
MH370: Reunion debris is from missing plane - edward
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33794012
======
JanSolo
Not really a huge surprise given that the debris was confirmed as a 777
flaperon a few days ago. However, It does mean that the Inmarsat positional
analysis about the final location of the plane is likely correct. This should
give a bit of confidence to the sailors who are running the naval search
operation in the indian ocean. They were never quite sure that they were
looking in the right place. I suspect their lack-of-results must be quite
demoralising for them.

It also discounts some of the nuttier theories such as the plane landing in
Russia or Afghanistan.

~~~
rogerbinns
The satellite position analysis only says where the plane likely was near the
end of its flight. How it ended up in the water matters greatly. For example
if there was someone conscious in the cockpit then it could have glided way
outside of the search area. Even an uncontrolled spiralling into the ocean
describes a potentially large area.

One thing that keeps resurfacing is that the whole affair is unlike anything
before. Suicidal pilots have crashed quickly in all other cases, various
things have involved extraordinary good luck or extraordinary knowledge (eg
avoiding various radar coverage), explanations for satellite systems going
offline/online require precise fiddling with various electrical busses, there
aren't any credible explanations for deliberate act or accident, the Malaysian
government has either covered things up or is very incompetent (or both), and
it goes on.

Air France 440 was also shrouded in mystery (but nowhere near this degree),
and turned out to be very poor airmanship by one pilot.

For anyone curious about more of the technical aspects behind the scenes then
Jeff Wise writes about it frequently.
[http://jeffwise.net/](http://jeffwise.net/)

~~~
gnaffle
> Air France 440 was also shrouded in mystery (but nowhere near this degree),
> and turned out to be very poor airmanship by one pilot.

It was poor airmanship by two pilots (and other factors, including the
feedback mechanisms and the lack of training for this particular high altitude
scenario).

~~~
encoderer
My understanding is that the pilot in the left chair didn't realize that the
pilot in the right chair kept pulling his stick back. In boeing planes, the
sticks move together, so that wouldn't be possible. And the pilot in the right
chair clearly didn't understand that in the alternate law the fly by wire
system was running in, his stick movements put the plane at risk.

~~~
mikeash
Yes, it was a completely incorrect reaction by a single pilot, combined with a
catastrophically bad design for the controls, which caused that crash. It is
completely insane to me that anyone would think that averaging inputs from two
pilots and providing no feedback would be even remotely a good idea.

~~~
radiowave
The aircraft does provide feedback, it says, "DUAL INPUT, DUAL INPUT". IIRC
this can be heard on the cockpit voice recorder of Air France 447.

~~~
mikeash
I mean physical feedback. In any rationally designed aircraft, the controls
are physically linked, such that moving one moves the other (or at the very
least this arrangement is faked with servos). When two pilots attempt to give
contradictory inputs, they immediately know it because they can _feel_ the
other one fighting.

~~~
engi_nerd
Yes, in the Air France tragedy, the aural warning clearly wasn't enough.
Through fear and panic, the pilots failed to understand what the plane was
telling them. But the feeling of having a control yoke fight against you
doesn't require much mental effort to process.

~~~
mikeash
Aural warnings are so easy to ignore. There are a ton of stories that go like,
"What is that annoying buzzing sound? Well, no time to worry about it now, I'm
landing. <CRUNCH> Oh, it was the gear warning." Happened to a friend of mine,
even.

I think it ultimately comes down to engaging with the primary sense you're
already using. If you're doing something visual, then a visual warning ( _on
whatever you 're looking at_) can be effective, while an aural warning won't.
If you're listening to something then interrupting it with an audio warning
will work great. Hand flying is a tactile experience, so that's the sense you
want to work with.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
_Aural warnings are so easy to ignore._

Yes. You give an example of someone ignoring a single aural warning. The case
of AF447 was much worse.

There was a cacophony of different sounds and noises in the cockpit of AF447.
All the various alarms are deliberately made to sound different. But when
someone knows he's a minute from death, there's no way his reptilian brain can
make sense of a plethora of simultaneous alarms. It will, instead, strive to
tune them all out.

I remember a documentary where Duke Cunningham discussed his experiences as a
fighter ace in Vietnam. In high stress situations he would switch his intercom
to allow him to speak to his RIO, but not be able to hear his RIO. He didn't
want the distraction. (Note: sadly, Cunningham disgraced himself in later
life).

~~~
mikeash
I built a gear warning system for my glider. The usual ones just have either
as steady tone or a pulsing tone. I made mine do a pulsing tone with different
speeds, then it actually spells out "WARNING GEAR UP" in morse code. I don't
know morse code, but I figured the irregular pattern would make it more
identifiable and harder to ignore.

I've seen it advised to turn off the aircraft radio when it's not useful and
you're in the middle of something tricky, like climbing out from a low
altitude, or landing in a field.

~~~
engi_nerd
> I've seen it advised to turn off the aircraft radio when it's not useful and
> you're in the middle of something tricky, like climbing out from a low
> altitude, or landing in a field.

Makes sense. "Aviate, navigate, communicate".

------
swasheck
Officially, it's a "very strong presumption" and has not been officially
confirmed. Apparently there are some things that don't add up for the U.S.
NTSB.

"A person involved in the investigation said, however, that experts from
Boeing and the National Transportation Safety Board who have seen the object —
a piece of what is known as a flaperon — were not yet fully satisfied, and
called for further analysis.

Their doubts were based on a modification to the flaperon part that did not
appear to exactly match what they would expect from airline maintenance
records, according to the person, who was not authorized to discuss the matter
publicly and requested anonymity."

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/world/asia/mh370-wing-
reun...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/world/asia/mh370-wing-reunion.html)

Still, hopefully it turns out to be officially and conclusively confirmed so
that the process of closure can begin for the families.

~~~
blakeyrat
There aren't any other missing 777's, so all they really need is to
conclusively determine the part came from a 777 and process of elimination
takes care of the rest.

Still, I understand them wanting to be extremely cautious.

~~~
engi_nerd
To be definitive, though, you need to find evidence that proves that the piece
you found was present on the aircraft for the flight where it went missing.
You have to have some way to say, "Ah, yes, this flaperon is a Boeing part
number, with serial number #XXXXXX. Maintenance records show that this exact
serial number was installed on the aircraft in question, and its configuration
as found matches the configuration of record for this part on the aircraft in
question." Then you know for sure to a degree that will stand up in any
inquiry.

------
oh_teh_meows
How would one go about verifying that the debris comes from the missing plane,
assuming plane-specific serial number is not found? Any expert care to shed
some light on this?

~~~
kejaed
Any part more complicated than a screw or rivet likely has a serial number /
part number on it, and if it does, could be traced back to the exact aircraft
it was installed on.

~~~
ptaipale
And even if there are no serial numbers, there are detailed maintenance
records for the aircraft; you can see if a bolt has been replaced, trimmer
adjusted or a hole fixed, and you'll find matching records in the books.

~~~
engi_nerd
This used to be kept in paper log books. Now these records are computerized.

~~~
ptaipale
Yes of course, "in the books" was just an idiom here (perhaps not the exactly
correct one). What has been done to the plane is a matter of record and can be
checked.

~~~
engi_nerd
Of course. I wasn't disagreeing with you.

------
AnimalMuppet
One thing is bugging me in all this: Is this a part that should float?

~~~
mullen
Yes. It is a completely sealed part and is designed to float. Why it is
designed that way, I don't know.

~~~
Gracana
Probably it is just designed to not get water inside it (wouldn't want your
wings filling with water while flying), so it happens to float.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Ah, yes. Rain should _not_ cause the wings to fill up with water...

------
agumonkey
So currents pushed debris toward Reunion, but is it possible that things
drifted non linearly and scattered everywhere or will they be able to find the
remains in a short time now ?

~~~
Someone
Even if a) currents and winds where 100% known and b) we could perfectly
compute how they interact with objects, the parts still could end up in widely
different places.

Different parts will have had different starting positions (even a few meters
can make a huge difference. The part found made it to Reunion, but if it had
floated a few meters further, it might have missed the Island and, over time,
float hundreds of more miles, or it might have landed on an island that it now
completely missed)

Also, the shape, weight, etc. of pieces affects where they float; a mostly
submerged part will not see much impact from wind, a sailboat-like part will
see lots of impact from it. Even identical pieces may float in different
directions if they end up in the water at different orientations.

[http://oceanmotion.org/html/research/ebbesmeyer.htm](http://oceanmotion.org/html/research/ebbesmeyer.htm):

 _" Knowing the paths of the currents, though, is not enough. Other factors
such as shape, size, and buoyancy may also determine an object’s course. Curt
has observed with fascination that different beaches specialize in different
types of debris. One beach may collect light bulbs while another collects
tennis balls. Even right and left sneakers end up in different places"_

------
comrade1
I at first believed it came from MH370 but now that I hear the Malaysian PM
confirm it it makes me wonder if it's from some other source.

(This is a sarcastic comment on the quality of thee Malaysian leadership and
how they handled the situation.)

~~~
JanSolo
I'm sure the PM is overjoyed that this story kicked up again right now.
Anything that distracts the press from his embezzlement scandal is likely very
welcome.

~~~
ptaipale
The funny thing is that the PM also put out an arrest warrant for a British
journalist (Gordon Brown's sister-in-law) for covering the corruption case. If
he hadn't done that, I wouldn't have heard of his whole scandal before this.

