| Quoting oxymorph (Reply 196): "(CNN)A preliminary assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies, produced in the wake of the MH370 disaster, suggested it was likely someone in the cockpit deliberately caused the aircraft's movements to go off course before the Malaysian airliner disappeared'. |
| Quoting horstroad (Reply 141): If the S/N does not belong to 9M-MRO (according to documentation), then the search begins. Boeing knows to whom they sold the flaperon, attached to an airframe or not. It shouldn't be too hard to follow the life something like a flaperon. |
| Quoting Pihero (Reply 198): If it's the right flaperon, it follows that the *inboard side* is in the left of the drawing,especially when the *FWD* direction is noted : the inner side should be on the right of the page... So...The drawing is for the left wing... and in this case, the parts numbering should be switched over. |
| Quoting oxymorph (Reply 196): "(CNN)A preliminary assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies, produced in the wake of the MH370 disaster, suggested it was likely someone in the cockpit deliberately caused the aircraft's movements to go off course before the Malaysian airliner disappeared'. |
| Quoting Txspotter (Reply 121): 95% of the time the airline would take the damaged flaperon and exchange it with a repaired flaperon like the one I posted. They would pay about 1/10th of the price of the repaired one. Example: A new flaperon costs $500,000 We would give them our new flaperon for $50,000 We would get their damaged flaperon and get it repaired, another $50,000 we would bill the airline for the repair and now have another unit ready to sell. The airline has payed $100,000 for a new unit instead of $500,000 Airlines save money by only paying 1/5th the price and do not have expensive spare parts sitting around their warehouses that they may never need. Win-win. Air France will almost NEVER buy anything OUTRIGHT (i.e. pay $500,000), they will exchange their broken for our new. I believe Air Austral flies their B777's to Reunion as well. |
| Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 128): Interesting business model, sounds lucrative. So the "new" flaperon you sell back to the airline is a repaired/refurbished unit which is in as good as new condition, with the paperwork and warranty and everything done? I figured something like this was happening, but it's interesting to hear it from someone who works in that business. |
| Quoting Txspotter (Reply 121): Example: A new flaperon costs $500,000 We would give them our new flaperon for $50,000 We would get their damaged flaperon and get it repaired, another $50,000 we would bill the airline for the repair and now have another unit ready to sell. |
| Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 8): If this disappearance was a nefarious act pretty much anywhere from central Asia to the Indian Ocean, the perpetrators - if it was not the crew - have had ample opportunity to plant what they want where they want. |
| Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 12): 1) Foul play by the flight crew, or 2) Hijacking to western China by Uighur separatists, followed by bungled rescue mission by ill-equipped locally-based Chinese forces leading to mass deaths and a need to conceal the event. |
| Quoting Nouflyer (Reply 12): Unfortunately, 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 either not to reveal their own secret capabilities or because they have sought to use the information as leverage in other matters of international politics. That is very prudent politics, but it means that a full picture is impossible to assemble. |
| Quoting SpinalTap (Reply 16): "Professor Charitha Pattiaratchi, from the University of Western Australia, said the aircraft part “can only have come from” the current search zone." "Professor Pattiaratchi said modelling showed that wreckage would emerge in the region around Reunion Island within 18 to 24 months but current speeds were not uniform and difficult to predict. The MH370 aircraft went missing almost 17 months ago." |
| Quoting 77west (Reply 27): Well, put rest to any silly theories involving military bases or aliens. (Actually, no, no it won't.....) |
| Quoting spacecadet (Reply 185): It's disheartening that *every* MH370 thread - even ones related to factual events - has to turn into a conspiracy soapbox. Some people have been watching too many LOST episodes. Charles Widmore is not a real person, guys. |
And thank you for the rest of your post; it was very informative.| Quoting groover158 (Reply 206): |
| Quoting QF744ER (Reply 210): Whilst I'm not a fan of the conspiracy theories MH B777's have been broken up before, I recall seeing a photo of one in the USA with its cockpit section 41 area removed. Think there was one in TLV too. Just saying.... |
| Quoting spacecadet (Reply 185): It's disheartening that *every* MH370 thread - even ones related to factual events - has to turn into a conspiracy soapbox. Some people have been watching too many LOST episodes. Charles Widmore is not a real person, guys. Occam's razor applies here as anywhere else. The conclusion that requires the fewest jumps in logic tends to be the right one. |
| Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 195): Quoting 747megatop (Reply 186): Now..now. Aren't we treading on uncharted territory here? Isn't this best left to the Barnacologists? Actually, people that study barnacles would be "cirripediologists", of whom Charles Darwin himself was a noted exemplar. I understand that many of of you all are mainly concerned with exactly what happened on the inside of that plane. However, we will never be able to conclusively answer that question until we find out WHERE the crash happened. The Inmarsat data proved crucial, as it was about the ONLY evidence that MH370 was diverted to SIO. Still, the resultant search area is HUGE. Therefore, any clue at all, including biological evidence, that can further constrain the search area would be extremely helpful. IMHO. YMMV. While I am no cirripediologist, I do happen to have an MS in fishery biology (in addition to my geology degree), and I've studied phylogenetic and biogeographic theory quite a bit. So I'm probably one of the few people on this forum who can quickly dig into the cirripediology literature, understand the jargon, and hopefully scoop up some useful information. That said, barnacles are problematic because they have such wide geographic distributions. Still, there is some biogeographic diversity among Lepas sp. Now, it turns out that Lepas anatifera is sometimes also known as the "long-necked barnacle" because individuals are typically supported by an unusually long (for barnacle species) stalk or peduncle, which can be quite striking as a quick google image search for "Lepas anatifera" will show. In addition, Lepas anatifer is characterized by scarlet to orange edges of its plates. But the picture of the flaperon shows drab colored goose barnacles lacking long necks. IOW, they look to me more like Lepas australis goose barnacles. These are a cold water species that make the Antarctic circumpolar current their main breeding grounds. This current extends north up to perhaps 40*S, so if the flaperon were colonized by L. australis barnacles, that would indicate that the crash site is most likely in the extreme southern area of the search area, as in about 39*S 87*N. Just sayin'. Alternatively, they could perhaps be true Lepas anatifera that haven't had time to develop long necks yet, possibly indicating a colonization event that happened quite a while after the known crash time, which would also indicate a southern crash site. Or they could be Lepas anatifera that are fully 17 months old, and that would indicate a northern crash site. Of course, I'm no expert in cirripediology, that's why it's absolutely mandatory that bona fide cirripediologists be granted access to the actual specimens attached to the flapiron. Because, as my initial foray shows, the species and age of the barnacles can say quite a bit about at least the water temperature, and hence the latitude of the initial colonization event. As it stands now, there is only speculation about such things as the speed and course of the aircraft, whether their was a pilot, and other esoterica that can constrain the latitude of the search area band--and these are anybody's guess, I'm the first to admit. Any other clues that could further constrain the search area would seem to be a good thing IMO. |
We have enough theories going on in these 2 threads + the other 80 MH 370 related threads to keep our hands full.| Quoting QF744ER (Reply 213): Interesting is that why you see then basking in desert minus the whole cockpit section...am I correct in assuming the cockpit off whole and then salvage companies dismantle them for all the avionics etc? |
| Quoting Luv2cattlecall (Reply 146): |
| Quoting edmountain (Reply 212): Despite this though--as has been the pattern throughout this story--every new piece of data simply serves as fuel for a whole new host of conspiracy theories. The fly-to-the-moon or land-in-Dushanbe hypotheses have been replaced with grey-market flaperons being ditched overboard by second-rate mercenaries. |
| Quoting WarrenPlatts (Reply 183): |
| Quoting Pihero (Reply 198): For crying out loud ! See the page linked to by Karadion # 177 . : 57 - 05 - 03 |
| Quoting tcyvr (Reply 219): What are your thoughts people? |
| Quoting B777fan (Reply 218): |
| Quoting B777fan (Reply 220): My thought are, why are you paying any attention to what CNN is saying. I see no basis to state that the plane broke up in the air because of the condition of this part. The rear of the found flaperon is broken off aft of the rear spar and the actuators are missing. What does that tell us? Nobody on CNN knows, that's for sure. They're filling time. |
| Quoting edmountain (Reply 222): I don't understand why everyone is so concerned about the manner of entry into the ocean. To my mind any manner of entry (attempted ditching all the way to nose-down plunge) is potentially consistent with any initial scenario. |
| Quoting tcyvr (Reply 223): The manner of entry in the ocean will make a difference. If the plane was in one piece or broke in the mid air before falling into the water. One might be intentional and the other an accident. |
| Quoting Pihero (Reply 198): ... as the discussions as to conspiracies and crime + suicide, they shouldn't be on this thread. 80 + haven't brought anything anywhere. |
| Quoting B777fan (Reply 220): I see no basis to state that the plane broke up in the air because of the condition of this part. The rear of the found flaperon is broken off aft of the rear spar and the actuators are missing. What does that tell us? Nobody on CNN knows, that's for sure. They're filling time. |
| Quoting edmountain (Reply 224): One might be intentional and the other an accident but it's all non-deterministic. For example, if the plane broke in midair how do you tell if it's nefarious or benign? You still need more information. |
| Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 94): 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. |
| Quoting jcxroberts (Reply 230): People don't want to hear this, but it's very likely they've been looking in the wrong place. The problem is the currents aren't strong enough in that area to take it this far in 17 months. "According to a model of ocean currents developed by Erik van Sebille, an oceanographer at the Imperial College in London, there is a less than 10 per cent chance that the plane crashed in the area off the western coast of Australia where the search was focused. " |
