It’s not every day that you need to talk to one of the world’s leading experts on goose barnacles of the Indian Ocean, but today is one of those days, so I considered myself very fortunate to get in touch with Charles Griffiths, an emeritus professor of marine biology at the University of Cape Town and author of the seminal paper “South African pelagic goose barnacles (Cirripedia, Thoracica): substratum preferences and influence of plastic debris on abundance and distribution.”
I reached out to Dr Griffiths by email and he graciously answered my questions about the sea life found growing on the Reunion flaperon after I sent him a more detailed version of the picture above.
Is it possible to identify the species of barnacle growing on the debris?
In this case it is possible to identify this as being Lepas anserifera striata on the basis of the small row of pits across the shell, which is characteristic of that subspecies.
Can this tell us anything about where the debris might have been floating?
This is not much clue as the species has a wide global distribution in tropical and subtropical seas.
Can you say in very rough terms how long it takes the barnacles to reach this stage of growth?
I cannot accurately gauge the sizes of the largest specimens from the image but goose barnacles grow spectacularly fast e.g. 21 mm head length ( i.e. Without the supporting stalk) in 21 days cited in one paper I have at hand. I have seen very large barnacles (as long as my finger) growing on a cable known to have only been in the water for 6 weeks!
UPDATE: To clarify a point raised by commenters, I asked Dr Griffiths a follow-up question:
Is it true that barnacles can’t survive in the open ocean? Is it possible for a piece of debris floating far out to see be colonized by Lepas anserifera, or would it need to be in a coastal environment?
No, that is not the case. These goose barnacles are in fact characteristically oceanic beasts and only occur in floating objects in the open sea. Reaching the coast is in fact a death warrant for them and any that get washed up die! Interestingly they seem to know whether an object is floating, so for example are common on kelp that is uprooted and floating but never occur on the same kelp when it is attached.
Can you tell whether the barnacles in that picture are alive or dead? If alive, how long can they live after being washed up?
If you find a washed up item that is fresh (same day) the barnacles will still be opening their shells and waving around their cirri (legs) to try to feed. Obviously in a still image cannot see this. However I can see the cirri projecting from some animals. These would rot away and drop off in a few days in a tropical climate, so this wreckage has only been washed up a couple of days at most. Also crabs and other scavengers love to eat goose barnacles and will clean off most within a couple of days. There is no evidence of feeding damage or headless stalks here, so that suggests to me this wreckage was collected and photographed within a day or two of stranding.
@DennisW
I do think Brock’s paper is very useful indeed but would be quite cautious about the results of any reverse-drift models as we have only 1 data item. Although I am not confident we are searching in the right place I don’t think we could move the search purely based on the reverse-drift models… As I have said before though, whether that flaperon is confirmed from MH370 or not its high time for a major review IMO; perhaps the French could be involved too.
@DennisW If you look back about 5 days, you will find reports that the French are treating what they are doing as a criminal investigation. That may have something to do with the pace of information (non) release.
@Arthur
Yes, I am mindful that the French have opened a criminal investigation, but I put that in the “contrived” category. Contrived to allow them to keep the flaperon instead of turning it over to the Malaysians under the terms of the ICAO agreement.
@AM2
Totally agree relative to the precision expected from reverse drift. That is why I find the ATSB statements on the subject a bit annoying. The Reunion find certainly does not “confirm” that they are looking in the right place. The reality is that if anything it weakens their case.
On 11 march 2014 the French judiciary opened a preliminary investigation in connection with the death of four French citizens aboard MH370. Possible charges are manslaughter, highjacking of an airplane involving deaths of passengers, and highjacking connected to terrorist activity. On 29 july 2015 the flaperon was seized by the French Gendarmerie as potential evidence in an ongoing judicial investigation.
What does ‘contrived’ mean in this context?
@Dennis: you’ve captured my own thinking perfectly. Aim was NOT to pinpoint a “most likely” search location (though I note, and regret, that internet sleuths of every stripe seem to be using this report to do so). The aim was to show that early claims of “consistency” look to have been a fairly significant overstep.
I just see the French getting involved as a stroke of good luck. Hopefully they can now demand for more access to info and data that has been withheld or obscured. Ghislain Wattrelos has always been frustrated with the French government’s lack of ability to help him. Maybe something will change now in this logjam of a search. Vive La France, etc.
@Gysbreght
It means the same things as it does in any other context.
contrived – /kənˈtrīvd/ – deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.
In this context the French wanted to be able to assert their right to investigate independent of the Malay investigation articulated by the ICAO articles.
You might recall TWA800 which conspiracy theorists to this day claim was shot down by a surface to air missile. There were some 40 French citizens on board that flight, and the French never opened a criminal investigation because they were comfortable that the US would do a proper investigation.
So you might say that in the case of MH370 it was contrived.
@Lucy
I am also happy to see the French get involved particularly from a position of some leverage.
I am afraid Malaysians are not capable of investigating anything on their own. Also, I am afraid they know it, as well as French do. It would be total waist of time for French not to open investigation on their own and delegate it to an incapable entity.
“contrived – /kənˈtrīvd/ – deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously.”
I would say French justice examining evidence washed up on their doorstep is entirely natural rather than “deliberately created”.
@Gysbreght
France is an ICAO member state as well as a council member, does not really matter what you thing is “entirely natural”.
A few days ago Don T. hinted in this forum about Malaysia MH370 public relations campaigns. I followed his hints and found this article from the well-known Sarawak Report:
More Smear Tactics And Black Ops By Najib’s PR Hit Team – Anwar And Dr M Both Targets
12 MAY 2015
http://www.sarawakreport.org/2015/05/more-smear-tactics-and-black-ops-by-najibs-pr-hit-team-anwar-and-dr-m-both-targets-exclusive/
“Stadlen is also the orchestrator of a team of so-called cyber troopers, whose job is to add pro-Najib comments to potentially damaging articles in online news outlets.”
I guess the Malaysian PM hasty announcement made the flaperon origin a personal matter for him. These cyber troopers are probably out now to defend his word and honor.
@Gysbreght , @DennisW The early date (March 2014) that the French opened a preliminary investigation tends to show a lack of confidence in the honestly and/or competence of the Malaysians. In March, 2014 it couldn’t have been lack of progress. It looks like they either were honestly investigating from the beginning or set themselves up to step in at some point. Or maybe a bit of both. The flaperon find on French territory was fortuitous, but nothing about holding evidence in a criminal case seems contrived.
I can’t see the French caring much about following ICAO rules if their national (possibly internal political) interests are involved. These are the same French that sank a
ship that was going to mess with their nuclear tests in the
Pacific right? We tend to have a slightly warped view of the French (“cheese-eating surrender monkeys”), but the DGSE isn’t like that. Or wasn’t in the past anyhow.
Below is what wikipedia says. Looks like the preliminary investigation can be a place holder, The appointment of an examining judge marks the beginning of the real formal judicial investigation.
“The Chief Prosecutor generally initiates preliminary investigations and, if necessary, asks an examining judge, or juge d’instruction, be assigned to lead a formal judicial investigation. When an investigation is led by a judge, the prosecutor plays a supervisory role, defining the scope of the crimes being examined by the judge and law enforcement forces.”
@DennisW:
ICAO Annex 13 is concerned with accident prevention’. It is not concerned with procecuting criminals. In the context of safety investigation, it speaks about “preserving” and “giving access to” evidence that may be useful for finding the cause of an accident. There is nothing in Annex 13 that requires France to “turn over” the flaperon to Malaysia. You’re creating an issue where none exists.
@Arthur
I never said the holding of evidence was contrived. What I said was opening the criminal investigation was contrived. Given the TWA800 history, I stand by my comment.
Relative to following ICAO, you are probably right about the French not caring, but it is much cleaner the way they did it. The meeting in France with the Malaysian delegation the Monday before the flaperon forensics started was exactly for the purpose of telling the Malaysians how it was going to be, and that French law trumped the relevant ICAO articles.
I think the French were a bit clairvoyant here. Nonetheless, we are where we are.
@Gysbreght
I suggest you familiarize yourself with Chapter 5 of the linked document which defines the protocols relative to an air accident investigation.
http://www.airsafety.com.au/trinvbil/C619icao.pdf
cut-paste//
5.3 When the location of the accident or the serious incident cannot definitely be established as being in the territory of any State, the State of Registry shall institute and conduct any necessary investigation of the accident or serious incident. However, it may delegate the whole or any part of the investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent.
end cut-paste//
Looks like I was wrong about sealants being used. Using the “Search” function for “Airworthiness Directive” for Boeing 777 in the US Federal Register (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search), you will find 5 articles regarding “sealant” between wing parts, one, about a “flap seal,” and three that include “flaperon.” None require the replacement or modification of a flaperon seal.
I do not know if MAS abides by the FAA rules for its planes that do not fly to the US.
cut-paste//
5.6 The investigator-in-charge shall have unhampered access to the wreckage and all relevant material, including flight recorders and ATS records, and shall have unrestricted control over it to ensure that a detailed examination can be made without delay by authorized personnel participating in the investigation.
end cut-paste//
@Gysbreght
What does “unrestricted control” mean to you? To me it means that you can ask to receive it and expect to receive it (the flaperon).
@DennisW A colleague’s father is still convinced TWA800 was shot down by a missile from a ship (he would probably say “Navy ship”). On that point, you are correct.
I would say that the French weren’t clairvoyant so much as that they looked several moves ahead and placed themselves where they needed to be just in case. I played Go with a Korean 1 or 2-dan a few times, and damned if the critical stone didn’t turn out to always be exactly where he needed it, exactly when he needed it.
@Arthur
Same thing happens to me when I sign up to play a simultaneous chess match against a Grand Master (and pay my $50 for the privilege). There are usually 30 or so people seated in a circle. When the Grand Master steps in front of your board you are expected to make your move, and he responds usually instantaneously.
I have never seen a Grand Master lose a game. I have seen a few draws. The group is mostly experts (which I am) and masters. It is very humbling.
Personally, I’d be happy if the french have decided to dig a little deeper. Unlike in our adversarial system, an investigating judge’s job is, among other things, to try to discover the truth.
Meanwhile, I’m content to contemplate barnacles until more information gets released.
@DennisW I knew a Grand Master (years ago) who was so pissed off or bored that he had to play for a win while weaker players could play for a draw that he went to Japan to learn Shogi and become a professional Shogi player.
They have professional players there, and they train them from a very young age. He could beat the 5 year old girl but not the 8 year old boy (or something like that). They said that he was the best Caucasian player who was not a resident of Japan they had ever seen. Talk about humbling.
To the extent my “stochastic simulation” paper was decently calibrated, the Fugro ships have spent several months (May-Aug) not materially falsifying the “AP @cruise to flameout, ending in pilotless spiral” scenario (because it was covering ground the model deemed EXTREMELY unlikely under that scenario) – but this week is different. Per careful scrutiny of Richard Cole’s latest graph:
Yesterday morning, the baseline “% of probability searched out” for s35-s37 latitudes along the arc were at a relatively low 80% (only 1st 3 nmi inside arc7 @FL(0) had been searched, plus 16 nmi outside).
By the end of tomorrow, this will have risen to 88%.
If Richard’s speculation (that they’ll backfill until the 1st 7 nmi inside the arc are covered), this probability rises to 94.3% by next week.
That’s a quadruple “if” (ISAT data, IG scenario, my model, Richard’s speculation), so use with caution, of course – just wanted to report the numbers, to give at least some sense as to what’s going on out there.
Sorry, should have stressed that all of the above numbers relate to the s35-s37 zone; the original paper dealt strictly with the s37-s40 zone, which had been everyone’s latitude of choice for that scenario at the time; my model says s37-s40 is now well over 99% searched out.
@Brock
I believe there were 2 Canadian citizens lost with MH370. Are there close ties between the Canadian and French govts? I’m not at all optimistic about getting more useful data/info out of the Australian govt/ATSB…probability approaching zero I guess.
@AM2
I used to feel the same way, but no mas. Presumably the SSWG has access to all the data that is available, and they have come to pretty much the same conclusions as IG.
As much as I like to bag on the SSWG, I am sure it is populated by very competent people. I have no reason to believe that giving the IG, and the rest of us, access to all the data available would change things very much. We would still have the same fundamental disagreement(s) we have today.
Does anyone know whether sea water could change the Malaysian Airlines paint colour from grey to white? Looking at the various flaperon images, it wold appear to be white, but MH-370 had an older colour scheme that didn’t use white paint on the wings.
http://worldairlinenews.com/tag/malaysia-airlines-color-scheme/
I found this on the Crikey website and although only a rumour it is very interesting.
“The social media echo chamber is, not surprisingly on this occasion, full of so far unsubstantiated rumours that Boeing doesn’t think that what is definitely a part of a Boeing 777 was in this case ever put into service.”
@DennisW
Fair point, you could be right. It seems to me that we are at a critical juncture in the 2 year limitation period.
@DennisW:
ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices address its member states.
France is neither the State Conducting the Investigation defined (*) in Annex 13, nor the State of Occurrence. Article 5.4 addresses the Responsibility Of The State Conducting The Investigation.
(*)3.1 The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability.
Perhaps the matter is best left to lawyers specializing in international law.
MAS is registered in Malaysia, operates under a licence of that state and is subject to Malaysian laws and regulations. The airplanes are subject to the regulations of the state where they are registered, which is also Malaysia. When the state of manufacture (the US) issues a regulation (i.e. an Airworthiness Directive) affecting one of those airplanes, the state of registration usually makes that regulation applicable to the airplanes on its register.
P.S.
When talking about “airplanes” I should have said 9M-MRO.
It’s possible the French are (for whatever reason) correlating the end of their search for debris Monday with release of flaperon information
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29271729/malaysia-china-australia-to-refine-search-efforts-for-mh370/
@Susie: If anything is going to be found, they would correlate it to making a finding that the flaperon is from MH370. Otherwise, it is unlikely they will be able to make any kind of finding.
With permission from Matt – Perth (please see Matty – Perth Posted August 15, 2015 at 12:30 AM), I am presenting the following comment.
The following is a drawing that I have found on the internet. The drawing could be new to some people on this site—it is new to me.
http://www.techly.com.au/2015/07/30/mh370-boeing-777-part-found-washed-up-has-the-mystery-been-solved/b777-flaperon/
A more complete drawing can be found here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=f&lr=&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAoQ_AUoA2oVChMIqrHj5p6uxwIVzSqICh1IdQqO&biw=1344&bih=674#hl=en&tbm=isch&q=777+flaperon&imgrc=yjepoYzTXqCw5M%3A/
Note: When I do a copy and paste of a drawing on Google-image to Microsoft’s Word I get a message that says ‘Such image was not found’ when I click on the link. Sometimes when I click on the link I see the image. The link may work on this site.
Any thoughts on what is going on.
P.S. This is the first and last comment that I will ask for permission from Matty – Perth.
@AM2: no, Canada, France not closely tied. (And while Harper government may not rank DEAD last among places on Earth I’d expect to find refreshingly candid disclosure, it’s earned at least a place in the discussion.)
@Brock. Thanks for your reply. I was clutching at straws with that thought. This is such a mess its hard to see any way forward.
@JoeT, Matty,
In Joe’s second link (list of images), there is the following, apparently via reddit and presumably of a 777 flaperon:
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/uf/188037/middle/1438202140Z0XSAX.jpg
I noticed a small detail that is different between the Reunion flaperon and the new 777 flaperon (?) on the pallet in the reddit image.
Looking at the side of the Reunion flaperon, you can see the rectangular arrangement of seals as per the drawing.
Behind it there is a row of 5 fasteners (bolts, nuts, dome nuts, rivets or similar) further back. Behind that, there is a bracket seemingly attached by 4 more fasteners.
This bracket does not feature in the reddit image. Furthermore, the reddit image clearly shows 6 (not 5) fasteners in the first vertical row, followed by 1 each near the top and bottom edges, then only 2 (visible) fasteners towards the trailing edge.
The drawings don’t depict any of these fasteners, so may have omitted them. Still, the two physical flaperons are different.
Is there anybody out here, who recognizes the reddit image and can vouch for its source and authenticity of being a 777 flaperon?
If that is indeed a 777 falperon, the Reunion debris, while very similar, has distinct differences in that fastener pattern and bracket.
It could of course relate to the reported maintenance, which didn’t quite match the records…
Cheers,
Will
@MuOne:
In the picture in Joe’s first link, the photo is looking at the outboard end of a RH flaperon, the drawing is showing the inboard end of a LH flaperon.
@Gysbreght,
Either that or the photo is a mirror image.
The following photo seems to show the same side, but appears as the inboard side. As referenced by the “Gendarmerie” on the back of the Gendarm’s uniform.
http://www.ibtimes.com/mh370-debris-flaperon-came-boeing-777-aircraft-was-not-spare-part-aviation-expert-2032412
If the first photo is not inverted, both sides show te same fastener patterns.
Cheers
Will
@MuOne,
Remember you are looking at the images as face up and face down. In the Reunion image, the sixth fastener is masked by the seal mounting channel.
In the images from this link you can see the four fasteners you are referring to more clearly:
http://blog-peuravion.fr/2015/07/a-t-on-retrouve-les-premiers-debris-du-mh370/
The fasteners hold the two black strips in the Reddit image. I think you’ll find that these are rub strips. The rub strips have fallen off the Reunion flaperon but the fasteners remain.
OZ
@MuOne, You’ve raised a potentially important point. There are indeed some important differences between the object in the Reddit image and the flaperon found on Reunion.
First, let me note that the first image in Joe T’s comment has been photographically reversed, so that the inboard edge of the Reunion debris, which is a righthand-side flaperon, can be directly compared to the diagram of a lefthand-side flaperon. This is both confusing and convenient, since the Reddit image (the picture of a new flaperon lying upside-down on a pallet in a warehouse or factory) is also of a lefthand-side flaperon.
At any rate, you are correct to note that the Reddit image shows a bracket aft of the rectangular arrangement of seals. Let’s call this the “aft bracket” — the one that seems to be attached by four fasteners.
I have no idea what the significance of this difference is. It may be that different 777 models feature such minor differences. Perhaps it is evidence of repair or modification. At any rate, I would imagine that it is just this kind of difference that the French authorities are looking for in their attempts to positively link the Reunion flaperon to 9M-MRO.
What if “…their attempts to positively link the Reunion flaperon to 9M-MRO.” ended up linking it to 9M-MRD? That’d throw a spanner in the works.
Joe T – Nice work!
As more time passes without any statements from the team investigating the flaperon, I remain perplexed that the NTSB/Boeing leaked to the media that the MAS maintenance records did not exactly match what should have been found on the part. After making that statement, they went radio silent. If the mismatch is insignificant or can be explained, why did they leak the statement? If the mismatch is significant, why did they not follow up with clarifying statements? The leaked statement raised more questions than it answered. Was that the intention?
@VictorI:
What is really strange here is that French authorities said it was still very likely the flaperon is still part of MH370
They obviously had to explain that they could not state without reservation that the part came from MH370, that infact there was room for doubt. Apparently they still have to find positive proof that it came from MH370.
I suspect French statement about high likelihood of flaperon being part of MH370 is conditional – that means provided it was not planted. However, I think there are certain arguments towards the hypothesis that is was in fact planted. I am sure they are working on confirming one of those ideas and disproving the other one.
@alex, I suspect you may be right. Another possibility is that the flaperon did come from 9M-MRO, but its paperwork is not in order: either work was done that shouldn’t have been, or work wasn’t done that should have been. Revealing this could be problematic from a diplomatic perpective, given that both MAS and the official investigation are effectively parts of the government. Either way none of this looks good for Malaysia.
Furthermore, I am not sure that it is appropriate to say that “NTSB/Boeing leaked” information. Unless the French judiciary authorities put constraints on them, they were entirely free to release that information.