Aircraft Flap Found In La Réunion (RUN) Part 2

77west · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:15 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
Good luck with the waves. And that's not even a storm.

My rather vivid imagination just pictured a 777 in those seas being slammed around like that... makes me feel sick really.

AlexA340B777 · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:24 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 44):
The flaperon seems to be from a B777 indeed.

http://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/626683640173457408

Quote:BREAKING 657-BB code found on wreckage is Boeing 777 flaperon according to manual

Hi all,

before the number was mentioned as 670BB or BB670, in that manual I cannot see 670...

Any thoughts?

BR

Alex

dmsolovyev · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:33 am

Quoting AlexA340B777 (Reply 51):
Hi all,

before the number was mentioned as 670BB or BB670, in that manual I cannot see 670...

Any thoughts?

"670" is a subgroup called "Wing Trailing Edge Flap Fairings". I guess, it doesn't identify any exact part of the wing but it's like a container for 671-678 codes.

[Edited 2015-07-30 03:35:53]

Aesma · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:34 am

Quoting B8887 (Reply 48):
Greetings All.

Will the flaperon be treated as possible evidence from a crime scene and placed under judiciary seal and 24h guard?

Will they send it to Paris to the BEA?

Will Boeing send in technicians from Everett?

Kind Regards.

B8887

The justice department has already made comments so I'd say yes to your first question.

Thunderboltdrgn · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:37 am

Quoting B8887 (Reply 48):
Greetings All.

Will the flaperon be treated as possible evidence from a crime scene and placed under judiciary seal and 24h guard?

Will they send it to Paris to the BEA?

Will Boeing send in technicians from Everett?

Kind Regards.

B8887

The debris will be transported to Toulouse for examination according to the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...and#block-55b9faede4b016b93fad24e8

[Edited 2015-07-30 03:38:09]

[Edited 2015-07-30 03:38:38]

Aaron747 · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:37 am

^
Might want to have another look. It is clearly referenced among wing sub-assemblies.

jpetekyxmd80 · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:37 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):

Third, MH370 crashed at night, making it even more difficult for pilots to land an airplane on the water.

Would've definitely been daytime

zkojq · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:38 am

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 29):

SCMP.com in Hong Kong is reporting that a damaged suitcase has been found near the site of the plane debris that washed ashore.

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 29):

According to the Guardian, local journalists at Reunion says that badly damaged suitcases have been
found very close to where the aircraft debris was found:

If the aircraft was successfully ditched, the suitcases should have been trapped in the LD3 containers in the hold and sunken with the aircraft. In the case of US1549, the cargo doors remained shut, despite the impact of the ditching.

If suitcases from the hold have escaped then that implies that the ditching caused the fuselage to be ripped open (something akin to Ethiopian 961), which is to be expected given that the ditching would have been onto water that probably wasn't flat calm.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 32):
Also, if we have suitcases floating 4000 miles that would be indicative of a vast floating debris field which I find highly unlikely since there has been NOTHING found until this point.

Very strange to have nothing for so long and then two items in two days. On the other hand though, as soon as the first bit of wreckage was found (the flaperon), it can be expected that people pay a lot more attention to the stretch of coastline where it was discovered and might start searching there.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 32):
I don't believe any of this suitcase stuff. Highly unlikely they drifted the same as the flaperon

I'm very skeptical. A suitcase would surely sink immediately, unless it is completely empty and waterproof.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
The map below explains how debris could have reached French Réunion:

Didn't investigators have buoys with GPS trackers dropped on suspected crash sites early on in the in search for 9M-MRO? I wonder what became of that. Such data might be interesting for testing the accuracy of the computer models that simulate the ocean currents.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
Good luck with the waves. And that's not even a storm.

Second, the US Airways A320 was flying much slower (just above stall speed I believe) due to the failed engines. A jetliner coming from FL380 would have a higher speed, thus the impact would be higher too.

Third, MH370 crashed at night, making it even more difficult for pilots to land an airplane on the water.

[Edited 2015-07-30 03:39:31]

AlexA340B777 · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:38 am

Quoting dmsolovyev (Reply 52):
"670" is a subgroup called "Wing Trailing Edge Flap Fairings". I guess, it doesn't identify any exact part of the wing but it's like a container for 671-678 codes.

Yes that seems correct.

Just wondering, cause first reports this morning stated that the number printed on the part would be 670... which according to the list is just a subgroup, but not a part number.

Alex

77west · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:47 am

Do we have any pictures of the writing or markings on the debris?

spiplane · Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:55 am

Have there been comparisons (photographic / drawings) with A310 wing parts to exclude it can be that type of aircraft?

77west · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:00 am

Quoting spiplane (Reply 60):
Have there been comparisons (photographic / drawings) with A310 wing parts to exclude it can be that type of aircraft?

I think we have the opposite here - there have been photographic comparisons with actual 777 engineering drawings and spare parts, which clearly indicate the same part.

I think at this point the A310, 767 and 747 theories are not viable.

There is no way an A310 flaperon designed more than a decade before the 777 happens to look almost the same as a 777 flaperon, and be made of the same composite material.

travelavnut · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:02 am

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 36):
I am with you on this 100%

They know.

Aahhh the illusive but ever present "they"...... Who is "they"?

oxymorph · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:21 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
Second, the US Airways A320 was flying much slower (just above stall speed I believe) due to the failed engines. A jetliner coming from FL380 would have a higher speed, thus the impact would be higher too.

You are assuming MH370 was not under active pilot control. That is both a poor (given the history of the flight prior to the FMT-turn south) and baseless assumption.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
Third, MH370 crashed at night, making it even more difficult for pilots to land an airplane on the water.

It was daytime. Please make sure of your facts before putting out misinformation.

You further intimate to have some insight into the sea states that MORNING through a video. FYI, the sea state varies greatly from 'patch' to 'patch'. AND, the surface winds in the region that day were from 14-26 knots. the seas from 1-4 meters.

The beaufort anywhere from scale 1 to scale 5.

MadameConcorde · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:21 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 45):
Réunion officials are French officials as the island is a French department. So the national police, gendarmerie, and on top the prefect, are in charge. The préfet doesn't want to confirm anything so far, he's waiting for the BEA to analyse the part and give its preliminary analysis.

We all know the BEA doesn't like to rush things.

Quote The Guardian:

Malaysia’s prime minister Najib Razak, has confirmed that the debris found on Réunion is “very likely” to be from a Boeing 777, but it is still too early to speculate whether it is from MH370.

In a statement he said the debris will be taken to the French city of Toulouse for examination by civil aviation investigators.

He also promised relatives of passengers that Malaysia will not give up searching for the plane.

-50%
http://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...and#block-55b9e4f5e4b016b93fad2487

sebolino · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:27 am

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 36):
Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 12):
it has been obvious from the start that a number of major powers know precisely what happened but have elected not to reveal that information

I am with you on this 100%

They know.

???

How do YOU know ?

KarelXWB · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:32 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 67):
You are assuming MH370 was not under active pilot control. That is both a poor (given the history of the flight prior to the FMT-turn south) and baseless assumption.

That's not what I said, please read the post again.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 67):
You further intimate to have some insight into the sea states that MORNING through a video. FYI, the sea state varies greatly from 'patch' to 'patch'. AND, the surface winds in the region that day were from 14-26 knots. the seas from 1-4 meters.

I'm aware of that but you're missing the point. The point was that a river landing and a sea landing are not the same.

[Edited 2015-07-30 04:41:11]

MadameConcorde · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:38 am

Quoting sebolino (Reply 65):
Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 12):
it has been obvious from the start that a number of major powers know precisely what happened but have elected not to reveal that information

I am with you on this 100%

They know.

???

How do YOU know ?

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 12):

77west · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:39 am

What other airframe parts might we expect to be fairly buoyant and therefore likely to make it this far?

Flaperons
Flaps
Tail
Rudder
Elevators
Canoe fairings (?)
Wing-body fairing
Gear doors

Just theorizing here.

Some of these parts may not have enough honeycomb structure in them to over come their density and hence keep them afloat.

enilria · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:40 am

Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 12):
1) Foul play by the flight crew, or

Another conspiracy theory was that the plane was headed to Diego Garcia and either made it (unlikely), ditched, or was shot down.

oxymorph · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:42 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 70):
That's not what I said, read the post again.

You say that MH370 would be at FL380 and therefore unable to attain slower speeds (I guess). Here is your quote:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
Second, the US Airways A320 was flying much slower (just above stall speed I believe) due to the failed engines. A jetliner coming from FL380 would have a higher speed, thus the impact would be higher too.

Why MH370 could not fly slow (near stall speed) is something you will need to explain. If it is being piloted (which is a more likely assumption), then it can be flown slowly.

The BFO end-of-flight data is not considered to be reliable in regard to making any definitive conclusions about ROD etc...All the tweakers and Inmarsat agree on this.

MadameConcorde · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:44 am

Quote The Guardian
This map underlines how far the debris is from the search area. Oceanographers say it could have drifted that far west.

http://interactive.guim.co.uk/upload...ebris_found/giv-30080pcV9rSdF4qJV/

GRJGeorge · Thu Jul 30, 2015 11:52 am

If confirmed, will they perhaps expand a search for more debris in that area, on sea and along the coasts of Reunion, Mauritius, Rodrigues, Madagascar...if there's more it might even be possible that might have already drifted past these islands and going south again?

77west · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:02 pm

Quoting GRJGeorge (Reply 72):
If confirmed, will they perhaps expand a search for more debris in that area, on sea and along the coasts of Reunion, Mauritius, Rodrigues, Madagascar...if there's more it might even be possible that might have already drifted past these islands and going south again?

I firmly believe that not only will they expand the search, but they will find more debris as well.

B8887 · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:03 pm

I am sure the whole search area will focus as of now to RUN, and the Chinese, Malaysian, French and Australian authorities will send surface ships to the area to look out for more debris.

I am also sure this will lead to some high level meetings at the foreign ministries of these countries.

What is the situation on the ground now? Are French coast guards vessels and/or military ships monitoring the waters around the island now, or are they planning to do it soon?

Regards.

B8887

KarelXWB · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:06 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 70):
You say that MH370 would be at FL380 and therefore unable to attain slower speeds (I guess). Here is your quote:

Yes indeed, but I do not understand how this:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 49):
Second, the US Airways A320 was flying much slower (just above stall speed I believe) due to the failed engines. A jetliner coming from FL380 would have a higher speed, thus the impact would be higher too.

Suddenly translates into this:

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 63):
You are assuming MH370 was not under active pilot control. That is both a poor (given the history of the flight prior to the FMT-turn south) and baseless assumption.

Almost like putting words into my mouth.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 70):
Why MH370 could not fly slow (near stall speed) is something you will need to explain. If it is being piloted (which is a more likely assumption), then it can be flown slowly.

I did not say it could not fly slower, I said it would fly slower because I believe the pilots would stay away from stall speed, hence the higher impact.

Anyway, the 'sea landing' theory doesn't make much sense: if MH370 was in an emergency, it would not have flown for another seven hours over water just to make a controlled landing on the sea.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 63):
assuming

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 63):
assumption

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 70):
I guess

I understand people don't like assumptions. But unless the wreckage or black boxes are found, almost everything around MH370 will remain an assumption.

oxymorph · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:14 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 75):
Almost like putting words into my mouth.

Actually, your words are one big, convoluted mess. Contradiction at every turn.

And you should have the courtesy to edit your misinformation of MH370 crashing/landing at night...but that would be expecting to much. LOL.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 75):
if MH370 was in an emergency, it would not have flown for another seven hours over water just to make a controlled landing on the sea.

Uhm, news flash: MH370 would not be 'in an emergency' if it was still being piloted. It would be a deliberate and purposeful scenario.

Cheers

[Edited 2015-07-30 05:15:29]

N14AZ · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:15 pm

Quoting 77west (Reply 73):
Quoting GRJGeorge (Reply 72):If confirmed, will they perhaps expand a search for more debris in that area, on sea and along the coasts of Reunion, Mauritius, Rodrigues, Madagascar...if there's more it might even be possible that might have already drifted past these islands and going south again?
I firmly believe that not only will they expand the search, but they will find more debris as well.

But even if they will find more debris, this will not explain what happened. Remember AF447. They found the tail fin and a part of the crew rest area but could only conclude how the tail fin was ripped of from the fuselage. At that time we still didn't had a clue what had happened onboard AF447.

JoeCanuck · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:19 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 70):
Why MH370 could not fly slow (near stall speed) is something you will need to explain. If it is being piloted (which is a more likely assumption), then it can be flown slowly.

I don't think one can say if, at the time of hitting the water, that it is more or less likely that the plane was being controlled by a pilot.

We don't have a single bit of evidence regarding the moment the plane entered the water, whether or not it was under pilot control, whether or not aircraft systems were in control, whether or not anything was in control, If it hit fast or slow, steep or shallow angle, if it ran out of fuel...(which affects many systems regardless of whether or not anyone/anything was controlling the aircraft.

All we have are guesses, with no plausible explanation any more likely than any other.

If real ditchings are used to skew probabilities, my opinion is that an Ethiopian 961 scenario, (a large twin aisle aircraft ditching in the unpredictable and rarely calm ocean), is a more likely scenario than US 1549, (a much smaller single aisle ditching in a narrow, quite calm, river).

That being said, there isn't one shred of proof to support any theory, regarding its crash into the ocean.

YoungMans · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:23 pm

Indications are, at this stage, that the flaperon is indeed off 9M-MRO.
If that is correct, why then wasn't it found much earlier?
While the part was still floating in the area where the aircraft went down ....

The flaperon would have floated horizontally, i.e. only partially submerged.
It would have been visible from the air; mind you, from which height and distance is not so certain.

However, a single big component, floating, shouldn't that have been identifiable by some you-beaut automatic satellite image analysing technology?

Can that be an indication that MH370 did end in the Indian Ocean, albeit in a substantially different area?
In other words, is there a possibility that this large piece of wreckage was not found earlier because the full-on search, by ship, aircraft and satellite, concentrated only on the presumed crash site.

Or would it have been simply impossible to find wreckage that size by satellite?

bueb0g · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:25 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 70):
Why MH370 could not fly slow (near stall speed) is something you will need to explain. If it is being piloted (which is a more likely assumption), then it can be flown slowly.

The BFO end-of-flight data is not considered to be reliable in regard to making any definitive conclusions about ROD etc...All the tweakers and Inmarsat agree on this.

I think it is unlikely that the aircraft was under active pilot control at impact. If we take the most likely course of action to its conclusion - one of the pilots takes control, turns off course, depressurises the cabin (then probably takes his mask off once the aircraft is heading out to sea, with the AP in HDG mode) then the crash would come once the engines failed due to lack of fuel. The AP would try and maintain altitude but would disengage when the a/c stalled, and the aircraft would then descend towards the sea possibly in a cycle of stall and natural recovery, before finally impacting at a speed dependent on where exactly in the cycle it was - could be slow speed, during a stall, or higher speed, during a recovery. But I guess this is all dependent on where the trim was when the AP kicked off, etc. It's all speculation without the data.

AirGAbon · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:26 pm

Quoting B8887 (Reply 74):
What is the situation on the ground now? Are French coast guards vessels and/or military ships monitoring the waters around the island now, or are they planning to do it soon?

French navy has a base in Reunion Island, patrolling ships in this part of the Indian Ocean, in particular to Antartica and few austral islands deep in the South.

There is also a unit of the French Air Force with some Transall and helicopters mostly for logistics to Mayotte and 3 uninhabited French islands in Mozambique canal.

MadameConcorde · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:29 pm

Why would they send the flaperon to Toulouse when the Bureau Enquêtes Accidents is at Le Bourget??

http://www.bea.aero/img/plan.d.acces.bea.pdf

http://www.bea.aero/index.php

KarelXWB · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 76):
Actually, your words are one big, convoluted mess. Contradiction at every turn.

Not sure what you mean. I'd be happy to see those contradictions though.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 76):
And you should have the courtesy to edit your misinformation of MH370 crashing/landing at night...but that would be expecting to much.

Editing a post that other people have quoted is not logical. Furthermore, the ability to edit a message on this forum is only available for 60 minutes after posting.

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 76):
Uhm, news flash: MH370 would not be 'in an emergency' if it was still being piloted. It would be a deliberate and purposeful scenario.

That was exactly what I said, just with different words. One would not fly for seven hours just to ditch the plane into the water.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 78):
That being said, there isn't one shred of proof to support any theory, regarding its crash into the ocean.

[Edited 2015-07-30 06:29:28]

jetblue1965 · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:35 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 79):

Some are back calculating from reunion and ocean currents that it would've ditched into the ocean a lot more north than the current search area, but that theory is slightly incompatible with the satellite pings that *assumed* the plane flew a straight line from the Aceh island

My personal opinion was that the general search area was right, but since we were operating under very limited guesses, the margin of error of the search area is indeed rather large. At least no one was dumb enough to waste time searching the "northern arc"

oxymorph · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:36 pm

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 80):
I think it is unlikely that the aircraft was under active pilot control at impact. If we take the most likely course of action to its conclusion - one of the pilots takes control, turns off course, depressurises the cabin (then probably takes his mask off once the aircraft is heading out to sea, with the AP in HDG mode) then the crash would come once the engines failed due to lack of fuel. The AP would try and maintain altitude but would disengage when the a/c stalled, and the aircraft would then descend towards the sea possibly in a cycle of stall and natural recovery, before finally impacting at a speed dependent on where exactly in the cycle it was - could be slow speed, during a stall, or higher speed, during a recovery. But I guess this is all dependent on where the trim was when the AP kicked off, etc. It's all speculation without the data.

I disagree. A pilot with a conviction and determination and meticulousness (insomuch as the planning and preparation for such a deliberate and nefarious action), would see things through to the end. The idea that he would take himself out at the FMT makes no sense.

Why set the AP and go to sleep, leaving all manner of unknown (and therefore possible failure), when you can CONTROL the desired outcome in its entirety?

Zaharie didn't just conjure this up on whim.

We'll just agree to disagree. But the relatively pristine flaperon looks much more like a low-velocity impact..not a phugoid and dive scenario.

KarelXWB · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:43 pm

Part number '657-BB' is clearly visible in this picture:

See http://www.clicanoo.re/485058-la-pre...ge-appartient-a-un-boeing-777.html

theaviator380 · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:46 pm

Fire bottle which was found last year near Mauritius was not part of this wreckage? This was confirmed isn't it? do you guys still think, that info doesn't sound right..could be some link?

parapente · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:52 pm

'16 months is plenty of time for barnacles in those warm waters'.

You can age muscles very accurately via shell rings.They will be able to date when they started growing - possibly even where.

They may never find the plane or why.But the rest may now come sadly and quickly.

KarelXWB · Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:58 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 88):
They may never find the plane or why

If it was a slow speed impact, large parts of the airplane might still be located at the crash site.

If it was a high speed impact, aircraft parts are probably scattered all over the Indian Ocean by now.

parapente · Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:07 pm

Re post 89.
I was referring to the huge underwater search that has gone on in this most remote part of the Oceans.Its a personal point but I feel its 'gone' for good myself.If this turns out to be what everyone believes it is,I feel the Australian Gov't will call off this v expensive and increasingly futile underwater sonar search.

KarelXWB · Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:09 pm

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 82):
Why would they send the flaperon to Toulouse when the Bureau Enquêtes Accidents is at Le Bourget??

Black boxes would go to the office at Le Bourget. The only thing you need to examine an aircraft part is a hangar and the BEA has a warehouse in TLS.

hohd · Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:13 pm

If the part of the aircraft is suspected to be from 777, then it should be sent to Boeing Seattle operations, why is it being sent to France. Boeing can easily confirm quickly.

IADCA · Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:16 pm

Quoting hohd (Reply 92):
If the part of the aircraft is suspected to be from 777, then it should be sent to Boeing Seattle operations, why is it being sent to France. Boeing can easily confirm quickly.

Because RUN is in France, albeit an overseas department. Boeing can easily send people to mainland France to look at it. It's an issue of governmental jurisdiction, not technical competence.

[Edited 2015-07-30 06:18:05]

KarelXWB · Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:18 pm

Quoting hohd (Reply 92):
If the part of the aircraft is suspected to be from 777, then it should be sent to Boeing Seattle operations, why is it being sent to France. Boeing can easily confirm quickly.

The flaperon was found in French territory, hence the BEA takes responsibility for the investigation just like the FAA would do when an Airbus jet crashes in the United States.

I presume Boeing will fly their people to TLS to examine the flaperon.

[edit]

IADCA beat me to it.

[Edited 2015-07-30 06:20:13]

WarrenPlatts · Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:22 pm

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 79):
Indications are, at this stage, that the flaperon is indeed off 9M-MRO.
If that is correct, why then wasn't it found much earlier?
While the part was still floating in the area where the aircraft went down ....

The flaperon would have floated horizontally, i.e. only partially submerged.
It would have been visible from the air; mind you, from which height and distance is not so certain.

However, a single big component, floating, shouldn't that have been identifiable by some you-beaut automatic satellite image analysing technology?

The thing's only ~20 to 30 square feet. It's the color of whitecaps. You'd have to have a hi-res satellite pointed right at it, in the daytime when there's no clouds, know what you're looking for, in sea conditions that are not too rough. It's not at all surprising that it wasn't found until it was washed ashore. Boats a lot bigger than that flap go missing all the time, and turn up months later thousands of miles from the original mishap.

Quote:
Can that be an indication that MH370 did end in the Indian Ocean, albeit in a substantially different area?
In other words, is there a possibility that this large piece of wreckage was not found earlier because the full-on search, by ship, aircraft and satellite, concentrated only on the presumed crash site.

Just the opposite IMO. The only reason to suspect that 9M-MRO proceeded to the SIO in the first place is because of the Inmarsat data. The only other indication of its course was the radar that showed it heading for the northwest. Therefore finding debris in the Indian Ocean is confirmation that the Inmarsat model is probably correct, and that, therefore, the search within the vicinity of the outer ping rings is not a wild goose chase.

Still voting for somewhere around ~39°S 87°E....

Quote:
Or would it have been simply impossible to find wreckage that size by satellite?

Not strictly impossible. You can see smaller objects in Google Earth. Just HIGHLY improbable.

richierich · Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:29 pm

Quoting 77west (Reply 41):
Media now linking Airliners.net user images!!

Suddenly we are informed experts

No less than some of their own so-called "experts"...sifting through these threads, I would guess 1 in 10 people on here actually know what they are talking about, and if you can figure out who they are, you are probably better off than watching CNN, etc.

Quoting 77west (Reply 50):
My rather vivid imagination just pictured a 777 in those seas being slammed around like that...

To be honest, I think it was probably a more violent crash into the sea than that. My guess is that most, if not all, persons on board were already gone but that is just my hypothesis. RIP MH370.

N14AZ · Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:33 pm

Quoting richierich (Reply 96):
Quoting 77west (Reply 41):Media now linking Airliners.net user images!!

Suddenly we are informed experts
No less than some of their own so-called "experts"...sifting through these threads, I would guess 1 in 10 people on here actually know what they are talking about, and if you can figure out who they are, you are probably better off than watching CNN, etc.

Well spoken!

KarelXWB · Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:36 pm

Quoting richierich (Reply 96):
My guess is that most, if not all, persons on board were already gone but that is just my hypothesis.

Something like Helios Flight 522 perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helios_Airways_Flight_522

solarflyer22 · Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:42 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 6):

But this one was in full down position when it hit the water. If the other was in up position it suffered much less direct impact.

I don't think you can infere that just yet but its an interesting proposition. That would imply ditching if true.

Quoting 77west (Reply 21):
Differing light conditions, weathering, sun bleaching, could all be factors.

I was thinking Salt too. Its been in very saline water for 17 months. I am sure its from MH370 though.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net