By MPat
(Note: A comment by reader Lauren H brought my attention to an analysis I’d overlooked by reader MPat. As Lauren H points out, it’s as timely now as it was when MPat first aired it back in March. — JW)
The potential arrival of more debris in the East African region is triggering interest once more in the currents and drift patterns in the SIO. To sense check the concept that debris could drift from the current search area to these regions I did a little research of my own, the premise being that the observed behaviour of real floating objects (and I am considering of course the buoys of the Global Drifter Program) should be a useful indicator of possible drift pathways, as a counterpoint to cell-based drift simulation models (which may be calibrated to high level drifter behaviour but typically lack the resolution to reproduce drifter movement in detail).
The full drifter database contains meta-data and trajectories for almost 19800 buoys worldwide (some 1400 are currently active). The meta-data includes timing of drogue loss, and a ‘death’ code to categorise the end of life status of buoys that cease transmitting. It is clear from this that drogues are typically lost in a surprisingly short timeframe. It is also notable that only 20% of all the buoys have ended their lives by running aground, with 66% simply ceasing transmission for undocumented reasons.
I have filtered out buoys that have at any time in their lives passed through the locality of the current search zone, based on a rectangle bounded by longitudes 88 to 96 degrees and latitudes -32 to -39 degrees. None were present in this area at the time of the crash, but I consider in any case all buoys that have ever been in this location (dates range from 1995 to 2014). There are 177 in this category. Of these, 39 are listed as having subsequently run aground. The locations at which they washed up are shown in the plot above.
Of the 39, 31 beached on East African coastlines, only 7 in Western Australia, and 1 in Sumatra. An example of 3 randomly chosen trajectories from the 31 that drifted west are shown below together with the box defining search locality :
The average time for buoys to reach their western beaching point after leaving the search box is 534 days (~ 18 months) with minimum 234 days (~ 8 months) and maximum 1263 days (~ 42 months). All but 3 were un-drogued during this journey, and those 3 lost their drogues en-route. For those arriving in Western Australia, the average time to beach was 362 days, with minimum 79 days and maximum 513 days.
If we relax the criterion that the buoys must end by running aground, and simply look at the locations where they eventually stopped transmitting after leaving the search area, we see the following three plots which display the 54 buoys that ended up west of longitude 55 deg (the longitude of Reunion Island),
the 12 that ended east of longitude 109 deg (coast of Western Australia),
and the 111 that remained in between:
Clearly the transport qualities of the ocean currents and weather systems will vary from month to month and year to year. It is also not clear how representative the buoys would be of the drift characteristics of floating debris resulting from a crashed aircraft. Neverthless I believe it is reasonable to propose from the buoy behaviour noted above across a 20 year drifting history that :
i) there is a strong tendency for objects that have been present in the current search area to remain trapped in the mid ocean gyre over extended periods
ii) a proportion, perhaps as high as 10% of robustly floating debris, might be expected to make landfall within 18 months of the crash
iii) the vast majority of the debris making landfall is likely to do so across the coastlines and islands of eastern Africa, with relatively little beaching in Australia.
For what it is worth, I have more background and analysis in a write-up that I hope to post soon.
Please also note that a vastly more expert analysis of drifter behaviour has been performed in October last year by David Griffin of CSIRO, in which he uses composite drifter trajectories to infer a likelihood function for where the MH370 flaperon may have originated. This is well worth a read.
UPDATE 79/2016: Reader Richard Cole has posted a link to a .kml file that shows the trajectories of the drifters that reached Australia. Here’s a screenshot of what it looks like if you drop the file into Google Earth. Interesting to note that the greater part of the debris winds up on the southern coast and Tasmania rather than the western coast.
@all
More on Bayes. As it is used in the medical applications the Bayes weights are implicit in the data. No assumptions need to be made. Just plug and play.
In the case of MH370 (and predicting election results) intelligent weighting needs to be assigned by the analysts. Herein lies the problem. Analysts are subject to biases, particularly biases toward their previous conclusions. The weight of new data is not partitioned correctly. It is somewhat analogous to Kalman filtering where the weight of the “innovation” needs careful consideration so the filter has an appropriate response to new inputs while retaining the information contained in previously sampled data.
@oriondt – Posted July 10, 2016 at 9:40 PM
“I would suggest starting with a 20 day reverse drift from 32deg 28’S and 97deg 49’E to an intersection of the 7th arc.
That is the location where two large rectangular objects (possibly one the flaperon) were spotted by RAAF P3 Orion search crews on 28 March 2014, and subsequently not recovered by search ships presumably due to rough seas.”
The image you posted was taken by a RNZAF Orion P3K near 32°31’S 097°57’E at 20140328-04:08:44UTC.
That position is about 85NM SE of the 7th Arc, and I’m not sure that there has been adequate evaluation of the currents to determine where it may have been 20 days earlier. Otherwise the shape of the object matches that of a complete flaperon, when X,Y,Z transformation and perspective is applied.
@Barry Carlson @oriondt
Can you provide a link to the original or a better picture of that object?
Is there a photo of the other object too?
I think this is quite interesting.
Hope one of you (or both) can post it here.
@Jeff Wise
Off topic. Sorry. Got carried away a bit..
I’ll watch it.
@Barry Carlson @oriondt
@airlandseaman
I found this Duncan Steel report:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2261
In it is a link with 15 original picture files but this picture is not in it.
It seems though the IG group has more original picture files for the 15 where selected out of more.
Maybe @airlandseaman can provide the concerning picture file?
@Barry Carlson @oriondt
As might have been expected.. Duncun Steel (IG Group) gave the subject allready quite some attention:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2355
The picture in it shows more detail.
It’s far from drawing conclusions offcourse but it sure looks like a flaperon floating up side down to me. On one edge it seems to show also the curved shape of the upperside.
And when zoomed in further, adding contrast and decreasing some light it even seems to show the segmented pattern on that side like the flaperon found.
Then even the fastener lines are visible deviding the piece in three segments.
I know this all is very premature.
But if this could be confirmed to be a floating flaperon the crash area is found.
I’m getting exited the more I study this picture..
It seems partly submerged giving it its light blue color for the biggest part but that edge seems to stick out a bit showing more white and its segmented side with the distinguished rectangel seal, curved shape, leading edge and greyisch light brown color.
@Ge Rijn
“It’s far from drawing conclusions offcourse but it sure looks like a flaperon floating up side down to me. On one edge it seems to show also the curved shape of the upperside.”
I’m not going to say the image referred to is a flaperon, though the following link may lead you to believe it is. Just remember the ocean in this area is littered with Taiwanese & Chinese fishing gear of various sorts.
http://countjustonce.com/mh370/svg-flaperon-trans.html
Another conclusion could be drawn.
The partly submerged state of drifting could explain the barnacles growing all over it.
I’m getting carried away with this..
I’ll take a walk..
@Barry Carlson
Thank you for that graphic pictures.
Dimensions seem to fit perfectly from those.
But how did you estimate the dimensions from the picture?
It seems difficult to me. How high did the plane fly when making this picture f.i.?
To what other dimensions could it be compared?
Or where the dimensions recorded by the RNZAF?
By the way, if its a flaperon I think we’re looking at the underside of it. Why did you think the top side?
@Barry Carlson
I see now you mean the same.
It’s floating on its topsite and we are looking at its underside.
Then it must be the flaperon from the left wing (IF it’s a flaperon).
The visible edge also compares better with a left wing flaperon.
A higher resolution picture would be most welcome but details on the picture I’ve downloaded from the Duncan Steel article show fairly clear when you zoom in and add some contrast. Two lines deviding the piece in three segments and even a faint one near the leading edge is visible as also the segments of that side sticking out a bit.
I’m rather convinced this could be it.
This is definitely no fishing gear or a refrigerator and latitude/longitude fit almost perfectly also.
The coincidence of something like this floating there in that time would also be too great IMO.
Hope the experts also dive into this seriously.
@De Rijn
The flaperon dimensions have been derived from examination of the recovered flaperon, then referenced to others, and from various B777-200 drawings that are available on the web. They may not be absolutely accurate, but probably +/- an inch (25.4mm).
Don’t forget about what I said about “fishing gear”, for the shape could fit, but if the focal distance is incorrect the object we are looking at could be bigger or (as I believe in this case) smaller.
The following link is to a newly built flaperon with a completely different aspect to the camera, but the transformation dimensions are just the same.
http://countjustonce.com/mh370/svg-new-flaperon.html
I guess I’m making you all shaking your heads but please take this serious.
Like you did with my observations that lead to the identification of the outboard flap.
We could have a serious break-through here.
I did some further enhancing on the picture.
I’m quite positive we’re looking at the left wing flaperon now.
This would mean a lot of things, but most important it will shrink the search area to minimal proportions.
Assuming a drifting speed of 15km a day x 20 the crash point would be only ~300km to the south west.
Take your time. I hope you understand I’m exited.
@Barry Carlson
Thank you. Yes I have those pictures and compared them allready. And your dimensions from the drawings I have also and they fit the shape and location. Perspective can be eluding though but the details in the picture I have sorted out are IMO decisive.
I learnt in between the plane was flying at 400ft when taking pictures. So it could not have been a small object (when no significant amount of zoom was used). So if the hight of the plane is the only reference, dimensions could surely fit IMO.
Awaiting further news and hopefully a better picture..
@falken
I’m sometimes tempted by your style. I like it in a way. But Jeff is right. This is not the place to go that way.
There are other blogs that could be a lot more rewarding for you I assume.
Good luck!
Has anyone “reverse drifted” the four items sighted by RAAF P3 Orion Mission “Rescue104” of 24th March 2014 ?
Details here:
http://auntypru.com/forum/-Less-Noise-and-More-Signal?pid=4658#pid4658
@Ge Rijn
the problem is, that, maybe, Jeff isnt right too (about “enemies”);
as one our quantum theory researcher said:
any crazy theory might be right, if confirmed by evidences;
but it may be also chicken-egg problem
good luck to you too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ie6Ea-G2qY
@KenS – re two aircraft theory. If I remember someone else wrote about a strange flight offset near the “Cone of Silence” of KB’s radar. It seemed another aircraft (or drone ) took off from KB seemingly taking mh370’s supposed path over Malaysia however the real mh370 then turn more south towards … Unfortunately my phone doesn’t have that information stored for me to state more details.
@MH
If you find a link to that info can you please post it here or send it to me on Twitter ( @kstaubin ). I would be very much interested in reading that info. thx
@Ken S.
If someone were smart enough to invoke a second plane, then a mirror image flight over Africa would be analytically indistinguishable from a flight into the SIO and far preferable.
It has the advantages of:
1> I could be launched by CIA buddies in the Mossad.
2> No need to worry about Indonesian radar.
3> No need to ditch an airplane in the middle of nowhere.
4> Termination would be near Durban, SA which has great international cuisine and an active bar scene. (Mossad guys are known to be party animals.)
5> It is conveniently located for planting debris in Mozambique and Mossel Bay.
Still working the “big pharma” theory, and have it down to three planes and a boat somewhere inside the 19:40 range ring.
@DennisW
lol …I am looking forward to reading your theory on “big pharma”
@Ken S, I’ve taken the liberty of deleting your comments about your two-plane theory, because they are gibberish an nonsense. I would have done it sooner but I am on semi-vacation and not able to attend to the blog as often as usual. Please do not post anything more along these lines. Thank you.
@Jeff
Gibberish and nonsense? My God Jeff ,if you can’t see the possibility in this theory you should stop writing about MH370. You are doing a deservice to finding out the truth about this plane by censoring alternative theories you may not agree with because you have personal bias.
Very unhelpful for finding out the truth .
@Ge Rijn,
Based on the coordinates of that particular piece of debris from March 28-30, 2014, it looks like MH370 would potentially be lying on the seabed along Broken Ridge (assuming it really is a piece of the aircraft). Would a controlled ditch into Broken Ridge present any further difficulties for a search and recovery effort? I noticed that the ATSB stopped just short of Broken Ridge in their priority search zone, which seemed a bit coincidental. Do you, or does anybody, have any sense of whether a person looking to hide a plane might see Broken Ridge as adding yet one more layer of difficulty in finding the wreckage and black boxes?
@BigMac, If Zaharie really was motivated by the desire to make sure that nothing was ever found, he probably would never have guessed that Inmarsat would have been able to use their data to narrow down a search zone. So in his estimation, the chances that anyone would find the wreckage on the seabed would be one in infinity, and putting it down over Broken Ridge would have made it one in (infinity plus one). That is to say, putting it down over Broken Ridge would have been gilding the lilly. But then again, who knows? As Victor has often said, nothing really makes sense.
@Jeff
This is correct “nothing really makes sense” which is probably why we have been staring at ISAT data transmitted from another plane (a decoy). If you consider this possibilty then eveything does make sense.
@BigMac @Jeff Wise
I mentioned that scenario also before and I agree it’s not more than one possibility out of many.
Jeff Wise I try hard to post that enhanced picture I’ve got of the floating piece but I’m not able to put it in dropbox or link it another way to your blog. Do you know a way?
I would be glad everyone could see and it.
@Ge Rijn, Why can’t you put it in a Dropbox?
@Jeff
Quick question, given the recent drift studies (Brock McEwen’s,Meteo France,and GEOMAR) which suggests that MH370 may not have crashed anywhere near that 7th arc but maybe closer to the Equator then how would you explain the disconnect between the ISATdata and thedrift data assuming that these drift studies are correct?
@Ken S, Drift studies can’t contradict Inmarsat data. Please don’t argue with me about this. I am very, very close to banning you.
@Jeff
I think one thing we can all agree on is no one has the answer. I was originally intrigued by your theory around a northern trajectory. However with the debris finds that looks less possible, although I wouldn’t rule it out completely. Many other theories have come forward with varying degrees of acceptance by the forum. Generally I think they fall into 3 categories: impossible, improbable and possible. How we categorize each depends on our biases. I think Ken has presented a very complete model, no different than identifying runways in Kazakhstan. However I do think that each new theory opens up new possibilities and allows us to think in broader and more creative terms. If we haven’t found the answer we may not be looking in the right place.
@jeff
maybe a huge announcement at the top which would tell people to inform themselves before posting would keep conspiracy theorists off the site
@All
I think I managed to put the picture in dropbox. Zoom in at 550/ 750%:
https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=Blue_panel.png
@Ge Rijn Posted July 12, 2016 at 1:52 AM wrote “..It seems partly submerged giving it its light blue color for the biggest part but that edge seems to stick out a bit showing more white and its segmented side with the distinguished rectangle seal, curved shape, leading edge and grayish light brown color.”
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2355
I don’t see the curved shape. Looks flat. I don’t see a leading edge versus a trailing edge. It is mostly rectangular in shape (based on photo view angle) with one side 45 percent or so longer than the other. The ratio could be a result of view angle. The ratio of the two sides can help determine its origin when compared to drawings and to found debris. The Flaperon side ratio is 65 percent or so longer than the short side. Flap ratio? I see an object that is floating mostly flat with the surface. It looks flat. Tapered objects with none symmetrical weight and buoyancy distribution generally don’t float flat. They float weight down and buoyancy end up. The surface is awash with some water; causing blueish color or could be image color or water. The lighter color along the edge might be image issues. I see the two dark lines that divide the object into three equal segments running parallel to the long direction; might be fastener lines. I don’t see a rectangular seal. I see what looks like a submerged tapered portion on the left left corner of the object; might be submerged structure (Flap fitting?); might be waves or an illusion. I see a rectangular object that shows no sign of damage. No sign of damage at all.
However; that said; the object (MH370 Flap segment) from Africa had a double curved aero surface in the first image, which caused me concern and doubt it was from MH370, but then a single curved aero surface in subsequent pictures. So, things can be deceiving even in photos.
At 594% the lines show best I think. In fact the line seperating the ‘trailing edge’ is the most clear one. It also shows that ‘trailing edge’ is slightly tapered as would also fit a flaperon.
Hope you take your time to look at it carefully…
@Ken Goodwin
Did you study the dropbox picture I posted?
If not yet please do and look carefully on that edge at 594/750%.
I appreciate your comment.
@Ken Goodwin
And I like to mention again it’s floating upside down if it’s a flaperon. That’s why you see what seems to be a flat object.
@Trip posted ” I do think that each new theory opens up new possibilities and allows us to think in broader and more creative terms. If we haven’t found the answer we may not be looking in the right place”
I could not agree with you more on that statement. I have always found reading other plausible theories very useful for learning new information which I can use in my theory
@Ken
The key word is “plausible”. What you have is a fairy tale based on the flawed premise that the US government would hijack an airplane and murder 239 people to recover a piece of equipment the Chinese could never even use for any tangible purpose.
Never mind that there is no evidence that said equipment was even on the aircraft or that an aircraft has never been hijacked for cargo or passengers in the history of commercial aviation.
Probably the best thing you can do, in my view, is to simply go away. But hey, it is not my site.
@DennisW
Well Dennis theire are many on here I have spoken to that wish you would go away.
Having said that I have always believed there are many possible scenarios which may explain as to why another aircraft may have been used as a decoy to spoof the ISAT data in a miliatry style hijacking.
I have only speculated on one possibility this is not to say that my speculation on the who, how, and why is entirely correct however a 2 plane scenario does fit with the data, and explains why recent drift studies seem to contradict the ISAtT data and It also explains the eye witness reports and imagery data which most experts tend to ignore because that info doesn’t fit with their data theories.
If you can’t see this possibilty in this scenario I won’t try to convince you of it.
Need I remind you there has been no other plane disappearance like MH370 in the history of avaition so we just may find out this is first case in which a plane was hijacked because of it’s cargo and or passengers.
@Ken
Yeah, I know what you mean. I deeply regret referring to the treatise Ge Rijn was involved with as Exner et. al.
So it goes. I live with it. You can as well.
@Ge Rijn. Unfortunately the two equi-spaced fastener lines on the floating object do not match the fastener arrangement depicted at Exhibits 1, 4 and 21 of: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zj4t8k0nly5bsct/MH370%20Flaperon%20Failure%20Analysis%20(Rev%202.0).pdf?dl=0
More like the fastener lines on the outer flap, for example.
@David
Thanks for the comment and the dropbox-report.
I’ve noticed this also later when looking closer. In fact that ‘line’ towards the ‘leading edge’ is not a complete ‘line’ I noticed. It’s missing in the middle part and broken in several other parts. Also it’s appearance is different the line towards the ‘trailing edge’. It rather consists of a serie of spread out dots with no homogeneous pattern other than being spread more or less along. the same position of the piece.
That ‘trailing edge’ line is in fact the only straight homogeneous one on the piece visible.
The other ‘line’ could be resembling the 6th picture of the flaperon where in the same position a serie of scratches and lines are visible. Best to download and zoom in:
http://jeffwise.net/2015/08/26/how-did-the-reunion-flaperon-float/
More important though is the visible edge IMO. The shape shows clearly curved in the way a flaperon is curved considering it’s floating upside down.
-The spatials between the three verticals (two quite distinctive) visible on that edge
compare well with the inboard side of a flaperon.
-The ‘leading edge’ of that side shows quite dark and rounded exactly where you would expect it.
-The color of that side stands out among the rest of the piece and the whole picture as homogeneous greyisch light brown.
This hardly can be the result of colorflaws in the picture or the effect of water and it compares quite well with the color of the inboard edge of the Reunion flaperon.
-The overall shape of that edge from leading edge to trailing edge compares very well with the inboard edge profile of a flaperon IMO (flip the picture verticaly and it shows even better).
-The color of the piece is for it’s biggest part light blue because its almost completely overwashed and submerged by water. Only that edge is sticking out a bit showing in some places the original white color of the piece.
-IMO it’s floating with the other edge somewhat deeper submerged for the color tends to get deeper blue towards the other edge causing the visible edge sticking slightly above the surface.
-the overall shape compares quite well with a left wing flaperon. Including the slightly tapered shape that is accentuated by the ‘fastener-line’ towards the ‘tapered trailing edge’.
Offcourse the picture is in rather low resolution and therefore the change of wrong interpretations is bigger.
Still I’m rather convinced sufficient detail shows this could well be a left wing flaperon.
And also it’s important to consider the circumstantial ‘evidence’:
-The coincidence a typical piece like this was floating in that area at that time in one of the most desolated places of the IO is highly unlikely if it wasn’t a piece of the aircraft IMO.
IMO reasons enough to investigate this very thoroughly. And to obtain -if possible- a higher resolution picture would be very helpfull offcourse.
@David
Please compare the vertical spatials, the (curved) shape and the color of the inboard edge with the first picture in this article:
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/mh370-flaperon/
This picture is even better I think. It also shows a dimensional drawing although not quite in the right perspective:
https://cfrankdavis.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/flaperon.jpg
@Ge Rijn. Your Dropbox URL does not work for me. Would you confirm it should?
@David
Than maybe others have problems with it too..
Good you tell me this.
Did you log in with a GMail account? Than it should work I guess.
I’ll login now myself then maybe it’s opren for you too.
Please give it another try in a few minutes and let me know.
@David
And when it works don’t forget to zoom in to ~594/780%
(EDIT , correction, I meant, try using “dl=1” .)
@Ge Rijn
The specific picture you are referencing being this;
http://www.duncansteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Blue_panel.png
(Rectangular object, long/short edges having about a 12.0/9.xx ratio.)
At each corner can be seen a small lighter coloured or brighter ‘patch’.
(For discussion purposes, assign the picture top as ‘north’.)
The north west (NW) and SE edges also seem to have a light coloured
‘patch’ at their midpoints. Ge Rijn has noted there is visible something
like very faint ‘lines’ sectioning the top face of the ‘blue panel’.
These ‘lines’ are possibly outlining a ‘grid’ of 5 x 3 (or 5 x higher
number). The SW and NE edges seem to have lighter ‘patches’ at their
midpoints also – but fainter than the other aforementioned patches and
these SW and NE patches are also larger than the aforementioned patches,
in fact the SW and NE patches may each fill a square of the suspected
‘grid’.
Here;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/28/mh370-search-shifts-700-miles-closer-to-australia
it was described as being of the dimensions by reporter Bernard Lagan as
being “about four metres square” (i.e. , having a side about 4 metres
length, assuming he hasn’t misquoted or made a mistake in his terminology).
_
My take on this is if the size above is incorrect, the blue panel is
more likely to be a plastic pallet. There are numerous sizes of pallets
in the 1.2m x 1m range, and the differences in contrast of the plastic
on their upper face could account for the colour differences we see.
Although there are way too many variations in the look of plastic
pallets to be able to match this particular pallet, here are a few
representative pictures so you get the general idea…;
hXXps://static.wixstatic.com/media/6b595a_3adba45c14ef4a248e5d0b7a56c8b202~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_771,h_414,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/6b595a_3adba45c14ef4a248e5d0b7a56c8b202~mv2.png
hXXp://www.gopallet.com/images/Product/medium/PP-O-40-R7FDA.jpg
hXXp://www.chep.com/assets/1058.jpg?wd=300
If the size dimension given was correct, it is possible that it is a
larger type of plastic ‘pallet’ or upside down plastic pallet ‘tub’ –
larger fishing vessels use them for e.g. sorting of different fish or
storage of netting, etc…
hXXps://pifscblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/midway_tub.jpg
_
I believe the ATSB subsequently determined the ‘blue panel’ was not
related to MH370 (not by specifically mentioning it, but rather by
ruling out the debris field it was in). I can’t cite a specific link
that stattes that, however.
@David
Re dropbox, Ge Rijn may give a better URL later.
General comment – if you are unable to download a dropbox item, if it
has “dl=0” at the end of the URL, try replacing that with “dl=1!”.
(EDIT , correction, I meant, try using “dl=1” .)