Slashdot Mirror
MH370: Fragment Is From Missing Flight
hcs_$reboot writes: The plane part (the flaperon) that was found on a beach in the Indian Ocean on Réunion island was determined to be part of MH370, the Malaysia Airlines flight that vanished more than a year ago. Some experts have postulated that the damage suggests the flaperon may have been deployed when the plane hit the water, meaning that someone in the cockpit was consciously manipulating the controls. The Malaysian Prime Minister said at a press conference "We now have physical evidence that ... Flight MH370 tragically ended in the Southern Indian Ocean.".
You're saying that a fragment from flight MH370 is from the missing flight MH370? That's amazing.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
In other news, the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club.
Airplanes are one of the safer modes of travel. Why? Because we investigate all crashes thoroughly and try to prevent the same crash from happening again. If a plane crashes now it's an event, and one that had to have multiple failure modes because a single failure is no longer enough to take down a plane.
Also, some people thought the plane got hijacked, or flown to some secret desert base. Some subset of those people (but not all) may be convinced their family is truly gone, and be able to take next steps.
(911 Truther response)
The jet fuel didn't. It actually burned off rather quickly. But it did start a fire. What were the Twin Towers? Massive office buildings, with massive paper stores. Paper burning hot for hours was able to weaken the steel.
As an engineer I can say for certain this piece is critical. However, Once the flaperon breaks loose, the appropriate technical nomenclature is a flaperoff.
for any americans worried about this crucial aviation component, rest easy. You're probably still in the terminal, safe from harm in the midst of either an endless layover or overbooked flight. Once its emerged from the latest bankruptcy merger, your planes flaperons will continue to function to the highest standard that can be enforced by a regulatory agency with no real power.
Good people go to bed earlier.
flown to some secret desert base
Flown to a secret base under the sea. I know, I know. Oh, oh, oh...
I'd be very interested in how they're stating the possibility ("pustulated", "may", "suggests") that the aircraft could've made a landing in the water. Dents or other damage on bottom surface of the flaperon) vs elsewhere? The way the hinges or control rods were damaged? This is VERY important, and I dislike people just speculating how it might have happened without some damned solid evidence.
There's a helluva lot of other volatiles in an office building. I'm looking at my office, seeing office furniture, clothing, plastics, heck probably even the carpet when the temperatures get high enough. Fires have destroyed other steel-framed buildings, so why exactly would the Trade Towers be exempt?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Cue the CNN 24 Hour Over-Coverage Machine in 3... 2... 1...
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
Ewwww.....
If you RTFA, there's a link to another article that states their reasons.
http://abcnews.go.com/Internat...
Based on preliminary observations, Former NTSB Aviation Safety Director Tom Haueter says the part –- identified by Malaysia Airlines as a “flaperon,” a wing component used for balance –- appears to have a pristine leading edge. The rear section, called the trailing edge, appears to be missing.
“To me, it indicates that it was not a high speed, high angle impact, because if that had happened, the leading edge would be crushed,” Haueter, an ABC News contributor, said. “What I don’t see is a severe nose down impact.”
The condition of the debris suggests the flaps were down at the time of the crash, possibly indicating that “somebody's controlling the aircraft,” when it hit the water, said Haueter.
“The airplane wouldn’t have done that on its own,” he added. But “you’re trying to land or ditch the airplane – you’d have the flaps folded down.”
Sort of. Aircraft manufacturers try to avoid repairing their design flaws as long as they can, even if people may die.
Case in point: McDonnel Douglas cargo door, ATR-72 wing icing (still not fully corrected after more than 20 years), the deep stall tendency of Tupolev 154, Boeing's 737 rudder problems, A380 wing cracks (that one was a chance find when investigating the Qantas engine fire).
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
We do? I'd love to hear it, then, because I haven't heard anything of the sort.
And more to the point, people are confused about what needed to happen. The steel beams didn't need to "melt," per se. They just needed to soften enough to then buckle, and that's that.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Not so. More people get killed commuting to and from airports than they do flying, even though that's the shorter distance.
And one of the more recent air crashes had 2 casualties. One of whom was run over by a rescue vehicle while on the ground.
Airplane crash rates are at an all-time low and survivability is at an all-time high. However, the sheer number of people who can be killed in one incident makes them noteworthy.
Kind of like the WTC attack. Considerably more people died on the US highways that year than did in the planes and towers, but 9/11 caused us to shred a good-sized chunk of the 200+ year old hard-won freedom that Bin Laden so hated, whereas we didn't bat an eye at the highway carnage. Unless we happened to either be involved in one, related to one or rubbernecked one.
This is exactly right. All that was needed was to weaken the tensile strength of the structural steal enough to compromise the structure. In the WTC, the temperature that was required to collapse a floor beam was not that high and well within what could reasonably be the contents of the building.
What happened in this case is that the airplane fuel started the fire which collapsed the floors above.. Once the falling floors above exceeded the load capacity of the intact floor at the bottom, the whole building pancaked as the mass of the floors above started falling though the lower ones.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Occam's razor.
There you go... Using logic again....
Didn't Occam have a beard?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Do you spend a lot of time wondering about why the sun comes up in the East every day?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Well, that's why they went to check the part to see if it could've been a part form MH370. There are plenty of identifying marks they can choose form so if some are gone, they still have extras to choose from.
Basically when we found the piece, we were basically confident it was, but then we subject the article to extra verification and we know for sure.
(Such identifying marks include serial numbers and other marks that can be traced back to when Boeing assembled the plane, or lot numbers that were identical, etc. Aircraft are regulated so much that everything is tracable... which is why the parts cost so much - you're not paying for the part, you're paying for all the documentation behind the part).
Wrong airplanes are seen as a "safe" mode of transport as a consequence of how the statistics are generated/reported.
Almost all airplane crashes occur during take off or landing. Once at cruising altitude the number of crashes are very low per mile/km travelled. In effect a flight from London to Paris is almost as dangerous as a flight from London to New York. The statistics however are presented as the number of fatalities per million km/mile travelled.
On other modes of transport such as car and train the chances of an accident are much more evenly distributed along the length of the journey.
If you took these differences into account air travel becomes much more dangerous than is portrayed by the airline industry.
You are right about the distance thing as the majority of crashes take place getting to and descending from cruising altitude.
However if you take terrorist incidents out of the equation the chances of surviving a plane crash is from memory *OVER* 50%. So take the two worst disasters in the UK in the last 30 years. The British Airtours Flight 28M on 22nd August 1985 where 137 people on board, 55 died. Or you could take the British Midland Flight 92 on 8th January 1989, 126 people aboard 47 died.
Basically people vastly over estimate the likely hood that they will died in an air crash. Further the simple expediency of turning all seats around so you back is against the direction of travel would dramatically increase the chances of survival in the event of a crash.
So if you had the choice between a 100% chance of car accident with a 50% chance of dying, or a 1% chance of an airplane accident with a 100% chance of dying, would you choose the car accident?
Pustulate n: An asserted proposition that stinks.
You do understand that ocean currents are not straight lines, right? For chrissake it's taken years for the Tohoku tsunami's wreckage to make it the Pacific Northwest.
My favorite example is the shipping container full of rubber ducks that an oceanographer tracked for 15 years! We may be finding pieces for decades.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I'm not sure finding this flaperon constrains the search area any more than it already was. I think it just makes us more certain that the existing search area is correct.
I thing right ones are better. Wright ones too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The heat from the fire is insufficient to make the molten piles of metal found. It's physically impossible. Idiots would take that as "proof" the fire was man-made. Non-idiots would mention that the potential energy stored by the building being tall would have had to be dissipated in some way, or it would have fallen to the core of the earth. Turns out the PE of the building was converted to KE as it fell, and that KE was converted to heat with the sudden stop at the end. It was the act of the falling of the building that melted the puddles of metal, not the fire. Human brains don't work well at extremes. We interpolate well, but extrapolate poorly. One of the tallest buildings on the planet falling is outside "common sense". So anyone who appeals to it as a reason for why or how has proven (to me) that they are wrong.
https://www.google.co.nz/searc... And as I mentioned elsewhere, a warm day can warp and bend steel to the point it "collapses" so "melt" is not required for structural failure. Anyone who claims that is lying.
Learn to love Alaska
And there's some agreement that the very open plan of the floors might have contributed to the failure as there were no internal supports for the floors save for the center column which mostly contained the elevators.
When you go into large buildings with multiple floors and see "exposed" metal beams you will frequently notice they seem to have been sprayed with some concrete or foam like substance. This is usually concrete that is sprayed on the beams to slow heat transfer. The builders and designers are generally required to show that there is enough of this protective insulation to allow the contents of the building to burn for two hours before the steel would be heated to the point where it become soft enough to collapse. This is to protect firefighters and occupants for long enough for the building to be evacuated. I was quite shocked when the first tower went down in less than two hours.
What happened was that the impact of the plane knocked this fragile protection off the beams and then the heat from the burning building contents would have been enough to bring the building down. The jet fuel did not help of course, but the removal of the insulation was the critical part of the failure
I think you're failing to understand how the statistics work. It doesn't matter how the deaths are spread out along the millions of miles, it's the same number of deaths.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
Huh? In the last 5 years there have been a total of about 5 people killed on commercial flights in the US. In the same time there have been about 200,000 killed in car accidents.
There are a lot more car miles that air miles traveled in the US per unit time.
The most recent 2013 data
If you consider the risk per trip, it is higher for planes, but less per mile. So don't drive to Europe from the US. It won't end well. The difference isn't big and it may be the other way around right now because planes have had a good few years. But I don't have 2014/2015 data.
But as far as risk goes, these are small numbers. There are things that are much more likely to kill you. Cars and planes don't even make the top 10.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...
And you aren't going to fly to work, unless you're this guy..
http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/...
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
if the plane was flying entirely by auto pilot and then the fuel ran out the auto pilot would likely disengage and expect the pilots to take over. if the pilot were in the cockpit and aware, it is likely that as the plane neared the ocean he would lower the flaps to allow the plane to fly slower to reduce the speed at impact. Lowered flaps help prevent stalls at low air speeds and are deployed while landing. While cruising at altitude they are kept up to reduce drag. If up and attached to the plane at impact they could be expected to be stopped when the wing in front of the stops suddenly from impact with the water. the leading edges and the attachment points will show different bending and stress patterns depending on how the plane crashed.
However, there is another possible scenario. If the plane was flying at high altitude and control was lost. (perhaps due to a stall because of engine flame out) the plane could have gone into a steep uncontrolled dive. This could have subjected the plane to extreme over speed. At very high speeds the plane would break apart. it is not unheard of for airliners to come apart in the air just because of mistakes made by the pilots.
i believe this is a composite part. Made of fiber and glue. Some of the edges in other photographs show what seems to be fraying/delamination on the edges. This could be caused by sea water or it could have been due to over-speed.
Reports of which were highly exaggerated, and the reality of which has been explained many times by people who don't have a need to cartoon-quality conspiracy theories in order to distract them from their boring existence.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
From my 9-11 experience....I watched the news about 13 min before the second plane hit and for hours afterward. There was a newsman on the ground who asked a chief about building 7 needing to be demo'd and the chief, obviously alarmed that the newsman might be creating an unsubstantiated panic, almost called him an idiot and said there is no reason for that nor would there be based on conditions, finally that he had not heard anything like that and it was absurd. I have not met another person who remembers that shocking exchange nor have I seen the footage anywhere. It happened and I do not understand how such a national broadcast seemingly disappeared and is never spoken about again.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
> The twin towers was the first case when the design explicitly considered impact from the largest jet airliner of the time (DC9) fully loaded and the subsequent fire
So, what you're saying is they didn't consider the impact from an aircraft 8 feet taller, 67 feet wider, 55 feet longer, three hundred thousand pounds heavier and carrying sixty thousand gallons more fuel?
the 200+ year old hard-won freedom that Bin Laden so hated,
Please spare us the outdated cold-war rhetoric. Al-Qaeda and the Mujahideen started in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Their anger with the US had nothing to do with domestic freedoms and everything to do with US foreign policy. What do the Soviets and US have in common? Not freedom. Al Qaeda was not bombing other liberal democracies. Yes they are horrible nasty people, but they really couldn't care less about your "freedoms".
Sorry for the OT rant. Yes, airlines are safe, and I'd happily fly on Malaysian airlines again. (Its their neighbours in Indonesia who have the relatively poor safety record.)
Pedantic note: They were designed to withstand the impact of a 727, a larger plane than the DC-9 that was already in service when the DC-9 first flew.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
There were multiple failures in that chain. Lubitz was found unfit to fly and was told as much. He was then given a note to pass on to his employer. He didn't, was able to lock the captain out of the cockpit, and crashed the plane.
The failures included, at a minimum, the apparent lack of procedure for doctors to directly notify the airline and pilot certification authority that they were revoking his medical, and lack of procedure requiring that two people be in the cockpit at all times. A direct notification of the airline or pilot certification authority at the time of the revocation (like, before he even left the building) or a requirement that a flight attendant be in the cockpit when one of the pilots is outside it probably would have prevented this.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
According to your first link, there are about 589G air Passenger-Miles per year compared to 4 230G highway Passenger-Miles.
Let's say 10x more for road.
From 2000 to 2015, there has been about 630 death in (air carrier) plane crashes in the US, that includes 9/11 but not people on the ground. Hell, from 2006 to 2015 there's been something like 5 deaths! That's about 42 per year. (Counted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)
In 2013, there was 32 000 killed in road accidents, let's say it 30k now. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... )
That results in about 7.1 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for cars compared to 0.071 deaths/G Passenger-Miles for planes. Or two orders of magnitude in the worst case for planes! That's a big difference.
As for your second link, I'm pretty sure car accidents (and plane accidents, but they are negligible) are included in "Accidents (unintentional injuries)", which is fourth. Moreover, if you're between 20 and 40, heart disease and cancer are going to be much lower on the list, the 65+ skew too much the data. http://www.cdc.gov/injury/imag...