Flaperon washes up on Reunion Island

[Tailspin45]

Sears sewing machine

Looks to me like the "window" is indeed a sewing machine - here's a Sears model with the knobs and switches in exactly the right place

[gawbc]

Well done, I started to look through images of sewing machines but got bored after the first 32,000!

Actually is it significant that it is a portable one? In a suitcase perhaps?

I'll answer my own question 'No'

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by 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?

You were implying that the entire search and operations of the various nations were based on unverified (single source) information and therefore was incorrect.
If your lengthy posts meant that you (and/or other posters here) know nothing apart from what they trust from single sourced information then that is always going to be true of anyone not active in the actual inquiry. However, it does not apply to those nations and individuals taking active part in the inquiry.

As more evidence comes to light, albeit slowly, the INMARSAT tracking based on a start point correlated with radar looks more correct. The northern loop hypotheses are obviously falsified as are the claims of 'the oil rig worker' in the South China Sea and the visual 'sighting' from the yacht in the Andaman sea.

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by 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

Looks more like an overhead 'console' with no smoking and seatbelt light placements and bay for vents, lights and call buttons.

[Simplythebeast]

That is quite clearly a sewing machine casing but it is interesting to read comments still identifying it as aircraft components such as the overhead console, (which it clearly isn't). Just shows how human beings can see one thing but convince themselves that it is something else that fits their pre convieved ideas.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Ian W

As more evidence comes to light, albeit slowly, the INMARSAT tracking based on a start point correlated with radar looks more correct. The northern loop hypotheses are obviously falsified as are the claims of 'the oil rig worker' in the South China Sea and the visual 'sighting' from the yacht in the Andaman sea.

Ian, as I look at the various current and wind charts, the IO circulation seem to also arrive at Reunion in a counter clockwise flow, driving in from the north (off of the East African Coast). However, how the part would enter the gyre and travel round in that direction, and still overlap with the last INMARSAT circles has me puzzled ... and that probably isn't how it got there.

[Propduffer]

Interflug

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....

So let's say the turnaround is an ASSUMPTION.......

Why are you still flogging this a year and a half later?

Vietnam - This story was carried March 8th by the Malaysian Insider:
"We informed Malaysia on the day we lost contact with the flight that we noticed the flight turned back west but Malaysia did not respond," Vietnam deputy minister of transport Pham Quy Tieu was quoted as saying by AFP today. "
Malaysia Airlines search mired in confusion over plane's final path | World news | The Guardian

Military radar trace shows MH370 turn-back, but no distress signal - The Malaysian Insider


March 11th
Singapore also monitored that portion of the flight and saw the turnback:

"A Singaporean air traffic surveillance and control unit also picked up the signal that MH370 "made a turn back before it was reported to have climbed 1,000 metres from its original altitude at 10,000 metres" Malaysian military now reveals it tracked MH370 to the Malacca strait - The Malaysian Insider


12 March "Air Vice Marshal Montol Suchookorn of the Royal Thai Air Force said an unidentified aircraft was detected at 1.28am, eight minutes after MH370'S transponder stopped communicating. He said the plane was following a twisting path, turning towards Butterworth....."



Thursday 1 MAY 2014
Press statement by Hishammuddin Hussein Minister of Defence and acting Minister of Transport:

"2. The military’s tracking of MH370
As stated previously, Malaysian military radar did track an aircraft making a turn-back, in a westerly direction, across peninsular Malaysia on the morning of 8 March.
The aircraft was categorised as friendly by the radar operator and therefore no further action was taken at the time.

The radar data was reviewed in a playback at approximately 08:30 on 8 March. This information was sent to the Air Force operations room at approximately 09:00.
Following further discussion up the chain of command, the military informed the Acting Transport and Defence Minister Hishammuddin Hussein at approximately 10:30 of the possible turn-back of the aircraft.
The Minister then informed the Prime Minister, who immediately ordered that search and rescue operations be initiated in the Straits of Malacca, along with the South China Sea operations which started earlier in the day."


Then there is the Inmarsat data and now the flaperon; denying the turnback is on about the same level as denying an aircraft hit the Pentagon or denying that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the book depository.

[Interflug]

Propduffer,
let's stop here. You don't get it. I'm not denying anything. That's another logical fallacy by you. Saying that because something can not be proven to be true it must be wrong. You apparently are not well informed about logic, methodology of professional investigations or scientific methods.

I'm simply trying to separate fact from assumption, based on a sound and widely applied method.
You do not make the effort to go back with every bit of information to its actual source and verify it. That's all fine as long as you speculate from the armchair, no harm done. Let's leave it at that.

BTW, many people have died in air accidents, because pilots did not check a single source of data against a second available source, even though that single faulty source was correct every single time until that moment when it wasn't... Human perception when affected by perceptional bias can be very deceiving and lead to wrong, sometimes catastrophic, conclusions...

And re the turnaround: show me a radar plot that shows the actual turnaround. There is none (in the public domain). The Vietnamese said a lot in those days, also that they found debris in the South China Sea… Until you produce that radar plot with the turnaround, until then we only have a radar plot (secondary) of MH370 flying on a NE heading, and about 10 minutes later a primary radar plot of an unidentified flying object flying in the opposite direction. Possible that was 9MMRO, but with the publicly available info, we don't know for fact. End of story.
http://mh370.mot.gov.my/download/FactualInformation.pdf

[Propduffer]

Interflug

There are many forums devoted to philosophy semantics and such.
This is an aviation forum discussing an actual event.

My posts haven't been meant to address philosophical issues, they have addressed MH-370.

So I agree, let's now end our subthread within this thread.

[AreOut]

there should be subtitle or similar which would say in red letters "if you doubt basic data like radar track and Inmarsat pings please do not enter this thread"

we don't need that hamsterwheel spinning again

[birdspeed]

Etudiant,
I've tried it in the 777 simulator.
With autopilot/autothrottle off, vertically, the a/c describes a phugoid motion, but not very pronounced. Laterally, with the 777's bank angle protection it doesn't exceed 30 degs.

But it needs to be tried in a real a/c as the sim is not 100% accurate. So over to Boeing for that!

[Interflug]

The questions about the early route of the aircraft after loss of contact are relevant because this information would prove the aircraft was under control. The MH370 autopilot is not going to give multiple heading changes on its own.
If the aircraft was under control, high jacking and mass murder is the only answer, whether by a pilot or some other party.

the autopilot can't follow a flight plan? The autopilot could fly a route from the FMC (e.g. to approach or hold entry WP to Banda Aceh alternate airport) and after reaching the last programmed waypoint would maintain the last heading until pilot intervention… or fuel starvation.
(disclaimer: speculation)

[ZeBedie]

Actually someone performed simulations of 777 left "alone", it ends with a a death spiral quite soon, it could not stay in the air for 7 or more hours.

Actually, pretty much any aeroplane, in trim and left to its own devices will stay airborne indefinitely. It will fly some very scary excursions in pitch and roll, but it will continue to fly. Go and try it.

And it also needs to be understood that training simulators don't have data to cover anything outside the certified flight envelope.

[Propduffer]

All the course changes attributed to 9MMRO after turnaround could have been pre-set into the FMC with the exception of altitude changes occurring in both directions.

So the question before us is: at what altitudes did 9MMRO fly?

AfterPrivtPilotRadarTech's pointing out that the actual indication we have from the Malaysian statement that they lost the track at "10 miles past MEKAR" is that 9MMRO was flying at about 21,000 feet, as that is the distance it would have passed beyond the radar horizon of a radar 243nn distant at an elevation of 2700 feet.

As unpalatable as this sounds, we must accept this altitude unless we can find some reason to revise it. This has some disturbing implications because if the plane was at 21,000 feet over 200nm past Pulau Penang, might that have been the terminal altitude for the flight? The lower altitude would fit in with some of the current theories about where the splashdown occurred because a 21,000 foot altitude would require a much lower groundspeed that those which have been given the most weight, and a lower groundspeed moves the projected spashdown point NE from what is currently the high priority location. For instance a 370kt groundspeed would move the projected splashdown point about 750nm NE from the point predicted by Duncan Steel and the Australians.

I don't know if a 21,000 ft altitude at 370kts is a likelyhood for a 777, somebody else will have to work that out.

I agree that this runs counter to most other assumptions about the flight (mine included), but it does have to be considered until it is eliminated on the basis of actual technical information IMO.

A 21,000 foot altitude from Penang on means that the flight could have been flown without pilot intervention, and it looks like it would have made the plane splashdown where the ocean currents were most likely to carry debris to Reunion in 16 months or so.

eeeeK!

[PersonFromPorlock]

Sorry guys but your radar horizon figures are all wrong.

PN, I used the equation ((maximum distance radar can see aircraft) = (distance to horizon from radar site) + (distance to horizon from aircraft)). This supposes no intervening terrain, and the track was in fact entirely or almost entirely over water.

These distances were calculated using: ((distance to horizon in nm) = (square root of height of aircraft or radar antenna in ft) X 1.23).

For the radar antenna, which is at 2700 ft, the distance to the horizon is 64 nm.

The reported distance from the radar site at which MH370 went off the scope is 200 nm. If we subtract 64 nm from that, we see that if the disappearance was because it flew past the maximum distance the radar could see it at, the distance to MH370's horizon had to be (200-64 = 136 nm). Dividing that by 1.23 and squaring the result gives an altitude of 12225 ft. Obviously, the precision of the calculation is swamped by the imprecision of the data.

Aircraft altitudes for some other loss of contact ranges:

230 nm > 18214 ft

240 nm > 20499 ft

250 nm > 22867 ft

As I said, these numbers don't agree with the observed altitude of MH370, so I don't think going over the radar horizon was the reason for its going off radar. It is just barely conceivable that Pulau Perak could have masked the return, but, again, that is terrain masking and not flying over the horizon.

[birdspeed]

Zebedie,

I think the quote of the "death spiral" was only after fuel exhaustion.

Porterhouse,

The 777 has bank angle protection even with autopilot off.

[Pontius Navigator]

Profduffer, I see where you are coming from. You are suggesting that loss of radar contact was because the aircraft was no higher than 21000 feet at that range.

Given a D-factor of 1000 feet the aircraft could have been at 200, allowing for possible an anaprop, lower still.

[ZeBedie]

I think the quote of the "death spiral" was only after fuel exhaustion.

Well it would in that case, wouldn't it!

Birdseed, I agree 100%. All this talk of deliberate turns is open to question until we have more information.

[Lemain]

Lonewolf -- One would need to take account of currents at different depths. No way of knowing what depth(s) it spent its time at.

[akaSylvia]

Dragging the thread back on subject, I combined the two photographs to make it easy to show people the "window".