"Once upon a Flaperon"
MH-370's Starboard Flaperon is an interesting bit of kit, with, apparently, quite a chequered history.
Cast one's mind back a bit.
On 26th March 2014 (only 18 days after 9M-MRO vanished) we had the "mysterious fire" in the Malaysian Airlines Avionics Centre, that destroyed all the "records" (convenient .......... ?).
We have a Flaperon found on Reunion Island, a French Territory.
The Flaperon was flown to Paris, France, for analysis.
Quick as a flash, the Malaysian Authorities hop on plances and speed off to France, with the intention of "taking possession" of it.
The French "declined" to give it too them. The Malaysians were not happy.
The French made it very clear, that they have it, and they are keeping it. It is not going anywhere.
The French Prosecutors have retained custody of it, under judicial seal, as "evidence" in a "criminal investigation" that had been launched some time previously, into the death of the two French Citizens on 9M-MRO/MH-370.
As the flaperon is now an item of "evidence" in a "criminal investigation", it, and any information that may be deduced from it's examination, thus also becomes "evidence" in-and-of-itself, and thus, the French have refused to release any details of it's forensic investigation of this "item of evidence" - for perfectly valid legal reasons.
Just as a "side-bar note:-
There were six Australian Citizens on 9M-MRO/MH-370, but the Australian Government has shown absolutely no interest whatsoever, in opening a "criminal investigation" into their deaths on M-MRO/MH-370, but they have regarding the deaths of the Australian Citizens on MH-17.
The Australian Government's official position is that MH-17 was a "crime", and thus will be investigated, as a crime, whereas M-MRO/MH-370 was an "accident", and thus will not be investigated, as a "crime".
That legal distinction, between "accident" or "crime", has totally derailed the search for M-MRO/MH-370.
However, returning to the flaperon itself.
It is interesting to note, that the Malaysian Authorities that went to France, were allowed to "look at it", and within hours, they emerged and assertively pronounced that it was "DEFINATELY" from 9M-MRO/MH-370.
They claimed that they had recognised "maintenance markings", that "positively" identified it as coming from "MAS workshops", and thus, had to have come off 9M-MRO/MH-370. But, it is interesting to note, no evidence, photos, or anything else, was ever provided by the Malaysians, to back up that "assertion". The French have (publicly) remained silent on the issue.
Now, if one had a basically suspicious mind, (like a twenty year younger associate of mine (who is a genuine Police Officer), one might ponder a few things. (I don't by the way - have a "basically" suspicious mind that is - not normally - I am basically a "trusting person" - usually - unless I smell a rat). Copper Dave was not impressed. "Dig Deeper" he said.
So, what have we got ?
Let's go back to "square one".
When 9M-MRO "pushed back" from Gate C-1 at KL, according to Malaysian Officials, it had a Starboard Flaperon, which, by their own sworn assertions, had been previously "repaired" (at some point) by Malaysian Airlines Maintenance.
We don't know, and the Malaysian Officials "say" that they don't know, it's "prior history", because of that (convenient ....... ?) fire, that destroyed all the records.
The Malaysian Officials are however "certain" that MAS did repair it mind, but amazingly, "no one from MAS remembers" when, or why, or what the "damage" was, or how it was repaired, nor when or where it was subsequently fitted to 9M-MRO.
We have to ask a lot of questions, none of which can be definitively answered, yet, operative word yet.
(1) When was that flaperon manufactured, and what was it's "real" serial number ?
(2) Which aircraft was it "first" fitted to when new ?
Was it:-
(a) By Boeing, to a new build on the production line, and if so, which aircraft, which airline (it may NOT have been a MAS aircraft), how long was it in service on that aircraft, why was it later removed for "repair", what was the damage, what was the "cause" of that damage, was there an incident of some kind, perhaps ground damage, was there an investigation, was there a report, somewhere, that may still exist, if we can find it ?
or:-
(b) Was it sold as a "new spare part", and if so, to whom, and when ? Again, the same questions as above, which aircraft was it initially fitted to, by whom, where and when, how long was it in service on that aircraft, why was it later removed for "repair", what was the damage, what was the "cause" of that damage, was there an incident of some kind, perhaps ground damage, was there an investigation, was there a report, external to MAS, that may still exist, if we can find it ?
(3) One might even ask, was it even a "genuine part" ? Could it have been a "bogus part" ?. The "bogus aircraft parts" industry is a rampant "known" problem, world wide. A "genuine part" has a document trail, with all "the boxes ticked" and traceable. Bogus parts come in basically two sub types. The first is the "new manufacture" of a "fake copy" of the genuine article, with fake documentation. The second is the "unlawful recycling" of "condemned" genuine articles, again with fake documentation. Could it be, that a cash-strapped operator (or someone in it's maintenance and logistics organisation) may have been ...... tempted ? After all, they did admit that the pingers were out of date, in the Interim Factual Report. Worms, multiple worms, come to mind.
So many question, so few (none - yet) answers.
Since the French are not saying anything of definitive evidential substance, one way or the other, publicly at least, there is a lingering doubt as to whether or not the flaperon is genuine.
With nothing else in the public domain to go on, various people have done some pretty detailed analysis of the flaperon from the pictures of it, taken by reporters when it was found. There are a couple of good reports out there, and I assume, all interested persons on AuntyPru have examined them, and have formed their own opinion of those reports, their contents, and their implications, as have I.
The structural analysis reports pretty clearly suggest that the lack of damage to the leading edge, and the manner of the end web failings, and the disintegration of the trailing edge aft of the rear spar, taken together, imply flutter failure and separation, whilst in a high speed spiral dive at end of flight, A second, less favoured interpretation, is that the flaperon may have been ripped off in a controlled ditching, also in the SIO, very near the 7th arc. I do not fully subscribe to either theory.
The barnacle analysis is farm more speculative. The consensus of opinion seems to suggest that the photos alone are virtually useless. Only laboratory DNA testing could provide any definitive information, but, and it is a big but, the best guess is that the flaperon got those barnacles in tropical waters, not SIO waters.
The various "drift studies", forwards, backwards, and even "round about", prove one thing, quite conclusively, and that is, that irrespective of the barnacles, this flaperon did NOT enter the water in the SIO, let alone anywhere near the 7th arc. Although not conclusive, the barnacles tend to support that view.
Unsurprisingly, our mate Beaker (having had a taxpayer funded jolly to France over this) agrees with the Malaysians, ie, that it is from MH-370. He, and they, may be correct, but without "evidence" we can never be sure.
Then, Mr Foley of the ATSB gave an interesting answer to a question in the Australian Senate Estimates hearing. He was asked if the French had proved that the serial numbers of the sub components of the flaperon conclusively proved that it came from 9M-MRO, and did the ATSB have that in writing. Mr Foley's answer was an interesting one. See the video here.
#P2 edit
Quote:Senator JOHNSTON: The aileron or whatever it was that was found on Reunion Island—I have been reading that it is from MH370, a Boeing 777.
Mr Foley : Correct.
Senator JOHNSTON: Are we certain that the serial numbers on the component parts of that piece of equipment indisputably match that of the aircraft?
Mr Foley : The French judicial authorities are actually doing the investigation. They are certain that there are unique identifying numbers within the flaperon which related to 9M-MRO, which is the accident aircraft.
Senator JOHNSTON: And Boeing have confirmed that?
Mr Foley : As far as we know, yes, but the French—
Senator JOHNSTON: Do we have anything in writing?
Mr Foley : The French have announced publicly that it is definitely from the accident aircraft.
Senator JOHNSTON: Thank you.
So, for the moment, let's "assume" that this flaperon, was fitted to 9M-MRO. If it truly was, we have a problem. We need to explain how and why it got from "on-wing" to "on-beach".
Being a fan of David Suchet's Hercule Poirot, I believe that I have a solution to the riddle of the flaperon. I believe that I have determined where, when, how and why it entered the water.
All of the clues we need are now to hand (above).
I have figured it out,
Can not see Hastings ?
Think gentleman. I will give you guys a week to:- "sus-it-out".
Until then.
"Poirot: Cards on the Table (#10.2)" (2005)
Hercule Poirot: The question is, can Hercule Poirot possibly by wrong ?
Mrs. Lorrimer: No one can always be right.
Hercule Poirot: But I am ! Always I am right. It is so invariable it startles me. And now it looks very much as though I may be wrong, and that upsets me. But I should not be upset, because I am right. I must be right because I am never wrong.
Al-rite, I won't tease you all, here you go.
The "Reunion Island Flaperon" was:-
(1) Fitted to 9M-MRO. It did "come off" 9M-MRO.
(2) Either a genuine or a bogus part, it does not matter, yet.
(3) It was damaged, and had been poorly repaired, and had suffered further progressive damage in service on 9M-MRO - hours and cycles unknown.
(4) It was just therefore, "waiting to fail", when 9M-MRO pushed back from Gate C1.
(5) Aerodynamic loads in turbulence penetrating the gap between the storm cells, over the sea, just west of Sibola, between the coast and the 18:27 arc, weakened the flaperon to "failure imminent".
(6) At the FMT, around 18:30-18:40, during a high speed slight descent (to definitely fall below the radar horizon of the Sibola Radar), the aircraft turned left for the SIO, increasing aerodynamic loads.
(7) The damage starboard flaperon failed in flutter, and separated from the wing, "at this time".
(8) The flaperon entered descended "falling leaf" into the sea, a few minutes later.
(9) The flaperon then drifted to Reunion Island.
This analysis is consistent with all known facts, ie:-
(1) the asserted history of damage and subsequent repair,
(2) the not insignificant probability of sub-standard repair (or worse),
(3) the published competent structural assessments of various experts from the photographs,
(4) the high probability that the species of barnacles live in tropical waters, not the SIO,
(5) the very high correlation of this position off the west coast of Sumartra with multiple competent foreign drift studies.
Updated 2016-02-05
An analysis report Version 2
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zj4t8k0nly5bsc...9.pdf?dl=0