Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sat Apr 02, 2016 3:30 pm

The Mourouk Ebony hotel posted a dozen pictures on their facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/resamarket/posts/1039524829451663?pnref=story

Here is a picture of the reverse side:
http://i.imgur.com/47fZLX6.jpg

Also, there are photos of young gooseneck barnacles that are attached. And that bracket looking thing on the obverse side several posts above turns out to be a hinge.

I could not find any inscriptions, other than the decorative foil itself.

As for the implications of this latest find, I don't think it falsifies the controlled flight input theory, at least not yet. No one has ever claimed that pulling off a "succesful" ditching in the SIO is a sure thing. If a controlled ditching was attempted, it is likely that the right side would have hit first due to the direction of travel and direction of swells, explaining the flaperon and EB676 objects. Then, like ET961, the a/c would roll to the right, causing the right horizontal stabilizer to strike the water, thus explaining the “NO STEP” object. Then, like ET961, a violent cartwheel motion could be expected.

Granted, there are no reefs to strike along the southern 7th arc. But 200 knots squared times the mass of a 777 is still a lot of kinetic energy; probably enough to cause the fuselage to separate; even the picture perfect Hudson River ditching pierced the fuselage. If the fuselage separated where a bulkhead happened to be located, that could easily explain the Rodrigues object.

Again, whilst a 200 knot, low-angle crash involves a lot of energy, it is still about an order of magnitude less energy than would be involved in a high-angle crash at 600 knots. Thus, even in a “botched” ditching attempt, we could expect a lot less debris than from an uncontrolled dive from high altitude. Thus, overall, IMO, the totality of the evidence–including the lack of more debris evidence–still favors the controlled input theory. Yes, there are the anomalous BFO values at the end, but the error bars on the BFOs are so wide, you can’t tell me that they absolutely rule out controlled flight inputs.

The bigger problem for the alternative theory is that finding one more object does not change the big fact that there are so few of them (5 so far). I see Duncan Steel just put out a new post, claiming that the initial debris field consisted of 10,000 objects! But the bigger the field, the more of a problem you have: according to a study of actual drifting buoys (as opposed to a priori numerical simulations) some 20% of all objects should have washed ashore somewhere by now, including ~5% going ashore in Australia. Out of 10,000 initial objects, 2,000 objects should have washed ashore somewhere, including roughly 500 objects washing ashore in Australia. It is inconceivable that the reporting rate of objects washing ashore is 1/4%.

Even if 90% of the initial debris field subsequently sank, you still have a problem: a 2.5% reporting rate is still way to low, especially when considering populations are sensitized to the presence debris, as are the people in Australia and the Mascarene islands.

Dr. Steel claims the finding of an object on Rodrigues is a special, surprising prediction from their IG-produced numerical simulations. This is not the case: I myself predicted that Rodrigues would be a good place to look for debris nearly 2 years ago on this website, the first person to do so I am aware of. All I did, or anybody could do, is simply look at the Wikipedia current chart that Richard Godfrey reproduces. The Mascarenes are like natural nets placed in the middle of the South Equatorial Current. Apparently, Blaine Gibson came to the same conclusion. Before he went to Mozambique, he traveled to Rodrigues first, and walked the entire eastern shore, finding nothing. That more objects have not been found there is not for lack of looking. The shortage of found objects represents a real shortage of original source objects IMHO.

As for the flutter hypothesis regarding the flaperon: according to highly respected pilots posting on this website, one must be very cautious in drawing conclusions from simulators that are pushed well past the normal operating envelope–they cannot be considered to be reliable, even if simulations are all there is to go on. The flaperon is not just a flimsy flap: it is also an aileron in its own right. It is the main flight control surface that is used during high speed flight: hence it’s location behind the beefiest part of the wing. The flaperon should be the last part to fall off due to flutter.

[Edited 2016-04-02 08:33:36]
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:27 pm

I believe you will find that pattern all through the airplane, or at least common to one class section.. matching the pattern to a particular panel is nice detective work, but inconclusive as the pattern is repeated many times.

perhaps someone who flies that airline frequently can add some detail.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:37 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 101):
I believe you will find that pattern all through the airplane, or at least common to one class section.. matching the pattern to a particular panel is nice detective work, but inconclusive as the pattern is repeated many times.perhaps someone who flies that airline frequently can add some detail.

It would be nice if we could pinpoint exactly what part of the a/c the bulkhead came from. What about that hinged bracket? Could that be for a tray table at the front of the economy section? What else could it be used for?
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:44 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 102):

The square hole is probably a latch or a light, note it is re-enforced on the panel back.. my suspicions lead more towards a stowage bin or a sliding door.
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:56 pm

There is only one way to find out, gentlemen: You book a seat on a Malaysian Airlines B777 and you will have all the time you need to do your investigation....
By the way, Mr. Warren Platts, do you think that the sparsity of objects from MH370 could mean that the airplane hit the water somewhere else and not necessarily in the South Indian Ocean? Just saying...
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:58 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 100):
Thus, even in a “botched” ditching attempt, we could expect a lot less debris than from an uncontrolled dive from high altitude. Thus, overall, IMO, the totality of the evidence–including the lack of more debris evidence–still favors the controlled input theory

True, but you don't need any kind of ditching attempt. Just remember AF447:
Very little debris found floating, some of it from the inside of the plane, and none of it washed ashore. The wreck has been found largely intact on the ocean floor.
Iirc, the aircraft crashed with about 100kts horizontal and vertical speed into the ocean, resulting in about 150kts speed and 45 degree angle.
And AF447 was not what one might describe as "controlled", let alone "ditching attempt".

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 100):
No one has ever claimed that pulling off a "succesful" ditching in the SIO is a sure thing.

Actually, it was claimed to be a hopeless thing by knowledgeable people here. This doesn't automatically rule out an attempt in a desperate situation where there is no alternative. But it makes a planned, premediated attempt by an experienced human in the cockpit extremely unlikely.

Unfortunately, there are few conclusions from the parts. The plane is indeed somewhere in the Indian Ocean, all conspiracy theories about landing somewhere and planting parts should be utterly discredited by now. But for the type of the final crash and even more the cause of the accident many possibilities remain open.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:02 pm

Quoting gzm (Reply 104):
There is only one way to find out, gentlemen: You book a seat on a Malaysian Airlines B777 and you will have all the time you need to do your investigation....

I thought MAS has retired all its B777s since they are considered to be bad luck...

Quoting gzm (Reply 104):
By the way, Mr. Warren Platts, do you think that the sparsity of objects from MH370 could mean that the airplane hit the water somewhere else and not necessarily in the South Indian Ocean? Just saying...

Heh. Who knows?  No doubt the solution to the puzzle will be surprising. Indeed, the most surprising thing would be to find it where they're looking!
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sat Apr 02, 2016 6:43 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 100):
according to a study of actual drifting buoys (as opposed to a priori numerical simulations) some 20% of all objects should have washed ashore somewhere by now, including ~5% going ashore in Australia.

Can you provide a citation please? Also note the numerical studies on the ATSB website indicate few (if any) debris would be expected to wash up in Australia. Pretty much everything heads West into the Indian Ocean Gyre.

This most recent find is quite interesting, since previously the lack of debris from inside the fuselage was taken as an indication that the aircraft was successfully ditched. This hypothesis is now proven false; if there was a ditching it resulted in fuselage breakup, and more likely there was no ditching at all, just an uncontrolled crash.

I thought your earlier discussion on the various search biases to be quite well-reasoned, which is why I am perplexed that you so strenuously attempt to fit this latest debris discovery into your controlled ditching theory. You are over-fitting the data, and I find Duncan Steel's hypothesis of tens of thousands of debris to be far more credible.
 
User avatar
DL_Mech
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:06 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 103):
The square hole is probably a latch or a light,

I think that this is either a galley or lavatory wall. The square hole looks like an access hole for the hardware that attaches the galley or lav to the seat track in the floor. The access hole is usually covered up by a kick panel or a carpet section, and you can see the equally spaced holes for the screw inserts that mounts that kick panel. Is the bracket on the wall part of a literature pocket mount?

The aft side shows five rectangles which looks like it was support for a vertical wall of a galley. Did MH have any galleys against the sidewalls of the airplane?

Could it be this closet? Note the kick panel at the bottom and literature pocket.

http://cdn.seatguru.com/photos/show?pid=3961&photoversion=1

[Edited 2016-04-02 18:35:18]
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:07 am

Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor for The West Australian, today stated on television whilst being asked about this recent find; "This plane was *clearly* out of control" - LOL

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 107):
if there was a ditching it resulted in fuselage breakup,

Hardly a surprise.

It would be more of a surprise if the fuselage remained in one piece.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 107):
and more likely there was no ditching at all, just an uncontrolled crash.

How exactly does this "most recent find" support that?

I suspect that if the fuselage broke into a few pieces during a ditching then many items would escape, especially items in the areas around the fuselage section joins if that is where the fuselage broke apart.

Where are these kind of divider panels located in MH 777s in relation to fuselage section joins?
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:54 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 109):
Where are these kind of divider panels located in MH 777s

for the location of bulkheads:
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Mal...laysia_Airlines_Boeing_777-200.php

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 109):
It would be more of a surprise if the fuselage remained in one piece.

   And yet, one pet theory of some here depends upon an evil genius planning to achieve this.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 6:22 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 110):

for the location of bulkheads:

I asked for the location specifically "in relation to fuselage section joins?"

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 110):

   And yet, one pet theory of some here depends upon an evil genius planning to achieve this. 

Well keeping the aircraft intact as possible is usually the plan when ditching regardless of the likelihood.
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 6:46 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 111):
   And yet, one pet theory of some here depends upon an evil genius planning to achieve this. 

Well keeping the aircraft intact as possible is usually the plan when ditching regardless of the likelihood.

  

The mischaracterizations never cease.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 109):
Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor for The West Australian, today stated on television whilst being asked about this recent find; "This plane was *clearly* out of control" - LOL

This guy has been promoting an 'accident' theory since time immemorial. How stupid must one be to become an 'aviation editor'? Extremely.

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 108):
You are over-fitting the data, and I find Duncan Steel's hypothesis of tens of thousands of debris to be far more credible.

So just curious, do you, or do you not, believe that someone was alive and in the cockpit during the southern leg? Surely you have an opinion on this matter?

[Edited 2016-04-02 23:47:52]
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 6:47 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 111):
I asked for the location specifically "in relation to fuselage section joins?"

You may google for the joints   Without doing so, i strongly suspect there will be one behind the cockpit, and one in front of the tail, and more somewhere in between.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 111):
Well keeping the aircraft intact as possible is usually the plan when ditching regardless of the likelihood.

OMG, and i thought landing on an airstrip is the usual plan if you want to keep the aircraft intact 
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:08 am



Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 113):

OMG, and i thought landing on an airstrip is the usual plan if you want to keep the aircraft intact 

Last time I checked "landing on an airstrip" was not an option when 'ditching' in the open ocean - especially in the middle of the SIO  

[Edited 2016-04-03 02:10:37]
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:18 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 112):
The mischaracterizations never cease. 

  

Neither do the smartarse replies from some  
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 113):
You may google for the joints  

Ah yes, google...

Is this google you talk about where you found seatguru?  

LOL
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 9:35 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 114):
Last time I checked "landing on an airstrip" was not an option when 'ditching' in the open ocean - especially in the middle of the SIO

Landing on an airstrip was very much an option when MH370 took off. And when it diverted. And for a few hours afterward.

I came across seatguru long ago, and i suspect i found it referred to on a.net. I am fairly sure you will find information or photos with google. Afaik, assembly of a T7 is not classified info.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:13 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 116):
I came across seatguru long ago, and i suspect i found it referred to on a.net.

Here's a picture of a seat map from seatguru.com for reference when theorizing about where the bulkhead section came from:

http://i.imgur.com/gS1gqQ2.jpg
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:35 pm

http://i.imgur.com/1sfLtzO.jpg

(Thanks to Annette @Aussie500)!  

Looks plausible to me. Interesting that it's right next to an emergency exit. Presumably this represents a relatively weak point in the fuselage structure?

One should also note that it is on the right side. Call this confirmation bias if you want but: a/c attempts water landing but swells moving in from the right catch right wing/engine; a/c rolls to right a la ET961; a/c now at nearly 90 degree roll angle WRT to sea surface; violent cartwheel motion ensues, hammering forward end of fuselage into water surface; initial fuselage separation occurs right where the emergency exits are in the galley section between rows 4 & 5 within business class....



ETA: Actually, complete separation of the fuselage might not occur. Cartwheel motion would slam right side of forward fuselage into water causing the emergency exit hatch to implode. This would rip out the Rodrigues object, yet leave the fuselage more or less intact. The blown open door would allow rapid sinking, yet not allow much interior debris to be released. This would explain all objects found so far, as well as the big fact that more debris objects have NOT been found...



[Edited 2016-04-04 07:25:45]
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 3:22 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 118):
Call this confirmation bias if you want but: a/c attempts water landing but swells moving in from the right

Yes, confirmation bias indeed! Door frames are some of the most reinforced areas of a fuselage, quite unlikely to fail first. You're trying to solve a 1000-piece puzzle using the five pieces in hand. The other pieces are still out there, hundreds of them...

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 118):
the big fact that more debris objects have NOT been found...

This is not a big fact. As discussed up-thread, these objects are rather rare compared to the thousands of miles of coast on which they washed up; if even found they are mistaken for normal ocean junk. Unless, unless! they bear distinctive markings. Which all the recovered pieces do, unsurprisingly.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 118):
This would rip out the Rodrigues object, yet leave the fuselage more or less intact

Occam's razor at work, no doubt.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:43 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 119):
Door frames are some of the most reinforced areas of a fuselage, quite unlikely to fail first.

The fact is right, but i would not be so sure about the conclusion.
Door frames are heavily reinforced for a good reason, a big hole in the structure is a big weakness. And what if just the door failed (by opening), and not the frame ?
Are the doors of this emergency exit plug doors that open to the inside ? Even if not, we have to remember that design loads will be asymmetrical, there is no reason to design it for large pressure from the outside.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 119):
these objects are rather rare compared to the thousands of miles of coast on which they washed up

One cannot state this often enough. And the majority of those thousands of miles seems to be sparsely populated, too.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:25 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 119):
Door frames ... quite unlikely to fail first.

It is true that the B777 does not have per se emergency exits. There are 8 identical exits. The ones on the RH side are "service" doors, the ones on the left are pax doors. So they all open to the outside. So you could be right that it is impossible for the doors to implode without the entire fuselage separating. As for likely places for the fuselage to separate at, I don't buy the argument that where the doors are is the least likely, however.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 119):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 118):the big fact that more debris objects have NOT been found...

This is not a big fact. As discussed up-thread, these objects are rather rare compared to the thousands of miles of coast on which they washed up; if even found they are mistaken for normal ocean junk. Unless, unless! they bear distinctive markings. Which all the recovered pieces do, unsurprisingly.

I doubt that there are "hundreds" of objects waiting to be discovered on beaches. But if Duncan Steel and crew are right, there should be thousands.

As for mistakes in identification, there are two kinds:

1. False negatives: someone walks by an actual debris object from the 9M-MRO, they look at it, but do not make the connection that it is a part of the aircraft.

2. False positives: someone walks by a piece of junk, but thinks it is part of the aircraft, and then turns it in to some authority.

At least in certain places, such as Australia, the authorities have been inundated with false positives: people bringing in sea junk that doesn't belong to the 9M-MRO. That tells me that people are being conscientious about looking for possible debris, and that, therefore, the rate of false negatives is probably smaller than you estimate.

Take the Mascarene islands themselves (Mauritius, Rodriguez, Reunion): they are densely populated, and there are a lot of tourists who go there for the beaches. Moreover, there have been official searches of the beaches there, as well as unofficial searches: Blaine Gibson traveled to Rodrigues and walked the entire east coast before he went to Mozambique. If there were "thousands" of debris objects floating around the Indian Ocean, several tens should have washed up in the Mascarenes. I can see a few objects being dismissed as false negatives, but not several tens.

As for the presence of peculiar markings, the Rodrigues object has no inscriptions per se on it. It was a miracle that a couple of internet sleuths were able to match the markings to MAS decorative foil, and to identify it's place in the middle galley. Also, there was the "cheat line" object found by Johny Begue. No markings on it, other than the blue line on it. I'm not convinced it's not genuine (it had noticeable honeycomb material within it); but since it has disappeared into French purgatory, we'll never know for sure. Thankfully, Rodriguez is not under French jurisdiction, and so it should make it's way to Oz in short order...

Bottom line: we'll see a few more objects dribble in, no doubt, but not what you'd expect if there was a Silk Air-style impact...

[Edited 2016-04-04 10:27:23]
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:16 pm

Here is a good schematic of the plane http://thelexicans.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/scan666.jpg Note the rings that go completely around the fuselage are the section join rings. Also note that where the doors are there are massive doublers that stiffen and reinforce the structure. In testing the join rings would fail before the door frames and doublers.

The last piece found is a mid 43 section decorative panel adjacent to a door with a reinforcement doubler and provides no evidence of the mode of fuselage failure.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 121):
but since it has disappeared into French purgatory

Just because the French investigative system seems secretive and incomprehensible to English systems, doesn't mean their wrong or inept.. so let's just leave insinuating comments about it on the editing floor, please.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:04 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 122):
The last piece found is a mid 43 section decorative panel adjacent to a door with a reinforcement doubler and provides no evidence of the mode of fuselage failure.

Here is a diagram showing the sections referred to:



Yes, it is apparent that the bulkhead object is from the middle of a fuselage section. Which would seem to deal a blow to the controlled flight input hypothesis, to be sure, if it's the case that the fuselage as a whole would fail before the #4 door would fail...


Quoting kanban (Reply 122):
Just because the French investigative system seems secretive and incomprehensible to English systems, doesn't mean their wrong or inept..

I agree with what you say as far as it goes. And I would certainly never say that French investigators are incompetent!.

Nonetheless, this is the first time I have ever heard of an aircraft crash investigation where the debris parts are kept on opposite sides of the globe. I'm no expert, but how is that a good thing?

The Australians are the ones spending $100,000,000 AUD looking for the aircraft. The suspected crash site is in their area of responsibility. The flaperon and any other suspected debris objects should be sent to Australia.

Why?

Because the debris objects can shed light on the crash mode; that in turn has implications for the search strategy.

The French authorities have had plenty of time. They can have their secrets, but the parts need to be sent to Australia.

IMHO YMMV
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 9:54 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 123):
Why?

what do we have 5 maybe 6 parts out of how many thousands?.. there is no hurry and not enough to determine anything..
we're still in the '5 blind men describing an elephant' phase.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:06 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 116):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 114):
Last time I checked "landing on an airstrip" was not an option when 'ditching' in the open ocean - especially in the middle of the SIO

Landing on an airstrip was very much an option when MH370 took off.

As it was when Germanwings 9525, Silk Air 185, Egypt Air 990 and a handful of other flights took off too  
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 119):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 118):
Call this confirmation bias if you want but: a/c attempts water landing but swells moving in from the right

Yes, confirmation bias indeed! Door frames are some of the most reinforced areas of a fuselage, quite unlikely to fail first. You're trying to solve a 1000-piece puzzle using the five pieces in hand.

Yet you concluded that "more likely there was no ditching at all, just an uncontrolled crash" using just one piece - the latest piece...

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 107):
This most recent find is quite interesting, since previously the lack of debris from inside the fuselage was taken as an indication that the aircraft was successfully ditched. This hypothesis is now proven false; if there was a ditching it resulted in fuselage breakup, and more likely there was no ditching at all, just an uncontrolled crash.

filler

Quoting kanban (Reply 122):
Here is a good schematic of the plane http://thelexicans.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/scan666.jpg Note the rings that go completely around the fuselage are the section join rings.

The plane in your link is the longer 777-300 which has at least two more fuselage sections (the location of the other section joins could be the same on a -200 though - not entirely sure).

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 123):
The Australians are the ones spending $100,000,000 AUD looking for the aircraft. The suspected crash site is in their area of responsibility.

Australia's responsibility ended a long time ago when the search and 'rescue' phase ended. Australia has no recovery responsibilities; only search and 'rescue' responsibilities in that area.

In an article about a week ago it stated exactly how much money Malaysia has contributed towards this search; The exact figures that Australia and China have contributed were not published... Meanwhile, it seems that the bank accounts of the Malaysian PM could fund several of these searches 
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Mon Apr 04, 2016 11:46 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 121):
people are being conscientious about looking for possible debris, and that, therefore, the rate of false negatives is probably smaller than you estimate.

Your observation presupposes that the debris are being found in the first place, which they are not. False positives and false negatives start from the premise that you have something in hand to identify. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of pieces hidden in plain sight along thousands of miles of coast, yet to be noticed.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 121):
As for the presence of peculiar markings, the Rodrigues object has no inscriptions per se on it.

Distinctive markings need not be alphanumeric.
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:11 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 126):
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of pieces hidden in plain sight along thousands of miles of coast, yet to be noticed.

Source? Presented as fact.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 2:32 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 122):
Here is a good schematic of the plane http://thelexicans.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/scan666.jpg Note the rings that go completely around the fuselage are the section join rings. Also note that where the doors are there are massive doublers that stiffen and reinforce the structure. In testing the join rings would fail before the door frames and doublers.

The last piece found is a mid 43 section decorative panel adjacent to a door with a reinforcement doubler and provides no evidence of the mode of fuselage failure.

OK, I have just learned--albeit I am hitting myself on the head because I have seen it myself innumerable times--that although the doors may ultimately translate toward the outside, the normal operation requires that the door move toward the INSIDE, and then up and out. It is a "plug" design, meaning that it relies on the strength of the fuselage to keep overpressure from blowing out the door to the outside.

In other words, when the pressure is reversed, the strongest thing preventing implosion is the latch mechanism of the door.

The door would/should/could fail before the fuselage failed.

IMHO YMMV
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 3:32 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 128):
that although the doors may ultimately translate toward the outside, the normal operation requires that the door move toward the INSIDE, and then up and out.

777-200 door opening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJFoMH98yHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjdV9FvVmec
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 5:46 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 125):
As it was when Germanwings 9525, Silk Air 185, Egypt Air 990 and a handful of other flights took off too

True, but Plan B in those cases was not ditching (or crash landing) after fuel exhaustion, it was nose down and crash at the first chance.
The ends in this theory (the pilot did it with evil intent to make the plane disappear) just don't meet. They might, if one introduces a third party with evil intent and a botched hijacking.

Btw., what is your opinion on the chance of debris having been washed ashore somewhere on the west or south coast of Australia being found and identified ?
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:04 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 126):
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of pieces hidden in plain sight along thousands of miles of coast, yet to be noticed.

Where exactly? Not South Africa. Not Western Australia. Not Mozambique. Not Mauritius, Reunion, nor Rodrigues. Those places have already been--and continue to be--searched. Really, the only places where there hasn't been a major search effort are Somalia, Kenya, and Madagascar. Obviously Somalia's a no-go zone, but Kenya and Madagascar would be likely places IMO. You wanna go? I'll go with you. However, I predict we would be lucky to find one or two pieces. Given that not many objects have been found in the areas that have been searched, probably there are not hundreds or thousands of debris objects waiting to be picked up.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 130):
Btw., what is your opinion on the chance of debris having been washed ashore somewhere on the west or south coast of Australia being found and identified ?

My understanding is that if something washed ashore in Western Australia, it most likely would have been found. All beaches there are frequented by surfers and beach combers. Bins full of stuff has been turned in to the proper authorities, including a packet of towlettes with a Malaysian Airlines logo on it. None of the stuff was ever confirmed as coming from MH370.

The Great Bight in southern Australia is another story: there are hundreds of kilometers of cliffs whose shoreline is really only accessible by rappelling over the side, or possibly in a Zodiac if the seas were calm enough, although that would still be dodgy. There could be some debris there that no one knows about, but given the experience in Western Australia, probably not a whole lot.

@Kanban: There is kind of a hurry. The funding for the underwater search effort is only going to last a few more months. The current search strategy was devised before any of the debris objects have been found. The question is whether the debris objects support the theory upon which the search strategy is based. A lot of people--e.g., the so-called Independent Group--are saying the debris confirms this theory.

I'm merely pointing out that's not necessarily the case. The data is inconclusive, to be sure, but it's time to take some risks IMO.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 12:40 pm

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 130):
Quoting 777Jet (Reply 125):As it was when Germanwings 9525, Silk Air 185, Egypt Air 990 and a handful of other flights took off too

True, but Plan B in those cases was not ditching (or crash landing) after fuel exhaustion, it was nose down and crash at the first chance.

Um, not exactly. The Germanwings pilot "rehearsed" the crash on his way to Barcelona.

cf. http://fearoflanding.com/accidents/a...ngs-9525-attempting-to-understand/

Quote:
The flight data recorder had 39 Mb of data, including the data from the morning flight from Düsseldorf to Barcelona. The investigators found disturbing data relating to the earlier flight.

07:19:59 The aircraft was cruising at FL370 (37,000 feet). The cockpit door opened and then closed as the captain left the cockpit.

07:20:29 Air traffic control asked the flight to descend to FL350 (35,000 feet). The co-pilot correctly read back the instruction.

07:20:32 The altitude was set to FL350 and the aircraft was put into a descent.

07:20:50 The selected altitude was decreased to 100 feet. It was then increased to 49,000 feet and then to 35,000 feet.

07:21:10 Air traffic control instructed the crew to continue the descent to FL210 (21,000 feet).

07:21:16 The selected altitude was 21,000 feet.

07:22:27 The selected altitude was set to 100 feet.

07:24:13 The selected altitude was changed several times but then set back to 25,000 feet.

07:24:15 The buzzer sounded to request access to the cockpit.

07:24:29 The cockpit door was unlocked and opened, corresponding to the return of the captain.

...

It was 09:30:53, just seconds after the captain left the cockpit, when the selected altitude was changed from 38,000 feet to 100 feet, the minimum value that it is possible to select on the A320. The autopilot changed mode to open descent and autothrust changed mode to thrust idle. The aircraft began its descent and both engines’ speed decreased.
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 130):
intent to make the plane disappear
Try googling "Craig D. Button".
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 4:53 pm

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 125):
The plane in your link is the longer 777-300 which has at least two more fuselage sections (the location of the other section joins could be the same on a -200 though - not entirely sure).

usually Boeing adds additional frames to the sections so the sections themselves remain the same number.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 8:02 pm

Quoting kanban (Reply 122):
Just because the French investigative system seems secretive and incomprehensible to English systems, doesn't mean their wrong or inept..

Sir, speaking of French aviation authorities, and trying to make sense out 5 or 6 objects, check this out!

http://www.lemonde.fr/asie-pacifique...144_3216.html?xtmc=flaperon&xtcr=1

Here is the relevant paragraph:

Quote:
Mercredi, les familles des quatre Français avaient été reçues par le juge antiterroriste chargé de l’enquête française, Alain Gaudino, et l’expert technique aéronautique missionné, François Grangier. ... Il a en revanche estimé que la manière dont la pièce était « tordue » laissait penser à un amerrissage plutôt qu’à un crash, ce qui indiquerait que l’avion est resté sous contrôle jusqu’au bout.

English translation:

Quote:
Wednesday, the families of the four French had been received by the antiterrorist judge in charge of the French investigation, Alain Gaudino, and commissioned aerospace technical expert Francois Grangier. ... [Mssr. Grangier] felt that the way the [flaperon] was "twisted" led him to think of a ditching rather than a crash, which would indicate that the aircraft was under control until the end.

Mike Exner is a nice guy, but the "flutter" hypothesis regarding the flaperon never struck me as very plausible. I mean 1/3 of the trailing edge is gone: how is that inconsistent with a ditching?

[Edited 2016-04-05 13:18:05]
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:22 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 134):
1/3 of the trailing edge is gone: how is that inconsistent with a ditching?

It could be either. What isn't consistent with a ditching is a small fragment of interior partition. The size and location of this piece undeniably attest to a violent encounter between the airplane and the ocean.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 10:41 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 135):
Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 134):1/3 of the trailing edge is gone: how is that inconsistent with a ditching?

It could be either. What isn't consistent with a ditching is a small fragment of interior partition. The size and location of this piece undeniably attest to a violent encounter between the airplane and the ocean.

Negative. The debris object was adjacent to the #2 RH door. Probably the little table attached to it was deployed. Hence if the door were to implode due to a sideways cartwheel, the part would be ripped off. Even if the table was not deployed, the #2RH door opens toward the front, entailing that it's main hinges are on its left hand side. Thus, if the door were to implode, the right side would fail first: exactly where the object came from.

Also, at least one French investigator privy to the flaperon analysis says it was "twisted" in a manner that is more consistent with a ditching attempt.

Also, the size of the fragment is not all that small.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Tue Apr 05, 2016 11:57 pm

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 136):
Also, the size of the fragment is not all that small.

The fragment of cabin partition is not large. Here is a picture that shows the scale.

What is more likely? That a complicated breakup sequence during a controlled ditching selectively liberated this particular piece, or that the entire aircraft was indiscriminately shredded to pieces on impact? The simplest explanation requiring the fewest assumptions makes the most sense to me.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Wed Apr 06, 2016 12:07 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 130):
True, but Plan B in those cases was not ditching (or crash landing) after fuel exhaustion, it was nose down and crash at the first chance.

That does not mean that all cases in which a pilot crashes the plane intentionally will play out like that. Have you ever thought that if the Captain did it, he might have done it this way to make it look like an accident? Perhaps he did not want to do it the obvious way in order to protect his family? Who knows. The Captain was very much in control of this flight at least until something happened near IGARI, especially with the most junior 777 FO in the airline seated next to him - the Captain was calling the shots. He could most likely have made things unfold in any number of ways - that was his choice - not that of the FO. In contrast, EgyptAir 990 and GermanWings were flights where the FO committed the act so they had to rely more on opportunity. And another example, FedEx 705, if successful that plane would have been turned back and crashed into the FedEx HQ to supposedly make it look like 'an accident' in which Auburn Calloway's family would have received a good insurance payout. FedEx 705 would not have been your "nose down and crash at the first chance" example but it does show how the rogue pilot still planned it in a way to protect / benefit his family. There are probably many things that are not known about whoever was responsible for the disappearance of flight MH370...

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 130):
The ends in this theory (the pilot did it with evil intent to make the plane disappear) just don't meet. They might, if one introduces a third party with evil intent and a botched hijacking.

The end of the flight / scenario doesn't really change the likelihood of the Captain doing it or not. He could have ditched to minimize debris. He could have nose dived it at the end. He could have allowed himself to fall to hypoxia before fuel ran out. It doesn't really matter because if he did it, he did it. What the end of the flight scenario does change is the probable impact / crash location and that is what is important in order to locate the main wreckage site.

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 130):
Btw., what is your opinion on the chance of debris having been washed ashore somewhere on the west or south coast of Australia being found and identified ?

My opinion is that after 2 years debris could turn up almost anywhere and it would not come as a surprise. But looking at the currents and where things have been found so far, I suspect those area are the places where most debris can be found. I'd be focusing on that side of Africa. FWIW about a year or so ago there was a massive beach cleaning effort along the West coast of Tasmania, Australia. Apparently nothing from MH370 was found. I'm sure you could find that article on the internet somewhere if it interested you.

Quoting kanban (Reply 133):
usually Boeing adds additional frames to the sections so the sections themselves remain the same number.

Thanks for that.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 134):
English translation:

Quote:
Wednesday, the families of the four French had been received by the antiterrorist judge in charge of the French investigation, Alain Gaudino, and commissioned aerospace technical expert Francois Grangier. ... [Mssr. Grangier] felt that the way the [flaperon] was "twisted" led him to think of a ditching rather than a crash, which would indicate that the aircraft was under control until the end.

Mike Exner is a nice guy, but the "flutter" hypothesis regarding the flaperon never struck me as very plausible. I mean 1/3 of the trailing edge is gone: how is that inconsistent with a ditching?

  
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Wed Apr 06, 2016 2:17 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 134):
Mike Exner is a nice guy, but the "flutter" hypothesis regarding the flaperon never struck me as very plausible. I mean 1/3 of the trailing edge is gone: how is that inconsistent with a ditching?

Pihero scoffed and laughed at the idea of flutter. But what does he know?   
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Wed Apr 06, 2016 4:22 am

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 139):
Pihero scoffed and laughed at the idea of flutter. But what does he know?  

Perhaps that's prolly why he doesn't post on things MH370 anymore...?     
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Wed Apr 06, 2016 10:01 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 138):
FedEx 705 would not have been your "nose down and crash at the first chance" example but it does show how the rogue pilot still planned it in a way to protect / benefit his family.

True, this is another pattern. Crashing into a symbol. Take revenge on a hated employer who fired you, crash into his HQ, and get the life insurance for your family. But not a single one of these elements has turned up in case of MH370.
Now, Calloway might have been a little more successful than he was and the whole affair might have ended in a crash somewhere in the countryside - but not when running out of fuel and not with an attempt to crash land.
Much of the same goes for terrorists. See 9/11. Or see ET 961, where the terrorists tried to prevent successful ditching in the last seconds.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 138):
The end of the flight / scenario doesn't really change the likelihood of the Captain doing it or not.

It changes probabilities a whole lot, but unfortunately you still can't rule anything out.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 138):
FWIW about a year or so ago there was a massive beach cleaning effort along the West coast of Tasmania, Australia

Thanks ! A year ago may have been a bit early. But you think, if something is washed ashore then it will be found ? For me, the west coast of Australia looks rather sparsely populated and without much tourism. But i can only go by Google earth.
 
lazybones
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:46 am

Some more shots of the cabin interior are available here

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...e-finds-more-mh370-interior-shots/

I don't subscribe to the controlled ditching theory. I think just the size of the debris that has been found suggest a very high energy impact similar to SR111. Just looking at the remains of the RR engine cowling says at lot.

There have been a few simulator recreations of a 777 during fuel exhaustion, the link below is an interesting read.

http://www.pprune.org/8407235-post8642.html

I'm more curious as to why some wreckage has barnacles and some does not, this has to a reason for this.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6982
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:49 am

Quoting lazybones (Reply 142):
I'm more curious as to why some wreckage has barnacles and some does not, this has to a reason for this. 

Search for the following in the Crikey - Plane Talking blog -

"April 3, 2016

New analysis offers reasons why MH370 fragments are found encrusted with more or less marine life

by Ben Sandilands"

There is an explanation and link to an article in there.

Sorry I can't post the link using my phone...
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Fri Apr 08, 2016 2:25 am

 
lazybones
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:01 am

Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 144):

Search for the following in the Crikey - Plane Talking blog
Quoting lancelot07 (Reply 144):
This should be it:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...usted-with-more-or-less-barnacles/

Cheers Guys,

This article suggests the wreckage we have so far must have impacted the water at quite some distance apart. The cabin part and flaperon in close proximity with other flap parts, engine cowling further away. This would mean the aircraft started to disintegrate at high altitude probably due to aerodynamic forces after it started to dive.

Sounds very similar to China Airways Flight 006. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006)

On the crikey article, comment 1 from Simon Gunson is also interesting.
 
oxymorph
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:57 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:34 am

Quoting lazybones (Reply 145):
This article suggests the wreckage we have so far must have impacted the water at quite some distance apart. The cabin part and flaperon in close proximity with other flap parts, engine cowling further away. This would mean the aircraft started to disintegrate at high altitude probably due to aerodynamic forces after it started to dive.

I'll sum it up differently. The IG continues to produce and put forward all manner of 'scientific' papers that attempt to support their working hypothesis...one of a 'ghost flight' and 'high impact' 'high energy' crash. In actuality, what they are trying to accomplish, for reasons that aren't quite clear to me, is the complete exoneration of the pilot.

Besides the absolutely ridiculous idea that this was accidental in nature, it is equally as baseless to extend a logical position to an unpiloted southern leg, given the aeroplanes track from IGARI to the FMT.

And Sy Gunson is just a shill for the Zaharie family, and a poor one at that.
 
lancelot07
Posts: 1078
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:22 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:59 am

Quoting lazybones (Reply 145):
This article suggests the wreckage we have so far must have impacted the water at quite some distance apart

It doesn't.
What it suggests is that different parts have taken different paths and that the barnacles may have been acquired close to the place of finding the parts.
from the article:

Quote:
The IG paper notes as well that lepas (goose barnacle) colonisation may be a feature of proximity to coastlines inhabited by lepas colonies. It argues that objects that drift through waters away from such colonies might not therefore become contaminated with them, as well as being subject to the temperature and locational factors that influenced the concentration of chlorophyll/phytoplankton on which surface growing marine life forms feed.

Not a word about a high altitude break up (which would not explain the barnacle / no barnacle-question anyway), and it does not sound in any way similar to China Airlines which was caused by fatigue due to a faulty repair.
 
WingedMigrator
Posts: 1771
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:45 am

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Fri Apr 08, 2016 3:30 pm

Quoting oxymorph (Reply 146):
In actuality, what they are trying to accomplish, for reasons that aren't quite clear to me, is the complete exoneration of the pilot.

It would only appear so to a person who believes steadfastly in the pilot's guilt.

What the pilot did or didn't do is irrelevant to the matter of uncovering the root cause(s) of this crash, to improve the safety of future airline passengers. The whodunnit part is no doubt fascinating but ultimately a distraction.
 
WarrenPlatts
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:03 pm

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part?

Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:04 pm

Here is a new video that shows the latest find. Finally, you can see how bent up it is. Rather than the hinge being the cause of the fragment dislodging, it now looks to me that it reinforced the bulkhead somehow which then bent around the hinge.

http://i.imgur.com/rhQ5lMT.png

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJEvqExMHbE
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos