes sense. I’m always skeptical of conspiracies, because they are generally so hard to pull off without something leaking. But I have to be honest – there is something about the recent trip with Blaine and the NOK that didn’t pass the smell test for me.
Not assigning motive or making a huge leap here – just agreeing with you that something is off.
@Keffertje
I think you are a bit to harsh on the ATSB.
Considering the information they had to work with and (with other parties, MY and China) had to decide on the most probable crash area before any debris was found and better drift analizes were available, they did the best they could I assume.
They (and not only the ATSB I suppose) refused though to adjust the search area after the flaperon find when it became more and more clear by many, here, by the IG and other contributors on other sites, the crash area had to be more North.
At least North of 36S.
This was suggested here on Jeff’s blog almost a year ago already.
Now we read it in this report at the end of this search effort. And this is a kind of bitter IMO. The signs in this direction were so obvious for such along time already.
They just seem to have ignored it al that time it seems.
They could have known it a long time ago and have adjusted the search effort accordingly.
They didn’t. And in this sence I agree with you; they screwed up (together with the other parties).
Those 25.000km2 could have been searched by now easily if they had taken the work of many unofficial experts and contributors more seriously.
IMO though, now the ATSB has named a new most probable crash area of 25.000km2, the Malaysians can not refuse to let it unsearched. It would mean a total loss of face and credibility to their primary intend and statements they would do anything to find the plane.
It’s not on Australia to issue a postmortem on the search but on Malaysia IMO. They lead the search not the ATSB or Australia.
@TBill, Sorry to be obtuse! The “huge clue” I was referring to is the fact that the float-tank photos do not seem reconcilable with the observed distribution of Lepas barnacles on the flaperon. This to me implies a rather obvious explanation for the failure of the seabed search, namely that the plane never went south in the first place–a dead horse I’ve been beating for nearly three years now.
Upate article from Ben Sandilands:
https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/12/20/new-final-mh370-search-zone-defined-latest-atsb-study/
Jeff wrote a very good article on the flaperon and barnacles in Oct 2015 that provides a lot of info on the science and also his conclusions. I just read it and it worth a re-read if you’ve got the time.
http://jeffwise.net/2015/10/09/the-flaperon-flotation-riddle/
However, I am not convinced either way of a large conspiracy by Russia or someone highly sophisticated because if the flaperon was deliberately submerged for months to grow the barnacles it did then why did the perps not make sure there were credible barnacles on the other pieces? The search was well underway by July 2015 when the flaperon was discovered so there was no need to plant evidence to throw off the authorities.
OTOH, perhaps the perps are so proud of stealing a 777 that they are spending money and risking discovery by planting debris in the Western Indian Ocean. Kinda crazy but these are crazy times in our poor world.
@JerryM
“The search was well underway by July 2015 when the flaperon was discovered so there was no need to plant evidence to throw off the authorities.”
Yes. Debris planting fails in a number of ways. Your observation being one of my favorites. As Napoleon famously said – “never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake”.
Another is passing the “sniff test”. A lot of qualified people have looked at the debris, and none of them has raised the possibility of it not being genuine and consistent with debris expected to result from an ocean terminus.
@JerryM, Planting debris entails a certain degree of risk–no forgery is ever perfect, and the flaws might be detected, giving away the game. By early 2015, however, widespread doubts were starting to arise about whether the plane had really gone south. Even the IG was starting to seriously weigh the possibility of a spoof; Duncan Steel published a piece by Victor Iannello exploring the idea that the plane had gone to China. About six months after the idea of the spoof was mooted, the barnacle-encrusted flapeon turned on on Réunion.
The proliferation of biofouling made the piece look very convincing, but it also provided a lot of clues. As I wrote soon after on this blog, the distribution of barnacles on the piece raised doubts that it could have floated naturally. And the chemistry of the barnacles’ shells recorded the temperature of the water the flaperon had moved through, raising further questions. Also, it takes time and effort to babysit a piece of debris as it gains biofouling. So all but two of the subsequent finds were clear of fouling, some spotlessly so. It didn’t seem to matter, anyway– after the indifference shown to my flaperon Lepas analysis, no one seemed to care whether the debris had biofouling on it or not.
From what I remember: Wasn’t the flaperon’s serial numbers’ last digit scratched over to match MH370..
@MH, No. The flaperon was positively and soundly ID’d as coming from MH370.
@DennisW, “A lot of qualified people have looked at the debris, and none of them has raised the possibility of it not being genuine.” A lot of qualified people reviewed the ATSB’s analysis and concluded that their search plan was 100% sound and guaranteed to succeed.
We’re the other guys.
Jeff –
Can you ask David Griffin for pictures of the replica flaperons after they were pulled from the ocean / beached? I think it might answer a lot of questions as to what we should expect to see in terms of biofouling / marine life on the actual reunion flaperon.
@BigMac, Sorry, I don’t have a special line to David Griffin. (I imagine the opposite.) However from the CSIRO report I got the impression that they used the replicas for fairly short-term studies and didn’t leave them in for months at a time.
@Jeff
Yes, the search itself has a lot of resume stains associated with it.
Has there been any new debris finds by the search team over in Madagascar in the last few days??
I’ll reach out to him to at least ask the question. What’s the worst that happens – he ignores me? I’ll also ask for clarification on the length of time the replicas remained in the ocean. If I don’t report back it means I never received a reply.
@all
I would say, that a science Journalist is aplying prize-winning reason and logic to a very dificult scientific topic like MH370 is one of the encouraging aspects of the search.
After proving, that the flaperon find is at least questionable we should admit two shortcomings in our discussion:
1) The difficulties in merging the valuable thesis of very different sciences into a useful common approach.
2) The employment of special expertise in spoofing and commando action training for takeover of a triple seven.
ad 1) It is obvious that we have have a very high level discussion on this blog that can sure stand comparison with any ATSB or other councils. The reason for that being, that very high qualification is expressed by many voluters who prove to be top reated experts on their special fields. Its truly amazing to follow these people who i would mostly describe as “Techies”, people with a faible for enginering and technique as well as mathmatic calculations and air traffic.
But when it comes to other sciences, the excellence does not merge well with the sciences of criminology, psychology, marine biology, drift analysis and subject of military planning and action, expecially asymmetrical warfare.
So to be honest, i would guess, the last thing a techie would like to discuss is a suicidal mind. Also we can clearly see here, that the marine bio sciences, especially when it comes to the fringe science of bio fouling or barnacles, is rated extremely low by most participants here. I have the feeling that there is an atmosphere of ignoring, what is difficult to understand and too far away from ones own subject. We should better try to merge all the sciences in questions on the top level and to accept each others excellence, rather than to downplay the others.
When the science of psychology says, they never heard of a suicide like this one, the techies point to the holy grail of the Inmarsat data, when an institute like GEOMAR with best connections to the french investigators and with world reputation says their drift analysis does not support a terminus in the search area, the techies point again to the Inmarsat data, when biofouling experts have reasonable doubt about the history of the flaperon or the missing biofouling on Blaines pieces, the techies still talk only about autopilot modes, fuel endurance or other corrobrations of the Inmarsat data. That can not merge well. The excellent engineers should try to develop scenarios that are consistent with the expertise of the other sciences, and business sciences made also be needed, when one of the major players here is controlling the my businesses as well as the kasachstan business fonds. as pointed out on this blog. Follow the way of the money said the mouth …
ad 2) The scenario the search was based on, has plenty holes and carries unforgivable inconsistencies with it. But the most probable scenario that can revolutionize the current paradigma is the capture and spoofing scenario, with many difficulties . This can only be assessed by experts of comando action on a very skilled level, who naturally never talk in public about their topics.But we are not expert enough to make up our minds about military options in capture of a 777, and wether it would fit the known facts. There is one important fact though that is encouraging, that someone had access to expertise in this field, i am talking about Sir Clark, he commands the largest fleet of 777s, who sure looked for this kind of advise and who very early on definitely stated, that the plane was taken !!! I know , i ask impossible things from tech nerds when i ask them to look into a military scenario expertise, where people are found who really know what it means to kill 239 unarmed and innocent people, because the tech nerds still hope, that this one will be solved by mathmatics, but … they should at least admit, that they know nothing about the military options, not one bit, may it be Duncan Steel, Mike
Exner, Brian, Don, or the many other famous and mostly briliant minds in the discussion.
The way the plane was captured is the biggest and best trace we have. The Z capture would be extremely bizarre and inconsistent with many sciences. We can dismiss that. So we havbe to focus, on how the plane was taken, then we know a small circle of potential culprits and soon we might have a real suspect.
Since this is all dependant on a spoof of Inmarsat data, we should go to Inmarsat and ask them, how exactly a spoof scenario would develop. Because Inmarsat was the fist one to caveat, the data point to the SIO IF NOT SPOOFED … So they know about possible spofing and speak out, how it could have been done in this case. If they dont answer, they might look suspicious themselves
I fel we can still make big leaps forward if we adress the above mentioned issues.
thanks your patience
@MH, @Jeff
” No. The flaperon was positively and soundly ID’d as coming from MH370.” Surely the flaperon was identified as coming from 9M-MRO? (from original build?)
This has been mentioned here some time back and might be relevant:
9M-MRO was involved in an accident in 2012 resulting in wing damage. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147571
Maybe the flaperon was replaced then….
I think you should question those float-tank photo’s. Do they accurately reflect the floatation characteristics of a damaged flaperon that has been tossed about many months in the ocean at the mercy of wind and waves? The barnacles may well have encountered a flaperon that was different from the ‘windage’ model.
@Gysbreght, The flaperon in the float-test tank is the damaged flaperon that has been tossed around for many months in the ocean. It’s the original Réunion flaperon. So yes, I believe it does accurately reflect its flotation characteristics.
@all
If the process of a organizational system is flawed, preventing the function according to it’s guidelines, who is accountable and to whom are they accountable?
What about the expectations of people forced to have faith in a flawed process because it is their only alternative?
If conduct and discretion are protected, to enable an investigation within an organizational system, and there are abuses of those protected privileges, is there proof of any procedure to terminate this abuse?
What defines the unprecedented magnitude of MH370 is the absolute unknown. If a jumbo jet full of passengers disappears from the sky and almost 3 years later there is no official explanation of how and why, where is the assurance it will not be repeated and another plane will vanish?
What is a reasonable expectation from the world regarding the manner of this investigation? If we are unable to demand accountability from those designated to solve the most mysterious event in aviation history, and confidence the process is protected from malfeasance, where does it stop?
If I understand the ATSB logic, this June_2016 paper by Victor Ianello takes on greater importance. ATSB is saying magnetic heading now looks more apparent for the SIO journey.
Here Victor explores a 180 degree South magnetic heading from BEDAX to 31.5 South on the 7th arc. Meeting the ping requirements necessitates a descending flight path in this example.
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/date/2016/06
@Jeff Wise: How long was the flaperon out of the ocean and what happened to it in transit before it was put in the float-tank?
@Jeff Wise: How long has the flaperon been tossed about in the float tank before those pictures were taken?
@bigmac said “Why wouldn’t they just drop the flaperon in the ocean 20-30 miles off the African coast?”
I don’t believe this would give them enough control. How could they be sure it would be biofouled to a great enough degree? It takes time for these to grow.Which beach would it land on? When would it land?
With @AM2 reminder of the accident maybe if the original flaperon was kept after being replaced by the repair process with a new Flaperon …. maybe the original was planted at Reunion to be found.
@Jeff: You said today:
“No. The flaperon was positively and soundly ID’d as coming from MH370.”
Can you clarify what you know and really feel the truth is about the flaperon?
If the serial numbers were positively traced to MH370, was it actually on 9M-MRO on March 8, 2014?
Or, do you think that it had merely been on the plane at one time in the past, but removed for repairs?
Logically, if it was actually part of the plane when it crashed March 8th, it could not have been planted.
@Matt Moriarty
Have you done your sim time yet?
@Jeff Wise
I looked more closely to the flaperon in the tank and those other pictures.
If you look more closely the banacles on the trailing edge are concentrated on the top side trailing edge. The bottom side trailing edge looks mostly free of barnacles towards the inboard edge.
If you compare this with the tank-situations it matches quite well IMO.
Drifting with with its top side down the inboard side is deeper submerged than the outboard side with its trailing edge sticking out of the water on that outboard side.
Floating with its bottom down though the inboard edge is still deeper submerged but its top trailing edge now is sticking out of the water.
Assuming the flaperon had an overall tendency to float with its top side down and/or this was the final state in which it floated for months before beaching, this would reflect the barnacle concentrations you see in the two photos you added compared with the first tank situation: almost no barnacles on the bottom trailing edge but concentrated on its top trailing edge towards the inboard side of the flaperon.
@Ge Rijn
Not quarreling at all with your observations, but the reality is that sea water would be washing over the entire flaperon virtually continuously. To infer anything from the observed barnacle locations when the piece was found is very unrealistic IMO. The situation in the ocean is nothing like sitting in a static tank of salt water in a French lab.
I can’t take a kayak into the ocean without a sea skirt and without getting absolutely drenched. It is not at all like paddling on a lake or river.
So finally the ATSB concludes the likely crash site is further north..Maybe they should take a look at Mike Chillets theory and and proposed crash site..Which I think is one of the best theories put out to date..As Mike takes into account cyclones path and the rapid drift effects of debris reaching east coast of Africa and nearby islands much faster then estimated..