Hot on the heels of a reported possible MH370 piece in South Australia, news reaches us that Blaine Alan Gibson has found three pieces of suspected MH370 debris in Madagascar. This article says, in part:
Three new fragments which could have come from Malaysia Airlines Flight 270 were discovered on the morning of Monday, June 6, on the Island of Nosy Boraha, in the northeast of Madagascar…
These fragments were found by Blaine Alan Gibson, an American businessman, while he was accompanied by a from the France 2 TV show “Complément d’enquête.” They were on a long, almost deserted beach near the village of Sahasifotra, where tons of waste arrive every day from the Indian Ocean.
One piece in particular, 77 cm wide by 50 cm, apparently made by composite materials, strongly resembles another fragment which Gibson found in February on the coast of Mozambique.
” These two fragments are very very similar: the same paint color, the diameter of the attachment holes is identical. and on the back the texture is the same. I believe that it is a piece from MH370,” Blaine Alan Gibson told our colleagues. Two other parts were also found, a smaller panel with the inscription “FB” as well as another plastic part which could be the frame of an economy class seat’s video screen.
UPDATE 6/9/16: Here’s a screengrab of a YouTube video showing a Malaysia Airlines 777 economy class seatback (thanks to reader @sk999). The coat hook in particular looks like a good match for the third piece.
Here’s an even better shot, via @BBCwestcott. Note the color of the fabric around the “COAT HOOK” button:
@ROB
I am with @RetiredF4 that something like special very small (infra) rocket may exist to damage plane engine – engine has internal sensors which detect any disbalance by any kind of rotor damage and if this occurs then engine destroys itself intentionally to not damage whole plane by tearing wing or self-shooting the fusellage with pieces form inside – at least thats how I understood it – very small solid object can initiate this – and as a last resort, its nothing impossible to shoot down even passenger plane which can be more dangerous; sad but true
… but I cant accept that anybody at this time will shoot down the plane intentionally and tries to hide it against public – if theirs intent could be to target KL towers then everybody will understand any action of military; …Soviet Union 40yrs ago, maybe, sure KL007 as a mistake instead of military RC-135 or so…
And kindly please, try to be polite too; is it you who mentioned asperger? I dont know how this matches with you here, but nothing to artificially apologize and relativize; everybody is sometimes wrong even you and and its OK.
@Rob
Then you have to take me in for I started this ‘nonsense’.
I suggest; just take it as something to keep in mind. Consider it as free-thinking leaving every possible option open till it’s debunked convincingly.
@falken
Yes I agree motive for cover up would be a problem for it would be quite defendable to shoot at a roque plane as a last resort on avoiding a possible bigger disaster as you mention.
But if this plane was not regarded as a threat as they stated later and they still shot it above open sea not being an immediate threat to anything at all and also being a plane of their own, they would have a lot to explain don’t you think?
I guess it would end their careers at the least and a big blow to their power structure.
Malaysia was derelict and irresponsible not to send up any aircraft to observe and document mh370 as it flew. I suspect the real reason was they didn’t want to engage with possibly any other countries military and AWACS aircraft buzzing about.
@Jeff Wise @others
The silence tells me things are not going the way they were supposed to by anyone.
I hope things can be settled.
And I hope I did not contribute too much to frustration or confusion whit my ‘shot at’ scenario posts.
If so I sincerely apologize.
@Ge Rijn
Dont worry, no harm done. Your input and the follow up by others caused some brains to work things over. That is a good sign. Additionally, weekend is coming and here in Europe the European soccer championship chews up some time.
@RetiredF4
Thank you. Hope you’re right. Some time out with watching soccer could well do the trick.
Brains swithced of for a while, only eyes on the ball 😉
@All
Re flight data . Recently flew from Chicago to RSW right into path of storm Colin . As expected climbed to 39K on AL FL border then hit strong turbulence . On looking back at the flight data online at home it reported that at that moment the AC rotated 180 deg in heading from sw to ne and slowed from 440kt to 280Kt ! Can some one explain this please .
@Owen Wiseman: Possible a 80-knot tailwind turned into a 80-knot headwind when the plane turned 180 deg, producing a 160-knot difference in ground speed.
Looks like it could still be some time.before we hear more about ms804.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/17/egyptair-flight-ms804-extensively-damaged-black-boxes-will-need-repairs-before-analysis
@Victorl
The wind speed change I agree with , its the full 180 then another 180 deg to continue on the same heading with in 2 mins (as the data records say) , is that possible ? If so then no wonder I was pressed up against the window with the G forces! My point is, Is that data true and if not what would cause the error?
@RetiredF4 @Ge Rijn. Thanks to you both.
The information you have given us RetiredF4 about military options of last resort in the face of an imminent catastrophic terrorist act is very thought provoking. That information and your good ideas too Ge Rijn about how that might have played out with this situation provide new ideas for a fairly credible scenario IMO, especially with the damage to debris that you have observed. There are situations (especially with 9/11 in mind) where I feel that the public would accept that such an action has to be taken even for a passenger plane.
@all. For this type of scenario to have happened with MH370 then it would seem that we wouldn’t have to discard the radar or ISAT data if the plane was shot at sometime just before the FMT. One aspect which is unclear is that if military were involved – wouldn’t they at least follow or somehow track the plane to its final crash into the ocean? While I have pretty-much given up on the notion that the debris can help pinpoint the crash location, does it fit with the above scenario?
@Jeff
Around this time yesterday I made some silly remark about a dog’s breakfast. Sorry, I hadn’t yet seen your post which was a few minutes before but I shouldn’t have said that.
@Susie/George/MuOne/AM2/Greg: much appreciated.
@all: I’ve continued to mine the rich vein that is the USGS database – this time trying to test the official narrative suggesting the Curtin Boom was seismic activity from Carlsberg Ridge:
I’ve plotted all recorded events between 1952 and 2016 for a grid centred loosely on Carlsberg Ridge.
To this, I’ve added a scatter plot of the possible locations of the Curtin Boom, if – IF – both Leeuwin and Scott Reef recordings were of this same event. The 10,000-point scatter plot was calibrated to replicate the coordinate means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficient in Curtin’s September, 2014 paper.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72ZGcybVYtT1ROUDA/view?usp=sharing
Observations:
A) Carlsberg Ridge and the Curtin Boom are separated by multiple sigmas – I had to generate 10,000 sample “booms” to get the two to actually overlap.
B) An event as far northeast as the Curtin Boom best estimate location would not even be classified as a Carlsberg Ridge event – it would be classified as a “Maldive Islands Region” event.
C) Unlike the Chinese seismologists’ event, the Curtin Boom does not appear anywhere in the USGS database.
On the surface, these facts would seem to be somewhat at odds with the cavalier dismissal of the Curtin Boom as a Carlsberg Ridge event.
I am well aware that I am now questioning the official narrative for TWO sound events (IGARI/Sumatra area at 18:55 UTC, and Diego Garcia/Maldives area at 00:25-00:39 UTC). It is hard to imagine a simple scenario in which BOTH were MH370-related events embarrassing enough to cover up (though if we’re contemplating any sort of shoot-down, I suppose retaliation may not be out of the question). But the data is the data; and on the surface, both now seem curious to me.
All thoughts warmly welcomed.
FWIW: I think we should neither believe nor disbelieve in the idea that the Inmarsat data is the “holy grail”. I think we should instead rigorously TEST its veracity, by comparison to all available evidence.
@Brock
Did you discover any info about magnitude of acoustic events generated from plane crashes…water surface or ocean floor?
Its hard to see if there are any green dots amongst the black … but as you say, that area would probably not be classified Carlsberg Ridge. Not listed in earthquaketrack anyway presumably because less than 1.5 mag.
Yes, the IGARI/Sumatra event is of interest, especially if we are considering any possibility of military action.
@Jeff. re: ISAT data: If you want to restrict conversation here to scenarios which are consistent with those data or with spoofing or perhaps even hacked… then its your blog, so perhaps we just need a clear ruling. Other conversation can go offline.
To All: I would like to hear discussion about any scenarios! Nothing should be off limit except aliens/ufos lol Nothing is proven as of yet! I agree these pieces could very well be from MH17!
@Rob
Z and Malaysia. Z and Malaysia. EVERYTHING else being put out here of consumption is either agenda driven, delusional, or, in the case of F4, laughable. He’s “sure” of a high speed impact, but still thinks the possibility of a Northern route remains on the table. But he’s ‘finally’ disavowed his planting flirtations. Nuthouse.
@Matt
play the game, not the man. I’m open to discussion, which you are obviously not. Would you please explain, why a high speed impact would be not compatible with an end point north of the present search area?
@AM2 @RetiredF4
Thank you.
A possible explanation for not following the plane to it’s final crash into the ocean could be the range of those jets? They could not follow all the way due to limited fuel capacity and had to return to base?
And for it went out of Butterworth radar range it could not be tracked further by them either? They lost track of the plane?
@Brock McEwen @AM2
Swissair flight 111 crash was seismographicly recorded in several places.
Here a link on seismographic investigations of aircraft incidents:
http://file.scirp.org/Html/6-8302038_34113.htm
Regarding going back to basics – this article in the Telegraph is from the very beginning. I had forgotten all about the oil slicks and the Vietnamese statements saying it had crashed off Phu Quoc Island.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/malaysia/10685413/Malaysia-Airlines-crash-terror-fears-over-stolen-passports-used-on-missing-plane-MH370.html
Not sure why I’m putting this here, it’s just that sometimes it’s good to go back and revise what was said at the start. With hindsight, Hussein seemed to be indicating that reports of the crash were not to be taken as certain. And I’m wondering what did cause such a vast oil slick.
@Ge Rijn. Thanks for the link to that interesting paper
Susie
Richard Quest’s book – “these reports …. had to be investigated and discounted, which would take days: incidentally, the oil slick found in the South China Sea was analyzed as bunker oil from a ship, not the much lighter aircraft oil.”
@AM2 @Jeff Wise
Something on Inmarsat data.
In a scenario like this the Inmarsat data could have come like a kind of ‘gift from heaven’.
The almost perfect alibi to eagerly declare the plane was lost in the SIO and to cover up any involvement with no questions asked.
@MH
To come back on your sugeestion the real reason for not engaging (with jets I suppose) was the possibility of militairy aircraft or AWACS from other countries buzzing around.
I think it would be the other way around. The possibility of AWACS or other militairy aircrafts buzzing around would rather be an extra motivation to engage.
Being detected by other countries that you decided not to engage in such a case would be far worse than being detected doing the right thing: engaging.
@Verdun = Thank you! Perfect answer – that’s sorted then and I can forget about it.
@AM2
On your question if a scenario like this could fit with the found debris I assume you mean with the most recent drift studies.
I think it can and possibly even can make a better match.
Brock McEwen suggested in his drift study from dec. 2015 allready an area north of 33S partly based on the flaperon drift. Godfrey comes in his latest drift study to similar conclusions based on 9 pieces of debris.
Oleksandr also came with a more northern area based on a curved flight path, lower speeds and/or altitude (if I understood him well enough).
Assuming one engine was taken out and a wing was damaged. The loss of power and wing damage would force the plane to descent and slow down won’t it?
How long could the plane fly on, on one engine (on full power?) on a lower altitude? If yaw could not be corrected completely due to an assumed damaged right wing (based on debris found till now) what kind of deviation would it make?
@Owen Wiseman: If the bank angle was 30 deg (which would be a fairly steep angle for a commercial flight) and the airspeed was 360 kt, the turn rate would be 1.75 deg/s, which would take 3.4 min to turn the plane 360 deg.
A 2-g turn would require a 60-deg bank angle, and at 360 kt, would turn the plane at 5.24 deg/s, or 1.15 min for a 360-deg turn. I don’t know which plane you were in, but this would probably be closer to the loading limits of the wings.
So although a 360-deg turn in 2 minutes at 360 kt is possible, unless the plane was in an emergency situation, it is unlikely to have occurred. The time resolution of the ADS-B data reported on the flight data site might not have sufficient time resolution and accuracy to accurately determine the turn rate.
My observation of ADS-B data reported on these sites is that position information is accurate (when not estimated due to a loss of signal); timestamps often are not.
@Jeff Wise
I’ve got more on my mind regarding this scenario but before I go on I’ll now first await a reaction on it from you.
I won’t like an outcome to keep on talking about this and after a while will be complete discarded by you (and others) making a fool of myself.
@Ge Rijn and @all
“On your question if a scenario like this could fit with the found debris I assume you mean with the most recent drift studies.”
Actually I wasn’t thinking of the drift studies…I don’t think they will help us identify a crash site (partly as I wouldn’t discount one away from 7th arc) but they might help rule in or rule out certain broad areas. I was referring to the debris up to and including Blaine Gibson’s recent finds on Mozambique. You had noticed cuts and other damage on some pieces and I take it that several are probably from the R wing. If in the scenario we were discussing the damaged plane crashed somewhere near the 7th arc in the SIO, without pilot control, why are we mainly seeing these types of debris, why not debris from all over the plane? Or are you thinking… with pilot control and some attempt to ditch?
Thanks for your several replies. I’m going to chew over these various ideas for a few days now but would like to hear what others think too both for and against this as a plausible scenario to “keep on the table”.
@Victorl
Thank you for your input . The side G force did not last for more than a few secs so its very unlikely that we did a full 360 deg turn. Therefore if the data is incorrect in this very simple case , what faith should we put in more complex data issues discussed here? It was a AA B737-800 BTW.
@Ge Rijn
correction to my last post… Blaine’s finds in Madagascar
For those who are veering towards the shootdown theory, the case of KAL 007 in 1983 is well documented. It did keep flying after a missile hit for several minutes and the crew were conscious and made several announcements to the passengers, though there does not seem to have been any communication with the ground. See the transcripts:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007_transcripts
@Ge Rijn – I reviewed your feedback to me.
I still can’t believe Malaysia would just let it fly back over all of Malaysia without military jet escorts. Unless they had a much better reason than it was “friendly”…
@AM2
As you read I also prefer to await some comment (especialy from Jeff).
The confirmed right wing parts and damage seen till now might as well have nothing to do with which engine was taken out in this scenario imo. I actualy think it would have been rather the left engine than the right.
The engine cowling piece can not be attributed to one of them (according ATSB).
The ..1FB piece still can not be confirmed (and is not confirmed yet at all) coming from the right or left wing as are the two ‘flaperon’ panels found so far.
It all (the pieces) could only be the result of an attempt to ditch the plane by a pilot in control (like EA961 or ‘Sully’) or a ‘without a consious pilot’ uncontrolled relatively ‘low energy’ impact (like AF447).
The assumed shrapnel damage could affect possibly a wide range of the aircraft structure.
Considering the 7th arc the left engine taken out and the left wing damaged would be more logical imo.
A deviation to the left (east) due to uncompensatable drag could fit the Inmarsat data better. A deviation to the right (west) would be a lot more complicated (imo).
My brain is doing overtime..gonna have a beer.. 😉
@MH
That’s why I cann’t believe it also.
Where in its flight path would mh370 get shot. I am with the idea once damaged by shrapnel its urgent to land the aircraft as soon as possible. What happened to mh370 and its continued flying for 6+ hours if having shrapnel damage just doesn’t make sense to me.
It was night in a peaceful area without military activity, any missile launch would likely be detected by satellites.
@StevanG
“It was night in a peaceful area without military activity, any missile launch would likely be detected by satellites.”
No, never ever.
Satellites for this type of mission are designed to detect intercontinental balistic missiles. An AAM infrared missile booster has a burn time of few seconds, the afterburner plume of a fighter is about 10 times bigger.
To give you an idea about such a missile and how tiny the thing is, here is a link.
http://su-27flanker.com/weapon/r-73-vympel-nato-aa-11-archer/#
Just for the record, I never said it was a shoot down, it was a Malayan SU-30 with a R73 AAM. I only try to demonstrate that such a scenario would be technically possible.
@Ge Rijn: re: “Brock McEwen suggested in his drift study from dec. 2015 allready an area north of 33S partly based on the flaperon drift.”
For crystal clarity: I was testing the hypothesis that south of s33 was indicated by the flaperon. THe conclusion was that, unless they knew something we didn’t about flaperon freeboard, this search location was counter-indicated. Regions north of s33 are certainly less counter-indicated by the flaperon’s location and timing, but are, to me, counter-indicated for entirely different reasons.
@Susie: kudos for forensically going through the prior reporting. One thing I’ve found: unless we have a named official source – and an unambiguously clear statement – we may not be getting the whole story. For instance: did Mr. Quest provide a named source, and a direct quote?
It would be very unfortunate if the oil slick story were yet another case of “acoustic pings = MH370’s black box”-style regurgitation of official misdirection by a mainstream media with zero time or resources for primary research.
@ those following drift – having limited know how of gyres, eddies, ocean currents,whirlpools, surface currents sub-surface currents, etc. etc. please have patience with me on this note, but, is it at all feasible these, or some of these debris findings could be on their 2nd round trip around the IO…god forbid their 3rd trip…? @Jeff – off topic…when you took the youngun’s down to Disney last month..did you happen to stay at the Grand Floridian…? ( whew )
@Owen Wiseman said, “Therefore if the data is incorrect in this very simple case, what faith should we put in more complex data issues discussed here?”
You are comparing apples and oranges. First, the ADS-B data as reported by the flight data site is likely accurate except for the timestamp (assuming the broadcast was received and the data was not estimated). Without a good timestamp you can’t accurately calculate turn rates. Second, we fully acknowledge that the satellite data available to us after the last radar capture at 18:22 is sparse and not nearly as precise as if we had ADS-B data.
@MH
If it got shot at, it must have been before leaving Butterworth radar range. Maybe just before the decision was made to pull the trigger. Just before out of (jet) range and out of (radar) track (Butterworth).
The SDU reboot could be a consequence of such an engine blow out and shut down about that time.
The FMT could represent a descent and turn to the left stabilizing more or less on a southern heading. The drag and power loss could pulled it to lower altitudes and speeds pushing the plane to a more north (east) location under limited pilot control or some kind of AP control.
The following is just from memory, so treat with caution.
Malaysian minister of defense, acting minister of transport HH first denied that military radar had seen an unidentified aircraft flying west over Malaysia. A general, chief of the Malaysian airforce, issued a statement denying that he had made a statement to that effect to a newspaper.
Then HH admitted that that the radar had seen an aircraft crossing Malaysia east to west, but not in real time. That was discovered the next morning, when the tapes with the radar data recorded that night were replayed. The data would not be made public before they had been “corroborated” by the FAA and the NTSB.
Still later, HH’s account changed again, the aircraft was seen on radar in real time, but no action was taken because it seemed to be a civil airplane perceived to be “friendly”.
What speaks against the theory that scrambled jets could have launched a missile hitting the aircraft is the transcript of the exchanges between Kuala Lumpur ATC, HCM ATC and MAS OCC. It is hard to believe that those exchanges did not occur, and that RMAF would take such actions without ever contacting ATC.
@Gysbreght
Awaiting news from Jeff Wise still but have to react on your post..
I first had in mind if a jet was scrambled it could have hit the plane at IGARI causing an emergency that knocked out all communications and more and forced it to turn around trying to find a safe landing ground.
But on second thought it was more logic to assume a hijacked/roque-pilot plane which was intercepted on its way across Malaysia for it did not communicate and transponders were off.
No urgence, need or reason to contact KL ATC, HCM ATC or MAS OCC at that time by the militairy if they scrambled it then.
It was an unidentified aircraft at that time that urged immediate discreet action.
So I believe those exchanges did occure but before those actions (in such a scenario).
And if those actions occured this way I donn’t believe they would ever contact ATC to inform them.
@Ge Rijn:
I don’t think this is how things work, but I’ll let others, more qualified to comment, reply.
Everything was normal until past IGARI. Then something abnormal must be noticed, and that was not ATC. I suppose there is then a chain of command. First the decision to scramble is taken by someone in authority, then the decision to use weapons. All this in the middle of the night, in peacetime, no expected threat. The pilots must get out to the airplane, into their seats, start engines, taxi out to the runway, take-off, climb and intercept. Then report on what they see, awaiting orders.
@ Gysbreght
“What speaks against the theory that scrambled jets could have launched a missile hitting the aircraft is the transcript of the exchanges between Kuala Lumpur ATC, HCM ATC and MAS OCC. It is hard to believe that those exchanges did not occur, and that RMAF would take such actions without ever contacting ATC.”
For those kind of action, namly scramble of military quick reaction alert forces, interception and identification of targets and in the final stage weapon employment is accomplished on discrete military frequency under the control of a military controler. Civil ATC has no lever in such an operation. If a coordination takes place then it would be via landline to a designated military liasion officer sitting somewhere in the civil ATC entity. But I doubt that such an officer would be present in the middle of a quiet night. If necessary such a liasion officer would be tight lipped and full discretion could be handled.
@Ge Rijn
From the timeline known the area of interception would be in the Malacca street after tracking outbound from Penang. Until that point an observer could expect MH370 to land at Butterworth AFB or to track south to KL. And I also agree, a civil aircraft with lost comunications is not necessarily a target for interception, as long as its behaviour is within expected behavior pstterns. The turn to northwest was the final proof, that Mh 370 was a rouge and possibly dangerous aircraft.
Such a scenario leaves open several already discussed options. It could have been Z with some weired political statement or other reasons for the hijacking, or it could have been a highjacking by third party. But the military was more vigilant than we are made to believe and employed the preset procedures for interception, identification and intervention. But as due to their failure the aircraft was not forced to a landing and a shoot down could not be confirmed, it was appropriate to play their roll down to inactivity and take the blame for it.
The part we should discuss is, wether there are indications that the statements of the minister of air transport and defence, namly Mr. H. and his company were talking the truth or were throwing fog grenades in their interviews and statements.
Basically this discussed scenario serves the purpose to find an explanation, why a fully operational and maneuvering aircraft tracking outbound to the northwest from Penang suddenly turns into a ghost flight steady track to the south aircraft in order to crash somewhere into the SIO without further sign of life. The bottom line would be, the SIO was not the intended destination, but was the watery grave after the unlawfull intervention starting at IGARI went wrong. In that case the blame for the loss would not necessarily go to the door of Malaysia, because some third party was still responsible for the initial unlawfull intervention and caused the following possibly legal weapon employment. But Malaysia would have to be blamed for misunformation and mishandling a crisis and for an unsuccessfull search operation from the beginning.
Gysbreght,
“Malaysian minister of defense, acting minister of transport HH first denied that military radar had seen an unidentified aircraft flying west over Malaysia. A general, chief of the Malaysian airforce, issued a statement denying that he had made a statement to that effect to a newspaper.”
As far as I can tell, these assertions are urban legend. Here is an article from Sunday, March 9, the day after the plane disappeared:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/09/288113329/-trying-to-make-sense-of-malaysian-jetliner-s-disappearance
“We are trying to make sense of this,” Malaysian AIR FORCE CHIEF Rodzali Daud told a news conference today, according to the AP. “The MILITARY RADAR indicated that the aircraft may have made a turn back and in some parts, this was corroborated by CIVILIAN RADAR.”
So the radar data (and the resulting search in the Strait of Malacca) were officially acknowedged early on. Note that “air turn back” specifically refers to a return to the airport of origin, which MH370 obviously did not do, and may have led to some puzzlement.
Daud would later deny making a statement attributed to him by the Malaysian language newspaper Berita Harian that radar had affirmatively tracked the plane to the Northern end of the Strait of Malacca. All he denied was that he had made such a statement (which I presume is true), not that the information was untrue (in fact, he had simply ducked the question.)
The problem for the Malaysians was that for the rest of the week they never officially acknowledged anything beyond what was said on March 9, even though all sorts of information was leaking out, and they lost control of the story.
Regarding the ability of Malaysia to react it a timely fashion, it should be noted that it took 4 hours to set up the Rescue Coordination Center for MH370. In the recent case involving Egypt Air 804, it took Egypt 15 minutes.
@sk999: “The MILITARY RADAR indicated that the aircraft may have made a turn back and in some parts, this was corroborated by CIVILIAN RADAR.”
As I definitely recall, HH said in a press briefing that it was discovered the next morning when recorded data were examined. Is my memory failing me?
This document gives as good an explanation as any as to what transpired on the morning of March 8:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/blob/1091852/1398948752000/
mh370-press-statement-by-data.pdf
Whatever the radar operator did or not see during the night seems to have played no role in the review of the playback of radar data the next morning.