In the wake of last week’s reports by the Australian Transport Safety Board, several mainstream journalists have published articles urging officials to resume searching the seabed in order to find the plane’s wreckage and thereby solve the mystery. The unanimity of the swelling chorus gives the impression that all reasonable people agree.
However, MH370 is a highly technical mystery, and a proper understanding of what may and may not have happened to it is impossible without a grasp of the science behind the evidence in hand. Simply put, the data that we have now gathere collectively weighs heavily against the idea that the plane flew into the southern Indian Ocean. The Australian authorities apparently understand this evidence better than the journalists, which is why they are declining to press forward.
Since I have covered this material in depth elsewhere in this blog, here I will just present a bullet-point list of why MH370 does not now appear to have flown into the southern Indian Ocean.
1– The absence of wreckage in the ATSB search zone. Using Inmarsat data and detailed knowledge of 777 aeronautics and avionics, Australia’s Defense Science and Technology Group were able to generate a robust statistical model of where the plane might have flown, assuming that it turned south after disappearing from Malaysian primary radar. A measure of their confidence in this model is the fact that the Malaysian, Chinese and Australian governments then spent some $150 million searching this vast, deep abyss. Yet no sign of the plane was there. Remarkably, many commentators shrug off this absence of no big deal. It is a big deal. If the plane had turned south, it should have been there. Indeed, in order to come up with a scenario in which the plane turned south but then arrived outside the search area one must presumed a series of bizarre and statistically improbable turns and descents. I liken this to opening a lock without knowing the combination: physically possible, but statistically equivalent to impossible. I wrote more about this topic in the post “Further Clarity on MH370 Flight Modeling.“
2– The reboot of the SDU. During the first hour or so of flight MH370, a piece of equipment called the Satellite Data Unit, or SDU, was turned off. Then, at 18:25, it came back on and reconnected with an Inmarsat satellite. It was only because of this re-logon that investigators were able to obtain the seven “pings” that told them everything they know about the last six hours of the flight. As I wrote in my post The SDU Re-logon: A Small Detail That Tells Us So Much About the Fate of MH370, the SDU essentially cannot come back on either accidentally or as a result of some other plausible course of action by the pilot. The fact that it was turned off, then on suggests that whoever took the plane had a sophisticated knowledge of the aircraft’s electrical systems and tampered with the system that generated the signal that ultimately led investigators to assume that the plane went south. Obviously, then, this assumption needs to be interrogated.
3– Final observed turn was to the north. At 18:22, MH370 appeared for the last time as a blip on a military radar screen. Three minutes later, it transmitted a ping that allowed investigators to place it on an arc. By integrating these two pieces of information, it is possible to determine that during that interval MH370 turned to the northwest. I discuss this in more detail here: How MH370 Got Away. The fact that the plane was turning to the north fits better with a northern than a southern route.
4– Debris inconsistencies. On July 31, 2015, the first piece of MH370 debris was discovered on the French island of La Réunion. For many, this erased any doubt that the plane had ended up in the southern Indian Ocean. When French officials examined it, however, they encountered an inexplicable anomaly. The fact that every surface had been populated by barnacles indicated that the piece had drifted somehow wholly submerged. Yet when they tested it in a flotation tank, it floated quite high in the water (as seen above; this image is of an actual 777 flaperon cut to the same size). No one has suggested a natural means by which this could have happened; as I wrote in How the MH370 Flaperon Floated, the obvious explanation is that it spent months artificially tethered under the water. Later, other anomalies emerged. Chemical tests conducted on a barnacle shell from the flaperon found that it grew most of its life in water cooler than that experienced by real objects floating to Réunion. And many of the other pieces that turned up were so devoid of marine biofouling that experts said they couldn’t have been afloat for more than a few weeks.
5– Drift studies inconsistent with any single crash point. As I discussed in “Nowhere to Look for MH370″ and “Update on MH370 Drift Modeling Enigma,” an arm of the Australian government called the CSIRO has done considerable work trying to figure out how debris might have drifted from somewhere in the southern Indian Ocean to the shores of Africa and the islands of the western Indian Ocean. To make a long story short, there is no point from which debris would be expected to arrive at the spots where it was found in the correct time interval.
6– No consistent end-of-flight scenario. Frequency data from the 7th and final Inmarsat ping indicate that MH370 was in a steep an accelerating dive. Yet the only way the plane’s wreckage could have escaped detection until now is if it glided beyond the area already searched by sonar. This inconsistency has long been known, and was reiterated in the most recent CSIRO paper. It was compounded by a report issued by the Malaysian government earlier this year called the “Debris Examination Report,” as I discussed in “Reading the Secrets of MH370’s Debris.” There is also puzzlement over how the flaperon could have become physically separated from the plane.
7– Doubts about the provenance of the debris. As I’ve explained in previous posts, there are some glaring red flags in the way that most of the pieces of MH370 were collected.
These seven reasons are all predicated on evidence that has to do with MH370 itself. There is, however, an eighth reason that has to do with a separate event four and a half months later. On July 17, 2014, a missile launcher from Russia’s 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, one of only 14 sister ships to MH370. At first many assumed that the shootdown was an accident perpetrated by confused militiamen, but we now know that the operation was coordinated by the GRU (Russian military intelligence), and was subsequently the subject of an intense disinformation campaign by the GRU. As for the motive, we have no idea. Nor do we have any idea why the Russians would want to hijack MH370. But statistically, 100% of Malaysia Airlines 777-200ERs that come to grief in flight and whose cause is known have fallen victim to Russian military intelligence. If we are to let reason be our guide, that should be the first place to look in trying to solve the MH370 mystery, not the last.
With the fishing floatilla near even the more northern suggested locations., perhaps some sinking debris should have been captured in the nets. Supposedly the smaller bits that hadn’t sunk.
Interesting Opinion piece written by Navy instructors on the USS Fitzgerald and <USS John S McCain incidents
WHY ARE OUR SHIPS CRASHING? COMPETENCE, OVERLOAD, AND CYBER CONSIDERATIONS
http://cimsec.org/ships-crashing-competence-overload-cyber-considerations/33865
Another article from Dec 2016 after the US elections, predicted that the new US president would tested on the resolve of the US to maintain status quo in East and South China seas.
CHINA’S ‘LITTLE BLUE MEN’ PREPARE FOR HYBRID WARFARE
https://warisboring.com/chinas-little-blue-men-prepare-for-hybrid-warfare/
Dated today.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/mh37o-wreck-hunter-blaine-gibson-receives-death-threats/news-story/ff112897a44445cc0d9d8f1806dbfff0
While successful at debris finds; he also attracts threats in the IO region. There must be a reason not to uncover the truth about 9MMRO
@MH, @Crobbie, Are we to accept at face value the claim that Blaine has received death threats? He has been repeating this kind of talk for years now — initially, after I pointed out inconsistencies in his debris, with the implication that I was at least in part to blame. Now the message seems to be that he has crossed some powerful forces by continuing to retrieve debris from the ocean. But how plausible is this talk of threats, really? His pieces have no probative value, beyond what has already been gleaned by the flaperon, the flap, and some other pieces. So who is he supposed to be angering by continuing to collect it? And I will point out that he has never provided any details about these alleged threats, what they consisted of, how they were received, and so on.
Yes, He aught to identify those threatening him or its a smoke and mirrors for something else. After all once he received such a threat he moved on and didn’t return so it wouldn’t matter to publicly identify.
@JeffW
“…the flight simulator, as it appears to be a powerful piece of evidence pointing to a Zaharie suicide run into the SIO. But I feel that the …likelihood is that the flight sim data amounts a remarkable coincidence.”
Jeff I happen to be looking at the Z simulator data because MickG had suggested maybe it was 180S heading instead of NZPG waypoint- but the NZPG flight path still looks good to me. PSS777 is poor at cutting sharp turns, like LAGOG to DOTEN to NZPG (it starts the turn too late and overshoots, then cuts back to merge onto the flight path). So it’s nice to tell PSS777 to start a sharp (>90 deg) turn earlier. This can either be done on-the-fly advancing manually to the next waypoint, or pre-programmed by entering DOTEN/-30. That gives a much nicer turn that appears to go thru the saved 10N and then leads right up to the 45S1 and 45S2 end points. There is a small offset from the DOTEN to NZPG flight path unless the turn is initiated at exactly the right time.
@TBill, Thanks for pointing this out. I’ve finally got my Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 set up and have been exploring the Zaharie flight sim data. One thing that’s important to remember (correct me if I’m wrong) is that Zaharie was flying with the autopilot turned off, and did not fly continuously from one save-point to the next (with the possible exception of 45S1 and 45S2), as Iannello and Guillaume pointed out in their November 29, 2016 paper. So the idea that the plane was flying along a programmed heading like 180 degrees or toward a waypoint like NZPG is not supported.
@JeffW
I’m sure the autopilot was used, but it is easy to advance the aircraft by hand (via mouse) like a chess piece to save time, or set the aircraft backwards to take another try at a certain maneuver. This is another reason why 45S1 and 45S2 might not be on an exact sky vector path like DOTEN to NZPG as we would have to hope the aircraft was dropped at exactly the right coordinates if it was advanced.
One handy thing to do is to enter your flight plan waypoints in FS9. This is a bit tedious because FS9 is missing many waypoints so it takes extra work to edit the file to add user defined wat=point. Once you start a FS9 flight with the FS9 flight plan, the entire forward path of the flight shows up on the map, so that’s how Z could know where to advance the aircraft. Interestingly despite the lack of waypoints in FS9, it does seem to have DOTEN (which is called TEDOD in FS9) and FS9 does have a comprehensive selection of McMurdo airports (NZPG, NZIR, NZWD). So its conceivable Z had a DOTEN to NZPG flight path showing on the FS9 map as a guide.
I struggle, like apparently everyone else, with the issue of motive. However, I will say that that the downing of MH17 lends credence to the idea that Russia was somehow involved in MH 370. The downing of MH 17 couldn’t have been a mistake. That is, it is nearly a statistical impossibility that a few months after MH 370 disappears, another Malaysian Airlines flight (actually the same plane to/from Kuala Lumpur) gets shot down by accident. In the 4 ½ months after MH 370 until the downing of MH17, there were literally tens of thousands of commercial airplanes that flew over or near Russian/Ukrainian controlled airspace and we are supposed to believe that it was just dumb luck that another Malaysian Airlines 777-200ER was the plane that got shot down. It’s possible, I suppose, but that would be an extraordinary coincidence.
So yes, I believe that MH 370 and MH17 are connected. However, just because MH 370 and MH 17 are connected does not necessarily mean that Russia was responsible for MH 370. If we work under the assumption that MH 17 was not a mistake (i.e. the Russian’s intentionally selected a Malaysian Airlines 777-200ER), then one of two conclusions must be true: (1) the Russians were responsible for MH 370; or (2) the Russians want foreign governments to believe that they were responsible… thereby implying that Russia has the capability of making an airliner “disappear”. Either way, the downing of MH 17 may have been Russia’s twisted and illogical way of saying “hey, we were responsible for MH 370”.
That being said, I still believe that MH 370 is somewhere at the bottom of the Indian ocean and it crashed as a result of the intentional actions of the pilot, crew, and/or a passenger.
what do you mean by that ?
“The downing of MH 17 couldn’t have been a mistake. ”
Militaries around the world make even worse mistakes, few US Navy destroyers recently hit huge cargo ships, hope you don’t find that intentional too.
A few months after the loss of MH370 it did occur to me that searching using the Mk.1 eyeball, satellite imagery and walking along beaches had yielded very little.
One alternative that might have been useful would have been to look for the chemicals in the sea and air from the wreckage.
Meteorological flights sampling the air or buoys capable of sampling the water could have helped narrow down the search area in the first few weeks.
@Lex Luther @Blake
I assume @Blake means another MAS Boeing 777. It is interesting to note MAS got rid of its 777’s after MH17.
@Peter S
That is interesting I also thought about chemical traces such as aluminum. But I am a chemist so I would naturally.
I sort of dropped off this thingy awhile due to work and other commitments in life. But my interest was piqued by today’s news and one I read in passing, also today:
http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2017/03/09/new-mh370-conspiracy-theory-shows-1-passenger-unaccounted-for/
I would say that while I had a pet theory sometime back I decided to go along with SIO for whatever it’s worth. And SIO means closer to Exmouth and Christmas Island as I explained why in my comment in the earlier post.
I do remember posting about a Fat Controller for some laughs a couple of years back. So here goes. What if there is really a FC and he has amply paid runners to throw a bit of aircraft flotsam here and there for someone special to come along and pick them up on cue. I guess FC must have a whole warehouse debris from a missile downed plane to dispose of at his luxury. Missile downed plane? Oops I think I exceeded my flight envelope….LOL
Be that as it may, I still choose the South ( even if absence of radar data from Thailand Indonesia and Australia does stretch it a bit). Why not North? Simply because if he flew there there would be whole lot of other radars that need to be coincidentally switched off, besides he will have to run the gauntlet of all those planes flying in that busy corridor and still appear invisible to all of them. So SIO ( farfetched a bit) remains the most plausible.
But the death of a Malaysian diplomat who was tasked with transporting pieces of the suspected wreckage has fuelled more conspiracy theories about the missing plane.
Honorary Consul of Malaysia Zahid Raza was reportedly gunned down in the centre of the island nation’s capital Antananarivo on August 24
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/641820/MH370-Boeing-777-missing-conspiracy-gunned-down-news
Thank you ever so much.
@buyerninety: I was thinking it might be fish-related (e.g. fluorescent plankton), the idea being that where there is plankton, there is fish, and where there is fish, there are fishing ships.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fluorescent+plankton+satellite+image yields interesting results
But your explanation seems right.
@KK
Thanx. Contrary to my previous entry the death of Mr Zahid Raza has crept into mainstream media.
@TBill
I believe the decision to remove 777s from the MAS fleet after MH17 was made by former CEO Christoph Mueller. This was a branding issue, nothing to do with the reliability or safety of 777s.
As Jeff Wise pointed out in “The SDU Re-logon”, there is hard evidence that some very skilled person intentionally made 9M-MRO totally dark at first, in order to cover up its diversion. But later then, supposably the same person, reactivated one of the darkened systems (the SDU), to leave the plane’s marks on its path to the SIO. Marks, that allowed no urgent locating for search and rescue but for a later sophisticated data analysis. This might be a red herring as there is no idea to me thet suggests itself, why the SDU should have been turned off at all, if the persons intention was to leave these particular marks up to the planes final destination.
Suggestion: The SDU on board of 9M-MRO was turned-off, but it was never turned-on again. What appears to be the turn-on was a second SDU on another plane, configured in a way to emulate the original one. This would have been a way to minimize the number of confidants, as the SDU handshakes were real, lead to real data, lead to conclusions made by honest SDU data scientists (and so on), instead of suggesting a larger conspiracy requirung participation in falsification.
@Peter Norton
(Of course, at the zoomed out scale of the picture maps, the fishing vessel tracks
are greatly exagerated in width, merely so they can be seen.)
The presence of fishing vessels to the East & somewhat South of the Pleiades debris
suggests a bit higher probability that that debris was from fishing vessels rather
than any aircraft. Instead of a wave (swell) reflection of sunlight, some of that
debris could have been a number of white pallets loosely roped together, having
been lost from a fishing vessels deck in heavy weather, and carried off by the
current.
@Blake said:
“If we work under the assumption that MH 17 was not a mistake (i.e. the Russian’s intentionally selected a Malaysian Airlines 777-200ER), then one of two conclusions must be true: (1) the Russians were responsible for MH 370; or (2) the Russians want foreign governments to believe that they were responsible”
Why would the Russians want to feign responsibility for something they didn’t do?
As has been said before, to the above you must also add and allow for the following to be possibly true:
3. Russia wasn’t responsible for the loss/diversion of MH370 but was ‘involved’ in some way in the sense of suffering a loss or inconvenience of some sort as a result; MH17 was an act of retaliation and/or a warning to Najib and Hishy, and/or their associates.
Remember who was on board MH17. It was very personal.
On board was hishy’s and Najib’ step grandmother.
@MH
I presume you are referring to MH17.
@PS9
Point 3. My thoughts exactly. In particular MH370 had nothing to do with Russia but MH17 was a warning to ‘Najib and Hishy, and/or their associates’ as you so eloqently say.
@Jeff Wise
Please come on! You’re about to missing the boat in crucial times. And loose yourself in too much conspiracy thinking.
I miss your thoughtfull, provocative, rational analysis for a long time allready.
They seem to have faded over the years lately.
I miss them. You were such a great source of thoughtfull discussion in the past.
There is a different reason for Rasa’s death referenced in here. Also Blaine seems to also be asking for investigation before conclusions are drawn.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/murder-man-zahid-raza-mh370-conspiracy-theories-missing-plane-blaine-gibson-madagascar-malaysia-a7930891.html
There is a different reason for Rasa’s death referenced in here. Also Blaine seems to also be asking for investigation before conclusions are drawn.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/murder-man-zahid-raza-mh370-conspiracy-theories-missing-plane-blaine-gibson-madagascar-malaysia-a7930891.html
@Catherine Horsfall, I’m confused by the recent turn. There seems to be a lot of arm waving about how this guy was somehow involved in the transfer of pieces to Malaysia, but no one has suggested why anyone would care. It turns out that these pieces were collected almost a year ago. Even if they come from MH370, what value do they have?
It seems to me that the people who are pushing this story are generating more heat than light.
Jeff:
One of the pieces (Maroantsetra Beach) turns out to be significant in that we have identified the exact point of origin on the aircraft (right engine, left fan cowl, vortex generator, aft end) and the damage details (missing screws…) tell us something about the forces involved.
So how do you explain how the piece separated from the left fan cowl. It would seem the cowl would have broken off first and the piece would have retain attached to the cowl.
@Ge Rijn:
Stop your killer arguments. Conspiracy theories can be true or false, just like any other theory. And conspiracies happen each single day in every country on Earth. So attacking someone MERELY for pondering the possibility of a conspiracy is completely void of any sense, and frankly mentally challenged.
Why don’t you contribute constructively, instead of propagating such nonsense and breeding discord ?
@Scott Carvil
I don’t just fall in. I’ve been around here for a long time and I have respect for @Jeff Wise and I assume/hope he knows this.
Jeff can handle this I’m sure. He is as relentless as anyone can be considering others opinions and scenarios.
I think he does not need defending or protection the way you put it.
@Ge Rijn:
I let Jeff speak for himself.
Blinded by your bite reflex (something authors of killer arguments are also very prone to BTW) you didn’t even see, that I didn’t mention Jeff at all.
Instead, I was and am speaking up against killer arguments (like yours), which are a poison in our society.
@Scott Carvil
To me you are obviously projecting and gaslichting. I never heard of the term ‘killer arguments’ till you’re comments showed up here out of the blue.
Sounds quite agressive and sinister to me people using those terms.
One thing I agree on; let Jeff speak for himself in this matter.
Or just ignore it which is fine to me also.
I will understand.
It’s what I’ll do regarding you from now on.
@Ge Rijn:
It’s sad that you don’t understand why crying “conspiracy theory!” is not an argument. Apparently you also didn’t even bother to read the Wikipedia article, so no wonder you don’t grasp what a thought-terminating cliché is. Killer arguments (like yours) are aggressive, not people who speak up against them. You seem quite confused. Read the wiki page, perhaps you will understand. Can we please end this discussion, this is becoming a distraction.
@ALSM
I’d politely suggest you’re moving too quickly in judgement that that wreckage
piece is a fan cowling fragment.
Perhaps you could contact persons associated with the manufacture or the
refurbishment of the 777-200 series fan cowlings, which were produced by
Boeing in their Wichita, Kansas factory and later produced by Spirit Aerospace
when it took on certain of those facilities (after Boeing relocated their non-
defense activities out of that factory). You are on Linkedin, and there are
a number of persons thereon whose resumes satisfy those criteria, and those
persons may be willing to provide an opinion or facts to support your theory.
____________________________________
FYI, – the picture of the American Airlines cowling you cited to Ge Rijn,
https://goo.gl/HMN415
that you suggested demonstrated that that aircraft had chines on “on both
sides”, is not evidence that that specific aircraft has chines on both sides
(the outboard cowling chine is not visible, so you apparently base your
statement in regard to that aircraft due to the apparent appearance of fasteners,
or a row of spacings of slots for fasteners, that are visible on the underside
of the outboard fan cowling).
Engine outboard fan cowlings for the 777-200 are availabe for purchase without
any provision for attachment of a chine, and are available for purchase with
provision for attachment of a chine.
Therefore an appearance of an apparent row of fasteners, or appearance of an
apparent row of spacings of slots for fasteners, on the inside of an outboard
777-200 fan cowling, is not evidence that the fan cowling has a chine, when no
chine is visible.
Here is a link listing the relevant fan cowlings;
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:A5PdO_sQeW8J:https://www.fipart.com/parts-list/%3Fpage%3D46219
777 RR FAN COWL ENG 1 LH W/O CHINE PROV. 314W5085-45 {Ouboard Cowling}
777 RR FAN COWL ENG 1 LH W/CHINE PROV. 314W5085-47 {Outboard Cowling}
777 RR FAN COWL ENG 1 RH W/CHINE 314W5085-34 {Inboard Cowling}
777 RR FAN COWL ENG 2 LH W/CHINE 314W5085-43 {Inboard Cowling}
777 RR FAN COWL ENG 2 RH W/O CHINE PROV. 314W5085-36 {Outboard Cowling}
777 RR FAN COWL ENG 2 RH W/CHINE PROV. 314W5085-38 {Outboard Cowling}
@ALSM
Please understand that even though Boeing has unique part numbers for outboard
fan cowlings, I am not doubting your implied assertion that outboard fan
cowlings can have chines, or even perhaps that e.g. the engine 2 inboard cowling
may be able to be used as a replacement for the engine 1 outboard cowling –
I am only drawing your attention to the fact that that specific picture you
cited is a poor example to use, for the reasons I have outlined.
Certainly, andecodtal evidence on the internet shows fan cowlings can be
mistakely or perhaps deliberately used on 777-200 engines such that the
number and arrangement of chines is inappropriately different e.g. two chines
on one engine and apparently none on the other.
I am aware of an example (on a Boeing 737) where operation with non-consistent
engine cowling chine arrangements gave rise to a investigation…
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1993/aair/199300970/
Cheers
EDIT to above, for “andecodtal”, read instead ‘anecdotal’ .
buyerninety: May I politly suggest to you that you neen to keep up. That 9m-mro only had VGs on the inboard sides was quickly resolved. Moreover, we have ample evidence the debris from the aft half of the right engine fan cowl VG. Everyone else is focused on what forces might explain how the door fractured.
@ALSM said;
“That 9m-mro only had VGs on the inboard sides was quickly resolved“.
Never said it didn’t – Reread; “I am only drawing your attention to the fact”…
Unfortunately, you miss (or ignore?) the specific, so as to rebut some imaginary
point that only you hear inside your head. This is the 3rd time Mike, but
I’ll have to repeat it again; I’ll ask you actually quote my words that you have issue with. Do I assert anywhere above that 9M-MRO didn’t have
VG’s (chines) only on its inboard sides? No such assertion exists.
As to ‘ample evidence’ – the evidence I’ve read rests on the somewhat rough eye
measurements that the fasteners spacing looks similar to those spacings on the
cowling underside, or the fragment is broken off perhaps about where a panel on
the cowling would be expected to end.
If some aerospace engineer has given you private assurances, or you have a
clearer view of the fastener markings so we can determine if the fasteners are
made of titanium, then sure let us know, so myself (& perhaps others) can join
your in your enthusiasm.
Cheers
@buyerninety
You need reassurance from space engineers?
After our findings Malaysia decided to send a deligation to pick up the piece personally.
Their first direct action in a long time without any delay.
They only decide to do something like this after they contemplated with all their scientists/partners (ATSB etc.).
And this time they came with a very swift reaction; collecting this debris as soon as possible. You can deny the importance but imo this is telling enough.
@Ge Rijn
It is amazing what you folks are doing to identify the new debris parts…but it is hard to follow without a scorecard.
I don’t for sure, but I assume we are now talking about the smaller “piece” the young man is holding in the picture with Blaine. I am not sure what “door” we are talking about as we already have a landing gear door. But I assume there is a new door under discussion.
As far as MY picking up the debris, that is confusing because MY does not seem to assign much importance to the debris, but I assume it’s mainly the larger piece Blaine is holding (identified as the VG vortex generator), got publicity so MY wants to show due diligence picking that up, especially since their appointed debris recovery representative has unfortunately been murdered.
TBill: It is the larger piece. That is the door fragment. It is a small part (~3%) of the #2 (right) engine inboard fan cowl door (Assembly # 314W5210…). The VG is attached to that door. The smaller part is unidentified so far, but Blaine said it looks like other interior pieces he has seen.
@ALSM
Thank you.
@Ge Rijn
Informaton from Boeing or Spirit Aerospace engineers that have first hand
knowledge of whether the fasteners & the materials in the fragment are consistent
with those used in & about a 777-200 cowling would constitute evidence. Seems
reasonable to me that some of our posters in the U.S. would seek the opinion
of such engineers – if they did so, no U.S. poster has informed us of any
such informed opinion.
(Perhaps my standard of what is reasonable, seems unreasonable to other posters?)
In regard to this fragment Ge Rijn, I’m curious to ask you – if the fragment is
from MH370, doesn’t it seem likely to you, given the appearance of the edges, as
if the fragment had been involved in a catastrophic smash and the section where
the fragment came from had been crushed so as to crack into pieces – doesn’t it
seem more likely this would be the result of an impact with the sea after falling
from a great height, rather than from a gliding ditch where it might be expected
that any pieces would be larger sections broken off from a less forceful impact
with the sea, comparatively speaking?
(I know you have been attacked elsewhere for your ditch scenario, so I am wondering
if you consider the fragment makes the ditch scenario to be less likely now?)
@Ge Rijn @ALSM et al
Your contributions over the years to helping solve the 9M-MRO mystery has been amazing and appreciated. Excellent reading.
Yes @JeffWise’s site has become ‘politically incorrect’ whereas @Victor Ianello’s site hasn’t yet. However part of the problem is the good work of US$150 million, the IG group and others (yourself included) which is eliminating politically correct options with about 99.9% certainty. The two which spring to mind are;
– Boeing failure.
– Hypoxic flight (Captain Zaharie programming SIO co-ordinates and depressurising at IGARI)
Even on Victor’s site the hypothesis that the PIC was conscious and glided 9M-MRO into the SIO has a conspiracy element. This leads onto the recurring issue of contradiction of evidence which has been listed elsewhere.
Finally there is room in my mind (@PS9) that Blaine Gibson is acting philanthropically in all of this.
@SteveB
There is a huge Boeing failure, that is inexplicable resistance to making aircraft safer by disallowing rouge pilots to turn off transponders etc. I do agree some (with industry ties) may be politically supportive of Boeing or at least silent on this issue.
Another thing Boeing allows to happen, besides turning off communications, is rouge cabin depressurization with the push of a few buttons, which many feel might have happened on MH370 to control the PAX.
These matters are of such high sensitivity that I assume it’ll be 20+ years before the powers-that-be allow MH370 to be found and accident cause disclosed.
@buyerninety
I worked for major U.S. company probably like Boeing as far as info control, and basically nobody is empowered to discuss anything with the public.
@TBill
Agreed. I was talking more about technical/equipment failure rather than malicious intent. There is a downside to aircraft automation despite enormous improvements this provides in safety in ‘normal use’.
If 9M-MRO is a highly sophisticated state based hijacking then I highly doubt it would have been accomplished with a Boeing 707. Of course in those days you get the crew at gun point to do the work for you.
@SteveBarratt
Thank you for your kind words. It’s about trying to contribute in solving the mystery indeed.
And everyone ofcourse is entitled to do this in his/her own way.
Some people concentrate more on what could possibly be playing behind the scenes on a cover-up/conspiracy/political level and try to find evidence for this while rejecting the evidence and conclusions now at hand (like Jeff).
Others (like me) choose to concentrate on the given data and evidence at hand. Taking those as factual material to work with as long as there is no solid proof of the contrary (which there isn’t any yet).
@GeRijn
Thanks. Your comment ‘which there isn’t any yet’ is quite telling.