The discovery last week of what appeared to be a piece of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 on the shores of Réunion Island seemed at first blush a giant leap toward solving the famously perplexing mystery. Officials declared that, based on photos, the part could only have come from a Boeing 777. And since only one 777 has ever been lost at sea, physical evidence of the vanished plane seemed at last to be irrefutably in hand.
This marked a huge break in the case, since before now not a single piece of wreckage had ever been spotted. The only evidence that the plane had gone into the ocean was a series of difficult-to-decipher signals received by the satellite company Inmarsat. The incongruity led some, including me, to question whether the plane had really wound up in the Indian Ocean at all. Back in February, I explained in New York how sophisticated hijackers might have infiltrated the plane’s electronic bay in order to spoof the satellite signals and take the plane north to Kazakhstan. MH370 wreckage on the shores of Réunion makes such explanations unnecessary.
Investigators hope to glean from the six-foot-long chunk important clues about where and how the plane went down. The piece, called a flaperon, forms part of the trailing edge of the wing, and was located just behind the right engine. The front part of it looks dinged up but more or less intact, but pieces on the side and much of the rear part have been ripped away. That damage might have taken place in the ocean, but if on inspection it appears to have been caused by high-speed airflow (as a plane might experience in a steep dive) or impact with the water, it could shed light on the flight’s final moments.
The fact that the debris was found on Réunion itself provides a hint as to where the plane went down. The island lies on the far side of the Indian Ocean from the suspected crash area, a distance of some 2,500 miles. The ocean’s strongest east-to-west current, the South Equatorial Current, runs about a thousand miles north of where searchers are currently looking. Should the search area be moved up? In the coming weeks oceanographers will be refining their models in order to figure that out. To lend a hand, biologists will examine the barnacles and other sea life found living on the debris in order to determine how long it was in the water and what part of the ocean it passed through.
But, as if steeped in the weirdness of all things MH370, the Réunion flaperon came wrapped in an unexpected layer of ambiguity.
All airline parts carry identifying labels, much as cars carry Vehicle Identification Numbers etched on the engine block. In the normal course of things, this plate should have been attached to the rib end of the flaperon and allowed investigators to make an instantaneous identification. As fate would have it, the plate is missing.
It’s going to be a tricky job, and the stakes are high: MH370 has unnerved the aviation community like no crash before. Until we can figure out what took it down, the danger is ever-present that it could happen again.
While the world’s attention is on the flaperon, however, the sonar-scanning of the seabed on the other side of the Indian Ocean promises to tell us even more about MH370’s fate. If the small flotilla of search ships can locate the plane’s primary debris field on the ocean floor, they’ll likely find the black boxes that can tell us exactly what happened to the flight. But even if they don’t, they’ll reveal something important about what happened.
The area they’re scouring was defined through analysis of the Inmarsat satellite data. Part of the data tells investigators that the plane must have wound up somewhere along a broad arc 3,000 miles in radius. Another part, subjected to a new and complex form of analysis, showed that the plane headed in a generally southern direction. Where, exactly, depends on how it flew. If the plane flew slowly it would have taken a curving path and wound up north of a subsea feature called Broken Ridge. If it flew fast, its path would have been straighter and taken it south of Broken Ridge.
Among the attractions of the latter option was that it fit with an easy-to-imagine scenario: that, after flying up the Malacca Strait, whoever had been in control became incapacitated and the plane flew straight south on autopilot as a “ghost ship” until it ran out of fuel. Once that happened, the plane would have quickly spiraled into the ocean within a few miles of the final arc, meaning that the debris would have to be located within a fairly small area of seabed.
Last October, after months of internal debate, Australian officials decided that the straight-and-fast scenario was more likely. They laid out a 60,000-square-kilometer search grid and hired contractors to begin scanning. Their confidence in their analysis was so great that they reportedly kept a bottle of Champagne in the fridge, ready to be popped at any time. The longer they searched without finding the plane, officials said, the more their confidence grew, because they knew the plane had to be inside that box.
As time went by, however, a problem emerged: The plane wasn’t there. After six months, there was a 99 percent probability that the search had covered the calculated end point, and that number only kept climbing toward 100. Authorities stopped talking about how sure they were that it was in the 60,000-square-kilometer area, and announced that they would expand the search zone to twice that size.
What went unremarked upon in the general press was that there was no theoretical justification for the authorities to continue the search in this way. To get so far from the final arc, the plane would have to have been actively piloted, because only a conscious pilot could have kept the plane out of a death spiral. So the ghost-ship scenario was out the window. A plane held in a glide by a conscious pilot could travel for a hundred miles or more, far too huge an area of ocean to scan. The only reason to search the extra 60,000 square miles was that, for the authorities, it was better than admitting they had no idea what they were doing.
It also kept them from having to contemplate other unattractive alternative scenarios. Perhaps the plane didn’t fly straight and fast, but slow and curvy, and wound up north of Broken Ridge. It’s hard to imagine why someone would fly like this, but then again it’s hard to imagine why someone would sit patiently on a six-hour death flight to nowhere. If a slow, curvy flight was what happened, then again a terminal death spiral could by no means be assumed, and the required search area would be impossibly large.
To be sure, none of these scenarios make a lot of sense. But then, so much of what we know about MH370 is baffling. If the perps flew into the southern Indian Ocean because they wanted to disappear, why didn’t they just fly to the east instead of turning back over the Malay peninsula? If the aim was suicide, why not just put the nose down and crash right away, like every other suicide pilot we know of? And why did the perps turn off the satellite communication, and then turn it back on again, a procedure that — by the way — few airline pilots know how to do?
Though it has earned much less attention from the world press, the failure of the seabed search actually tells us a lot about what did or did not happen to MH370. And what it tells us is that this case is as weird as ever.
This piece originally ran on the New York magazine website on August 4, 2015.
@cosmicacademy
No need to insult other people calling them ”mentally handicapped person”.
Spencer has very good points that makes more sense than any Russian,Diego Garcia,mechanical malfunction theory.
Lets not insult each other.
@Cosmic Academy:
If one poster is often out of line as far as his style is concerned thuat is no reason for diagnosing him and another member of our commenting community with various mental disorders. And the way you describe the content of Spencer’s posts is your personal opinion. I’m sure not everyone is sharing them.
Let’s get back to the concrete stuff ASAP.
@IR1907
I would never dare to tell a mentally handicapped person, that he is … I was just trying to convince Jay, when he (Jay) assumes psychotic symptoms in an individual, not to expect that this person is ab le to perceive its handicap.
As far as you say that an individual “contributed” here, who seems to have only one agenda:
hit, smear and mob weak beings who can not defend themselves, like Mr. Zaharie, who is presumably dead. His contributions represents an unbearable level of hate and disregard of human values and is as yet totally unwarranted. Nobody of us knows any tiny bit about the events aboard and the actions of the pilots. And this person is insisting of being the guardian of the only truth possible here. Just yesterday he didnt bother to insult Jeff Wise, Stevan and others. We all have to wait for the outcome before we judge, and before we judge personally in a way that can never be reinstated. Your call for avoidance of personal attacks should be told to that very individual.
Mr Spencer clearly labels the pilot in a very aggressive and abusive manner as something like a criminal super-mastermind, whereas he seems to placate himself as the godlike super-hero who saves the world from the evil. Unfortunately, in this story, the evil might have hit, before super-cop realized, which makes him even more furious …
@CosmicAcademy, @littlefood, @Spencer, etc: Let’s all take a break from commenting on one another’s personalities/psychological dysfunctions for a little while. There’s a lot to talk about the plane right now so let’s focus on that.
In case this gets buried in the other thread…
Posted August 4, 2015 at 3:21 PM
@Victor,
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to re-scrutinize the available radar data. Apologies for the small Twitter barrage, I didn’t want to exclude KP from the conversation. Needless to say, I look forward to the paper in hopes that it can help put to rest another nagging aspect of this tragedy.
@Jeff, right you are!
Today they will finally start to examine the flap. Hopefully we will sion have more concrete facts to talk about.
@DennisW – Many of the SIO models presented by this group do not use constant speed. It is possible (but I do not know for sure) that the A/P cannot maintain constant speed at a constant altitude for 6 hours because changing altitude requires pilot input.
@All – One of the drift models that puts debris on La Reunion from the current search area has the currents moving the debris first to the north and then to the west. The issue with that is around March 14, 2014 the various satellites were told to focus its searches well to the south of the current search area because any debris would have drifted in that direction. Many of their images show objects that might be debris but could not be found by ships sent to those locations. See the map Victor recently posted for detail.
The terminus of the SIO could have been intentional or unintentional.
INTENTIONAL
Crew regained control from the perps (at 18:25?) but could not land safely, COMs were out and therefore headed away from populated areas, or:
The terms and payout of an insurance policy (or policies) might vary and/or depend on the cause of the crash. If the a/c is never found, it remains an accident.
UNINTENTIONAL
Someone was dialing in a set of waypoints but passed out before completing the process.
@orion Thanks for the note.
Haven’t seen this mentioned here, so here goes. The flaperon is not, as so many in MH370 forums seem to believe, relatively undamaged. It has lost a good 1 to 1/1-2 feet off it’s trailing edge. It’s external footprint should be nearly square if it was intact. The footprint shown in all the photos is clearly a long rectangle, meaning tremendous loss of trailing edge skin.
https://cfrankdavis.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/mh370flaperon.jpg
What does indeed appear surprisingly undamaged is the leading edge. The experts will reveal what that means soon enough. My particular theory ends in a high speed dive, so I operate under the assumption that it was parked inside the wing on impact.
@matty I was just trying to point out that parts for a 777 are not necessarily that hard to find/buy/steal. I don’t think security at the storage airports in Arizona and California is especially tight either.
As for pilfering at the MH17 crash site, hiding evidence would be my #1 guess. Souvenir hunting #2.
Drilling might cause a weak point
where damage can spread after many hours of flying and vibration, etc. Glue may normally be sufficient. I assume the French investigators will take a look at why the id plate is missing,
Flaperon confirmed to be from MH370.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/world/asia/mh370-wing-reunion.html?module=Notification&version=BreakingNews®ion=FixedTop&action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=40169920&pgtype=article&_r=0
BBC reporting flap is from MH370:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33794012
@matty After I wrote the previous reply, it occurred to me that if you are buying a spare part (for use on a different airplane), it might be standard procedure for the id plate to be removed. It seems reasonable now that I think about it. Maybe someone who knows how the aviation spares business works can answer that one.
In regards to the flaperon which was confirmed to be from MH370–Aside from some extremely fringe and conspiratorial analysis of this information, it all but rules out any theory other than the plane ending in the SIO. Rules out Maldives, Diego Garcia, Northern destinations, South China Sea, Malaysia mainland, Bay of Bengal, among others.
This is extremely important because it will shift the rhetoric around MH370 from debating where it ended up to a more narrow focus on WHY and HOW it ended up in the SIO. And this was the first real clue in hopefully a string of additional clues that is needed in order to answer these questions. Quite possibly the most important day in the past year and a half regarding MH370.
@Lauren
I guess I was wrong to doubt the SIO hypothesis. Mr. Razak says they now have physical evidence to show that the flight ended there.
begin Razak quote//
In a statement, Mr Razak said the “the burden and uncertainty faced by the families” in the 515 days since the aircraft disappeared had been “unspeakable”.
“We now have physical evidence that flight MH370 tragically ended in the southern Indian Ocean,” he added.
end Razak quote//
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33794012
@Trip Barthel
Re: Kurt Seldensticker has a good pedigree in the hangar but he sure isn’t a pilot. His theory has a major trim & throttle problem.
If they’d disc’d the AP to hand fly an emergency descent (which would be forbidden by US carriers, don’t know about SE Asia company policies, but…), they’re going to immediately close the thrust levers, nose over, pick up the descent speed (300-320KIAS) and then trim for that airspeed. It all happens more or less simultaneously because it’s basic stick and rudder and you’ve been doing it for 20,000 hrs.
An aircraft trimmed for the descent will, therefore, not perform a phugoid oscillation. It will fly straight into the ground at the speed it was trimmed for. This, of course, will take a good bit less time than 7 hours.
The theory supposes that a pilot would nose over without closing the throttle and without trimming for the massive control wheel force that would result from holding the nose down against the increasing airspeed. And all this supposes he was so stupid that he tried to do it by hand instead of letting the AP do it for him.
Neither explosive decompressions, nor the emergency descent procedures, nor the onset of hypoxia work remotely the way this theory requires.
This theory could only come from a hangar jockey.
huh interesting :
” A person involved in the investigation said, however, that experts from Boeing and the National Transportation Safety Board were not yet fully satisfied that the part had indeed come from Flight 370, and called for further analysis before reaching a definite conclusion.
Their doubts were based on a modification to the part, known as a flaperon, that did not appear to exactly match what they would expect from airline maintenance records on a Boeing 777, according to the person, who requested anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. “
@Jay
I don’t believe that this confirmation would rule out the Maldives, Diego Garcia, or the Bay of Bengal. The Adrift model shows that debris could show up on Reunion from those areas. That is why is I was having some fun with Lauren above. I also don’t tend to think of CI as being in the SIO, but I suppose that it is. In these discussions I we generally use SIO and the current search area synonymously.
Of course, the ISAT dat rules out all those areas.
I think everything south of Indonesia is referred as SIO geographically but I might be wrong.
@DennisW: Sarcasm is not always easy to portray in a short written quip, especially for those that have not followed your posts.
With news of confirmation of the Flaperon to MH370, the importance of Mike’s analysis is highlighted:
IF the Flaperon can be determined to have most likely ‘fluttered’ off during an extreme descent, regardless if controlled or uncontrolled – THEN it might reason that the impact location would be:
1. Closer to the Arc than a glide/ditch scenario
and
2. Generate more of a debris field vs a glide/ditch/try-for-intact scenario
and most certainly,
3. The question of ‘where along the Arc’ will be in focus,
unless,
4. Is it remotely even possible that this piece could have fluttered off of the plane earlier in flight? To my untrained eye, the videos would make it seem to be too extreme of an event for continued flight.
It is incredibly fortunate for this particular piece to have been found, let’s hope the experts will be able to discern any clues it might hold.
Hopefully every new clue washing up now will continue to pave a road of truth – eventually providing a path towards closure for those who have been made to wait way too long for this day.
Is there a possibility the final ping occured because of ditching/crashing and the plane lies exactly on 7th arc? Because if so, wouldn’t it make sense to search the whole 7th arc all the way up to Indonesia?
Would take several days and if not found we would at least make sure it didn’t occur because of that.
I am very disappointed in the way this announcement has been made; much better to have taken a little longer until all investigative parties were agreed and then produce a formal report. This sort of message “Shortly after Mr Najib’s announcement, a French prosecutor said there was a “very high probability” the wreckage was from MH370 but the finding still needed to be confirmed.” (source ABC News Australia) reminds me of previous premature announcements… 🙁
@DennisW
SIO: peut-etre S of the Tropic of Capricorn for our purposes?
Is it possible that the flaperon fell from the plane in the Strait of Malacca after the wild high speed ride over Malaysia at speeds close to 610 mph, which is much higher than Boeing maximum safe speed??
If the part did separate at this point, could the plane continue flying? Some have suggested not at higher speeds, but what if the plane speed was decreased to a MUCH slower rate? Could it have continued flying for hours at a slow speed?
The other question about the flaperon would be: How did it get to the I.O.?
Bay of Bengal ocean currents(Wikipedia):
“Physical oceanography – climate of the Bay of Bengal:
From January to October, the current is northward flowing, and the clockwise circulation pattern is called the “East Indian Current.” The Bay of Bengal monsoon moves in a northwest direction striking the Nicobar Islands, and the Andaman Islands first end of May, then the North Eastern Coast of India by end of June.
The remainder of the year, the counterclockwise current is southwestward flowing, and the circulation pattern is called the East Indian Winter Jet. September and December see very active weather, season varsha (or monsoon), in the Bay of Bengal producing severe Cyclones which affect Eastern India. Several efforts have been initiated to cope with Storm surge.”
The clockwise southwest flow could have taken the part to the I.O. where the westward current carried it to Reunion.
@VictorI
Yes, I am going to make conscious effort to stop doing that.
@Jay
along with logical analysis of the information, we have statement that “Flaperon confirmed to be (indeed) from MH370”, but there is nothing known how this piece of plane occured there (Mr. Razak as politican can create own phrase for any reason, investigators/scientists provided what they really know). In case of any kind of spoof, it can be easiest way to continue, to show something somewhere; but, ya, I myself call my crazy theories crazy. Anyone who is trying to describe in detail his single theory or complete scenario what exactly happened is for sure too quick and may be crazy too. Because this is still SEARCH phase. Any real professional investigation can start only after most pieces will be found and laid together in hangar to be analysed – and since then it can be another year to publish result. Be sure, I myself want closure ASAP, because it all was since beginning without logic and common sense – all the maneuvers without any RF or SATCOM contact to ground. All conspiracy theories worldwide are of course stupid; this case seems to be different thing.
Trip Barthel,
Welcome to the “technical failure” domain. I continue to believe that the crew struggled to regain control, perhaps till the very end, but this case is a way more complex than you described. Theories like yours were discarded about 15 months ago on the basis of incompatibility with many ‘facts’. In contrast to you theory, tire burst (nose landing gear), for example, explains almost everything. The other possibility is hijacking that ended up in disaster.
I also think technical failure is a possibility, but only as a consequence of divert/hijack and fiddling with E/E bay.
Why has Razak jumped the gun on this??
French prosecutors used more cautious language, saying only there was a “very high probability” the wreckage came from MH370.
Why would a politician do that?
Maybe Razak fearful that a definitive answer may not be possible is trying to manufacture certainty in the narrative. If the media go along it works?
@Matty
Either that or the $700 Million transferred from his 1MBD fund into his personal accounts.
Re: yesterday’s admission by the ATSB that a model error caused them to push Indonesia as a first shore:
It strains the limits of credulity to claim that an August model error driving debris from the current search location up to Indonesia would survive the first basic sniff test, let alone survive long enough to become the key determinant of what the ATSB was claiming in November to be its shoreline of choice. Prevailing macro-level currents essentially prohibit this result. As Prof. Charitha Patriaratchi put it: “that’s an impossibility; the currents would never take debris to Indonesia.”
Softmachine – it has worked a treat. “Confirmed” yell the headlines all around the world. Sounds like they may have been afraid of any open ended ambiguity with the flaperon.
They always wanted to be rid of the whole issue.
The recent rhetoric from Boeing and the NTSB regarding “a modification to the flaperon that doesn’t exactly match what they would expect, from the airline’s maintenance records” brings me back to what I believe is one of the more mysterious aspects to this case. This would be the unexplained fire in the MAS Avionics Shop on March 26, 2014, which destroyed all maintenance records of MH370. This happened to be 14 days after MH370 disappeared.
Of course, maybe I am being a bit paranoid in my own right, and these two events are completely unrelated–a red herring if you will. But nonetheless, taken together with the other facts of this case, I wouldn’t consider somebody crazy for casting suspicion upon this event.
According to the article that supplied the story, the MAS Avionics Shop ” is a workshop that repairs all avionic components / electronic box that was installed on the aircraft including MH 370.” Curiously and quite interestingly, the article also mentioned that just 3 days before the fire, which was being called arson, ” MH 066 A330 aircraft originated from Kuala Lumpur to Incheon, South Korea, was diverted to Hong Kong due to the failure of one of its electric generators which supply normal electrical power in the aircraft. It has been reported to be “technical problems”.
they don’t do a backup? Hah.
Jay,
Exactement. That is why maintenance records were questioned and requested on Duncan Steel. I had questioned if MAS was having financial difficulties were they skimping on maintenance hours or parts, I would hope that would not be the area to cut costs? The Avionics Shop fire timing was certainly strange and perhaps you are not paranoid at all. It could be something or just another strange coincidence in the case.
And what of the minor accident 9M-MR0 was in and the repair and did it have to do with a wing?
So now we have the PM making his statement that the part is confirmed to be from MH370 and the American side of Boeing and the NTSB saying it does not match maintenance records as they would expect. Oh boy, here we go…………..why does everything in this case have to be shrouded or cloaked in mystery?
Source Wikipedia – Malaysian Airlines Flight 370
Under “Aircraft”
……..”was involved in a minor incident while taxiing at Shanghai Pudong International Airport in August 2012 resulted in a broken wingtip.”
Many buoys were dropped -where’s that data ….( Malaysian investigation;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTSPrPTY9xo
Jay, Cheryl — let us not forget that MAS has a long history of disgruntled employees sabotaging their planes. There were several incidents, this is just one of many. http://www.pprune.org/south-asia-far-east/158474-sabotage-mas-again.html
Perhaps something was noted about the AC’s flaperons when it underwent an overnight A check on 24th Feb ’14? Or does the flaperon get signed or marked during each A check — and this is absent on the Reunion flaperon?
Somehow, this turn of events isn’t very shocking. The lack of an affirmative statement on the match a week ago, then the delay, and now the French saying not-so-fast and the Malaysians saying yes-it-is. They couldn’t wait A DAY?
And the Indonesian coast drift analysis was in error? This is unbelievable.
@Lauren@Victor
Lauren, I apologize for my earlier tongue and cheek reply. My sarcasm was not directed at you, but rather the Malay PM, and his choice of terms.
Also Victor “the talking dog effect” was not sarcasm. It was a common Silicon Valley slang expression. Have not seen it retain popularity among the new kids today, but Silicon Valley is not the same anymore. Science for money now. Not for fun.
Just to add — is there some sort of airworthiness directive that went out, such as this, which would require a modification that MAS ‘said’ was done, but actually wasn’t due to cost cutting and sloppy maintenance, which is causing the official hesitation to call it as being from MH370?
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/AOCADSearch/7524074A92AB879786256A6C0071D980?OpenDocument
@Tdm
The boy data was included in the new ATSB drift report first brought to my attention by AM2. You have to read the fine print regarding the drift graphic.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2015/mh370-drift-analysis.aspx
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/mh370-search-plane-debris-is-from-missing-plane/story-fniztvnc-1227471271416?sv=550b66ebfdd660e9a0d4a14ab2bac449
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/the-pulse-adelaides-live-news-weather-and-traffic-blog/story-fnqcgfyj-1227467996176?sv=a3abc542f4eec6497bd98d5c9cb297cc
Most of the buoys shown on the graphic will be part of the world-wide network of 1250 drifting databuoys.
http://www.jcommops.org/dbcp/platforms/types.html
Some of the maps on that site indicate the area to the west of Australia has been quite well covered.
The buoys do not measure wind. Remotely sensing sea-surface wind is quite difficult – radar data from space can be used to measure ripple height. The ATSB analysis indicates a strong correlation with wind so the lack of accurate winds would be a source of error in the analysis. In general I don’t get a good feeling for the errors in the drift analysis presented (and all the published drift analyses). Are these the best estimate from the models, or the best estimates with known errors allowed for?
file:///Users/lucybarnes1/Downloads/EASA_AD_US-2005-25-24_1.pdf
Such as this? Were Boeing expecting to see signs of this modification on the 370 flaperon, yet MAS had never actually done the work required — they just lied and said they had?
@DennisW My background is in pure math and theoretical computer science (Ph.D. in CS) One thing that bothered me a lot about Duncan’s “scientific” approach was taking a hypothesis and immediately running with it and trying to prove it. That is the exact opposite of what I was taught.
The first thing I was taught to do is try to find a counterexample or generate a contradiction. It is almost always easier to find a disproof (of which there may be many) than a proof.
I worked in Silicon Valley for many years and never heard the term “talking dog effect,” but it seems an excellent description, among other things, of a preference for “proof” over disproof.
I had forgotten about the MAS maintenance fire. Leaving aside the existence (or not) of backups, isn’t one of the first things that should happen when there is a crash or aircraft loss is that the maintenance records get impounded and/or have to be immediately turned over to the local air accident department? They are critical evidence after all. So something pretty strange was going on in Malaysia.
@Arthur
Yes, I agree with the counterexample approach as do most people skilled in forensic analytics. Bounding a problem too early is a classic error IMO.
Is it any wonder that “degrees of freedom” is not a familiar term to traditional investigators?
But, we shall see. If the forensics of the flaperon failure are congruent with Exner’s, it will lend strong support to the IG/ATSB conclusion. If not, I will have a lot to say about it, and my comments will not be at all comfortable for the SIO (current search area) advocates.