I am grateful to reader @AM2, who early this morning alerted us to a report in the French website LaDepeche.fr stating that investigors who have been examining the flaperon found on Reunion have been unable to find any evidence linking it to MH370. Soon after, reader @Jay provided the translation below, which I’ve tweaked and edited using my high-school French and some online dictionaries. Thanks to both of you (and to Brock for his translation help)! Any corrections or suggestions from people who actually know the language would be very gratefully received.
MH370: At Balma, the Technical Investigation is Complete
The Toulouse experts of the Directorate General of Armaments have finished the survey of the flaperon found on Reunion. Nothing permits it to be 100% certified as belonging to MH370!
In Balma, near Toulouse, technical analysis of of the wing flaperon believed to belong to the Malaysia Airlines Boeing has ended. The Toulouse engineers have submitted their findings to the Paris Prosecutor’s Office, which is in charge of the judicial inquiry. At the moment none of their observations have been leaked. “The investigation team headed by the French to consider the flaperon concluded the first phase of its inspection work,” the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) announced in Sydney.
Circumstantial evidence
“French authorities will, in consultation with Malaysia, report on progress in due course,” added the ATSB. Indeed, the judicial authorities remain silent and refuse to comment. According to our information, the experts have found no compelling technical element that would certify 100% that this piece belongs to flight MH370. “The expert conclusions are only the technical part of the criminal investigation, which is still going on,” so the case cannot be considered closed. For now all that is certain is that the flaperon, which was transferred from the island of Reunion to Toulouse on August 5, corresponds to a moving part of a wing of the Boeing 777. A representative of the American manufacturer Boeing quickly confirmed that after arriving at the site of the DGA Aeronautical Technical Center in Balma. If the deputy prosecutor of the Republic of Paris has stated that there was a “very strong supposition” that the piece belonged to the plane of flight MH370, which disappeared 18 months ago, that is based on circumstantial evidence.
First, the piece belongs to the aircraft model corresponding to that of Malaysia Airlines, a Boeing 777. In addition, no other aircraft of this type except that of the Malaysian company were reported missing.
Also, the trajectory of the wing piece that ran aground on a beach in Reunion matches the sea currents that link the search area of the wreckage of the plane to the French overseas department. Finally, the shells found attached to the flaperon belong to a species endemic to the southern Indian Ocean where the unit is believed to have disappeared.
According to a Toulouse aeronautics expert who requested anonymity, the element of the wing would not have floated for several months at the water’s surface but would have drifted underwater a few meters deep. According to Jean-Paul Troadec, former chairman of the Bureau of Investigation and Analysis (BEA), the state of flaperon, even if it is not intact, indicates that there was no violent impact with the ocean surface. “If this had been the case with the MH370, one would expect much smaller debris than a flaperon,” said the expert.
COMMENT
A couple of observations from me, JW:
- I find it odd that a piece of random debris would happen to have exactly neutral buoyancy, as floating for months just below the ocean surface would require. Unless it was tethered…
- Reader @Jay raises the question: “What about the maintenance seal that Malaysia claimed 100% linked the part to MH370?” Likewise, no mention is made of the discrepencies that Boeing and NTSB officials reportedly found between the flaperon and Malaysia Airlines maintenance records, according to the New York Times. Hopefully the French will soon issue a report clearing up these issues.
@ Joe T
” What we do have is the work (I am making an assumption here) done by Boeing. Boeing has accounted for every flaperon except for two—the two on MH370. By the process of elimination one flaperon is somewhere in the Southern India Ocean and the other one washed-up ”
This seams to be total conjecture on your part Joe. Surly if it was a matter of a simple elimination process, the Malaysians would of used this fact to back their claim. Can you please direct me to the source of your information.
The photo evidence and videos of people carrying the flaperon plus knowledge of the flaperon construction and materials makes it difficult to imagine how the flapron could be neutrally buoyant. It is constructed of honeycomb bonded to CF skins, forming thousands of sealed air pockets. What’s left of it weighs ~100 lbs and the estimated volume is roughly 12 ft^3, equivalent to ~770 lbs of buoyancy. Even allowing a generous part of the volume to be the structure, there is no way the flaperon could have been neutrally boyant unless all the honey comb cells were full of sea water. But there are no external signs of the type damage required for water to enter all the thousands of honeycomb cells. For that to happen, one or both skins would have to be torn off, and that is clearly not what happened. Like many other half-baked theories, this neutral buoyancy theory will probably be proven wrong. The theory that it sank and then later broke loose and surfaced is also not credible. If it had been pulled down to 15000 feet it would have collapsed all the hex cells and it would be badly deformed. What we see in the photos shows no evidence of extreme pressure damage. So that did not happen either.
@Joe T
I echo your sentiments. I don’t think anyone but a hard core “nut case” conspiracy theorist doubts the flaperon came from 9M-MRO. However, the criminal investigation launched by the French has distorted what most of us would considered a standard of proof. Many of the more responsible news outlets are i.e. Reuters are picking up o this distinction.
begin cut-paste//
The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved “beyond a reasonable doubt”, whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as “the preponderance of the evidence” (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe.
end cut-paste//
Many people believe that tangling up an aircraft accident investigation with a criminal proceeding greatly impedes the process of what would otherwise be a reasonable and prudent investigation.
@ALSM
Yes. Every time I think I have heard the most preposterous thing possible relative to this investigation, something comes along that raises the bar. The buoyancy arguments relative to the flaperon reaching equilibrium at some depth below the surface fall into this category.
The density change of sea water with depth is so gradual,
1.025 gm/cm^3 at the surface vs 1.026 gm/cm^3 at 200 meters or so, that we are talking about the equivalent of balancing a pencil on its point. I have no idea how these notions even get started.
@Matty – Perth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_777
‘The 777 first entered commercial service with United Airlines on June 7, 1995. It has received more orders than any other wide-body airliner; as of July 2015, 60 customers had placed orders for 1,881 aircraft of all variants, with 1,320 delivered.[1] The most common and successful variant is the 777-300ER with 581 delivered and 786 orders;[1] Emirates operates the largest 777 fleet, with 138 passenger and freighter aircraft as of July 2014.[9] The 777 has been involved in five hull-loss accidents as of July 2014; the Asiana Airlines Flight 214 accident in July 2013 was its first fatal crash in 18 years of service.’
Matty-Perth, it took no time at all to look-up the number of 777s in service. It looks like 1320 – 777s have been delivered. Why don’t we call that a nice even 1400. This would account for any repaired/replaced/? flaperons. I am assuming that Boeing could locate every one of the flaperons except the ones on the moon.
If it wasn’t such a late hour I could go into explaining to you the possibility of flaperons changing over 20 years. Gasp!, the later ones will look different from the early ones—stuff happens and flaperons change.
bye
@Anthony
Posted August 21, 2015 at 9:14 PM
@ Joe T
” What we do have is the work (I am making an assumption here) done by Boeing. Boeing has accounted for every flaperon except for two—the two on MH370. By the process of elimination one flaperon is somewhere in the Southern India Ocean and the other one washed-up ”
This seams to be total conjecture on your part Joe. Surly if it was a matter of a simple elimination process, the Malaysians would of used this fact to back their claim. Can you please direct me to the source of your information.
My dictionary:
Assumption n. 2. That which is taken for granted; supposition.
Let us say that ‘assumption’ is ‘total conjecture’ that has a college degree. Think it this way—Mr. Assumption has learned to think past his nose.
Anthony, would you like to borrow by dictionary. You then could look-up the definition of ‘conjecture’.
Mr. Cranky signing off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joe T – you say, ” I am assuming that Boeing could locate every one of the flaperons except the ones on the moon.
I was asking whether you knew this or assumed it, nothing more. You seem to be confirming it’s an assumption of yours. I ask again – do you have a reference for any Boeing global flaperon audit? And why would anyone not be aware of the potential for flaperons to be replaced along the way? That would seem almost inevitable.
And at the risk of being called a conspiricist again, inability to nail the flaperon down leaves the hoax door open, and yes those people are out there. Why would anyone do that? Because people like us have been debating the debris issue ever since it went missing. It’s a red rage. Still, we wait.
“red rag”
@Matty
Not name calling here at all. Let’s wait for the official report, and then decide what the implications are. The Malaysians and Aussies have already put their lines in the sand.
You will never be able to completely rule out a hoax. Even if an ID plate was on the flaperon, someone could claim it was falsified and epoxied on a random planted flaperon. There is no end to it as the ongoing 911 truther sites suggest. At some point, you just have to move on.
@Matty
BTW, I do agree that it would be virtually impossible to do an audit of every flaperon produced, and to determine the disposition of these parts.
@VictorI,
The flaperon probably floated AT the surface, which would mean the majority of it would have been underwater. Minor changes in salinity or temperature would not significantly affect its buoyancy.
Also, it would have been subjected to waves of up to ten metres or more.
Hi Airlandseaman,
I agree with what you are saying due to this honeycomb structure and flaperon appearing internally intact. Yet in the French translation they are specifically stating it did not float at surface level but submerged “derive plonge entre deux eaux” literally means drifted plunged betwen 2 waters. Strange, very strange. As everything else, why not the flaperon too be shrouded in a cloak of mystery within the overall mystery.
What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty!
With $150 million, big brains and the best technology brought to bear, after 17 months the only trace of MH370 is found by accident where no one ever dreamt of looking.
@Victor
I think you are agreeing that a part with near neutral buoyancy will have a variable floating depth due to the influences you mention. Buoyancy of any part will decrease with time as water gets into the structure. The issue may be the average depth of the part during its time in the sea, not the precise depth at any particular time.
And please do not put text in quotes unless you are quoting exactly what I wrote, which you were not.
Cheryl wrote:
“derive plonge entre deux eaux” literally means drifted plunged between 2 waters.
Not sure what this means literally. Something lost in translation for sure. Anyway, I have worked with honeycomb and carbon fiber structures (spacecraft) and I see no way for water to enter a structure constructed like the flaperon, unless the bonded skin on one or both sides was nearly 100% removed, leaving all the cells open to the water. The flaperon recovered at Reunion shows relatively little damage to the skin on both the top and bottom surfaces. Nor is there any evidence in the photos of compression damage which would occur if the flaperon was deeply submerged.
The photos are most consistent with separation at some altitude above the water, before the main structure impact, most likely caused by buffeting, aeroelastic flutter, or transonic aeroelasticity, all of which can ultimately result in the type of fatigue failure which appears to be the cause of the trailing edge separation. There are many documented cases of aircraft components “shaking loose”, caused by these phenomenon when the aircraft exceeds the certified maximum speed. Put this historical and engineering fact together with (1) the final BFO values, which taken at face value indicate a vertical descent speed of 15,000 ft/min at 00:19:37 and (2) the B777-200 ER simulator results which indicate a steep, high speed spiral descent is very likely following fuel exhaustion (and no human control), and all the puzzle pieces fit.
This theory, if true, increases the likelihood of the main POI being quite close to the 7th arc. It sure would be nice to hear something official about the internal examination results. Unless virtually all the honeycomb cells were full of water, there is no way this flaperon could sink or float near neutral buoyancy.
@Cheryl, @airlandseaman, @everyone — the term “entre deux eaux” is an expression that simply means “in midwater,” that is to say, neither on the surface nor at the bottom. Once could simply say “submerged.”
@Joe T, This forum is for the civil discussion of a complex and technically sophisticated mystery. It is imperative that everyone participating treats the others with respect. If you wish to participate you must improve the civility of your tone. Consider this your final warning.
Jeff
From a French online dictionary (delete after reading):
Nager entre deux eaux:
manoeuvrer entre deux partis sans se compromettre, refuser de s’engager
Origine
Bien sûr, à notre époque, on imagine de suite la personne qui réussit à nager à mi-profondeur sans se laisser entraîner vers une direction non souhaitée par le courant de surface ou celui plus profond.
Il suffit qu’il descende un peu plus profondément ou bien remonte en surface pour se laisser entraîner par l’un ou l’autre.
Métaphoriquement, cette nage s’applique à la personne qui ne veut pas s’engager (que ce soit par indécision ou pour ne pas prendre parti, histoire de ménager la chèvre et le chou) et qui ne ne fait donc aucun choix.
Mais cette expression apparue au XIVe siècle vient en réalité de la marine. En effet, à cette époque (et depuis le XIIe siècle), ‘nager’ voulait dire “conduire un bateau”.
Et l’équipage qui savait “nager entre deux eaux”, était celui qui arrivait à garder le cap malgré les courants (les ‘eaux’, à l’époque) qui pouvaient l’entraîner dans une mauvaise direction.
Google translation (with corrections):
Swim between two waters:
maneuver between two parties without compromising himself, refusing to commit
Origin
Of course, in our time, we imagine on the person who manages to swim at mid-depth without being dragged into an unwanted direction by the current at the surface or that deeper down.
He may just come down a little deeper or rise to the surface to get dragged ont by one or the other.
Metaphorically, this swimming applies to the person who does not engage (whether by indecision or by not taking sides (story of the goat and the cabbage) and who therefore he does not make a selection.
But this phrase which appeared in the fourteenth century actually comes from the navy. Indeed, at that time (and since the twelfth century), ‘swimming’ meant “driving a boat.”
And the crew that knew how to “swim between two waters”, was the one who managed to stay the course despite the currents (the ‘water’, at the time) which could take him in the wrong direction.
@Gysbreght, With all due respect, all this verbiage is not helpful at all. Let’s try to be clear and precise. “Entre deux eaux” means submerged. If anyone disagrees, please say so succinctly.
@Dennis, @Matty
for the record, although I still have in mind something very weird about this case, I must say, that I was NEVER fan of any conspiracy before and I am not now (and for sure will be not in future), especially 911, or simply everything hateful, spreading fear and uncertainty; in fact, as in parallel with this case, I also monitored whats happening about Ukraine (because it is close to us, and it seemed dangerous and weird too), I found very strange channel on RT, the SHOW “The Truthseeker”, which was simply crazy artificial stream of most stupid conspiracies I saw, but done so entertaining way, that I simply cant stop to comment sometimes onliners in their discussions, how funny they are, how professionally processed Hollywood action-movies style they used, laughing at them. This stream of conspiracies (since 10/2012) was moderated by guy Daniel Bushell, the same guy who recently occured as reporting from Switzerland about peaceful talks with Iran. This is just fact. And the same is fact, that such stupid stream show disappeared without a trace from RT menu almost exactly year ago, around 8/16/2014. Simply no more such “”entertaining”” conspiracies from them anymore. You know, I felt quite happy, although it was blacked by MH17 shooting month ago. And you know, during whole MH370 case, everything I found about Ukrainian warfare totally reversed my positive relation to their conflict, while not blaming west for anything too – they are simply in ugly civil war (blaming Russians for everything the same as Nazis did), no doubt for me. And this is what in fact must be well known to our governments too, but for some reason, we still say what we say. Idea which occured with MH370 U-turn was that to beat all stupid conspiracy thories may be best to create really one most advanced from scrach, but for good reason. All the intelligence services was doing “bad things” in history against themselves, so why not to reuse their top skills for something good, may be even together. You know, it almost killed me during the brainstorming week since 8/14. And I wish any closure ASAP, even if it will be finding matching serial/assmebly numbers or whole plane in SIO; but I simply cant believe that it is there. Hope French will show something better soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91DSNL1BEeY
@Jeff Wise:
According to a Toulouse aeronautics expert who requested anonymity, the element of the wing would have drifted a few meters deep. I felt that “plongé entre deux eaux” added a certain twist to that. Feel free to delete the post if you think it is of no interest.
@ALSM
Rereading my buoyancy comment earlier, I realize that I did not make my point very well. The range of densities of seawater is extremely small 1.025 to 1.028 over a depth range of 0 to 4500 meters. For an object to be suspended anywhere in this depth range is a virtual singularity. Said another way, just about everything either sinks or floats. Not surprisingly that conclusion correlates well with a lifetime of observations.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/images/sm_density_depth.jpg
I think, in this case, “entre deux eaux” means “randomly.” The flaperon followed different currents during its journey. Wave action would have submerged it temporarily allowing it to follow deeper currents and then to follow surface currents and winds when it surfaced. (French was my first language but replaced by english at nursery school. I am no longer fluent but can get by.)
@Richard Cole: I am saying that an object will not remain neutrally buoyant, even allowing for changes in depth, as other effects will cause the object to either sink or float.
As for putting the expression “naturally selected” in quotations, I was quoting Charles Darwin, not you. I thought the reference and analogy to evolution and “survival of the fittest” was self-evident to readers here.
@DennisW:
Right the opposite. A pencil on a point is in unstable equilibrium. That means when the location of the pencil (angle) is changed a very small value, it looses stability and falls.
However, a body with density below 1.028 g/cm^3 in the seawater is in stable equilibrium, that means if the location is changed by a small value (of height), it finds it’s stable point on it’s own. The mechanism of finding the right location is Archimedes buoyant force, that pulls the flaperon up if it is too deep in the water, or it’s weight pulls it down if it is not deep enough. The buoyant force is rather week, if you dislocate the flapron for about 1m in height, it will be about the weight of flaperon divided by a 2.5 million. However, it will eventually find it’s point of equilibrium. Very different from a pencil
Note: while DRAWING from the nuanced translation skills of Lauren, and the buoyancy comments offered thusfar, my offering is simply an attempt to reconcile both into something that makes the most sense to me. Still needs careful vetting on both fronts:
“According to a Toulouse aeronautical expert who requested anonymity, the wing fragment would not have floated for its entire journey on the surface of the water but would have spent much of its time bobbing up and down in the first few metres of water.”
I consider this more feasible, as it seems reasonable to me that something with a density near (but less than) that of water would spend a good deal of its time below the ocean surface, buffeted by waves and currents.
And I included the attribution because it doesn’t hurt to remind that this was an anonymous aeronautical (?) expert who has sent us in this direction this week…
@Brock – Exactement!
Here is my translation of the sentence:
According to an aeronautical expert from Toulouse who has requested anonymity, the element of the wing would not have floated for many months at the surface of the water, but would have drifted, plunged neutrally buoyant at several meters depth.
The expression “entre deux eaux” is equivalent to the French “flottabilité nul”, i.e., neutrally buoyant. See for example:
http://plongee.amiral.free.fr/formation/niveau4/leprincipedn4.htm
Since the statement was made by somebody with aeronautical expertise, not experienced in marine biology, it is puzzling as to what evidence led him to this conclusion. It is more likely related to the relative distribution of wearing effects such as sun bleaching and salt water corrosion than barnacle growth. For instance, things that float tend to have a water line.
@VictorI:
Beaucoup de “plongée” dans ce texte, mais je n’a pas trouvé “entre deux eaux”.
@Alex
I use the pencil on its point metaphor often to express profound disbelief/unlikelihood rather than as a model for any particular physical system.
I readily agree that an object with a density between 1.025 gm/cm^3 and 1.028 gm/cm^3 will find a point of equilibrium in this simple model. That range of densities is so small that virtually every object one tosses into the sea will either sink or float. In all the scuba diving I have done in both oceans and lakes I have never once seen an inanimate object anywhere but on the surface or on the bottom. Of course, I have never encountered a flaperon in the water either.
In the case of the flaperon, I agree with ALSM that the density is much less than sea water, and that it will float on the surface, and be carried by wind and currents to an eventual landfall somewhere.
@Gysbreght: Cherchez le titre “FLOTTABILITÉ” et le text au-dessous:
lorsqu’un corps remonte, il a une FLOTTABILITÉ POSITIVE
lorsqu’un corps coule, il a une FLOTTABILITÉ NÉGATIVE
lorsqu’un corps flotte entre deux eaux, il a une FLOTTABILITÉ NULLE
@VictorI:
Merci, je suis désolé.
@Gysbreght – Tres bien. Laquelle est votre langue de mere? (sorry for any misspellings. It has been a long time.)
@Lauren H:
It’s neither French nor English but, like you, I get by.
@VictorI:
Can we conclude that “entre deux eaux” has more meanings than “FLOTTABILITÉ NULLE”?
I rather admired Brock’s brilliant compromise.
@Gysbreght: I know we are beating this to death, but I believe I am mistaken. I think Jeff is correct. “To be between waters” simply means to be submerged, i.e., water above and below. To “float between waters” means with neutral buoyancy, as indicated by the link I provided. The quoted text simply says the part was submerged several meters below the surface and nothing about it buoyancy.
Hopefully this will help understand the neutrally buoyant issue better.
http://tinyurl.com/nnos9x6
Not quite ‘to death’. So our “aeronautical expert” simply said “submerged” twice?
@Gysbreght: The qualifier “entre les deux eaux” was added to explain that no part of the flaperon was above the water surface, i.e., it was not partially submerged.
I do not believe Brock is correct in his interpretation. The expert was not saying the part was bobbing at the surface. On the contrary, he was claiming the part remained completely submerged.
@VictorI:
Thank you so much for your serious responses. ’nuff said.
I have followed the AF447 saga from beginning to end, and consequently do not have a thread of faith in any drifting models, forward or reverse. In the case of AF447 these exercises were pretty useless, and after they were discarded the wreckage was found almost immediately. So for me the matter is simple: If the flaperon had sunk, it would not have ended up on the shore of La Reunion. Therefore it must have floated, and I’m not interested in whether it floated at the surface or a few meters below it. Always assuming, of course, that the flaperon came off MH370.
Jeff and others,
May I insert a few other fairly useless comments?
1. In the science the effect when something is floating at certain depth below the surface is called ‘trapping’. Trapping of liquids in a stratified medium was extensively studied by Prof. Jirka (google on CORMIX). This effect can typically happen at a picnocline.
2. There is no such a thing in the open ocean as “neutral buoyancy” due to varying ambient density.
3. Stratification has step-like profile in the upper, say 100 meters. There could be several thermoclines and haloclines, but for the open ocean it is more about thermoclines as salinity is relatively uniform.
4. During storms and/or drops in the air temperature the deepening of thermocline occurs.
5. The upper and strongest thermocline (respectively picnocline) typically occurs at 3 to 15 m depth, subject to weather conditions.
6. One should also remember that the flaperon is not a dot and it has physical dimensions and inertia, meaning that it can plunge down, rise up, and change its orientation. Thus, it might be about “The average depth” as Richard noticed.
Is the quoted expert simply trying to do a reconciliation with the advice they received from the marine biologists? They will believe – and not too surprisingly – that they are looking at a piece of MH370. But if the marines boys say it only has short term barnacle growth they need to explain it somehow?
In that southern cousin of French, Spanish, “entre dos aguas” could also mean in some contexts a tidal effect, like the lagoons.
@luzazul, @Gysbreght
“dérivé, plongé entre deux eaux à quelques mètres de profondeur” from La Depeche…
This is all guesswork but I also wondered about whether the “two waters” meant between two currents e.g. the Southern Equatorial Gyre and a more northerly current.
see animation in this older article
http://www.smh.com.au/world/debris-on-reunion-island-likely-from-mh370-us-officials-say-20150730-ginitv.html
Here’s some interesting AD’s involving the flaperons on B777 that need to be taken into consideration when trying to determine how a flaperon could be washed up on Reunion Island. Note no need for aircraft to exceed VNE!
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/AOCADSearch/FC51AD7EB09195028625698300724B99?OpenDocument
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/AOCADSearch/7524074A92AB879786256A6C0071D980?OpenDocument
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAD.nsf/0/eb53c736eb04bcb4862570d900590daf/$FILE/2005-25-24.pdf
In particular the last one… note the statement:
“… which could lead to the flaperon becoming unrestrained and consequently departing from the airplane”
http://english.astroawani.com/malaysia-news/inmarsat-data-mh370-maths-and-physics-dont-lie-says-expert-70917
@ALSM
Your linked article is fairly typical of the “responsible” reporting on the subject, however, journalists are generally unable to understand that the use of the ISAT is highly nuanced. The data itself is representative of what that communication system can yield. I think most of us agree with that.
What is misleading to the general public, and possibly even to the people in charge of the search, is that the data is incapable of yielding a unique solution. Assumptions need to me made relative to flight dynamics in order to stick a pin in a map. It is these assumptions that need to be scrutinized carefully, possibly by a new team that does not have a “sunk intellectual cost” to impede their judgement.
In case 1.6.3 9of the FI was missed (I know it says left but who knows what it really says?) :
The last C of A document review by DCA Inspector was carried out on 15 May 2013 for the C of A renewal and the aircraft physical inspection was carried out by MAS Quality Assurance Engineer (QAE) on 12 April 2013. The only inspection defect noted was a torn left hand flaperon inboard seal which was subsequently replaced. The aircraft C of A was renewed with no airworthiness issues identified.