MH370 wreckage

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › MH370 wreckage

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

19282 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1358779 4-Aug-2015 16:00

DravidDavid:
tdgeek:
DravidDavid:
frankv:
Remember you read it here first... It hasn't been ruled that this could be a COUNTERFEIT part (counterfeiting has plagued the aviation industry for years), in which case, even if the serial nuimbers match, it MIGHT NOT be from MH370.

Are counterfeit parts an actual thing, or was that part of your sarcasm/joke? I can't tell and it's killing me! :P

It is. Air crash teams fight that, as the struggle to remain profitable finds smaller and not so smaller airlines getting third party parts. Air Crash Investigation had a full episode on that topic, with a number of real world examples and captures. Safety is hugely compromised.

Wow, OK.

It's funny, before I knew any of this after reading about the section of wing. I started to think how aircraft parts got around the world. I briefly theorised that the part could have simply fallen off a ship in transit or something, as so many other things do. But discarded my theory as I assumed the likes of Boeing would have kept that highly regulated and transported by other means, or not at all.

Perhaps counterfeit parts were being shipped at the time and this is an unbelievable coincidence. I hope we get a diagnosis sooner rather than later to end all the speculation though!

Some parts ended up on Air Force one

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1358783 4-Aug-2015 16:03

MikeAqua: If you have multiple debris items wash up in varying amounts at different locations this gives you a crude vector to a common origin for those debris items. Combined with hydrodynamics, it's a more useful technique than you might expect.

joker97:
tdgeek:
MikeAqua: If debris from the plane turns up at multiple locations in varying amounts, then it might be possible to infer the point of origin of the debris to some level of accuracy.

Sounds too hard given the untold number of variables, but I read the other day where it would be very useful to reverse the winds and currents to create a backwards model. So different items of weight, exposure to winds, (ideally less) and reverse the known currents and winds. If they adjust the weightings of current and wind effect until the parts all generally meet up. Also thety are getting biochemists to assess the time in the water, useful if thay cannot get a unique part number of the wing part

Narrowing it down from a drop in the ocean to a drop in the ocean with some uncertainty is still a drop in the ocean

Also some sealife that maybe on the wreakage only exists in certain parts of the ocean. So any sea life such as barnacles can tell it's own story and help narrow down where the wreak could be.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1360716 7-Aug-2015 15:18

Does anyone else think it is really disrespectful for the families, that they still haven't 100% confirmed the wreakage is from the plane? Apparently the airline has confirmed it, but the people analyising it still won't give 100% confirmation, probably to cover themselves if they are incorrect. But it means that the families still don't know, as they don't appear to have that much faith in the airline based on what has previously happened. They really deserve that 100% certainty to move on.
Surely it can't be that difficult to identify a physical part that appears to be in pretty good condition, apart from it being ripped off the plane. Initially the media said that the paint colour was wrong as it shouldn't have been white for that plane, by the airline has now confirmed that the paint colour and codes are all correct.

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1360722 7-Aug-2015 15:28

mattwnz: Does anyone else think it is really disrespectful for the families, that they still haven't 100% confirmed the wreakage is from the plane? Apparently the airline has confirmed it, but the people analyising it still won't give 100% confirmation, probably to cover themselves if they are incorrect. But it means that the families still don't know, as they don't appear to have that much faith in the airline based on what has previously happened. They really deserve that 100% certainty to move on.
Surely it can't be that difficult to identify a physical part that appears to be in pretty good condition, apart from it being ripped off the plane. Initially the media said that the paint colour was wrong as it shouldn't have been white for that plane, by the airline has now confirmed that the paint colour and codes are all correct.

Think you answered your own question.

If there are worried about being wrong and covering themselves, doesn't than mean that they are not 100% sure and therefore cant give 100% confirmation?

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1360725 7-Aug-2015 15:35

throbb:
mattwnz: Does anyone else think it is really disrespectful for the families, that they still haven't 100% confirmed the wreakage is from the plane? Apparently the airline has confirmed it, but the people analyising it still won't give 100% confirmation, probably to cover themselves if they are incorrect. But it means that the families still don't know, as they don't appear to have that much faith in the airline based on what has previously happened. They really deserve that 100% certainty to move on.
Surely it can't be that difficult to identify a physical part that appears to be in pretty good condition, apart from it being ripped off the plane. Initially the media said that the paint colour was wrong as it shouldn't have been white for that plane, by the airline has now confirmed that the paint colour and codes are all correct.

Think you answered your own question.

If there are worried about being wrong and covering themselves, doesn't than mean that they are not 100% sure and therefore cant give 100% confirmation?

You have to wonder though how sure you have to be, otherwise why bother taking it to an expert.eg . If it looks like a dog, smells like a dog, and has the DNA of a dog, you can't say it is very likely to be a dog, you would have to say it definitely is a dog. Otherwise what is the point of having a professional assessment if they can't stand behind it. The airline obviously have no doubt, as they have 100% confirmed it themselves. Maybe it is also the country it is being declared from.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1360795 7-Aug-2015 17:55

If [the strand of hair] looks like it's from a dog, smells like a dog, and has the DNA of a dog, you can't say it is very likely to be a dog, you would have to say it definitely is [from] a dog, [but you cannot say it's definitely your dog until the DNA matches that of your dog].

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1360823 7-Aug-2015 18:33

joker97: If [the strand of hair] looks like it's from a dog, smells like a dog, and has the DNA of a dog, you can't say it is very likely to be a dog, you would have to say it definitely is [from] a dog, [but you cannot say it's definitely your dog until the DNA matches that of your dog].

The thing is that one party has apready confirmed it, the airline. This was was probably the equivalent of the dogs head, as pilots were relatively easily able to identify that the part was from a 777 from basic photos. The only question is really which 777 it belongs to. As there has only even been 2 crashes, and only one in this part of the world it narrows it down to one... The codes though should be able to conclusively confirm it, and the airline has already confirmed it based on the code. So why another party which is supposed to be the experts haven't confirmed it creates uncertainty for the families. What is the point of sending it to experts to confirm it with experts f they won't do that. It sounds like they haven't been given the same information to confirm it.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1360830 7-Aug-2015 18:44

I didn't realise the codes [DNA] match.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1360858 7-Aug-2015 19:52

joker97: I didn't realise the codes [DNA] match.

I would think the codes would be more accurate than DNA, as DNA has a margin of error.
They could say that there is a 99.999% chance, so they have got an out. That would satisfy most people.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1360888 7-Aug-2015 20:43

mattwnz:
joker97: I didn't realise the codes [DNA] match.

I would think the codes would be more accurate than DNA, as DNA has a margin of error.
They could say that there is a 99.999% chance, so they have got an out. That would satisfy most people.

Someone could have gotten a 777 Wing from Ebay, and elaborately painted it in a massive hoax!

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1360913 7-Aug-2015 21:13

networkn:
mattwnz:
joker97: I didn't realise the codes [DNA] match.

I would think the codes would be more accurate than DNA, as DNA has a margin of error.
They could say that there is a 99.999% chance, so they have got an out. That would satisfy most people.

Someone could have gotten a 777 Wing from Ebay, and elaborately painted it in a massive hoax!

LOL. To be boring, the 777 was the first fly by wire jetliner. It was built in a 6 or 7 storey building and flown in test flights in that building. As it was computer controlled they rigged the parts and flew it in a simulation using the actual parts , pretty darn cool. 777 parts are unique, unlike other designs you wont find them in other aircraft.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1361071 8-Aug-2015 10:22

tdgeek: LOL. To be boring, the 777 was the first fly by wire jetliner. It was built in a 6 or 7 storey building and flown in test flights in that building. As it was computer controlled they rigged the parts and flew it in a simulation using the actual parts , pretty darn cool. 777 parts are unique, unlike other designs you wont find them in other aircraft.

Actually the 777 wasn't the first fly by wire jetliner. Ch out the A320.

I'm not sure where you got the story about test flying the 777 in the large hangar. It's not something I've ever heard of or could find any reference to. It doesn't sound right to me.

777 parts unique? Unlike other designs?

I think you'll find most airframe parts, especially in the case of wing components, are unique to each type of aircraft. The 777 is no different in this regard to any other type.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1361079 8-Aug-2015 10:40

Technofreak:
tdgeek: LOL. To be boring, the 777 was the first fly by wire jetliner. It was built in a 6 or 7 storey building and flown in test flights in that building. As it was computer controlled they rigged the parts and flew it in a simulation using the actual parts , pretty darn cool. 777 parts are unique, unlike other designs you wont find them in other aircraft.

Actually the 777 wasn't the first fly by wire jetliner. Ch out the A320.

I'm not sure where you got the story about test flying the 777 in the large hangar. It's not something I've ever heard of or could find any reference to. It doesn't sound right to me.

777 parts unique? Unlike other designs?

I think you'll find most airframe parts, especially in the case of wing components, are unique to each type of aircraft. The 777 is no different in this regard to any other type.

Yes, nit FBW, I recall it was the first designed and flown by computer design, and re flying it in the test building, that was on a doco back then. The unassembled parts were connected electronically as they are when assembled, and tested that way. As to unique, thats what the news has been saying.gBeing being that Boeing, Airbus aircraft may have many common parts, but many of the 777 are unique to that aircraft. Blame the news if that is incorrect

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1361081 8-Aug-2015 10:47

Checked, it was designed and flown by CAD and a visualisation system. I got that wrong. The multi storey building and the parts still rings a large bell. Maybe some parts were connected, or I read/viewed it wrong

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1361095 8-Aug-2015 11:40

That thing is as big as a multi storey building. And to test fly inside it? Oh ...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8