[Peetwo]

 Update on debris shenanigans - by Ben Sandilands, via Planetalking:

Are these MH370 parts coming clean, or unstuck?

Ben Sandilands | Mar 19, 2016 10:58AM |


The slightly contaminated Liam Lotter find from Mozambique

An issue as simple as the authenticity of two potential fragments of missing flight MH370 has left the credibility of the Malaysian authorities as to what they have done, known and said about the disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines 777-200 ER just over two years ago hanging by a thread.

Are they just poor communicators, or is something sinister going on?

Last December while on a holiday a South African, Liam Lotter, found a fractured object bearing the part number of an access panel to an area on the outer right wing of a Boeing 777 on a Mozambique shore.

Late in February Blaine Gibson, an American who has been investigating the disappearance of the flight, on 8 March 2014, on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board, found what appears to be a torn fragment of the stubby right hand side horizontal stabilizer of a 777 on a sandbar elsewhere in Mozambique.

Mr Gibson found what he had been hoping to find, while Mr Lotter didn’t realise the significance of his souvenir until learning of that discovery.

Both objects appeared superficially at least to be devoid of marine life fouling, so abundantly obvious on a flaperon from the right hand side of the wing of a 777 recovered from the French island of a La Réunion to the east of Mozambique in the Indian Ocean in July.

(There is in fact some evidence of marine contamination in both Mozambique objects, but it appears very slight.)

That flaperon was positively identified as coming from MH370 after an investigation in France, ordered by a public prosecutor inquiring into the deaths of four French nationals on that flight. It is the only fragment of the missing Malaysian Airlines flight to have been positively identified to this day.

So far as can be established, these two superficially surprisingly clean Mozambique fragments that were supposedly destined for examination in Australia by the ATSB, which is managing the sea floor search for MH370, are in Kuala Lumpur, in “safe keeping” pending examination.

The cleanliness of the Mozambique finds has been forensically assessed by a range of experts, and with helpful comparative illustrations, in this analysis by US science writer Jeff Wise here. Consider it compulsory reading.

If these parts are found to be bogus, or from a 777 parts inventory, or tampered with, or unable to be linked to MH370, there are the most serious of consequences for the overall investigation of the airliner’s disappearance, and perhaps for the authorities, or other persons or person.

They may or may not impact further on the credibility of the Malaysian authorities, who are known to have mislead their initial search partners from Day One by not revealing that it was known that MH370 had diverted westwards across the Malaysia Peninsula, while they continued to insist the then mostly aerial search for wreckage go further into the South China Sea and even northwards across central Asia.

There are so many serious issues with the Malaysian response to the circumstances pertaining to MH370 and its disappearance that a finding that these claimed fragments involve a deception will have bring all of those unresolved matters to the fore.

The ATSB has said remarkably little about the investigation of the Mozambique discoveries  other than initially confirming that they would be sent to Australia for examination.

It never said via Kuala Lumpur for an unknown period.

Establishing at the outset that these fragments are in fact from ‘a’ 777 shouldn’t take very long at all. Determining what damage they have experienced, and what inferences can be taken from such damage , and whether indeed they can be unambiguously declared to be part of MH370, could all take much longer.

That is why the reference in this response to queries to the ATSB to an examination by the Malaysian authorities, the ATSB and Boeing is puzzling in that there would only need to be one such examination, maybe even in the US.

Regarding the topic of Malaysian radar data, the authority to release that information remains, of course, with Malaysia. The ATSB does not have any reason to believe that there exists data significant to the search which has not been provided to us. We are not, however, empowered to release data which does not belong to us.

As regards the flaperon and the pieces of debris that may come from MH370, there is little to say until the formal examinations of all the pieces have been completed (and, in the cases of the pieces from Mozambique, commenced). The French judicial authorities have not yet completed their examination of both pieces found on La Reunion. We are corresponding with the Bureau d’Enquetes and d’Analsyses on this. The examination of the Mozambique pieces has not yet commenced, but it is to be undertaken soon  by investigators from Malaysia, Australia and Boeing.

The reference to a second part found on La Réunion had already been discounted by the ATSB in its most recent update as being unlikely to be from an aircraft.
However this ATSB to a general inquiry after the last weekly search update indicates the French are looking at that second item.

The flicking of persistent inquiries about radar data is not something those who are studying MH370 would take kindly. It is critical to understanding the circumstances of the southwards flight of the jet to oblivion in the south Indian Ocean to know precisely what that data contains.

There are various interpretations that can be put on the reluctance of Malaysia to authorize release of this information, but national security doesn’t cut it anymore since we have no reason to believe it isn’t already in the hands of other directly or indirectly involved states.

One possibility that can’t as yet be dismissed is that the data is so incomplete, or poorly annotated, that it would be an embarrassment if released.

It can already be inferred from the tribulations of the ATSB led search that the data that was provided to the search strategy advisors is so inexact as to introduce massive additional uncertainties into flight path predictions, even though the satellite pings from MH370 tell how long it remained in the air and how high the Inmarsat satellite that received them was above the horizon as seen from the 777.

The guidance from the ATSB also glides over the possibility of friction between the Australian search manager and Malaysia over the handling of the Mozambique parts.

That isn’t a valid criticism of the ATSB itself. It can’t be expected to take up any position regarding its Malaysia, or China, search partners.

Everything is just fine and harmonious, move along, there is nothing to see here.

 
The commentary on the Jeff Wise analysis was mainly on Ben's earlier blog piece:

Are claimed Mozambique MH370 fragments too clean to be true?


Ben Sandilands | Mar 18, 2016 7:39AM |



The Dropbox album of Blaine Gibson’s find on a Mozambique sandbar

 
Some comments:

5
Simon Gunson
Posted March 18, 2016 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

It is Jeff Wise who can only be described politely as the deception. More of a science fiction writer than a credible commentator. He is fighting a rear guard action to discredit debris because he looks such a fool for blaming Putin and alleging MH370 is buried under the end of Yubileyniy Runway in Kazakhstan.

People who take Jeff seriously are in jeopardy of discrediting themselves, you included Ben.

Barnacle larvae cannot attach to a surface unless there is a bacterial film which they can feed from.

For this film to develop the surface must be either constantly submerged for several weeks, or else the host surface must be made of wood or some other object that can absorb the bacteria required for bacterial growth.

I know in the world of science fiction anything is possible, but Jeff, the rest of us struggle on in the real world. Now please, do try and get a real job.

6
Ben Sandilands
Posted March 18, 2016 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

Simon,
I think your comment is unworthy. You can have it left up, which reflects on you rather than Mr Wise, or you can ask for it to be removed.

The post Jeff Wise made was scholarly and sourced to named authorities, none of whom could conceivably have an interest in any particular outcome. He could also be wrong. Kazakhstan is engraved in the unforgiving and undeletable archives of the WWW forever, until the asteroid comes (or whatever). But this is something different, and it leads to the bigger issues of disclosure of vital information about radar records and deeper examination of the flaperon that despite a great deal of questioning by yourself, and myself, and a lot of people who otherwise can’t agree on much, remain unanswered.

7
Simon Gunson
Posted March 18, 2016 at 1:51 pm | Permalink

Dan
Much as I accuse the Malaysians of falsifying radar claims I really don’t think they are sophisticated enough to plant evidence without being noticed.

Even the flaperon, has if anything, disclosed abysmal record keeping by MAS Wings maintenance in their failure to keep good records, rather than sophistication as liars.
The other thing that must be said about the prospect of planting evidence is that spare parts for the Boeing 777 model are in such short supply that perfectly airworthy -200 models are being parted out to satisfy demand to keep -300 models flying. It just isn’t possible to procure used parts without an obvious trail of evidence.

8
Simon Gunson
Posted March 18, 2016 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
I will leave it up Ben. I call a spade a spade.

The person I suggest most guilty of deception in this case after Malaysian authorities of course appears to be Jeff Wise. Why must every explanation he comes up with be worthy of a James Bond thriller?

Does he take us all for fools?

This man owes many MH370 relatives, several of whom have become my friends, an apology for silly misleading speculations about hijackings ordered by President Putin.
Meanwhile a group called #VeritasMH370 is preparing to launch a private seabed search further south related to debris sighted from 16-25 March 2014 which may someday oblige Jeff Wise to make a huge apology, but somehow I doubt one will ever arrive.

9
Brock McEwen
Posted March 18, 2016 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

Simon: like you, I find Jeff’s pet culprit implausible – and I understand your point about potential motive for discrediting debris.

But Jeff’s article quotes at least seven experts who together put forward a compelling argument that something is amiss, here. Your point about bacterial films may be valid, but by itself, it doesn’t even begin to rebut this expert testimony in aggregate.
A bright, point-by-point dissection of the scientific assessments offered by each expert will persuade me far more than will any heated attack on the journalist who compiled them.

Brock gets his QON answered:

Brock McEwan - It is possible – in fact, it is looking increasingly likely – that the only ostensibly “productive” sortie of the five may not, in fact, have been productive at all.

If so: I look forward to hearing the fifth of five separate excuses for why Fugro Discovery went over four MONTHS (Oct.22, 2015 until Feb. 27, 2016) without actually increasing the area searched.

.


10
Brock McEwen
Posted March 18, 2016 at 2:56 pm | Permalink
While I have the microphone: the ATSB responded to my query re: four of Fugro Discovery’s tracks which were repeated in Feb/March (about which I posted to Ben’s “Mozambique” blog a couple of weeks ago):

“Yes, there was an issue with the sidescan sonar on Fugro Discovery’s late December towfish runs – the starboard channel sidescan sonar was found to be degraded in its outer regions. The degraded section encroached beyond the overlap section of the adjacent line. The lines were subsequently rerun with a suitable offset by Fugro Discovery during its current swing to ensure adequate SSS coverage.”
I have a follow-up e-mail in, to try to determine exactly how many days of this sortie were “degraded”. If it is a large number, then, over a four-month span, Disco had five wasted sorties in a row – each for a different reason.

And finally from Tango:

17
Tango
Posted March 19, 2016 at 2:30 am | Permalink

Simon also has his own cult, he makes claims pulled out of pure vacuum on how thing work on an aircraft in which he was not on, is not qualified to discuss if he was, has not evidence of ad nausea.

What you need to know about Simon he has an agenda, he is not an independent thinker in any way shaper or form, he is a defense attorney come up with all sorts of implausible statements out of thin air.

Pot calling the kettle black in US terms.

Have any of you lived on a beach? I did, for many years.

Ever see a glass ball (or float) ? Pure slick glass and they both age and acquire marine growth (not necessarily barnacles)

Nothing that is in the ocean is not deteriorated by the expose in the sea of 2 years.
so we have Wise sneaking into something like 4 countries planting parts? A bit hard to pull off don’t you think?

So, there are some things that I will categorically state.

1. No Boeing 777 structural engineer has said those fragments are part of a 777 of any portion. A lot of so called experts have. I for one do not know what a Boeing 777 tail looks like, what we see is not a true composite, its a laminate.
2. So, we have not a clue if those are 777 parts or just aircraft parts. Aircraft are dissembled all the time and 777s have been on that list.
3. In a short time we will have experts in those parts tell us.

Ben: I would change the statement on the Malaysian authorities on the Radar records to be released from reluctant to refuse. NTSB as you noted did review them but never released.

I find it amazing ironic you have radar and fighters and when you ID a unknown target in your airspace, you don’t dispatch several fighters to check it out (that assume your air force actually can fly them let alone in the dark)

Good thing they are not in a war, sorry, all that stuff is for show, we never planned on using any of it.

18
Tango
Posted March 19, 2016 at 2:46 am | Permalink
Ahh yes, the sand blasting.

I lived on the Pacific ocean, well know for its “activity ”

Well more accurately, the Northern Pacific. Less viable for marine grown but active.
No such sand blasting takes place. Too low energy. Sand blasters are hooked up to compressor that put out a minimum of 90 psi (per square inch) and directed in narrow cones. Call it hurricane force plus. Industrials sand blasters are higher still (typical shop air is no less than 145 psi and it goes easily up to 250.

All that sounds good unless you work with that stuff.

Any removal of surface stuff also leaves deposits, salt water and material degradation.

MTF...P2