Earlier today, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau issued a report entitled, “Debris examination — update No. 1: Identification of two items of debris recovered in Mozambique.” The report confirms that the pieces are consistent with a right-hand flap fairing and a right horizontal stabilizer, pointing out that the lettering found on each part matches stencils used by Malaysia airlines. In the case of the piece found by Blaine Alan Gibson, shown above, the report says:
The fastener head markings identified it as being correct for use on the stabiliser panel assembly. The markings also identified the fastener manufacturer. That manufacturer’s fasteners were not used in current production, but did match the fasteners used in assembly of the aircraft next in the production line (405) to 9M-MRO (404).
This wording is ambiguous–does “current production” mean production at the time that 9M-MRO was built, or now? If the fastener wasn’t used when 9M-MRO was built, one wonders what it is doing in this piece. Hopefully the ATSB will clarify what it means. At any rate, the report concludes that both pieces “almost certainly from the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft, registered 9M-MRO.”
Naturally, I was particularly keen to hear what the ATSB would say about the marine life found on these pieces, or lack thereof. The report contains a section entitled “Quarantine and marine ecology” which reads, in its entirety:
On arrival into Australia, both parts were quarantined at the Geoscience Australia facility in Canberra. The parts were unwrapped and examined for the presence of marine ecology and remnants of biological material. Visible marine ecology was present on both parts and these items were removed and preserved. The parts were subsequently cleaned and released from quarantine.
Later, in the “Conclusions” section, the report states: “At the time of writing, ongoing work was being conducted with respect to the marine ecology identification as well as testing of material samples. The results from these tests will be provided to the Malaysian investigation team once complete.”
The key here seems to be to reinforce the idea that the results of the biofouling examination will go to Malaysia, and not released to the public. Which raises the question: why does Australia feel empowered to release a fairly detailed report explaining why they think the pieces came from 9M-MRO, but not to say anything about the marine life on them? Is there a legal distinction between these two kinds of assessment, as pertains to ICAO protocols? Perhaps some legally-minded readers can shed light on the matter.
Here we are again:
Another Friday night, no further than before
Still contemplating the other side of that cockpit door
While the search remains fruitless on the ocean floor, quoth the kuala bear “nevermore”
Little bits of debris, how did they even float
Barnacles on, barnacles off when last I took note
The IG and our host at each others throats
Not getting anywhere with all this discord
But finally signs the IG is getting on board
We need info but that Malaysia still hoards
A diversion, two logons, and an FMT
Where in the world is the rest of the debris
Something we already have must hold the key
An act of terror, malfunction, or just for the “cause,”
Unpiloted, spoof, or ditching every theory still has flaws
But tally ho faithful bloggers to you kudos and applause.
@Ken Goodwin
Thamk you for explaining the use of those fasteners in more detail.
Than I have a question maybe you can anwser.
What would happen first with a fastener and pressed on nut like this under failing stress?
Will the fastener (bolt) break first or will the pressed on nut give way first?
I asume the latter but maybe you know for sure?
Since you can clearly see by the holes in line of the remained fastener those fasteners were not pulled through those holes (those holes are too small and clean shaped for that to have happened), those fasteners must either have been broken on the shaft or the nuts must have given way or pulled through the holes in the attachment frame or panel under this panel.
But if they were pulled through those nuts would have stayed attached and more complete fasteners with nuts should have remained in the panel.
Like to hear your (and others) thoughts on this.
And I like to complement @Cheryl on here poem.
I realy enjoyed that one 🙂
@cheryl
“every theory still has flaws”
That can only mean one thing. We have to look at the clues that doesnt converge to a single scenario. It is something beyond human intervention. That something is conveying to us what did not happen. What is left when putting that aside is that no humans could have done this.
I stick with this until anyone can prove me wrong.
@Gysbreght “Please don’t invent events that did not occur.”
If no irony was intended, then [in light of the preceding blog that started this discussion] it is the funniest thing I have read all week.
@Gysbreght You said: “The only known way to de-power SATCOM from the cockpit is to isolate the Left Main AC bus which powers the SATCOM and many other services.”
And this can only be accomplished from the EE bay, correct?
“The log-on request initiated from the aircraft (not a handshake, which is initiated by the ground station) could have been the result of re-powering the Left Main AC bus for reasons other than SATCOM.”
If you don’t mind or are otherwise in the mood, could you provide a definitive list of those systems that are likewise powered by the Left Main AC bus?
I would imagine that such a list has been produced somewhere previously, but it would be great to see it recapitulated once again in the interest of exploring any rationale for powering up the Left Main AC bus other than to power up the SDU. The common perception is that the SDU was rebooted at 18:28, but perhaps the intent was rather to re-power the the left AC bus.
Thanks
@Cheryl
@Oleksandr
Hi Cheryl, re the IFE:
That’s about the gist of it, although I can’t comment on the flight ID being missing at 18:28. Oleksandr said the IFE is responsible for transmitting the ID, but wasn’t sent during the 18:28 logon -I cannot say if that’s correct or not (perhaps Oleksander can clarify)
This is how I see it: The IFR logon was transmitted at 18:28 because the IFE/seat power switch on the overhead panel, had been left on. I believe if was switched off shortly thereafter, which is why there was no IFE logon 90 secs after the second logon at 00:19.
The question is why was the IFE/seat power switch on during the first logon. For me this is the $64,000 question. Personally, I think there are two possible explanations. The switch was on for the first hour to either keep the cabin video surveillance cameras working (they are controlled by the same overhead switch as the IFE) or to keep the IFE moving map display working.
And because the IFE/seat power switch was on during the first hour, the SDU had to be separately de-energized, by isolating the AC bus, to prevent passengers from being able to send out email or text messages.
@Paul Smithson
Paul, I’m glad we made you smile. Inventing something is quite an achievement!
@Rand
@Gysberght
Rand, If I might just but in here and say that the LH AC bus can be isolated from the overhead panel in the cockpit. There would have been no need for someone to get into the EE bay. Personally, I don’t think it would have been possible for anyone to get into the EE bay at any time during the flight.
@Rand:
“And this can only be accomplished from the EE bay, correct?” That’s not what I wrote, please read again.
“If you don’t mind or are otherwise in the mood, could you provide a definitive list of those systems that are likewise powered by the Left Main AC bus?” I don’t have that list. Some examples are given in SmartCockpit, such as galleys and toilets. FI states that the CVR is powered by the Left Main AC bus. I believe part of the airdata sensor heaters are also.
@Brock I really don’t see how any sort of cover-up that requires multi-lateral complicity is even remotely possible at this point, precisely because no whistle blower has stepped forward, much less there having been a leak or even so much as a burp as to what transpired. And don’t forget the breadth of nationalities found in the passenger manifest. The probability of any state-sponsored violence is quite low, perhaps bordering on remote.
With each passing day, all points increasingly to a very private party held at a palace in Kuala Lumpur, with the ICAO providing the Malaysians with the means of ensuring that all is kept private. The question, then, is what is it that is going undisclosed in Malaysian communication, transportation and military networks?
I would go further and argue that UMNO is an entity with the means (a corrupt power structure) and the motive (heading off its removal from power) to want to bury even simple incompetence, while perhaps there is even more to be unearthed. All other scenarios (terrorism, a shoot down, etc.) have since been heavily discounted for any number of reasons. So, yeah, a cover-up, but not some overly top-heavy, complex ,weighty geo-political thing; its more likely a simple, dumb, thuggishly brutish purely local thing.
Who hijacked the aircraft? The answer will surface the cover-up.
@Gysbreght I rather like how you are a tough customer in this forum, but my question as to the EE bay did not in anyway imply that you had mentioned the EE bay. Rob answered my question here and provided further clarification as to your statement.
BTW, I have no particular interest in the EE bay, other than that I can see how someone might perhaps go fishing down there for a means to stage an intervention AFTER there was a hostile takeover of the flight deck. Yes, this is the scenario where accessing the EE bay is more probable, rather than the lower hanging fruit of ‘using’ the EE bay to take control of the aircraft.
@Rob said, “This is how I see it: The IFR logon was transmitted at 18:28 because the IFE/seat power switch on the overhead panel, had been left on. I believe if was switched off shortly thereafter, which is why there was no IFE logon 90 secs after the second logon at 00:19.”
Another possibility is that power was lost to the SATCOM after the log-on request was completed at 00:19:37 and before the IFE had a chance to initialize the connection at around 00:21:06. This is the scenario favored by the SSWG.
If the shootdown theory is now being considered by some people, perhaps someone can tell us if such an explosion (something like that of the missile fired at MH 17) would be noticed by the numerous spy satellites which are supposed to be keeping track of everything.
@ABN397: It should have been noticed by the US Space-Based Infrared (SBIR) satellite system. US intelligence sources say nothing was detected.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missing-jet/u-s-spy-satellites-detected-no-explosion-flight-370-vanished-n51061
Thanks,VictorI. So this matter was cleared up quite soon after MH 370 disappeared. Presumably Russia also has similar satellites.
@VictorI
Re the 2nd logon (sans IFE)
The obvious, yes obvious controlled ditching as evidenced by the recovered RH wing trailing edge lift augmentation parts make it now appear extremely unlikely that either the APU ran out of fuel or the aircraft crashed before the IFE logon was transmitted.
@Rand. ‘an intervention AFTER there was a hostile takeover of the flight deck’.
In this case it could also have been a locked out (co) pilot who went down the EE bay trying to get systems back on line?
@Victorl. Could it be shortly after 00:19:37 the APU run out of fuel and shut down?
After the last engine flame out I suppose the APU would only run for several minutes more and after this only the RAT supplies energy to only critical systems which not include the SATCOM?
Malaysia, Australia, China consider next MH370 search:
http://en.vietnamplus.vn/malaysia-australia-china-consider-next-mh370-search/92260.vnp
@Rob.
From where comes your info that RH wing trailing edge lift augmentation PARTS are recovered? Or are you only talking about the flaperon? Which is still the ONLY part found of the trailing edge of a wing as far as I know? I sure like to know about other parts dicovered, so realy like to hear.
@Ge Rijn: What you propose is the scenario favored by the SSWG.
@Rob: Even if the flaps were lowered, you don’t know when that occurred in the time sequence of second engine flameout, APU start, APU flameout. Your scenario is possible, but I would to say it is extremely likely.
@ABN397: For the matter to have been “cleared up”, you have to take the word of a prime suspect. (When considering means and opportunity alone, the US is on a very short list of possible shooters.)
And even if the shoot down was by some other party, the US may have deemed it in their best interest to shield a close/strategic ally from public scrutiny, and/or Keep secret a security vulnerability that made a shoot down necessary in the first place.
Not making any accusations; just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.
@ROB, Regarding the continued ditch vs. crash debate, I’m experiencing a feeling of deja vu. About a year ago I spent a lot of time trying to shine a light on the significance of the fact that the SDU logged back on after the plane left military radar. At the time many people were spending a lot of time debating scenarios which were bluntly incompatible with this event, but they’d gotten comfortable with the habit of overlooking it, and so continued to do so. It took a lot of repetition of this basic fact before people began to incorporate it into their thinking. To this day, some people continue to assert that scenarios are possible (such as fire) which are clearly incompatible with an SDU reboot.
Today are a confronted with another new piece of evidence which is just as critical as the SDU logon, and just as overlooked as the logon once was. Namely, the condition of the African debris. As I’ve explained, this debris quite unequivocally did not float across the Indian Ocean. There may be some other explanation other than a plant, but if you want to credibly argue for either a crash or a dish, you have to come up with one. It is not satifactory to say, as some once did with the SDU logon, “I choose not to grapple with that piece of information.”
@Jeff
I am not in the habit of arguing with my Host, especially on as gracious as yourself. I was brought up with polite manners.
As I cannot convince you of the logic of my scenario any more than you can convince me of yours. To avoid any further unpleasantness, perhaps we should leave at that.
But I cannot but help being reminded of the plight of Galileo (me) when confronted by the Papal authorities (I hesitate to say it, you) when he was forced to retract his assertion that the Earth moved around the Sun, instead of vise versa. He retracted, on pain of death, but was reported to have said under his breath as he left; “and yet it does move”
@Victor
Nice try, but flaps are only ever extended just prior to landing or in this case, ditching. The drag produced by extended flaps, especially with no engines running to counteract it, mean that the flaps must have been extended towards the end of the glide.
@ROB, This isn’t the Inquisition, and I’m not going to burn you at the stake for disagreeing with me. The whole point of this forum is to wrestle with the facts and try to come up with the best explanations we can. An explanation cannot be rated as very logical if it cannot be reconciled to an crucial clue.
So let’s say your pieces wound up in the ocean in the manner you suppose. What happened after that?
@ROB:
Flaps are extended for takeoff. Sully landed without engine thrust, flaps extended well before ditching in the Hudson.
@Jeff
I think that might be a bit of a leading question but here goes; the ocean current first took them north, and then west, until they finally made landfall at the places of their discovery.
Simple as that, really.
@ROB, How is it a leading question? There’s a major clue in front of our faces and the challenge is to explain it. I guess from your answer you still believe that objects can float in the ocean for years at a time and not accumulate any biological material. This is not the case, as David Griffin of the CSIRO and Richard Godfrey of the IG acknowledge and as the many marine biologists I’ve spoken to have confirmed, in great detail, as you’ll learn if you read the posts in this blog.
I find it peculiar that you believe you can ascertain the nature of the crash by examining the physical aspects of the debris, but feel you can choose to avert your gaze from the physical evidence that consists of marine organisms, or lack thereof.
@Rob How do you reconcile the aircraft apparently flying to the point of fuel exhaustion with an attempt at a controlled ditching?
At Ge Rinjin: Nin Hao! Ok, but I’m more comfortable keeping it simple, where someone (i.e., we need not/cannot be specific) went into the EE bay with the intent or regaining some semblance of control of the aircraft after control of the flight deck was denied to one or both of the designated pilots. The 18:28 logon request: perhaps this is indicative of an attempted EE bay workaround after SATCOMS were shut down by way of the Left Main AC bus being de-energized (from the flight deck).
@Victor When did the SSWG craft their scenario? I stipulated the same about a year ago and was snickered at. Anywho, it would explain the ‘change in behavior’ (SATCOMS reactivated after going dark) more tidily than most other frames of the event.
@Jeff
One question then: If I ever get prosecuted by the Malaysian authorities, for heresy, promoting malicious falsehoods and character assassination, can I have you as my defense lawyer?
@ROB, If the Malaysians come after you for promoting falsehoods then that’s a pretty good sign you’re on the right track.
@Rob: I am well aware of when flaps are deployed. A low speed is required not just to minimize drag, but to prevent the flaps from being damaged.
I was trying to show you that you are making assumptions without even realizing you are making them, and this continues. For instance, the aircraft could have had an engine running at low altitude, low speed, and flaps extended, followed by fuel exhaustion, APU start, SATCOM log-on, and crash. I am not saying this occurred, but this is one of many possibilities.
@Rand: I am simply repeating what was in the report the ATSG released in Dec 2015 in parallel with the DSTG report.
@All: On the topic of the condition of the debris: I am not a marine biologist, so I cannot make a definitive determination that the lack of marine life on the recovered parts does not match a scenario that has the parts floating across the Indian Ocean. However, Jeff has found some marine biologists that say exactly this. So, the way to refute this conclusion is to find other marine biologists that will attest that the parts may have floated across the ocean but due to some natural mechanism, the marine life didn’t anchor and grow.
I am aware that Dr. Charitha Pattiaratchi, an oceanographer at the University of Western Australia, has proposed that the lack of barnacles on NO STEP could be explained by “sandblasting” on the shore. I view this as highly unlikely because there would be other evidence of this abrasion, such as scratched or scuffed paint, and parts of the NO STEP that were protected from the wind should have evidence of sea organisms.
We need to see marine biologists explaining the condition of the part, and not physical scientists trying to understand life sciences.
@all
A shoot down is a a very logical possibility. Why? My assumption is based on the following:
a. Sudden and abrupt loss of comms and radar trace is very suggestive of an instantaneous event
b. Impossible manoeuvre at purported turn back should be read as evasive action rather than actual turn back. A desperate attempt to avoid being hit by an incoming projectile.
c. Despite claimed military radar tracking no other aircraft in that area noticed anything. Ditto, absence of radar data from Indonesian military is pretty indicative of the whole military radar trackback hoax.
d. For moment when I read Jeff’s previous post I chuckled, apparently he agrees with my Fat Controller scenario as outlined here on page 5, just kidding @jeff:
http://jeffwise.net/2016/03/10/mh370-debris-storm/comment-page-5/
But seriously, the fact that they are planted is by itself telling.
e. If ever there was a turn back the first military base to be aware would be the RMAF air base in Gong Kedak Terengganu, very near to IGARI itself. Strange that Malaysian military radar tracked but allowed the intruder to fly unmolested past not one but 3 Air Force bases namely Gong Kedak, Alor Setar and Butterworth.
f. There are eyewitness accounts of a flaming aircraft over the SCS from an oil rig, fishermen out at sea and land based observers in Jertih. In contrast the SIO assumption rests entirely on the account of one emotionally distraught lady looking up from 35k feet below and purportedly seeing what no aircraft pilot in that vicinity saw.
Possible motive : both the human (read Freescale) and the actual stuff in the cargo bay ( probably high tech and classified). Given that, this was a planned military operation and a coverup was subsequently effected to stave off a global geopolitical meltdown. Probably both cargoes were being spirited to a destination inimical to another superpower and thus had to be intercepted and destroyed.
And I postulate all parties involved had a pow wow and agreed not to escalate the issue.
“An explanation cannot be rated as very logical …………clue”
Yes indeed!
So what happened? As I postulate it did end in the drink , the SCS to be precise, and that’s when military radar, turn back, pings etc came in handy
For all that was bundled as evidence of plane going off elsewhere to justify switching the search area. And with that done, the cleanup in the SCS went under the radar.
I wager that the pieces now being seen are from that hoard of debris collected from the SCS with the Fat Controller given the honour of planting them wherever plausible and deemed fit with SIO drift models.
Only thing, he and his superiors forgot the barnacles as you guys can read in my earlier take linked above.
@Rand – One suggestion for repowering the left AC Bus might be that the perps could have been startled by seeing another aircraft around 18:20z. After seeing a plane, they turned the left bus back on to power the TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) while, at the same time, executing an avoidance maneuver that resulted in an offset from the previous track as VictorI once suggested.
@Ge Rijn Wrote
@Ken Goodwin
Thank you for explaining the use of those fasteners in more detail.
Than I have a question maybe you can answer.
What would happen first with a fastener and pressed on nut like this under failing stress?
Will the fastener (bolt) break first or will the pressed on nut give way first?
I asume the latter but maybe you know for sure?
Since you can clearly see by the holes in line of the remained fastener those fasteners were not pulled through those holes (those holes are too small and clean shaped for that to have happened), those fasteners must either have been broken on the shaft or the nuts must have given way or pulled through the holes in the attachment frame or panel under this panel.
But if they were pulled through those nuts would have stayed attached and more complete fasteners with nuts should have remained in the panel.
Like to hear your (and others) thoughts on this.
One slight correction. The Lock Bolts have the grooves and the pins are straight and then formed to the pin grooves under hydraulic pressure. My mistake in typing.
Back ground on Composite Design. I have seen many many tests of composite panels. ~25 yrs experience. All kinds of results. As a design approach was developed for composite structure we tested all kinds of h/c panel designs, with/without potting, with solid inserts, with plastic coatings pored over the core for increased strength, etc, many never made it to production for cost or weight or quality issues. We tested all kinds of materials including a whole variety of fasteners for composite structure. Head size and shape, shaft locking mechanism (e.g. Type of nut/collar to use), coating materials, etc. We worked with the fastener manufacturer to develop lines of fasteners for use on composite structure. We down selected the design to a reasonable few for production to increase volume and reduce fastener costs. Always with an eye to quality and to keep the weight of the system as low as possible at a reasonable cost.
Key feature of a design. The design is developed to resist the design loads during normal operating conditions. The design is not developed to resist crash loads above 9G forward loads. E.g. The seat design and floor structure must resist a 9G forward load.
So, to answer your question: How will the structure will fail in an accident is completely up to the forces involved in that specific accident. The parts we are looking at (wing parts, interior bulkhead parts, etc) are designed based on the loads they will see. Mostly air loads for the wing parts and 9G forward loads for the bulkhead with the crew seat attached. How they fail when subjected to far greater loads has not been tested. Failure modes could be anything. Fastener failures could be heads pulling through structure. Pins breaking. Collars popping off, etc. In general, a design is balanced so the parts are as strong as necessary and little more; for optimum weight and cost.
@Jeff Wise
I read another explanation on why there was much little and smaller marine live (barnacles)on the smaller parts than on the flaperon. Maybe it’s not new to you but anyhow I thought it could be interesting.
The flaperon had a great byoyancy which allowed it to grow a lot off barnacles to grow on it for a long lenght of time.
The later found smaller lighter parts have much lesser byoyancy related to the amount of barnacles that can grow on it until it starts to sink by the weight of those barnacles. After a certain amount of attached barnacles, the piece starts to sink by their weight to a depth were the barnacles and other marine live die off. The piece then regains its byoyancy again and this circle repeats itself.
Do you know if this possibilty is considered by those marine biologists?
@Wazir
“b. Impossible manoeuvre at purported turn back should be read as evasive action rather than actual turn back. A desperate attempt to avoid being hit by an incoming projectile.”
the pilot wouldn’t even see the missile (except maybe for the last second or so), let alone turn a huge plane before it reaches it
@Ken Goodwin
Thank you again for your detailed explanation.
If I’ve understood you well there is no way of telling which part of the fastener and its attached components will fail first for it’s not tested above forces exceeding the equivalent of 9G for the structures they are used in.
Then this piece can serve as a kind of ‘test case’ I asume?
Can you agree, on your observations, that the bolt heads were not pulled through this panel? And if they were pulled through the underlying panel or frame the nuts should still be attached like the remaining fastener with nut?
Since this is not the case is it logical to asume the other bolts (of those still visible holes) broke on their shafts?
I just try to figure out better how this piece broke off and under which forces.
Anyway, well above the equivalent of 9G as you stated.
@steven g
Improbable but NOT impossible:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/hs_finnair_pilots_report_dramatic_missile_near-miss_almost_30_years_on/7457577
@Ge Rijn, That’s an idea worth exploring. Curtis Ebbesmeyer told me it is believed that the glass floats used by Japanese fishermen can do exactly this: that is, they accumulate barnacles etc until they start to sink, then the barnacles die off on the sea floor, fall off, and the float returns to the surface. The difference is that thick-walled spherical glass floats are extremely strong in compression and can withstand extreme pressure without being crushed. Honeycomb cells used in aviation are designed to be as light as possible and are not expected to be subjected to compression. So, if they were dragged several miles below the surface the expectation is that they would be well crushed, so losing their buoyancy and unable to return to the surface. Think of how WWII submarines met their end when they dove too deep.
@Jeff Wise.
Interesting. Yes I understand the resistance to compressing forces on honeycomd won’t be that great but I guess won’t be unsubstancial also. Its still quite a strong construction also.
But maybe in this case while it would be a balanced situation of just a slight overweight of barnacles needed to sink the piece to a certain depth, it may be, could be possible the piece won’t sink very deep. Just like the balanced state of a submarine ‘floating’ just under the surface?
I guess the debris with barnacles has close to neutral buoyancy when it starts to sink. Wouldn’t it stay that way until barnacles died and fell off? Why would it become so much heavier that it sunk quickly to the bottom of the deep ocean to be crushed by the pressure?
The submarines are not exactly analogous IMHO.
@ Jeff & All – interesting experiment i indulged myself in many years ago in my “diving days”…was to take a chunk of styrafoam down to 120-130 ft. funny looking results to say the least…..lost buoyancy…all scrunched up…we might shake a bottle of coke then pop the top…no fizz..just a thought related to pressure at depths…G.
For those that believe that the MH370 sequence of events near IGARI are not consistent with a hijack by passengers, I offer the following sequence of events from American Airlines AA77, which crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. I am not concluding a passenger hijacked MH370. In fact, the pilot and co-pilot have to remain possible culprits until we know more. I am simply showing there are many similarities between MH370 and AA77. Strangely, there are not many comparisons between these flights.
AA77 departed from Dulles (Washington, DC) and turned around over Kentucky/West Virginia/Ohio just after disabling the transponder at a FIR boundary (Washington and Indiana). The plane was lost by the civil controllers because the primary radar coverage was poor in that area. Although that area was in range of 4 civil radar installations, the radar installation designated as primary had no primary radar capability, the radar installation designated as secondary had poor primary radar coverage in that area, and the data from the third and fourth radar sites were not displayed on the ATC screens. The controllers assumed the plane continued straight west towards Indiana, and asked the Indiana ATC for help. In the meantime, the entire flight, including the turn back towards Washington, was captured by the two other radar sites. It took about 30 minutes before ATC realized the plane was headed towards DC.
Here is a timeline of events:
8:50:54: Last radio message from AA77
8:54: Begins a deviation from its flight plan
8:56: Transponder is disabled
9:00 Indianapolis Center notifies other agencies that AA77 is missing, believing it continued west and crashed
9:05: AA77 reappears traveling east on primary radar at Indiana ATC then Washington ATC but is ignored
9:25: Concerns mount at the FAA that the WTC crashes and AA77 are related
9:32: AA77 is finally found on primary radar by Dulles terminal as it speeds east
9:38: AA77 crashes into Pentagon
So about three minutes after the last radio message, the hijackers took control of the plane and altered its course. Two minutes later, the transponder is switched off. Only 36 minutes later is the plane found on primary radar. This makes the Malaysian ATC controllers look not so bad. The Malaysians were instinctively looking east for the plane, not west, just as for AA77 the controllers were looking west rather than east. The turn back fooled the controllers in both incidents. The time between the last pilot communication and the flight deviation (2-3 minutes) are also similar for these flights.
More details can be found here:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=Losing_Flight_77
The purpose of the honeycomb is to keep the inner and outer skins apart. It will sustain quite some pressure before it starts to crumble, then it will quickly lose its resistance to compression.
@Jeff Wise. And maybe something else to consider. The density of the water will increase with the increasing of the water pressure. And this then will gradualy increase the byoyancy of an object restricting it to sink below a certain depth where the pressure and density of the water becomes higher.
Makes sence to you?
@ Gysbreght – correct… become all scrunched up …lose positive..become and stay negative…sink into the murky depths… settle on the bottom…no more float to the surface…
@Ge Rijn: For water, the density change due to pressure is small compared to density changes due to changes in temperature and salinity. Also, the compressibility of the part will be much greater than water. Once the part begins to sink, it will continue until it is crushed.
@ Ge Rijn – excuse the interruption Jeff, but I think you mean the buoyancy would decrease drastically and fairly quickly as the item descended ( thru the water column ) reaching crush depth …density of water, being not compressible ( to a certain degree )should remain fairly constant…but, the deeper it goes the more the weight of the water….so on and so forth….G