Flaperon washes up on Reunion Island
Now that we know the flaperon is from MH370, the information gained on how it became detached (and I'm sure that can be established with a fair degree on certainty) may be sufficient for a full closure of the investigation.
We already knew that the only explanation fitting the known facts was a willful human intervention to set course for the South IO. One can reasonably assume that the person doing this did it with the intention of making the plane 'disappear', the only flaw in the cunning plan being the ignorance of the Inmarsat handshakes protocol. The location of the flaperon recovery essentially confirms that the flight ended in the general area derived from Inmarsat data.
While not providing any clues to motive, the flaperon can confirm either:
A - the airplane disintegrated in a high energy state, either in the air or hitting the water, suggesting an uncontrolled descent
B - the airplane reached the water in a low energy state that could only have happened through human intervention - ie. someone at the controls.
The above is exactly what the recovery of the FDR/CVR could reveal in the best case. Most likely whoever did this had also thought of pulling the CB-s for the recorders (cf. SilkAir), but assuming they continued to the end:
In case A - the CVR will have overwritten anything that happened at the time of diversion from original flight plan, and will most likely contain 2 hours of absolutely nothing. The FDR will record that the flight progressed by A/P until fuel exhaustion, and will also record the behaviour of the plane as it made the uncontrolled descent. While this will be interesting to some, it will not provide any real answers to the why.
In case B -the CVR will record sounds of someone in the cockpit, from the FDR we will know precisely what he did to ditch (or attempt to ditch) the glider, but again no answer to the why.
Of course in either case the FDR can provide information on the sequence of actions taken at the time of diversion, and provide a precise course, but again that is not very much more, just a bit more precise than what we already know.
In Case A the information that may be expected from recovered recorders is not much more than what can be gained by analyzing the flaperon. Should this be established, it will be interesting to see how the investigation progresses.
We already knew that the only explanation fitting the known facts was a willful human intervention to set course for the South IO. One can reasonably assume that the person doing this did it with the intention of making the plane 'disappear', the only flaw in the cunning plan being the ignorance of the Inmarsat handshakes protocol. The location of the flaperon recovery essentially confirms that the flight ended in the general area derived from Inmarsat data.
While not providing any clues to motive, the flaperon can confirm either:
A - the airplane disintegrated in a high energy state, either in the air or hitting the water, suggesting an uncontrolled descent
B - the airplane reached the water in a low energy state that could only have happened through human intervention - ie. someone at the controls.
The above is exactly what the recovery of the FDR/CVR could reveal in the best case. Most likely whoever did this had also thought of pulling the CB-s for the recorders (cf. SilkAir), but assuming they continued to the end:
In case A - the CVR will have overwritten anything that happened at the time of diversion from original flight plan, and will most likely contain 2 hours of absolutely nothing. The FDR will record that the flight progressed by A/P until fuel exhaustion, and will also record the behaviour of the plane as it made the uncontrolled descent. While this will be interesting to some, it will not provide any real answers to the why.
In case B -the CVR will record sounds of someone in the cockpit, from the FDR we will know precisely what he did to ditch (or attempt to ditch) the glider, but again no answer to the why.
Of course in either case the FDR can provide information on the sequence of actions taken at the time of diversion, and provide a precise course, but again that is not very much more, just a bit more precise than what we already know.
In Case A the information that may be expected from recovered recorders is not much more than what can be gained by analyzing the flaperon. Should this be established, it will be interesting to see how the investigation progresses.
Last edited by andrasz; 4th Sep 2015 at 04:43.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FDR will record that the flight progressed by A/P until fuel exhaustion, and will also record the behaviour of the plane as it made the uncontrolled descent.
Most likely whoever did this had also thought of pulling the CB-s for the recorders (cf. SilkAir),
While not providing any clues to motive, the flaperon can confirm either:
A - the airplane disintegrated in a high energy state, either in the air or hitting the water, suggesting an uncontrolled descent
B - the airplane reached the water in a low energy state that could only have happened through human intervention - ie. someone at the controls.
A - the airplane disintegrated in a high energy state, either in the air or hitting the water, suggesting an uncontrolled descent
B - the airplane reached the water in a low energy state that could only have happened through human intervention - ie. someone at the controls.
Or D- None of the above.
Activate merry-go-round....
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can somebody with a deeper knowledge of the 777 design explain, how the flaperons are prevented from flutter? It looks like they are not mass-balanced, so obviously they use the actuators for damping. Are there "loss of hydraulics" screarios, which could lead (during a longer descend from cruising altitude) to loss of damping? Is it enough to have hydraulic fluid in the actuators, or do you need hydralic power? Or at least a certain amount of remaining hydralic pressure in the lines? Then the flaperon may have been lost during the late high speed gliding phase due to flutter, which may explain why it is the only larger piece of debris not totally torn to pieces during impact with the ocean.
How much vibration is created by the wake of a stopped engine, is that enough to destroy the flaperon fittings in a low cycle fatigue scenario if gliding at high speed for a longer period?
How much vibration is created by the wake of a stopped engine, is that enough to destroy the flaperon fittings in a low cycle fatigue scenario if gliding at high speed for a longer period?
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: South Coast, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then the flaperon may have been lost during the late high speed gliding phase due to flutter, which may explain why it is the only larger piece of debris not totally torn to pieces during impact with the ocean.
There's a tendency to think that a high energy impact would have left a large floating debris field which may well have been spotted during the initial search phase. The fact that no debris was spotted leads to the thought that the aircraft may have sunk largely in tactwith the possible exception of the engines (which probably would have sunk) and the control surfaces exposed at touchdown.
There's a tendency to think that a high energy impact would have left a large floating debris field which may well have been spotted during the initial search phase. The fact that no debris was spotted leads to the thought that the aircraft may have sunk largely in tactwith the possible exception of the engines (which probably would have sunk) and the control surfaces exposed at touchdown.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: wales
Age: 81
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see after the announcement that the flaperon is definitely from mh370, it is not being disputed, let us hope they find cvr & fdr and can throw some light on the why and kill the remaining conspiracy theories.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
let us hope they find cvr & fdr
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southampton, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a good idea of what happened.
Why and how are the interesting questions.
The FDR and CVR may not answer these questions but there's also the quick access recorder and the phones/tablets of crew and passengers to work with.
Phones/tablets timestamp almost everything they do and this can be extracted forensically. If the passengers asphyxiated there will be no user-initiated activity from that point on. If the passengers knew there was a problem there will be photos/videos showing this.
Why and how are the interesting questions.
The FDR and CVR may not answer these questions but there's also the quick access recorder and the phones/tablets of crew and passengers to work with.
Phones/tablets timestamp almost everything they do and this can be extracted forensically. If the passengers asphyxiated there will be no user-initiated activity from that point on. If the passengers knew there was a problem there will be photos/videos showing this.
Talk of CVRs/FDRs/tablets and phones is all very well but finding the flaperon doesn't mean we are any nearer to finding the wreckage than we were well over a year ago....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let us hope the FDR was still operating, and the CVR contains more than just 115 minutes of airstream noise and 5 minutes of all the bells and whistles going off when all fuel was used up...
But first, the wreckage needs to be found.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in a plasma cocoon
Age: 53
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IFE equipment set up two ground connections over SATCOM (for the SMS e-mail application and Built-In Test Equipment (BITE) application) after the SATCOM re-established the link at 18:25 UTC, 07 March 2014 (normal), but not after the SATCOM re-established the link at 00:19 UTC, 08 March (abnormal). At no time during the flight was any user data sent over the link by means of the SMS/e-Mail application.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hyperveloce
The IFE equipment set up two ground connections over SATCOM (for the SMS e-mail application and Built-In Test Equipment (BITE) application) after the SATCOM re-established the link at 18:25 UTC, 07 March 2014 (normal), but not after the SATCOM re-established the link at 00:19 UTC, 08 March (abnormal).
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder whether something doesn't already suggest that since when the satcom link logged back on around 18:25:
The IFE equipment set up two ground connections over SATCOM (for the SMS e-mail application and Built-In Test Equipment (BITE) application) after the SATCOM re-established the link at 18:25 UTC, 07 March 2014 (normal), but not after the SATCOM re-established the link at 00:19 UTC, 08 March (abnormal). At no time during the flight was any user data sent over the link by means of the SMS/e-Mail application.
The IFE equipment set up two ground connections over SATCOM (for the SMS e-mail application and Built-In Test Equipment (BITE) application) after the SATCOM re-established the link at 18:25 UTC, 07 March 2014 (normal), but not after the SATCOM re-established the link at 00:19 UTC, 08 March (abnormal). At no time during the flight was any user data sent over the link by means of the SMS/e-Mail application.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk of CVRs/FDRs/tablets and phones is all very well but finding the flaperon doesn't mean we are any nearer to finding the wreckage than we were well over a year ago....
One feature of the discussion that appears to be missing from all the ATSB search discussions, parameters and planning, is that there is documented evidence from limited, much earlier geo-technical sea-bed exploration in this area, that showed that there were portions of the sea-bed in the MH370 search zone, that contain substantial depths of fine sediment (essentially, fine, slimy mud).
I am under the impression that this deep mud has the potential to completely hide all the wreckage of MH370.
The search company, Fugro, is apparently using multibeam echosounder equipment, side scan sonar, underwater video, and aviation fuel detection sensors as their primary search equipment.
However, I would have thought that none of this equipment would be capable of finding aircraft wreckage fully submerged in deep fine sediment (think, the Mary Rose).
I am a little nonplussed about the lack of use of a magnetometer as part of the search equipment - which device I would have thought, would have had substantially greater search success, particularly where fine sediment is hiding wreckage - rather than the afore-mentioned array of high-tech equipment, which appears to only offer success where the wreckage is essentially visible on the sea-bed.
MH370 definitely lost at sea - Warren Truss speaks
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to unverified information (but reputedly sourced from Boeing), a B777 comprises the following constituents.
Aluminum - 70%
Composites - 11%
Steel - 11%
Titanium - 7%
Misc - 1%
Boeing aircraft comparisons
I would consider that there is more than adequate amounts of metal in the wreckage of MH370 for a device that need not necessarily be a magnetometer - but is one that contains inductive proximity sensors, or uses induction balance or a pulse induction generator, as in most metal detectors - so that a satisfactory signal return could be generated upon proximity to metal wreckage that is buried in silt.
I am not familiar with the constraints or even availability of such products for sea-bed searches, but I just wonder if Fugro and the ATSB have precise knowledge of the constraints and limitations of the silt-depth ability of the sea-bed search equipment they are using, to be sure that they haven't missed wreckage that could be buried deeply in silt.
All the information I have gleaned suggests that sinking wreckage that still possesses considerable weight (and we're talking here of B777 wreckage sections that could still weigh maybe 50 tonnes or more), strikes the seabed with enough speed to ensure it could bury itself out of sight pretty easily, if it landed in the aforesaid deep, soft sediments.
Aluminum - 70%
Composites - 11%
Steel - 11%
Titanium - 7%
Misc - 1%
Boeing aircraft comparisons
I would consider that there is more than adequate amounts of metal in the wreckage of MH370 for a device that need not necessarily be a magnetometer - but is one that contains inductive proximity sensors, or uses induction balance or a pulse induction generator, as in most metal detectors - so that a satisfactory signal return could be generated upon proximity to metal wreckage that is buried in silt.
I am not familiar with the constraints or even availability of such products for sea-bed searches, but I just wonder if Fugro and the ATSB have precise knowledge of the constraints and limitations of the silt-depth ability of the sea-bed search equipment they are using, to be sure that they haven't missed wreckage that could be buried deeply in silt.
All the information I have gleaned suggests that sinking wreckage that still possesses considerable weight (and we're talking here of B777 wreckage sections that could still weigh maybe 50 tonnes or more), strikes the seabed with enough speed to ensure it could bury itself out of sight pretty easily, if it landed in the aforesaid deep, soft sediments.
none of this equipment would be capable of finding aircraft wreckage fully submerged in deep fine sediment (think, the Mary Rose)
Deep water sediments are not to be confused with the silts and muds of near-coastal environments. The latter are mostly riverbourne clays with a large organic content, and indeed will not support any heavier object, it will sink in (though MR was covered with silt after sinking, the exposed parts eroding away). Deep marine sediments on the other hand are primarily the shells of tiny marine organisms, settling on the bottom in a fairly firm compacted layer (turning into chalk or limestone given a few million years). Larger aircraft parts with a big enough surface area to be detected will drift down slowly and settle on the top of this sediment. Several hundred years need to pass before they would be covered. Heavier items like engines will sink in somewhat, but still the majority of their bulk will remain above the sediment. AF447 remains were found in a similar environment and they all rested on the seafloor.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10,000 rubber ducks?
I was thinking that if they had dropped 10,000 rubber ducks around all the possible search areas, would that not have helped trace where the drift had initiated from? I appreciate the sea is a chaotic system (in that small differences of density, size, and shape will significantly affect the drift pattern), but still I would have thought the information gained would be worth the sub USD1 million investment. Make it biodegradable rubber to keep the environmentalists happy.
*** mm43 and Hyperveloce ***
No need to switch off IFE when the only electrical power source is the APU. Automatic load shedding takes cares of that. IFE and galleys are on top of the priority list for load shed.
Note that from 1825 on no flight ID and no data-2 ACARS traffic were transmitted during the various handshakes and phone calls from ground. Conspiracists will of course deduce that some bad guy found a way to prevent it. Non-conspiracists may think that the link between the data source in the a/c (AIMS or whatever it is) and the satcom equipment was somehow crippled.
No need to switch off IFE when the only electrical power source is the APU. Automatic load shedding takes cares of that. IFE and galleys are on top of the priority list for load shed.
Note that from 1825 on no flight ID and no data-2 ACARS traffic were transmitted during the various handshakes and phone calls from ground. Conspiracists will of course deduce that some bad guy found a way to prevent it. Non-conspiracists may think that the link between the data source in the a/c (AIMS or whatever it is) and the satcom equipment was somehow crippled.
Last edited by DJ77; 6th Sep 2015 at 21:34. Reason: Corrected a typo
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norden
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A "master" rubber duck had been released already.It managed to drift a longer distance in only 8 month:
No Cookies | Perth Now
No Cookies | Perth Now