In the wake of last week’s reports by the Australian Transport Safety Board, several mainstream journalists have published articles urging officials to resume searching the seabed in order to find the plane’s wreckage and thereby solve the mystery. The unanimity of the swelling chorus gives the impression that all reasonable people agree.
However, MH370 is a highly technical mystery, and a proper understanding of what may and may not have happened to it is impossible without a grasp of the science behind the evidence in hand. Simply put, the data that we have now gathere collectively weighs heavily against the idea that the plane flew into the southern Indian Ocean. The Australian authorities apparently understand this evidence better than the journalists, which is why they are declining to press forward.
Since I have covered this material in depth elsewhere in this blog, here I will just present a bullet-point list of why MH370 does not now appear to have flown into the southern Indian Ocean.
1– The absence of wreckage in the ATSB search zone. Using Inmarsat data and detailed knowledge of 777 aeronautics and avionics, Australia’s Defense Science and Technology Group were able to generate a robust statistical model of where the plane might have flown, assuming that it turned south after disappearing from Malaysian primary radar. A measure of their confidence in this model is the fact that the Malaysian, Chinese and Australian governments then spent some $150 million searching this vast, deep abyss. Yet no sign of the plane was there. Remarkably, many commentators shrug off this absence of no big deal. It is a big deal. If the plane had turned south, it should have been there. Indeed, in order to come up with a scenario in which the plane turned south but then arrived outside the search area one must presumed a series of bizarre and statistically improbable turns and descents. I liken this to opening a lock without knowing the combination: physically possible, but statistically equivalent to impossible. I wrote more about this topic in the post “Further Clarity on MH370 Flight Modeling.“
2– The reboot of the SDU. During the first hour or so of flight MH370, a piece of equipment called the Satellite Data Unit, or SDU, was turned off. Then, at 18:25, it came back on and reconnected with an Inmarsat satellite. It was only because of this re-logon that investigators were able to obtain the seven “pings” that told them everything they know about the last six hours of the flight. As I wrote in my post The SDU Re-logon: A Small Detail That Tells Us So Much About the Fate of MH370, the SDU essentially cannot come back on either accidentally or as a result of some other plausible course of action by the pilot. The fact that it was turned off, then on suggests that whoever took the plane had a sophisticated knowledge of the aircraft’s electrical systems and tampered with the system that generated the signal that ultimately led investigators to assume that the plane went south. Obviously, then, this assumption needs to be interrogated.
3– Final observed turn was to the north. At 18:22, MH370 appeared for the last time as a blip on a military radar screen. Three minutes later, it transmitted a ping that allowed investigators to place it on an arc. By integrating these two pieces of information, it is possible to determine that during that interval MH370 turned to the northwest. I discuss this in more detail here: How MH370 Got Away. The fact that the plane was turning to the north fits better with a northern than a southern route.
4– Debris inconsistencies. On July 31, 2015, the first piece of MH370 debris was discovered on the French island of La Réunion. For many, this erased any doubt that the plane had ended up in the southern Indian Ocean. When French officials examined it, however, they encountered an inexplicable anomaly. The fact that every surface had been populated by barnacles indicated that the piece had drifted somehow wholly submerged. Yet when they tested it in a flotation tank, it floated quite high in the water (as seen above; this image is of an actual 777 flaperon cut to the same size). No one has suggested a natural means by which this could have happened; as I wrote in How the MH370 Flaperon Floated, the obvious explanation is that it spent months artificially tethered under the water. Later, other anomalies emerged. Chemical tests conducted on a barnacle shell from the flaperon found that it grew most of its life in water cooler than that experienced by real objects floating to Réunion. And many of the other pieces that turned up were so devoid of marine biofouling that experts said they couldn’t have been afloat for more than a few weeks.
5– Drift studies inconsistent with any single crash point. As I discussed in “Nowhere to Look for MH370″ and “Update on MH370 Drift Modeling Enigma,” an arm of the Australian government called the CSIRO has done considerable work trying to figure out how debris might have drifted from somewhere in the southern Indian Ocean to the shores of Africa and the islands of the western Indian Ocean. To make a long story short, there is no point from which debris would be expected to arrive at the spots where it was found in the correct time interval.
6– No consistent end-of-flight scenario. Frequency data from the 7th and final Inmarsat ping indicate that MH370 was in a steep an accelerating dive. Yet the only way the plane’s wreckage could have escaped detection until now is if it glided beyond the area already searched by sonar. This inconsistency has long been known, and was reiterated in the most recent CSIRO paper. It was compounded by a report issued by the Malaysian government earlier this year called the “Debris Examination Report,” as I discussed in “Reading the Secrets of MH370’s Debris.” There is also puzzlement over how the flaperon could have become physically separated from the plane.
7– Doubts about the provenance of the debris. As I’ve explained in previous posts, there are some glaring red flags in the way that most of the pieces of MH370 were collected.
These seven reasons are all predicated on evidence that has to do with MH370 itself. There is, however, an eighth reason that has to do with a separate event four and a half months later. On July 17, 2014, a missile launcher from Russia’s 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, one of only 14 sister ships to MH370. At first many assumed that the shootdown was an accident perpetrated by confused militiamen, but we now know that the operation was coordinated by the GRU (Russian military intelligence), and was subsequently the subject of an intense disinformation campaign by the GRU. As for the motive, we have no idea. Nor do we have any idea why the Russians would want to hijack MH370. But statistically, 100% of Malaysia Airlines 777-200ERs that come to grief in flight and whose cause is known have fallen victim to Russian military intelligence. If we are to let reason be our guide, that should be the first place to look in trying to solve the MH370 mystery, not the last.
@Buyerninety, Ge Rijn. In my above, 3rd last line, “same as the 16 bolts (of MH370’s), literally should read, “same as the 16 bolts originally fitted to (MH 370’s….)
@Peter Norton
Another good way to perform a spoof (discussed before but not extensively) is to do a mirror image flight North to South over Africa. Turning off MH370’s SDU and substituting the SDU of the Africa flight at 18:25 (explains the logon on 18:25 as well).
The O.R. Tambo International Airport serving Johannesburg is at the mirror image location of my currently preferred terminus near 27S at 00:19. The mirror image flight could be a scheduled flight into that airport and arouse no suspicion. It is a very busy airport.
@Peter Norton
In the meantime the PIC on MH370 can fly the darkened aircraft anywhere.
Some time llater (after the aerial search is suspended) a Russian ship drops hundreds of pieces of debris in the water at 27S on the Eastern side of the satellite in the middle of a dark night. The Russki’s don’t know where it will go except it will go to places consistent with the drop off point.
What this all does is create perfect Inmarsat data and perfect debris data that supports a 27S terminus in the SIO. Jeff’s narrative of individual debris plants is lame. The marine growth on the planted debris will also perfectly match the selected terminus, and there is no need to argue over barnacle growth and distribution. It will be whatever the biology dictates.
@Peter Norton
The above explains why the aerial search never found any debris. It was not there while the search was being conducted.
Do I believe any of the above? No. I believe the plane crashed in the SIO. What I cannot explain is:
1> Why the SDU reboot at 18:25?
2> Why was no debris ever spotted from the air?
The narrative above explains all that in an extremely simple fashion which is impossible to refute.
@dennisw – another strange thing no debris got tangled in the fleet of drift netters which were close to the supposedly crash site. The mirror flight over Africa makes sense. Maybe a ship from Malaysia made the debris drop.
@David
Thanks for that informative paper.
I doubt though the chine shown in the paper is of one piece. It seems impossible to me to make two attachment rigs out of one piece. I think it’s made out of two halfs put opposite against eachother in the mold and probably also a carbon fibre baseplate was added to attache and seal the bottom halfs of the chine with a flat carbon fibre surface.
I assume also the B777 chine is fabricated this way; two mirroring halfs and a baseplate fused together in a mould like the one shown in the paper.
The paper also discribes the possibility of a carbon fibre cloth put between two components without structural function but only two allow the resin distributed evenly.
Maybe this was also the case in the B777 chine between the baseplate and the rest of the chine explaining in another way the clean break on this added intermediate cloth.
Mostly the rounded ridge in the middle of the baseplate left on the debris proves to me this baseplate must have been a seperately added component in the mold to the chine which probably consisted of two halfs (like you suggest also). Then all three parts were fused together in a RTM-process.
Indeed the MH17 picture with the end of the chine shows a vertical line throught the middle of the chine suggesting two mirroring halfs. I don’t see a break there..
It seems to me the remaining MH17 chines did not suffer clear bending or tension damage. The nacelle pieces broke away with them attached only suffering some impact damage it seems.
Sure better and more pictures would be helpfull.
@David
Your statement; ‘Also see the second bottom photo of ALSM’s analysis, which with the photo below depict an MH17 chine/vortex generator, evidently the front two-thirds.’
I actually think it shows the aft ~half of the chine (10 out of 18 nuts in a row) and the undamaged vertical aft end of the chine.
I think the leading edge part of the chine broke off here (with the remaining 16 bolts and nuts).
@David
Just tested this crude drawing program. Hope it works and is clear enough (drawing straight with mouse is near impossible to me).
It should show the two mirroring fin-parts and the baseplate as I envision them to be put in a mold and then fused together with the RTM-process:
http://draw.to/D1VL4Wr
Ge Rijn: Thanks for the sketch. Your “crude drawing” depicts exactly what I was describing in the pvt email I sent to you as (“inverted T”).
@Jeff Wise @DennisW
I’m in the mood so I go on.
Also if planted this latest piece shows a very complicated failure sequence don’t you think. If deliberately first removing the fin nicely from its baseplate and the nacelle. Then plant it. Makes no sence at all does it?
Anyway all found pieces show damage easily explained caused by an impact on a water surface instead of an impact on land or artificially caused damage by breaking up the plane with mechanical devices. No proof of the latter whatsoever.
The only way someone could have planted the debris is what @DennisW discribed lately.
The plane crashed somewhere else in the IO and floating pieces where collected afterwards. Then moved to the SIO by ship at night according the then available Inmarsat data and released there.
All very unlikely but if so the only one nation responsable for such a scenario regarding Maldives sightings as being the only ‘objective’ information in this regard would be the US. Not Russia or Malaysia or China.
If they brought the plane down near Diego Garcia a cover-up would have been essential.
Too far fetched. But if you are looking for a nation trying to cover-up what happened, the first one I would investigate in is the USA.
@Ge Rijn
I agree that the condition of the recovered debris would not withstand the forensics of competent people if it was generated by “mutilating” an aircraft with various tooling. I only posted the above as an alternative theory that fits better than random and isolated debris planting, and also speaks to the SDU reboot, and aerial search failure.
I am firmly in the camp of an SIO terminus.
@ALSM
Yes indeed you mentioned this. An inverted ‘T’. Assembled from three different parts I think. Would be nice if we could get confirmation on this regarding the MH370 chine. Can you or @Don Thompson (or someone else) get any information on the processing details of this chine?
@Ge Rijn:”…if so the only one nation responsible for such a scenario regarding Maldives sightings as being the only ‘objective’ information in this regard would be the US…”
Interesting theory which I toyed with in the early days of the disaster. However, not US by itself, as help needed from other nations. My first thoughts were UK – planning/coordination, Aus/Israel – covert ops and USA – air support/satellite tracking & finance. Motive for Op – maintain the West’s slowly weakening position in SE Asia in face of a strong play from China to develop increased trade across the area, particularly with Malaysia. Secondary objective to obtain a completely anonymous B777 for use in a future op.
I’ve found a few red flags supporting this conjecture, but am still hoping for more discrepancies to come to light to be able to workout the detail of exactly how the plane was disappeared and also proof of who was behind each element of the operation. This could take some time, but patience is a virtue.
@Ge Rijn:”…if so the only one nation responsible for such a scenario regarding Maldives sightings as being the only ‘objective’ information in this regard would be the US…”
Interesting theory which I toyed with in the early days of the disaster. However, not US by itself, as help needed from other nations. My first thoughts were UK – planning/coordination, Aus/Israel – covert ops and USA – air support/satellite tracking & finance. Motive for Op – maintain the West’s slowly weakening position in SE Asia in face of a strong play from China to develop increased trade across the area, particularly with Malaysia. Secondary objective to obtain a completely anonymous B777 for use in a future op.
@Planting Proponents: I am interested to hear from those who believe that debris has been planted, what they make of the confirmations that some pieces are part of M9-MRO – in particular the flaperon, but any ‘confirmed’ debris. How do you reconcile that? I understand Dennis W’s comments above (I don’t think he is trying to sell that as a serious scenario), but does anyone imagine another way to plant genuine M9-MRO pieces? Or, do you simply not believe the ‘confirmations’? Perhaps I have missed something, somewhere.
@Shadynuk
I think what Jeff is promoting is that the planted debris is from 9M-MRO – taken from the aircraft after it landed somewhere. I don’t think this can be done in a way to fool competent forensic experts.
Yes, you are correct. I am not endorsing the planted debris scenario. Just trying to point out a more plausible way this could have been done, while satisfying the Inmarsat data.
@all
Well, Jeff has certainly been quiet. Perhaps he is absorbed in “the next big thing”. From my perspective MH370 is dead. If I was a journalist, I would be looking elsewhere. Being a mathematician, I am comfortable being bored.
@Ge Rijn. I take it that what you have in mind is the preform fibre is laid up in three parts, the injection liquid then infusing into all three and also providing the surface finish so that an integrated chine and base result. Thence there would be ‘weak zones’ where there is no carbon linking the preform fibre components and failures would be at these interfaces. However this leaves out why the MH17 chine and base evidently snapped so cleanly and evenly across the carbon, not along a fibreless zone as would be the base preform to chine interfaces.
I leave that aside though, having become more suspicious that the “break” apparent there is as it appears. I had taken it that this was the forward two thirds of the chine (bit over half if you prefer) because it appeared to taper towards the far end. Yet the edge part-buried in the road, ie the chine outer edge, looks damaged so any “taper” could be from that. At the “break” that edge appears very blunt, if not buried in the material at the road edge.
What increases my suspicions is the position of the support stay bracket shown, which from other ALSM photographs is about halfway across the undamaged cowl’s width. Lines in transit with bolt pairs to that bracket suggest to me that around 8 bolt pairs are on the near (to the camera)side of the line which would pass through the bracket, noting the cowl is curved. If in fact this is the chine aft end, judging from the ALSM top photos the 8 would be the maximum total beyond half cowl width so where there is the apparent fracture there would be the aft pointy end. Were it instead the forward end, which has more bolts, that pointy end again would have been broken off. Nah.
In short I suggest we leave this aside unless a better photo is forthcoming (my extensive flickings through have failed to find one).
@DennisW
‘I don’t think this can be done in a way to fool competent forensic experts’. The problem is the forensic experts have gone silent. The French for instance really aren’t dating a thing about the flaperon. A bit of a worry.
@Ge Rijn, ALSM. Good shot of a 777-200 Trent 800 series right fan cowl open. Ten rows of bolts in front of the line of the stay bracket. Note land in front of them. The left door possibly would not be the same.
There would be no VG fitted to this particular door.
http://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-777_4X-ECB_el-al_163785_large.html
Aircraft particulars:
https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/777/4X-ECB-El-Al-Israel-Airlines/ZPQ0t10
@Ge Rijn, ALSM. In passing, MH17 fan cowl bottom
https://www.flickr.com/photos/128537380@N08/16726428942/in/album-72157651175533522/
See it on the El Al right fan cowl above.
@David
Very good picture indeed but like you say the left door is possibly not the same as the position of the chine if fitted (and washers and nuts) could also be a bit different on the left door.
But sure there are no chines fitted on this B777-200 4X-ECB on the outboard nacelles:
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8578194
@DennisW, I don’t feel like I’m being particularly quiet. I mean, I was in bed when you wrote this…
@David
Just a note on one the of pictures in the ALSM pdf, Picture 1 on page 5 –
Probably that picture is of one of the chines apparently from near
the 777 wing leading edge, not the chine(s) on the engine fan cowling(s).
There are allegedly 16 chines along each 777 wing leading edge (so allegedly
32 wing leading edge chines total), and what we see in that picture has the
appearance of what a wing chine apparently looks like,;
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_03_09/article_02_1.html
note how the article wing chine appears to be ‘L‘ shaped, in
comparison to the engine fan cowling chine we have seen which appear to be
‘T’ shaped.
(Note, although the above article is about upgrading of the wing chines, I
haven’t read, and am not suggesting, that the cowling chines underwent any
upgrade. I have not read or seen any evidence that the cowling chines have
ever changed in shape.)
__________________
(Incidently, you’ll also note from the above Boeing article that the ~2009
Performance Improvement Package (PIP) is claimed to have resulted (for 200ER)
in greater than %1 reduction in fuel use versus range – consequently, you would
expect actual range would increase (by an undetermined distance) versus
equivalent fuel. I wonder if the Boeing data in graph form that BrB derives his
fuel calculations on, is from before or after this ~2009 PIP ?)
Here is another article on the 2009 PIP;
http://aviationweek.com/advanced-machines-aerospace-manufacturing/boeing-ge-define-777-performance-upgrade
Cheers
EDIT TO ABOVE;
Should have said the last article above is ‘not about the 2009 PIP, but does mention it’.
buyerninety wrote: “Just a note on one the of pictures in the ALSM pdf, Picture 1 on page 5 –Probably that picture is of one of the chines apparently from near the 777 wing leading edge, not the chine(s) on the engine fan cowling(s).”
That is not correct. The photo you referenced is a cropped selection of this original 9M-MRD/MH17 debris photo: https://goo.gl/1GJvjM
It is not L shaped. You just can’t see the other side of the baseplate/flange in the photo.
@buyerninety
That chine (bottom pictures) from the MH17 ALSM-pdf is definitely from an engine nacelle.
No way this piece with its same nuts and washers and spacing and inside white painting and outside dimensions could be anything else than a chine from the engine nacelle.
Don’t quite understand what you try to tell here while the proof is so obvious.
Then show a picture of one of those 32 wing leading edge chines that has the same details as this debris.
Presenting the exact same photo, merely flipped, is not particularly helpful
to your assertion. You would have been better off citing, for instance, the
somewhat similar distances, of the rear of the chine to its opposing panel edge,
and the front of the chine to its opposing panel edge.
For myself, the ratio of distances, of the first screw indentation (at the rear
of the chine) to the bottom rear of the chine, versus the total length of
the chine, appears different to those equivalent distances on the chine that is
on the picture of the undamaged cowling. To express it simply, the chine on the
damaged panel appears to be ‘too short’ – it should be longer if the ratios
matched those seen on the undamaged chine. I’ll allow that it could merely be
some misperception of the distances on my part, but if you find another picture
of the damaged panel that allows everyone to see the ‘other side’ of the chine
on the damaged panel, don’t hesitiate to bring such to our attention so everyone
can share your feeling of certainty.
Cheers
@Ge Rijn said;
“That chine (bottom pictures) from the MH17 ALSM-pdf”…
The chine in picture 1 of page 5 is very obviously a different chine than the
chine shown in picture 2 of page 5, as the damage to the projecting outward edges
of each chine are visibly different.
@DennisW:
“…From my perspective MH370 is dead…”
Don’t think that is quite right, rather it is in limbo awaiting further information. Just like Schrödinger’s cat, we won’t know until the box is opened, either by accident or design. The mystery of what happened to MH370 will last for a long, long time. We all live in the age of surveillance, so how can something as large as a B777 simply quietly disappear as if it never existed?
buyerninety wrote: “Presenting the exact same photo, merely flipped,…”
What are you talking about? The top photo on page 5 of my September 3 preliminary report to which you referred is a cropped version of this original: https://goo.gl/1GJvjM. Nothing has been “flipped”.
The approximate dimensions are given here on the first page: https://goo.gl/Qo3mF3
@buyerninety
Indeed the chine of the bottom two ALSM-pdf pages is different for it’s a chine-part of the other engine.
It only shows the aft part of the chine with its 20 washers and nuts. The leading edge ~half (with the rest of the 16 nuts and washers) has broken off and consequently is missing.
That’s why those pictures (picture 1 and 2) are completely different.
They each show a chine from a different (opposite) engine.
ALSM said: “Nothing has been “flipped”.”
Possibily a misunderstanding of terminology on your part. The ‘original’ picture
in the link you cited, is turned over 180° compared with the same picture in your
pdf.
@Ge Rijn
Comparing the length of the chine on the RR engine undamaged panel picture
(picture 1 page 3), to the length of the chine in the damaged panel chine picture (picture 1 page 5), it appears to me the damaged panel chine is ‘too short’.
Like David, I’m finding there appear to be some inconsistencies in the pictures –
probably this can’t be resolved until other better photos are forthcoming, as he
suggested.
Cheers
buyerninety: I’m at a loss to figure out what you are talking about. Too many references to ambiguous statements about links and photos. What substantive point are you trying to make? Are you challenging the basic conclusion that the debris is from the inboard #2 fan door? If not, then this whole discussion is a waste of time.
also, re your statement: “You would have been better off citing, for instance, the somewhat similar distances, of the rear of the chine to its opposing panel edge, and the front of the chine to its opposing panel edge.”, again, I am at a loss to follow you. Above, I just posted (again) the door and VG dimensions which show that the distances to the front and aft sides of the door are very different (~3″ to the front and ~19″ to the aft side). That is hardly “somewhat similar distances”.
@buyerninety
On your statement about those MH17 pictures;
‘..I’m finding there appear to be some inconsistencies in the pictures –
probably this can’t be resolved until other better photos are forthcoming..’
There’s no goal in (further) proving those damaged MH17 chine pictures are actualy a MH17 nacelle chine.
The goal has been to prove this piece found by Blaine Gibson represents the aft part of a right engine nacelle with the aft part remnants of a VG attached to it.
This has been sufficiently proven by now.
No other pictures of the MH17 chine(s) are needed for that purpose anymore.
Other pictures of the MH17 chines would perhaps only be helpfull to learn a bit more about its construction. That’s all.
@buyerninety. In your 12:35 PM post you use the length-from-photograph of the MH17 VG on the damaged panel for comparison while allowing this might be misleading. I think the parallax in that photo might be deceiving you as you say, here and in a later exchange. If the photo were from perpendicular and at a distance as per the ALSMs p3 top photo your concern might be allayed I reckon, though unfortunately there is just the one shot of that MH17 item.
You say, “Like David, I’m finding there appear to be some inconsistencies in the pictures…” I raised the question as to the nature of the apparent fracture at the chine end closest to the camera in ALSM’s last photo on p5. I could (and can) find no explanation for the appearance of that which is consistent with the chine and base plate having longitudinal carbon fibre strengthening.
Subsequently I explained why I was now doubting the appearance of that as an apparent fracture, though I fluffed my explanation to Ge Rijn (and try again below). The importance is just on any bearing it has on the MH370 chine construction as Ge Rijn says.
About that a puzzle remains as to why the base plate separated from the chine in an integrated structure; why the base plate remained as intact as it has, and how the separation came to be so neat. It is niggling, like the loss of paint on the inside of the base plate’s cowl, though I daresay there are answers to these two which are not yet evident.
@Ge Rijn. You refer again to this MH 17 part as being from the chine’s rear. From the El Al photo you will see the bracket is above the 11th pair of bolts from the front. There are 7 bolt pairs behind that pair. My assessment of the bottom photo of the MH17 part chine is that there are 8 pairs of washers, maybe 7, to the camera side of the bolt pair above on the bracket line, leaving 1 or 2 the other side.
Thus for the MH17 part chine to be from the rear the “fracture” would either remove one set of bolts or none, that is there would be a narrow fracture at the rear tip or none at all. Besides, it is possible that there is a pair of bolt not shown at the bottom of the shot. If so, there definitely would be no such fracture. All in all to me most probably if this is the rear end there is no fracture and photo is in fact of the chine rear undamaged. The alternative of it being the front with a 2 or 3 bolt section having been broken off is belied by the appearances of both ends. Thus you may be right that this is the rear end but if so the fracture most probably is an illusion.
If you have it in mind that this is a chine mid-length fracture akin to MH370’s, the bracket’s position rules that out.
You say of the El Al right door chine position, “….the position of the chine if fitted (and washers and nuts) could also be a bit different on the left door”. I doubt there is other than symmetry in position vis a vis the aircraft. If the left door’s top hinge is higher or lower there could be higher or lower positioning on that cowl. I expect the cowl bracket to be mid width as it is here. Though I have no proof of that, overall I doubt there is a difference which matters.
Without a better photo we will not be sure whether this is a fracture or not and thus can get no further, IMO.
I make my earlier explanation more cogent now not to reopen the issue but because it is possible that some discussions on the web are of interest to investigators.
@David
Where to start..
The bracket is mid width of the nacelle door but not mid width of the chine washer and nut rows. Its position devides ~16 nuts to the aft and ~20 to the leading edge. Imo this is what you see in the damaged MH17 chine pictures.
Just behind the chine aft-end the remaining ~19inch of nacelle has broken away. The picture on page 5 clearly shows this fracture. The front-end of the nacelle also broke away together with the front-end of the chine and its 16 nuts leaving this piece with the aft-end of the chine and its 20 nuts.
The rear-end of this chine is straight and vertical still with its paint on it.
Problem is these pictures are too unclear to make detailed observations/questions like the ones you bring forward (i.e. carbon reinforcement etc). And I think it doesn’t matter for our case which only goal was to prove the BG-piece is a right engine aft VG-remnant on a piece of right engine nacelle.
This goal has been achieved sufficiently imo.
In this regard also the position of an outboard chine is not relevant imo. There was none on 9M-MRO and we have enough clear inboard chine and nacelle door photos. So there is no need to deal with this imo.
The only explanation I have now for the clean seperation of the baseplate from the fin is it seperated on the resin-film between those RTM-fused parts.
But I agree it sure would be nice if we had better pictures of this MH17 chine(s) to possibly learn more about its construction.
@DennisW @all
“…From my perspective MH370 is dead…”
>>What outstanding reports are we waiting for?
Those reports represent the next big news, especially controversial if MY tries to say anything about suspected cause(s).
The recent vortex generator piece seems to me to suggest Ge Rijn might be correct about a high speed ditch, and it seems clear to me the intentional loiter towards DOTEN would probably include an 18:40 descent and thus should not have been summarily dismissed.
@TBill
My expectations relative to the upcoming report(s) are much lower than yours.
@TBill
I think it makes sence the sat-call at 18:40 captured the plane in an ongoing descent that started somewhere after ~18:25.
The coincidence of capturing the plane with that sat-call exactly at that moment in the middle of a turn is just too unlikely.
I also suggested a ‘FMT’ near DOTEN quite some time ago based on Victor’s descent-assumption after ~18:25/18:40 instead of a turn, but a much later ‘FMT’ past Car Nicobar near DOTEN.
I also think this would make a lot more sence and also would fit the sim-data much better as additional proof.
This flight path would also avoid Indonesian FIR and -more important perhaps- Indonesian radar. It makes a lot of sence to me.
I also think indications of a high speed ditch become even stronger with this latest piece but I also understand final conclusions can not be made based on the limited information we have now.
Detailed forensic investigation is needed in this regard.
I’m optimistic though. The puzzle is getting clearer bit by bit imo.
@Ge Rijn
“I’m optimistic though. The puzzle is getting clearer bit by bit imo.”
Saw the following in a stock report this morning:
Boeing (BA – Get Report) has roared upward to the tune of 65% this year, trouncing the S&P 500 (+12%), and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (+13%), in both of which Boeing is a component.
It reminded me of your warning about Boeing being doomed by their actions relative to MH370. I am not fan of your opinion that things are getting clearer either.
@DennisW
We just have a different point of view. I know people will forget about MH370 (and most of them have already ofcourse) but if Boeing leaves this case unsolved it will eat them inside out in the long run. They leave their high standards if they try to cover this accident up and leaving it unsolved.
All specialists/buyers in the business will keep wondering why this B777 could disappear without a trace. What was it about the B777 plane’s design?
Leaving your high standards for the gain of ‘short term’ profits will lead to decrease of quality, motivation, trust and final collaps imo.
Something Boeing cannot afford in the competition with Airbus who did/do everything to solve any accident with their planes.
Then when you say you’re are not a fan of things are getting clearer either. I’m inclined to disbelieve you. For quite some years now you make an effort to make things more clear. If you won’t believe this could help to solve the mystery you would not have taken the effort I guess.
@Ge Rijn
Apart from Gibson’s (and others) debris finds. We have not made much real progress over the last three years. Sure, a lot of people have put in a lot of effort.
As far as the next round of reporting is concerned, I doubt that it will be much more than a summary of what has already appeared in the public domain. I don’t expect any new information. Hopefully, I am wrong about that.
@DennisW
Re: reports, I am really just asking, what are we expecting and when? I am thinking (1) ATSB final report, and (2) MY final report. ATSB report we have some hints, MY I think could be interesting, best for them to say nothing except the minimum, but yes I hoping for some controversial conclusions.
@Ge Rijn
The descent is lucky timing too as it could be just a 3-minute descent at -2500 ft/min with a sat call right then. The phone call was lucky timing one way or the other. The issue is the descent option is largely unexplored. It seems to be a very realistic option so it sticks out as a major shortcoming to not follow that lead, and of course it would be an intentional shortcoming of not wanting to “go there”.
@TBill, The ATSB web page says that they’re releasing the final report in 3Q 2017. Which, if true, means this week. But I’m not holding my breath.
IMO the part I’m most interested in is their analysis of marine fouling on debris. If they have more info on radar returns 17:21 to 18:22, that obvs would be huge.
I’m not as much of a pessimist as @Dennis but lately the reports they’ve issued have been a bit thin. The one about French satellite debris photos struck me as hogwash.
@Ge Rijn
the Boeing response has always annoyed me dude. I get what point you are trying to make, but I think they would counter that with the otherwise stellar safety record of the aircraft and just point to that in a negotiation.
I can’t imagine that boeing doesn’t know where the plane is, makes no sense to me. I think they know and are cool with nobody finding it.
in any case, the reason that boeing hasn’t helped more is more than likely because of money. that’s the answer to every question. if they could make more money by finding the plane, they would. the search has only cost $100 million or whatever it is, not even 1/3 the price of a new 777 airplane. On the other hand, I just did a google search of boeing sales to malaysia and it’s in the billions over the past couple years. so why put that at risk by leading some search to find a plane and then embarrassing the govt if it turns out to be pilot gone crazy.
so malaysia wants it to be a mechanical issue or really anything unrelated to their pilot, and boeing wants the opposite. so just leave the plane where it is and move on from it.
that’s my take on it for now anyways.
@Ge Rijn. You say, “In this regard also the position of an outboard chine is not relevant imo.” Its relevance is not that but that it is a right panel to which a VG would have been fitted on the left engine.
Further about this there has been discussion about door panels being fitted for-and-not-with VGs, for simplicity in manufacture/interchangeability. You will notice from the El Al photo that there is at least an option. This might well have been what MAS had, should come up again.
@Billy
I agree except I don’t think Boeing likes the pilot-did-it answer too much better than Malaysia does, and I don’t think Malaysia likes mechanical issue too much better than Boeing (as it would likely be a maintenance issue). So yes please move on.
hi jeff –
this whole ‘the barnacles are proof that it was planted’ theory is perplexing to me. I’m not smart enough to approach it as a scientist, so I take your analysis at face value and trust it. But I get confused on the ‘how would they have faked it’ part, while thinking what if I were they guy that had to do it.
let me make sure I’m understanding it correctly. someone is trying to plant debris and wants to fool folks into thinking it was floating in the SIO ocean or something, so to do this they submerged it and let barnacles grow on it as part of the fakery. But they messed up because scientists proved that it wouldn’t really happen that way.
then if I’m understanding it correctly that debris piece had to be submerged the whole time for the barnacles all over, meaning someone had to intentionally have the debris piece completely submerged.
is this correct?
because it doesn’t make sense to me to do it this way if i was the poor sap that was told “hey go throw this in the water and make sure barnacles grow on it, just like it would in the ocean”. why would that guy forcibly submerge the whole piece to as part of the fakery? if it were me, I would just throw it in the water, let it float around, then pull it out when I was told to. I wouldn’t deliberately sink the whole thing. Did he tie it down with ropes or weights or something??? IDK just seems like extra effort.
Anyway – totally open to rebuttal on how someone would do this from a manual labor standpoint. thanks
@Billy, If you wanted to get a piece that looked like it had been in the open ocean for a while, you’d have to put it out there for a while. You could either fasten it to a deep-sea buoy or attach it to the hull of a boat that’s going to be out there for a while. Either way, I could see the attraction of fastening fully submerged so that it would be out of the way and would attract attention.