Flaperon washes up on Reunion Island

[jcjeant]

Hi,

Parabellum

All findings from Boeing or Toulouse go first to the Malaysians, the Malaysians then decide if, what and when information will be made public.

The first results, which will be the judge (juge d'instruction) as a criminal investigation was opened in France

[Squawk7700]

To think that for AUD$189 if they had had one of these on board, we wouldn't have been having this conversation and over AUD$100m would have been saved plus lots more in aircraft searches.

[roninmission]

Parabellum, I think there is very little chance of Malaysia hushing any part of this phase of investigation. I would bet that there will be leaks from France especially if Malaysia tries to withold anything the French find.

[AreOut]

@peekay

To nitpick, they estimate the plane to be "in the northern portion of the sourthern 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).

- I don't know what do you consider by northern corridor, I was referring to the northern part of the southern 7th arc, e.g. somewhere off the coast of NW Australia

- possibly, but they are experts who devoted their whole life analysing the oceans and their currents, I think they would know how probable are those assumptions and what assumptions they can rely on

- they very possibly did share something with JACC, yet noone would accuse them if they said so and announced it's military secret that can't be shared with everyone

it's however a minor thing compared to everything else they very possibly know but hide

[Volume]

I guess those unconscious pilots also managed to turn off the transponder and all the surveillance systems on the aircraft as well??

Or the same fire that killed all electric to the transponder and all the surveillance systems also manged to either poison the crew, or affected pressurisation as well... Pilots don´t get unconscious without reason. It happened before.
Transponder and surveillance systems don´t mean anything, but unconscious pilots still flying along waypoints or an autopilot still working for hours after an electric fire are the details that should make us think twice about that theory...

[Mechta]

When one considers the container of plastic ducks which was lost in the Pacific, and all the different places those ducks have been found, it can be seen that trying to determine where the shipping container was originally lost from the current location of a single duck wild be a very difficult task. In the same way, backtracking one single B777 flaperon simply from its current location, given that the date it arrived there is in some doubt, would be nearly impossible. The barnacles are probably the best indicator.

With regard to the time taken to positively identify the flaperon as belonging to MH370, the authorities will be wanting to ensure they can say in all certainty that this was definitely the flaperon that took off with that aeroplane on that particular flight. If I were the French authorities, I would want to:

• Compare it to flaperons from the same batch to ascertain machining marks and component materials match (electron microscopes can be used to do the latter).
• Check any issues which resulted in Non-Conformance Reports (NCRs) which apply to that batch can be identified (as has been mentioned earlier).

None of this can be done in a couple of days.

[gcal]

If we cast our minds back to the EI712 Viscount crash in the 60s there is a missing piece of that aircraft, one that could fully explain what happened.
We know exactly where that aircraft came to grief and dozens of eye witness reports stated it was having trouble whilst still over land; yet the suspect elevator has never been found.
I feel that patience is going to be a virtue in the present investigation.

[_Phoenix]

before disassembling to read P/Ns and NCRs , maybe it 's interesting to see how floating in sea water, how big the area that stands out in the wind

[Mechta]

before disassembling to read P/Ns and NCRs , maybe it 's interesting to see how floating in sea water, how big the area that stands out in the wind

True, as any sail effect will have influenced its movement. The problem is unless you can say when damage occurred you won't know the effect on the way up its floats. For example, a hole which stops a section holding air and acting as a buoyancy chamber may have occurred as it hit the rocks/reefs around Reunion Island.

[Interflug]

@Propduffer

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.

While that is also true, it is nevertheless the exception, not the norm, to have a single source that is reliable beyond any reasonable doubt. Usually at least two independent sources are needed, and we are back at the premise I quoted.
In the case of MH370, neither Inmarsat nor the Malaysian authorities qualify for that level of credibility and integrity.

The Inmarsat data on its own is as close to scientific fact as anything can be, the data and methods have been evaluated by known experts in the various specialty fields and there has been zero disagreement among the experts that the Inmarsat data is valid and the Inmarsat interpretation of the data is also correct.

Please reconsider this statement. As I said this is a fallacy. While the methods to analyze the given data and the subsequent results might be considered valid, that says nothing about the integrity of the source of the data itself.
Also it is incorrect that experts say the source data is valid qua apodictum. I read several analysis where the "experts" state scientifically correct, that their analysis is based on the ASSUMPTION, that the source data is valid.

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.

I'm not aware of a confirmed Vietnamese source seeing a turnaround on primary radar.
Neither did the Malaysians ever claim to have tracked a turnaround. Secondary was lost 1721UTC during a straight NE heading, and primary first picked up an UFO - at a straight SW heading - at 1730 UTC.
http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/FactualInformation.pdf
So let's say the turnaround is an ASSUMPTION. Under the ASSUMPTION that that object on primary is 9MMRO, the turnaround is then conjured. Or do you have other sources that I'm not aware of, neither are the Malaysian authorities?

...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.

Again, a formal fallacy… Where do you take that "very high confidence" from? No matter how scientifically correct and elaborate you analyze data, if you can't verify the source of the data, then you can ASSUME all kind of scenarios, chains of events etc., but it is not factual in its results, even if it is scientific in its methods, best case. It's a hypothesis, based on a premise of certain assumptions, not fact.

A prudent person would now accept this as fact and move on from here.

A prudent person would look at the elaborate building of speculation - or hypothesis, since that sounds more positive for the more educated speculations about 9MMRO's fate - and see it as what it is. It might eventually be proven to be true or close to truth, or it might turn out to be false, or we will never know, but please let's separate fact from fiction.

[mmurray]

Picture of plastic moulding that some speculate might be a window. Looks a bit small to me.

MH370 search: Reunion island officials refuse to help despite pleas from Malaysia

[Mechta]

Picture of plastic moulding that some speculate might be a window. Looks a bit small to me.

Looks like the side of a sewing machine to me...

[Ian W]

Interflug.
It does not appear to have occurred to you that you may not be fully informed. You are building all your logical house of cards on the fallacy that you know all the information there is to know. That is demonstrably false; all you know is what has been publicly released and as anyone who has worked with defense radars and governments will know the publicly released information is the minimum possible. Furthermore, if the Malaysians feel that a crime may have been committed there will be even more reason to keep information that is known secret.
The RAT-31 radar as a stack beam radar will have been capable of discriminating the altitude of the aircraft it may even have had it tagged as MH370 and tracked as I suspect that it may track every single aircraft in radar range. There may also be cooperation from Thai military who would not want to admit that they have cooperated.

So based on your false assumption that you have all the information, do you really think that your claim that there is no real information after the aircraft stopped cooperative surveillance is 'logically supportable'?.

[Interflug]

Ian W, your remark misses the issue by far, please go around.
Never have I stated that I believe to have all the information. Nevertheless my argument with propduffer was exactly about nothing *but* the publicly available information, more precisely its credibility. What exactly is your contribution?

[NSEU]

To think that for AUD$189 if they had had one of these on board, we wouldn't have been having this conversation and over AUD$100m would have been saved plus lots more in aircraft searches.

Wishful thinking. I don't see how a manually activated beacon which is not the type which works underwater (even if it did survive the impact with the ocean) could possibly help.

Well, maybe... if the passenger carrying it knew precisely what was happening to the aircraft and remained conscious long enough to operate it and the aircraft presented no shielding to radio waves and the batteries lasted the duration of the remainder of the flight...

[matkat]

I assume they mean window trim! either way it is not that anyway.

[mmurray]

I like the idea posted above of a sewing machine shell. But on a google search of images of sewing machines there is nothing that has holes for two dials at the bottom.

[BEagle]

Old-style passenger service unit - but not from a 777.

[Michiru]

Just chiming in, probably once and never again, I've been following, but since I'm not in the aviation industry... But I do have a degree in textile engineering and that last photo is the shell of a sewing machine, about 20/ 25 years old.

>>>I like the idea posted above of a sewing machine shell. But on a google search of images of sewing machines there is nothing that has holes for two dials at the bottom.<<<
The "bottom" is actually the top. The holes are for switches for straight/zigzag stitches and needle positioning (left, center, right).

best wishes Michiru (from now silent again, sorry for intruding)

[Tailspin45]

Yup, sewing machine

Didn't find the right model, but knobs and switches are all in the right place.