Flaperon washes up on Reunion Island
confirmed the printed part numbers etc on the internal parts
But the combination of inspectors' stamps on all the piece parts that make up the flaperon would likely narrow down the candidates to a much smaller field. Obviously that would necessitate reference to Boeing production records and, as already stated, complete disassembly of the component.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct, scrap aluminium (especially the higher grade aircraft component alloys) are a traded commodity, carried as bulk cargo on large vessels.
There should be quite some 777 flaperons slowly rotting somewhere on this planet by now. There is still no use for old CFRP composites, and no way to recycle it.
However, the french should have some strong indication by now at which time this flaperon has been produced, and if none has ever been scapped of that batch, bingo!
Well, all the (valuable) aluminum items are missing, so they may have been removed. What was washed ashore is the remaining composites, which can not be recycled and is much cheaper to dump somewhere in a thirld world country...
There should be quite some 777 flaperons slowly rotting somewhere on this planet by now. There is still no use for old CFRP composites, and no way to recycle it.
However, the french should have some strong indication by now at which time this flaperon has been produced, and if none has ever been scapped of that batch, bingo!
There should be quite some 777 flaperons slowly rotting somewhere on this planet by now. There is still no use for old CFRP composites, and no way to recycle it.
However, the french should have some strong indication by now at which time this flaperon has been produced, and if none has ever been scapped of that batch, bingo!
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, all the (valuable) aluminum items are missing, so they may have been removed.
There must be a few photos of deliberately scrapped flaps or flaperons around.
But do the usual methods of scrapping such a piece produce damage like the Reunion flaperon shows?
However in this case, for all the discussed reasons, 'beyond reasonable doubt' is not enough, 100% certainty is required. The task is to establish an unbroken and complete document trail between the flaperon and MSN 28420 which takes time to achieve.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the torn-out hinges
torn-off trailing edge
It is very, very likely, that this item is from MH370. But we should better be sure...
flapperon would have barnacles on it with the appropriate DNA
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
andrasz --
I can't believe you know how 'most' posters think. As for 'conspiracy theorists' this case is so bizarre it's hard not to believe in something way out of the ordinary. This debris might be from MH370 then again, it might not. Putting probabilities on it is pretty pointless.
like most of us on this forum save for a few die-hard conspiracy theorists are reasonably convinced that this is indeed a part from MH370
oldoberon, could not have put it better myself 
This statement by itself is true. However one must look at it in a broader context. If it is NOT MH370 then it MUST be a scrapped piece, because we KNOW that no operational T7 is missing one. As unserviceable and irreparable aircraft components must be physically destroyed to prevent re-use (with associated documentation), unless there is evidence that a T7 flaperon withdrawn from service (or rejected at manufacturer) could have been dumped in the Indian Ocean in a location that would facilitate it ending up at Reunion, the most plausible explanation remains that it is from MH370, the host of the only set of flaperons known to be missing. As flaperons are not exactly consumables, I'm sure it will not be all that difficult to account for those which are not attached to an operating airframe.
This debris might be from MH370 then again, it might not
Last edited by andrasz; 19th Aug 2015 at 11:40.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As flaperons are not exactly consumables, I'm sure it will not be all that difficult to account for all which are not attached to an operating airframe.
Putting probabilities on it is pretty pointless.
The point is: we need proof that this item is documented to be the last one installed on the MH370 airframe. We should not be happy that it "most probably is"
We should not be happy that it "most probably is"
In complete agreement there, this is what I said with different words. The issue at hand is that it might not be possible to make a direct link with MSN 28420, as the S/N placard is missing and the rest of the structure likely has no unique identifiers.
In absence of that, an equal proof is to account for all other such components ever built (and probably the range can be narrowed down to a specific manufacturing period). For the ones in service since airframe manufacture this is relatively easy, Boeing has them on file. It is the ones not installed that will be difficult to trace, dozens if not hundreds of withdrawal from service records will need to be collected from MRO stations around the world, then the found flaperon must be compared against the scrapping method used to eliminate each. This will take months (if not more) and easily explains the lack of further communication from the French investigators.
Well, where are all the other parts of scrapped aircraft?
I keep seeing supposition that the recently found flaperon is "possibly" from a scrapped aircraft and not MH370....
Let's try a little lateral thinking here.
Give that NO OTHER part of any aircraft type has appeared on ANY beach in say the last year (and I assume we would have heard about it, were that true - aircraft 'parts' do not routinely appear randomly around our beaches), it seems very far fetched that a flaperon from any other 777 would be the ONLY piece of wreckage that did appear. It just doesn't compute.
I totally agree that the investigators have to be 100%, but any other explanation for this part being found where it was seems implausibly concocted.
- GY
Let's try a little lateral thinking here.
Give that NO OTHER part of any aircraft type has appeared on ANY beach in say the last year (and I assume we would have heard about it, were that true - aircraft 'parts' do not routinely appear randomly around our beaches), it seems very far fetched that a flaperon from any other 777 would be the ONLY piece of wreckage that did appear. It just doesn't compute.
I totally agree that the investigators have to be 100%, but any other explanation for this part being found where it was seems implausibly concocted.
- GY
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Phase of French Inspection on Flaperon Concluded
https://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370-pages/...al-update.aspx
Furthermore, it is "proposed that officials from Australia, Malaysia and the People’s Republic of China will meet in Canberra in early September ... (to) focus on planning to ensure the search is conducted as efficiently as possible, taking advantage of expected better weather with the onset of summer."
The French led investigation team examining the flaperon has concluded the first phase of inspection work. French authorities will, in consultation with Malaysia, report on progress in due course. The French investigation team is working as quickly as possible in order to provide complete and reliable information.
Furthermore, it is "proposed that officials from Australia, Malaysia and the People’s Republic of China will meet in Canberra in early September ... (to) focus on planning to ensure the search is conducted as efficiently as possible, taking advantage of expected better weather with the onset of summer."
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give that NO OTHER part of any aircraft type has appeared on ANY beach in say the last year
Metal parts do have a value, so they are typically recycled. They do not float anyway. All other junk is typically just collected and burned, without bothereing what exactly it is.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: South Coast, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this point I would argue that it doesn't matter to anyone apart from the families, whether it is "probably" or "certainly" from MH370, because it makes no difference.
Searching is still going on at the same pace in the same area, and unless something conclusive is retrieved from the CVR/FDR when/if they are found the whole affair will always be punctuated with maybes.
Searching is still going on at the same pace in the same area, and unless something conclusive is retrieved from the CVR/FDR when/if they are found the whole affair will always be punctuated with maybes.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian W
Ian W:
"It only takes one person to 'ditch' a 777 - perhaps someone who had been doing regular practice at landings at sea level in the Indian Ocean on his home 777 sim? "
Why would someone train themselves to kill all their pax, carry out a survivable ditching and then "go down with the ship"? That hypothesis makes no sense at all.
Ian W:
"It only takes one person to 'ditch' a 777 - perhaps someone who had been doing regular practice at landings at sea level in the Indian Ocean on his home 777 sim? "
Why would someone train themselves to kill all their pax, carry out a survivable ditching and then "go down with the ship"? That hypothesis makes no sense at all.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This statement is regurgitated occasionally, but is it technically correct?
For starters they will only be successful when activated above a non conductive medium (not submerged in water).
And what about some examples? Are the cases that they supposedly didn't work, accidents where they met the technical requirements for the ELT to activate? Another words did the ELT perform to the technical standards, its just that the standards trigger points aren't correct?
If the ELT perform to the standards, then its not their fault.
For starters they will only be successful when activated above a non conductive medium (not submerged in water).
And what about some examples? Are the cases that they supposedly didn't work, accidents where they met the technical requirements for the ELT to activate? Another words did the ELT perform to the technical standards, its just that the standards trigger points aren't correct?
If the ELT perform to the standards, then its not their fault.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest ELT system data we have (Cospas-Sarnat) is for calendar year 2013:
From January 2013 to December 2013, the system assisted in rescuing 2,156 persons in 720 SAR events (aviation, maritime & land).
In approx. 175 of those events, the Cospas-Sarnat system provided the only alert.
For the year, there were 153 aviation SAR events with 348 persons rescued.
For those interested, here's an interesting Synopsis of a Real ELT Incident, involving a Bell 206B tour flight which crashed in very rugged terrain in Alberta, Canada.
The 406 MHz ELT provided the first and only alert that an accident occurred. MEO satellites detected the crash within 4 minutes, and LEO satellites computed the crash location and sent an alert within 80 minutes of the crash. Subsequently a second helicopter was dispatched and was able to find the wreckage within the hour. All four tourists were rescued; the pilot unfortunately succumbed to his injuries later on that day.
From January 2013 to December 2013, the system assisted in rescuing 2,156 persons in 720 SAR events (aviation, maritime & land).
In approx. 175 of those events, the Cospas-Sarnat system provided the only alert.
For the year, there were 153 aviation SAR events with 348 persons rescued.
For those interested, here's an interesting Synopsis of a Real ELT Incident, involving a Bell 206B tour flight which crashed in very rugged terrain in Alberta, Canada.
The 406 MHz ELT provided the first and only alert that an accident occurred. MEO satellites detected the crash within 4 minutes, and LEO satellites computed the crash location and sent an alert within 80 minutes of the crash. Subsequently a second helicopter was dispatched and was able to find the wreckage within the hour. All four tourists were rescued; the pilot unfortunately succumbed to his injuries later on that day.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Valencia, Spain
Age: 82
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "internal components would only have part numbers."
In fact, many internal parts have MSN numbers (Manufacturers serial numbers). These may be ink-stamped or etched near the part number and are often on every part of an assembly that has room. They are not on the ID plate for an assembly but will normally be nearby, along with the assembly part number. One might see the format 285T 1234567 MSN 789 or similar. All these should be traceable through documentation. Its a long time since I worked with Boeing products, or any others for that matter and cannot now recall the precise format. It is almost certain that some of these numbers cannot be seen without completely disassembling a component, hence it may take a long time.
Not sure how old this is but it may contain some relevant info http://www.thermark.com/TM_Downloads...613-2_XXXX.pdf Page 23 shows the method of marking.
Boeing 777 would be 285Wxxxx not 285Txxxx
In fact, many internal parts have MSN numbers (Manufacturers serial numbers). These may be ink-stamped or etched near the part number and are often on every part of an assembly that has room. They are not on the ID plate for an assembly but will normally be nearby, along with the assembly part number. One might see the format 285T 1234567 MSN 789 or similar. All these should be traceable through documentation. Its a long time since I worked with Boeing products, or any others for that matter and cannot now recall the precise format. It is almost certain that some of these numbers cannot be seen without completely disassembling a component, hence it may take a long time.
Not sure how old this is but it may contain some relevant info http://www.thermark.com/TM_Downloads...613-2_XXXX.pdf Page 23 shows the method of marking.
Boeing 777 would be 285Wxxxx not 285Txxxx
Last edited by Ka-2b Pilot; 19th Aug 2015 at 20:53. Reason: Added more info
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the torn-out hinges
Have not seen any photograph showing this detail. I would assume more damage to the end ribs if the fittings would have been torn off, unless the design is very poorly balanced between composites, metall fittings and fasteners. (which might be because the fittings are optimized for fatigue, and hence very strong in static overload)
