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.
@littlefoot, @Lauren
lost in translation
Since we are talking about technical terms in technical english concerned with engineering topics we should epect that people from a tech company talk about the flaperon, that they use the technical meaning of words. So if they use the word “seal” they are not talking about the seal of the United states or a a seal of Malaysian Airlines (which does not exist) but talk about what is meant in engineering, where a seal might be something to prevent water from entering the interior …
this interpretation is strongly supported by the wording in the respective Times article that leaked the information from the French lab … “Their doubts were based on a modification to the flaperon part …”
Sabine, you will kindly agree, that a mark or stamp is not a “modification” to the flaperon, whereas a seal in the technical sense does not only explain , why there is a modification, but also why that did not match the maintenance records of Boeing.
So lets stay with the technical meaning of the word as enginering expression. Hope i dont get overuled on this one 🙂
@Dennis, you haven’t even encountered one measly baby sasquatch nor a footprint I guess? The area is supposed to be teeming with them! Well, you have that in common with Prof. Meldrum. He has been researching them all his life – and yet, they always elude him 😉
So, did your neighbors tell you what they are like?
@cosmic The seal in question (in the technical sense) is used to prevent air leaking between adjacent control surface (from top to bottom or vice-versa I guess). It is a maintenance item, and they get replaced from time to time (I tried to post a video of a failing one a while ago and it disappeared). It also appears to be the case that the Malaysians used the word in the sense of a marker. An article in ibtimes even refers to the color as being significant. OTOH, a non-technical, non-native speaker could easily confuse one use for the other.
@CA
Sorry, but I cannot sign up for your conclusion. While I agree there is ambiguity in the the language used, I see the term “maintenance seal” used with regularity in most reports. This choice of language more strongly implies (to me) that it was not a seal that was replaced, such as bearing seal, but rather a maintenance ID tag of some sort.
@littlefoot
Quote
So, don’t be too disdainful of the CI scenario. I don’t champion it necessarily. But it is compatible with all known data and might be better compatible with ditch scenarios as well as drift models to La Reunion. The barnacles might also be able to tell a story but they haven’t spoken,yet.
End of quote
I direct your attention to PBS’s NOVA and the episode entitled ‘Why Planes Vanish’.
Here is the site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/why-planes-vanish.html
I suggest that you have a good idea on how to locate Christmas Island before viewing the video. You really cannot see it on the screen.
Go to around 40:00 into the video to see the possible paths the airplane could have taken. The red path is the best guess from the data. This red path is nowhere near Christmas Island. There is a path that is on the fringe, but it is not really close to Christmas Island.
What you see on the screen ‘is compatible with all known data’. Yes, sometimes one’s words can come back to haunt you.
What you say about Christmas Island is pure speculation. Christmas Island (a landing or a near landing) scenario is no more real than the fictional Santa Claus that flies around the world giving out presents to children.
Boeing does not keep records of an operator’s maintenance activities. The quote possibly means that MAS’s maintenance records indicated that a modification had been carried out on the 9M-MRO flaperon, while that modification was not found on the item recovered at La Reunion.
@Littlefoot
I am amazed that you mention Meldrum. People here have actually corresponded with him. I have not, but I do use him as a personal metaphor for the treatment I receive for the CI hypothesis – shameful and irreverent. Still, like Dr. Meldrum, I soldier on as the evidence continues to mount.
Meldrum is a modern day martyr, and typifies what happens to people who stray outside of consensus thinking.
@Joe T, I’ve been on the plane hunt long enough and don’t need to replenish my knowledge through tv programs. The expertise at this site and Duncan Steel’s before has been actually pretty good – even if some posters might think I haven’t made as good use of the collected wisdom as I could have 😉
I don’t think you do the CI theory as Dennis would represent it, proper justice. Nobody here talks about a landing or near-landing scenario.
But I refer you to Dennis. I’m sure he can talk about it more eloquently. And he won’t come up with Santa Claus tales.
@Joe
You should really try to familiarize yourself with the analytical details relative to the ISAT data. It is very easy to construct a path to CI consistent with BTO and BFO, and I have done that. No one has pointed out a flaw. Of course, it is possible than no one has looked at it either. It is also unlikely that anyone capable of doing these analytics would claim a CI path is impossible, as you could readily assert relative to the Maldives or the Bay of Bengal.
You have to be careful when interpreting the meaning of “best guess” or “most probable”. When you look under the covers you will find that the underlying logic surrounds how a pilot might routinely chose to fly a 777. This situation is far from routine. It is also true that the flight dynamics prior to the FMT are far from routine. To assume that someone was actively flying the plane before the FMT and that a fixed heading AP mode was selected after the FMT has questionable basis.
In any case, you are not presenting facts. You are simply providing references to the opinions of others. You should really do some original work of your own to be credible.
Yupp, you have to prove why crash near CI would be impossible according to ISAT data, that’s how logic works.
And if it is, the proof should be very very simple even if you sneaked out of math classes in school.
@Brock McEwen
Quote
You are asked to describe what you EXPECT it to look like. Using ONLY the above 4 facts – plus the obvious fact that, to get from A to B, it would have had to be drifting in the open ocean – in warm waters – for a year or more – please describe your best estimate of the size of the largest goose barnacles.
End of quote.
My response.The size of the barnacles could be of any size—including no barnacles at all.
Your thought experiment makes little or no sense. The flaperon has barnacles on it. There are too many variables to have a good idea where and when the barnacles attached to the flaperon.
I have a thought experiment that makes more sense:
Describe in detail how the flaperon could be a plant.
Please do not say it is just what I believe.
Do you still have the warm and fizzes towards me?
Joe T
Please take note of the blockquote tag, as described below the comment box.
Tex
@StevanG
Quote
Yupp, you have to prove why crash near CI would be impossible according to ISAT data, that’s how logic works.
And if it is, the proof should be very very simple even if you sneaked out of math classes in school.
I was not the one to come up with the Christmas Island (a clash nearby or a landing or a near landing or the pilot was flying towards Christmas Island for various reasons) scenario. It is not my job to prove YOUR Christmas Island scenario is impossible or not. Since it is YOUR scenario it up to YOU to prove the Christmas Island makes sense based on the available data or lack of data. The math will be easy—wink, wink.
All I hear from the Christmas Island people is that the data/calculations are wrong and a lot of smart people do not know what they are doing.
Yupp, that’s how logic works!!!!
Tex
Did not see your comment in time. Thanks for the heads-up.
thank you.
@Joe Not trying to gang up on you, but I wanted to point out that a lot of the “facts” relating to MH370 started with certain assumptions, which well may have been initially acknowledged as such, but over time, the fact that they were merely assumptions got lost. Or, worse, were promoted to something like revealed truth that could not be questioned. (This seemed to happen on Duncan’s site). Another one of those things about trying to prove hypotheses instead of first trying to disprove them that bothered me a lot.
An open question to all the Christmas Island (a clash nearby or a landing or a near landing or the pilot was flying towards Christmas Island for various reasons) people.
Question: If the pilot wanted to fly to Christmas Island for whatever reason, why the first hard left turn, the zig-zag path, the second hard left turn, the reboot, a possible turn-off of the ‘handshake’, and the hitting the water?
Why didn’t the pilot instead of making the first hard left turn make a hard RIGHT turn and then make a bee-line to Christmas Island?
Joe T,
Just a quick note–The “reboot” and “a possible turn-off of the ‘handshake'” are the same things. Not sure if you were entirely clear with this. The reboot of the SDU is what reconnected to the Inmarsat Satellite.
Zaharie never had an intention of CI. His only intention was to cause the power structure and political elite as much agony, embarrassment and damage as he could dream up.
He has succeeded quite brilliantly. He dreamed big, although disturbingly so.
CI is woefully impotent (the only reason one can prefer this is due to one’s own inability to see Zaharie as a deliberate murderer).
The flaperon from Mh370 will be one of a very small debris set, if any more debris reveals itself at all.
Z ditched. The a/c is largely intact in the SIO.
Joe T – the only facts we really have are that in the search areas there is no plane.
“Searched areas”
@Arthur, agree with you about the dynamics where mere assumptions were treated with too much certainty after a while.
Especially the early hypothesis of all this having been most likely a terrible accident or disaster which unfortunately ended with a ghost runaway plane has shaped all later thought processes and calculations to this day. The straight run into the SIO on AP without further human input was the result – and has only been adapted marginally after most acknowledged that a crime was more likely than an accident/disaster. The result is a curious hybrid where the straight run on AP has been retained while the endgame has been adapted and the run-out-of-fuel and spiralling-down scenario has been replaced by the conscious-pilot-ditching scenario.
The problem is of course that a scenario with a pilot who is alive and conscious to the very end introduces a variable which is difficult to assess: the human element.
That doesn’t completely contradict a SIO scenario. But it opens up a box full of other solutions. The big question which needs to be asked is: what was the pilot up to? What did he want to achieve? And, while certainly possible, a straight run into the SIO might not be the correct answer.
@Jay
Jay, thank you for the heads –up.
Let me clear-up the confusing that I have caused.
This should make it clearer:
…….why the first hard left turn, the turn- off of the ‘handshake’, the zig-zag path, the second hard left turn, the reboot, a possible turn-off of the ‘handshake’, and the hitting the water?
I hope this has cleared things up.
@Arthur Sorkin
Two things:
1. The data is not an assumption.
2. The calculations are not assumptions.
The data is the readout from the signal. It is what it is. The calculations come from the readout. It is what it is. The smart people doing the calculations looked at the data and calculations and made one important assumption: The data/calculations shows us the southern path, but cannot tell us precisely where the plane hit the water. Thus, we will show all reasonable paths of the plane.
Sad to say Christmas Island is not a reasonable path. If it was it would be one of the paths.
Joe T – can you find just one of the “smart people” who is prepared to guarantee the data?
@Joe
You are confused.
In any case two plausible reasons for the convoluted path are;
1> The desire to avoid detection after the FMT
2> The need to arrive at CI in daylight. It is a difficult landing for a 777, and a direct path would have gotten the plane there before daylight.
Actually there were many paths initially looked at. As a general rule the paths migrated to the North and East as the assumed speed went down. The final path was the result of selecting a speed and heading which was a “best fit” to the data. The reality is everyone who has looked at the calculations has an SIO path. Mine was slightly North of the IG consensus. I rejected it because I could not match it to a plausible motive.
You have to understand that the ISAT is by itself indeterminate. You have to make assumptions to produce a flight path from it. The ping arcs are determinate in the absence of a spoof. The location somewhere on the 7th arc is pretty darn solid. If the Reunion debris is from MH370 we can narrow it down to the Southern hemisphere.
@Spencer: Re: “Z ditched,” etc. You have frequently made such statements as if they are true. They are mere speculation. The fact that you clearly believe very stongly that they are true is not interesting to anyone else, any more than whatever dream you happened to have last night. Feeling sure is just a feeling. And: We. Just. Don’t. Care.
The purpose of this forum is to discuss facts, report out new angles, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various scenarios. Please bear this in mind in the future.
@Spencer
I too believe that the aircraft hit the water at a shallow angle consistent with a piloted ditching attempt. However, the sea state in the current search area would present a lot of difficulty relative to pulling it off. Much more likely to succeed in a calmer area.
The forensics on the flaperon should tell us what the experts think relative to the flaperon damage.
@DennisW, “It is very easy to construct a path to CI consistent with BTO and BFO, and I have done that. No one has pointed out a flaw.” You are obviously a very intelligent and learned person, and frankly I fail to see why you are so attached to Christmas Island. The reason that almost no one else has any time for this idea is simple: Christmas Island lies 70 nm inside the 0:11 arc and 110 nm inside the 0:19 arc. You seem to the think that the contortions required to overcome this problem are minor but they are not. I am happy that you regularly contribute your brains and expertise towards weighing the evidence here but wish that you would maintain your obsession as a secret vice. Believe me, we all have them.
@Joe
“Since it is YOUR scenario it up to YOU to prove the Christmas Island makes sense based on the available data or lack of data.”
DennisW has posted several possible paths to CI that fit the data, nobody has disproved those (yet). Care to be first one?
The thing is that if you remove assumptions, you can pretty much model infinite number of paths to any of the reachable points on the southern seventh arc.
” If the pilot wanted to fly to Christmas Island for whatever reason, why the first hard left turn, the zig-zag path, the second hard left turn, the reboot, a possible turn-off of the ‘handshake’, and the hitting the water?”
he wanted to evade jets being scrambled, it was certainly the best path to do so and it was the path (talking about the known one, until FMT) someone would take if he wanted to go to CI with the best chance not to be detected
do you realise he was flying at approx. 21000 ft when he left the radar, why would he magically go to cruising speed&altitude(as ATSB assume) right at that point? You can’t assume normal flight envelope for a flight that is everything but normal, that’s a very wrong approach.
“Thus, we will show all reasonable paths of the plane.”
but the path can’t be reasonable if you don’t offer a single one plausible reason why would he go right there or what would bring the plane there
@spencer
You sound like you were on a telepathic connection with the Captain.
And you too still haven’t offered a single reason why would he go right there (one of the worst locations for ditching in SIO) and why would he make turn towards Australia at all.
@Joe
Calculations based on bad data and/or bad assumptions are meaningless. The data are just numbers. The calculations are a theory. Unproven I would say since the theory didn’t predict where the plane ended up, and accurate prediction is what physical scientists go by isn’t
it in confirming a theory?
The SIO solution depends on “straight” line flight controlled by AP, and that most certainly is an assumption. Otherwise, as has been pointed out by others on this site, a live pilot (or hijacker or specially programmed computer) allows curving routes that match BTO and BFO. The existence of another possible solution is a counterexample BTW.
Since the “spoof” hypothesis cannot as of now be completely ruled out (because, among other things, the flaperon has not been confirmed to come from MH370
(and, I would add, from its final flight), then the data is
a fact with assumptions behind it. So not an ultimate fact at all. BTW, Jeff agreed with a poster in a previous thread that the spoof theory was not dead (yet).
Who said anything about CI?
I’m waiting to see what the French come up with. And the barnacle experts.
@jeffwise
do you follow DennisW&me at all? We have never suggested the plane landed there, only that it overshoot the island for some reason or tried to get around to land from the north side (if it were going from the south).
There is a multitude of such scenarios one could imagine if more people had access to the cockpit at the time…
Dennis, Stevan
In addition to the technical unlikelihood or drawbacks of the CI theory, I believe that Jeff was making the point, in which I happen to agree, that there simply is no indication, rhyme, or reason to think that the plane headed to CI. It obviously cannot be proven wrong at this time; however, it’s likelihood, given what we know, does not match your enthusiasm towards the theory. In other words, the degree to which you are pushing the theory is incompatible with it’s likelihood.
Spencer,
I must agree with Jeff once again. You are truly in your own world.
@DennisW and all. A bit off-topic…
“If the Reunion debris is from MH370 we can narrow it down to the Southern hemisphere.”
Professor Pattiaratchi said something to the effect of ..debris from current search area cannot drift N across the equator… when referring to the possibilty of debris drifting to Sumatra and more recently re: other possible debris found. From a graphic published in the NYT on 30 July 2015, using Erik van Sebille’s computer model it indicates that debris could in fact drift from many places N of the equator and end up at Reunion (as well as from broad areas S of the equator). Although I kept a copy of that graphic its no longer online at NYT but can be seen here (very small image): https://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://forum.fok.nl/topic/2238742/3/25&prev=search
I am not sure whether the NYT article was based on a simulation by Erik himself or someone else using his model (I will ask him). Any one have more details readily available? The reason I am asking is not in connection with any particular theory but this is the only drift simulation I have seen which doesn’t make the assumption that MH370 is in the current search area and I would like to know what is possible and what is not re:drifting etc. so we may hopefully be able to finally rule some theories out.
@Jay
If it appears that I am “evangelizing” the CI scenario I apologize since it is not my intent. I will, however, defend it which is what I thought I was doing. I try to exercise great care in this regard, but maybe I need to try harder.
Many of MH370’s puzzle pieces have been controlled by the treacherous Malaysian Prime Minister and his minions. However detrimental to the investigation, it seems at times less suspicious than the lack of participation from the U.S. In the last week the “talking heads” have devoted hundreds hours reporting on the mindless exchange between a billionaire presidential wannabe and a political contributor femme fatale. Even with the potential hype of the Reunion Island flaperon and U.S. NTSB representatives traveling to France, they kept quiet. As one of Malaysia’s largest investors and trade volume exceeding $30 over billion in recent years, this relationship was fortified by a Presidential visit (only the 2nd in 50 years) 6 weeks after MH370 disappeared and packaged as an economic revival to rally support for the TPPA agreement. The U.S. is uncharacteristically quiet and the paranoia sets in…..
Perhaps the most bizarre scenario of all…could it have actually been 2 incidents perceived as 1, originating as 1 mission and ending with another from intervention?
@AM2
I got the info from the linked reference below. Like all sources, it needs to be questioned, of course. But the quoted experts are highly credentialed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/30/us-malaysia-airlines-crash-oceanography-idUSKCN0Q40C420150730
@Jay
my enthusiasm is based on motivation and possibility
there is a plausible motive and there is a possibility, which hands down beats current search area
if someone gives more plausible reason to turn SE (or actually proves the plane is sitting somewhere around current search area) I’ll gladly move to that theory
@jeff If you will allow me, there is one further point I wanted to add about facts and assumptions.
I don’t have the time or energy (who does) to check every post back to the beginning, but I have the impression that even the primary radar tracks (or some of them) fall afoul of the hidden assumption problem.
For example, I might call a more or less identical track coming from two different sites at the same time confirmed (because of triangulation), but I wouldn’t necessarily say the same of a single radar source.
It is entirely possible that there were other aircraft (probably military) aloft without transponder on. There
were news reports of joint military exercises going on
in the area in the weeks before and after MH370.
Someone (don’t look at me), needs to wipe the slate clean and go back to the very beginning and look at what is actually known without accepting other people’s assumptions, or, at least, documenting what assumptions they are accepting. Sort of like the “10th Man” in the movie WWZ (in real life Israel it is evidently a group of people).
@DennisW
Thanks and I see there is a larger graphic and quoted wording (Google translated) further down in that link I posted:
“A computer model developed by Erik van Sebille, an oceanographer at the Imperial College in London, ocean currents uses historical data to predict the probable paths That could take objects drifting through the ocean over the course of several at months. This map shows the model’s predictions for an object washing up on the island of Reunion. Orange circles show where van Sebille’s Model Predicts an object could have Originated if it washed up on Reunion Island after drifting on ocean currents for a year and four months. Larger circles are more likely areas of origin.”
@Arthur
Victor recently completed the best summary of early flight path analytics and observations I have ever seen. I do not have the link handy. Perhaps Victor can repost it.
@DennisW That would be interesting to see. I do recall that at one point, Duncan was trying to pin down radar sites and
coverage. i don’t recall where that went (if anywhere).
Of course, it is not just radar tracks, Really everything needs to be looked at without a priori assumptions.
@Arthur
Yes, I recall Duncan’s post. I don’t think he was inviting a conclusion. It was more of a “public service” post in that here are the radars and ranges that may have or should have seen the aircraft.
Dear StevanG,
I read your stream-of-consciousness (Posted August 13, 2015 at 9:00 PM).
One thing did stand out and it is this:……if he wanted to go to CI with the best chance not to be detected
Two questions:
1. Can a 777 land on Christmas Island?
This site will provide some information:
http://www.askcaptainlim.com/-flight-simulator-pilot-46/639-i-can-easily-land-at-the-wellington-airport-on-a-boeing-777-flight-simulator.html
The length of a runway for a 777 is all over the place. As they say—it depends. You could land a 777 on Christmas Island, but it would most likely have to be an emergency landing. The takeoff would be another story. You would have to remove the passengers, the cargo, the seats, etc.
Note: The runway on Christmas Island is 2103 meters long.
2. Can a person hide a 777 on Christmas Island?
What is the terrain on Christmas Island:
Terrain: The island, volcanic in origin, is the summit of a submerged mountain. Steep sea cliffs surround most of the island, rising to a central plateau up to 361 meters high. A national park, complete with rainforest covers much of the available land space.
I guess the pilot and passengers could haul the plane to the central plateau and hide the plane.
Now, I am being a bit snarky with these two questions.
The real question is this: Could the pilot land the plane on the island without being detected by the authorities? I believe the answer is self-evident.
Folks, we need to think here!
@Jay
You seem to have a particular fascination with me. Or, rather, a peculiar fondness for NEEDING to continuously needling me…despite me asking you to restrain yourself.
You persist, and seemingly cannot help yourself?
Enough, please.
@Joe
I think Shah just wanted to get it down, which a pilot of his skill and a light fuel load under daylight conditions could reasonably do. Unfortunately, he never had that opportunity.
There was no intention to hide anything. It was the end of the story for Shah.
Yes, thinking is important. You should look in the mirror relative to that comment. I am being very patient with you.
@Spencer
I would not single out Jay. Your posts are very “in your face” and poorly reasoned. My take on it is you are still living with your parents. Am I right?
@Dennis
You said “However, the sea state in the current search area would present a lot of difficulty relative to pulling it off. Much more likely to succeed in a calmer area.”
While PERHAPS true (in actuality the seas could have been near glass, 1m, 3m, 5m), it is besides the point.
Zaharie, imo, had cleared Malacca and Indo and was out of scramble range. He was no longer under threat of challenge, nor was he (from his POV) exposed to further tracking.
A ditching in the SIO, whether executed flawlessly or otherwise, has a similar end result: The sinking of the fuselage and engines and minimal debris originating from a COMPLETELY unknown terminus.
he couldn’t have cared less about a measly flaperon, in the grand scheme of things. Debris would be immaterial and unhelpful in finding an aircraft that had completely vanished in the SIO.
It would not be found.
@Spencer
Sure, it could have happened as you suggest. My read on Shah is just totally different than yours. I don’t believe he intended to harm anyone. Just my opinion.
Your theory suffers from why would a suicidal pilot would elect to do a controlled ditch? I will have a lot to say about that when the French publish their findings. You are simply not thinking clearly.
@Dennis
And yet we have looks to be a controlled ditching in the middle of the SIO.
I would say it is you who is not thinking clearly. You also ignore ‘window seal’ and Z’s love for gliding.
Hint: these things matter