Malaysia Airlines flight MH370-Updates and Discussion

youreadthat

Yes but can we tell which angle the sewing machine hit the water?

JCX BXC

pfurey101 wrote: »

That's hilarious

Maybe a few of the locals decided that they may make some publicity (and possibly cash) for themselves!

ElNino

Confirmed now

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/628986345562746881

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33794012?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Mountainsandh

The suitcase has been passed on to criminal investigation branch for analysis, they don't know when results are due on that.

The French spokesperson's statement is not as definitive as the Malaysian PM, the French side are still saying it's a "presumption" that the suitcase is from MH370 because it's definitely a Boing 777 part, and because Malaysian Airlines have provided technical information on the part that matches the flaperon. The French side will confirm within 3 days or so.

The Black Oil

Yeah, the French prosecutor seems a little hesitant on a definite confirmation at this point.

keith16

The Black Oil wrote: »

Yeah, the French prosecutor seems a little hesitant on a definite confirmation at this point.

Very reasonable in my opinion. Not like those fools in Australia.

elastico

Mountainsandh wrote: »

The suitcase has been passed on to criminal investigation branch for analysis, they don't know when results are due on that.

The French spokesperson's statement is not as definitive as the Malaysian PM, the French side are still saying it's a "presumption" that the suitcase is from MH370 because it's definitely a Boing 777 part, and because Malaysian Airlines have provided technical information on the part that matches the flaperon. The French side will confirm within 3 days or so.

Walked a beach on the Atlantic Coast today, all sorts of things washed up, from washing machines (probably dumped off the shore) to fishing nets and water bottles, wouldn't be suprised to find a suitcase along the way.

Point being I wouldn't put much weight on a random suitcase turning up.

pfurey101

There would be a few part numbers on the Flaperon - the unit itself and all the sub assemblies and bit/expendable parts, maybe spec numbers even for the skin.

If they were lucky, one of the part numbers could also have had an associated serial number. If there was a serial number found, then that could be 100% trackable.

If they found no serial number plates but identified part numbers that were peculiar to a specify batch of aircraft, including 9M-MRO, then they would be 100% positive. If all part numbers found are generic to all B777 or just B772 etc......well......

They could also have analysed the paint (if there was any) to see if it matches the MAS spec.

If serial numbers or even part numbers specific to a group of airframes including MRO were NOT found, I can see why the French are hestitant in making a positive statement - instead of an assumption by default!

The Malaysians could be jumping in again....as they did so many times in the first days of this incident.

muppet01

Ah lads, bring back the Airbus Treble 7777 pilot, need another nugget of grammatical genius....................:D

rrpc

Maintenance records seems to be the source of the confirmation.

Malaysia's transport minister says the maintenance records of Malaysia Airlines prove conclusively that the wing part found last week on an Indian Ocean island belonged to the missing Flight 370.

Liow Tiong Lai told reporters that the Malaysian team, which is part of the investigations in France, is convinced that the one of the sealants on the wing part, known as flaperon, matches "with our maintenance records."

He said Thursday the paint color on the flaperon also matches with the airline's records.

He says he understands why the French team has been less categorical about declaring the part as belonging to Flight 370.

"We respect their decision to continue with their verification. They have more verification process to make, the paint, the sealant and so on," he said. "For the Malaysian team, the technical report and maintenance report that we have matched with the flaperon ... The expert team strongly feel and confirm that it is MH370."

christy c

Am I correct in saying that the BEA are involved because the debris washed up on a french island? And they weren't officially involved up until now?

rrpc

christy c wrote: »

Am I correct in saying that the BEA are involved because the debris washed up on a french island? And they weren't officially involved up until now?

Correct and right.

And the French have now confirmed the origin of the flaperon:

Malaysia Airlines would like to sincerely convey our deepest sorrow to the families and friends of the passengers onboard Flight MH370 on the news that the flaperon found on Reunion Island on 29 July was indeed from Flight MH370.
This has been confirmed jointly today by the French Authorities, Bureau d’ Enquetes et d‘Analyses pour la Securites de I’AviationCivile (BEA), the Malaysian Investigation Team, Technical Representative from PRC and Australian Transportation Safety Bureau (ATSB) in Toulouse, France and subsequently announced by the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dato’ Seri Najib Tun Razak.

keith16

christy c wrote: »

Am I correct in saying that the BEA are involved because the debris washed up on a french island? And they weren't officially involved up until now?

rrpc wrote: »

Correct and right.

And the French have now confirmed the origin of the flaperon:

Incredible to think of the global scale of this incident.

Mountainsandh

Helicopters and boats deployed and currently searching for more debris off the coast of Reunion.
http://www.linfo.re/la-reunion/societe/674586-mh370-operations-de-recherches-au-large-de-saint-andre

Mountainsandh

Some debris found on the shore of a tiny island in the Maldives, to my untrained eye these look convincing but of course analysis and investigations are about to start on these.
http://lci.tf1.fr/monde/asie/des-debris-du-mh370-retrouves-sur-une-plage-des-maldives-8642989.html

Although looking at them again they might as well just be boat parts...

LordSutch

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Some debris found on the shore of a tiny island in the Maldives, to my untrained eye these look convincing but of course analysis and investigations are about to start on these.
http://lci.tf1.fr/monde/asie/des-debris-du-mh370-retrouves-sur-une-plage-des-maldives-8642989.html

Although looking at them again they might as well just be boat parts...

I guess it changes everything (re search area) if the parts actually turn out to be from the doomed flight?

L1011

Surfboard is my theory for those

Mountainsandh

The captain of a barge that sank in February has come forward to say that debris were probably from his wreck. Some debris stuffed with carbon fibre and honeycomb pattern sheets will be looked at by a team of Malaysian experts sent over.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3192431/Debris-Maldives-believed-missing-MH370-actually-belonged-capsized-BARGE.html

bbc also reporting on this, but Daily Mail has the pics.

smurfjed

Satellite expert Zaaim Redha Abdul Rahman, who helped the UK satellite firm Inmarsat analyze data shortly after the plane went missing in March last year, said the plane probably made a soft landing on the water, floated for a while on the surface, and then sank mostly in one piece.
This is consistent with what other experts have said about the likely fate of the plane after new evidence emerged last month.
A piece of debris that was almost certainly part of MH370 suggests the aircraft may have glided along after running out of fuel and descended slowly into the water. A Boeing 777 flaperon washed up on Reunion Island near Madagascar in the Indian Ocean.
Former US National Transportation Safety Board investigator Greg Feith told Bloomberg that since the piece was not "crushed," experts could "deduce it was either a low-energy crash or a low-energy intentional ditching." https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/malaysia-just-published-theory-missing-181820592.html

A soft landing? It's an interesting question, but we don't know if there was anyone flying the aircraft, in my mind there is a big difference between a "controlled water landing" and a "crash landing", but in both cases I would have thought that as soon as one engine hit the water, the aircraft would cartwheel or flip, and the resulting impact would destroy the fuselage, I certainly dont see the aircraft sitting in one piece.

murphaph

Don't see how being a satellite/maths/physics expert (or whatever he is) means he is in any position to make such a claim. Nobody has any idea how the plane entered the water at this stage.

It's possible if they hit some dead calm water that the pilot could have done a Hudson landing (so no major breakup at all) but I think the odds of finding calm water (would need to be really unusually calm for the ocean) are slim and personally I believe the aircraft probably broke up on impact, but it's not based on anything more than gut feeling.

mbur

smurfjed wrote: »

A soft landing? It's an interesting question, but we don't know if there was anyone flying the aircraft, in my mind there is a big difference between a "controlled water landing" and a "crash landing", but in both cases I would have thought that as soon as one engine hit the water, the aircraft would cartwheel or flip, and the resulting impact would destroy the fuselage, I certainly dont see the aircraft sitting in one piece.

If it were a 'low energy' ditching what are the chances of an undeployed flaperon safely tucked away in the wing detaching itself and floating away. I think you are right. The plane suffered major damage when it ditched and maybe there are a lot more pieces floating around.

KoolKid

The only calm soft landing intact I remember was the Hudson,and that was with 2 excellent pilots in full control. A plane out of control and out of fuel would be unlikely to stay in one piece I'd say.

smurfjed

A plane out of control

Why do you think that it would be out of control?

feargale

KoolKid wrote: »

The only calm soft landing intact I remember was the Hudson,and that was with 2 excellent pilots in full control. A plane out of control and out of fuel would be unlikely to stay in one piece I'd say.

A Panam did it in the Pacific in the mid-fifties with no casualties.

murphaph

feargale wrote: »

A Panam did it in the Pacific in the mid-fifties with no casualties.

With under wing engines on nacelles?

KoolKid

smurfjed wrote: »

Why do you think that it would be out of control?

If not we are back to conceding someone was flying it and in control of the aircraft.

smurfjed

The PAN AM flight was a Boeing 377 Stratocruiser enroute to Hawaii.

8:15 a.m. From Pontchartrain: The plane has ditched. It broke in half on contact.
8:21 a.m. From Pontchartrain: The plane has ditched. Have four rafts in water. Many survivors apparent. Have two rescue boats in water. All possible rescue gear. The plane broke off at the tail.
8:43 a.m. From Pontchartrain: The bow stove in on ditching. Tail sank almost immediately. The plane sank in about 21 minutes.

As the aircraft was able to ditch beside a Coast Guard ship, there is a video of the event.

smurfjed

conceding someone was flying it and in control of the aircraft.

I believe this to be the case, I just have no clue as to the reason why!

Whispered

Thanks for that video. Probably a silly question but why was the decision made to fly around until morning then land on water? Were they too far from land?

JohnK

Whispered wrote: »

Thanks for that video. Probably a silly question but why was the decision made to fly around until morning then land on water? Were they too far from land?

On Wikipedia it says that due to drag from faulty engines they didn't have enough fuel to reach San Francisco or to return to Honolulu so looks like they had no choice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_6