The photo above is from an article on a French-language website. It says that the object was found two weeks ago by a French tourist, who gave it to a boat captain, who only gave it to the authorities on Tuesday, May 24. The piece is 80 cm by 40 cm and was discovered on a small island called L’ile aux Bernaches, which lies within the main reef surrounding Mauritius. It is now in the possession of the National Coast Guard, who will pass along photos to the Malaysians and, if they deem it likely to be a part of the missing plane, will send experts to collect it. (According to a second story here.)
The photograph above is the only one that seems to be available so far, and is quite low-res, but it seems to lack any visible barnacles, but has quite a lot of the roughness that barnacles leave behind after they’ve detached, as seen in the Mossel Bay piece. Perhaps worth noting that so far, pieces found on islands (Réunion, Rodrigues) have had substantial goose barnacle populations living on them, while pieces found on the African mainland have been bare. This piece breaks that trend.
Also worth noting, I think, is that all of the objects discovered so far were found by tourists, with the exception of the flaperon, which was found during a beach cleaning of the kind that only happens an tourist destinations. Drift models predict that a lot of the debris should have come ashore on the east coast of Madagascar, but this is not a place that tourists generally frequent. There are also large stretches of the southern African coast that probably see little tourism. All of which is to say that a concerted effort to sweep remote beaches should turn up a lot of MH370 debris.
I haven’t seen any speculation yet as to which part of the plane this latest piece might have come from–any ideas?
UPDATE 5/25/16: In a surprising coincidence, another piece of potential debris has also turned up on Mauritius. According to Ion News, the object was found by a Coast Guard foot patrol along a beach at Gris-Gris, the southernmost point on the island. It was found resting about six meters from the water.
UPDATE 5/26/16: In another surprising turn of events, Australia’s Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chesterhas issued a media release in which he “confirmed reports that three new pieces of debris—two in Mauritius and one in Mozambique—have been found and are of interest in connection to the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370.”
The release goes on:
“The Malaysian Government is yet to take custody of the items, however as with previous items, Malaysian officials are arranging collection and it is expected the items will be brought to Australia for examination,” Mr Chester said. “These items of debris are of interest and will be examined by experts.”
This means of announcing findings related to MH370 marks a departure for the Australian government, which in the past has provided updates from the ATSB (Australia Transport Safety Board) itself. The items are picture below, courtesy of Kathy Mosesian at VeritasMH370:
Meanwhile, a reader has provided an image analysis of the second Mauritius fragment in order to provide a sense of scale:
He observes: “Some rough scaling puts it at around 14 by 26 inches. Those boulders in the other photo look like pebbles; makes it look the size of one cent piece. Note the increasing curvature left to right; ups the bet on a chunk of flap!”
UPDATE 5/27/16: Another piece turned up yesterday, making it four altogether since Wednesday. I think this qualifies as a “debris storm.” At the rate stuff is turning up, there should be a lot more to come. There hasn’t even been an organized search yet!
The BBC reports:
Luca Kuhn von Burgsdorff contacted the BBC on Thursday to say he found the fragment on the Macaneta peninsula.
The authorities have been notified. The piece must be examined by the official investigation team in Australia.
Experts say it is consistent with where previous pieces of debris from the missing plane have been found.
Mr von Burgsdorff took two photographs of the item on 22 May, and sent them to the BBC after reading a story on Thursday about other debris finds in the region.
He said the pieces were “reasonably light, did not have metal on the outside, and looked extremely similar to photos posted on the internet of other pieces of debris from aeroplanes”.
Rand – yes, our mate is a horrible shocker. But forgive me – who is “Ol lightning”
@Joseph Coleman
Scott Reef IMOS logger data analysis
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72X0lqWWQtZEtFRTQ/view?pref=2&pli=1
This is a worry:
“Fifteen Malaysian immigration officers have been sacked and dozens have been suspended and redeployed after they appear to have deliberately disabled the international airport’s passport check over a number of years.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-01/malaysian-immigration-officers-disabled-airport-checks/7465448
I flew with MAS a few times some years back and thought they were a good airline. But since MH370 I won’t fly with them again.
@Brock
Thanks for the updated Nature graphic.
and @Ge Rijn
re: what we are calling the “Curtin Boom”, the location found by Dr Duncan et al. by triangulating acoustic signals: the Carlsberg Ridge is an area with fairly frequent earthquakes. earthquaketrack.com is interesting and shows that an earthquake of mag 4.9 10km depth occurred there 7 Mar 2014 and the next one 14 Mar 2014 mag 5.0. So, as Dr Duncan has said, the Curtin Boom could well have been of seismic origin, but who knows. Its one in my long list of possible locations for a crash (or landing) and would fit with the debris finds in the SIO.
@All
I found this rather amazing (to me at least) video on youtube.
How to access the E/E bay during a regular flight on a B777.
With explanation of equipment there by one of the pilots during flight(!?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S-Cggs1jOo
AM2 – Major worry indeed. There willbe alot of dodgy movements of people around the world via such organized syndicates. And on another level – the ex Muslim I linked to – Shoebat – who got the thumbs down here says anecdotally, that with an Arabic name he has been waved through by Muslim airport workers around the world in various places including at the Mexican border with the US. Other people got the going over and all he got was an Islamist greeting and told to keep moving. Sydney then would be a worry?
@Matty-Perth
“Sydney then would be a worry” well yes and no as passport control for Aus airports seems very thorough. Also, international airports tend to re-check passports and carry-on luggage again for passengers in transit these days (e.g. at Dubai, Singapore) but that may not happen everywhere.
So the upshot of this is that we cannot really be sure who was on flight MH370?
AM2,
Re: “What we are calling the “Curtin Boom”, the location found by Dr Duncan et al. by triangulating acoustic signals: the Carlsberg Ridge is an area with fairly frequent earthquakes.”
Who are “we”?
Rubbish. Complete misunderstanding of Dr Duncan’s papers. And pls dont speak “we” on behalf of others. Brock has already done enough.
To make it clear “Curtin boom” is a set of possibly related to each other spikes (i.e. caused by the same event) in the acoustic pressure. Nothing more. It is not a location or locations.
On the “Curtin boom”.
Here is the first paper of Dr. Duncan, based on the analysis of the signal at HA01 and RCS stations:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m213hh80ystvfgo/MH370%20media%20release%202014.pdf?dl=0
Here it is referenced in ATSB June 2014 report:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hzzica9ao4r8atc/mr052_MH370_Definition_of_Sea_Floor_Wide_Area_Search.pdf?dl=0
Here is the second paper of Dr. Duncan:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tx4bl9tbieob7se/Scott%20Reef%20IMOS%20logger%20data%20analysis%20for%202014_03_08_Release.pdf?dl=0
I made a combined plot of the acoustic pressure at all the 3 stations:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yakbhw20a0p4kcf/curtin_event.png?dl=0
Notes:
1. The peak signal at the Scott Reef station is approximately 7x higher than at HA01.
2. Extract for the first Dr. Duncan’s paper: “The signal was not received at HA08S which could be due to it being blocked by shallow water to the north or northwest of this station or poor coupling of the signal into the Deep Sound Channel due to an unfavorable seabed slope.” Sorry, it is hard to believe that the hydrophones of HA08 at ~6 times closer distance picked nothing.
3. The signal at the Scott Reef was recorded for 15 minutes per hour, meaning that there is no information about possible later spikes.
4. Extract from the second Dr. Duncan’s paper: “It is impossible to be certain that the Scott Reef IMOS recorder arrival at 01:32:49 UTC is from the same event as the arrivals at HA01 and the Rottnest IMOS recorder that have been analysed previously, however they share enough characteristics that it seems plausible that they are from the same event. Assuming this is the case results in an event location that is near the geologically active Carlsberg Ridge southwest of India.”
Does this clarify the difference between assumptions and facts?
Tangential on topic:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-01/kayak-washes-up-in-new-zealand-18-months-being-abandoned/7466100
A home made kayak, abandoned in 2014, now washed up on NZ shores.
I haven’t dug deeper yet, but one could find time and location of abandonment, time and location of on beach find, then plug this into the various ocean drift models and check their predictive capabilities or otherwise.
And then there are the barnacles…
Re barnacles, it occurred to me, that after the RR clean and encrusted pictures, we could infer that all found pieces of debris, in all likelyhood, have washed up (well?) before their later findings.
@@AM2 Not only can we not be sure who was on MH370, but we don’t even know how carefully investigations of the passengers’ backgrounds were pursued.
To come back on that youtube video I posted.I can only conclude there is a very serious safety issue here.
Who’s is this pilot showing this person around in the E/E bay? Is there only one other pilot in the cockpit during this ‘excursion’? Who is this person filming?
Overall it’s also a very nice instruction-video for people with lethal intentions. It shows how easy it is to access and where the essential equipment is.
No need for a bomb or anything. Just your hands will easily bring the plane down.
Besides there’s also a hatch door in the floor with access from/to the outside. Is this one locked?
If not it would be rather easy for someone on the ground (employe?) that night to sneak in and lock himself up. Pulling circuit brakers later and damaging equipment.
Other thoughts about this video?
I gladly would hear.
@Ge Rijn I’ll help you out. The video clip and the issue of access to the E/E bay were issues of intense focus year in the first year following the incident. Some airlines apparently have a lock mechanism on the E/E bay hatch, while others to do not. I have personally witnessed, in the wake of the loss of MH370, the First Officer of two separate Korean Air 777 flights standing on top of the hatch.
@Rand
Thank you. Never saw the clip before,
I know the access door was discussed before but this video clip realy amazed me.
And still does.
Have they ever investigated if one of their employes (or someone else) was/is missing since that evening of the 7th of March 2014?
Ge Rijn My basic view is that the criminal investigation ended with looking into the Shah’s flight simulator rig – and the cargo of mangosteens.
@Matty Do recall the name of the commenter who repeatedly pressed the point of the aircraft perhaps having been struck by lightning in the South China Sea? Yep.
@Rand, yes I guess you’re right. And those passengers and other crew.
Maybe they did check other (ground)employes too.
Iet’s assume there where now leads.
We’ll maybe never know anyway.
But like this a B777 must be one of the easiest planes to hijack and sabotage.
‘no leads’ offcourse..
@AM2 @Ge Rijn @Rand
The well documented security vulnerability of the E/E bay and now Kuala Lumpur airport customs means that anyone could potentially access it, not just an employee. Well before PAX loading.
This would fit with Jeff Wise’s earlier hypothesis that the turn back of 9M-MRO after IGARI may have come as a complete surprise to the Captain and Copilot.
But to depressurise the plane to gain full control would only work if the back up oxygen could be disabled in such a way that wouldn’t be noticed on the cockpit pre takeoff checks. I’m not sure of this is possible.
As far as Indonesian radar not detecting 9M-MRO – are we meant to believe this? Early on in the search Indonesia refused any overflying of its territorial waters and associated land by search aircraft.
Rand – yes I remember him.
And you may know the answer to this query: If Shah was close to the opposition, as a senior MAS guy hanging with Anwar and whoever else was passing through that circle, would they have had an open file on him in any case?
Qaradawi – the Mufti of choice for two generations of some of the worst nasties, Fatwa happy, and covered in innocent blood. Some names that will go down in infamy credit him with some of their deeds.
So as not to deceive or mislead anybody, regarding the FMT vaguely near NILAM & IGOGU, the BTO data defines the east-west velocity of the a/c (actually, the velocity towards / away the sub-satellite point, a few degrees north of the equator as viewed from NILAM / IGOGU, angle = ATAN(1.6/~32))…
And the BFO data defines the north-south velocity of the a/c…
So that between the both of them, each defining velocities along mostly orthogonal directions, the a/c velocity is almost specified…
The Inmarsat JoN article states that the best-fit track is ~450kts @ ~300deg, which is almost perfectly consistent with air-route N571…
The only ambiguity is RoC, a positive RoC could mimic more northerly flight, i.e. a slower speed @ 270deg + RoC would also fit the data…
et vice versa, descent would allow a faster speed @ 320deg, say…
But why would the aircraft CLIMB if it was slowing down and moving closer to Banda Aceh, Maimun Saleh, and all the airports there…
Or DESCEND if it was moving faster on a heading farther away from the same ??
It seems noteworthy that the best-fit with no RoC already almost perfectly fits the military radar track out of Penang.
So that actually may imply something important, i.e. reasonably firm evidence against any altitude changes or track changes away from last known on N571 from MEKAR towards NILAM.
Malaysian immigration officers sacked for deliberately disabling passport controls at airport !
Fifteen Malaysian immigration officers have been sacked and dozens have been suspended and redeployed after they appear to have deliberately disabled the international airport’s passport check over a number of years.
Immigration Director-General Sakib Kusmi told Malaysian media on Tuesday that the dismissed and suspended officers may have links to human-trafficking syndicates.
“They deal online. The instructions come from overseas … they can manipulate our system from outside. You can see this in our computers — the cursor moves without someone operating it,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-01/malaysian-immigration-officers-disabled-airport-checks/7465448
Please consider the acting pilot’s choice, of the waypoint VAMPI from Penang. According to Skyvector, Y337 to GIVAL would be the more obvious choice.
So, selection of VAMPI > GIVAL implies a preference for the southern swath, of the KLIA FIR, nearer Indonesia. Already, out of Penang, the a/c was favoring southern trajectories, over northern ones (which also would have remained well within the same FIR).
That gives me the impression, that the pilot(s) where planning some sort of southward-directed FMT-esque maneuver, somewhere out past VAMPI-MEKAR-NILAM.
If so, then a major, turning maneuver, to the south, was planned from Penang, if not prior to. And, other than a seemingly historically unique choice to fly all night into the middle of nowhere, the only other obvious reason to turn south somewhere vaguely near NILAM-IGOGU, would be to maneuver towards the major Indonesian airports there.
Such confirms this author’s bias towards favoring some variety of landing attempt scenario.
The most bizarre part of the FMT, is its direction SSW @ 190-200deg, towards visually endless stretches of open ocean. VictorI’s suggestion of BEDAX, and by implication ANOKO, offers a solution, as a waypoint associated with WITT BA airport, yet on a SSW heading from the FMT region. The only potential problem, is that from ANOKO / IGOGU to BEDAX, requires a heading of almost 200deg, directed too much westward, to fit the BTO ping rings, even ignoring winds aloft and allowing MAG headings, or so I understand. However, the Inmarsat JoN article states that exactly a heading of 200deg fits the 18:40 sat-phone-call BFO values the best! VAMPI-MEKAR-NILAM-ANOKO-BEDAX would be an obvious, text-book time-biding holding maneuver around Banda Aceh WITT airport airspace, whilst (say) waiting for onboard repairs to permit a landing attempt.
So I offer that the waypoints ANOKO-BEDAX and a heading of 200-degrees, per the Inmarsat JoN article, as well as the suggestions of VictorI and Mr. Exner (one of whose papers stated 200-ish degrees as the most consistent with the 1st satphone call BFO value), are the best leads to date. NILAM to ANOKO would fit the “up-over-up” “stepping” pattern of the military radar track (Penang VAMPI MEKAR NILAM), and the 96nm between them could be covered in under 14 minutes at Inmarsat’s best-fit 800kph… such that the FMT at ANOKO towards BEDAX would have been completed at 18:38, comfortably prior to the sat-phone-call…
Slightly modify Inmarsat’s IGOGU (7.5,94.4) FMT southwards to ANOKO (7.2,94.4) and keep the rest of the track virtually identical ??
The only other suggestions I can imagine, is that pilot selection of open water was a conscious choice, intentionally aiming the a/c maximally away from all land, so as (say) to prevent collateral casualties on the ground in the foreseeable predictable ultimate eventual impending crash of the craft (this would be consistent with the disputed 18:43 “cabin disintegrating” transmission)…
Or that the FMT was not completed, with pilots rendered incapacitated amidst the turn and (say) envelope bank protection leveling the wings on a random, intermediate, happened-to-be-SSW heading.
@All
Stop Press
Signal detected from Egyptair “black box” say French investigators.
Classic fm news 3pm BST.
In regard to the Flaperon report;
Something interesting I note – the author draws attention
to certain ‘apparent’ holes seen on the outboard face [right
side of] the flaperon (ref report page 16).
The author (and perhaps everyone) has not noticed a very
similar feature-pattern of (what would be) through bolts
in the top picture on page 4, showing the linkages that
exist inboard (and slightly forward) of the flaperon (see
bottom centre of that picture).
Although the ‘triangular’ arrangement of holes on the
outboard side of the flaperon does not, in fact, match the
triangular arrangement of linkage ‘bolt’ tops that are
located inboard of the flaperon, (even after taking into
account the flipping of the photo), the fact of similarity
got me wondering IF there could be ‘matching’ bolt patterns
existing located amongst the linkages in/under the wing
(OUTBOARD from the flaperon).
I found a picture partially showing certain of the (right
wing) linkages located outboard of the ‘right side flaperon’
at http://photovalet.com/277733
(from United Airlines UAL N210UA, a 777-222ER apparently);
http://photovalet.com/data/comps/TAO/TAOD01_039.jpg
In the above picture, locate the flaperon and then look at
the trailing edge of the aileron on the right.
Approximately at the (apparent) centre of that aileron, and
just below that edge, you can just make out a triangular
pattern of bolts. Also, there seems to be a possibly larger
bolt just left and up from the triangular pattern of bolts.
Intriguingly, if that larger bolt were forced against the
outboard side of the flaperon, and if the triangular pattern
of bolts were rotated slightly counterclockwise and also
forced against the outboard side of the flaperon, THEN the
resulting impact holes in the flaperon caused by those bolts
could result in the hole damage seen on the 9M-MRO flaperon
as shown on the previously mentioned page 16 of the report.
Note also, the ‘large’ damage hole in the flaperon is shaped
oval, and the oval is stretched in such a direction, just as
it would be if the large bolt impacted the flaperon.
_
I leave it to others to form a viewpoint as to whether;
a.) the aileron could droop enough, in a dive, that the
outboard side of the flaperon, if the flaperon ripped loose
and moved or rotated counterclockwise, would contact those
bolts, or
b.) the aileron, if it ripped loose, could cause those bolts
to contact the flaperon, or
c.) the wing, if it bent in a dive or crumpled in an impact,
would cause those bolts to contact the aileron (note- you
would tend to think that an impact scenario would cause
crumple damage to the skin of the flaperon, but the flaperon
has virtually no crumple damage), or
d.) (insert here your prefered combination of the above or
other theory!).
Cheers
Outside of reporting, is there proof that MH370 did not contact Ho Chi Minh ATC? Were their tapes listened to or is it taken on word / say so they weren’t contacted?
How has this “fact” been varified/checked?
@ All,
Ashren has very helpfully posted up a video of an examination of two of the pieces – Bernache and Gris Gris.
https://twitter.com/ashren/status/737967173595860992
It seems the case that at least one of these pieces has an identification number on it, though we are not told what. Also it appears one of the parts ( tapered flat piece) has screws and not rivets, does this mean it’s an interior part?
Hope he doesn’t mind me sharing this, I’m not sure if he posts here or not.
@Susie: The “screws” look like Hi-Lok fasteners, as we have found on other parts.
With a MS Excel spreadsheet which replicates the Inmarsat JoN BFO model, I find that a constant speed 867kph = 475kts track, from MEKAR to NILAM to ANOKO to BEDAX and onwards, fitting the ping-rings with the same constant speed, fits the measured values more than adequately well (RMS error < 7Hz). 7th ring crossing @ 36.5S, 90.8E
One of many possible interpretations, some sort of malfunction @ IGARI rendering the a/c unable to slow or descend, with diversion towards BA WITT airport, to provide sufficient time for onboard emergency troubleshooting & repairs, partially completed by 18:25 @ NILAM, but ultimately insufficient to save the a/c.
@ Victor – thank you, I will pass that on. So it could still easily be an external part.
@Erik – where did you get the idea that BTO represents E/W velocity and BFO represents N/S velocity?
One is a time, the other is a frequency shift. You cannot get distance from a frequency shift and you cannot get velocity from a simple time value.
Could you explain?
@JS: Erik Nelson is correct, provided the airplane is at a known or assumed location at a certain time, and BTO and BFO have no errors of calibration or measurement. I’ll let Erik explain.
@Susie
Nice link. Haven taken some snapshot from the screen rather good quality.
The ‘screws’ are actualy screws with Phillips head and bolt-on nut. Not exactly like a hi-lock which has a pressed on nut. (scroll down and you see them)
http://airfasco.com/products.php
It looks to me likewise part of a fairly easy replaceable trailing edge of a flap.
It seems to be broken off in front of the end spar of this flap which had other panel material. You can clearly see the dividing line between light and black material between the two rows of screws.
The other piece has clearly two rows of rivets. It’s odd they seem to have forgotten to finisch two of them. They stick out next to eachother unfinisched (kind of repair?).
Looks a lot like another piece of flap fairing to me like the Liam Lotter piece.
Hope they soon tell more and confirm.
@AM2 Many thanks for the link. Much appreciated 🙂
@ Ge Rijn
Yes, I see what you mean about the bolts/screws. Everyone seems to disagree about those!
I’m interested in the two large apparently ‘punched-out’ shapes in one of the pieces – straight sided holes, polygons I suppose, with a straight line connecting them – as though some other part was attached there perhaps?
I’m sure someone would recognise those in terms of location on a plane. It doesn’t look like an accidental impact caused those shapes.
The holes, I should say, are shown at about 49 seconds in the linked video.
Since Erik got me looking at SkyVector again, I happened to note the following: NILAM to BEDAX follows P627, which leads directly to… … Mauritius & La Reunion.
@Brock, all,
The image linked to by @Buyerninety (Thanks for posting the link to the link photo.), is another example of red writing on aerofoils.
Look at the panel on top (spoiler?), just left of the yellow cable, which runs through the picture’s foreground. There seems to be a single word in red lettering.
Does anybody here know, what may be stencilled/painted at this location? Could it be something ending in “IC”, “TIC” or “LIC” as per the Maldives piece?
https://twitter.com/ashren
The “Flat” part looks like a trailing edge surface, full depth H/C, tapered, that is attached to a larger surface. It has screw fasteners with sealed nutplates for attachment. You can see one of the nutplates in the photo. It is on the bottom surface of the spar; the forward end of the debris. Nutplates are installed with glue, clips or rivets on the back surface of a part. Nutplates and screw fasteners are used where a part is to be removed for maintenance or to be easily replaceable in the field. Trailing edge parts can sustain quite a bit of damage during servicing of the airplane on the ground and thus the need to replace in the field. Screws and nutplates are not just for interior parts. They are used all over the airplane. They are only used in areas where one would remove the part for replacement or servicing purposes. I have seen them used in limited access area where one can only get to one side of the part. The fasteners are not Lockbolts nor Hi Locks.
Anwar’s inclinations:
FYI – there is considerable overlap between Sharia and Socialism.
The hard-line Islamist element of Anwar’s alliance the PAS, essentially walked away from his three party coalition last year. Anwar moved quickly to replace it with another Islamist grouping made from members of PAS, who essentially took over another party(Malaysian Workers Party) and rebranded it into National Trust Party(Armanah Negara). Prior to this the Malaysian Workers Party was dormant since 1978. The new brand advocates political Islam and it is an Anwar design.
Anwar’s party along with the DAP both share a platform of wealth redistribution(socialist) and are almost analogous in important ways but he has gone to extraordinary lengths to include political Islam in his platform.
An outlaw biker with a Greenpeace badge is not a greenie. Anwar is an Islamist even without me doing another installment on Al-Qaradawi. Shah had his eyes wide open.
I understand that some will want to stare at the Mona Lisa on this but it isn’t really necessary.
Here’s a link to two images I spliced together.
Appears to me to be tail cone. Rivet pattern and tight curvature appear to match.
What do you all think.
I’ve think I’ve also managed to find compelling similarities to the debris with the seal and the raised profile. That piece to me looks like a match for fwd undercarriage door.
https://twitter.com/drmikehunt/status/738052791218765824
other more detailed images attached to @drmikehunt on Twitter.
@Gysbreght,
An interesting point in the Helios report is that the outflow valve was only 12% open.
OZ
@Matty, Sheer repetition isn’t going to win converts. We understand your position, why don’t you grant us the courtesy of leaving this topic and moving on to something else.
@Erik and Gysbrecht – still waiting for an explanation. BTO, as we know it, is a distance measurement. How does it get you an east-west velocity?
@Dr Mike Hunt. About your URL, the Liberal Party of Australia avows it has no need for a gynaecologist. I believe it, for the party is over 70 and its coalition partner is known to keep its distance.
With an election looming, should it be that it needs a Plan B it is more likely to seek the services of a funeral director though I would not rush to that yet.
As to the tail cone the cross sectional shapes in your comparison appear quite different, in your lingo, a baby’s head vs its bottom?
@dr mike hunt osted June 1, 2016 at 8:13 PM wrote “Here’s a link to two images I spliced together. Appears to me to be tail cone. Rivet pattern and tight curvature appear to match. What do you all think.”
https://twitter.com/drmikehunt/status/738052791218765824
I don’t think so. Part scaling is wrong. Fastener spacing should be similar part to part. If you scale parts to fit fastener spacing the actual tail cone section is much bigger than part with gloved hands on it for scale. Curvature of tail cone more dramatic near tail and more varying than part with hands. Button head fasteners on tail cone section due to thick boundary layer of air stream at rear of fuselage. No buttons on part with hands. Part with hands looks composite honeycomb. Composites don’t take heat well. Tail cone is probably metal due to hot exhaust from APU above tail cone. Black APU exhaust pipe is probably Ti. Tail cone probably Ti or metal. Composite parts need heat shield to protect it from APU exhaust. Could be high temp composites; but costly.
777 Tailcone.
http://www.airliners.net/photo/0249051/M/
Very good article on Boeing 777 materials.
http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~jps7/Aircraft%20Design%20Resources/Structures/Boeing%20777%20materials.pdf
Former Boss.
@Susie
Yes I see what you mean about this hole through the piece.
I don’t think something was attached there for a kind of hinge/attachement won’t cause a hole through and through like this imo.
Ans I assume it’s only a relatively small part of a trailing edge which original size might be 2 or 3 times longer.
The hole looks to me more like the damage done by a bullet shot through a door.
It leaves a relatively small entrance hole but a much larger exit hole.
So I think more of a high speed small massive object hit the piece there and shot right through it like a bullet.
The damage on the right side of the piece might be done by breaking loose from a (hinge)attachement at that area for that trailing edge spar’s end looks undamaged.
Curious what Ken Goodwin has to say about it (just like you I suppose:)
@buyerninety. With a blow up I can make out what might be three bolt holes where you describe but the larger fourth is elusive. Any bolts would need to be long and very adjacent to reach the flaperon outer rib at any angle (see recess, Analysis exhibit 15). There has been conjecture that these “holes” are carbon fibre showing through, despite their appearance. I notice the “holes” of the Analysis exhibit 13 are not in the same place as the marks in the same area in the Reunion Island photo (go to fifth down, second from left):
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=mh370+flaperon&rlz=1C1ASUT_enAU597AU600&espv=2&biw=1253&bih=632&tbm=isch&imgil=8BkxMDseh
Maybe debris? It looks unlikely that they are holes unless done after recovery.
By the way, you might mean outer flap, which is immediately outboard of the flaperon, instead of aileron. Unless flaps were deployed in the dive they could not replicate aileron deflection and aileron deflection in a dive would be limited, if any.
@Susie
On second thought; hinge-like attachments on a trailing edge are unlikely in this case.
I know some planes have moveable parts in certain trailing edges of flaps but a B777 hasn’t as far as I know.
Very speculative still but I think the hole could be caused while this flap was in the ‘down’ position hit by small debris of a engine disintegrating and shearing off.
Then where small hole-side is would be the under-side of this ‘trailing edge’ piece.