Flaperon washes up on Reunion Island
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
the torn-out hinges
Have not seen any photograph showing this detail.
the torn-out hinges
Have not seen any photograph showing this detail.
I'm not sure I see the practical need to be 100% sure, rather than 99% of 99.9%.
And those who are convinced there's a 777 sitting in a mountain somewhere will just imagine it with one less flaperon.
But, especially given the cost of the underwater search, it's well worth mining the flaperon for any possible clue it can give us.
And those who are convinced there's a 777 sitting in a mountain somewhere will just imagine it with one less flaperon.
But, especially given the cost of the underwater search, it's well worth mining the flaperon for any possible clue it can give us.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flaperon was part of the MH370. Let's move on!
Back to back two official infos:
Malaysian Transport Minister said:
Malaysia Airline MH370: Maintenance record seal conclusive proof flaperon from missing aircraft
and JACC latest update:
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post9087647
For those who are in doubt, I give you a simple example:
Imagine a small town, there are five Lamborghini. One is destroyed in a car accident. After one year, the hood of an unknown Lamborghini is found in a scrap yard, of that town. On the hood is registered the date of the last oil change. The same date is entered in the recordings of a garage in that town, who actually changed the oil of the unique Lamborghini totally destroyed in that state. Are you still wondering whether that hood belongs to that car?
Malaysian Transport Minister said:
A maintenance record seal on the flaperon was conclusive proof that it was part of the MH370. A Malaysian Airlines maintenance expert identified the seal, he said. The part matches their maintenance records. The colour and other details also confirm it's from MH370
and JACC latest update:
The French led investigation team examining the flaperon has concluded the first phase of inspection work
For those who are in doubt, I give you a simple example:
Imagine a small town, there are five Lamborghini. One is destroyed in a car accident. After one year, the hood of an unknown Lamborghini is found in a scrap yard, of that town. On the hood is registered the date of the last oil change. The same date is entered in the recordings of a garage in that town, who actually changed the oil of the unique Lamborghini totally destroyed in that state. Are you still wondering whether that hood belongs to that car?
Last edited by _Phoenix; 20th Aug 2015 at 02:15.
With regard to the broken control horn on the flaperon, it may not have failed with a fore/aft load but with a side load, in which case it would be much weaker due to the much narrower section in this direction. This could have been in the crash, or it could have been after reaching Reunion. For instance, by getting wedged between a couple of rocks on a reef and a wave applying the breaking force. A study of the failure mode and the extent of corrosion on the exposed face should answer this.
I'm surprised that the damage to the trailing edge is being discussed as if this must have occurred in the initial contact with the sea. As this side of the flaperon is thin, it has very little buoyancy, so would have been hanging down in the water like a keel and would have been dragged across any rocks, stones or coral as it washed ashore.
I'm surprised that the damage to the trailing edge is being discussed as if this must have occurred in the initial contact with the sea. As this side of the flaperon is thin, it has very little buoyancy, so would have been hanging down in the water like a keel and would have been dragged across any rocks, stones or coral as it washed ashore.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the French investigation team as reported "has concluded the first phase of inspection work" -- I parsed that phrase to mean that after two weeks of intensive analysis even the French believe that the flaperon most likely came from MH370.
Otherwise there wouldn't be a "second phase" of the investigation work.
Otherwise there wouldn't be a "second phase" of the investigation work.
For those doubting...where else would this 777 flaperon come from?
Serious question
Serious question
Serious answer!
Local (Toulouse) Newspaper Report
For the French speakers/readers - A link to this morning's local newpaper report on the winding down of the Toulouse lab's work on the flaperon.
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2015...t-bouclee.html
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2015...t-bouclee.html
La Dépêche media report
In the absence of any French speakers posting so far, I’ll offer a rough interpretation of the report in Friday’s La Dépêche. I stand to be corrected, but there are few surprises here. The burden of the journalist’s report seems to be as follows:
The investigators of the DGA Techniques Aéronautiques at Balma, near Toulouse, have finished their examination of the flaperon, at least for the time being.
There is no evidence to suggest that the flaperon is not from the MH370 aircraft.
In relation to the assumed crash area, its location was consistent with the ocean currents. The species of attached barnacles are found in the assumed crash region.
The reason that the deputy prosecutor had not committed himself on the origin of the flaperon was to avoid pre-empting the technical investigation, there always being a gulf between judicial proof and technical proof.
According to an anonymous expert, the flaperon would have floated some metres beneath the surface.
A former president of the BEA has opined that the flaperon cannot have experienced a violent impact with the ocean surface. From that, he seems to infer that neither did the aircraft itself. That would explain the absence of small debris.
A pilot-specialist at a news conference agrees, and opined that the aircraft ran out of fuel. He does not think it would have broken-up into numerous pieces of debris...
Only the FDR and CVR would explain what happened on board.
Caveat: My interpretation of the media report stands to be corrected.
The investigators of the DGA Techniques Aéronautiques at Balma, near Toulouse, have finished their examination of the flaperon, at least for the time being.
There is no evidence to suggest that the flaperon is not from the MH370 aircraft.
In relation to the assumed crash area, its location was consistent with the ocean currents. The species of attached barnacles are found in the assumed crash region.
The reason that the deputy prosecutor had not committed himself on the origin of the flaperon was to avoid pre-empting the technical investigation, there always being a gulf between judicial proof and technical proof.
According to an anonymous expert, the flaperon would have floated some metres beneath the surface.
A former president of the BEA has opined that the flaperon cannot have experienced a violent impact with the ocean surface. From that, he seems to infer that neither did the aircraft itself. That would explain the absence of small debris.
A pilot-specialist at a news conference agrees, and opined that the aircraft ran out of fuel. He does not think it would have broken-up into numerous pieces of debris...
Only the FDR and CVR would explain what happened on board.
Caveat: My interpretation of the media report stands to be corrected.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Maine USA
Age: 82
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the broken control horn on the flaperon, it may not have failed with a fore/aft load but with a side load....
I think. High school physics is a long way behind me, and if anyone wants to check my calculations, feel free.
Last edited by PersonFromPorlock; 23rd Aug 2015 at 00:39.
The article states that for this particular model of 777, there's only two flaperons missing. Presumably the other is on the bottom of the ocean with the rest of the wreck.
I would add that possibly the other came loose and may or may not be discovered.
I would add that possibly the other came loose and may or may not be discovered.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caveat: My interpretation of the media report stands to be corrected.
The article states that it it cannot be established with 100% certainty that the flaperon does indeed come from the 777 which operated flight MH370.
It goes on to say that the barnacles found on the flaperon are endemic to the southern Indian Ocean.
One anonymous expert is quoted as saying the flaperon would not have floated on the surface, but rather submerged a couple of meters (the article does not explain how he arrives at that conclusion).
Finally, Jean-Paul Troadec, ex-president of BEA, is quoted as saying that the state of the flaperon (largely intact) indicates that the impact with the ocean was not violent, as, in his words, the debris would be smaller than that flaperon.
So there you have it - back to the balance of probabilities. We know that flaperon is from a 777, but we can only assume that it belonged to MH370.
Quite, oldoberon, A lack of small debris would suggest that the a/c remained substantially intact, as Mr Polacco implies, Primary and secondary flight controls are the most vulnerable to becoming detached on impact, without compromising the main structure. However, the proposition that the a/c could have completed a relatively smooth ditching in the southern Indian Ocean - not known for a glassy-smooth surface - after running out of fuel is remarkable, whether a pilot was at the controls or not. If not, an a/c trimmed for clean flight would touch down at a similar speed with too high a rate of descent. To reiterate the obvious, a human pilot and high-lift devices (slats and flaps) would be essential for any chance of success.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: UAE
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The article states that it it cannot be established with 100% certainty that the flaperon does indeed come from the 777 which operated flight MH370. "
And the Malaysian PM already declared weeks ago that the flaperon does belongs to MH370.
And the Malaysian PM already declared weeks ago that the flaperon does belongs to MH370.
and that the impact with the sea was not violent?
Quote from ZeBedie:
"...I think the French are saying that it didn't spear-in at 500kt."
More likely, they are speculating that it was set down in a controlled fashion at something like a normal approach speed. For the non-aviator readers, that would also imply a fairly calm sea, wings level, nose-up pitch somewhere between 5 and 10 degrees, and low rate of descent. That could only be achieved with human intervention, and probably with both the slats and flaps extended. If they were, they would be that much more likely to have been torn off.
However, the current situation is that, although the examination at Toulouse has been unable to prove beyond all doubt that the flaperon is from MH370, the expert speculation reported in La Dépêche is all predicated on the assumption that it is.
"...I think the French are saying that it didn't spear-in at 500kt."
More likely, they are speculating that it was set down in a controlled fashion at something like a normal approach speed. For the non-aviator readers, that would also imply a fairly calm sea, wings level, nose-up pitch somewhere between 5 and 10 degrees, and low rate of descent. That could only be achieved with human intervention, and probably with both the slats and flaps extended. If they were, they would be that much more likely to have been torn off.
However, the current situation is that, although the examination at Toulouse has been unable to prove beyond all doubt that the flaperon is from MH370, the expert speculation reported in La Dépêche is all predicated on the assumption that it is.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Colorado
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaperon separated at altitude
I'm told “derive plonge entre deux eaux” literally means drifted plunged between 2 waters.
Not sure what this means literally. Something lost in translation for sure. Anyway, I have worked with honeycomb and carbon fiber structures (spacecraft) and I see no way for water to enter a structure constructed like the flaperon, unless the bonded skin on one or both sides was nearly 100% removed, leaving all the cells open to the water. The flaperon recovered at Reunion shows relatively little damage to the skin on both the top and bottom surfaces. The net boyancy should be a few hundred pounds. Nor is there any evidence in the photos of compression damage which would occur if the flaperon was deeply submerged.
The photos are most consistent with right flaperon separation at some altitude above the water, before the main structure impact, most likely caused by buffeting, aeroelastic flutter, or transonic aeroelasticity, all of which can ultimately result in the type of fatigue failure which appears to be the cause of the trailing edge separation. There are many documented cases of aircraft components “shaking loose”, caused by these phenomenon when the aircraft exceeds the certified speed. Put this historical and engineering fact together with (1) the final BFO values, which taken at face value indicate a vertical descent speed of 15,000 ft/min at 00:19:37, accelerating downward at 0.68Gs and (2) the B777-200 ER simulator results which indicate a steep, high speed spiral descent is very likely following fuel exhaustion (and no human control), and all the puzzle pieces fit.
This theory, if true, increases the likelihood of the main POI being quite close to the 7th arc. It sure would be nice to hear something official about the internal examination results. Unless virtually all the honeycomb cells were full of water, there is no way this flaperon could sink or float near neutral buoyancy.
Note: If the flaperon broke loose at some altitude above the water, it would float down like in the air like a leaf, with almost no impact damage. It is very light compared to the surface area. This has nothing to do with the speed at which the remaining structure hit the water, which could have been near Mach 1.
Not sure what this means literally. Something lost in translation for sure. Anyway, I have worked with honeycomb and carbon fiber structures (spacecraft) and I see no way for water to enter a structure constructed like the flaperon, unless the bonded skin on one or both sides was nearly 100% removed, leaving all the cells open to the water. The flaperon recovered at Reunion shows relatively little damage to the skin on both the top and bottom surfaces. The net boyancy should be a few hundred pounds. Nor is there any evidence in the photos of compression damage which would occur if the flaperon was deeply submerged.
The photos are most consistent with right flaperon separation at some altitude above the water, before the main structure impact, most likely caused by buffeting, aeroelastic flutter, or transonic aeroelasticity, all of which can ultimately result in the type of fatigue failure which appears to be the cause of the trailing edge separation. There are many documented cases of aircraft components “shaking loose”, caused by these phenomenon when the aircraft exceeds the certified speed. Put this historical and engineering fact together with (1) the final BFO values, which taken at face value indicate a vertical descent speed of 15,000 ft/min at 00:19:37, accelerating downward at 0.68Gs and (2) the B777-200 ER simulator results which indicate a steep, high speed spiral descent is very likely following fuel exhaustion (and no human control), and all the puzzle pieces fit.
This theory, if true, increases the likelihood of the main POI being quite close to the 7th arc. It sure would be nice to hear something official about the internal examination results. Unless virtually all the honeycomb cells were full of water, there is no way this flaperon could sink or float near neutral buoyancy.
Note: If the flaperon broke loose at some altitude above the water, it would float down like in the air like a leaf, with almost no impact damage. It is very light compared to the surface area. This has nothing to do with the speed at which the remaining structure hit the water, which could have been near Mach 1.
Re the suggestion from Airlandseaman:
I had thought that simulator tests showed the aircraft would gradually lose altitude following fuel exhaustion, following a phugoid flight path, rather than augering in at near Mach 1.
Has there been any new assessments that have changed the existing understanding?
Separately, the French suggestion that the flaperon floated submerged makes no sense. Things either float or sink and it takes ongoing effort to keep an object submerged without sinking.
I had thought that simulator tests showed the aircraft would gradually lose altitude following fuel exhaustion, following a phugoid flight path, rather than augering in at near Mach 1.
Has there been any new assessments that have changed the existing understanding?
Separately, the French suggestion that the flaperon floated submerged makes no sense. Things either float or sink and it takes ongoing effort to keep an object submerged without sinking.
Last edited by etudiant; 22nd Aug 2015 at 17:20.