Yet Another New MH370 Part?

777Jet · Sun May 22, 2016 12:22 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 99):
what is more interesting is who cleaned it up and returned it to the beach for the second "finding"

True. Maybe WarrenPlatts can answer this: If left (the RR item) exposed in the elements for so long is it possible that weather / nature could have cleared the marine life from the part, or, would it have had to have been removed by somebody who found it later?

At least the pic with marine life on it pretty much debunks the "item was planted" conspiracy theorists - although I'd expect that crowd to find another reason to introduce another conspiracy.

I also wonder how it will affect the search area modeling (predictions) now it is confirmed the piece had marine life on it? Remember, the two items found without the marine life attached got people coming out and proposing that the plane might have crashed farther south because of the drift currents - drift currents which would have allowed some debris to take a northern route through warmer waters and get marine life attached (flaperon) and other debris to take a southern route through cooler waters without having so much marine life attached. Now it could be the case that all of the debris found so far had marine life attached therefore suggesting a more northern impact site?

Anyway, the mystery continues...

kanban · Sun May 22, 2016 4:16 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 100):

the "rolls" logo piece appears in the early photo with barnacles etc.. the second appearance has been cleaned by some person and returned to the beach to be discovered.. the attach marks from the barnacles would not have been removed by normal beach sand/wind/surf action... so they were removed deliberately with serious scrubbing. having lived around beaches with debris and barnacle attach residue, I can unequivocally say the piece was tampered with.

why????

AirlineCritic · Sun May 22, 2016 6:10 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 92):
6. All in all, the evidence points to a botched ditching attempt.

Nah, I'd say the highly broken and twisted pieces we've found so far point mostly towards a relatively violent crash.

Quoting kanban (Reply 101):
why????

Intriguing.

YoungMans · Sun May 22, 2016 7:47 am

If we had two 777 aircraft, standing side by side, and if we then cut the 'RR' emblem off, say, No. 1 engine.
Could one tell the two emblems apart, i.e. which emblem came from which aircraft?
That is without forensic examination, getting into exact match marks, paint etc, etc.

In other words can one say categorically that the emblem in question is definitely off 9M-MRO?
Or can one only assume it has because the emblem appears to have come off an 777 engine cowling and, with no other aircraft of that type missing, it is highly likely to be off the missing aircraft.

Whilst that may appear nit-picking, there is a big difference in certainty.
It still leaves a substantial question mark whether that part (and the others) may have been planted.
Because, .... finding aircraft parts of a 777 is one thing; it still leaves open the question whether or not they came from anywhere near the area we assume they have.

As the saying goes: 'I ain't necessarily so ..!'

The point I'm really getting at is this ....
With this last, tragic accident they are already finding all sorts of different bits and pieces; the emphasis being on all sorts of stuff that one would expect to find.

The pieces off 9M-MRO, so far, seem to have been very specific ones and, apparently, just from those few one can tell a lot already as to what must have happened to the aircraft.

777Jet · Sun May 22, 2016 8:50 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 101):
the second appearance has been cleaned by some person and returned to the beach to be discovered.. the attach marks from the barnacles would not have been removed by normal beach sand/wind/surf action... so they were removed deliberately with serious scrubbing. having lived around beaches with debris and barnacle attach residue, I can unequivocally say the piece was tampered with.

Quoting kanban (Reply 101):
why????

Perhaps the first person to take a pic of it just took the pic and left it and it was the person who found it later for what it was that cleared off the marine life for some reason. Or, the first person who took a pic of it messed around with it after taking the pic and just left it there after losing interest in it. Or, perhaps even others have seen and messed with it between the first pic of it and the final discovery of it - who knows how many people have seen it (we only know about those who reported it)... Anyway, humans do all kinds of things; if somebody didn't know what is was -(obviously the person who took the first pic didn't know what it was until later)- I wouldn't be too surprised if somebody picked it up and played around with it or even used it as a frisbie... I don't think there is anything sinister involved even if the marine life was pulled off by a human... Also, if somebody did pull off the marine life just for fun without knowing the importance of the item, they might never admit to it...

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 103):
If we had two 777 aircraft, standing side by side, and if we then cut the 'RR' emblem off, say, No. 1 engine.
Could one tell the two emblems apart, i.e. which emblem came from which aircraft?
That is without forensic examination, getting into exact match marks, paint etc, etc.

In other words can one say categorically that the emblem in question is definitely off 9M-MRO?
Or can one only assume it has because the emblem appears to have come off an 777 engine cowling and, with no other aircraft of that type missing, it is highly likely to be off the missing aircraft.

They can't even tell if the logo was from the left or right engine because the logos on each side / engine are the same. Unless there is a different serial number on the inside part of the panel behind the logo (which I believe there is not) it is impossible to tell what exact engine or airplane that part came from...

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 103):
Whilst that may appear nit-picking, there is a big difference in certainty.
It still leaves a substantial question mark whether that part (and the others) may have been planted.

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 103):
The point I'm really getting at is this ....

The point you are getting at is you still believe in your conspiracy theory...

Would it help if you saw all of the RR logos of the MH17 engines in the same room together as this item?

9MMPQ · Sun May 22, 2016 9:32 am

Quoting YoungMans (Reply 103):
The point I'm really getting at is this ....
With this last, tragic accident they are already finding all sorts of different bits and pieces; the emphasis being on all sorts of stuff that one would expect to find.

You are comparing MS804 with MH370 now ? Vastly different situations ... this really takes the cake.

WarrenPlatts · Mon May 23, 2016 2:08 pm

Re: whether the RR object came from the 9M-MRO, the serifs on MH Rolls Royce decals are truncated (see the red box outline in the lower left photo in post #97), whereas the standar Boeing serif is not.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5770425/debris-examination-mh370_12may2016no2.pdf

Re: the barnacles, the reason the photographer did not mess with the object is because it stank to high heaven. IOW, the barnacles were dead and rotting by the time the photo was taken. You can see the drag marks in the sand that led up to where the bit washed up. Imagine that happening thousands of times over the next 3 months, and it's not hard to see how everything is going to get abraded off.

The photo in the lower left I came from the ATSB report above. The ATSB did in fact clean the object, but before that they noted there were signs of marine life that they collected.

If you look at the photos of the piece after it was recognized and collected, there seem to me to be little rings and marks that look like calcareous deposits to me. Also, most people's experience with barnacles concerns acorn barnacles, rather than pelagic gooseneck barnacles. They are two different beasts, with the acorn barnacle being a veritable armored bunker, but the gooseneck's main body is connected to the floating object by it's peduncle (the gooseneck, actually the top of the head) that is not armored, and there is only a layer of cement that maintains the attachment.

[Edited 2016-05-23 07:09:10]

777Jet · Wed May 25, 2016 2:13 am

'Mysterious Australian team to work with China in new search for MH370'

http://www.news.com.au/technology/in...y/00db0b9cc5770502fdffe0acad55c974

"A FOREIGN government agency is about to take over the search for MH370 after a fruitless two years scouring the southern Indian Ocean under the direction of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)

The country that has stepped up to the plate is China and the agency is the China Rescue and Salvage Bureau of the Ministry of Communications. The vessel taking on the daunting task is called the Nan Hai Jiu 102.

According to the Singapore-based MacArtney Underwater Technology, which has been contracted to install the vessel with a winch for the deep tow sonar system, the search will be “reinitiated in June 2016 by an Australian-based search team”."

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 106):
Re: the barnacles, the reason the photographer did not mess with the object is because it stank to high heaven. IOW, the barnacles were dead and rotting by the time the photo was taken.

Bingo!

'Flight MH370 Update: Engine Cowling Debris Was Found Months Ago But Abandoned Because ‘It Stank’'

http://www.ibtimes.com/flight-mh370-...s-ago-abandoned-because-it-2373345

""A South African doctor discovered, and then abandoned, a piece of debris linked to missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 months ago because of its odor, he told Netwerk 24 last week. Schalk Lückhoff, of Knysna, recently revealed that he found a piece of wreckage on the beach near Mossel Bay in December but didn't think it was important due to its condition, according to an article surfaced by NBC News Tuesday.

"I was really busy," he told Netwerk 24 in Afrikaans, according to a rough translation. "The piece caught my attention because it was the only thing on the bare expanse of sand. It stank because of the decaying barnacles, so I did not deal with it and took a casual photo."

Because it was "full of sand and mussels," Lückhoff left it on the shore. He thought maybe it was part of a bulletin board. But when he read a news article about a similar piece of evidence being examined in connection with MH370, he brought the photo to authorities.""

WarrenPlatts · Wed May 25, 2016 12:47 pm

Another possible debris object found. This time on Goose Barnacle Island in Mauritius.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk.../05/25/sixth-mh370-fragment-found/

http://defimedia.info/mh370-un-nouve...-decouvert-a-lilot-bernache-30267/

The taper seen in the lower photo makes it appear to be a bit from a flap. Anyone want to bet it's from the right side?

WarrenPlatts · Wed May 25, 2016 4:50 pm

Wow! When it rains it pours....

A 7th object has also turned up today, also on the island of Mauritius.

http://ionnews.mu/un-debris-suspecte...mh370-retrouve-a-gris-gris-250516/

Actually, I gotta say that both objects look sort of like they might have come from the left side. Although that could be a trick of perspective.

WarrenPlatts · Thu May 26, 2016 3:11 pm

And here's #8, from Mozambique....

WarrenPlatts · Thu May 26, 2016 9:56 pm

And now, #9.....

This one supposedly also comes from Mozambique.

777Jet · Fri May 27, 2016 3:27 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 109):
Wow! When it rains it pours....

I am hoping that more people who come across potential MH370 debris report their findings now instead of dismissing it now that these frequent media reports of potential MH370 items are happening.

On a different note, I am sure we will continue to hear the "it landed somewhere North" conspiracy theorists come up with new 'stuff'

WingedMigrator · Fri May 27, 2016 6:59 am

Wow this thread is really taking off.

I just wanted to point out something about the debris field and what it implies about how the aircraft hit the water (dive vs. ditching). When you look at how little has been recovered so far from the Egypt Air 804 crash last week, is it any wonder that so little turned up from MH370? The search for floating debris did not start in the correct ocean until a full 10 days after the event, which for last week's Egypt Air crash would start this coming Saturday. Now, imagine if they hadn't even begun looking for Egypt Air debris until then: they would have seen and collected even less than what little they found. Now make it a very stormy ocean, and make it so remote that the time span between spotting something from the air and sending a boat to look for it is several days. This provides a practical illustration of how a large airplane can disintegrate into tens of thousands of debris, only nine of which are found years later!

For consistency, perhaps someone will advance a theory about a gentle ditching of Egypt Air 804, but I wouldn't believe it one bit more than a gentle ditching of MH370.

WarrenPlatts · Fri May 27, 2016 9:47 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 113):
Wow this thread is really taking off.

I just wanted to point out something about the debris field and what it implies about how the aircraft hit the water (dive vs. ditching). When you look at how little has been recovered so far from the Egypt Air 804 crash last week, is it any wonder that so little turned up from MH370? The search for floating debris did not start in the correct ocean until a full 10 days after the event, which for last week's Egypt Air crash would start this coming Saturday. Now, imagine if they hadn't even begun looking for Egypt Air debris until then: they would have seen and collected even less than what little they found. Now make it a very stormy ocean, and make it so remote that the time span between spotting something from the air and sending a boat to look for it is several days. This provides a practical illustration of how a large airplane can disintegrate into tens of thousands of debris, only nine of which are found years later!

For consistency, perhaps someone will advance a theory about a gentle ditching of Egypt Air 804, but I wouldn't believe it one bit more than a gentle ditching of MH370.

You could have a point. Then again, look at the ratio of the latest Egypt Air debris: interior vs exterior. There's been a lot of interior debris recovered with Egypt Air crash compared to exterior parts of the aircraft. So far the internet sleuthing is favoring the right side for the latest MH370 debris, w/ no new interior stuff. And the only interior bit we've found so far was right near a door. Granted, it was smashed up pretty good, but it could have been smashed up a lot worse, you must admit.

What do we see so far? Mainly control surfaces, flaps and fairings.

777Jet · Sat May 28, 2016 1:38 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 113):
This provides a practical illustration of how a large airplane can disintegrate into tens of thousands of debris, only nine of which are found years later!

Yet SR111 is proof that a high energy impact can leave behind a large debris field; the search for both MS804 and SR111 commenced in the correct area...

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 113):
For consistency, perhaps someone will advance a theory about a gentle ditching of Egypt Air 804, but I wouldn't believe it one bit more than a gentle ditching of MH370.

Maybe you could advance an 'oxygen bottle explosion' scenario for MS804 for 'consistency'?

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 113):
(dive vs. ditching)

Those are just two variations to the possible ending of the 'Captain did it" scenario. The ending neither influences nor changes all of the indicators that point to human intervention earlier in the flight, especially what occurred between the final routine ATC communication just before hand over to when the aircraft rounded the tip of Sumatra and entered clear airspace, as well as just the SatCom coming back to life, after flying that spectacular route along FIR boundaries. If the Captain did it he very well could have elected to let hypoxia consume him which would have resulted in a dive after fuel ran out and then the case for having so few debris has just been explained in your analogy with MS804

WingedMigrator · Sun May 29, 2016 1:55 am

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 114):
Then again, look at the ratio of the latest Egypt Air debris: interior vs exterior.

Selection bias at work. Interior debris are less readily recognizable as belonging to an aircraft. When you have professional searchers looking in a known location soon after a crash, all floating debris are presumed to come from the aircraft even if not immediately recognizable. On the other hand, when you have random civilian beach combers on the opposite shore of an ocean years after a crash and long after floating debris have drifted apart by thousands of miles, any debris that doesn't look obviously aircraft-like will be ignored or never connected with MH370.

Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 114):
What do we see so far? Mainly control surfaces, flaps and fairings.

We see debris that are obviously recognizable as parts of an aircraft, because that's what it takes for them to even be noticed, let alone picked up and returned to the proper authorities.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 115):
The ending neither influences nor changes all of the indicators that point to human intervention earlier in the flight

I'm not discussing human intervention earlier in the flight. I'm arguing that the lack of recovered debris does not imply that MH370 was ditched in mostly one piece.

777Jet · Sun May 29, 2016 2:10 am

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 116):
I'm not discussing human intervention earlier in the flight. I'm arguing that the lack of recovered debris does not imply that MH370 was ditched in mostly one piece.

The lack of recovered debris also does not imply that MH370 ended in an uncontrolled dive.

In other words, the lack of recovered debris does not imply much at all at this stage, and at the moment does not affect the possible interpretations of what may have happened earlier in the flight - especially in that moment when something significant happened and started the vanishing act - between the final routine ATC communication during ATC hand-off and the plane going silent and turning back minutes later without warning before flying an interesting route along FIR boundaries with a select system coming back online and remaining airborne for another 6-7 hours...

clam285 · Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:29 am

Another Possible MH370 part found on South African beach:
http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=185829
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/catego ... can-beach/

N14AZ · Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:08 am

Thanks for the update. That seems to be the most Northern location, where they found a part, correct?

Someone used to have a link with a summary of all parts found so far, does anybody have the link?

WIederling · Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:54 pm

N14AZ wrote:
Someone used to have a link with a summary of all parts found so far, does anybody have the link?

Have there been further effort spent on backtracking all the collected parts ( to a common geolocation )?

Yet Another New MH370 Part?

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

RE: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Re: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Re: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Re: Yet Another New MH370 Part? Part2

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net