Malaysia 777 Missing

[blues deville]

I think this flight control device may just be the right size and weight to float to the surface and become ocean debris regardless of the aircraft's config at impact. If the aircraft fuselage can fail as being discussed here when it hits the water, I'm sure the wing would do something similar with any LE and TE devices separating immediately but perhaps less buoyant than the flaperon.

Just a guess.....who knows?

[boestar]

I agree Blues. The Flaperon and other components like plaps are composed of a honeycomb composite material. by definition they are buoyant due to the trapped air in the cells.

[Don Hudson]

boestar - while academic in relation to the main quest which is to find out what happened, the following points come to mind regarding entry into the sea of a 20ft-wide, ~200ft-long thin-walled tube with an initial frontal-surface-area of about 315sqft, (leaving out the wings' frontal surface area):

- A vertical descent into the sea would by definition be a high speed event;

- Most such events, (latest one was a B737 in Russia) are in the neighbourhood of 250 - 300kts although some are much higher, (Germanwings was at/near VMO);

- for reference, typical touchdown speeds are around 145kts or around 200 feet-per-second; 250kts is about 425 feet-per-second;

- 450kts, more likely in a vertical entry, is almost 800fps;

- the duration of impact with the sea for a B772's complete fuselage length is less than a quarter-of-a-second;

- frontal-area of the B777 fuselage presented to the water is about 315sqft - the aerodynamic shape of the nose area would not 'part the water' in the 0.0375th of a second it would take for that length to pass the surface of the sea;

- water has tremendous viscosity "slowing power";

- at such speeds, impact with a water surface similar to granite because it cannot get out of the way of an object which is 315sqft (plus the frontal-surface area of the wings), in surface area fast enough;

- the kinetic energy of a 250,000kg object travelling at 230m/s must be dissipated in less than a quarter of a second or less.

Impact calculations (vice kinetic energy calculations) are notoroiously difficult because of the many variables. Still, there is simply no way that an airplane structure would remain intact under such conditions.

[boestar]

Ok I will concede that is is unlikely. However I would still argue that the debris would then be contained in a very small radius of the impact site. Kind of like the DC-8 in Woodbridge. The wreckage was vertical in nature not spread out horizontally.

Newton was a pretty smart guy and I suspect he was right in this case. the object in motion continued in that direction until acted on by an outside force. Vertical impact would lead to vertical debris in a pile at the bottom (ignoring the outside force of the water and currents) That makes locating it just like a needle in a field of haystacks.

[Don Hudson]

boestar - absolutely agree - a concentrated wreckage pattern, if the entry was vertical, and only slightly more spread out in a "ditching" manoeuvre.

As we all intuit, pondering the re-tracing the pathway of this object is an exercise in great frustration! - so close, yet...

[DEFCON]

Don, Woody, anyone...

When the aircraft was shaking hands with the satellite, did the aircraft attach a time / date stamp to each ping it sent out, or did the receiving satellite assign the recorded / reported time date stamp on receipt of the ping?

[mo32a]

This part, of course, could just be the first wave, so to speak, of debris to show up. There was also a suitcase found which could indicate breakup of the aircraft itself. Reunion Island is quite small, perhaps other debris will wash up on Madagascar or even South Africa in time.

[Woody Pusher]

Don, Woody, anyone...

When the aircraft was shaking hands with the satellite, did the aircraft attach a time / date stamp to each ping it sent out, or did the receiving satellite assign the recorded / reported time date stamp on receipt of the ping?

DEFCON,

All satellite traffic was logged by INMARSAT, and the times recorded are therefore independent of any aircraft timing errors. Timing was very important in establishing the BTO (Burst Timing Offset) used to determine the arc radius to the aircraft from the satellite at each ping.

The ATSB https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2014/mh370-burst-timing-offset.aspx

have published a good explanation note on the subjects of BTO and BFO.

[Mitch Cronin]

I haven't a clue what's been determined yet.... but.... Doesn't look like a flaperon to me... too short a chord vs it's length. Looks more like an aft flap or maybe a fore flap from a set of Boeing slotted flaps.... if I had to guess just from that picture and with my fractured memory, I'd say an aft i/b flap section.

[DEFCON]

Thanks Woody. I can’t get your link to open and maybe I’m blind, but I can’t find the article you’re referring to on the ATSB website either and I'd like to read it.

In the meantime, there have been several theories proposed in respect of the disappearance of ML 370. The handshake version being explored depends on complex mathematical modelling and while it’s a compelling concept, I don’t think anyone can say they’re 100% certain it’s the correct one.

I’ve been doing some reading with respect to the barnacles that were attached to the recovered flaperon. Some sources claim the species involved is found only in warm shallow water and will readily attach to floating, or stationary objects.

Volcanic activity is being reported on Reunion Island.

Now, I know it’s purely speculative, but is it possible that the aircraft is actually sitting on the bottom somewhere relatively close by Reunion and the recent volcanic rumbling has stirred up the bottom structure resulting in the release of some entombed structure and baggage that’s now begun to show up?

Is it possible the flaperon could be partially buoyant and floated leading edge up, trailing edge down, but submerged nonetheless? The damage to the component’s trailing edge may be consistent with its bouncing across the Island’s rocky bottom as wave action it moved towards shore?

[Don Hudson]

DEFCON, now that thinking is very imaginative indeed, and so very interesting. It will be interesting to see how this would be interpreted in terms of the INMARSAT data which seems robust - are the two mutually-exclusive? It seems to me that they are given the methodology, but that is still an imaginative scenario that needs examination.

[Guest]

Defcon: here is another POV on the barncles found on another forum. Quite the puzzle but hopefully we will learn more once the part arrives in France where it will hopefully get a more scientific examination. Thanks for your post. Cheers Malcolm

With resp0ect to the barnacles,

Quote:

Lepas anatifera is a pelagic barnacle that can be found attached to a variety of floating objects, including driftwood, bottles, boats, buoys, macroalgal rafts, and turtles. It can also be found on fixed objects such as rocks and off-shore structures. This species is most abundant in tropical and subtropical waters where sea temperatures exceed 18-20 ºC.

Range depth: 0 to 2909 m.

Habitat Regions: temperate ; saltwater or marine

Aquatic Biomes: pelagic ; coastal

Other Habitat Features: intertidal or littoral

From Encyclopedia of Life.

Pelagic means open sea. For this species of barnacle to attach itself, as juveniles, to the flaperon, all that would be needed is proximity to a nearby floating object with adult, hermaphroditic barnacles attached.

The route taken by the flaperon was along the northern circulation of the Indian Ocean Gyre, which is a counterclockwise current; a current that conveys all manner of trash and debris.​

[DEFCON]

Thanks Don. There’s no doubt, the Inmarsat data is robust as you say and I don't understand the technology, it’s application and nuances anywhere near well enough to offer a guess as to whether, or not the two concepts are mutually exclusive, but if pushed, I think I’d probably have to side with your position. In the meantime...

Thank you too Malcolm.

"The route taken by the flaperon was along the northern circulation of the Indian Ocean Gyre, which is a counter clockwise current; a current that conveys all manner of trash and debris."

I think that statement could be taken to mean that floating debris from the aircraft could have been picked up in that current anywhere west of Indonesia and east of Reunion Island as well as having come all the way up and around from the south Indian Ocean. With water temperatures being what they are and considering the time required for the barnacles to achieve their present size, the literature suggests about a year, I was only guessing, but I thought it suggested, albeit somewhat weakly, that the aircraft may have been submerged in warmer water since its loss.

[Woody Pusher]

I can’t get your link to open and maybe I’m blind, but I can’t find the article you’re referring to on the ATSB website either and I'd like to read it.

I couldn't open ATSB link either! So here it is in its entirety:-

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2014/mh370-burst-timing-offset.aspx

With regard to the South Indian Ocean anticlockwise gyre, the general eliptic path of the current is only a representation. In fact there will have been many twists and turns and even major deviations taken by the flaperon on its journery, while bearing in mind that windage may have been a major factor also.

The University of Western Australia have apparently developed an application capable of projecting forwards in time the possible paths taken by a drifting object in the Indian Ocean, and with a greater accuracy if projected backwards in time. So far I haven't seen a satisfactory plot, as the projection has been started too far to the south on the 7th arc, and timewise the flaperon wouldn't have yet made it to Reunion.

[Don Hudson]

Hi Woody - Re, "So far I haven't seen a satisfactory plot, as the projection has been started too far to the south on the 7th arc, and timewise the flaperon wouldn't have yet made it to Reunion.", would I be reading too much into this to say that further north or south but further west to northwest may possibly be more likely crash sites?

[Mitch Cronin]

I'm still having trouble accepting that's a flaperon... has it been confirmed?

[Woody Pusher]

... would I be reading too much into this to say that further north or south but further west to northwest may possibly be more likely crash sites?

Hi Don,

I believe that the Inmarsat data is conclusive, and that the final ping was at fuel starvation, which means that an uncontrolled descent would place the aircraft within about 12NM radius of the ping position on the 7th arc. A controlled glide is a different matter, with the major variable being the FL at flameout.

I have suggested elsewhere that a better starting point for the UWA drift plot would be at 30S on the 7th arc, but whether that will be done is another matter. The plot I have seen gave a 50/50 chance of a drifting object diverting to the east at 35S and travelling on the South Australian current with a likelihood of beaching on the SA, Victoria or Tasmania coastlines. Nothing has turned up there, so the deduction is that a starting point further north is more likely.

[Woody Pusher]

I'm still having trouble accepting that's a flaperon... has it been confirmed?

Mitch,

The BEA will have access to it within 12 hours, as its currently on AF671 to Orly, and your query will be answered.

With regard to the chord length, the photographic evidence points to a sustantial part of the trailing edge having been torn off. I'm sure the BEA and Boeing will quickly work out how that happened.

[Mitch Cronin]

Thanks Woody.... Tonight I'm a betting man, and I'm betting it's an inboard foreflap.

[Guest]

Mitch, you have been right in the past so I am placing my bets on you. Cheers

[Mitch Cronin]

... uh oh.... it's almost a given that when anyone puts their faith in my position, it'll turn out I'm wrong. Not a good sign, for me, I'm afraid....

Edited to add: ...and what you didn't know before saying that was that I haven't laid eyes on an airplane in over 4 years now (up close anyway).... so you're off the hook.

[DEFCON]

Thanks Woody.

Finally, a clear explanation of the science behind the theory. After reading that document It becomes difficult to imagine anything but a finish on the seventh arc. On the other hand, the science is emerging and surprises may yet be found in the data. For example, in a similar vein, I think there were a number of surprises and technological challenges encountered during the underwater search for pinger signals which provided a leaning experience for the investigation community.

[Guest]

... uh oh.... it's almost a given that when anyone puts their faith in my position, it'll turn out I'm wrong. Not a good sign, for me, I'm afraid....

Edited to add: ...and what you didn't know before saying that was that I haven't laid eyes on an airplane in over 4 years now (up close anyway).... so you're off the hook.

If memory serves..... I thought you were still an active AME but nevertheless...... You have lots of experience to draw upon.

[mo32a]

Well just to keep the conspiracy theorists happy.....

You all remember those old war movies when the submarine was being attacked and they would jettison a bunch of debris out the torpedo tube to fool the enemy into thinking that they had been sunk, just sayin.

[Guest]

I'm still having trouble accepting that's a flaperon... has it been confirmed?

Looks like a flap vane