Flaperon washes up on Reunion Island
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does take quite a while for the French investigation, to positively identify, from which 777 this flaperon is. Don't you think?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
" It does take quite a while for the French investigation, to positively identify, from which 777 this flaperon is. Don't you think?
It's August, they'll be back from the coast in 3 weeks. "
For your kind information the piece of B 777 was brought under scealed process (as a criminal case is open in France) from LA REUNION to the aeronautic laboratory (C.E.A.T) in TOULOUSE where technical investigation will begin next wednesday with French judge in charge of the criminal trial (French passengers were involved in the MH 370 drama), Malaysian Judge and representatives of Air Ministry and airline company (MH) and with BOEING technical staff représentatives too.
A preliminary meeting (criminal affair investigation) was hold today in PARIS and if you can read French you will have a brief summary on this site :
http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?d...8640&noquote=1
Greetings from France
" It does take quite a while for the French investigation, to positively identify, from which 777 this flaperon is. Don't you think?
It's August, they'll be back from the coast in 3 weeks. "
For your kind information the piece of B 777 was brought under scealed process (as a criminal case is open in France) from LA REUNION to the aeronautic laboratory (C.E.A.T) in TOULOUSE where technical investigation will begin next wednesday with French judge in charge of the criminal trial (French passengers were involved in the MH 370 drama), Malaysian Judge and representatives of Air Ministry and airline company (MH) and with BOEING technical staff représentatives too.
A preliminary meeting (criminal affair investigation) was hold today in PARIS and if you can read French you will have a brief summary on this site :
http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?d...8640&noquote=1
Greetings from France
It's August, they'll be back from the coast in 3 weeks
Boeing 777 : les médias attendent avec impatience l'analyse de l'aile - 01/08/2015 - ladepeche.fr
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Leeds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3, It was detached when the aircraft hit the water at moderately high speed, with unconscious pilots.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little reminder to all the speculative minds:
Based on best practice of any investigation, that there should be at least two independent sources to lift an ASSUMPTION to the level of FACT, the last known fact of flight MH370 is, that it disappeared shortly after IGARI from secondary radar. Almost anything that - reportedly - occurred later in the chain of events is therefore an assumption - best case - or false - worst case, as long as the plane is not found and its black boxes not analysed.
Inmarsat data: only a single source.
Primary radar information: not complete (e.g. no altitude profile given) and single source only.
Based on best practice of any investigation, that there should be at least two independent sources to lift an ASSUMPTION to the level of FACT, the last known fact of flight MH370 is, that it disappeared shortly after IGARI from secondary radar. Almost anything that - reportedly - occurred later in the chain of events is therefore an assumption - best case - or false - worst case, as long as the plane is not found and its black boxes not analysed.
Inmarsat data: only a single source.
Primary radar information: not complete (e.g. no altitude profile given) and single source only.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Printed in "The Star", a Malaysian daily newspaper
While I'm on this subject I'll also respond to Ian W:
Almost certainly the Malaysian authorities know more than has been made publicly available.
As we discuss the MH-370 event and as we try to understand what happened, we have to remember that upon 9MMRO's disappearance our primary source for information, the Malaysian Government, misled a dozen nations for a week and allowed, even encouraged, them to search in the South China Sea for a plane wreckage when they knew full well that the plane had departed the South China Sea and was far away and headed in the other direction when last seen.
It is interesting to note that the search effort provided by the US (USS Kidd and some C-130 flights) were all in the Malacca Strait and the Andaman Sea, not in the SCS. I believe the same applies for any British sources but I'm not sure. It certainly looks like there was someone in the Malaysian military passing along information to the US and British military.
And I will edit to respond to Interflug
Inmarsat data: only a single source.
Last edited by Propduffer; 3rd Aug 2015 at 20:33.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clip was created by hydrodynamic specialists at Dutch water research company
Aircraft debris MH370 makes Northern part of the search area more likely
https://www.deltares.nl/en/news/airc...a-more-likely/
certain makes northern area the favourite
Aircraft debris MH370 makes Northern part of the search area more likely
https://www.deltares.nl/en/news/airc...a-more-likely/
certain makes northern area the favourite
Last edited by oldoberon; 3rd Aug 2015 at 20:34. Reason: typos
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if your premise about two sources were correct, which is merely your own opinion and not fact, the Inmarsat data and the Malaysian reporting of last known position are mutually supporting data. The LNP itself is supported by the fact that it lies approximately 240 miles from the radar antenna on Pulu Penang: exactly where we would expect the horizon to block a conventional radar signal. So we have verifiable data to work from.
The standard procedure of two independent sources is neither opinion, nor fact. It is an established procedure in professional investigations worldwide, used by law enforcement as well as by serious journalism.
That Inmarsat data and Malaysian primary radar reports are mutually supporting, is a fallacy. Under the premises of any serious investigation, if these informations were not given independently and practically simultaneously, verifiably not knowing of each other, then that means nothing, since the later publication could have been influenced by the first. I'm not saying that was the case. Just keeping a cool rational mind.
Conclusion: we have no verifiable data to work from, after the loss of secondary radar return after IGARI. We have some data to work with, which we must ASSUME to be accurate, but can't verify.
"A little reminder to all the speculative minds:
Based on best practice of any investigation, that there should be at least two independent sources to lift an ASSUMPTION to the level of FACT, the last known fact of flight MH370 is, that it disappeared shortly after IGARI from secondary radar. Almost anything that - reportedly - occurred later in the chain of events is therefore an assumption - best case - or false - worst case, as long as the plane is not found and its black boxes not analysed.
Inmarsat data: only a single source.
Primary radar information: not complete (e.g. no altitude profile given) and single source only."
we now have two different sources (Sebille and DeltaRes) that claim the plane has to be in the northern search area
Based on best practice of any investigation, that there should be at least two independent sources to lift an ASSUMPTION to the level of FACT, the last known fact of flight MH370 is, that it disappeared shortly after IGARI from secondary radar. Almost anything that - reportedly - occurred later in the chain of events is therefore an assumption - best case - or false - worst case, as long as the plane is not found and its black boxes not analysed.
Inmarsat data: only a single source.
Primary radar information: not complete (e.g. no altitude profile given) and single source only."
we now have two different sources (Sebille and DeltaRes) that claim the plane has to be in the northern search area
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further research will be necessary to verify the assumptions used in this model.
And what happens when a piece of debris is found on an Australian beach?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we now have two different sources (Sebille and DeltaRes) that claim the plane has to be in the northern search area
- Few believe the plane is at the northern search area (i.e., the northern corridor) -- maybe aside from some conspiracy theorists
- Neither Sebille nor DeltaRes are sources of data. They simply interpret open source data that is available to them under a number of assumptions -- assumptions which may or may not be correct
Also, regarding Malaysian military radar data -- just because the Malaysians might not have made all of their radar data publicly available, it doesn't mean that they have not privately shared the data with relevant parties, e.g., the Australian government or the Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC).
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Just a word ....Doppler effect
For more details .. you can prepare a big bag of popcorn and go there:
Duncan Steel | Space Scientist, Author & Broadcaster
If so, how can you determine even a rough guess as to the final trajectory when you have just a signal source and single receiver i.e. nothing more than a straight line?
For more details .. you can prepare a big bag of popcorn and go there:
Duncan Steel | Space Scientist, Author & Broadcaster
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LNP itself is supported by the fact that it lies approximately 240 miles from the radar antenna on Pulu Penang: exactly where we would expect the horizon to block a conventional radar signal. So we have verifiable data to work from.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The standard procedure of two independent sources is neither opinion, nor fact. It is an established procedure in professional investigations worldwide, used by law enforcement as well as by serious journalism.
In the realm of logic used in the real world, information is assessed by it's probable reliability in the eyes of the investigator (or judge or jury), some things may stand on their own or require only a single source because they are obvious. Some things may need more than two sources before they are even taken into consideration. As I said above, it depends on the reliability of the information in the eyes of the investigator.
That Inmarsat data and Malaysian primary radar reports are mutually supporting, is a fallacy. Under the premises of any serious investigation, if these informations were not given independently and practically simultaneously, verifiably not knowing of each other, then that means nothing, since the later publication could have been influenced by the first. I'm not saying that was the case. Just keeping a cool rational mind.
The radar data provided by the Malaysian government in their Interim Report is also reviewed and crosschecked, this time not by scientific peers but by investigators, journalists and the general public. Malaysia has stated that their military radar saw MH-370 turn around at IGARI and this fact has been corroborated by both the Vietnamese who have stated that they saw the same turnaround on their military's (primary) radar and a Thai sighting of what can only be the same target a few minutes later approaching Koto Bharu.
The Malaysians have chosen not to reveal the exact path of the plane from Koto Bharu to their last reported sighting at a point approximately 10nm west of MEKAR, but it is not difficult to project the approximate distance traveled from Koto Bharu - and using known 777 performance data, project where 9MMRO would have been likely to turn up 47 minutes later. The last reported position given by the Malaysians in the Interim Report is at about the expected distance traveled from Koto Bharu in 47 minutes and from what is known about the flight path to that point (did not enter Thai or Indonesian airspace) that is about where and when we would expect 9MMRO to have turned up had it crossed the Malaysian peninsula and turned NW in the Strait. It could have been a bit farther north but not too much, or it would have intruded into Thai airspace. It couldn't have been much further south, or it would have raised alarms by intruding into Indonesian airspace. So somewhere around 6°30'44.24"N 96°19'34.84"E is where an examination of the flight path tells us the plane had to have been even without the Malaysian Government's Interim Report's placing it "10 mikes past MEKAR."
So we are left with a report which we can accept with a very high level of confidence fitting perfectly with another report that has been so thoroughly analyzed by experts that is stands for all practical purposes as scientific fact.
A prudent person would now accept this as fact and move on from here.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does take quite a while for the French investigation, to positively identify, from which 777 this flaperon is. Don't you think?
and
I am slightly gobsmacked that the mfr can't say immediately which of their models it's from even from photos.
According to a report on this mornings TV there is a wealth of information to be found on the external part of the flaperon before they take it apart to access part numbers, serial numbers etc.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MH370 went off the radar on Penang Island at a range of 200 nm. If that was due to the Earth's curvature, the plane would have had to be at an altitude of around 12,000 feet. That conflicts with the reported altitudes, so I suspect contact was lost for other reasons than the horizon blocking it.
That's where the earth's curvature should limit a line of sight radar for a plane flying at altitude unless there were some special atmospheric conditions.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Santa Rosa, CA, USA
Age: 71
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Propduffer, using an online "radar horizon calculator" I come up with about 21,000' for the radar horizon at 247 nm, given the elevation of that radar site. That is, anything below that altitude would not be visible to that radar. At one point there was a photo online, taken by a cell phone of a map shown to the Chinese relatives of the missing passengers. It showed the NW track of the target, with a gap in the middle. Logically that could mean that MH370 was flying low enough to go below the radar horizon, then climbed and reappeared. I would add, from experience as a USAF radar tech, everything is classified. Even though your enemies can easily figure out the limitations of your radar coverage. So I'm sure some Malaysian generals weren't happy about any public disclosures of where and at what altitude they could or couldn't track a target. There has been fighting between Muslims and Buddhists in Thailand, and there was a little war between Malaysia and Indonesia in the mid 60's, so there are local tensions.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some airline airplanes have never been found, but those were mid-20th Century. Officialdom then simply gave up.
Collectively, the world today seems to be a lot more anal retentive based on the assumption that our present technology is far better than it really is.
We should enjoy the happenstance finding of the airplane component, and accept that as the conclusion of this far too expensive chase.
Collectively, the world today seems to be a lot more anal retentive based on the assumption that our present technology is far better than it really is.
We should enjoy the happenstance finding of the airplane component, and accept that as the conclusion of this far too expensive chase.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: N. California
Age: 80
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PrivtPilotRadarTech
Yes, I see what you're saying. When I did the calcs months ago I did them off a chart and 240nm looked about right, but if we were to assume an altitude of 35,000 feet the radar horizon would be 293nm according to the calculator at Horizon calculator - radar and visual.
However the line of sight does come in at 243nm and I can wonder if the Pulau Penang Radar was seeing or set to include the extra distance provided radio waves by atmospheric distortion. My hands on experience with radar ended when I got out of the Army in the 60s, so I don't know details of operation of phased array stuff.
Another issue is of course what altitude 9MMRO was at as it exited Pulau Penang Radar coverage; it might have been lower than my original assumption (that it had recovered any altitude lost earlier and was at the most efficient altitude for max range.) It might have been lower for one reason or another (possibly to avoid being tracked by the Thai radar at Hat Yai or to keep a low profile towards Indonesian ATC or military radar.)
The fact is that we don't know some of the specific details regarding the flight, so striving for exact precision is currently beyond our reach. I see the matchup with the Inmarsat 18:29 ping ring as being as perfect as we could hope for. I was astounded when I made the first plots in the western part of the strait and saw how close the two sources lined up.
Yes you are correct about tensions in the region. The Malaysian and Indonesian navys are in an adversarial relationship as far as I can see. And the Thai are dealing with radical fundi Muslim attacks among other things. I have no doubt that both the Thai and Indonesians have radar tracks of 9MMRO's flight stored in their "secret" files. These are very unlikely to ever see light of day.
Yes, I see what you're saying. When I did the calcs months ago I did them off a chart and 240nm looked about right, but if we were to assume an altitude of 35,000 feet the radar horizon would be 293nm according to the calculator at Horizon calculator - radar and visual.
However the line of sight does come in at 243nm and I can wonder if the Pulau Penang Radar was seeing or set to include the extra distance provided radio waves by atmospheric distortion. My hands on experience with radar ended when I got out of the Army in the 60s, so I don't know details of operation of phased array stuff.
Another issue is of course what altitude 9MMRO was at as it exited Pulau Penang Radar coverage; it might have been lower than my original assumption (that it had recovered any altitude lost earlier and was at the most efficient altitude for max range.) It might have been lower for one reason or another (possibly to avoid being tracked by the Thai radar at Hat Yai or to keep a low profile towards Indonesian ATC or military radar.)
The fact is that we don't know some of the specific details regarding the flight, so striving for exact precision is currently beyond our reach. I see the matchup with the Inmarsat 18:29 ping ring as being as perfect as we could hope for. I was astounded when I made the first plots in the western part of the strait and saw how close the two sources lined up.
Yes you are correct about tensions in the region. The Malaysian and Indonesian navys are in an adversarial relationship as far as I can see. And the Thai are dealing with radical fundi Muslim attacks among other things. I have no doubt that both the Thai and Indonesians have radar tracks of 9MMRO's flight stored in their "secret" files. These are very unlikely to ever see light of day.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barnacles
It appears as though the barnacles attached to the flaperon may (as hoped for) be able to provide some refinement of the likely ocean-entry site.
If the creatures are identified as a particular sub-species (Lepas australis), this would suggest the Southern side of things, as this species does not inhabit warmer, more Northerly, waters but is confined to cooler conditions (i.e. Southerly latitudes).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0803083455.htm
Of course, there will be counter-arguments....
Dean
If the creatures are identified as a particular sub-species (Lepas australis), this would suggest the Southern side of things, as this species does not inhabit warmer, more Northerly, waters but is confined to cooler conditions (i.e. Southerly latitudes).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0803083455.htm
Of course, there will be counter-arguments....
Dean