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.
@airlandseaman: The author links not responding to the satellite calls to hypoxia caused by a fire and/or smoke. To me, that is a big leap as it completely ignores the possibility of a deliberate action to commandeer the plane. Would he expect a hijacker to answer the phone? It also promotes the unlikely theory that a plane with a fire onboard can fly in a fuel efficient manner for another 7 hours.
He also links the reported sighting by the oil rig worker near Vietnam as evidence of a plane on fire. If MH370 did follow the course suggested by the radar and satellite data, it could not have been seen by the oil rig worker. It is hard to believe he does not know this, which makes me question why he presented this as a fact to support his arguments.
Victor & Dennis: I agree with all that. The main takeaway for me was that Zaaim Redha agrees that the data indicates the plane went to the south, and not to the north. There is no way the oil rig worker observed 370. It was way over the horizon. There may have been a fire and decompression, but if that happened, there are many difficult unanswered questions left about the turns etc. I’m in contact with Zaaim Redha. I hope he will share more details.
@ALSM: on what date did you and Zaaim first discuss the ISAT data?
This guy has a conflict of interest in that the 20 Freescale folks on the plane are his former colleagues.
I don’t subscribe to any of the Freescale conspiracy theories, but I don’t pooh pooh them either. He does. But a former colleague is not a disinterested party in a criminal investigation.
I’d throw out his entire analysis as it is (or could be) subject to bias.
What conflict of interests? Does he still have a lot of shares of the company?
@alex, @js, etc:
Agreed that Zaaim Redha does not have a conflict of interest as much as he seems to be an INTERESTED party. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as many who contribute their (significant) time and (significant) expertise to this blog are interested parties in their own way. But there are other questions one can ask about this story that suggest a more-subtle sculpting of an agenda, I think.
First, by my reading of the article, Zaaim Redha seems to be basing his analysis on the same information available to us all since May of 2014, information called by many “raw data” but that really is, according to Inmarsat itself:
“a readable summary of the data communication logs…”
That same summary has been called into question by the likes of Michael Exner, whose analysis at the time, according to CNN, “suggested that there were gaps in the notes explaining the data.”
And from the South China Morning Post at the same time:
“Inmarsat admitted the data it had released had been simplified and that it had published parts that were “important”. Mark Dickinson, Inmarsat’s chief engineer, told a US television interviewer the data could not in itself be used to recreate Inmarsat’s work…”
Second, the article takes as gospel the Malaysian government’s insistence that the flaperon is from MH370—reinforcing one questionable conclusion with another:
“He [Zaaim Rehda] said the discovery of an aircraft wing part, called a flaperon, on the Indian Ocean island of Reunion last month – which Malaysia had confirmed was from MH370 – also lent credence to Inmarsat’s findings.”
Third, the article casts doubt on alternate explanations for the flight’s disappearance by listing the most outlandish theories first, a sort of reductio ad absurdum:
“He [Zaaim Rehda] also pooh-poohed the various conspiracy theories, which had linked the plane’s disappearance to alien abduction, meteors…”
Finally, why this article today? If I’m not missing something, the Inmarsat report has been available since May of 2014. Why did the reporter find the need to pursue this story a year and a half after the incident? Why is Zaaim Redha’s point of view important now? Why is he the only source for the story?
Now, back to the agenda: I really don’t know what it could be; and I’m not necessarily saying the Inmarsat findings or the flaperon don’t tell the true story of MH370. I don’t know. But to see this as a solid report—particularly when coupled with the inconsistencies mentioned up-thread, ie., Zaaim Rehda’s belief that the oil rig worker could be an eyewitness—might be a too generous conclusion.
ALSM,
“There may have been a fire and decompression, but if that happened, there are many difficult unanswered questions left about the turns etc.”
Not at all. The only question to be answered is why the crew did not attempt to dump fuel.
But I should admit that Gysbreghts’ trivial explanation of the AP mode (i.e. “door locked by mistake”) gave a second chance for the AP hypothesis to stay on the table.
@Brock
“Need CSIRO to update drift analysis with effects of wind and waves set to zero”
– the CSIRO July 2014 A0 poster gives some sense of this (see later), though I seriously doubt it was drifting for extended periods metres below the surface
“SIO… I tend to mean within ATSB priority search area”
– I suggest we all agree NOT to use this very narrow definition. SIO should refer to the extended and vast geographical feature. I’m open to suggestions on its northern limits, but it should I think at least include the ATSB wide search area
“Rydbergs result is questionable”
– I agree. To take a single observed debris point after 16 months of drift, and to try to infer from it a tiny starting location is futile. We will never have the perfect knowledge of the system (perfect drift model, perfect knowledge of the present distribution of debris) required to allow such an analysis to be meaningful.
“What I question are.. 7th arc S33-38 to Reunion BEFORE Western Australia”
– This appears to be an article of faith for you, rather than one of reason. Can you explain why you apparently accept models that suggest early debris at WA, but reject models which suggest limited interaction between a 7th arc debris field and the WA coast. (Leaving aside for the moment the probability that any debris making a WA landfall could lie undiscovered until now).
“Surveying fracture zones for resource extraction companies”
– Please elaborate. I) What exactly are your ‘fracture zones’, ii) what resources would be extracted from them, iii) which companies would be interested in recovering them from these depths/locations, iv) how would these companies gain traction over the ATSB and the other expert entities contributing to the search strategy in order to divert then from a more reasonable search area? Unless you can provide comprehensive answers to these 4 questions, I think rational observers would be right to dismiss your claims as paranoid and unfounded.
“Pro-establishment hat”
– you have a pro-establishment hat??
“I have for over a year now believed that the best approach was to cover a massive stretch of arc 7..”
– So you are now an Inmarsat data ‘believer’??
Apologies for the last two. 🙂
@all
The info poster prepared by Griffin and Schiller of CSIRO (apparently in July 2014, though presented at a talk in October) may bear revisiting.
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~griffin/sems/2014_OSTST/10-14%20David%20Griffin%20flight%20MH370%20O&A%20A0%20PRINT.pdf
To recap:
– the AMSA drift working group members (one of which was CSIRO) used 4 different ocean current models (2 Australian and 2 from USA), and several different particle tracking packages.
– they ran drift simulations throughout the initial search period to 28th April 2014 for debris with different leeway assumptions and for a range of crash locations
– eddies on scales as small as 5-50km take objects in different directions. Downwelling and upwelling currents aggregate and disaggregate objects
– due to surface current shear, deep drafted items drift differently to shallow floating objects
– AMSA dropped a substantial number of satellite drift buoys during the search, and there were deep drafted Global Lagrangian Drifter buoys in the area. CSIRO hindcast to ALL of these to validate their drift models
– the debris distribution plots shown in the poster use the original models from the search period, but are based on the later ATSB June report priority search area as a starting point, northwards up the arc from the current search area. Results from 2 different drift models are shown.
– the 2 models are quite different, even at the early run end date of 6th July 2014, illustrating the expected uniqueness problem for models that are calibrated to a sparse observed drift dataset
– in the second model (IMOS), leeway has a dramatic impact in accelerating drift westwards
– the deep drafted Global Drifter (reduced impact of surface currents) moves almost due west in this period from a starting location at 30S 104E
– modelled drifters match this observed global drifter movement for around 4 months, and this is considered much longer than is normally the case, again indicative of the expected lack of small scale resolution of the models
Can anyone run a drift model simulation for this?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/worlds-oldest-message-in-a-bottle-ever-found-finally-washes-up-after-108-years-10464887.html
@sk999 No problem. Combining the results of some of my proprietary drift models with a few clues I teased out of your article, for the bottle to have washed ashore on the German Island of Amrum 108 years later, it had to have originated at Plymouth, England.
An interesting news piece below:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/08/23/asia-pacific/mh370-civil-investigators-fear-criminal-probes-hurt-efforts-make-flying-safer/#.Vdo_BHZ–Uk
OZ
Some additional thoughts :
– The present CSIRO model appears to be a derivation of the first of the models in the poster (Bluelink, with BOM currents and wind, now with added wave interaction). One of the U.S. models (GEMS?) was shown to be in error in use of wind data, but has now presumably been updated. I’d be very interested in a projection to present day of all 4 drift models noted in the poster, for a range of different leeways, and a comparison with other models in the public domain in the way that Brock did recently
– I wonder if they have addressed the likely size and orientation of a sea bed debris field based on their models. Debris will have floated for a range of times before sinking, and been affected differently by deeper currents on the long long drop to the ocean floor. Perhaps this is immaterial if they are effectively targetting engines and landing gear with their focus close to the arc.
– I am still slightly uneasy at the moves made very early in the surface search in March 2014. After a very limited time on a large search area close to the calculated (at that time) terminal location of the aircraft, the search was moved to a much smaller area to the south east of what is now the 7th arc, based on objects seen by satellite on the 16th March. This was presumably consistent with drift modelling at the time (page 6 of the June report is slightly ambiguous), but no models presently seem to have debris travelling in a SE direction, towards the classic circumpolar trend. It is of course possible that at this early time, uncertainty in the 7th arc definition and desperation for a lead trumped any considerations of drift.
@Sk999
This is a very tough group. We will probably never hear from Professor Chen again, or from Dr. Bobby relative to the contrail analytics, and now we can add all drift modelers to list. You had better be rock solid to chime in here. I think I like that.
Dennis
@Gavin, Sorry it took a while to get this up; comments with multiple URLs must be approved by hand, and I was out for the day.
Jeff
@DennisW Tough group though it might be, I particularly would like to see Dr. Bobby Ulich release a further report regarding contrails, distrails, acooustics, etc. Dr Ulich did return to posting on Reddit this week, as always contributing succinctly and intelligently. https://www.reddit.com/user/DrBobbyUlich On April 30, He stated his intention: “Yes, I will produce a revised report with corrections and additions once the analysis of all the possible contrail features is complete.” http://jeffwise.net/2015/03/07/new-york-how-crazy-am-i-to-think-i-actually-know-where-that-malaysia-airlines-plane-is/comment-page-24/#comments
@ Dr. Bobby Ulich: Dear Dr. Ulich: I understood your posts to Jeffwise.net so much more readily than the posts to twitter, that I though I would ask here: Have you been able to develop a report regarding contrails, distrails, acoustics, etc.? If so, I believe a great many MH370 followers would relish reading it. Glad to see you writing on reddit again.
@Dennis
I think it might be of some interest to put perspective on things here. We should not lose our way, but contribute with as good signal-to-noise level as possible.
I see there are a number of claims recently that are false. Here is a list:
1. Backwards propagation from Reunion ends up further north, hence further north must be the origin of the debris.
This is not correct. What is correct is that the total amount of landfall increases with latitude, as can be seen on page five in my recent paper. This increase in total amount leads to the false conclusion that in order to hit reunion, the debris must come from the north end. What one rather needs to do, regardless of drift model, is to look at how the debris gets distributed acrosss the continents, as a function of where it
originates.
2. Small probabilities are less accurate tha high probabilities
This is not correct. When it comes to functional analysis and distributions, probabilities will be small almost everywhere, which is simply a matter of subdivision and everything having to sum up to one. Tail behavior happens to be very important in many aspects of physics, from
gravity to electrical signals to quantum mechanics. A partial differential equation does not get less accurate away from the source.
3. Restricting possibilties to the 7th arc is invalid
This is not correct. The order of significance of the sparse evidence we have is roughly BTO > Radar > BFO > Flaperon. We cannot expect the observation of one piece of debris to change this order. What we can expect is to find consistency between where along the 7th arc the Radar and BFO data suggest we look, and where along the 7th arc the Flaperon find suggests we look.
4. The drift analysis does not show any debris on the WA coast, therefore it must be wrong
Since we have not observed any debris along the WA coast, it is of course essential that the models capture this fact, and presumably nobody disputes that. When it comes to Sebille’s web model, it does show this feature for the precise coordinates (34S, 93.9E). During the first simulation year, no part of the distribution falls on the boundary, which can be checked by comparing to, for instance, the edge of the distribution after ten years, or by comparing to any definition of coastline that makes sense, or any combination thereof.
When it comes to what conclusions that can be drawn from the drift analysis in general, I am not expecting it to be very accurate. I do, however, think that one can draw some general conclusions:
A. The south end of the 7th arc mostly ends up on the WA coast or stays at sea for a long time.
B. The northern end of the 7th arc mostly ends up along Madagascar and neighboring western and northern coastlines.
Between these two extremes, there is a more chaotic region that makes the distribution spread over more than one continent. In the Sebille case, it so happens that one of those intermediate points shows initial landfall
exclusively on Reunion. The details between models may vary, but it should be clear that the middle region along the 7th arc is the region which shows the most interesting behavior.
@M Pat, Brock and all
SIO definition: in the absence of a formal definition, I suggest we use some round numbers for our purposes such as 20S to 60S (which is the northern limit of the Southern or Antarctic Ocean). Importantly though, if referring to barnacles, we would need specific latitudes (rather than just “common in the SIO” etc.). Any thoughts?
Hi Jeff,
Many thanks for your comment August 23 2015 8.38 PM,
But where is my post? Am I missing something?
@Henrik
“Restricting possibilties to the 7th arc is invalid” I understand where you are coming from with this but I am open to other options. This whole incident is so strange and in some ways there is more information between the lines than in the lines IMO. Many times we have seen a reaction (if you like) to criticism of the current search, e.g. many of us have whinged about lack of debris and hey presto we have some! Then Erik van Sebille’s graphic in the NYT is replaced with the CSIRO’s. OK, it is fair enough to call me a cynic, but something is not right about all this. So for the meantime I will continue to “sit on the fence” and allow for the possibility that the plane is not in the current search area. Can we agree to disagree?
@all
Buoyancy
Before the french leaked their info about the floating characteristics below surface, i was thinking quite a bit about why the flaperon could be caught in intertidal waters at all for a considerable period of time.
There was the credible report of a fisherman and a mother with her 10 year old son that confirmed, the flaperon was near the shore as early as around May 10th. The fisherman reported the detail, that the barnacles were alive by that time.
So the part didnt fall dry for longer periods and was somehow caught in intertidal waters. If the part was floatable at the surface, it would have been dragged out to the open sea again, but this did not happen. The only reason i would imagine then is, that it was no longer able to float at the surface by the time it hit the coast at Reunion. Either some event happened that affected the buoyancy or it never saw the surface before. So at high tide it stayed at the bottom of the intertidal waters, so that it was not drawn back into the open sea at low tides. Also it made final landfall near to the point it was first seen, so didnt drift around very much. A week ago i was thinking, why the buoyancy of this part was so delicately balanced and could not help but ask myself if there was just another of those convenient events that fit to to the agenda of someone, e.g. if someone placed the part there he would make sure that it stayed there, so alter the buoyancy.
This makes the situation of finding the flap even more mysterious, because it was found only hours shortly after final landfall. And why was a municipal search party for debris on their way exactly at the right location and on that very day?
@CosmicAcademy, The MH370 saga has been plagued throughout by unreliable alleged eyewitnesses, the latest of which have been the Reunion islanders who claim that they saw the flaperon back in May. I think that we have to make clear that, based on the condition of the barnacles, which appear to be either alive or very fresh (see my post on the subject), the purported May beaching could not have occurred.
It seems to me that the barnacle colony size is smallish for the flaperon being floating around for a long time since the suggested end of flight location.
@MH
colony size
Well, the places whithout paint seem to be quite crowded, do they?
There are not very precise criteria to estimate the time of colonization, but one is, that you can look at the fotos and try to find out whether there individuals attached to the stalks of larger individuals. This can happen multifold and give some impression of how many “generations ” of colonization tok place. Its not very precise, but if you see one barnacle atached to the stalk of another one that is atached to the stalk of another one and so on, you could guess, that this process some time.
Also if you are lucky to see from a foto whether an individual is adult, you have the estimate that the colony might be older than one year.
@Henrik
I agree with your post.
In particular:
1> I believe the plane is resting somewhere very near the 7th arc.
2> The location of a single piece of debris is just about meaningless relative to where it came from.
I do think the ATSB claims that the debris location supports that they are searching in the right place is misleading. If by the right place they mean the SIO as a whole I would agree.
I’m still waiting to hear if beach cleaner Johnny Bègue is related to former beauty queen/French reality TV star/famous-for-being
-famous celebrity and former Réunion islander Valérie Bègue. If so, I’d be inclined to think he got a call from central casting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val%C3%A9rie_B%C3%A8gue
@ M Pat
@ Henrik
Thank you each for your well-written and informed posts regarding the current pulse of the drift models. The takeaway really helps put into context all of the relevant bits and pieces of information floating around.
@Jeff Wise
Not to take away anything away from the French, but what does Boeing say, or were Boeing rep’s there shrugging their shoulders too? If it’s from a 777 then it has to be MH370.
M Pat: my strong sense that Western Australia (WA) was a far more likely a priori 1st shoreline is an article of evidence, not faith:
– WA locals strongly expected to see it (per Jeff’s reporting)
– Deltares (HYCOM) predicts it
– Dr. Pattiaratchi’s probability cloud graphs predict it
– Sebille’s drift models predict it
– Dr. Ebbesmeyer’s model (Ocean Motion) predicts it
I have seen only three instances in which debris generated below 33.5s latitude misses WA:
1) UWA “paths” graphic: in my report, I overlay the probability cloud and path graphics, to demonstrate their commonality. I am confident that the “path graph” has simply suppressed the entire eastern half of generated scenarios.
2) Henrik’s work: I thank Henrik for his work, and for his thoughtful post to this forum. But Sebille himself considers the southern half of the wide area (the only half they’re planning ever to search) to be highly unlikely as an a priori source of this debris.
3) CSIRO: Griffin’s is (to my knowledge) the only model which adds x% of windspeed to all drift paths. (A careful perusal of CSIRO’s July graphs – which start debris from North of the planned search zone, so be careful what you conclude from it) suggests to me that adding wind is a key requirement for keeping your model’s debris off of WA shorelines (the 0% wind scenario shows debris nearly reaching WA by July). Regardless of how the 1.5% calibration was sourced, a flaperon would be nearly impervious to wind. With all due respect to the armchair windsurfing experts: even if this flaperon did have anything habitually sticking out of the water (unlikely, in a pounding surf and anywhere NEAR neutral buoyancy), it would rarely catch wind (very quickly pushed to a minimum drag position, where it would tend to remain.
In each of the above cases, the drift analysis is not “a priori”: assumptions have been either introduced or altered until the prediction matches the observation. “WA was missed, therefore our model needs to add more wind effect.” I dearly hope the dangers of this a posterior assumption-setting are self-evident.
The question I am trying to answer – and it is a very DIFFERENT question to the one Henrik et al are addressing – is: BEFORE the fact, what are the odds we’d see what we now see. The preponderance of the truly a priori evidence is clear: very long odds against.
Histories of other missing aircraft if interested.
http://news.aviation-safety.net/2015/08/05/list-commercial-aircraft-found-after-being-missing-for-over-one-year/
@Brock
You and Hendrik are both correct, and I like the work that both of you have done – a lot. The fact remains, that a singular piece of debris does not give us much in terms of confident inference.
Like the BTO and BFO data that we have. It is from one sample flight – the one that disappeared. I would love to have the data from other flights to look at. How hard could it be to provide that data? I understand it may be restricted under Inmarsat’s contract terms, but it would seem that simply asking customers for permission to release it would yield a prompt yes.
Let’s compare the probability of two scenarios and say that high speed impact and ditching hold both 50% of probability.
But if only flaperon has been found (which is one of the few parts that would fall off a ditching plane) that certainly raises probability for the second scenario (although we can’t safely conclude anything).
@StevenG,
How do you determine that the flaperon would be one of the few parts to fall off a ditching plane? Have you looked at any of the videos showing the operation of the flaperon during landing? It trails, in line with the effective airfoil section ( which is obviously modified by the flap extension, hence the flaperons droop a little). There are a lot of parts much lower than the flaperons, including the flaps themselves and the engines.
So, on the contrary, a partially damaged flaperon like this is much more likely to have detached during a high speed spiral descent, before the final impact.
@Fitzer-Flyer, Obviously this is all speculation, based on low-res photographs, and we’ll have to wait for the French technical report for clear answers (which hopefully will happen soon). One thing that I haven’t seen discussed much is the fact that the flaperon, though largely intact and free of e.g. torsional distortion, shows two major kinds of damage: the trailing edge is gone, and the actuator attachments appear to have been snapped off. I wonder which happened first? If the flaperon got into a flutter situation and the aft portion ripped off, one would imagine that would greatly reduce the stress on the actuator arms. Conversely, if it was ripped from the actuator arms first and sailed (or floated) free, you’d think that subsequent forces would be much less.
A look at the flutter videos shat the most “fluttering” occurs at the wingtips. There is hardly any flutter motion near the fuselage where the flaperon is located. How does it flutter off?
@Jeff
I have been close to offering an opinion relative to the flaperon damage many times. At the end of the day I always realize it would be pure speculation. I don’t know anything about the forensics of material damage.
Like you, I do think that the order of how things might have occurred will be an important element, however.
Gysbreght: Flutter is not a function of wing position, or aircraft position for that matter. Whole wings do flutter. But rudders flutter. Stabilizers (H&V) flutter. Each individual piece that has some freedom to move (like an elevator, aileron, flaperon, gear door, etc.) can start to oscillate at some natural resonate frequency and ultimately fail. The flapperon TE may have broken off due to flutter, and the rest may have broken off due to the increasing aerodynamic forces involved in a high speed descent.
one possible way for the flaperon to be damaged as per the collected one at Reunion is per the Asiana crash at SFO. MH370 may have hit a rocky shoreline or reef. however I am stuck on why the paint seems does not match MAS scheme.
@Gysbreght,
While most of the videos showing flutter indeed show a relatively slow period oscillation of the wings, especially in gliders, that is definitely not the issue here.
It is the control surfaces that are most vulnerable to the type of aerodynamic flutter that may have occurred in this instance. There have been many accidents caused by flutter in ailerons, elevators, and rudder. These moveable surfaces are normally mass balanced to help move the speed at which flutter might occur to well above the normal operating range for the aircraft. it is also important to ensure that there is no “slop” in actuating systems and hinges.
A modified P51 crashed at Reno a couple of years back. Cause attributed to flutter of the elevator trim tab due to loose screw and fatigue crack.
It is hard to see that the flaperon could be mass balanced. It’s design and the hinge mechanism seem to preclude that. Boeing documentation also mentions the possibility of flutter of the flaperon during static high thrust engine tests.
@Gavin,
Your very interesting comment is on page 2.
In a case of late approval the comment appears at the place it would have been if it was published immediately.
Here is a direct link for convenience:
http://jeffwise.net/2015/08/21/french-report-investigators-cant-link-reunion-flaperon-to-mh370/comment-page-2/#comment-123235
@airlandseaman:
Thank you for clarifying that you are thinking of flaperon flutter and not wing flutter. So what is the freedom of motion of the flaperon that adds energy in each cycle, increasing the amplitude so that the flaperon ultimately fails? What forces separate the trailing edge from the body of the flaperon?
Hot, molten magma, killer sharks, and “Rare Birds” on Réunion Island. Sounds like a plot for a movie about an isolated village down on its luck, hoping to revive its tourism industry. Too bad someone already made a film with that title.
Jeff, Gysbreght:
Is my understanding correct that the “gross weight” in Table 1.9A of the FI (p.46) should be read in the units of pounds rather than kg (i.e. 492,520 pounds, not kg)? If so, then it will be close to Jeff’s original estimate (223,200 kg).
————
Victor, Bobby:
ACARS data contain wind speed and wind direction. Knowing this data at various altitudes (I mean not only from MH370 but also from other aircrafts), it might be possible to see what effect wind could have on the ground speed. The same can be done using GDAS, but it is always better to use measured data if available.
@Ron
Thanks for pointing out where my post is.
I’m a bit of a newbie to this blog layout so I get a bit lost!
@MH
Yes, you have a very good point in that very few have ever noticed that the paint job on the flaperon does not appear to match that on 9M-MRO. This could just be a trick of light, but I do have 10 x HD photos that I found on the net and in eight of them they show it as a very light shade of blue and 2 as cream…. none as grey as per what you would expect. I wonder if anyone here on this blog has actually seen the unit to say otherwise?
It puzzled me for a long time as even I never noticed this for a long time and I wondered why? Eventually I came to the conclusion that everyone is so keen on an outcome to end this mystery that we all reach out and grab at anything that could explain what happened, whereas in reality we should be observing with caution so as not to jump to the wrong conclusions.
Then you take into account that the FAA has said that the mods (or maybe they meant the lack of mods?) don’t fit to the maintenance records of 9M-MRO, and then the cautiousness seems even more needed.
What is the mods they are talking about?
If you have a look at the post that @Ron kindly pointed out where it ended up and have a look at the AD’s, you’ll note that there have been problems in the area of the B777’s flaperons and in particular the last one where it was warned that certain mods were needed and if not complied with…quote: “… which could lead to the flaperon becoming unrestrained and consequently departing from the airplane”
I don’t know about you, but alarm bells really start clanging in my head!
No need for exceeding VNE, in fact no need for it to even have come from 9M-MRO.
It is suddenly out of the realms of impossibility that this flaperon came from another aircraft.
People have then suggested that Boeing would have known as soon as someone ordered a new flaperon… but would they? There has been to date 6 (maybe 7?) B777-200’s wrecked for parts, so it is very feasible a replacement flaperon came from one of these, – and Boeing would never have known.
Next question is generally “But the passengers would have known and said something?”… Would they? What if it was on a night flight? There are quite a few B777’s flying routes close to the area of Reunion, and if at night, all the passengers would have heard was a quick ‘thump’ as the flaperon departed, but probably never noticed anything more. Plane lands – unloads – into hanger for new one , and no-one is any the wiser…
Oh, and this last AD mentioned – being the only one applicable to this flaperon, must be the ‘mods’ that the FAA were talking about.
Here’s a link to the AD’s applicable to the B777-200. You’ll notice some other very interesting ones as well…
http://dgca.nic.in/mandmod/Aircraft/BOEING%20777.pdf
@Gavin
I don’t think the FAA has said anything relative to the flaperon found on Reunion Island. Do you have a link to those statements? Thx.
DennisW,
Thanks for your concern, but I would not regard this group as being “tough”. Noisy, yes, and prone to go off on bizarre tangents. Eventually level thinking returns.
Interesting new drift paper here:
http://tinyurl.com/ofm87zj
@DennisW
By doing a quick Google search – this one New York Times: 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=Homepage&_r=2
If you hunt around a bit, you will find more…
@airlandseaman,
Thanks for the link to that study paper.
It is interesting to note that the paper expressly states that the likelihood distribution favours a more northern crash location.
However, when I looked at Fig 2 in the paper, it occurred to me, that the inference from the two, north vs south, arc locations’ probability distributions is flawed in it self.
Given that only a single candidate of debris has been found, and despite searching in its vicinity, not anything else, the flaperon may very well be an early find in a rather dispersed debris field (of giant proportions) and represent the “tail probabilities”, rather than “high probabilities”.
In that sense, it would be rather more likely to indicate that the southern location should be favoured, since it has tail probabilities of Reunion land fall.
If the probability distribution of the northern location is taken, we should expect lots of debris on the Madagascan East shoreline as well as the East African coast just across from the northern tip of Madagascar.
Cheers
Will
I have posted this elsewhere on this website, but I feel it needs to be said again….The whole basis of the claim that this flaperon is off Flight MH370 is purely circumstantial and as a good friend aptly put it, “The problem with the current press release is it is a confirmation by absence of alternatives, not a confirmation by presentation of proof. This would be like me saying, “We know men walked on the moon because the men weren’t seen on earth at that time”, and what I should be saying is, “We know men walked on the moon because we saw the pictures of them walking on the moon and they left stuff behind that proves they were there”. Absence of alternatives means we can’t think of another alternative. It is plausible that somehow another B777 lost a flaperon in the approximate area and … maybe the world has been duped?
I personally don’t think the world has been “duped,” but instead they all just want an end to this mystery, so everyone is understandably happy to accept anything that comes along… but that doesn’t help the families!
This whole flaperon issue needs to be taken with caution….it is not confirmed to be off MH370 and unfortunately it may never be… it would be great if it was, because then we would know and get on with our lives.
Take this flaperon out of the equation and what have we got…. still nothing… just theories!
@Gavin,
Just a little remark on the airspeed limits of the 777-200ER.
If I’m not mistaken the 777-200ER is considered the same type as 777-200. Now the 777-200 have a little lower airspeed limits than all other 777 subtypes (including the 777-200LR):
VMO/MMO = 330KIAS/.87M.
all others have (including the 777-200LR):
VMO/MMO = 330KIAS/.89M
Source – The FAA type certificate:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/8f760532478d923286257c6a00631141/$FILE/T00001SE_Rev_34.pdf