New clues reveal the demise of MH370. Since the crash of MH370 in the Indian Ocean a considerable amount of physical evidence has been gathered. 36 pieces of floating debris have been found and delivered to the Malaysian authorities for investigation. Official reports are still awaited for 3 items. 19 items of floating debris probably originating from MH370 have been found washed ashore in Madagascar, which is situated in the Indian Ocean at the latitudes where the South Equatorial Current interacts with the island.
Now another item of floating debris has been discovered in a fisherman’s back yard which was found washed ashore on the Antsiraka Peninsula South Beach in Madagascar in March 2017 after the tropical storm Fernando had passed by. The debris item had barnacles on it when it was found. 4 items of MH370 debris have been found on the same beach. The location was predicted by the University of Western Australia (UWA) oceanographic model.
The debris item is likely the remnant of the left main landing gear trunnion door. The debris item is almost certain to be from MH370 and is similar to other items of floating debris found in the Western Indian Ocean and subsequently shown to be from a Boeing 777 or more specifically from the Boeing 777-200ER aircraft with the registration 9M-MRO used for the flight number MH370.
The debris item was torn from its fixings and has suffered considerable damage. The possibility that there is an indent typical of the base plate of an attachment or drive rod indicates that the debris item is likely part of a movable panel. The slicing damage to the debris item penetrates right through the item and is the result of a significant force. Whatever the cause of the slicing damage, the fact that the damage was from the interior side to the exterior side of the debris item leads to the conclusion that the landing gear was highly likely extended on impact.
The level of damage with fractures on all sides and the extreme force of the penetration right through the debris item lead to the conclusion that the end of the flight was in a high speed dive designed to ensure the aircraft broke up into as many pieces as possible. The crash of MH370 was anything but a soft landing on the ocean. Expert analysis showed that the flaps were not partially extended as would be the case for a sea ditching. The realistic possibility that the landing gear was lowered shows both an active pilot and an attempt to ensure the plane sank as fast as possible after impact.
The combination of high speed impact and extended landing gear show a clear intent to hide the evidence of the crash. The recovered MH370 floating debris speaks to how the plane crashed, and the oceanographic drift analysis speaks to where. Neither can tell us who was flying the aircraft or why. It is hoped that the debris item will undergo a professional examination and analysis leading to an identification and provenance of the item.
A full report by Blaine Gibson and Richard Godfrey can be downloaded at the following link (35 pages, 100 MB): here
21st December 2022 – A major update to the report answering the many questions we have received, with the use of high resolution photos, can be downloaded at the following link (14 pages, 113 MB): here
A new article by Geoffrey Thomas on the debris find:
Commenting on the new paper, Peter Foley the former ATSB MH370 project manager stated: “This may well be different as it may tell us the position of the landing gear. Very important as it may significantly add to the understanding of what happened at the end.”
Here is an article in The Times written by Bernard Lagan:
Flight MH370 landing gear suggests ‘criminal intent’ by pilot in crash.
A damaged door is the first evidence suggesting pilot deliberately downed Malaysian Airlines jet
Bernard Lagan, Sydney
Monday December 12 2022, 9.30am GMT, The Times
A pilot on the lost flight MH370 lowered the doomed Boeing 777’s landing gear in the last seconds of flight, suggesting a possible criminal intent behind one of the world’s greatest aviation mysteries.
Damage to a landing gear door from the Malaysian Airlines aircraft, found in the possession of a Madagascan fisherman 25 days ago, is the first physical evidence to suggest one of the pilots deliberately acted to quickly destroy and sink the jet with 239 people aboard.
Identified as a Boeing 777 landing gear component — known as a trunnion door — the wreckage has most likely been penetrated from the inside by the aircraft’s disintegrating engines, making it highly probable the landing gear was down when the aircraft crashed into the southern Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014.
The finding of the crucial piece of wreckage has not been announced until today, but has prompted calls for an urgent further investigation into the fate of the 12 Malaysian crew members and 227 passengers from 14 different nations who are presumed to have died.
The new analysis, by Richard Godfrey, a British engineer, and Blaine Gibson, an American MH370 wreckage hunter, suggests the airliner was crashed quickly and deliberately.
Pilots are trained to perform emergency landings on water but these are normally conducted with flaps lowered and landing gear retracted for a controlled, low speed ditching — as achieved by Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, the US airline captain, when he successfully landed his stricken Airbus on New York’s Hudson River in 2009.
The flaps on flight MH370 are thought not to have been retracted to slow the aircraft and extending the landing gear would have caused the immediate break up of the fuselage once the Boeing hit the Indian Ocean at high speed. Deploying the landing gear would also increase the chances of an airliner sinking quickly, limiting the time for any survivors to evacuate.
“The combination of the high speed impact designed to break up the aircraft and the extended landing gear designed to sink the aircraft as fast as possible both show a clear intent to hide the evidence of the crash,” the researchers write.
There has long been speculation over why the flight mysteriously reversed course and later vanished over the Southern Indian Ocean after taking off from Kuala Lumpur on a less than seven-hour flight to Beijing.
The experienced pilot in command was Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 53, from Penang, and his co-pilot Fariq Abdul Hamid, 27, who had joined Malaysian Airlines seven years earlier. Shah was married with three grown-up children, but some previous reports have suggested he may have suffered from clinical depression.
Shah was known to have been disenchanted with Najib Razak, Malaysia’s prime minister at the time, calling him a “moron” in a social media post.
Shah urged his followers: “There is a rebel in each and every one of us. Let it out!”
After MH370 disappeared a Malaysian police investigation discovered that he had used his home computer flight simulator to replicate a Boeing 777 flight south across the Indian Ocean less than a month before his plane vanished under uncannily similar circumstances. The revelation was withheld by Malaysia from a lengthy public report on the investigation.
Gibson, a former lawyer who has recovered many of the 36 pieces of MH370 found around Indian Ocean shores, was handed the landing gear door last month on the Antsiraka Peninsula in Madagascar by a fisherman named Tataly.
Nineteen of the pieces of MH370 wreckage recovered so far have been found washed ashore in Madagascar and handed in to the authorities.
The latest find is the damaged rectangular landing gear door, measuring 32 inches by 28 inches, which appears to match that used on Boeing 777 aircraft and is made of a carbon fibre reinforced plastic with a honeycomb — similar to other wing components that have been found to be from MH370.
The fisherman was unaware of the item’s significance. His wife had used it as a washing board since he found it on a beach close to his home in 2017, three years after MH370 disappeared.
The analysis released by Godfrey and Gibson today says: “Tataly did not know what it was, and (he) just said it came from the sea. His wife used it as a washing board.”
Crucial to Godfrey’s and Gibson’s conclusions are four nearly parallel, extremely forceful penetration slices from the inside side to the outside of the door, which they believe were caused by one of the aircraft’s two engines disintegrating on impact.
Large jet engines, including those on a Boeing 777 , comprise three sections: a fan at the front, a compressor and a turbine at the rear. Their report said that a Boeing 777 engine compressor blade ring with a set of damaged blades of up to 4 inches in width matches the 4 inch penetration slashes observed in the landing gear door.
“Whatever the cause of the slicing damage, the fact that the damage was from the interior side to the exterior side of the debris item leads to the conclusion that the landing gear was highly likely extended on impact, which in turn supports the conclusion that there was an active pilot until the end of the flight,” Godfrey and Gibson conclude.
Peter Foley, appointed by the Australian government to lead the unsuccessful underwater search for MH370 from late 2014 to mid 2015, said that while he was impressed with the analysis, he hoped that Boeing and the Malaysian and Australian governments would quickly act to verify it.
“My thoughts at this point is to make that happen and happen pretty bloody quickly,” Foley told The Times.
Godfrey, who has pioneered alternative methods of flight tracking technologies to help locate MH370, told The Times that the landing gear door was “the first item of physical evidence that indicates a possible criminal intent behind the demise of MH370”.
There have long been two competing theories to explain why MH370 mysteriously reversed course and later vanished.
The first, favoured early in the search for the aircraft, was a catastrophic event on board — such as a cockpit fire — that led to the incapacitation of the pilots and for the plane to fly uncommanded on auto-pilot before it ran out of fuel and crashed.
The second theory centred on a rogue pilot who deliberately caused the aircraft and all aboard to vanish. Under this theory, most suspicion falls on the flight’s captain, Shah, who it is claimed might have ordered his junior colleague to check something in the cabin, then locked him out of the cockpit, and possibly depressurised the aircraft, depriving others of oxygen.
A third underwater search for the aircraft on a “no find, no fee” basis has been mooted for next year by a US-based deep sea search firm, Ocean Infinity, but will require the Malaysian government to first agree to payment if the aircraft is found.
What I want to know is, did the fisherman’s wife get a new washing board? Least you could do in the circumstances, surely?
Welcome to the blog!
Tataly and his wife have complete understanding for the importance of solving a mystery involving the deaths of 239 people.
But since you are worried about their washboard, they already have a new one.
Pls don’t accuse anyone who’s innocent til proven guilty and who’s unable to defend himself.
And from the debris, you just can’t theorize that the gear was lowered, or it was lowered so that the plane would “crash faster” and “sink faster”.
And the four holes on the door debris can’t possibly be from the engines at the wings, which are too far from the doors. An impact with soft sea water couldnt have blown the engine apart and fling them to the doors. Furthermore, when the doors are opened or even closed, their interior is shielded form flying parts by the wheels gear, but the exterior is exposed. The holes do look as if pierced from exterior to interior, not vice versa.
And holes could have been made by shrapnels, like from an explosive item.
The report was published in The Times on 13th December 2022:
The ATSB has sent the report to Boeing asking if they can identify the debris item from the photos in the report, according to Peter Foley the former ATSB MH370 search manager.
This has not been confirmed by the ATSB.
Thank you Richard for all your consistent work. This post has become another sreach hot trend in China and that’s why I’m here. The techniques you mentioned are very inspiring and I do hope the mystery will be solved soon. All the best.
Welcome to the blog and for the kind words of support!
The new DEBRIS only from LEFT WING underside next to engine,a bottom wing cover,tore from the sandwich layer in a hit on hill in Sumatra Indonesia under spiralling.
There is a major flaw in this newest report. A high speed impact with the flaps retracted would most certainly lead to major damage to the leading edge of the outboard flap and flaperon. The inboard segment of the right hand outboard flap found earlier and verified to have come from MH370 showed no significant damage to the leading edge. A high speed impact would cause the flap to be pushed forward into the wing trailing edge. There is a spoiler actuator within inches of the leading edge that would easily rip through the fiberglass/nomex leading edge of the flap.
There are other components in the trailing edge cavity that would also cause damage to the flap leading edge.
In my opinion, it is impossible the flaps were retracted during a high speed impact.
The flaperon had some damage to it’s fiberglass/nomex leading edge, but not significant damage that would be evident from being forced forward into the wing trailing edge cavity, caused by the rapid deceleration of the wing on impact at high speed.
The actuator fittings on the front of the flaperon failed in tension or shear, not compression, further evidence the wing did not see a high speed impact.
The evidence collected from the outboard flap and flaperon are consistent with a low speed ditching with the flaps extended. Fractures on the flap support fitting and the flaperon hinge fittings are consistent with an aft impact on the lower surfaces of these two components. The trailing edges of these two components were torn off as would be expected in a ditching.
The only evidence that suggests the flaps were retracted is some damage to the inboard end of the flap (called the seal pan), that is coincident with a fitting on the flaperon in the cruise position. Airplane crashes are very dynamic events, with parts failing in a sequence, possibly only milliseconds apart. It’s hard for me to imagine a loading sequence that fractured the outboard flap at the #7 support causing it to move inboard at the same time the flaperon stayed in it’s cruise position to cause the small damage to the seal pan.
But I can imaging a sequence where the flaps and flaperon were extended and the flaperon fittings failed slightly before the outboard flap causing the flaperon to contact the seal pan and causing the slight damage.
I have heard of another theory the airplane was in the flat low speed fall with the flaps in the cruise position when it hit the water. This could explain the fracture surfaces on the flap and flaperon supports, but it does not support the lack of damage to the flap leading edge.
I don’t have an opinion of whether the MLG was up or down. But I am certain the airplane did not impact the water at high speed.
A side note here, the MLG is fused, such that an impact with an object on the ground will tear the gear away without major structural damage to the wing or fuselage. A commercial pilot should be aware of this.
One last comment. I do not believe the part found is the trunion door. From the photos there appears to be carbon tape on the inner surface at more than one orientation. This is inconsistent with the trunion door design. The rougher zones of paint are probably teflon filled enamel which is typically used where a seal or other surface rubs on the paint. Nothing contacts the outer surface of the trunion door. This is pure speculation as I have not seen this part.
My opinion is based on my experiences as the Senior Design Lead for high lift and control surfaces on the 777 before my retirement from Boeing. I was the expert Boeing sent to France to help positively identify the right hand flaperon.
If the flaps were extended as I suspect, it would also indicate someone was at the controls near the end of the flight.
For those interested here are two pictures with 12 megapixels (3,024 x 4,032 pixels):
White Side (off white):
Black Side (with honeycomb):
Hi Richard I’m a new MH370 follower I’ve been interested in the dispparance ever since it happened and been hoping to finally have a conclusive evidence as to the fate of the missing aircraft it seems ever since day 1 people have been speculating where MH370 could have gone despite evidence to the contrary beyond IGARI people have questioned the evidence Malaysia has since it doesn’t tell us much yes it was said the plane went off course for some reason and ended in the Indian Ocean based on what they call “pings” from what they call the SDU of the aircraft since it is the main evidence that states such action took place along with drift analysis even with debris found there’s still debate on what happened towards the end of flight I’m concerned if debris may not necessarily be reliable to give us a definite answer as to what occurred why would people rely on methods such as drift studies that is subjected to a fair amount of uncertainty it’s pretty clear even with the latest debris found that the mystery remains inconclusive despite physical evidence at hand it would be impossible to know for certain if there was a controlled flight or uncontrolled dive into the sea all it tells us is that the aircraft did indeed impact the water but whether everything came off by full force with the ocean or the parts coming off the plane prior to impact is to be determined plus we don’t know if the part that was found is indeed from a Boeing 777 it seems unwise to come to a premature conclusion based on what would appear to be an aircraft part without full examination.
Welcome to the blog!
We have been analysing this new item for almost a month. Some analysts have complained that we waited too long to publish our report. Other analysts have complained that the report is premature or our conclusions are premature.
Many analysts agree with our conclusion: “The debris item is almost certain to be from MH370”
We state: “One component that fits these criteria is the Main Landing Gear Trunnion Door.” We do not state that this is the only component that fits the criteria.
We also state “It is hoped that the debris item will undergo a full and professional examination and analysis leading to an identification of the item and clarifying whether the provenance is from a Boeing 777-200 ER or even 9M-MRO and the MH370 flight in particular.”
We are cautious in the report and use the word “possible” 12 times and “likely” 10 times. We do not use the word definitely.
So far the BEA in Madagascar, the AAIB in Malaysia and the ATSB in Australia have not indicated that they want to take custody of the item. BEA Madagascar have indicated they do not want the item unless the AAIB or ATSB or BEA France agree to pay for the freight costs. The next of kin are trying to help liaise with the authorities, but up until now the AAIB in Malaysia have only said they want high resolution photos, which we have provided.
We conclude in our report: “The recovered 370 floating debris speaks to how the plane crashed, and the oceanographic drift analysis speaks to where. Neither can tell us who was flying the aircraft or why.”
If the plane was put in a high speed dive why would the pilot lower the landing gear? The plane was going to disintegrate on impact. Why extend landing gear to make it sink faster? The analysis is nonsensical.
Welcome to the blog!
Was the landing gear lowered?
Would lowering the landing gear accelerate the descent?
Listen to an expert on the subject of lowering the landing gear on a Boeing 747:
Captain Mike Glynn (former Qantas pilot) – “Awesome descent rate such an action eventually generated.”
Captain Andrew Banks (former Cathay Pacific pilot) – qualified the above statement saying “The gear down descent rate was related to a rapid descent procedure for the B747-400.”
In Andrew’s view a similar procedure for the B777 is “not so impressive.”
A similar technique is used by pilots when dropping fire retardant. Here is a picture of a MD-87 Erickson Aero Tanker on a gear down fire retardant drop run.
“One interesting aspect of the MD-87 tanker is under certain conditions, the aircraft is flown with the landing gear down during the retardant drop. This reduces airspeed while allowing higher engine RPMs, reducing lag on post-drop climb out- similar to a speed break. This is not unique to the MD-87 tankers though. Douglas DC-7s and some other large tanker-modified aircraft have done the same thing for many years. Occasionally only the main gear are extended with nose gear stowed.”
In my view MH370 was a high speed impact designed to break up the aircraft and ensure as much debris as possible sank directly after impact.
We have only found 37 items of possible floating debris and only years later, with a total weight of around 165 kg (0.09%) out of a total zero fuel weight of 9M-MRO of 174,369 kg.
I think the general location of MH370 is not in one area of focus. Analysis of satiliette images show unconfirmed debris floating, some as large as 25 meters in length. I don’t have any evidence for the claim I’m about to claim but I don’t feel like we’re dealing with a criminal case. Something went wrong with the 777 and the crew experienced hypoxia (Some have speculated MEC override vent). Hypoxia was evident through the following ATC transcript (speculation at best though):
12:50:09 MAS370 Flight level three five zero Malaysian Three Seven Zero
01:01:14 MAS370 Malaysian Three Seven Zero maintaining level three five zero
Then failure to repeat the frequency to ATC involving the handover
We can speculate that the hypoxia theory can be true; the ghost flight scenario seems more likely now. MH370 ran out of fuel and the dive began with the 777’s aircraft breaking apart. Had the airplane slammed into the water, then why is that we have no small fragments of debris?
Areas between (Godfrey probable location) and 35°36’00.0″S 92°48’00.0″E
in addition to 44°57″ 30″ S
need to be searched as debris satiliette images show debris in this ranges.
You say that “the ghost flight scenario seems more likely now”. But a Boeing 777 cannot change altitude to another flight level in the cruise without an active pilot.
You say “Had the airplane slammed into the water, then why is that we have no small fragments of debris?” But we have recovered and handed in a large number of small fragments of debris. 19 items of debris are less than 50 cm (19.7″) long. The smallest is 10.2 cm (4.0″) long.
Welcome to the blog!
Your opinion that the flaps were extended on impact is in complete contradiction to the official debris report by the ATSB dated 2nd November 2016 who confirm that the flaps were retracted.
“The trailing edge outboard wing flaps form part of the aircraft’s high-lift control system and are deployed to alter the shape of the aircraft wing, improving lift at lower aircraft speeds during takeoff, approach and landing. The outboard wing flaps have defined stages of flap deployment between ‘up’ (retracted / cruise position) and 30-units of extension (landing position).”
“A fibreglass and aluminium seal pan is located at the inboard end of the outboard flap. It houses the inboard auxiliary support, comprising a deflection control track (support track) and carriage assembly. The support track is affixed to the rear of the wing. Using rollers in the carriage assembly, the inboard end of the flap is guided along the support track as the flap moves through its deflection range. The track is fully inserted into the flap in the ‘up’ position and progressively withdrawn from the flap as the flaps are deployed. The inboard auxiliary support track and carriage assembly were not present with the recovered debris.”
“Two adjacent aluminium stiffeners within the inboard seal pan area exhibited impact damage. The damage was significant because it was indicative of impact damage and the only component in the vicinity of the stiffeners, capable of independent movement within the seal pan, was the support track. Measurements of the support track position at the various stages of flap deployment, indicated that the track would have to be fully inserted into the flap in the retracted position to be adjacent to the damaged stiffeners.”
“An outwards-fracture of the fibreglass seal pan initiated at a location adjacent to the damaged aluminium stiffeners. The damage was most likely also caused by impact from the support track. That damage provided further evidence of the support track position within the flap seal pan cavity, indicating that the flaps were retracted at the point of fracture and separation from the wing.”
“The flap seal pan was also fractured adjacent to the rear spar. The fracture resulted from external impact, puncturing the fibreglass and plastically deforming the supporting aluminium structure within the seal pan cavity. Comparable damage was noted at the outboard, rear spar and surrounding structure of the adjacent flaperon. It was noted that the two areas in question are aligned when the flaps are in the retracted position, with a significant offset existing at other stages of flap extension.”
“Damage to the internal seal pan components at the inboard end of the outboard flap was possible with the auxiliary support track fully inserted into the flap. That damage was consistent with contact between the support track and flap, with the flap in the retracted position. The possibility of the damage originating from a more complex failure sequence, commencing with the flaps extended, was considered much less likely.”
“With the flap in the retracted position, alignment of the flap and flaperon rear spar lines, along with the close proximity of the two parts, indicated a probable relationship between two areas of damage around the rear spars of the parts. This was consistent with contact between the two parts during the aircraft breakup sequence, indicating that the flaperon was probably aligned with the flap, at or close to the neutral (faired) position.”
“Numerous other discrete areas of flap damage were analysed. Some of the damage was consistent with the flaps in the retracted position, while other areas did not provide any useful indication of the likely flap position.”
“It was therefore concluded that:
The right outboard flap was most likely in the retracted position at the time it separated from the wing.
The right flaperon was probably at, or close to, the neutral position at the time it separated from the wing.”
In addition, all the 15 wing debris items listed in Table 1 in our report suffered significant fracture damage.
You state “I do not believe the part found is the trunion (sic!) door.
In the report we show:
(1) The indent of a single base plate for a fixing attachment of a movable part.
(2) The remnants of a door latch or hinge fitting for a movable and closing part.
(3) The location in the vicinity of the engine to experience such slicing damage.
(4) The remnants of an adhesive fixing band for a back cover plate.
(5) The trapezoid structure which matches the trunnion door shape.
(6) The clearly delineated smooth and rough surfaces adjacent to each other designed for drag reduction when the landing gear is lowered.
One component that fits these criteria is the Main Landing Gear Trunnion Door.
The first question would be: re: flaps, does Boeing agree with the ATSB report? The second question would be, does Boeing agree with IG analysis saying the parts came off in a mid-air dive due to structural failure at near-sonic descent speeds?
It is interesting because this is not the first time Mr. Bry has voiced his opinion in an MH370 blog. His first such post, several years ago, was met with disagreement and my understanding is that Mr. Bry got a briefing of the preferred narrative at that time, in a private follow-up discussion. This is the first evidence I have that Mr. Bry was not convinced he was wrong back then.
Overall the issue is we cannot seem to get crash investigators, like Boeing and Larry Vance, to consider the other debris, which many of us interpret as contradictory to the flaperon water contact/ditch theory. I am open on it. I see that MH370 could have been at lower altitude with fuel, contrary to the assumptions many favor.
Finding more new parts could help, but we are still missing a concerted effort by a “blue ribbon” forensic team including Boeing /NTSB/ATSB/etc to help interpret the crash. We are missing that because Malaysia is apparently not interested in pursuing that.
(corrected from “Bly” to “Bry” 18th November 2022 at the request of the author)
I’ll assume you are addressing my comments, Curt Bry, not Bly.
Let me be very clear. My opinions are my own. They are not connected to Boeing in any way at this time.
I do remember the follow-up discussions about the preferred theory on flap position, and a probable very low forward speed impact similar to a flat spin being a possible explanation for the damage on the flap and flaperon with flaps being up when the airplane hit the water. I will admit, it’s possible there could be the right combination of forward speed and vertical speed that applied loads to the lower surface of the outboard flap, sufficient to fracture the flap supports and with sufficient drag to move the flap aft just enough to clear the spoiler actuator.
I also remember trying to rationalize the loading on the flaperon sufficient to cause the failures seen on the flaperon hinge fittings and actuator fittings.
At the time, I was unable to obtain any help from within Boeing to try and prove or dispel any of these failure scenarios. Then Covid happened.
My current opinion is open, but I have always leaned toward the flaps being extended to some degree. Maybe not flaps 30, maybe a takeoff detent. It makes the failures of the primary fittings much easier to explain along with the lack of damage to the leading edge.
I am amazed by the analysis used to predict the path, speed, and final resting place of the airplane, but frankly, I do not know what theories to place my confidence in. Hat’s off to those of you who have invested thousands of hours putting the pieces together. But I keep coming back to the basic mechanical evidence I have seen. And I am sorry, I cannot shut the door on flaps extended.
The Boeing crash investigation team runs the show within Boeing. They are very aware of the hierarchies involved in these investigations and follow the rules explicitly. I would hope that Boeing has provided the right persons to do the right analysis based on a thorough examination of the parts found, when asked to do so. They have no obligation to involve me, or to keep me informed.
As an example, while still working at Boeing, I was sent to France to examine the newly found right hand flaperon. A French magistrate was in charge and the first day we spent a fair amount of time going over the rules. Most of us there were not even allowed to touch the part or to take pictures. He was the authority at that time because it was considered a criminal investigation. I was there to help positively link the flaperon to the airplane, that was my value to the investigation. I was allowed to make sketches of the damage to the fittings. But I was not asked to help determine failure modes.
In my report to the Crash investigation team I gave my opinions about possible failure modes after discussing my sketches with one of our top metallurgists. He concurred with my assumptions on the possible failure modes. After submitting that report, I was not asked to participate in any way, until the inboard end of the flap washed up on the beach.
My point, Boeing needs to be asked to participate by whoever is in authority.
I too wish that someone, would want the help, and ask for it, and get it.
Please let me know if you would you like me to correct your comment as follows:
Curt Bry and not Curt “Bly” as you stated.
First, let me state, my main reason for commenting was to dispel the high speed impact theory. It was not to suggest a 100 percent confidence in my opinion the flaps were extended during impact. At this point, only the airplane knows the answer to that question.
I understand the evidence within the seal pan suggests the flaps were retracted. I did not get to examine the parts in question. But I believe the internal damage could be explained with the flaps extended to some position, perhaps not full landing flaps.
In normal flight, the up and aft loads on the inboard end of the outboard flap with flaps extended causes the carriage to roll forward on the track. My assumption is, with flaps extended, contact with the water during ditching would produce a force on the underside of the flap which would also cause the carriage to roll forward until the track support link at the rear spar failed, allowing the flap to deflect higher with the carriage continuing to roll forward on the track. The partially detached track could easily contact the ribs and stiffeners inside the seal pan causing the damage. I would love to see details of the damage to the stiffener free flanges. Were they bent forward or aft? If bent aft, it might suggest the flap was extended and was moving forward with respect to the track and the back of the track contacted the stiffeners bending them aft. If the flanges are bent forward, it could support the theory the flaps were up at time of impact and the track was in effect dragged forward out of the flap.
The external damage to the seal pan could have been caused by other items, or could have been caused by the flaperon, but at what point in the breakup sequence?
So you have some evidence the flaps were up. But I have seen no rational explanation for the lack of damage to the leading edge of the flap. And the fractures on the support fittings for the flaperon and the flap are consistent with flaps extended, but could also possibly be explained by a very low forward speed impact with the water with flaps retracted.
Has anyone tried to do a 3D failure sequence simulation? Unfortunately it would take an intimate knowledge of the stress notes on all the affected parts, and that information is probably not available.
My conclusion, it’s too early to conclude the flaps were up. Do not limit the investigation to scenarios where the flaps are assumed up.
With respect to the part, time will tell if it’s the trunnion door. It needs to be examined by someone with access to the drawings. Hopefully someone will accept the part for examination, or at least compare the pictures to drawings.
There are two hinges on the door, one being slaved off the MLG trunnion. They are located near the outboard side of the door but are significant in size and are attached with fasteners through hard points in the honeycomb. I see no evidence of these bolt locations in the pictures. I do not remember anything being attached with adhesive to the upper surface of the part. And I cannot explain the rough paint, there is no need for drag reduction with the MLG extended, and this type of technology was not used on these parts at the time this airplane was built.
We have been contacted by a number of people who have been officially involved with the search from the AAIB, ATSB and Boeing, but all are meanwhile retired.
From those currently in office with a responsibility for the investigation into MH370, we have so far had only one official response, which was simply thanking us for sending in our report. That response came from the ATSB.
We have notified BEA Madagascar, AAIB Malaysia, ATSB Australia, BEA France and Boeing.
Many thanks for entering into a constructive dialogue on the analysis of this recently discovered debris item. Your years long experience at Boeing and expert advice are very welcome.
Most analysts are agreed that this “new” debris item is almost certainly from MH370 as stated in our report. Although there are no markings with part number or serial number, it may be possible to analyse the paint and coatings to help with identification.
You say your “main reason for commenting was to dispel the high speed impact theory.”
In our view there was a high speed impact for two key reasons:
(1) MH370 floating debris has been found from all parts of the aircraft, both interior and exterior. There are pieces from the cabin dividers, flooring, seat back video trim, nose wheel landing gear door, tail horizontal and vertical stabilisers, wing flaps, flaperons, spoilers, fairings, engine cowling and nameplate. In summary from every part of the aircraft. All these pieces show the full range of damage from cuts, tears, pitting, delamination, cracks and fractures. Many items have been analysed by the AAIB Malaysia, ATSB Australia or BEA France and the official reports all show these items have suffered considerable damage.
(2) The official DSTG report by Ian Holland in 2018 analysed the Inmarsat satellite BFO data and concluded that there was a descent of at least 14,800 fpm and possibly much greater. The acceleration in the 8 seconds between the last two satellite messages was approximately 0.68g.
You conclude it is too early to say whether the flaps were extended. The ATSB conclude that the flaps were not extended. We disagree with you and accept the ATSB conclusion.
We gave above 6 criteria and state one component that fits these criteria is the main landing gear trunnion door. We do not say that is the only component. We have an open mind for alternative provenance of the debris item. Most analysts agree that it is a wing component. The debris item is fractured on all sides, so the evidence of “these bolt locations” you are looking for may have been torn away.
You cannot explain the rough paint and state “this type of technology was not used on these parts at the time this airplane was built.”, but was this type of technology subsequently applied by Malaysian Airlines. Many airlines are adopting this technology.
The picture in the link below of the MH370 Outboard Flap debris item shows a clearly delineated area with a different surface texture marked in red:
The picture in the link below shows a Boeing 777 inboard flap, flaperon and outboard flap extended. It also shows a clearly delineated area on the outboard flap with a different surface texture:
There is a definite taper of the smooth surface on the white side of the debris item revealed by the new high resolution photo:
Here is the same picture with the taper highlighted in red:
There is no taper to be seen on either the pictures shown below.
The picture in the link below of the MH370 Outboard Flap debris item upper side shows a clearly delineated area with a different surface texture marked in red:
The picture in the link below shows a Boeing 777 inboard flap, flaperon and outboard flap extended. It also shows a clearly delineated area on the outboard flap upper side with a different surface texture:
I can say with 100 percent confidence, the rough area on the upper surface of the outboard flap, inboard flap, and flaperon are Teflon filled enamel. It is applied to the areas of the flaps where the aft edge of the spoilers and fixed trailing edge panels contact the flaps to reduce friction and wear.
The available Teflon filled enamel at the beginning of the 777 program was rougher and less glossy than the regular enamel.
At some point in the program a newer version of the Teflon filled enamel was certified. It had a much smoother and glossier surface, making it almost impossible to tell the difference between it and the regular enamel. I do not remember when it was certified, but it was not universally applied by all assembly suppliers at the same time. I would expect all components used the smoother type late in the program, so it would be harder to see these areas on late model flaps. But it is still there. And I would add, most customers must reapply the teflon filled enamel on a regular basis to prevent wear to the composite surfaces. This is especially true on high friction surfaces like the upper surface of the flaperon. There is nothing to prevent an airline from using the older rougher type of teflon filled enamel. They may prefer it. The newer type takes a little more breaking in to release the teflon particles from within the paint. It can be “sticky” initially.
If you look closely at the pictures, you will see the rough areas line up with the fixed trailing edge and spoiler contact areas. On the lower surface of these components the teflon filled enamel will also be present anywhere the flaps contact the seals on the fixed trailing edge or the fairing seals. In some cases, the teflon filled enamel wraps around the leading edge from top to bottom to reduce the possibility of paint masking ridges in critical flow areas.
I would also like to point out, ditchings are often not successful. From the video taken during the initial search of the area, it’s a rough sea, and the airframe could have seen significant damage during ditching releasing some of the other parts found. This could help explain the lack of a large debris field.
A new flaperon has a smooth surface. I would expect a new inboard or outboard flap to be the same. Any rough surface will be a coating applied after manufacture.
As mentioned in our paper, Lufthansa Airlines have developed a coating together with BASF in Germany, which can be applied to the aircraft surface structure, consisting of riblets measuring around 50 micrometers imitating the properties of sharkskin and therefore optimising the aerodynamics on flow-related parts of the aircraft.
Just an afterthought here. I would hope, any coating applied to the wings or tail of a commercial jet would require certification. Anyone (airline) attempting to apply a rougher paint anywhere near the leading edges of a flap is playing a dangerous game. Even a small ridge .010 inch high has been shown to drastically change lift on a deployed flap by tripping the boundary layer. This can also drastically change loads on the surfaces and supports.
The Teflon filled enamel locations on all the control and high lift surfaces on the 777 are strictly controlled by engineering drawings. All certified by flight test.
We respect that your opinions expressed here are your personal views and not those of Boeing. We value your personal opinion because you were the Senior Design Lead for high lift and control surfaces on the 777 before your retirement from Boeing and the expert Boeing sent to France to help positively identify the right hand flaperon.
We have been informed that the ATSB in Australia has sent our report to Boeing and asked for their help in the identification of the debris item.
We are also supporting efforts by the next of kin to ensure the repatriation of the debris item to AAIB Malaysia or any other competent authority involved officially in the investigation.
You state: “My current opinion is open, but I have always leaned toward the flaps being extended to some degree.”
I fully respect your position and we are likewise keeping an open mind as to the provenance of the debris item and the implications of the official analysis. In our report we use words such as “possibly” and “likely”. We do not use the word “definitely”, but we have been misquoted by other analysts and the media as saying “definitely”.
You state: “I am amazed by the analysis used to predict the path, speed, and final resting place of the airplane, but frankly, I do not know what theories to place my confidence in.”
I respect your view, especially with regard to new technology such as WSPR. We are preparing a new paper on the WSPR technology to help build confidence in the theory. Prof. Simon Maskell will be joining as a co-author together with Dr. Hannes Coetzee and myself. The data from the new case study (a Boeing 777 crossing the Indian Ocean) will be sent to Prof. Simon Maskell’s team for independent reproduction of the results and independent verification of the findings.
I look forward to hear what Boeing, the ATSB or the AAIB say in their various reports in due course.
I look forward to Ocean Infinity finding the wreckage of MH370 and this mystery being solved.
A new article by Geoffrey Thomas of airlineratings.com has been published titled: “Critical Piece of MH370 Debris Used as Washing Board”.
In our debris report we use words such as “possible”, “likely,” and the phrase “cannot tell us.” Critics attack the report with words such as “definitely,” and “garbage,” which we do not use at all. Some critics make personal attacks against me, Richard, the fisherman and his wife, using words not worth mentioning here.
Some critics even claim the debris is not from certain parts of the plane because it is not grey enough. Grey paint dissolves, peels, fades in salt water and sun, and debris turns offwhite. We have seen that on many other pieces of 370 debris that were in the ocean for just two years, and they know that. The fisherman’s debris was in the ocean for three years, then five years outside in the sun and salt air, and used some of that time as a washing board with all the soap and chemicals such as bleach that entails.
The last sentence of the conclusion of the report says:
“The recovered 370 floating debris speaks to how the plane crashed, and the oceanographic drift analysis speaks to where. Neither can tell us who was flying the aircraft or why.”
Nowhere does the report say or imply the captain or copilot were flying. I have never been convinced nor believed that Captain Shah premeditated and executed a mass murder suicide, and that remains my personal opinion to this day. We need to find the 370 crash site and recover the underwater wreckage, cargo, and black boxes, and hopefully then we will know what happened and by whom.
I personally have every doubt that determining the actual location of the debris at the time of impact by using ocean currents is not generally reliable certain methods are not accurate enough to give any new positive developments why be so sure about using something that becomes inprecise over time I’m no expert in drift currents but I read that you can’t determine with unprecedented precision and certainty my real question is can you take into account other things that effect the movements of floating objects because debris confirms the plane did indeed crash but does not specify where and ocean currents cannot be used to accurately pinpoint a crash site.
You state: ” I’m no expert in drift currents but I read that you can’t determine with unprecedented precision and certainty my real question is can you take into account other things that effect the movements of floating objects because debris confirms the plane did indeed crash but does not specify where and ocean currents cannot be used to accurately pinpoint a crash site.”
I have never seen anyone claim that a drift analysis has “unprecedented precision” or “certainty” or can “accurately pinpoint”.
There is large body of academic literature by Oceanographers that indicates a precision of 1° of latitude by 1° of longitude, based on the various models of the ocean that they use, is possible.
Some Oceanographers combine models and create a meta model. Models are based on satellite data. Models are based on drifter buoys. Models take into account the layers of the ocean at various depths, uprising and downrising. Models take into account wind direction and strength. Models take into account wave motion, wave height, wave trough length and wave direction. Models take into account ocean currents, eddies and meanders. Models take into account seasons, time of day, surface temperature, salinity and many other factors. Models take into account the windage of different floating debris items. Some models are so complex that they require a huge computing power to run.
There are a large number of academic reports on MH370 floating debris but the results vary depending on the ocean model used and the number of MH370 floating debris items considered. Not all MH370 studies use all of the 37 items that have meanwhile been handed in to the authorities and the location where, and time when, they were found. Some analyses use only one item of MH370 floating debris. The precision of these MH370 models is usually to the nearest 1° or at the most 0.5°.
There can be a large difference between the date of arrival, date of finding and date of reporting. Obviously a debris item found, photographed and reported with a large colony of barnacles will have a more accurate arrival date. Barnacles soon die off out of the water or are removed by scavengers.
In conclusion, drift analysis can be used to narrow down an area around the crash location. A drift analysis used in conjunction with data from other sources such as fuel range and endurance, aircraft speed and direction, wind speed and direction, air temperature at altitude, Inmarsat BTO and BFO satellite data, WSPRnet data, etc. will be even more accurate.
A new article on the Blaine Gibson and the latest debris find in The Times by Charles Bremner:
A major update to our report can be found at the following link (14 pages 113 MB):
The reason the update is so large, is because the document answers a number of questions we have been asked with the help of high resolution photos.
A new article by Geoffrey Thomas of airlineratings.com titled “Sensational MH370 Debris: Questions & Answers:
It’s clear the the true scenario at the end of flight is still inconclusive yes we have a piece of debris that is still yet to be verified if it came from MH370 or if it came from a plane at all I await full confirmation from Boeing it’s possible the plane ended uncontrolled according to the ATSB then there is this alternative explanation that the pilot or co pilot were conscious at the end of flight and tried to execute a controlled dive into the ocean the parts that have been found have provided us with very limited analysis that we can’t say for sure what happened and it remains nothing more then a mere hunch you have people that claim they know what happened and even where it is it can be anywhere in the Indian Ocean it’s possible that when we find the flight recorders an active pilot may not be the official cause.
The factual evidence from the the BFO data shows a high speed dive at the end of flight at over 15,000 feet per minute according to an official report by the DSTG and the ATSB.
The official debris analyses by the AAIB, ATSB and BEA show 37 items with major damage, fractures, punctures, tears and compression, which are as a result of a high speed impact.
One official provisional analysis by a competent authority on the new debris item, that I have seen states: “It is likely that the item is from MH370, although we cannot be certain due to the lack of identification plate. An analysis of the paint could give a clue to the origin.”
There are debris items from all parts of MH370, interior and exterior, cabin dividers and seat back trim, aircraft nose and tail, fuselage and wings and engines, which show a highly destructive impact.
Many of the debris items have been officially confirmed as coming from MH370 by competent authorities.
There has only ever been one Boeing 777 that crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean and many of the debris items have been officially confirmed as being from a Boeing 777.
The WSPR evidence shows clearly that there was an active pilot until the end, with turns and climbs and even a holding pattern.
You state that the crash location “is a mere hunch” and “it can be anywhere in the Indian Ocean” and “when we find the flight recorders an active pilot may not be the official cause.”
The Indian Ocean has a surface area of greater than 70 Million square kilometres!
Your statement is complete nonsense and you are in denial of the Boeing fuel range and endurance data, the ATSB official report with the confirmation that the crash occurred shortly after fuel exhaustion, the Inmarsat BTO data defining the 7th Arc shortly after fuel exhaustion and within seconds of the crash as well as the Inmarsat BFO data defining the speed of descent.
In addition the UWA drift analysis shows a crash location ± 1° of latitude and ±1° of longitude near the 7th Arc.
In addition the WSPR analysis shows an active pilot who performed climbs and turns and even a holding pattern.
The Boeing, ATSB, DSTG, Inmarsat, UWA and WSPR data all agree on the same location at around 30.57°S 98.75°E.
Please stick to the facts and the evidence and the data.
If (IF!) the trunnion door fixations visible on this picture :
are original and from a B-777 200 with same MLG that MH-370, how could the debris not showing some holes?
Anyway, happy New Year for all, hoping 2023 will show the wreckage!
As commented on 13th December 2022, our debris report has been sent to Boeing. Please allow Boeing time to answer in due course.
The first Boeing 777 had its inaugural flight in commercial service on 12th June 1994.
Meanwhile as of 30th November 2022: 2,141 Boeing 777 aircraft have been ordered and 1,698 delivered.
In the last 28 years there have been many different models, improvement packages and variants. Each customer has a multitude of different requirements and these are not just confined to engine type, cabin configuration and livery design.
There are major differences in the 6 basic models of the Boeing 777 in weight, length, wingspan and range. This has in turn resulted in differences in the main landing gear and the main landing gear doors.
A table showing the major differences can be viewed in the following link:
Flight MH370 was a Boeing 777-2H6ER registration 9M-MRO and line number 404.
The aircraft you pictured is a Boeing 777, but it is not obvious which specification.
The picture you reference was taken by David Kessler from Airlinercafe.com in 2012.
David Kessler has a large number of pictures of a number of different Boeing 777 aircraft, mostly from American Airlines including their aircraft 7AA, registration N770AN, line number 185, model B777-223ER and 7AH, registration N777AN, line number 218, model model B777-223ER, and 7BL, registration N752AN, line number 339, model B777-223ER, and AAL, registration N723AN, line number 1103, model B777-323ER, and from walk-arounds at aircraft shows, hangar maintenance and inspections as well as at various airports.
American Airlines has 47 B777-200’s and 20 B777-300’s and both you and I do not know the exact specifications of either any of those aircraft or of 9M-MRO line number 404. You qualify your comment with a big “IF” and rightly so. In our report we state “likely”, we do not use the word “definitely”.
However Boeing do know the exact specification of 9M-MRO line number 404 and I am sure they can inform the relevant authorities such as AAIB and ATSB in due course and hopefully this information will be included in an official report, which will be made public, just as other reports from the AAIB and ATSB have previously been made public.
Hopefully the debris item will soon be repatriated to AAIB Malaysia with the assistance of BEA Madagascar and the official analysis can begin.
There is a plethora of false statements being put out on the internet by so called experts about the recent debris item discovered by Blaine Gibson.
The facts are:
1. The underside of the fuselage on MH370 was painted grey, but the underside of the wing is NOT painted grey, but off white. To state that a Main Landing Gear Trunnion Door mounted on the underside of the wing of MH370 must be painted grey is false. It is painted off white on the exterior part.
2. There have been 28 items of panel debris handed in to the authorities for examination. The thickness of the composite materials ranges between 10 mm and 51 mm. Out of 28 debris items, 17 are 1” (25.4 mm) thick. To state that 1” composite is rare or non-existent on a B777 is false. The ATSB in their official report state that 1” thick composite materials are widely used for panels on the Boeing 777.
Here is an overview of the panel debris from MH370:
3. The debris item is likely from MH370 and one preliminary official report already confirms that likelihood. To state the debris item is from a yacht that wrecked in the Cargados Carajos Islands only 566 nmi distant is false. The debris item would only take 56 days to arrive in Madagascar from the Cargados Carajos Islands, but it actually arrived 839 days after the yacht wrecked.
Richard on 27 December 2022 at 14:37
The ATSB in their official report state that 1” thick composite materials are widely used for panels on the Boeing 777.
Would you please kindly provide the Report Reference, including page number.
Here is a short report on another debris item possibly from MH370 and found on Reunion Island by Johnny Bègue, the person who discovered the MH370 flaperon. The report was written with the help of Blaine Gibson and Geoffrey Thomas.
In our view this could possibly be aircraft debris from MH370. We do not know whether it is too late to hand it in to the Civil Aviation authorities in Reunion and be sent to France for analysis? We wonder how many other possible MH370 debris items have not been handed in or passed on to the relevant authorities or never officially been analysed by relevant experts or documented in an official report?
Can you figure out the found date and the exact found location of this debris, please?
Thank you and
The found date of the debris item recently in Madagascar was just after tropical storm Fernando passed by. The storm moved to a position off South East Madagascar on 14th March 2017 and dissipated on 15th March 2017. The found date is 17th March 2017 ±2 days.
The location of the find is pretty certain at 16.862289°S 49.726188°E, because the fisherman Tataly could walk Blaine there from his house near the beach and Blaine took a GPS reading.
The find date of the debris item in Reunion mentioned in the comment above was between 31st April 2016 and 3rd March 2016 as Johnny Bègue and his team clean the beach every day except Sunday.
The location was within a few hundred metres of 20.916180°S 55.649150°E where the flaperon was found.
Thank you Richard, for providing the debris information. Accurate debris data is essential for meaningful flow analysis. However, since the debris data on the official site http://www.mh370.gov.my are only informative and cannot be used for accurate flow analysis, I would suggest collecting the data (date and location of finding) of all debris found probably from MH370 and publishing them centrally. This can help future researchers get easy access to this information. The published page should include, in addition to the position and date of discovery, the finder and the probability of assignment to MH370 (if clearly assigned to MH370, the printed identification number (part, serial or assembly number)).
Tim Hickmott has analysed the recent debris item and concludes it is likely a remnant of the Outboard Flap.
I have written a short report on his findings:
There are a couple of questions still open with regard to the 4 almost parallel puncture damage slices right through the debris item and what appears to be the remnants of an adhesive band along one edge of the debris item, but we might be getting closer to an answer.
We are just keeping an open mind and investigating all alternatives.
The experts at Boeing will hopefully be able to give a definitive answer to the AAIB in Malaysia and the ATSB in Australia in due course.
The Boeing drawings of the Trunnion Door have not been publicly released and attempts to estimate the dimensions from photographs are ridiculous as the camera manufacturer, camera type, camera lens, shutter time, ISO setting, focal length, aperture and parallax error will all give you different results.
Sorry to contradict you, but attempts to estimate the trunnion door dimensions from photographs are NOT ridiculous. Perhaps approximate, but not ridiculous. And the impossibility that the debris was from the trunnion door don’t came from some millimeters but from some inches.
If you look at this picture : https://i.ibb.co/xLrf9yC/1334405-HL7700-B777-200-ER-line-number-403-cr-d-bris-arr-meas.jpg
even with a 25% error, the debris cannot be “inserted” between the large side (the “inferior”one when the MLG is deployed) and the attachments of the door: only less than 16” for at least 26!
You can verify the pic using:
– https://www.airplane-pictures.net/registration.php?p=HL7700 and https://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/1334405/hl7700-asiana-airlines-boeing-777-200er/ for the pic origin,
– https://www.airfleets.fr/ficheapp/plane-b777-30859.htm for the line number of the plane (403 vs 404 for MH-370, so same construction) for the plane number and model,
– https://rotablerepairs.com/boeing-777-200er.html for the size of the tire.
And the guy on the pic is probably not a Hobbit.
Open your eyes! Don’t spoil all the work you have done for the MH-370 in the past with such stubbornness.
@Mike Eichhorn, @All,
Mike proposed a central database of all debris finds including date, finder, location, identification and probability of assignment to aircraft used for flight MH370, which was a Boeing 777-2H6ER, registration 9M-MRO, serial number 28420 and production line number 404.
Here is a link to my current database of all debris finds and a copy of the source file in Excel format:
Please notify me on this website or by email to firstname.lastname@example.org of any errors you may find in the central MH370 debris database.
@ DWARAKANATHAN Shenbaganathan,
Welcome to the blog!
Do you have any photos of MH370 hitting the “hill in Sumatra Indonesia” that you can share please?
There are 36 variants of the Boeing 777 with 17 different maximum take off weights (MTOW). Here is a link to a table of the models and variants:
There are 7 different B777-200ER variants with 2 different MTOWs.
Each time there is a significant change in weight there are changes to the Main Landing Gear (MLG) assembly and to the 4 MLG doors.
To my knowledge the MLG doors have been redesigned 3 times.
As previously mentioned our report was sent by the ATSB to Boeing with an official request to help identify whether the part is from a Boeing 777 or 9M-MRO and the possible provenance of the part on the aircraft. I think it is prudent to await the Boeing analysis before making any definitive statements.
I believe the Boeing part number of the MLG Trunnion Door Assembly is 113T8301-29G and I am trying to get hold of the Boeing drawings to confirm or negate that belief.
I spoke to an expert with a master’s diploma in photography and the quote “ridiculous” was from the expert. Even Exner admits in his technical note: “The accuracy was limited primarily by the photo optics and angle.” You can only go so far counting pixels, it depends on the resolution of the photograph. The angle of the photograph will introduce a parallax error in any measurement. You do not know the camera lens, shutter speed setting, aperture setting and ISO setting used. You do not know the exact model and variant of the B777 in your cropped picture.
Your line number argument is a fallacy. The line number is simply the production line number and not an aircraft specification number. You can have two consecutive line numbers with completely different specifications.
We are keeping an open mind on the provenance of the recently discovered debris item. Please see my comment to @All regarding the Tim Hickmott analysis on 28th December 2022 at 21:39 CET. Tim has proposed the debris item is a remnant of a Centre Panel of the Outboard Flap Outboard Section. In my review, I stated: “Tim Hickmott may be right and the debris item could be the remnant of a centre panel on the outboard section of the outboard flap.” How does my consideration of an alternate provenance of the debris item lead you to the conclusion that I am being stubborn?
Your false accusation of “such stubbornness” and your demand “open your eyes!” are impolite and inappropriate. Please keep a civil tone in any future comments on this website. There is no need to resort to ad hominem arguments against me or a “Hobbit” to prove your point.
What is your view on the provenance of this newly discovered debris item?
Do you see any similarities in the materials used with the other 38 items of debris which have been found to date, many of which are either confirmed, almost certain, highly likely, likely or possibly from 9M-MRO?
How do you explain the 4 almost parallel puncture damage slices, that occurred to the debris item?
How do you explain the remnants of an adhesive band along one edge of the debris item?
Please focus on finding the provenance of the debris item instead of rudely focusing on trying to prove me wrong. I have been wrong before and I can be wrong again. The point is we need to find the wreckage of MH370 and the mystery of the aircraft’s disappearance in 2014 needs to be solved.
Please remember that aircraft manufacturers are continuously making improvements to thrust, drag, aircraft weight, speed and altitude capability. They are concerned about airport runway length, taxi times and noise abatement procedures. They want to increase engine efficiency, range, endurance, ETOPS limits, payload and seat capacity. They want to reduce operating costs, fuel usage, emissions and fouling.
The Boeing 777 has changed and will change all the time. Only the Boeing expertise and official analysis using the Boeing drawings and specifications will help provide a definitive statement. Meanwhile I will continue to be careful about making definitive statements and I suggest you do so as well.
Sorry if my post seems “impolite and inappropriate” to you. It was not written to look like that but only because I appreciate what you have already done to solve the MH-370 mystery and what SEEMS to me as an error is deceiving. Please, don’t take it “at the foot of the letter”.
You asked me “What is your view on the provenance of this newly discovered debris item?” I cannot solve this by myself: I am not an aeronautics specialist, have not seen the debris and have to “judge” by pictures and what I find on Internet. Two details look as if the debris was not from “important flying parts” of an aircraft (but perhaps from interior layout):
– The portion which seems stuffed with plastic (polyurethane?) foam on your figure 4 of your 12/21 update,
– Remains of what seems adhesive tape. Are there adhesive tape used in aeronautics for flying structure? It is too parallel to the edge to have been stuck down by the wife of the fisherman to use the debris, so it is part of the original construction. However, the punctures could (COULD) have been made with a knife (or a heavy kitchen tool) after the discovery: not sure the fisherman confessed this to Blaine.
You requested: “Would you please kindly provide the Report Reference, including page number.”
There are several reports, references and pictures. I also have a large picture archive from the various finders with photos including a ruler or measuring tape.
Here are a few official references:
1. Malaysian SIR – ATSB Report – Appendix 1.12M – 2nd July 2018 – Item 16
‘The honeycomb core was identified as Nomex with a thickness of 1.025 inches.’
2. Malaysian SIR – ATSB Debris Examination Report – Identification of Debris recovered from Madagascar in 2016, 2017 and 2018 – 30th December 2018 – Item 30
‘The part is possibly part of a cabin interior wall, galley, closet, or partition. Many lavatory and galley walls have similar construction and are about 1” thick.’
3. Malaysian SIR – ATSB Debris Examination Report – Identification of Debris recovered from Madagascar in 2016, 2017 and 2018 – 30th December 2018 – Item 32
‘It was constructed of laminate plies of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) with a non- metallic honeycomb core of 1 in. thick.’
For the record:
Item 16: The Malaysian Safety Investigation Team concluded that this “is a cabin interior panel” and “is almost certain from MH 370
(aircraft registered as 9M-MRO).
Item 30: “there is no conclusive evidence that this part could be from a MAS B777.”
Item 32: This was a small unidentifiable part which may have come from an aircraft cabin interior panel, “However, it was difficult to determine whether it could be from a B777 aircraft.”.
Previously, (on 27 December 2022 at 14:37)
The ATSB in their official report state that 1” thick composite materials are widely used for panels on the Boeing 777.
I must have misfiled the relevant report in which the ATSB made that statement.
Would you please send a link to a copy of that ATSB report.
Thanking you in advance.
Richard: Since you quoted me as follows:
“Even Exner admits in his technical note: “The accuracy was limited primarily by the photo optics and angle.”
…I trust you will allow me to clarify the statement.
Correcting for the camera angle and all other factors, the maximum error in our estimates is <10% in width and probably less that 5% error in the distance below the fasteners to the base.
BTW…The HL7700 photo (line #403) is exactly the same model as 9M-MRO (line #404) wrt landing gear. From the HL7700 photo, we get essentially the same dimensions Tom got from the overhead photo. The base is about 45"-47" and the distance below the fasteners (clear area from which the debris would have to originate if from the trunnion gear door) is only 15", plus or minus 1" max error. So, I think it is time to move on and figure out if the debris is from MH370, or a different source.
@Michael L Exner,
You are not welcome on this blog!
In my view, your statement about grey colour on the underside of the wing is false!
In my view, your statement about there are no 1” thick panels on a B777 is false!
In my view, your statement about the provenance of all MH370 debris is from a yacht is false!
In my view, your statement about the drift in 839 days from the Cargados Carajos Islands and NOT 56 days is false!
In my view, your statement about photo parallax error is false!
In addition, information that I and others have sent to you in the past in good faith as private & confidential has been made public by you without consent.
You are banned!
When I visited your site two years ago, the first time, I was happy to get the opportunity to present my research results about a possible crash position of MH370 and to discuss them with other group members.
I was thankful for providing the information about the date found and location of 33 items of debris probably from MH370 and also for the beneficial exchange of ideas with you. And all this, although you disagree with my possible crash position.
Everyone in this group has his favored crash position and scenario. A friend of mine compared my already sometimes obsessively insisting on my crash position with the mastermind game (for the younger group members: this was a famous board game in the ’70s, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastermind_(board_game) ). She asked me: What when you arrive at the last row, the shield will be removed, and the chosen pattern in the four holes does not match with your assumptions in the rows of code pegs before? This can happen if you hold on to a solution for too long and do not consider alternative solutions.
The search for MH370 requires experience in many research and engineering fields. Since (as far as I know) the official investigations are over, it is even more critical that everyone can express their opinion and discuss it with others.
I wish for 2023 that the discussion and the information exchange on your website could help to figure out the puzzle with MH370.
For the record:
Please see the link to my current database of all debris finds (previously published a number of times and once again as recently as yesterday. You will find the link just 7 comments above this one.):
You claim: “I must have misfiled the relevant report in which the ATSB made that statement.”
But you quote, in your comment above, three times from the two relevant reports! So it appears that you do have the relevant reports and you have not “misfiled” them.
You state: “Item 16: The Malaysian Safety Investigation Team concluded that this “is a cabin interior panel” and “is almost certain from MH 370 (aircraft registered as 9M-MRO).”
You fail to quote: “Item 16: The honeycomb core was identified as Nomex with a thickness of 1.025 inches.” I have it listed as “Almost Certain”.
Why do you think Victor Iannello states: “A retired Boeing engineer tells us that 1″ thick composite is rare or perhaps non-existent on the B777.”, when the official report on item 16 states “1.025 inches”?
You state: “Item 30: there is no conclusive evidence that this part could be from a MAS B777.”
You fail to quote: “Item 30: The part was approximately 14 in. by 11 in. It was constructed of laminate plies of Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) composite with non-metallic honeycomb core, approximately 1 in. thick. The part is possibly part of a cabin interior wall, galley, closet, or partition. Many lavatory and galley walls have similar construction and are about 1” thick.”
The item my not be part of a “MAS B777”, but part of a “B777” as many lavatory and galley walls have a similar construction and are about 1” thick. I have it listed as a “Possible”. The ATSB also note: “The location of where the piece of debris was found, considering that MH370 (aircraft registered as 9M-MRO) ended its flight in the South Indian Ocean, is consistent with the drift path modelling produced by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). This suggests that the part is likely from MH370 given that the likelihood of it originating from another source is quite remote.” The aircraft 9M-MRO is the only Boeing 777 to have crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean.
Why do you think Victor Iannello states: “A retired Boeing engineer tells us that 1″ thick composite is rare or perhaps non-existent on the B777.”, when the official report on item 30 states “approximately 1 in. thick” and “about 1” thick” or “the partitions on MAS B777 are mostly 1.3” thick”?
Item 32: This was a small unidentifiable part which may have come from an aircraft cabin interior panel, “However, it was difficult to determine whether it could be from a B777 aircraft.”.
You fail to quote: “It was constructed of laminate plies of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) with a non- metallic honeycomb core of 1 in. thick. The material the part was made of indicated that it could be from the cabin interior possibly from a galley, lavatory, closet or compartment panel.”
The item my not be part of a “B777”, but part of an “aircraft” as many lavatory and galley walls have a similar construction and are about 1” thick. I have it listed as a “Possible”. Again the ATSB also note: “The location of where the piece of debris was found, considering that MH370 (aircraft registered as 9M-MRO) ended its flight in the South Indian Ocean, is consistent with the drift path modelling produced by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). This suggests that the part is likely from MH370 given that the likelihood of it originating from another source is quite remote.” The aircraft 9M-MRO is the only Boeing 777 to have crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean.
Why do you think Victor Iannello states: “A retired Boeing engineer tells us that 1″ thick composite is rare or perhaps non-existent on the B777.”, when the official report on item 32 states “1 in. thick”?
You could also quote from the same official reports:
“Item 28: The construction was a hybrid laminate with plies of Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) and Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) composite sandwich panel with non-metallic honeycomb core. It was a standard construction of aircraft sandwich part. The thickest part of the core was approximately 1.5 in.”
“Item 28: Based on the plies of carbon tape layers the piece of debris was similar to part of the vertical stabilizer trailing edge panels forward of the rudder of a B777 aircraft.”
“Item 29: The size was approximately 13 in. by 11 in. and approximately 0.6 in. thick. The paint scheme was slight white, which had been discoloured. The potted insert indicated that the part was not a primary carrying structure and was most likely an interior part possibly from a cargo floor panel or main deck interior or ceiling panel.”
“Item 31: The thickness of the debris and the material it was made of were consistent with that stated on the floor panel manufacturer’s (The Gill Corporation – one of the manufacturers) Product Data Sheet which meets the BMS4-20 specification and therefore it is almost certain that the debris is part of a cabin floor panel of a B777 aircraft. The location of where the piece of debris was found, considering that MH370 (aircraft registered as 9M-MRO) ended its flight in the South Indian Ocean, is consistent with the drift path modelling produced by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). This suggests that the part is likely from MH370 given that the likelihood of it originating from another source is quite remote.”
“Conclusion: There were no conclusive evidences that the five pieces of the debris could be from MH370 although they appeared to be parts from an aircraft. However, Item 31 is likely to be from MH370 (aircraft registered as 9M-MRO) based on the material it was constructed of and the visible part of the placard which confirms that the debris is a floor panel of a Boeing aircraft.”
“Item 12: “Markings on the debris suggest it is very likely from a Boeing aircraft. From the location where it was found, and being consistent with the drift path modelling for debris from an aircraft in the South Indian Ocean, it is likely it is from MH370 (aircraft registered 9M-MRO).” You could also quote the two images in the report showing the debris thickness as 1.2 inches or 1 5/16 inches (1.3125 inches). I have it listed as “Likely”.
Why do you think Victor Iannello states: “A retired Boeing engineer tells us that 1″ thick composite is rare or perhaps non-existent on the B777.”, when the official report on item 12 shows “1.2 inches” and “1.3125 inches”?
It is clear from the official reports that there are 29 items of debris, which are between 10 mm and 33 mm thick (mean 24 mm) and that of these 21 items are 1” thick (25.4 mm) within 0.6 mm.
Why do you think Victor Iannello states: “A retired Boeing engineer tells us that 1″ thick composite is rare or perhaps non-existent on the B777.”, when the official report on item 12, 16, 30 and 32 all show around “1 inches thick”?
In case you have “misfiled” any of the other official debris reports here are links to the relevant documents:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pe9344f1u8ejkou/MOT%20Malaysian%20MH370%20Safety%20Investigation%20Report%20%26%20Appendices%202018-07-30.pdf?dl=0 (page 138 and following, page 496 and following).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5n8omjaiyufq2yt/MOT%20Summary%20of%20Debris%2030APR2017.pdf?dl=0 (overview items 1 to 27).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4zo4ryet4qhu8nq/MOT%20Debris%20Examination%20Report%2030APR2017.pdf?dl=0 (Items 6, 7, 8, 9 + 15, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 + 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 27).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9urn7h2490zu0p3/MOT%20Debris%20Examination%20Report%2030DEC2018.pdf?dl=0 (Items 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32).
Just some clarification.
I’m not sure where the quote came from about 1 inch thick core not being used on the B777, maybe another retired Boeing engineer in the conversation. I don’t recall ever stating that.
There are plenty of examples on the B777, in fixed panels as well as moveable surfaces, with fiberglass and with carbon fiber. 3 pound nomex honeycomb is relatively easy to manufacture at 40 PSI in thicknesses up to 1 inch. Above 1 inch, it’s harder to control core crush. So it’s economical to use 1 inch core, more of a pain to use 3 pound nomex above 1 inch.
Another item, concerning the perimeter of the landing gear doors. The shape does not change from model to model. The hinges went through a few mods for various reasons, but the perimeter must fit in the same hole on a 777-200 or 777-300. This goes for all three doors, the main strut door, the trunnion door, and the drag strut door.
So the trunnion door on line 403 has the same perimeter and attach points as line 404.
Another item, the fixed panels and control surfaces on the 777 are painted gray. That’s because the customers need interchangeable parts. Spares centers don’t want to stock inboard flaps in more than one color. So all removable wing surfaces are the same gray. Panels on the empennage follow the same rule except for the vertical fin and rudder where the customer’s logos are located.
I cannot speak to what happens to that gray paint over extended periods of time in salt water, but I have seen my share of old airplane parts, and they typically oxidize before changing color much. I would not expect a gray enameled part to turn off-white before oxidizing. The paint in the pictures looked like it still had some gloss to it? And from what I remember of the flaperon, it still looked gray.
9M-MRO was involved in a ground (taxi) collision with China Eastern Airlines AIRBUS A340-600 B-6050 at Shanghai Pudong China on the 09-AUG-2012 (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=147571&lang=en).
The BEA and Airbus were involved in the investigation (https://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/2012/2012.semaine.32.pdf)
I presume that the FAA/NTSB and Boeing were also involved.
What do you know about the damage to 9M-MRO, and the repairs ?
Thank you very much for your links.
They included ATSB Debris Examination update No’s 1 to 5, for which I was searching. Thank you.
Were you are quoting ATSB or MOT.?
If I interpret your question “Were you are quoting ATSB or MOT.?” correctly, you ask: “Were you” … “quoting ATSB or MOT” … “?”
1. I was not “quoting”. A quote would be in quotation marks.
2. Does it make a difference whether I was referring to an official statement from a competent authority in Australia or Malaysia?
The answer is I was not quoting either the ATSB or MOT, but making a statement with reference to a number of statements written by the Safety Investigation Team for MH370 coordinated by the ATSB and published by the MOT.
The “Safety Investigation Report” (SIR) – “Malaysia Airlines Boeing B777-200ER (9M-MRO) 08 March 2014“ was written by “The Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370” and issued on 2nd July 2018 with the reference “MH370/01/2018” and published by the “Malaysian Ministry of Transport (MOT)” at the email address “MH370SafetyInvestigation@mot.gov.my”.
There is also an update to this report issued on 30th December 2018 with the reference “Ref: DB/01/18” with the same authorship and publisher.
In the SIR we are told in the section titled “SECTION 1 – FACTUAL INFORMATION – 1.12 WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION – 1.12.1 Introduction”:
“Extensive work by the the MH370 Search Strategy Group, coordinated by the ATSB”
“The ATSB led the underwater search for MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean.”
We are also told in the SIR, that various debris items were analysed by the DGA/TA in Toulouse, France; by the ATSB Laboratory in Canberra, Australia and by the DCA and the Science & Technology Research Institute for Defence (STRIDE) in Malaysia.
We are also told in the SIR, that the “Team” comprises 20 individually named members from Malaysia as well as accredited representatives from the AAIB (UK), ATSB (Australia), BEA (France), CAA (China), NTSB (USA), NTSC (Indonesia) and TSIB (Singapore).
I have been in correspondence over the years with Duncan Bosworth (DB) at the ATSB who is a “Senior Transport Safety Investigator” and a member of the “ATSB Search for MH370” and a member of the “Dark Black Team” (DB) at the “Australian Transport Safety Bureau” (ATSB).
My original statement was without quotation marks and reads as follows: The ATSB in their official report state that 1” thick composite materials are widely used for panels on the Boeing 777.
Of course, I did not say: “The Dark Black team coordinated by the ATSB” … or “The Safety Investigation team as published by the MOT” … or “The ATSB/MOT team” or … whatever …
My comment was based on several documents from the SIR Appendix with the references (DB/xx/16 and DB/xx/17), as well as the SIR update (DB/01/18) and in particular for items 12, 16, 30 and 32.
I have cited these documents in full, yesterday, in answer to your time wasting, pedantic and misleading enquiry. You are pretending to put the record straight and pretending you had misfiled documents, which despite being misfiled, you still managed to quote from verbatim.
In particular, I cited yesterday DB/01/18, where on page 5 in reference to item 30, you will find the statement: “The part is possibly part of a cabin interior wall, galley, closet, or partition. Many lavatory and galley walls have similar construction and are about 1” thick.”
Today, you continue to claim that the links I provided “included ATSB Debris Examination update No’s 1 to 5, for which I was searching”. Please stop this misfiling and searching pretence. You quoted verbatim from documents, that you claim you do not have!
I hope this puts an end to your pedantic, false and misleading line of enquiry. You are warned any future false, time wasting or misleading comments will result in you being automatically banned. Please consider this as a final warning.
@Mick Gilbert aka George G aka …
You are banned!
According to our security system:
1. You have used several false email addresses.
2. You have used several false email providers.
3. You have used several different VPNs claiming to be in different countries.
4. You cannot be in Australia and South Korea at the same time.
When MH370 is finally found, you will find me (if I live that long) in the crowd clapping the people who made the discovery.
Many thanks for the kind wishes!
There are over 10 million people who get on a plane every day, they all need to know that they will get were they are planning to go.
The official investigation is theoretically still continuing, we will see if any officials actually respond, when they get back to their offices after the Christmas and New Year break.
Here is a link to a high resolution picture of the Figure 4, to which you refer, from our update on 21st December 2022:
The part of the honeycomb in the centre of the picture appears to be covered in some sort ot resin. Aerospace grade honeycomb core is manufactured from Nomex® paper sheets, coated and bonded together with a phenolic resin.
Here is a link to a high resolution picture of what seems to be the remnants of an adhesive tape, to which you also refer:
There is a 2nd line in the top left of the picture, with a similar remnant in a similar colour scheme.
In my view, the slash marks were not a result of post beaching activity. Tataly is a simple down to earth honest bloke and he says, that is how he found the item. I invite you take a big sharp knife and attack the debris item with 4 parallel puncture marks, right through 1” thick Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic (CFRP) with a honeycomb core. This is tough material, very strong but light weight.
I suppose if you had a 117 mm (4.6”) axe and two 110 mm (4.3”) axes and a 102 mm (4.0”) axe and sharpened them all and then tied them together so they where almost parallel but slightly displaced and you hit the debris item in just the right place with full force from a muscle bound champion … you might make 4 almost parallel punctures that slice right through a 1″ thick CFRP.
A friend of mine said to me: “Yes, many times I have heard about turbine fan blades tearing through someone’s yacht when the jet engines come apart.”
Does anyone happen to know the make and part number of MH370’s nose and main gear tyres?
After having posed a number of questions on our work on WSPR and receiving lengthy answers to all those questions from both Dr. Robert Westphal and myself on both my website and in private emails, Mick Gilbert states on Victor Iannello’s website on 11th May 2021: “I’m also waiting on Dr Rob’s response in a different forum. From my limited dissection of his paper, and as an non-scientist, I’ve got to say that this whole WSPR endeavour strikes me as homoeopathy on the electromagnetic spectrum (I have an alternate way of describing it that wouldn’t be appropriate for polite company).”
Mick Gilbert now all of a sudden denies asking questions on our work or receiving answers in full from us. He also denies attempting to hack my website or use a false identity to try and post on my website.
For the record, in a comment on this website on 13th May 2021 Mick Gilbert stated: “I have no technical background, I am neither an engineer nor or scientist (not in the “hard” sciences, I have a social science qualification) and I have no experience whatsoever in amateur radio.”
In a comment on this website on 16th May 2021, I asked: “@Mick Gilbert”
“You call yourself a non-scientist but you also state that you have a degree in the social sciences. So are you a scientist or not?”
“You are on the record as stating: “this whole WSPR endeavour strikes me as homoeopathy on the electromagnetic spectrum”. Is your statement supposed to be taken seriously as a scientific statement or not?”
Mick Gilbert’s response was: “Your rank hostility to any form of proper testing of this approach does you no favours. It’s petulant. I’m out of this discussion on this forum for good.”
Mick Gilbert went on to claim on Victor Iannello’s website:
“Of course, using a moving transmitter to supposedly pinpoint an aircraft on the other side of the world raises even more questions than those usually associated with this electromagnetic homoeopathy nonsense.”
“Regards Professor Ward (I’m not in the “First Name Club”, apparently there’s some significance to that according to the Glass Cannon), his frustration at repeated misrepresentations of the University of Adelaide’s and the DSTG’s involvement in reviewing the homoeopathy project was palpable.”
“As anticipated, the whole Guessing, Doodling and Tracing show is unravelling like a cheap sweater on a blackberry picking trip.”
Mick Gilbert and George Gatehouse are two separate individuals, but I have clear evidence that Mick Gilbert is using the identity of George Gatehouse and a faked email address from George Gatehouse to try to get around our security system and try and spread his false statements and misinformation on my website. Unfortunately for Gilbert it did not work. @George G you should be aware that this appears to be a case of identity theft.
I too question the validity of WSPR technology the possibility of the results being negative or positive makes you wonder whether it’s worth pursuing as a useful method I don’t know much about it I’m well aware there are counter arguments using WSPR to pinpoint an aircraft’s location any reasonable person would be skeptical of the whole process and wondering whether is has any merit at all if so why possess so much confidence doesn’t it seem to be enough that it’s explicitly saying that WSPR cannot be used as a guarantee to find an airplane even though past work have been validated.
The ATSB, Ocean Infinity, NATO and the Defence Industry are taking WSPR seriously. Professor Simon Maskell is joining Dr. Hannes Coetzee and myself as co-author on our next paper on the subject of WSPR. A team at Liverpool University will be replicating and validating our results.
Mike Exner on Iannello’s website is now so convinced that the new debris item is from a yacht, that he has renamed the yacht, which used to be called “Team Vestas Wind” to “Team Vistas Wind”. This is not a typo as Mike Exner makes the same mistake 3 times in a row in the same comment. Mike Exner cannot even spell Blaine’s name correctly, calling him “Blain” in the same comment.
Mike Exner and Victor Iannello continue to falsely claim that both the new debris item and now also an older debris item, which I call the “roundel” are both from the yacht “Team Vestas Wind”.
They ignore the Vestas logo is a different typeface, font and colour.
You can view the Vestas logo here:
A typeface is a particular set of glyphs or sorts that share a common design. For example, Helvetica is a well known typeface. A font is a particular set of glyphs within a typeface. So, 12 point Helvetica is a font, and 10 point Helvetica is a separate font. The same goes for different weights – a 14 point Helvetica Bold is a different font than a 14 pt Helvetica Light. They are different fonts, but the same typeface.
The lettering used by the Team Vestas Wind yacht builder is from the sponsor’s logo and has a particular font, which is not perfectly circular as the debris item, that I call the roundel. The “a” and “s” are flattened and elongated, the roundel is perfectly circular. The colour is different, and can clearly be seen, even with the bad lighting when the picture of the wrecked yacht was taken. Only the second “s” is missing from the damaged yacht decking, and not as they claim the a” and both the two “s” characters. Part of first “s” and “t” are on a hatch, that is missing in the photo linked below. But you cannot fit the perfect circle of the roundel or circular shape anywhere on the “s” of the logo.
You can view the wreckage of the yacht “Team Vestas Wind” here:
You can view the “roundel” debris item here:
A close up shows the dimensions of the “roundel” and can be viewed here:
The drift time of 56 days ± 10 days from the Team Vestas Wind crash location to Antsiraka South Beach, Madagascar versus the timing of the find 839 days after the crash of the yacht on 29th November 2014 and 266 days after the crash of MH370 does not align by any stretch of the imagination with the arrival date of either debris item in Madagascar and what is being claimed is practically impossible. However the timing of the find of the new debris item does align with a drift time from a crash location of MH370 defined by a 30 nmi circle centred on 30.000°S 98.700°E and a 15 nmi circle centred on 30.570°S 98.750°E. There are 14 items of debris found in 2016 and 2017 in the same timeframe as the new debris item, which have been officially analysed and either confirmed, almost certain, highly likely, likely or possible to be from MH370.
But the black circular roundel does not fit the colour and font of the MAS logo either, which is a similar dark blue colour as the Vestas logo and a similar font for the “a” and “s” to the Vestas logo. The key difference is that the MAS logo has an even vertical design and not a flattened vertical design like the Vestas logo. The MAS logo can be viewed here: