Earlier this morning a South African radio station posted a story about a local family that found a piece of aircraft debris while on vacation in Mozambique in December.
18-year-old Liam Lotter has told East Coast Radio Newswatch while they were on holiday in Inhambane in December – he and his cousin came across what he describes as the “shiny object” while walking on the beach. They brought it back to KwaZulu-Natal. Lotter says it was only after seeing news reports last week about another piece of debris found on a sandbank off Mozambique that his family saw a possible link. Liam’s mother Candace Lotter has since been in contact with South African and Australian authorities.
The story included a couple of pictures:
UPDATE: On Friday, March 11 Reuters published more photos:
Here’s an image that provides a sense of scale:
The code “676EB” in the top photograph refers to an access panel hatch in the right-hand outboard flap of a 777. The images below show the equivalent structures on the left-hand side.
Given that no other 777 has gone missing at sea, and that the Réunion flaperon has been conclusively identified as coming from the missing flight, then it’s very hard to imagine that this part didn’t come MH370.
Given that after nearly two years only a single piece of debris had heretofore been found, it’s extraordinary that in the span of less than two weeks three pieces of possible MH370 debris have come to light.
First, of course, was the piece found by Blaine Alan Gibson on a Mozambique sand bar in late February:
Followed a few days later by reports that Johnny Begue, who found the flaperon later linked to MH370 in July of 2015, had found what might be another part of the plane:
One striking feature of these three latest finds, that many people have commented on, is the striking absence of barnacles, algae, or other forms of sea life. That’s in striking contrast to the flaperon:
Some have suggested that the pieces might have been grazed clean by crabs after making landfall, or scoured clean by the action of waves and sand. According to IB Times, one Mozambique official believes that Blaine’s piece probably did not come from MH370 for this reason:
Abreu was also quoted Friday by state news agency AIM, saying that any claim that the debris belonged to the missing Flight MH370 was “premature” and “speculative,” according to All Africa. He also expressed doubts that the debris may not be from the missing Boeing 777 as the object was too clean to have been in the ocean for the past two years. However, he reportedly said that “no aircraft which has overflown Mozambican airspace has reported losing a panel of this nature,” First Post reported, citing AIM.
Hopefully a thorough investigation by the authorities will clarify the issue.
Worth noting that the second Mozambique piece was found 125 miles south of the first one, while both of the Réunion pieces were found on the same beach.
@Littlefoot
Yeah, I agree, but lawyers can be mysterious for the rest of us to deal with. My SO who does have a PhD in EE also has a JD (Cali bar). Our ranch is so remote that you cannot see another structure in any direction. If I leave a ladder leaning against the barn, garage, house,… while working on something she becomes hysterical. Her fear is that some child/teenager will come along. climb up, and get injured. The ladder is in a category one could deem as an “attractive nuisance” (like a swimming pool), and you have to take “reasonable precautions” so that people who are unable to “appreciate the risk” don’t harm themselves. Drives me nuts, actually.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
@Dennis, yes lawyers’ minds work in strange ways sometimes. But I think in the case of the debris a lawyer should even appreciate Victor’s questions and realize that they are necessary. Victor and others like me who aren’t yet convinced that the debris made it from the crash site all on it’s own to Mozambique are as interested in finding the plane – or at least solving the case – as Blaine Gibson.
For the geo-politicians and terror researchers, looks like Uighurs are well present in IS ranks.
From the Australian:
Most are foreigners, but in recent weeks the Shia militia defending the lines around Amiriyat Fallujah have found themselves regularly attacked by al-Ingimasayeen fighters from even farther afield than normal — Central Asia and China.
“Twice in the past month I have called the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, telling them to contact foreign embassies in Baghdad, as the battlefield is filled with bodies from Malaysia, The Philippines or Bangladesh,” said Brigadier Sayeed Hamid al-Jasser, the commander of Ansar al-Marjaeya, the Shia volunteer unit on that sector of the front. “Twenty days ago we killed a lot of Chinese here. But I am getting tired of calling the ministry. No one ever comes to collect the foreign bodies and they seem to find my phone calls amusing. I do not wish to be a joke for them.”
“All of these Daesh were the same size and face, from one country — and dirty, like they hadn’t washed for a year.”
“who found themselves waking in the middle of a skirmish, shooting from the flaps of their tents at the wild-eyed Asian fighters charging among them.”
@jGG, You don’t think we’re going to glean anything from this situation? That may be true, but that’s not why this case is interesting to me, personally. It’s a mystery, so we feel compelled to try to solve it. Along the way, it’s been fascinating to find a community of interesting souls come together around it. Even if the answer is somehow disappointing I won’t feel this has been a wasted effort.
SharkCaver – “I am one who has been to the bottom of that cliff line, but I would suggest I am one of a handful to do so.”
Don’t get me wrong, I look forward to your comments and knowledge, but that is a 1960 view. On any day in this country nowadays, someone will be standing at the bottom of that cliff.
@Littlefoot
My JD SO informs me that lawyers (also doctors and the like) must exercise extreme caution relative to dispensing information which might be construed as advice (or opinion) to a client. Even if the lawyer/doctor never intended the recipient to be a client, the relationship is judged from the point of view of the person receiving the advice (client assumption) not the lawyer/doctor providing the information.
As an extreme example, Victor or someone else could incur liabilities (i.e. travel expenses to Mozambique) that could be construed as the result of advice provided Gibson and attempt to make a claim for reimbursement from Gibson if the perceived purpose for the expense was not realized.
Tricky shit, and completely irrational IMO. One of many many reasons I am not a lawyer.
If anyone has seen the report about the “Four Corners” reporters being arrested for asking Najib a question about his corruption allegations.
It’s feasible Blaine may have gotten in over his head very fast, suddenly unsure of whom to trust being dictated by paranoia. We simply don’t know what he may have been confronted with.
Regardless, he has probably earned a no speculation pass for now, based on all his prior contributions.
Quick update on fastener. The part is exactly as Gary stated (Hi Lok titanium pin) spec sheet linked below. The first dash number being the diameter in 32nd’s of an inch i.e. -6 -> 6/32 = 3/16.
http://www.aviaquip.com.au/pdf/hiloc/hl1013.pdf
Now on to finding the exact pedigree of the VS marking which I agree seems to stand for Voi Shan.
@Gysbreght. “Has anyone found an explanation for the step in the flange of Gibson’s part?”
Not that I have heard though it is an obvious indicator of the origin. From some photo angles there is a kink in the line of the fastener holes with a slight edge and hole line curve adjacent to the remaining HyLok fastener. Maybe an illusion.
More generally, I would not expect Boeing direct comment, being a party to the investigation; and any comments from the manufacturer could be seen as self serving.
One undisclosed US expert reportedly, and very early, identified the part as from the right stabiliser. Maybe the flange had something to do with that.
@Gysbreght. I took it that by “flange” you meant the bottom skin bulge, which clearly does jink.
@David
I am confused by that “jink” as well. I am assuming it was the result of impact damage.
@Littlefoot
Relative to Gibson:
begin cut-paste//
Gibson has served 16 years on Washington State Bar Association committees working to streamline the system of justice. He has chaired the bar association’s ethics committee and is recognized for his expertise in the area of legal ethics.
end cut-paste//
link:
http://www.dailysunnews.com/news/2004/jul/20/yakima-attorney-is-superior-judge-candidate/
My current take on it is what I expressed earlier. He is simply distancing himself for ethical reasons. That seems to be a “hot button” for him.
I am OK with that. I am not OK with the trajectory the part will take after leaving Gibson’s hands.
“Don’t get me wrong, I look forward to your comments and knowledge, but that is a 1960 view. On any day in this country nowadays, someone will be standing at the bottom of that cliff.” _ Matty.
Sorry Mat. But again i disagree. 1960’s or 2016, there is only two ways to get there. Via a long sea voyage which for safety reasons will be giving this area a wide berth. The other way to access the bottom of this 80m, badly eroded chunk of shear limestone wall is by rope. 20 years ago, young and full of bravado, i did the latter. I know of no other who has been there. As the cliffline tapers off at its ends and transforms into beachline, then i agree you will have people exploring those areas. But for the 300km of cliffline, not a sole will be found.
I type this from a bus today. A 6 hour journey to the South Coast. I should conduct a social experiment: grab the pa and ask how many fellow passengers have looked for 9m-mro debris.
The only plausible reason why no debris were located in that part of WA was simply because MH 370 never ever got there.
Even suspending logic and using the IMMARSAT data and after offsetting for fuel burn from IGARI to Penang, the furthest my calculations place MH370 would be north east off Exmouth or thereabouts, closer to CI and south Java than Ozzieland. But that would also entail including a whole lot of absurd assumptions to fit the data. And that position also explains Oz radar not picking it up.
Frankly, why I reject the IMMARSAT line is simply because of those assumptions and the fact that it does not explain comms off at all. I mean a pilot can switch that off but the probability of doing so precisely at changeover time is mind boggling. And jets do fly on after being ” hit” by a projectile which explains why the Kiwi saw what he saw from the oil rig when it shouldn’t be there.
An I don’t discount the possibility that Oz shot it down if my absurd scenario holds. And drift pattern data does highlight a higher probability of debris floating to Reunion from Christmas Island or thereabouts
Victor,
I replaced vertical ‘mode’ with the constant vertical velocity component in my CTS model, and the ascent of 0.1 m/s does work in terms of the fitting BFO & BTO. The problem is, however, that this value is smaller than the allowable discrete increments of 100 fpm or 0.1 deg in V/S or FPA modes respectively. The changes in the air pressure were subtle, so V/S = 0 or FPA = 0 do not seem to work.
Is it possible that V/S or FPA switches to ATT upon reaching certain altitude?
Wazir,
“The only plausible reason why no debris were located in that part of WA was simply because MH 370 never ever got there.”
In the previous thread I posted a link to Qatar University study, which indicated that high-speed vertical impact (nose down) also does not produce much debris. So we have two potential “candidates”: either slow and horizontal, or fast and vertical.
On top of it consider that all the drift studies indicated that most of the debris field would eventually be carried towards Madagascar (subject to buoyancy and wind). Finally note that you cannot discard possibility that the towelette was from MH370, so your statement “no debris” is just an assumption rather than the fact.
@Dennis
http://www.tmfile.com/mark/?q=716747797
another info on the trademark VS
No, I don’t mean the bulge.
The center of the panel is stiffened by honeycomb material about 1″ thick. Near the edges of the panel the honeycomb is ‘chamfered’ (tapered off to zero thickness) so that the inner skin joins the outer skin to form the bolted flange without honeycomb between them. In the following graphic the honeycomb chamfering zone is between the dotted lines, and the bolt flange (the thin edge of the panel) is outside those dotted lines:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/epob5c9yjr00qv1/Schermafdruk%202016-03-14%2009.11.40.png?dl=0
The remaining fastener is offset from the extended center line of the remaining bolt holes by about 9 mm. In the following picture I have cut one of the photos of the Gibson part along the the edge of the flange where it would have been on the undamaged part:
[add prefix]dropbox.com/s/4573ka67jkhcs6h/NoStepFragment.JPG?dl=0
Google Translate definition of “flange”:
a projecting flat rim, collar, or rib on an object, serving to strengthen or attach or (on a wheel) to maintain position on a rail.
“the flanges that held the tailpipe to the aircraft”
SharkCaver – Firstly, kudos for getting down that rope you mad bugger. I know the sea can get crazy but every time I have been to the bight it looks like this. During such days is there any impediment to dropping in for whatever? It also appears that the cliff sections are popular for drone/RC enthusiasts which I was thinking today would be the best to scour it? The seabed search will wind up soon one way or the other and the focus will be debris.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iWDAUUnQaA
@Oleksandr asked, “Is it possible that V/S or FPA switches to ATT upon reaching certain altitude?”
I doubt it, but without doing some research, I can’t say for sure.
@Oleksandr: After reviewing Dr. Chen’s research, talking to him, and communicating with another team member, I believe the hydrodynamics are excellent, but the aeronautics of a vertical entry and the impact mechanics are greatly oversimplified and neglect important phenomena that will lead to the breakup of the fuselage with vertical entry.
Gibson’s panel could perhaps be from the RH stabilizer tip, rather than the Forward Torque Box:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/v1s8zas0obr8lhb/B777_HS_photo1.png?dl=0
@Gysbreght. Thanks. Your second makes it quite clear. That is what I call the kink in my post and is harder to see than the more obvious jink in the bulge. Others believe it to be an illusion from the photos. The only purpose for it (and the associated bulge) that I see is that if indeed it attaches to the stabiliser spar/torsion box as has been thought, that has a like step. Hence if the 777 box has such a step this could be from that location but without that no, that surmise is wrong. I do not know what the box shape is and have not seen this all discussed elsewhere much less settled. It should all be obvious to investigators though. Supposing the torsion box thins towards to the stabiliser tip this would be from the left side, not right as has been asserted, that again supposing that the only room for it is forward of the box and near the root.
@DennisW. There does look to be deformation. Why I incline though to there being a designed jink is the linearity at the junction with Gysbrecht’s flange. However there is also the paralleling with the supposed adjacent edge kink as above which supports this as part of the production. Even so it not obvious why there would need to be a step in the spar/torsion box design.
BTW, does any one happen to know what are ISAT channel 3730 and 737E stand for?
@Gysbreght. Had not seen your third post. I cannot see from that if there is a break there in the line but that seems more feasible than on the spar at the root, if there is the width for it.Good.
@Gysbreght. When I blow it up the quality goes but there does appear to be a kink in just the right spot, below and to the left of the No Step. Would you confirm please? Length flange to apex is about 65cm. Do you think there is that tip cap width before the curvature at the tip?
@ Matty.
Thanks for that link. Puts the perspective in daft doesn’t it. Now you are talking – drones. I was at Fitzgerald River in Jan and watched a fella fly a drone down one of the beaches. Bloody fascinating to watch (like I need another hobby to get involved in). To my mind, that is the only way one will get eyes of that piece of shoreline.
I agree with you on this. The search will wind up (puts on the flame suit) and we will be left with bits and pieces of debris over the next few years and only by sheer good luck, will we ever know what happened. Sad really, but we must keep trying.
We should share a Margaret River red one day 🙂 and yabber all things MH370.
Victor, my recollection has it that you got Dr Chen or one of the team to admit that there may have been errors of judgement in that report. That’s far greater than you posted above. Debunked even. Does my memory serve me well?
@Sharkcaver, the idea that a 777 could be dived vertically into the ocean and slip undamaged beneath the waves is perhaps the most insane idea about MH370 ever to get a modicum of traction. As I recall, it turned out that Chen had calculated an entry speed of something like 40 knots.
@oleksandr
You probably meant this:
http://today.tamu.edu/2015/06/08/mathematician-theorizes-what-happened-to-mh370/
The comments accompanying that theory are both self explanatory and revealing, I guess. Anyway, with all due respect ,the guy’s a mathematician with probably a rudimentary knowledge of aeronautics and by extension aerodynamics.
And he speaks of water as if it is soft foam…….
As for the towelette, no forensics can ever say it was from mh370 either and the likelihood it being so is astronomically improbable considering hundreds of similar towelettes are filched off MAS flights to Australia daily. And to think of all manners of things that make up a jetliner, only a towelette after two whole years on a nearby coast and purportedly ( and I stress “purportedly”) a sizeable flaperon thousands of miles elsewhere! . A teeny weeny towelette at that …….I mean we would be better off grasping at straws.
@ jeffwise
Thanks for the update on the vertical thingy. Didn’t see the data but guessed as much
Don Thompson and Richard Godfrey have authored a thoughtful analysis hypothesizing an a new endpoint based upon the apparent default FMS guidance upon waypoint overflight. It’s posted on Duncan’s website, who, if I recall correctly, was the first of us to identify autopilot defaults as a critical issue.
@Bruce, Do you think someone should tell them that their endpoint has already been searched? I worry that they’re going to keep churning out those papers justifying the same terminus.
Jeff,
The paper I cited did not specify entry speed, so that it would be at least strange that the assumption was 40 knots. I also did not find it was suggested that the fuselage was undamaged. But I agree with the opinion expressed in that paper that “there would be no large bending moment”, or more exactly I would say the bending moment would be minimal. In addition, along-fuselage resistance would also be minimal. All together this would minimize scattering of debris on the surface. Only small buoyant pieces would rise up to the surface after the impact.
@Oleksandr: The link below references my comments from last June. I did eventually talk to the member of the team that was a specialist in impact mechanics. He agreed with my comments. The paper was a good first step in that very complicated hydrodynamics were modeled. However, the assumptions about vertical speed (43 kn) and the fracture mechanics were not correct. I did not realize that some are still accepting the conclusions.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a8t6rfcod5vmnsw/Chen%20paper.pdf?dl=0
Yes, I see that line too, but I think that line is about 57 cm from the tip. (The tip chord is about 250 cm).
So maybe it’s not a B777 fragment after all?
Wazir,
“As for the towelette, no forensics can ever say it was from mh370 either and the likelihood it being so is astronomically improbable considering hundreds of similar towelettes are filched off MAS flights to Australia daily.”
I am getting tired to explain the same thing: the towelette may or may not be from MH370. Do you object this statement? If no, how can you derive your conclusion based on the assumption that the towelette was not from MH370? You said there were no debris on Australian shores, not me.
Re: “astronomically improbable”. Please prove this. Or you think “hundreds” of unopened towelettes are disposed by MAS on Australian beaches? On contrary, now I think the chances that the towelette was from MH370 are pretty high. Mainly because the location and timing are consistent with some drift studies.
Victor,
Somehow I missed that discussion. Why did they assume 43 kn instead of 430? Even free-fall nose-down engine-off speed would be much higher than 43 kn.
Victor,
Thanks. I forgot to mention that I also used ‘nearly’ constant airspeed (‘nearly’ – because I modified thrust formulation to achieve target constant airspeed without major changes in the system of ODEs). Good fit, but so far I can’t find a reasonable explanation for ‘legitimate’ mode to justify slow ascent.
@oleksandr
Let me crystal clear on several points. At no point did anyone authenticate that that towelette was from MH370 irrespective of whether it was used or unused. And no one could verify or ascertain how it got to Thirsty Point.
At no time did I come across any biological examination of the same towelette despite the possibility of contamination by marine organisms :
http://english.astroawani.com/malaysia-news/mh370-inspect-organisms-stuck-towelette-experts-55451
And my assertions regarding the towelette are based on the laws of probability in that a singular landing of debris from tonnes of potential wreckage makes that particular debris landing all the more astronomically improbable. You may aver otherwise but we can agree to disagree on that point.
In short nothing pertaining to the towelette lends credence to the assertion that it floated up from the carcass of MH 370 and by default the contention that it was Australia’s first receipt of “evidence”
For the rest of the readers, here are a couple of blasts from the past:
https://dayre.me/dellazai/wN0kUekLCK
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304732804579427991198487418
@all
The Hi Lok ( manufactured by Voi Shan) fastener HL1013-6 shown in Blaine Gibson’s find is still labeled in the same manner today as it was when the part was first offered. I am told that the markings have been retained through all the ownership transitions (and there have been several).
The listed phone numbers for Voi Shan all get routed to sales (no surprise there), and I finally got passed off to a tech support engineer who provided the answer above. I have names, but was not asked to publish them without getting the same answer through Voi Shans legal department which is, of course, required for “official” release of information.
So the fastener cannot be used to rule out that the debris found by Blaine came from 9M-MRO. Nor can it be used to support that it did.
Finally, despite being exposed to professional sales people I did not buy any fasteners.
@Jia_ZIjian, the four-digit hexadecimal numbers are the channel (the pre-agreed frequency and speed) that each part of the transmissions took place on. See:
* https://github.com/sladen/inmarsat-9m-mro/blob/master/frequencies.csv (Frequency maps)
* https://github.com/sladen/inmarsat-9m-mro/blob/master/frequencies.py (Explanation)
* http://www.paul.sladen.org/download/aaib/sladen-20140703-briefing-note.pdf (Footnote on bottom of page 10)
@EVERYBODY!
You’re all wrong! Got to feel sorry for those I.G. Boys though. They never ever stood a chance because they were hogtied from the start by a phenomenon called “pilot suicide denial”. Their flaperon flutter theory was implausable enough, but now the RH outboard flap inboard track fairing’s been found, their high speed spiral dive scenario is dead as a dodo.
The flap track housing and the flaperon come from the same area, the trailing edge of the RH wing. Now just what is that telling you? Well TO put it simply, it tells you the plane hit the drink at a shallow angle, right wing down, and FLAPS DOWN! with a person in the left hand seat, working the controls. Where’s the rest of the plane? at the bottom of the ocean. And the reason the ATSB chumps won’t find it in their search area is because that person had skillfully glided it maybe 100Nm downrange of the 7th arc
Rob,
What will you say when/if fragments of the other wing are found?
Wazir,
You did not answer my question. One more try: was it confirmed that the towelette did not come from MH370?
Your probability assessment is absolutely wrong. Until March only one piece was known to land on Reunion. Now possibly two. How many undiscovered fragments could be in Australia, how many could not be linked with MH370?
On the other hand, when you consider this towelette to be irrelevant to MH370, you need to account:
– How many passengers arrive to Australia by MAS, specifically west coast;
– Fraction of passengers, who do not use provided items onboard for intended purpose;
– Fraction of passengers, who take provided items with them;
– Rate of item loss on a beach.
Now you need to multiply all the probabilities. What will you get?
Re: “irrespective of whether it was used or unused”
It was unopened. I don’t know what you meant by used or unused.
Re: “In short nothing pertaining to the towelette lends credence to the assertion that it floated up from the carcass of MH 370”
Again wrong. Think again. Hints: MAS logo; unopened wrapping; consistent with drift studies.
You seem to be confusing absence of proof with the proof of the opposite.
@Olexandr, the towelette may be from mh370 or not. It may be drifted from the crash site or one of the hijackers took it as a souvenir and left it on that beach after they went on a vacation when their job was finished, or it’s a souvenir from one of hundreds of other MAS flights. Since there are so many possibilities it doesn’t matter. You simply cannot use the towelette in any coherent argument. There’s a reason that the authorities didn’t either.
Littlefoot,
Exactly. But try to explain that to Wazir. He wrote: “The only plausible reason why no debris were located in that part of WA was simply because MH 370 never ever got there.” I am having a problem with such a conclusion.
What I am saying is that this towelette appears to be consistent with the crash site between 25 to 35S.
Btw, one more ‘score’ for the towelette to be from MH370: it was dinner time when MH370 turned back at IGARI. One can expect towelettes to be provided just before dinner. It is very likely that towelettes were already distributed, but still unopened by many passengers when MH370 reached IGARI.
@Oleksandr, The fact that my left foot is bigger than my right foot is also consistent with a crash between 25 to 35S. But it does not increase the probability that the crash occurred there.
Jeff,
“The fact that my left foot is bigger than my right foot is also consistent with a crash between 25 to 35S.”
Agree. But do you think this fact is relevant to the disappearance of MH370?