The search for MH370

[fromderinside]

So that rules out the crazy ideas about hijackers landing it somewhere; or the spooks diverting it to Diego Garcia to capture some passengers; or a flight North to central Asia; and it makes a crash in the South China Sea look pretty unlikely too.

You've harshly criticised fellow human beings for being essentially unscientific in their approach to the realities of reality so it's only fair somebody criticises you for poor logic, yes? So here we go:
Whatever we find around the Ile de la Réunion or on its beaches, it won't rule out the crazy scenarios you say it does. Hijackers and spooks, for example, might have decided to try to lead astray rational enquirers and investigators (and possibly alligators) by planting there a wing debris taken from the very aircraft they would have hijacked. They would have had the time, the means and the motive. Worse, they might have decided specifically to lead you astray! I don't want to put pressure on you but one has to wonder what it is you have done to them!
EB

Your proposition is falsifiable by research in France. External evidence consistent with other than human or ocean intevention on the wing part consistent with flight problems should be enough.

 

[tantric]

the aliens took it. you *know* this, you just can't say it.

and for all y’all bitches up in cislunar station laughin’ your grey fuckin’ asses off – i tell y’all this, there’s gonna be a day of reckoning when humanity arrives at the transcendent scene. we gone be kickin’ ass and takin’ names about this ET shit. you do NOT vanish a plane full of people without a trace in the mf 21st century and walk away with it.

 

[credoconsolans]

I imagine it would be relatively easy to tell the difference between the part of a wing being ripped off with tremendous force and not.

You would imagine wrong; flaps, engines and control surfaces on modern aircraft are specifically designed to detach if a force is applied to them that would otherwise be sufficient to cause damage to the wing; It is far better to lose a flaperon or even an engine than it is to lose a wing, as a 777 is quite capable of controlled flight minus one engine, and/or one set of control surfaces (as long as the set on the other wing are in good condition), but major wing damage could easily render the aircraft incapable of flight.

Once the force applied to the flaperon reaches this designed failure threshold, the flaperon will part company with the wing, whether or not the aircraft goes on to recover into level flight, make a controlled ditching, or crash into the ocean at high speed.

It may be possible to tell which scenario resulted in the loss of this component; but it won't be easy, and it will likely require microscopic examination of the points of failure, by an expert in the properties of the materials involved. This examination will be made no easier by the fact that the component has been in the ocean for a year, subject to salt water corrosion, mechanical erosion of the exposed surfaces due to wave action, and fouling by marine life - Barnacles and other shellfish are quite adept at eroding surfaces to give themselves a better holdfast.

Nonsense. The plane cannot fly without flaps or engines so they and their mounts are built quite robustly, in fact in many plane crashes not only do the flaps remain on the wings, investigators can tell in what position they were in prior to the crash.

I believe they will find it relatively easy to determine which was the case. As for barnacles and sea salt damage, it depends on if the part remained on the fuselage up until recently or detached at the same time as the crash. How long has it been on the beach? How long was it at sea?

 

[fromderinside]

You would imagine wrong; flaps, engines and control surfaces on modern aircraft are specifically designed to detach if a force is applied to them that would otherwise be sufficient to cause damage to the wing; It is far better to lose a flaperon or even an engine than it is to lose a wing, as a 777 is quite capable of controlled flight minus one engine, and/or one set of control surfaces (as long as the set on the other wing are in good condition), but major wing damage could easily render the aircraft incapable of flight.

Once the force applied to the flaperon reaches this designed failure threshold, the flaperon will part company with the wing, whether or not the aircraft goes on to recover into level flight, make a controlled ditching, or crash into the ocean at high speed.

It may be possible to tell which scenario resulted in the loss of this component; but it won't be easy, and it will likely require microscopic examination of the points of failure, by an expert in the properties of the materials involved. This examination will be made no easier by the fact that the component has been in the ocean for a year, subject to salt water corrosion, mechanical erosion of the exposed surfaces due to wave action, and fouling by marine life - Barnacles and other shellfish are quite adept at eroding surfaces to give themselves a better holdfast.

Nonsense. The plane cannot fly without flaps or engines so they and their mounts are built quite robustly, in fact in many plane crashes not only do the flaps remain on the wings, investigators can tell in what position they were in prior to the crash.

I believe they will find it relatively easy to determine which was the case. As for barnacles and sea salt damage, it depends on if the part remained on the fuselage up until recently or detached at the same time as the crash. How long has it been on the beach? How long was it at sea?

I was riding as a human factors jump seat observer in a DC 10 where the operator in control (the co-pilot in this case) chose to approach at about 50 knots (a bit over 220 knots) over what design specifications permitted resulting in leading edge flaps being ripped off the winds. We got down OK because the field was over 10K feet long, the plane has other control surfaces which compensated for some of the excess control issues, and the plane was equipped with engine thrust reversers which he used early. These ships are designed for stupid shit by humans even back there in 1981.

 

[bilby]

You would imagine wrong; flaps, engines and control surfaces on modern aircraft are specifically designed to detach if a force is applied to them that would otherwise be sufficient to cause damage to the wing; It is far better to lose a flaperon or even an engine than it is to lose a wing, as a 777 is quite capable of controlled flight minus one engine, and/or one set of control surfaces (as long as the set on the other wing are in good condition), but major wing damage could easily render the aircraft incapable of flight.

Once the force applied to the flaperon reaches this designed failure threshold, the flaperon will part company with the wing, whether or not the aircraft goes on to recover into level flight, make a controlled ditching, or crash into the ocean at high speed.

It may be possible to tell which scenario resulted in the loss of this component; but it won't be easy, and it will likely require microscopic examination of the points of failure, by an expert in the properties of the materials involved. This examination will be made no easier by the fact that the component has been in the ocean for a year, subject to salt water corrosion, mechanical erosion of the exposed surfaces due to wave action, and fouling by marine life - Barnacles and other shellfish are quite adept at eroding surfaces to give themselves a better holdfast.

Nonsense. The plane cannot fly without flaps or engines so they and their mounts are built quite robustly, in fact in many plane crashes not only do the flaps remain on the wings, investigators can tell in what position they were in prior to the crash.

I believe they will find it relatively easy to determine which was the case. As for barnacles and sea salt damage, it depends on if the part remained on the fuselage up until recently or detached at the same time as the crash. How long has it been on the beach? How long was it at sea?

These flaperons are not that robustly attached; indeed, the FAA had to issue an AWD in 2005 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-12-16/pdf/05-24050.pdf) to have the attachment strengthened, as there was a perceived risk of in-flight separation - and if the thing is at risk of coming off in-flight, you can be sure that detachment is a strong likelihood for any kind of impact, controlled or otherwise. Of course, there is no guarantee that separation will occur in all crashes.

A 777 can fly perfectly well after the loss of one engine, or one flaperon. Not so much if it loses a wing though.

If the aircraft sank in the deep ocean (as seems likely), the flaperon would have shown distinct pressure damage (its construction is largely a honeycomb of hollow cells sandwiched by composite), unless it detached before the aircraft sank to an appreciable depth.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You've harshly criticised fellow human beings for being essentially unscientific in their approach to the realities of reality so it's only fair somebody criticises you for poor logic, yes? So here we go:
Whatever we find around the Ile de la Réunion or on its beaches, it won't rule out the crazy scenarios you say it does. Hijackers and spooks, for example, might have decided to try to lead astray rational enquirers and investigators (and possibly alligators) by planting there a wing debris taken from the very aircraft they would have hijacked. They would have had the time, the means and the motive. Worse, they might have decided specifically to lead you astray! I don't want to put pressure on you but one has to wonder what it is you have done to them!
EB

Your proposition is falsifiable by research in France. External evidence consistent with other than human or ocean intevention on the wing part consistent with flight problems should be enough.

You appear to be so naive sometimes I feel for you! I really do.

More seriously, you should know it's all a matter of who has the best expertise and technical means. A good expert can expect to fool consistently a lesser one.

I guess you know that but choose to pretend otherwise. What do you want to hide from us?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

You appear to be so naive sometimes I feel for you! I really do.

More seriously, you should know it's all a matter of who has the best expertise and technical means. A good expert can expect to fool consistently a lesser one.

I guess you know that but choose to pretend otherwise. What do you want to hide from us?
EB

Your attempt at challenge is noted and rejected. Really! Next time at least use a glove and try with your eyes open.

When you find someone who can stand for you perhaps then?

We always go against a stable reference in such matters and Airbus is located in France (an obvious setup). You should now that.