Flaperon washes up on Reunion Island
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's rumoured that the ATSB and Fugro people are concerned that there are "shadows" and "holes" in the sonar results produced by the Fugro ships from the current search area, that are possibly hiding the wreckage of MH370.
These shadows and holes are produced by areas of the seabed in the search area that contain major deep depressions, ravines and canyons. Nowhere is this problem more obvious, than in the Northern arc of the search zone, where it approaches Broken Ridge - an underwater feature that contains the Diamantina Trench.
The Diamantina Trench is a canyon that contains the deepest section of the Indian Ocean currently known, the Diamantina Deep (at 35°S and 104°E) - measured by the Australian ocean research ship of the same name in 1961, at 8047 metres.
No-one knows exactly how deep the Diamantina Trench is in the region of the search arc. The entire current search zone falls within the Northern Kerguelen Plateau to the Broken Ridge formation, which fortunately for the searchers, is mostly flattish or mildly sloping terrain ranging from 800 to 3000 metres.
The Diamantina Trench is not a vertical-sided trench, it is a canyon with steeply-sloping walls - imagine one with slopes it would be difficult to drive a car up.
There is a need for the searchers to now try and examine the shadows and holes found in the current search, and to try and get a picture of what may lie in the Diamantina trench, and any other minor trenches in the extended search zone.
Accordingly, the rumour is that a Kongsberg HUGIN AUV has been acquired just prior to the Australian Winter and it has been sitting in Fremantle awaiting the smoother Indian Ocean wave and swell states of Spring and Summer, to deploy it.
The Winter wave and swell conditions of the Southern Indian Ocean are apparently conditions that are too risky to operate in, with the HUGIN AUV.
It is no doubt, an expensive piece of kit. It is apparently fitted with Kongsbergs proprietary SAS (Synthetic Aperture Sonar) system, which produces stunningly clear images of seabed objects utilising multiple sonar beams aimed at slightly different angles, along with powerful computing processors, to produce an excellent final image.
The HUGIN AUV with SAS has the ability to cover up to 200M each side of the AUV, at a tow rate of up to 6 Knots.
The HUGIN AUV until recently, only had a depth capacity of 3000 metres. However, an improved model now has a capacity of 4500 metres, and this is the model currently on hand in Fremantle.
It's rumoured that the ATSB and Fugro hope the HUGIN AUV fitted with the SAS sensor system will be the right product that will unlock the secrets of the deep Indian Ocean, and with some luck and more time and effort, it may be the device that finally reveals the resting place of any wreckage from MH370.
HUGIN AUV Brochure and Specification
KONGSBERG HISAS 1030 Brochure
These shadows and holes are produced by areas of the seabed in the search area that contain major deep depressions, ravines and canyons. Nowhere is this problem more obvious, than in the Northern arc of the search zone, where it approaches Broken Ridge - an underwater feature that contains the Diamantina Trench.
The Diamantina Trench is a canyon that contains the deepest section of the Indian Ocean currently known, the Diamantina Deep (at 35°S and 104°E) - measured by the Australian ocean research ship of the same name in 1961, at 8047 metres.
No-one knows exactly how deep the Diamantina Trench is in the region of the search arc. The entire current search zone falls within the Northern Kerguelen Plateau to the Broken Ridge formation, which fortunately for the searchers, is mostly flattish or mildly sloping terrain ranging from 800 to 3000 metres.
The Diamantina Trench is not a vertical-sided trench, it is a canyon with steeply-sloping walls - imagine one with slopes it would be difficult to drive a car up.
There is a need for the searchers to now try and examine the shadows and holes found in the current search, and to try and get a picture of what may lie in the Diamantina trench, and any other minor trenches in the extended search zone.
Accordingly, the rumour is that a Kongsberg HUGIN AUV has been acquired just prior to the Australian Winter and it has been sitting in Fremantle awaiting the smoother Indian Ocean wave and swell states of Spring and Summer, to deploy it.
The Winter wave and swell conditions of the Southern Indian Ocean are apparently conditions that are too risky to operate in, with the HUGIN AUV.
It is no doubt, an expensive piece of kit. It is apparently fitted with Kongsbergs proprietary SAS (Synthetic Aperture Sonar) system, which produces stunningly clear images of seabed objects utilising multiple sonar beams aimed at slightly different angles, along with powerful computing processors, to produce an excellent final image.
The HUGIN AUV with SAS has the ability to cover up to 200M each side of the AUV, at a tow rate of up to 6 Knots.
The HUGIN AUV until recently, only had a depth capacity of 3000 metres. However, an improved model now has a capacity of 4500 metres, and this is the model currently on hand in Fremantle.
It's rumoured that the ATSB and Fugro hope the HUGIN AUV fitted with the SAS sensor system will be the right product that will unlock the secrets of the deep Indian Ocean, and with some luck and more time and effort, it may be the device that finally reveals the resting place of any wreckage from MH370.
HUGIN AUV Brochure and Specification
KONGSBERG HISAS 1030 Brochure
Last edited by onetrack; 11th Sep 2015 at 01:39.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by onetrack
The HUGIN AUV with SAS has the ability to cover up to 200M each side of the AUV, at a tow rate of up to 6 Knots.
The reason for using this vehicle is because it is designed to operate "autonomously", either using inertial nav or external UW beacons.
No point in trying to tow something in a deep ravine.
Originally Posted by Teddy Robinson
established by whom ?
For example:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370-pages/...s/reports.aspx
Interim Statement & Factual Information MH370
It has been beaten to death - if one accepts the factual information as presented by competent authorities/investigators then the only scenario explaining the flight path is deliberate human intervention. Of course if one doubts the published facts, all sorts of other fancy scenarios may be pulled from the hat.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HUGIN AUV
The Fremantle port schedule shows Fugro Equator going into Australian Marine Complex 1 at the end of September for four days work. Could just be routine maintenance but the company that did the original conversion work on the Fugro boats for the MH370 mission is based there, so would be the logical place for any work regarding installation of a new AUV.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrasz.
I tend to avoid subjective theories as confirmation bias tends to get in the way of open minded analysis, in this case, unless you have any definitive information, that is precisely where everybody, investigators included, stand as of now.
To date, and from the information contained on the links that you kindly supplied, I fail to see either a smoking gun or any statement as to "the probable cause". Perhaps I have missed something ?
Respectfully yours TR
I tend to avoid subjective theories as confirmation bias tends to get in the way of open minded analysis, in this case, unless you have any definitive information, that is precisely where everybody, investigators included, stand as of now.
To date, and from the information contained on the links that you kindly supplied, I fail to see either a smoking gun or any statement as to "the probable cause". Perhaps I have missed something ?
Respectfully yours TR
Teddy,
In a totally unrelated field I am well versed in confirmation bias, and I would be totally open to any alternative explanation that would at least not contradict what we, at least for now, can take to be facts.
There is certainly no smoking gun and no probable cause, other than to say with reasonable confidence that there is no known failure mode that could explain the altitude and course adjustments made by this flight in conjunction with the lack of any attempted communication or recovery action by the crew. Simply put, if the crew were incapacitated the plane by itself could not have made the turn south, and were the crew not incapacitated, then it is not possible to explain why they did not take other action. What is left is that someone (not necessarily the crew) deliberately caused the plane to take the course it did. Of course this does not give any explanation for motive or finer details on the how, but does give a general picture of what likely happened.
I'll be happy to support anyone who comes up with a theory better fitting the known facts, even if unverifiable beyond the process of elimination.
In a totally unrelated field I am well versed in confirmation bias, and I would be totally open to any alternative explanation that would at least not contradict what we, at least for now, can take to be facts.
There is certainly no smoking gun and no probable cause, other than to say with reasonable confidence that there is no known failure mode that could explain the altitude and course adjustments made by this flight in conjunction with the lack of any attempted communication or recovery action by the crew. Simply put, if the crew were incapacitated the plane by itself could not have made the turn south, and were the crew not incapacitated, then it is not possible to explain why they did not take other action. What is left is that someone (not necessarily the crew) deliberately caused the plane to take the course it did. Of course this does not give any explanation for motive or finer details on the how, but does give a general picture of what likely happened.
I'll be happy to support anyone who comes up with a theory better fitting the known facts, even if unverifiable beyond the process of elimination.
Originally Posted by birdspeed
counter balance against the pilot suicide conspiracy
You may note I carefully avoided referring to this. From the evidence it may be deducted that someone intentionally caused the plane to fly on the course it did.
I have yet to see any plausible explanation on how an aircraft with a complete electronic failure (whatever caused it) could, all by itself, make a meandering essentially uncontrolled flight with altitude and course deviations and then miraculously climb to cruise level and maintain a straight heading for next six hours until fuel exhaustion. All reports agree that the last phase of the flight over the IO is consistent with the aircraft under autopilot control, and someone had to engage it were off in the first place. I'm sure Boing has looked at this very carefully, and were an electric failure combined with loss of cabin pressure an option through any means, it would have been published or at least mentioned by a party to the investigation. It would be in the interest of MH to grab at any plausible evidence for a technical malfunction to have caused this.
I'm sure Boing has looked at this very carefully, and were an electric failure combined with loss of cabin pressure an option through any means, it would have been published or at least mentioned by a party to the investigation. It would be in the interest of MH to grab at any plausible evidence for a technical malfunction to have caused this.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: CNX
Age: 80
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HUGIN AUV & DEPTH SEARCHES
Since I have only mediocre knowledge of underwater searches, I have kept my keyboard quiet regarding my misgivings about the underwater search. I have, however, not kept my mouth quiet, and have asked a number of people who are highly knowledgeable of underwater work. None of those I have asked have been able to answer my queries, and this could be since none of them is directly involved in underwater searching.
Before the bathymetric survey began, and when hopes for the 'hearing' the pings of the CVR and FDR were rapidly fading, the area to be searched was described as being more than 6000 meters deep in several areas. Then when the AUV Bluefin was put to work in the search, the depth was "up to 6000 meters" which was prudent since Bluefin's maximum depth was 6000 m.
Since the completion of the bathymetric survey, the water depth in the search area has normally been referred to as "up to 5000 meters".
Now they are reported to be about to deploy the AUV Hugin which has an operational maximum depth of 4000 meters with its recent upgrade.
I am quite confident of my information that portions of the search area are 6000 m or more, that the maximum depth in the Broken Ridge area of the search is just over 7000 m and that areas of the 7th arc north of Broken Ridge are in the 8000 m range. How are they searching these areas, when their equipment will not operate at such depths ?
Now we hear that the search is having difficulties with shadows, which is understandable due to the number of seamounts and depressions in the area.
Wouldn't it be more honest to come forward and say that the search might find something, if they get very lucky -- and the wreckage is above 5000 meters, not in the shadow of something, not buried in silt, and if MH370 actually ended up in the search area. I am beginning to feel as if the underwater search is merely a very expensive public relations effort.
--- or am I missing something here ?
Before the bathymetric survey began, and when hopes for the 'hearing' the pings of the CVR and FDR were rapidly fading, the area to be searched was described as being more than 6000 meters deep in several areas. Then when the AUV Bluefin was put to work in the search, the depth was "up to 6000 meters" which was prudent since Bluefin's maximum depth was 6000 m.
Since the completion of the bathymetric survey, the water depth in the search area has normally been referred to as "up to 5000 meters".
Now they are reported to be about to deploy the AUV Hugin which has an operational maximum depth of 4000 meters with its recent upgrade.
I am quite confident of my information that portions of the search area are 6000 m or more, that the maximum depth in the Broken Ridge area of the search is just over 7000 m and that areas of the 7th arc north of Broken Ridge are in the 8000 m range. How are they searching these areas, when their equipment will not operate at such depths ?
Now we hear that the search is having difficulties with shadows, which is understandable due to the number of seamounts and depressions in the area.
Wouldn't it be more honest to come forward and say that the search might find something, if they get very lucky -- and the wreckage is above 5000 meters, not in the shadow of something, not buried in silt, and if MH370 actually ended up in the search area. I am beginning to feel as if the underwater search is merely a very expensive public relations effort.
--- or am I missing something here ?
Last edited by RF4; 13th Sep 2015 at 12:18. Reason: change to clarify meaning
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are looking for excuses to criticize. A great majority of the bottom in the area is within reach of their search capabilities, clearly the odds are that they will find it provided they search in the right area, they search long enough and do not run out of the money and patience. They even recently found an unknown ship wreckage hence their search equipment is not totally worthless.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in a plasma cocoon
Age: 53
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accessed to the Global Drifter Program data available at:
ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/pub/buoydata/
Here are 95 buoys closing the island of La Réunion (within 3 degrees of arc or 180 NM) whatever the seasonality (D. Griffin constrains it to june, jully and august), the green trajectories, and among them, those whose time span is sufficient enough to cover the 16 months before "reaching" La Réunion is plotted in black (around 30 trajectories), the black circles being the possible origins of the drifters (over 50 days). I don't know if the number of available drifter trajectories is sufficient, and if those are realistically describing the trajectory of the flaperon (D. Griffin suggests it may be comparable in terms of leeway/freeboarding), but a significant portion of them seems to originate from around -30°S, which is outside the priority area.
ftp://ftp.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/pub/buoydata/
Here are 95 buoys closing the island of La Réunion (within 3 degrees of arc or 180 NM) whatever the seasonality (D. Griffin constrains it to june, jully and august), the green trajectories, and among them, those whose time span is sufficient enough to cover the 16 months before "reaching" La Réunion is plotted in black (around 30 trajectories), the black circles being the possible origins of the drifters (over 50 days). I don't know if the number of available drifter trajectories is sufficient, and if those are realistically describing the trajectory of the flaperon (D. Griffin suggests it may be comparable in terms of leeway/freeboarding), but a significant portion of them seems to originate from around -30°S, which is outside the priority area.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather than interpreting the data yourself I suggest reading the conclusion part of the article written by the same D.Griffin on the subject of this drift analysis and how it relates to the current search area.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: in a plasma cocoon
Age: 53
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know what David G. thinks about the information conveyed by a unique debris: alone, it does not allow to reestimate the priority area via simulations (even if they include currents, waves/Stokes drift and winds interactions) given the uncertainties, but as such, does not conflict with it (priority area established by Inmarsat). I can also see that these are expert opinions, highly valuable as such (and the CSIRO simulations are probably among the best for this task), illustrated by observational data (the drifters) but the simulation results are so scarcely quantified.. In a 1st time, I wanted to try to decode the Global Drifter Program database to to see how much undrogued buoys have reached La Réunion, whatever the season, over 30 years... and to visualize them. Because it is also a good way to check for the representativity of simulations, the Van Sebille's empirical model in that matter (is it able to reproduce the trajectories of the undrogued drifters even if has not been designed for this). Maybe I should have kept this for me.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrasz
I'm sure Boing has looked at this very carefully, and were an electric failure combined with loss of cabin pressure an option through any means, it would have been published or at least mentioned by a party to the investigation. It would be in the interest of MH to grab at any plausible evidence for a technical malfunction to have caused this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by birdspeed;
I'm also sure Boeing have looked into this, but understandably they are being very tight lipped. So are Mh, as it could expose a maintenance flaw.
All Andrasz and birdspeed have to do is come up with an 'electrical failure' that fortuitously occurred just on R/T handoff to Vietnam, and that would allow SatCom and FMS to remain working and the aircraft to fly a route 'randomly' in a way that would not alert any defense forces from Thailand or Indonesia then turn South just after it goes out of defense radar cover North West of Indonesia and then stop wandering and fly a direct track South for the next 5 or 6 hours.
Originally Posted by andrasz
I'm sure Boing has looked at this very carefully, and were an electric failure combined with loss of cabin pressure an option through any means, it would have been published or at least mentioned by a party to the investigation. It would be in the interest of MH to grab at any plausible evidence for a technical malfunction to have caused this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by birdspeed;
I'm also sure Boeing have looked into this, but understandably they are being very tight lipped. So are Mh, as it could expose a maintenance flaw.
All Andrasz and birdspeed have to do is come up with an 'electrical failure' that fortuitously occurred just on R/T handoff to Vietnam, and that would allow SatCom and FMS to remain working and the aircraft to fly a route 'randomly' in a way that would not alert any defense forces from Thailand or Indonesia then turn South just after it goes out of defense radar cover North West of Indonesia and then stop wandering and fly a direct track South for the next 5 or 6 hours.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To better understand what the drift analysis shows, and why there are so significant differences between the Australian and the German prediction, I would like to know whether others have the same understanding:
The Australians analyzed the path of 95 systematically positioned (real) buoys, and picked those which passed close to Reunion to determine a likely position.
The Germans did "deploy" millions of virtual buoys close to Reunion, and calculated back where they would have been 16 months earlier.
So at the (assumed) time of crash, the Australians have real buoys in the water in an evenly distributed pattern, and just consider those which would 16 Months later come close to Reunion.
The Germans hovever look at an extremely uneven distribution of floating objets at the time of the crash, with only a very low number (close to zero) at the most likely location of the crash determined from other data.
So the Australians determined singe possible crash sites, while the Germans determined the distribution of likely ones? (knowing that for purely random events, likeliehood does not thelp you to predict what will happen next...)
Or, as already mentioned, it was ripped off by flutter after loss of damping by the hydraulic actuators (loss of the according hydraulic system due to loss of engine driven pumps) in a transsonic dive.
The Australians analyzed the path of 95 systematically positioned (real) buoys, and picked those which passed close to Reunion to determine a likely position.
The Germans did "deploy" millions of virtual buoys close to Reunion, and calculated back where they would have been 16 months earlier.
So at the (assumed) time of crash, the Australians have real buoys in the water in an evenly distributed pattern, and just consider those which would 16 Months later come close to Reunion.
The Germans hovever look at an extremely uneven distribution of floating objets at the time of the crash, with only a very low number (close to zero) at the most likely location of the crash determined from other data.
So the Australians determined singe possible crash sites, while the Germans determined the distribution of likely ones? (knowing that for purely random events, likeliehood does not thelp you to predict what will happen next...)
or the flaperon was ripped off in the transonic uncontrolled dive just before impact.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hyperveloce
Because it is also a good way to check for the representivity of simulations, the Van Sebille's empirical model in that matter (is it able to reproduce the trajectories of the undrogued drifters even if has not been designed for this). Maybe I should have kept this for me.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main difference is influence of wind and waves. My understanding is Germans take into account underwater currents deeper than 15 feet and do not take into account wind and waves. Australians are using surface effects, like wind and waves. So, what model is correct for flaperone, depends on where exactly it floats, right on the surface, just beneath the surface level, or significantly deeper.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This object has just recently been found in the Maldives. I'm not sure what it is, but the barnacles look similar to those on the flaperon. Does it look like an aircraft part to anyone?
Source: http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/62312
Source: http://www.haveeru.com.mv/news/62312
Last edited by training wheels; 15th Sep 2015 at 06:55.
By the EID code UHK97000-12, it looks like it comes from a General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper:
FAA Registry - Aircraft - N-Number Inquiry
FAA Registry - Aircraft - N-Number Inquiry
Last edited by aerolearner; 15th Sep 2015 at 08:12. Reason: incorrect model ID
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly a vertical stabilizer based on the part number UHK23700-1
UHK23700-1 Vertical Stabilizer | Buy Aircraft Parts
UHK23700-1 Vertical Stabilizer | Buy Aircraft Parts