Almost immediately upon Blaine Alan Gibson’s discovery of the “No Step” debris fragment in Mozambique, questions were raised about the relative scarcity of marine life growing on it. These questions were redoubled after two more finds came to light, one from South Africa and the other from Mozambique, which both looked surprisingly pristine for objects that had been in the water for two years. I explored the issue in a post on this site entitled “Bioforensic Analysis of Suspected MH370 Debris.”
This weekend IG member Richard Godfrey addressed the question in a post on Duncan Steel’s website. “One possible explanation for this obvious difference between the flaperon and the other items,” he wrote, “might be linked to the differing routes taken by the floating debris.”
As a point of reference, I’ve reproduced the current chart from that post (above). Though in reality the currents are not nearly as deterministic as depicted–there is a randomness to the motion of floating objects that causes them to spread out, like a drop of ink in a bucket of water–it does accurately portray the overall movement of things. The black bar represents the area where Godfrey thinks the plane most likely impacted the water, northeast of the current seabed search zone. He points out that to get to the locations where they were found on the coast of Africa, the pieces would have to have either passed around the northern end or the southern end of Madagascar.
In the image below I’ve sketched out what these paths might look like, more or less. The pink oval represents the central gyre seen in the current map above. The yellow line is a hypothetical path proposed by Godfrey that the flaperon might have taken on route to Réunion. The orange line is a hypothetical path that the capsized boat which washed up on Mayotte may have taken during its eight-month drift from northwestern Australia in 2013-2014. I suggest this is a plausible example of a “north route.” The purple line is an even more hypothetical proposal for a “south route” that I just sketched out freehand after watching some drift simulations.
In the first part of his post, Godfrey tackles the question of whether the African debris might have traveled through water too cold to allow the growth of Lepas anatifera, the species of goose barnacle found on the Réunion flaperon:
If floating debris took a path passing slightly further south of Madagascar then it could remain in colder waters (especially between July and October) below 30S, under which circumstance barnacle attachment and growth is contra-indicated. Thus it might be that the three items found on the coast of Africa reached their destinations via such more-southerly routes… The Paindane item (‘676EB’) discovered at around 24S may well show some evidence of marine life, even though it most probably arrived via the southern route past Madagascar, mainly occupying cooler waters… The Mossel Bay find (‘Rolls Royce’) might not be expected to show evidence of marine life because it was discovered at around 34S and may well have spent most of its ocean transport time in the cooler waters below 30S.
To evaluate this idea, I consulted the newly published paper “Endorsing Darwin – Global biogeography of the epipelagic goose barnacles Lepas spp. (Cirripedia, Lepadomorpha) proves cryptic speciation” by Philipp H. Schiffer and Hans-Georg Herbig of Cologne University in Germany (preprint available here). According to this source, Lepas anatifera can be found in waters where the temperature is greater than 15 degrees Celsius. South of this line a sister species, Lepas australis, is found:
To get a sense of where this transition zone occurs, I traced it out on Google Earth and superimposed a surface-temperature chart lifted from Godfrey’s post along with the previously described drift routes.
The southern boundary of anatifera’s range is the red line that passes through the seabed search rectangle:
As is quite readily apparent, all the routes lie entirely within anatifera’s range. Note also that the southern boundary lies well south of the gyre, meaning that anything that drifts beyond it is going to be swept eastward. It’s entirely possible that a piece of debris might have neared Africa and then been swept south into cold water that killed the anatifera, but after that the piece would have been carried back towards Australia. In order to move back west it would have to have first drifted north back into anatifera habitat, where it would have had approximately a year to get re-colonized. Remember, Lepas reach sexual maturity in 60 days and achieve full size in six months to one year. So these pieces should have been carrying a load of biofouling similar to the Réunion flaperons even if their initial population was killed off by the cold.
Godfrey also raises another possibility: that the African pieces are clean because they passed through ocean regions too low in nutrients to permit the growth of marine organisms. To check this idea, I consulted with a NASA website that archives world-wide chlorophyll concentrations, which can be read as a proxy for ecosystem nutrient level. Here I’ve overlayed the same set of drift routes over a nutrient map for March 2014, when the water is near its warmest:
And here are the nutrient levels in September, when the water is near its coldest:
Broadly speaking, there is an area of relatively low nutrient levels in the middle of the SIO that grows and shrinks with the seasons, being biggest when the water is warmer. In the warmer latitudes transient high-nutrient patches can be found, but they are transient in time and space. The southern end of anatifera’s range experiences consistently higher levels of nutrients, as does the ocean between Madagascar and the African mainland.
Godfrey writes:
Although it appears likely that the floating debris from MH370 was carried westwards towards Africa by the Indian Ocean South Equatorial Current through warm waters (i.e. where barnacle attachment and growth is feasible), these waters have relatively low concentrations of chlorophyll in the maps above, and therefore limited amounts of phytoplankton, and this militates against substantial barnacle growth.
The problem with this analysis is that the piece of debris which spent the greatest amount of time in the center of the Indian Ocean, with its low nutrient levels, is the flaperon, which has the greatest accumulation of Lepas, including some which have reached full size. The clean pieces, by contrast, have spent considerable time in the nutrient-rich waters near Madagascar.
Finally, I’d like to address an addendum to Godfrey’s piece by Don Thompson, who writes:
An alternative reason for the Réunion and Rodrigues items being barnacle-encrusted but not the other three might be as follows. The lepas (goose barnacle) colonisation may be a feature of proximity to coastlines inhabited by lepas colonies. Therefore, debris ‘dropped’ into a mid-ocean region (i.e. the crash site) might be expected to be ‘clean’ of lepas barnacles until free-swimming barnacle nauplii, released from reproducing coastal colonies, are encountered.
Again, Thompson has the situation reversed. Lepas are pelagic creatures which are adapted to rafting on the open ocean. Buoys placed far out to sea become heavily settled by them.
UPDATE 4-7-16: There seems to be some confusion about the lifestyle of the Lepas. Unlike some other genera of goose barnacle which can be found living in intertidal zones of the seashore (such as Pollicipes, a delicacy in Spain), those of the genus Lepas are obligate rafters, highly adapted to life floating free in the open ocean. Here’s an excerpt from Barnacles: Structure, function, development and evolution:
@sk999. Thanks for decyphering that oddity. A pilot friend of mine tells me that errors arising from confusing DD.MM.SS, DD.MM.MM, DD.DD have been the cause of many a mishap. It seems odd (to me) that the world of air navigation continues to use a system so vulnerable to mistakes, particularly with imperfect radio reception. As a matter of interest, there is a very clever new system that allows geolocation to within metres anywhere on the globe using “three words”. Have a look… http://what3words.com
@Warren
Nice work on the table explanation, by the way. I think we’ve got that settled.
It will be very interesting now to see what more pieces turn up (if any) and where they fit into the picture
@Phil
You’re not reading my post, or grasping what I’m saying (no change there then)
Just to clarify – he had no idea the Satcom handshakes or logons could be used to determine his position to any useful degree. If he had thought it possible, then he would have had to keep the SDU unpowered for the whole flight, not an inviting option.
He thought the logons would be signalling he was still in the air, no more than that.
Why he wanted us to know he had flown until fuel exhaustion, we will never know, perhaps you can give that one s try.
Basically he figured the further he flew/glided, the harder it would be to find him
Jeff,
With the different stages of Goose Barnacle development, ( L. Anatifera) the mobile (free swimming) phase is post fertilisation and lasts for up to a 2 month duration. It is critical for this free swimming phase to attach to something 15-17oC for development but optimum development is at 24-25oC. Submerged and sun-shaded positions are optimal for adult development.
@Phil
And if you want to entice me with a bone, you will have to do better than that.
Forget OLPUS – IGOGU/ISBIX/7th arc is where it’s at. Remember the 25 minutes (or thereabouts) after sunrise requirement for a successful ditching, after a flight south under cover of darkness.
If the Indian Ocean gyre is like a gargantuan vortex, then perhaps debris congregates near the center of the circulation system, at approximately 30S, 70E or so ?
Some speculated scenarios have hypothesized chemical or electrical fires aboard the aircraft, whose fumes knocked out the passengers and crew. Is there any evidence of “lithium ion battery smoke” or “wire insulation particulates” or “computer circuit board fiberglass” or what not chemically absorbed into any of the interior panel fragments ?
Also, would any autopilot flight mode increase aircraft altitude as ac mass decreased, so as to optimize or maximize fuel usage ? I understand that, from the FMT until fumes only, optimal ac altitude increases from FL350 to FL430, an average roc of approximately 15fpm
@ROB
How can there be a political statement from the pilot that was so clear that the malaysians even had to prove to the investigators that MH370 took off? The whole thing was that bizarre.
Dr. Ulich observed contrails in the IR spectrum. If Katherine Tee observed an ac on fire, trailing hot smoke, then that may have deposited an obvious linear thermal signature. Are those the contrails Dr. Ulich observed from satellite images?
Is OLPUS the only waypoint in the SIO, or are there even a few more? On international air routes out of Perth ??
I love the fact that Darwin (1851) is still cited. I wonder what his hirsch-index is?!
Do we know that the logon is from a flameout? Or if the plane was on the ground could the engines have been re-started to move the plane either on the ground or in the air? Does the 777 need ground assistance to start or can it start on its own?
@Trond
I don’t recall that one but yes the whole thing is quite bizarre, as you say. Unique as well, which is why no one knew how to deal with the consequences
@ROB
“Why he wanted us to know he had flown until fuel exhaustion, we will never know, perhaps you can give that one s try.”
Why would I give it a try? It’s your scenario that you’re so cocksure about; I would think you would provide a plausible rationale in support of each detail.
The bone I was throwing was the acronym of the waypoints… VMNO. Come oooooon… what better political statement than spelling out the ruling party name via waypoints?! (well, sorta). That’s got more pizzazz than some arcane IGOGU/ISBIX/geodesic arc offset stuff.
@Paul Smithson
“I love the fact that Darwin (1851) is still cited. I wonder what his hirsch-index is?!”
Slightly below that of your namesake 🙂
@Trip, Your comment about how to make crowd-sourcing effective is very insightful. I agree, it would be great to have some way to formalize the current state of understanding of some of these technical issues. A long time ago I put up a post with a title like “What We Know About MH370,” but it’s long since out of date. At one point there was some talk of setting up a wiki, and that could still happen if someone volunteered to do it. A big part of the problem is that unfortunately while a few things are agreed upon, many things are not. And the discussion doesn’t seem to be heading toward convergence, either.
Thought you might be interested in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJEvqExMHbE
@Gearo, Thanks, yes, this is exactly what I was hoping for. I’m going to add it to the post.
@Gearo: I wonder whether the officials are aware of the work done by @GuardedDon (Don Thompson), @Edward_767 (Ed Baker), and @aussie500 (Annette) to identify the part. The difficult part of their work might have already been done for them.
My original post seems to have lost half of its content.
”
Jeff,
With the different stages of Goose Barnacle development, ( L. Anatifera) the mobile (free swimming) phase is post fertilisation and lasts for up to a 2 month duration. It is critical for this free swimming phase to attach to something 15-17oC for development but optimum development is at 24-25oC. Submerged and sun-shaded positions are optimal for adult development.”
And again!!! Is there a word limit Jeff?
I’ve just watched the video added to the previous post, of the Mauritius piece, and though it makes sense in terms of the apparent discrepancy in the photos, I can’t understand how the piece has ended up so dramatically misshapen to begin with.
Does anyone have any thoughts about the curvature of it?
@Phil
That’s the one bit I’m stumped on. Yes even I have an Achilles Heel, you will be glad to know.
And as for the acronym thing, sorry but that stuff is totally wasted on me. Not your fault. I get my kicks from teasing out the facts.
@Susie: it looks to me that some sort of “medium energy” event, if that’s the way to put it, occurred. If it was straight in at Mach 1 a la airlandseaman we could expect the entire front end of the plane to accordion in and disintegrate, with the fragment showing no preferential damage.
What I see now is not the table itself causing the fragment to dislodge: rather just the opposite: it seems to have provided a bit of reinforcement.
On the other hand, the bending does not indicate a Hudson River picture perfect water landing.
If there were controlled inputs, yet there was not enough hydraulic power to deploy flaps, the a/c would have been coming it at ~200+ knots. Right side debris indicates right wing/engine hit first, consistent with direction of swells; a/c rolls to right a la ET961; left wing continues to provide lift contributing to the rolling effect; right wing then acts as hammer handle, slamming nose of the fuselage into a wall of water.
This would have been an extremely violent event, but there would have been no reef at least, unlike ET961. Conceivably the main fuselage could have mostly held up (explaining overall lack of debris). In any case, the #2R door is located in the middle of a main fuselage section, so it was in a relatively protected section of the plane.
But if the fuselage came to a quick stop, the inertia of everything attached to the fuselage in the interior would still be there. So, it looks like that whole lavatory bulkhead gave way. As it moves forward, the right hand section attached to fuselage remains attached momentarily, the bulkhead pivoting around the attachment, causing the main crack running in the fragment to the outboard of the piano hinge.
However, the table, assuming it was deployed, would make a nice, triangular reinforcement. It would have hit the door, or the bulkhead in front, the lavatory bulkhead would then fold over the top of the table, meanwhile, the lower part of the bulkhead folded around the lower strut of the table, causing the observed bending around the piano hinge.
If at this point, the #2R door imploded, that would pop the rest of the bulkhead (the outboard attachment) cleanly off the fuselage altogether, while completing breaking off the table and strut from its hinges.
Alternatively, if it was an uncontrolled descent, it must have somehow been much slower than indicated by airlandseaman’s simulation. Other simulations have achieved much slower results, e.g., one I found on pprune today by “suninmyeyes”, who claimed to be a 777 pilot, that indicated a sort of relatively gentle, paper-airplane-like glide down:
“basically a series of phugoid oscillations with bank angle between 5 and 25 degrees and pitch attitude between about 9 degrees nose down and 6 degrees pitch up. It was losing about 8000 feet and then gaining about 3 or 4000 feet with airspeed fluctuating between 220 and 340 knots.”
Sounded like it took a while too, because they cut short the simulation as it was taking too long. A much different picture than the near Mach 1 90+ degrees bank angles depicted in airlandseaman’s account:
http://www.pprune.org/8407235-post8642.html
If sticking it up the establishment was the goal, making the 7th arc unchallenged was the success.
Intentionally disappearing from that 7th arc has little further benefit, opens up debate on what truly happened and ignores a natural instinct of survival.
Being found and proven to be politically motivated would cause far more fallout – globally. look at the fallout to date on the MH ruling party, zip.
RF4 said it lately, no doubt we have heard it numerous times before: What one categorically calls fact is more often just opinion. Whilst opinion is healthy, stubbornly calling it fact is not. When we can get to the point of delineating fact from opinion, we might be able to move forward a little. Till that point, its round and round the IO gyre we go.
@Warren
@Susie
If I may just make one comment (not wanting to be a Mr Butinski, of course)
For the flap track fairing and flaperon to break away, the flaps would need to be extended at the time, in my opinion, which means the APU was running. Which is not what you would have in the uncontrolled gentle glide scenario.
Well said, @Sharky. I’m getting off this merry-go-round for a spell. There is only so much reading of the tea-leaves that I can put up with.
@ Warren, I remember that post, that was a long time ago.
IIRC, since then the sims done by ALSM and ATSB have shown TAC wasn’t removed after 2nd engine flame out and a spiral dive eventually ensued. I’m sure someone with better grey matter than mine can confirm or deny that.
APU might start automatically from fuel remaining in lines; heck even the engines could be expected to briefly restart. That could be where your logon comes from. But without controlled inputs, the flaps wouldn’t be deployed.
Thank you Warren for your thorough explanation. I know there were various experimental sim runs during the height of the pprune thread, but that one sounds as if it had a rather more peaceful outcome than most (as far as it went, anyway)
I have to admit I’ve forgotten an awful lot of what was discussed. Perhaps it’s worth a re-read in the context of the new finds.
Thanks again.
Thanks, @Gearo.
When one compares the image at the 0:45 point of that YouTube video to the piece found in Vabbinfaru May 31, 2015, it is hard not to notice the striking similarities:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72ZzBfLTVNRHNJaEU/view?usp=sharing
For anyone who didn’t have the time or energy to slog through my slide deck from Sunday: it suggested the Curtin event was one of several plausible impact locations north of the equator which might explain the debris pattern much better than does the 7th Arc (which predicted copious debris deposits on Australian shores in 2014). The Vabbinfaru debris – like the Curtin Boom – was dismissed because it was incompatible with the 7th Arc. At some point – when the latter is sufficiently searched out – we may need to start trusting the ISAT data with considerably less zeal than we have to date.
@Sharkcaver,
“I’m sure someone with better grey matter than mine can confirm or deny that.”
ALSM made it quite clear that the TAC was removed after the second flame-out. Whether the left engine or the right engine failed first made no difference, the airplane always turned in the direction the trim was set. Obviously the amount of trim set determines how fast the airplane banks and the maximum bankangle.
I’m somewhat sceptical about suninmyeyes’ post but for different reasons.
A landing on the ocean would be impossible. It is the same as hitting a wall. No debris, no crash. MH370 never touched the water.
Long time reader and lurker of this site, reading these comments are a bit like watching Doctor Who – I quite enjoy watching but if I’m honest half the time have no idea what’s going on.
More importantly, I just watched Mr Wise on a CNN news interview on MH370. Have to say, what a handsome bugger!
Sorry to go off topic just had to add my valuable two cents worth 😉
@brock
‘When one compares the image at the 0:45 point of that YouTube video to the piece found in Vabbinfaru May 31, 2015, it is hard not to notice the striking similarities:’
Very glad you refer to the madives find.
I for one think the resemblence in structure is striking.
The word was quickly dismissed as just a high-tec surfboard. Even though later there was news that a surfboard maker denied this could be the case.
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1848880/mh370-families-reject-malaysias-conclusion-reunion-wreckage-surfboard
I keep a very open mind to other locations than the current search zone.
Sharkcaver: The TAC returns to the manually set cruise trim position after a dual flameout. It happens very fast, so no immediate change in heading when second engine flames out.
@Brock
More northerly crash locations on the 7th arc would possibly allow debris to float to Maldives; please play:
http://adrift.org.au/map?lat=-24&lng=102¢er=5.3&startmon=Mar
It suggests that debris passing the northern tip of Madagascar can flow with the Somalia current north. Timing is important as its direction may change with monsoon season.
It would seems there should be a lot more debris coming ashore with what that adrift suggested.
If one were in negotiations while doubling back across Malaysia and in the Straits, wouldn’t your most valuable commodity be the PAX? If one is negotiating then they are your bartering chips and wouldn’t one want them protected at all times? Yet, they (PAX) are silent. Why then risk going as a ufo (albeit a “deemed commercial” ufo), transponderless? Aren’t they safer with a transponder on actually if bargaining with the regime so the squawk could be identified and PAX protected? Since the PAX fell silent and they would be the hope to get what one was bargaining for, perhaps the rogue PIC was not one of “our aviators.” This plays more into Jeff’s scenario of the sophisticated hijacking or a simpler type hijacking. Appearances are deceiving, so this still could be many things.
Back to technical, would the earlier FMT with a changed speed help to define a terminus more north of where the search is now? Is there anything in early vs. later FMT and speed to terminus?
I like the phrase by one poster who said “round the SIO gyres we go” but my hope is that by constantly going over stuff something is going to jump out at someone and someone is going to connect two puzzle pieces eventually.
I think some people are starting to connect the puzzle pieces here, that plane is NOT in the SIO and is either off banda aceh or near the maldives. The very fact that no real investigator has even really investigated anything, witnesses were all just dismissed. It seems as though only regular folk and reporters did the interviewing.
I knew that so called surfboard was “something” but it was quickly dismissed, well to me there have too one too many pieces turning up in that area over there to just ignore and pretend as some would like us to think it all came from the SIO search area.
@Chreryl
My own analytics require a late FMT to support more Northern routes. I have the plane at around 8N at 19:40.
With ambiguous radar data, you can manipulate the ISAT data in many different ways. The tragedy here is that the people best equipped to analyze this problem are being disenfranchised by the authorities relative to data access.
@Bugsy
I’m with you on that one – Crowdsourcing for a solution is gaining traction and there are some quality plausible explanations now materialising after a 2 year search in the wrong haystack.
I urge readers to re-visit eyewitness events and ask the questions, who were the primary drivers of this 2 year diversion – answer is certainly Malaysia (and possibly China) and the harder question, why?
@DennisW – when using your analytics in a modified manner where there was no “FMT” , heading westbound , does it end near or at an Atoll with a large inner lagoon ?
Carla,
I’m not sure which part of a 777 that might be though.
Could it have come from a light aircraft, as someone suggested previously?
Or a yacht perhaps.
See:
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-565335-p-2.html
(Scroll down to posts beginning 7th August)
Well it’s Friday night and this song came to mind that pretty accurately describes us:
It’s Friday Night…………….
We should be sitting in some bar
Yet we’re studying ACARS
Stretching ISAT logs too far
It’s Friday Night…………….
Gotta Google some more stuff
Bloggers say they’ve had enough
Yeah this crowd is really tough
It’s Friday Night…………….
Gotta find 370
The families have to know
Our frustrations just seem to grow
It’s Friday Night…………….
Gotta cut this down to size
Thank God we all have Jeff Wise
Making it safer in our skies
It’s Friday Night!
@ Susie,
I don’t know what part it is ofcourse, if indeed at all it’s some part from a plane.
As I understand it, the piece of honeycomb material that has remained (after burning most of the stuff that was found?) is very small. a handfull or so.
The first pictures of the find do not give a clear view of the whole part IMO and are therefore difficult to interpret. At least to me.
What wonders me is the news that presumably in a later stage- after the initial ‘it’s nothing’, pieces have been collected for investigation. And than the strange headlines that MOSt of the debris found in the Maldives were not related to MH370?
Keep in mind, most of the other debris shown looked like very ordinary insulation sheets. Maybe not so common in warm regions, but still..
Surely an investigation could tell if the material found fits specifications of materials used in B777’s. Spending millions and millions searching in the SIO is to me a desperate act. And then ignore this possible lead ?
Again, it might be compeltely unrelated to MH370. But as Always you don’t find that out by ignoring or dismissing it at forehand. And I get the impression that that’s exactly what the official investigation has done.
The Maldive debris was never taken seriously because it was found in the Maldives. No oxygen was provided to anything outside of their chosen paradigm. Around the Maldives also we had a piece of hi-tech drone show up?? Just for extra intrigue.
@Cheryl.
I love your Friday night lyrics!
AM2,
Thanks. Just a bit of levity to ease the stress.
Bon weekend to all. Godspeed answers to the families.
Contrary to most of what I read here, the August 2015 Maldives debris was carefully checked out by authorities at thew time and it was determined that the large piece made from honeycomb was not from MH370, or any other Boeing aircraft. It had certain markings and lettering that allowed investigators to rule it out.
The use of honeycomb in sailboats, surf boards and other manufactured goods is more common now, so the simple fact that a piece of debris appears to be made of a honeycomb composite material is hardly proof it came from an airplane, much less MH370.
@airlandseaman,
I’m just wondering which markings and lettering allowed investigators to rule out that debris as coming from MH370 or any other Boeing aircraft. I recall that this conversation has been had on this forum before but I don’t recall that it was ever definitively determined that the lettering had allowed investigators to absolutely rule out all possible links between this debris and an aircraft. Having looked at the pictures I’m fairly sure that the lettering isn’t a logo. In fact, it looks like it might well be the last two and a bit letters of the word STATIC. I’m wondering how and in what ways that, together with the fact that it surely isn’t, say, a surfboard manufacturer’s logo, might have enabled investigators to rule out any link with MH370 or any other aircraft. Sorry if I’m going over old ground again but I honestly don’t recall if we pursued this line of enquiry to a satisfactory conclusion.
@ALSM
Would you have reference to a report where all debris found at Maldives has been ruled out to originate from a B777?
For example this one doesn’t:
http://maldivesindependent.com/society/most-of-debris-from-maldives-not-from-mh370-says-malaysia-116416