[Peetwo]

It is getting interesting though.
It is getting a bit like two sides in a court battle.
Prosecution's "expert" says this, Defence's "expert" says that.
Judge rolls his eyes.
Jury sinks into discombobulation.
Is that not the intent ?
Najib must be smiling.

Yes indeed "V" the whole slanging match thing is creating the perfect smokescreen...

Here's Mick again in reply to Andy (above):

Mick

23 hours ago

@Andrew   The one thing that doesn't change is Captain Bailey's contention that:
a.   because no floating debris was found there must not have been any floating debris,  and
b.   because there was no floating debris MH370 must have made a controlled ditching. 
In keeping with the adage that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the fact that no floating debris was found does not mean that there was no floating debris.  The fact that MH370's flaperon washed up on Reunion Island proves that there was floating debris that was not spotted during the initial search. 

We need to remember that 10 days elapsed between when MH370 went into the Southern Indian Ocean and when we started looking for it there.  A lot can happen to floating debris in 10 days; some of it will sink, all of it will drift.   Had we have known the precise point of impact (and we didn't), factoring in modest currents and surface winds and an 80% certainty with regards to direction of drift, after 10 days the area that floating debris may have been scattered across is over 1,000,000 square kilometres.   That's a search zone equivalent to New South Wales and Victoria combined.  If we assume that there were 1,000 pieces of  debris still floating after 10 days (an improbably high number), that averages out to one piece of debris every 1,000 square kilometres. 
And don't forget that the search zone increases in size every day the search goes on; after just one day it has increased by over 20% to well over 1.2 million square kilometres, the next day it is over 1.5 million square kilometres, the day after it is nearly 1.8 million square kilometres, after four days the search zone has almost doubled in size, and after just one week it has tripled in size to about half the area of continental Australia.

Also of interest Kenyon has forwarded to my attention his latest update to his - MH370 Flaperon Failure Analysis:

Questions & Issues Generated from Analysis:


• An explanation for the four (4) holes on outboard side needs to be identified.

• An explanation of how the ID Tag separated from the Flaperon is needed.

(Exposure to Skydrol and sea water do not appear to be plausible reasons for ID Tag

separating from the Flaperon).

• An explanation for the ‘splattering’ needs to be identified.

• Why are the official investigators silent on releasing preliminary reports on their

Flaperon analysis?

• Could MH370 (excluding final descent scenarios such as spiral dives etc.) have been

subject to abnormal stresses and forces after 17:19:30 UTC due to pushing the

aircraft beyond its normal operating envelope? Note: The combination of limited

and questionable radar data, BTO, and BFO suggest that the aircraft was not likely

subject to such overstresses prior to final descent. R2.0

• Was MH370 damaged in some undefined manner after 17:19:30 UTC as to cause

oscillation or vibration of the right-side wing and or flutter of the right-side

Flaperon? R2.0
• Could the Flaperon have separated from MH370 after nearing equator but prior


to final descent?

• How would fuel exhaustion during final descent impact the Flaperon hydraulic

system and the tendency to induce flutter of the Flaperons? Note: Boeing

documentation indicates that when the Flaperon PCU’s are in the bypass mode the

Flaperons are free to move and can experience flutter. [7]

• How does the loss of right Flaperon impact the flight of a piloted Boeing 777?

How does the loss impact an unpiloted (Auto Pilot) Boeing 777? Note: The author

is not a pilot, however recent communications with more qualified people offer the

following preliminary thoughts on flight without the right-side Flaperon. Author

summarizes and paraphrases said communications as follows:

For both piloted and unpiloted cases, it could continue flight because the Boeing

777 Flaperon provides relatively small portion of the total wing area. In the

cruise phase of flight the Flaperon is used as part of roll control. The outboard

ailerons are locked out, some of the spoiler panels augment roll & the left-side

Flaperon would still be effective. Whether piloted or autopilot, more control

surface input would be made to demand the desired bank angle/roll. As long as

the remaining left Flaperon was not deployed in flap mode, thus causing

asymmetric lift and drag, then the plane could be flown with almost no noticeable

effect. However, if the Flaperon departed the wing prior to the final descent

damage may have been caused to the two PCUs & possibly the hydraulic systems

causing additional flight issues. R2.0

Note: Caution should be used when examining photos since evidence of tampering with the Flaperon is evident.

Apologies Kenyon, corrected now & welcome both you & Labrat to AP..