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.
@buyerninety
Thanks for your detailed comment.
Could you open my dropbox photo?
It seems you could not?
Things look some different inthere than you discribe.
‘About four metres square’ means its surface area not its greatest lenght.
If you take the average surface dimensions of a flaperon on 2.4M x 1.5M you have 3.6M/square which would fit the mentioned estimate of the piece rather well.
The aero dynamic curved side and its greyish light brown color are not explained by an all square angled white pallet as is not the tapered shape of the whole piece.
But it could be usefull to know if this remote SIO area is a well visited fisching area.
I believe also the ATSB discarded it more because it was not in their priority zone.
But as you know things have changed lately in favour of a more northern search area.
In that area this piece fits now perfectly.
I hope you could open my enhanced dropbox picture.
Would you please confirm to me if you could?
@others
For the ones who want to take a look at my dropbox picture of the ‘blue panel’ and have problems opening it. You can easily do what I did to enhance the picture.
I also did something with sharpening the resolution but just zoom in and adding some contrast will show what I mean also.
Download the picture from:
http://www.duncansteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Blue_panel.png
Open it in Photoshop or any other photo editing program.
Zoom in on the piece and add contrast to a level the colors and details show best.
@airlandseaman
I particulary ask you and your colleges of the IG group to take a look at this the way I did.
Maybe you are allready. Please let me know.
I was helpfull in identifying the outboard flap segment which you graciously acknowledged.
Now I ask you to take this observations seriously also. Maybe you do allready and wait with a reaction till more conclusive things can be said about the issue.
I can understand that.
But at least please tell me you are working on it or if it’s a dead end street in your (or IG group) opinion for obvious reasons (I like to hear).
IMO the matter is too important to let slip away.
Back
@Ge Rijn
I don’t think my oldish computer/monitor has the capability to
enhance to the level of detail that would allow me to see what
you are seeing – I will have to wait on the opinion of other
posters.
@ventus45: re: 4 debris sightings in the “deep south”: I followed your link a couple of days ago, and recall noting a location of roughly 44s, 93e. I typed those coordinates into the Adrift online interface (and changed “startmon” from Jan to Mar), and paused the video at 1 year, 10 months – the date by which most of the confirmed pieces had washed ashore. The probability cloud had drifted almost entirely East, both to and south of Australia. If Adrift modeling is accurate, there seems very little chance impact could have been that far SE, and yet still produced the observed shoreline discoveries via natural drift.
Here is the url upon which my comments are based:
http://adrift.org.au/map?lat=-44&lng=93¢er=99&startmon=Mar
But don’t feel bad: the place the SSWG has spent 20 months searching has been almost as profoundly counter-indicated by those confirmed items – and it sure seems not to matter much to them.
“CSIRO is the last word on drift models, and CSIRO says the 32-39s search box isn’t inconsistent” is gradually morphing into “all drift models are garbage” as the mantra we’re being asked to swallow (now that even CSIRO is distancing itself from the search box). I throw it on the large and growing pile of willful ignorance now required to maintain trust in MH370 search leadership.
@VictorI: re: FBI “leak” of SIO path on pilot’s home flight sim:
You say you choose to believe this information is authentic – a presumption I’m not prepared to make. But going along with your presumption, for the sake of understanding why you think it supports your latest scenario (slow descent):
It is of course well recognized that none of us can see behind the iron curtain, and into the inner workings of the SSWG. But if the search is being conducted in good faith – per your scenario – at least some broad level of internal logic should be observable. To test for the presence of any such general common sense, can I ask you please for your best guess – just a guess is fine – on each of the following:
1. terminus of this alleged simulated flight path (lat & long)
2. date at which this terminus was shared with the search teams (month and day)
3. affect this disclosure had on the actual search (zone moved from, to, and when)
As far as I can tell, this “leak” forces at least one of the following:
A. the FBI is framing the pilot
B. the FBI withheld key evidence, or
C. the SSWG ignored key evidence
Thanks.
@Brock
I have done the same drift modeling as you on Adrift online months ago from those exact same coordinates because that location matches possible aircraft debris spotted in satellite images on my blog.
i also noticed that the proobility cloud also drifted entirely East towards Southern Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand. which leads me to speculate that the aircraft debris piece found on Kangaroo Island may be linked to that possible aircraft debris field in those sat images in SIO which makes me conclude the plane that crashed in the SIO was not MH370 becaus we know that piece of aircraft debris is not from a B777.
So to me it looks like your drift modelling is bang on and MH370 did indeed crash off the coast of Sumatra, close to the Equator, as your drift study predicts exactly where other possible aircraft debris was spotted in sat images.
i definitely believe we are looking at 2 plane scenario here.
Cheers
@Brock McEwen: First, as I explained previously, I no longer think the -100 fpm fits the fuel model. The plane may have followed roughly the same path, but descended more rapidly later in the flight.
I cannot answer any of your numbered questions. However, I can offer another to your list of possibilities A-C, based on the ATSB response.
D. The SSWG was confidentially given key evidence but could not find a meaningful way to use it.
@Ken: I’ve spoken privately to you about my specific thoughts on your specific scenario: which are, in general, that it is too specific. It attempts to loop in every eyewitness account and Tomnod image out there – most of which I strongly suspect will turn out to be unrelated to MH370. I echo Victor’s patient advice to first document a set of informed opinions which indicate that each piece of Tomnod/eyewitness evidence is worth a closer look. (I issue the same challenge to those who would REJECT a piece of evidence: please cite informed/expert opinion to that effect, or withdraw/soften the statement.)
But of course, it cannot be denied that we have observed enough disturbing disconnects to conclude that the Inmarsat data – and its full chain of custody – needs to be carefully audited, if only to rule scenarios like yours OUT. No amount of bluster, bravado, or intimidation can diminish or distract from the need for transparency: a fundamental pillar of the open government we all cherish, and of the justice victims of this catastrophic event deserve.
If scenarios such as yours/Jeff’s serve only to demonstrate the incredible range of scenarios faked/spoofed Inmarsat dataset could conceivably be hiding/obscuring, it makes, in my view, a useful contribution.
@Victor: Thanks. But can you come up with ANY plausible set of answers to 1, 2 and 3, which avoid all of A, B, and C?
@Brock McEwen: There are many possibilities for 1, 2, and 3 which are consistent with D.
@Ge Rijn
Just checking on the dropbox quetion you asked me,
I think your URL should look something like;
https://www.dropbox.com/s/icoks1iehny2p4x/TN-ATT-Rev1.0.pdf?dl=1
but the URL you have given is;
https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=Blue_panel.png
which doesn’t work.
_
In regard to the quote of ‘four metres square’,
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_metre
“square metre is not the same as a metre square”,
so his description implicitly suggests that it
had at least one side of 4 metres length.
(Incidently, this ‘metre square’ way of describing
the dimensions of an object often causes confusion
in the english speaking world, and is an extremely
poor way for any reporter {journalist} to describe
anything.)
@Victor: thanks for responding. For questions 2 (ASAP) and 3 (no action taken), I of course agree with you. It is question 1 with which I’m struggling; can you give me an example of a specific flight path – including a specific terminus – which could NOT be used to inform a good-faith search? I can’t think of one. I’d appreciate your insights.
@Brock McEwen: A terminus well short or well beyond the 7th arc might be hard to interpret, for instance, but would still point to the guilt of the pilot. A terminus near or on the 7th arc would be much easier to interpret, obviously.
The most productive path might be to ask the relevant parties for more information. I’ve submitted questions to Miles O’Brien, Dean Nelson, and the ATSB, all of whom have investigated this area. I have not talked with Byron Bailey, but he has made very strong statements claiming the FBI told the ATSB that coordinates in the SIO were found on the pilot’s computer.
Beyond that, I am beginning to see public language from the ATSB and in the media leaning towards blaming the pilot as opposed to mechanical failure, for example. That is why I feel confident saying that as the search comes to a close, the two surviving scenarios will be either the pilot was responsible, or the pilot is being framed.
@Brock
Out of looking at100s, if not 1000s, of Tomnod images in the past two years I have only come across 4 debris piece images in my opinion that could be from a B777. Intersting that 3 images were in SIO and one of course off Sumatra. These pieces seem to be similar in scale, shape, and appearance to pieces on a B777 and I would consider them a catagory A possibilty.
I have sent emails out to 2 imagery analysis companies for opinions on these images but none wanted to do any type of formal report because they told me the image quality was not good enough to make any conclusive ID of the objects unfortunetly. They did however tell me by email they were indeed objects in the water and they could not rule out the possibility that they may be from an aircraft, but nothing conclusive.
My hope is by showing this 2 plane possibility in forums like this that I can get other experts, aviation journalists etc, to take note of this possibilty and do their own independent investigation on these images and help me seek out these informed opinions and get expert written opinins on these images.
With regards to eye witness sightings I also agree we need better data on this and more detail reports. My hopes is that people like Blaine and others will continue to hunt down these witnesses and get us more detailed info on all these sightings. If I was an investigative aviation journalists this is what I would do.
Many thanks for your kind comments and thoughtful opinion.
Cheers,
@jeffwise
In the WordPress admin dashboard, in Discussion Settings,
could you please consider changing the setting;
“hold a comment in the queue if it contains more than 2 or more links”
to a higher number than 2, say 6 or 8, as it gets very wearying trying
to make comparisons or make citations about anything MH370 related,
because if any more than 2 URL links in a post are made then the post
is delayed ‘for moderation’…
Is the amount of spam being stopped (if any) by the current set limit
of only 2 links, really outweighing the amount of annoyance and
confusion being caused to posters by their posts being delayed?
(Additionally, as the delayed post appears, not as the most recent post
but rather in the post list waaay back at the time when it was rejected
for moderaton, so when it appears it can be missed as the discussion
has moved on and the delayed post could be somewhere like 10 or 20 posts
waaaay back behind the most recent post…
Cheers
@buyerninety @Victorl @Brock McEwen @Ken S
It seems you all just refuse to look at something obvious important IMO. Why?
Look at it with an open mind I suggest.
Even if it doesn’t fit your assumptions.
If you don’t, it might well be a missed chance IMO. And that would be a shame.
So at least I ask you to take a serious look and give a thoughtfull opinion like @buyerninety and @David did so far.
@Ge Rijn: I have never discounted the possibility that the part you have analyzed is from MH370. As you have noted, it has received a lot of attention from the IG. I have not personally invested the time to make that determination, but that doesn’t mean I am not keenly interested. In fact, the location and timing is consistent with my most recent path.
If you want to draw attention to particular features after you have enhanced the image, you should make that clear in a new image.
The dropbox link you posted does not work. It looks like a local link to a file on your computer. You have to choose the option “Copy Dropbox Link” to create a link that others can use.
I was having Dropbox link issues to see the image by @Ge Rijn. Either access not allowed or link ….
@Victorl
I did that before but it doesn’t seem to work out.
I’ll try it again. And mention again you should zoom in to ~550/780%.
https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=Blue_panel.png
Please let me know you could view it.
Thank you.
@Ge Rijn: Look at the link you posted. Compare it to this one:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/e6usv2tqqhebhwq/End%20Point%20North%20of%20Search%20Area.png?dl=0
Where you have /home?preview=filename, it should have /s/ followed by a string for the Dropbox directory, followed by the filename. You are doing something wrong when you create the link.
If you want us to examine an image, don’t give us suggestions on how to zoom or enhance the image. Simply do those manipulations and post the result. Indicate on the image what we should be examining.
@Ge Rijn
At the risk of incurring your ire, I have looked very closely at the picture you suggest is a flaperon. My own conclusion is that it is a photo of the top of a crate. I have two reasons for coming to this conclusion:
1) The lines running parallel to the long edges of the object look like the panels of a crate.
2) If the object were thin in the direction perpendicular to the visible surface, the object would be tilting with the wave impinging on it. Basically the object would follow the motion of the wave. What it looks like to me is the wave is washing over the object which would be consistent with a significant mass in beneath the surface of the water. Basically a pendulum keeping the visible surface orthogonal to the gravity vector.
I am calling it a crate with significant mass below the surface.
Ge Rijn
At this point I can only offer you speculation on the Who & Why but the How & Where for me is what is paramount right now for finding the truth . I always try keeping an open mind on alternative theories as well, I think it is very important.
@Brock
I do accept your critique about my theory being too “specific”. I have thought about writing a newer version less specific with broader conclusions.
@Victor: thanks – that helps me understand your perspective. I’d still shift the search based on the sim path’s general BEARING, but I can’t pretend to know everything the SSWG was looking at.
There is still – and I congratulate you for heartily acknowledging this – a very different way to interpret this “leak”. But I now see how one can view it as NOT by itself smoking-gun proof of either fraud or negligence.
I consider it important for me to keep exploring/crediting the possibility that we are NOT witnessing a faked search. I still think the evidence in aggregate is pretty damning: this is just one dot among dozens that connect up very nicely if the Inmarsat data is a snow job, but need convoluted rationalizations otherwise. But I lose all credibility once I start seeing fakery around EVERY corner.
@Brock
We don’t even know who the SSWG is. I feel exactly the same way you do, I just don’t express it as often. However, when I do, it is generally not pretty. The search effort has been badly mismanaged by any measure, beginning with even starting it based on the available information. How anyone with funding authority could authorize the expenditure of $130M USD+ based on the information available is a huge disconnect for me. Totally irresponsible use of public funds.
Ken, I completely agree with you. I’m sure many others do as well, but cannot speak up, because almighty Jeff would ban them.
Oh my goodness, Jeff you have become a real dictator.
@ Ge Rijn
If it is part of a 777 I would guess it more likely is a speed brake . They are very much the sharp right angled shape and also flat as shown in the picture you linked . I think you can make out the gray coloured linkage below the water line. Just a suggestion
@Greg Long
Yes, and no. Open dialog is essential as you point out. Evangelizing a theory is not helpful. There is a thin line between the two. I have experienced pushback from Jeff and Duncan, but I am no worse for the experience, possibly even better for it. Ken’s theory really is ( as presented) not plausible. You have to put the brakes on things after awhile. It truly is a balancing act, and you cannot please everyone. The fact that so many people are still here is testament to the notion that the balance is correct. I know of no other place where the quality of input is comparable.
@Ge Rijn. Some more comments on the floating object:
-the near end does look similar to a flaperon inner end as you say.
-also as you say the shape appears about right and Barry Carlson’s has demonstrated strikingly how a flaperon would fit, the strongest ‘pro’ evidence.
-it is notoriously hard to judge size from without a reference object: I have had experience of that. It is possible that the waves were wavelets and the object in fact quite small.
(as an aside, DennisW might be able to enlighten us as to how his private moonwatching experiment went)
-your work-around the forward fastener line attributes the first impression of this to other reasons. However if the pixels deceive here the same might apply elsewhere, such as the impression given by the inner end and also the rear fastener line.
-about the latter, that line should be 42% of the chord from the trailing edge (Tom Kenyon’s exhibit 1) whereas this appears to be 33%, maybe 35. This is a go/nogo as to identity so is important if the photo line appearance is accepted.
-the identity is less important than whether this was MH370 flotsam. Buyerninety alluded to a statement that the 28th March items were checked out. In Duncan Steel’s 2261 of March 6th this year he observes, “it is not clear whether the items observed from the RNZAF Orion…… were all followed up either from the air, or by surface vessels.”
In his 2355 of March 15th he writes,”It would be useful to know whether the RNZAF-reported “debris field” was followed up by RAAF, or other aircraft, or by surface-searching ships. The AMSA website for March 29th states that “The objects sighted the day before [i.e. on March 28th] prove not to be related to MH370“, but no details are given of how this was determined”.
This remains the crucial issue.
@buyerninety. Thanks for your advice about Ge Rijn’s Dropbox URL, now treated elsewhere.
Your pallet URLs were unsuccessful though I doubt this affects your observation much.
@David
I missed the last full moon due to a chronic drinking problem. I will report back the next time (July 19), or maybe not.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7rk6tl1o6bdjijf/Blue_panel.png?dl=0
@Victorl
Does this work?
@all
Reflections…
While the IG, DSTG, and SSWG (whoever they are) are undoubtably a well credentialed group, they simply lack what I would call “adult supervision”. Being a veteran of Sand Hill Road (Silicon Valley hub of venture capital), I can tell you that I have seen this movie a thousand times. A group of geeks with a spreadsheet would be about as likely to receive venture funding as a group of homeless people.
Enthusiasm is no substitute for real world experience. I like the IG generally, but there is no sense of checks and balances in their ranks. It is a group of geeks acting like geeks. What you have got was entirely predictable.
@Ge Rijn. Success here
@Victorl
I realize very well the picture is not sufficient enough for proof.
The resolution is just too low.
But I assume the original picture must be of higher resolution and available somewhere.
Duncan Steel linked 15 original (RNZAF) picture files in dropbox out of more in this article:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2261
but this one is not in it.
Does he have the original file?
And did they make just one picture of the item? Normaly I assume they would take several pictures not just one of a detected item.
If there are more is there any way to obtain them?
@Brock
Re the Rescue104 sightings 44S93E, yes, I have played with adrift, and as you say, it all seems to go to the Bight and south and east.
@David
Thank you for confirming.
And thanks for your detailed comment again.
@David
As @buyerninety mentioned in a previous post (with link) a reporter on the plane from where the picture was made estimated it as being ~4 metres square. This would fit a flaperon surface area fairly well with the average dimensions of 2.4M x 1.5M being 3.6M/square.
@David
Note that the trailing edge is tapered.
On the inboard side it’s about 35% of the overall width widening to the outboard edge.
If you take that trailing edge line as a fastener line you can see that tapered shape of the trailing edge part clearly.
That outboard edge also seems to stick somewhat deeper in the water showing the piece more square than it actualy is but still the tapering is visible.
@David
Another point.
‘The AMSA website for March 29th states the objects sighted the day before (28th) prove not to be related to MH370’.
If they had this statement on their website just the day after the sighting it’s hardly imaginable a ship had arived there on the spot and checking everything out in the time between sighting and publishing.
That time is just too short.
@Ge Rijn
Your most recent link re ‘Blue Panel’ works well.
It is a better (finer) picture, as evidenced by my being able
to discern what appears to be two streams of water (pouring
off the top face) at the SW edge lower part, near the lowest
corner. (Also, looking at the surrounding waves, I can see how
the blue panel is sitting canted on a wave face, at an angle to
the horizontal plane, situated 1/2 way between a wave top and a
wave trough). Those apparent streams of water I noted may be
helpful in providing an approximate guide as to what is the
actual ‘vertical’ direction (allowing for some curvature of the
pouring water stream), thereby giving the approximate angle that
the face of the blue panel is oriented relative to the viewer…
Picture looks worthy of more study, specifically to investigate
if the ratio of the long/short edge lines match the ratio of
edge lines on a flaperon.
(Incidently, your words about “refuse to look” – perhaps my post
of July 13, 2016 at 3:30 PM may explain lag in posts appearing…)
@GeRijn, @All
Now, not to deflect you from your enthusiasm regarding the ‘blue
panel’piece of debris… but looking at FOI information that poster
‘Aussie500’ on forum auntypru has obtained;
http://auntypru.com/forum/-Less-Noise-and-More-Signal?pid=4658#pid4658
in her FOI Disc1.zip, ITEM 1 of 18th March 14 – 140305032
Photos: 92WG0001 to 012, (note:Aussie500 believes this should actually
be dated 16th March 14),
we see an apparent upright white object, possibly slightly above the
ocean surface, attached possibly to something buoyant beneath it under
the ocean surface.
Now, looking at shapes of the toilet and Gallery Storage surrounds
(the white upright features in these pictures), along and to the back
of a representative cutaway of VP-BGC , a 777-300ER,
https://www.behance.net/gallery/35738389/Aeroflot-Boeing-777-Cutaway
note the similarity of these shapes to the floating shape in the ocean. Theorising that the gallery surround would have a probable water tight
container beneath it, and the (several) Toilets surround would certainly
have a watertight container attached beneath it, does anyone see the
possiblity the the ocean shape cited above could be one of the several
Toilet surrounds or the Gallery surround, (attached to a still somewhat
watertight container beneath it) from a Boeing 777? You would think that
such watertight containers would be shattered in any crash, but if only
one remained fairly buoyant..!).
(I would post a 777-200 cutaway but jeff’s ‘only 2 url’s per post limit’
precludes this, unless I want this post buried waaay back in the post
queue…)
@David
Please substitute HTTP for HXXP, in those URLs.
Then read my post of July 13, 2016 at 3:30 PM as to why I
have to use such a ridiculous workaround when citing links
on this blog…
@All
I know Barry Carlson did a comparison back in 16 September 2015,
but he used ‘assumed’ dimensions (assumed edge line lengths),
whereas I am suggesting above to attempt to match by not
assuming any dimensions, but rather to check a match by using a
comparison of the ‘ratios’ of the flaperon face x/y versus the
blue panel face x/y.
@Ge Rijn
“As @buyerninety mentioned in a previous post (with link) a reporter on the plane from where the picture was made estimated it as being ~4 metres square. This would fit a flaperon surface area fairly well with the average dimensions of 2.4M x 1.5M being 3.6M/square.”
Is the sea state known of the day this picture was taken? If I take the assumed size of the white object into consideration and compare it to the surrounding wave pattern, I would estimate the waves being at least more than 5 meters high. But no white caps are visible.
@Ge Rijn. Yes must have been a check by aircraft?
btw, as buyerninety mentioned, 4M square is not 4 sqm.
It is 4 X 4 ie 16sqm, so the reporter’s dimensions are too great for a flaperon, as they stand.
@buyerninety. New URLs worked thanks
@David
“so the reporter’s dimensions are too great for a flaperon,”
As the ‘metres square’ Vs ‘square metres’ wording often causes
confusion, I believe it’s fair to consider that the journalist
either misquoted or misunderstood what he was told in relation
to the dimensions. So (I at least) think the journalists
statement may have been wrong, and we should still consider the
alternate understanding of the area to be about 3.6m², as
‘retired F4’ suggests.
@buyerninety. I pass.
Thank you all for looking into this closer.
@David @RetiredF4
If the reporter had meant 4 x 4m the panel should have been square don’t you think?
It’s definitely a rectangle.
And with the estimate of the waves by @RetiredF4 at ~5m (which could be close) a ~2.40 size would fit better.
If the piece was 4x4m that waves should be at least 10m high and without white caps that seems impossible to me.
But a report on the sea state there on march 28th 2014 could settle this I think ass @RetiredF4 suggests.
@buyerninety
Here the link again from Barry Carlson with the dimensions compared:
http://countjustonce.com/mh370/svg-flaperon-trans.html
@Victorl
I hear the link to the picture works now.
What I have observed myself and would like to get investigated further by you I posted in lenght on this and previous pages.
If you want you can (re)read those posts.
But I trust you and your team will know exactly what to investigate in detail.