Above is a picture that Neels Le Roux Kruger recently posted on the ‘MH370 In search of the truth’ website. He writes:
An interesting development with regards to “Klein Roy”.
‘This morning I was in contact with an individual from the town of George inland from Mosselbay in South Africa. The person, who is a frequent visitor to Klein Brak beach, was walking on the beach at Klein Brak on 23 December 2015 on an amateur ocean photo assignment. He captured images of the ocean and the beach – and he also took a photo of an object he though was part of a signboard. He said he did not think much of the object at the time and he didn’t examine it (or handle it) since it smelled of decomposing marine life. The fragment was covered in barnacles and mussels. He took a random photo and also notes that when he returned later the day the fragment was gone – probably washed back out to sea by the incoming tide. After reading about the investigation into the MH370 debris and the identification of “Roy” he made the connection to my photos of the piece and came into contact with the media.
Quite amazing – this is definitely the “Rolls Royce” fragment I picked up 3 months later in the same area!This is exciting since it brings the time frame for the washing up of the RR fragment 3 months forward to at least December 2015. It is also an indication of the presence of substantial amounts of marine life on the fragment when it first washed up along the South African coast.
For reference, here’s an image of the piece as it was found by Kruger in March near Mossel Bay, South Africa:
Taken together, these photos make a compelling case for the idea — which I have strongly disputed here — that barnacle-encrusted pieces could be thoroughly cleaned by wave, sand, and sun after coming ashore.
The implication, then, is that the pieces were not “ineptly planted,” as I asserted, but that the lack of biofouling is due to the pieces spending time ashore before they were discovered.
UPDATE 5/18/16: Today an Afrikaans-language website published an article entitled “MH370 piece all photographed in December” by Eugene Gunning explaining how the photograph at top came to be taken. Below is the translation courtesy of Google Translate with a bit of cleanup on my part. Obviously parts are still pretty baffling, if anyone cares to help to polish up them up in the comments section that would be most welcome. Thanks to readers @SA Reader and @Afrikaans for alerting me to this story.
The debris of the missing flight MH370 Malaysia Airlines which was conducted in December on the beach of Little Brak River by a resident of Knysna.
Dr. Schalk Lückhoff, a retired physician from Knysna, may help to solve the mysterious disappearance of the missing flight MH370 Malaysia Airlines.
In December last year Lückhoff came accross a piece of debris on the beach of Klien-Brakrivier, which is presumaby from the missing aircraft. He didn’t realise at the time that it is from the missing aircraft.
This is the same debris that more than two months later by Neels Kruger, an archaeologist from Pretoria, seen on the beach and picked up.
The debris has been sent to the Malaysian government.
The plane went missing on March 8, 2014, shortly after it Kuala Lumpur took off en route to Beijing. There were 239 passengers and crew on board.
The Australia Transport Safety Board announced Thursday that the debris probably came from the plane.
Lückhoff said he walked at Klein Brak River on the beach on 23 December. It was about 07:22 when he saw an object on the beach. It lay on the riverbank. He took a picture of it.
“I was really busy,” he told to take pictures of fast-flowing water for a photography project. “The piece caught my attention because it was the only thing on the bare expanse of sand. Because it stank because of the decaying barnacles, I did not touch it and took a casual photo.
“I did not recognize what it was and thought it might be part of an old notice board. It was full of sand and mussels and just a small part of the letters put out.
“After the next high tide I haven’t seen it again and supposed that it washed back into the sea.”
When he saw the story about Kruger in the Cape, he recognized it.
Kruger said on inquiry that he is very excited about it. “It can make a contribution to the investigation.”
@all:
New map put out by Richard Cole shows the search area moving significant to the south. Looks like Dolan is living up to his word.
@ ROB: They are getting warmer, you must admit. Hopefully we will here some positive news soon. If they keep up this trend, they could probably search the entire obvious glide zone before they run out of time/money…
Here’s a link to the chart. They’re already out about halfway to the maximum glide limit
http://i.imgur.com/j1j4zEV.jpg
@Warren/ROB
I don’t share your enthusiasm. They are going in the wrong direction IMO. Hoping for the best, however.
@Warren
That’s definitely what I was hoping.
Then they can be justified is saying they gave it their best shot.
The ATSB have come in for a great deal of criticism, from many quarters. They got little practical guidance from Malaysia. Would anybody else have done better in the circumstances?
@Warren Platts
I cant stress this enough:
All clues were meant to show what did not happen.
So that could mean mh370 will never be found.
@Warren Platts
I wont go there yet. I understand what you are saying that when certain things gets ruled out then there is nothing to make sense of left.
@susie
It can be seen online. Notice that she tells about her husband taking off the weddingring, something he never does, and then said something I cant remember what she said in the interview, but she said her husband knew something would happen onboard the plane.
@js
All i have are my predictions because of what has happened in the past.
@ Sajid
Thanks. Another scenario ruled out.
@Trond – I posted the following a little over a year ago:
“The passenger on MH370 who gave his watch to his wife also gave her his wedding ring “in case something happens.” Sounds a bit odd unless he was more concerned about his assignment at his destination and/or doesn’t fly often.”
Someone responded to my post identifying this person as Paul Weeks.
@lauren h
Thats him. His wife was on au 60 minutes talking about it.
@ Trond
What happened in the past? Could you give a rough time frame please?
Has it to do with the time space continuum?
Is it just a personal theory or is it based on facts?
Why fabricate clues to point to what did not happen?
At 4:37 AM on 05/17/2016, xyz posted on the previous thread regarding the SDU reboot a sequence that indicated the logon at 00:19 was a result of the flameout of the first engine.
I am surprised that nobody commented. Was the post overlooked or is there an explanation of why this sequence cannot be correct?
@Suzie
Relax .. there are many opinions … live & let live …
All are valid
This photo shows no attatchment of barnacle to the piece. Very obscured by the large amount of sand. It is nothing short of amazing the timing of recent arrivals right on the 2nd anniversery. As we progress the lack of further new debris seems to highlight this amazing timing.
One with a number, one with a name,
One with a picture, one from inside the plane
One with barnacles and many without
Something is wrong here, the sat data, no doubt.
@Warren,
regarding the chart (thank you) I had assumed the outside-the-lines area was just due to the ships moving far enough so that the towed apparatus would reach the line, behind them, before turning.
I didn’t think those extra bits were actively scanned.
Have I got that wrong?
@Warren
As a matter of interest, what’s your definition of the absolute glide limit?
Is it 100Nm downrange of the 7th arc?
@susie
I may have been wrong. She never said that in a tv interview, only to the newspaper.
Apart from my simple hydraulic thouhgts I think ‘evidence’ is realy getting clearer with this picture. It doesn’t look meshed up by photoshop (but I agree confirmation is important). It seems turned around and dragged for some distance concerning those trails on the beach and the sand and trails on its surface.
Besides the barnacles look rather large also.
So, what Jeff now states; no planting, I sure agree for this picture was taken three months before finding and it was heavy loaded with barnacles then.
Consumming:
This must have been a controled flight most likely by the captain.
He was the only one onbourd we can be sure of he had the skills and the expirience to execute all what was nessecary to make this vanishing possible.
I rather assume the co-pilot was locked out and tried everything in the ee bay to unlock the door and in this process switched off and on several other systems for he didn’t knew what exactly which switch or breaker he had to disable.
Everything till now imo comes to a same conclusion.
The Imarsat data, the drift models, the debris, the barnacles, the lack of debris anywhere else till now, the new proposed ATSB assumtion after ending this search of a controled end-flight and ditching.
It get’s more clear to me. The crash/ditching site cann’t be that far off the current search area. Considering all the ‘facts’ till now it must be more north anyway. No debris found on WA or Java, Sumatra or anywhere else.
It might be the investigation should now be more focussed on motive. I would consider to investigate the relationship with Zahiri to Anwar Ibrahim deeper political and privatly.
This Anwar was accused of gay sexual activitys since 1998 till his trial at 7-3-2014 when he was send to jail for 5 years.
The day after, the plane vanished with his captain-pilot. Maybe revanche? A scandel awaiting which would ruine his private live and career in Muslim society?
So partly political and privatly motivated?
Anyway in the process some scenarios get ruled out or get very unlikely.
It’s the value of looking at every possibility, even the most unlikely.
I hope the ATSB and offcourse their financial suppliers; Malaysia, Australia, China, will decide to extend the search according to this new evidence and the efforts and thoughts of all those peolple so affected by this mystery and drama.
In Matty – Perth’s May 13, 2016, 5:53 PM post (Seabed Uncertainties thread) of Byron Bailey’s latest article, Bailey says, “If, as generally believed, Shah was trying to hide the aircraft in as remote a location as possible to hide his crime then he would endeavor to fly as far as possible before the fuel ran out. As an experienced Boeing 777 captain, this is how I would manage this. Fly at long-range cruise speed mach 0.83 at as high an altitude as possible for maximum range.”
This statement could apply to any perp, not just Shaw. Either way, what was the motive for flying as far away as possible? If the perps flew between FIR boundaries and around Indonesia to avoid detection why would they then decide to get as far away as possible?
Could it be that instead they were trying to get away as fast as possible? What speeds could have been chosen:
MRC – Maximum range for the available fuel at a given altitude?
LRC – The perps can spend about 1% more fuel cost and save 3% to 4% of flight time? But why would cost come into play?
ECON (52 or any ECON setting) – Maybe because ECON 52 was in the previous flight plan? Just like LRC; why include cost of LRC or ECON speed in your motive?
I suggest they wanted to get away as FAST as possible from any possible threat and chose the maximum cruising speed at something above FL370. I’ll also also suggest the burn rate values from the FCOM are slightly conservative so they could have averaged 6.017 Mton/hr from 18:22 to 00:17 at the maximum cruise speed. Add in the extra range from a piloted step cruise and you’d end up around S42 and the 7th ARC.
Various posts and analysis related to the MH370 crash have suggested that the pieces of debris produced, little of which has been found, would number 10,000 or so … I think that is wrong. Looking at Silkair crash site you do see 1000’s of pieces of debris but on land all debris floats … not so at sea.
Debris from MH370 has to meet 2 criteria before it can be found washed up on some shore
1 it must be able to float for some appreciable period of time
2 it must not remain attached to, or be inside of, a larger piece of debris that does not float
On MH370 4 of the 5 pieces so far recovered met those criteria – they had a high enough percentage of cored composite in their make up to float without relying on trapped air pockets and they were not attached to anything. The bulkhead fragment had the right composition but was inside the fuselage (initially) but very close to a door.
If MH370 had made a low energy crash landing, even a ditching, would it have floated, relatively whole, for some time? Well the US Air 321 did not – it sank. Not sure just how long that took, but next day it was clearly sunk. That was fuelled up whereas MH370 was most probably out of fuel …would the fuel tanks have provided enough flotation for the whole plane or even themselves if detached? Well unlikely for any long period of time.
Fuel tanks are vented in a quite elaborate manner to surge tanks and they in turn are vented to the outside air. Normally a vent scoop pressurises the tanks (I believe – I do not think they use air bleed from the engine). A vent scoop is under the wing close to the tip … positioned to be scooping up water at 100 knots in a ditching, crash landing whatever. Even without scoop action there are fuel feed pipes, fuel jettison pipes all of which are vulnerable in a crash to breeching and allow slow filling of an empty tank with water. US Air had an emergency “close vents” button in the cockpit but it was not activated … later analysis said it would have made no difference to the outcome as the fuselage breech was far bigger than the vent area.
With the tanks full of water finally does a severed wing float? Probably not since the ratio of cored material to the rest of structure is less favourable, than the flaperon … and there are big heavy things like undercarriage, strengthening for engine pylons, actuators and wiring etc. for the core that is in the wing to support. As an aside the Chinese satellite may have seen two a 24 metre objects floating near each other (I think it was March 16) … and those were not seen again … about right for a severed wing that finally sunk before search went there?
Another 777 200 made a landing at about the same kinetic energy as MH370 could have had in its final moments …this on soft ground at Heathrow in 2008. Look at the images of that debris field … there is very little, certainly not “1000’s of pieces”. BA 38 accident report is on-line.
The fact that only 5 pieces of debris have been found also lends credence to the theory that perhaps there was never much debris to be dispersed. Not 10,000’s – more like 100’s of detached, floating, cored pieces of MH370.
@dl
“Why fabricate clues to point to what did not happen?”
Or else innocent people would get the blame.
@lauren h
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iTbxh26ndEI 0:35 minutes
The big question
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B7hOztpwMI8 04:57
@ Jeff Thanks for the mea culpa. But you raised a great question in the sdu shut down and turn on in the prior post I think there is much more to explore there.
”The fact that only 5 pieces of debris have been found also lends credence to the theory that perhaps there was never much debris to be dispersed. Not 10,000’s – more like 100’s of detached, floating, cored pieces of MH370.”
Go to google maps and look the area south of the equator. Do you recognize the islands of Reunion,Rodrigues without zooming in ?
The fact that a few pieces turned up on those tiny islands means that there has to be a huge debris field (thousands of pieces) drifting around in the (S)IO.
This is logic…
@Susie
The dent in the R is filled with sand in the pictures on the beach. Thus it’s less visible.
What’s strange is that December/January is summer school holiday in South Africa.
The beaches between Mossel Bay and Plettenberg Bay are filled with holiday people coming from all around the country.
None of them found it!
These people tend to leave a mess and there is a lot of cleaning that is done by the municipalities. Yet the debris wasn’t picked up by cleaning crews!
@ Sajid UK
As I said it would be most unusual if no one made a text or call ! Are there any others you know of? I will ask my friends in China about any MH370 blogs that might be available for translation. BTW Do young Malays refer to Beijing as Peking still ? Just asking ?
I too would be interested in any thougets on oxy’s theory posted on the previous blog entry. Anyone got any comments?
@ir1907 – I don’t think you can quite say this.
If an island is situated at a funnel point, it is much more likely to have debris land on it. The fact that an island has a beach suggests that currents are already depositing sand in that spot, disproportionately.
I’m not saying that all debris would get funneled to one or two islands but I suspect the probability of debris washing ashore is higher than the size of the island would suggest. Especially if the island acts like a barrier island in any way.
Also note that when the probability is based on perimeter, small islands will have higher odds per land area than large islands, all other things being equal.
@ir1907
But that’s just the point. A few pieces that have made landfall, but they tell an uncannily consistent story, they tell us that the plane made a controlled ditching with the RH wing and stabilizer taking the brunt, and door R1 being bashed in, to speed up the sinking. Consequently, its highly unlikely that much more debris was generated on impact but is still floating around. If this was the case, we would have seen a wider selection of debris items, from different areas of the aircraft.
We know the parts couldn’t have been deliberately planted, so the story they tell us has to be significant and genuine. This in itself is quite remarkable, when you think of the journeys these few items have undergone.
Question for Jeff’s experts: what is the MINIMUM time immersed, based on the barnacle maturity present in this photo? Huge thanks in advance.
@LaurenH
But that’s not what I’m seeing. I agree it would be advantageous to fly as far as possible, because the further you fly into the remote SIO, the harder it’s going to be to find him.
What I see is a track whose estimated endpoint is carefully synchronised with the sunrise. A constant Mach 0.81, with the groundspeed varying as the headwind varies, a track more concerned with arriving at a particular point at a particular time, not a track flown in LRC or Econ mode.
The RR piece always had evidence of barnacle attachment.
Sinux – this bit could have been bumping around the shoreline and it looks like the bottom side could have been colonized.
@ Gysbreght
Thank you for posting these speeds and this chart showing the flightpath round below Sumatra.
I’m not sure if the “YPXM – 0:11:00 300 kt” is correctly calculated and charted.
Trond are you referring to ‘Back to the future’ like the movie lol
@Gysbreght
Using the times and distances posted the following groundspeeds are obtained between the ping rings.
19:40 – 20:40 372 kts
20:40 – 21:40 370 kts
21:40 – 22:40 372 kts
22:40 – 00:11 370 kts
This indicates some steady flying round below Sumatra over 4½ hours.
@ROB
Interesting … the end point linked to time of sunrise theory.
Flight parameters for ditching in ocean swells are quoted in the US Airways 1539 accident report. Parallel to the swells, high pitch angle of 15 degrees in landing configuration (flaps, slats etc. but landing gear retracted) slow and very shallow glide path of -1 degree and aim for crest of swell.
Sunrise seems a good time to do that for good wave definition.
@ir1907 and @Warren Platts I think your general plan of making a search-and-salvage trip out to Madagascar is a great idea. Let me know if it materialises, as I may be interested in joining you. At the very least, perhaps I could provide you with a bit of armchair backup support.
You may want to look into the legalities in Madagascar surrounding drones. The ILJ Phantom 4 is a remarkable bit of equipment with a 5km range, an HD camera and a highly autonomous flight dynamics system. Deploying one in your search would put a big fat multiple on your efficiency. Cost performance wise, the Phantom 4 is the best that I have yet to find:
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/HJWF2LL/A/dji-phantom-4-camera-drone
Which leads me to wonder: is there any concerted effort on the part of the Malaysians,the Chinese or even the NOK to organise a ground search for debris? It would be a rather obvious move at this point, I would think.
Victor,
Thank you for the explanation on the AES/SDU, software, etc. hacking possibilities from the last post. That helped.
As far as the hijacking hypothesis is concerned is there any reason why the said hijackers couldn’t enter the electronics and equipment bay (E/E bay) on the tarmac in Kuala Lumpur well before PAX loading?
Well discussed on this blog is the fact that apparently none of the passengers knew how to fly a 777.
Also this would make handling of bulky equipment such as oxygen cylinders easier.
Any hypothesis regarding 9M-MRO needs to explain the misleading behaviour of the Malaysian authorities.
Does this photography buff have a name, yet?
To summarize: this anonymous figure was interested enough in the piece to not only photograph it, but return to the same beach for a second time that day, remember exactly where it HAD been, and make an explicit mental note of its disappearance – yet apparently did not consider the photo worth sharing with anyone until 5 months later (and fully 2 months after the Rolls Royce fragment became huge news – in SA especially). Does this summarize the state of affairs?
@rich
Im not sure if this one item have been picked up and kept silent about because of what was carved into it.
@SteveBarrett The amateur probability tree analysis that I worked through integrated all all elements in my awareness, with the result being that the highest probability event was that the aircraft was hijacked by a non-pilot with the Captain and the First Officer continuing to operate the aircraft – in some capacity – while under duress.
Meanwhile, we don’t quite know if in fact none of the passengers knew how to operate a 777, as we cannot trust the veracity of the RMP with regards to the rigour of its criminal investigation.
The misleading behaviour on the part of Malaysia can largely be explained by the fact that inaction when faced by any crisis is the dominant behaviour displayed by Malaysian officials. It’s kindergarten game theory in an environment of financial and political corruption: you don’t know what you may discover or who you may bump into, so it is always best to make the choice of inaction.
I once said, if I can recall correctly, that Malaysia’s behaviour could be accounted for by “either this dead animal of incompetence over here, or that nasty beast of deliberate obfuscation over there.” I am now more inclined to preference the latter. I am firmly in the Sara Bajc camp: the Malaysians know more than they are revealing about what transpired that night, and my guess is that is relevant to a hijacking intervention gone terribly south.
Again, a question: did the official ATC radio transcripts actually end just before the point of diversion at IGARI, or where they rather deliberately truncated at this point by Malaysian officials? Unlikely, perhaps, but the delay in getting in the transcripts made public provided opportunity, and M officials certainly would have had a motive beyond “ensuring the sanctity of an ongoing criminal investigation.” Regardless, the ATC transcripts terminating just before the diversion rather tidily fits the official narrative of “it’s a tragic mystery, we know nothing”.
@Brock
Elaborate Photoshop?
Is there any way to check the source image for metadata?
The photo seems a little bit “staged”. But it’s seems none of the barnacles are attached with a “stalk” to the engine covering. The sand seems artificially placed And not placed by a natural processes.
Hi All
Have checked out this pic (RR) with some very good software, which I use on a daily basis. Not one sign of any Exif/meta data to be seen. NOT one. Clean as a whistle. My opinion – looks staged.
@Tom
If the source image is on Facebook or similar, the metadata has probably been stripped. I never find any metadata on FB images.
C’mon guys. This was not staged, or photo-shopped. Take this for what it is for heaven’s sake. I’ve seen this forum slowly and steadily devolve into a complete and utter conspiracy theory recycling bin where absolutely nothing can be taken at face value. The paranoia is incredible here. This picture of the barnacle encrusted RR debris can provide some valuable info, so let’s talk about that, please.
@OXY, Lauren H, Crobbie. One comment is that the ATSB has assessed fuel exhaustion in unmannned flight as ‘compatible’ with the 7th arc partial log-on minus two minutes. Since right engine fuel exhaustion still should be up to fifteen minutes before the left (ATSB Definition of Search areas Dec 15 p8), ie the left’s fuel exhaustion would up to be thirteen after the log-on, there are a couple of issues:
– 15 mins added fuel might render this scenario ‘incompatible’ with the fuel assessed as being available.
– IFE non-connection, previously explained as it being switched off, APU fuel exhaustion or loss of antenna line-of-sight, would need looking at too. To me loss of aircraft AC will disconnect the autopilot. The APU coming on line will not restore it, leading to the port engine dragging the aircraft into a right turn and spiral from the time of right engine failure. This would restore one possibility of IFE non-connection but also would interfere with the ATSB Basic Turn Analysis (p13), the whole descent quite possibly becoming powered (supposing fuel were “compatible”). Possibly though if the turn radius did not increase there would be little difference to the crash site. It might decrease.
Irrespective, your scenario’s explanation for an earlier unmanned log-in is interesting, depending on satellite antennae behaviour and whether there might have been line of sight to the right antenna earlier.
@Rob and Warren. I intrude on the glide range question. The ATSB has assessed that as about 100 miles, (implicitly) if forward. What they have not included is the effect of manned flight on range. The assumption has been a constant altitude of 35,0000 ft until right engine failure. At p17 the ATSB notes, “Applying the assumption that a series of step-climbs had been performed during cruise, produced a range greater than that required to reach the region of interest on the arc.” ie excess fuel. Step climbs require human intervention. It follows that with human intervention starting to be considered, step climbs and the fuel saved thereby should be also. This would allow powered flight beyond the 7th arc – however this would be only if an alternative to the current explanation for the 7th arc partial log-on were available. Without that it would be reasonable to assume there had been no step climb.
@rand
It was goodnight malaysian 370. And later picked up the copilot said the cabin disintegrated. And the mumbling. After that absolute radio silence.
@david
All sorts of interpretation how it ended has been presented.
The plane glided. It ditched 90 dg nose first. It turned on its back. It never touched the water.
When every possible scenario is plausible by data with equally probability then nothing of that happened.
@Freddie (May 17, 2016 at 7:53 PM):
The distance between YPXM (23:46) and the 6th arc crossing (00:11) is 123 nm.
(Based on mr Exner’s arc locations).
The ATSB’s assessment for 2nd flameout is based on the total fuel quantity available. The fuel asymmetry determines the time between 1st and 2nd flameout, but does not ‘add’ to the total quantity. After the 1st flameout the remaining engine spools up to max thrust. Depending on altitude (which defines the max thrust) the one-engine-inoperative fuel flow will be approximately the same as the two-engine total fuel flow.
@Mike Gibbon
Yes, right lighting conditions would have been essential for ensuring a successful controlled ditching. The Sun was about 6 deg above horizon at S37.7, E89 at 00:19.
And what id more, the a/c would have been in full daylight for only the final 40 minutes max, to minimize the risk of being observed from a ship during the final stages.
And one more thing, the perpetrator would not have had the luxury of a met forecast for the terminal area, in advance, so the guarantee of adequate lighting would have been essential.