Wreckage of MH370 washing up on Reunion Island?

[SeanB]

How deep is it there, and what is the terrain like on the bottom? Since the black box will have long since stopped pinging it could be difficult to locate.

Since the sea floor there ranges from 2-6km deep, and is pretty rough and rugged ( think the Himalayas writ large, and covered with a snow cover of sediment as well), you would really have to be lucky.

Seeing as they found a wreck that was unknown, right in a well surveyed nature preserve off the USA, and they had been doing research only 200m away from it for a few years totally unknowing of it till happenchance with a missing anchor point led them right over it.

[pickle9000]

No matter what, no aliens, not hidden in the desert and so on, I hated that crap.

I would think that even finding one bit is a great relief to the families, better to know than not.

I wonder if there are search crews out looking for stuff on the surface?

[coppice]

it could be difficult to locate.

Quite the understatement. It's still a couple million square miles or so of ocean to search.

The only way they'll find the black boxes is if they find huge parts of the fuselage on the ocean floor. If the whole thing was scattered to kingdom come then they have buckleys chance.

Even an intact 777 fuselag on the ocean floor looks really really really tiny. Its a damned big floor.

[ccs46]

There are barnacles on that piece, they can look how much cement those things have put down and see how long its been,where it's been, and many other things. The way that things looks, it was sheared off. That plane is the only 777 to have gone down over that ocean. It's a damn fine plane.

[coppice]

That plane is the only 777 to have gone down over that ocean. It's a damn fine plane.

A fine plane might not have picked up the nickname cripple seven.

[ccs46]

That plane is the only 777 to have gone down over that ocean. It's a damn fine plane.

A fine plane might not have picked up the nickname cripple seven.

That kind of plane has only crashed 4 times in it's history. Considering there is hundreds of that type of plane and that small of a number of them crashed it is 'a damn fine plane." It is probably one of the safest planes Boeing has ever, built. In Asiana Airline Flight 214 crash 3 people died, but not from the crash itself. The British Airways Flight 38 no one died and there was one serious injury. Malaysian airlines flight 17 only crashed because it was shot down by Russian Separatists, and then MH 370, which is the only 777 that has crashed over the ocean and the transponder was turned off, no pilot in his right mind would turn that off, it was done maliciously. Even the 747, and 767 have more fatal crashes than this plane does.  If you think about it flying today is the safest means of travel, your more likely to get in a car accident than be in a plane crash. 

[McBryce]

No matter what, no aliens, not hidden in the desert and so on, I hated that crap.

I would think that even finding one bit is a great relief to the families, better to know than not.

I wonder if there are search crews out looking for stuff on the surface?

No, but a whole new set of conspiracy theories are being dreamt up as we speak.

I very much doubt that they'll ever find the actual crash spot. I can't find that tiny spring that just shot out of the phone I dismantled and that's in a 4sqm room and I went over the floor with a magnet!

McBryce.

[pickle9000]

No matter what, no aliens, not hidden in the desert and so on, I hated that crap.

I would think that even finding one bit is a great relief to the families, better to know than not.

I wonder if there are search crews out looking for stuff on the surface?

No, but a whole new set of conspiracy theories are being dreamt up as we speak.

I very much doubt that they'll ever find the actual crash spot. I can't find that tiny spring that just shot out of the phone I dismantled and that's in a 4sqm room and I went over the floor with a magnet!

McBryce.

You will find that tiny spring when it sticks in your foot!

As for the mh370. They have the first bit  of evidence. If it came off at depth it will shows signs. If it was snapped off on the surface should also show. If on the surface then a debris field is probable and may be spotted on satellite (from the time of the crash).

[codeboy2k]

oh noes.... cue the conspiracy theorists... someone (or some state with the technology to do so) clearly just set off a volcanic eruption on Reunion Island in order to cover up any remaining debris that might be found on the island.

Just two days after finding the debris and now there's an eruption?  Some mighty powerful state doesn't want this plane to be found !

/end sarcasm

[EEVblog]

and then MH 370, which is the only 777 that has crashed over the ocean and the transponder was turned off, no pilot in his right mind would turn that off, it was done maliciously.

Well that's the million dollar question.
The current top theory is the lithium batteries on board started a fire, once that happens, all bets are off as to what technical issues happened with the plane.

[AG6QR]

and then MH 370, which is the only 777 that has crashed over the ocean and the transponder was turned off, no pilot in his right mind would turn that off, it was done maliciously.

Well that's the million dollar question.
The current top theory is the lithium batteries on board started a fire, once that happens, all bets are off as to what technical issues happened with the plane.

Yes, there was a cockpit fire near the pilot's oxygen system in a different 777 (on the ground).  It seems plausible that a cockpit fire could have disabled much of the electronics, could have motivated the pilots to turn toward the nearest airfield, and could have incapacitated the pilots.  When the fire penetrated the hull, it would have caused decompression that could have starved the fire for oxygen, leaving the people incapacitated and letting the plane continue on autopilot until it ran out of fuel.

It also seems plausible that the pilot could have deliberately disabled systems, depressurized the plane, pointed the plane out toward the middle of the ocean, and committed suicide, taking the passengers with him.  He may have killed himself by depressurization, leaving the plane to continue on its course until running out of fuel. 

Either way, after the fuel ran out, the plane would have glided down to the ocean surface, in cruise configuration.  So far, it seems like the flaperon piece is consistent with that, though I'll wait for the authorities to fully investigate.

Both main scenarios have legitimate criticisms, and I haven't seen a convincing argument to rule out either idea completely.  People try to invoke Occam's razor, but in this case, the "simplest" explanation depends on whether you find it easier to accept the human or the machine failing in a particular way.  Whether it was man or machine that failed, it wasn't a common everyday failure.

If the wreckage of the main portion of the fuselage and/or the black boxes are found, it will almost certainly rule out one or the other of those scenarios.  There will be a burned hole in the cockpit or there won't.

[Bud]

Malaysian airlines flight 17 only crashed because it was shot down by Russian Separatists

Please refrain from bold accusations and leave making conclusions to the investigators, which they have not done yet.

[wasyoungonce]

Aircraft fire.....Nah....Aircraft would have crashed/disintegrated way long before it got too far.  The Aircraft did a wing over Penang...the Pilots home.  Typical Pilots trick, last gawk at home.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974685/Is-emotional-farewell-fly-past-Penang-island-key-clue-mystery-missing-Malaysia-flight-MH370-British-pilot-s-theory.html

[Psi]

Does anyone know how long the black boxes can survive in salt water while still having some hope of recovering data?
Is it already too late, or could they recover some data after many years in the ocean?

Assuming they are intact and not ripped apart of course.

[ccs46]

Malaysian airlines flight 17 only crashed because it was shot down by Russian Separatists

Please refrain from bold accusations and leave making conclusions to the investigators, which they have not done yet.

If you actually look Flight 17 WAS shot down by Pro Russian Insurgents. It happened 4 months after MH370. They had the audio from the Insurgents talking about "How beautiful" it was. Don't believe me? Google it.  Please refrain from telling someone they're incorrect without having the evidence to back it up.

[pickle9000]

Does anyone know how long the black boxes can survive in salt water while still having some hope of recovering data?
Is it already too late, or could they recover some data after many years in the ocean?

Assuming they are intact and not ripped apart of course.

Air France May 2009 - May 2011 recovery of last black box, both survived. So 2 years is possible, I remember hearing that 3 years or earlier is desirable but not sure where I heard that or what it relates to.

One thing that has bugged me for a while is that reports say the transponder was turned off. They do not say lost contact. I expect that's a direct reading from the acars but would a loss of power generate the same message? It would also be interesting to know if shutting off the transponder is recommended or detailed on any of the onboard emergency checklists. This is the first event so you'd think it would be covered in more detail.

[cimmo]

It would also be interesting to know if shutting off the transponder is recommended or detailed on any of the onboard emergency checklists.

Shutting it OFF (or standby)? No, not in flight. That switch is only deliberately used on the ground.
But the selection of an emergency code IS mandated in all checklists for serious events.
It is possible that during this code selection, the on-off switch was inadvertently operated, but personally I find that highly unlikely.

[pickle9000]

It would also be interesting to know if shutting off the transponder is recommended or detailed on any of the onboard emergency checklists.

Shutting it OFF (or standby)? No, not in flight. That switch is only deliberately used on the ground.
But the selection of an emergency code IS mandated in all checklists for serious events.
It is possible that during this code selection, the on-off switch was inadvertently operated, but personally I find that highly unlikely.

The term used is "shutting off the transponder" but that is in flight so does that mean putting it into standby? Would that generate a message? What I'm curious about is if there is one or more acars messages that say the standby switch was hit, power shut off, or simply a signal lost issue and the same message is used for all so the crew can be notified (or whatever action taken).

So I guess the followup would be that if the power was shut off, would that be shutting down other items as well and do they report over the acars?

I find news reports so watered down it's hard to know if the reporters have asked any relevant questions.

[cimmo]

The term used is "shutting off the transponder" but that is in flight so does that mean putting it into standby?

From the perspective of the ATC secondary radars, either standby, off or some actual failure* would disable the active return of the radar signal (amplification and encoding) and the aircraft would basically disappear from the radar display (although if modern enough, the display probably indicates last known position with an error flag on it).

The particular radars in use by the ATC facilities in this incident only had a low power primary radar (a primary radar works by simple skin reflection) that had a range of about 40-60 miles. The location of the aircraft when the transponder return was lost was outside of that range. The high power primary military radars were able to track the aircraft (but without accurate altitude information), but this track information wasn't available to anyone with flight following responsibilites for that flight at the time.

*Failure is mitigated against by having at least two transponders on the aircraft.
And an actual "off" switch position is useful in flight as being a digital device, transponders sometimes stop working correctly. And like any similar device, the solution is to turn it off and on. In aviation speak - "Please recycle your transponder".

Would that generate a message? What I'm curious about is if there is one or more acars messages that say the standby switch was hit, power shut off, or simply a signal lost issue and the same message is used for all so the crew can be notified (or whatever action taken).

So I guess the followup would be that if the power was shut off, would that be shutting down other items as well and do they report over the acars?

I find news reports so watered down it's hard to know if the reporters have asked any relevant questions.

I cannot speak with any authority on the subject of ACARS system interaction with the transponder - I don't have that specific information. Perhaps there is a tie from the built in test equipment of a transponder to the ACARS system that would report a discrete failure of that unit, but there would be no need for the physical "off/standby" switch to be so coupled.

But the ACARS system was not working properly that day either - the last normal ACARS uplink happened prior to the loss of transponder returns, whether this was due to a deliberate act or some part of the wider system failure, that is not really known.

[kosmonooit]

Assuming the one possibility of the ghost plane scenario (humans and some electronics knocked out for some reason just after the last comms), surely they should be able to model what happens to the aircraft when flying on autopilot and the fuel runs out, in terms of the type of impact with the water. So the flaperon survived the wing break up, surely there must be clues in there.

As has been shown with other accidents, you really have to have a lot of luck and skill to ditch successfully, more often that not its going to end with a break up of the aircraft. Its going to be smashes to tiny bits if it hits the water with terminal velocity.

At least something has been found! The rest must be out there, luckily we have the Aussies with deep pockets and lots of toys on the case.

[ez24]

An expert on a news story said that the found piece did not have leading edge damage indicating it did not suffer a head on collision.  Watch the wing in this video from an out of gas plane trying to land on the water.  It was ripped off by centripetal force when the other wing hit the water.

[pickle9000]

Assuming the one possibility of the ghost plane scenario (humans and some electronics knocked out for some reason just after the last comms), surely they should be able to model what happens to the aircraft when flying on autopilot and the fuel runs out, in terms of the type of impact with the water. So the flaperon survived the wing break up, surely there must be clues in there.

As has been shown with other accidents, you really have to have a lot of luck and skill to ditch successfully, more often that not its going to end with a break up of the aircraft. Its going to be smashes to tiny bits if it hits the water with terminal velocity.

At least something has been found! The rest must be out there, luckily we have the Aussies with deep pockets and lots of toys on the case.

I think that unless the apu was running (not sure if that has it's own tank or not) that the autopilot would not be able to move any of the control surfaces. Even if it did have fuel it may not have been powered up (a pilots duty). In that case the plane could glide but outside forces could cause it to dive, spin or stall.

[mikeselectricstuff]

As regards flight recorder data lifetime, if it is a recent enough model to use solid-state storage, it ought to be possible to recover data from the flash chips for decades - seawater might corrode away the pins of the chips but it still ought to be possible to access the dice.
Tape may be less robust and more dependent on how well sealed it is against water getting to it.
 

[cimmo]

I think that unless the apu was running (not sure if that has it's own tank or not) that the autopilot would not be able to move any of the control surfaces. Even if it did have fuel it may not have been powered up (a pilots duty). In that case the plane could glide but outside forces could cause it to dive, spin or stall.

There is a "Ram Air Turbine" (a small wind driven generator/pump) that automatically deploys into the airflow to provide last ditch electrical and hydraulic power.

[pickle9000]

I think that unless the apu was running (not sure if that has it's own tank or not) that the autopilot would not be able to move any of the control surfaces. Even if it did have fuel it may not have been powered up (a pilots duty). In that case the plane could glide but outside forces could cause it to dive, spin or stall.

There is a "Ram Air Turbine" (a small wind driven generator/pump) that automatically deploys into the airflow to provide last ditch electrical and hydraulic power.

You are so right, sorry. One of the last pings was interrupted and they figure that was when the fuel was actually running out and the turbine was deployed.