Flaperon found on Reunion Island not from MH370?

Sofar, still no official confirmation by the French investigators that the flaperon found on Reunion Island a month ago came for flight MH370.

In fact it appears that it is not from MH370 at all.

nymag.com...

Tomorrow marks one month since a piece of a Boeing 777 washed up on the Indian Ocean island of La Réunion, but French investigators are no closer to confirming that the part came from missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. In fact, leaks from within the investigation suggest that the part might not have come from the plane at all.

Aviation experts declared that serial numbers on the flaperon would allow it to be definitively linked to the missing plane within 24 hours. When that deadline passed, news outlets told readers that the ID should be nailed down within a few days. Then by the following week.

The Malasysian prime minister claimed that the part was in fact confirmed to have come from MH370, though.

The waters were muddied on August 6, when Malaysia's prime minister, Najib Razak, announced that experts examining the flaperon in France had “conclusively confirmed” that it was from the plane. Minutes later, the French prosecutor in charge of the case, Serge Mackowiak, contradicted Najib and stated that confirmation would require further tests. Around the world, however, many prominent news outlets, including CNN and the BBC, went with Najib’s more confident-sounding claim.

So now it turns out that it is probably not from MH370 after all.

The story briefly faded from the public eye. Then, on August 21, the French news outlet La Dépêche ran a report citing sources within the investigation who indicated that the technical examination of the flaperon had ended without the hoped-for evidence being found. A few days later, Le Monde ran a report that echoed the Times’ earlier reporting: “[M]aintenance work that Malaysia Airlines has indicated it carried out on the flaperon does not exactly match that observed on the discovered piece.”

Why am I not surprised?

But if the part didn’t come from MH370, where could it have come from? In recent weeks the internet has been abuzz with speculation that the part might have been a replacement part not yet put into service or a spare part pulled off a scrapped airframe

Yep.I don't think it fell of a ship and washed up there, by accident.

I'd say the title to your post is wrong. It's too early to declare that it isn't from MH370. The French take the month of August off for vacation. Some of the experts aren't back to work until this week. Let's see what comes of it.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

I'd say it is spot on.

. A few days later, Le Monde ran a report that echoed the Times’ earlier reporting: “[M]aintenance work that Malaysia Airlines has indicated it carried out on the flaperon does not exactly match that observed on the discovered piece.”

The fact that it is taking so long is telling enough.

a reply to: TheAristTocratS

So speculation and statements that it IS a match is wrong,

But speculation and commentary that it's NOT a match is spot on?

a reply to: Shamrock6

I modified the title just to pretty please everyone.

From the NY Times.

www.nytimes.com...

A person involved in the investigation said, however, that experts from Boeing and the National Transportation Safety Board who had seen the object, a piece of what is known as a flaperon, were not yet fully satisfied, and called for further analysis. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage Police officers inspecting metallic debris that was discovered on Sunday at a beach in St.-Denis, the capital of Réunion. St.-Denis Journal: Tiny Island of Réunion Awash in Intrigue Over Vanished Malaysian PlaneAUG. 2, 2015 Workers searched the beach for possible debris near where part of an airplane was found washed up on the island of Reunion on Friday. Plane Debris Is Probably From Flight 370, Australians SayJULY 31, 2015 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.

a reply to: TheAristTocratS

And they're waiting for confirmation from the company that makes them in Spain. It's speculation right now that it's not.

a reply to: Zaphod58

And they're waiting for confirmation from the company that makes them in Spain.

What do you mean?

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.

How does the Spanish manufacturer come into play here. Looks ike they already have their information, or even that their information is not even relevant.

What is your source?

a reply to: TheAristTocratS

Because the modification could have been done and not logged, or not done correctly. That's not confirmation, that's circumstantial evidence. Confirmation is an actual serial number, that is logged, and tracked from start to installation.

A source close to the investigation told CNN, "What we know so far is that it is for sure from a 777. We know that this is the only 777 that is missing in that specific region.

"We still need to identify a number that is inside the flaperon. It is a Spanish subcontracting company that owns that part. This company would be able to identify this number, but the staff is on vacation. We'll have to wait for next week to get their guidance.

economictimes.indiatimes.com...

I suspect this piece will disappear and some excuse will be made.

It will show blast marks from the tomahawk.

a reply to: YeahYea4

A Tomahawk? The only way a Tomahawk hits a plane is if the plane is parked on the ground.

Seems all the 'experts' agree it is a flaperon from a 777, and it is totally unbelievable that one would fall off in-flight without disastrous consequences. However, the general public would probably not be able to discern whether it was or was not actually a flaperon from a Boeing 777. Is it possible that this is not a fact?

Are there any existing scrapped 777s? It is a fairly new airframe. I consider that unlikely. And scrapped, then one piece thrown into the ocean (see below)? Once again, probably NOT likely unless this was an effort to obscure the truth (throw a piece into the ocean after the plane was landed elsewhere, maybe?)

Could it be one that was used as a replacement part, and then subsequently dumped in the Indian Ocean and allowed to float long enough to become barnacle-encrusted before discovery on an island near Africa?

All of those explanations could be nothing more than obscuring the truth.

Why so much effort to obscure the truth???

a reply to: Zaphod58

Because the modification could have been done and not logged, or not done correctly. That's not confirmation, that's circumstantial evidence. Confirmation is an actual serial number, that is logged, and tracked from start to installation.

What does the modification have to with the Spanish subcontractor manufacturer of a supposed piece inside the flaperon? You are mixing two different things here.

"We still need to identify a number that is inside the flaperon. It is a Spanish subcontracting company that owns that part. This company would be able to identify this number, but the staff is on vacation. We'll have to wait for next week to get their guidance.

So your Malaysian source says that.

My French source says this.

The person involved in the investigation said no serial or other unique number had been found, making the job of conclusively identifying the object more complicated. The person also said that so far, no burn marks or other evidence of physical damage had been found that might provide clues to the circumstances in which the plane went down.

Since the Malaysian have already been caught lying, I am inclined to believe the French source.

Maybe change your OP from "Flaperon found on Reunion Island not from MH370?" to "Flaperon found on Reunion Island may not be from MH370?

apart from that, i agree, it s been a while and the news should have been comfirmed

a reply to: Phatdamage

Maybe change your OP from "Flaperon found on Reunion Island not from MH370?" to "Flaperon found on Reunion Island may not be from MH370?

Lol.

No.

What is even the difference? Doesn't the question mark indicate that it is being questioned?

a reply to: TheAristTocratS

Where did I say that the modification had anything to do with the Spanish company? Maybe you should read a little more carefully. I said they're waiting on a Spanish company to verify a serial number found inside the flaperon, I didn't say anything about it having to do with any modification.

Where did it say anything about that being from a Malaysian source? Once again if you had read correctly, or even bothered to read the entire article:

Judicial investigators know the part comes from a Boeing 777, but they say they still need to identify a number inside the wing part, called a flaperon, CNN quoted a French source close to the investigation as saying.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Where did I say that the modification had anything to do with the Spanish company?

You certainly implied it when you replied to my post that contained this qoute, talking about the Spanish company.

A person involved in the investigation said, however, that experts from Boeing and the National Transportation Safety Board who had seen the object, a piece of what is known as a flaperon, were not yet fully satisfied, and called for further analysis. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage Police officers inspecting metallic debris that was discovered on Sunday at a beach in St.-Denis, the capital of Réunion. St.-Denis Journal: Tiny Island of Réunion Awash in Intrigue Over Vanished Malaysian PlaneAUG. 2, 2015 Workers searched the beach for possible debris near where part of an airplane was found washed up on the island of Reunion on Friday. Plane Debris Is Probably From Flight 370, Australians SayJULY 31, 2015 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.

It looked like you were responding to those claims specifically.

Judicial investigators know the part comes from a Boeing 777, but they say they still need to identify a number inside the wing part, called a flaperon, CNN quoted a French source close to the investigation as saying.

Yes, that is what your Malaysian source says.

Can you locate this CNN report?

a reply to: TheAristTocratS

I stated that the lack of modification was circumstantial and they needed to identify a number. That's not implying anything.

CNN 8/29.

www.cnn.com...

Word for word with what I quoted.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: YeahYea4

A Tomahawk? The only way a Tomahawk hits a plane is if the plane is parked on the ground.

The TLCS capsule was designed for just this. (The T stands for Tomahawk)

Germany developed the IDAS recently but those were not tomahawks. You can bet your bottom that the US has a system that is as advanced if not more.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ok thanks, my initial search didn't show it.

Weird. First sources claim no number was found inside the flaperon. Then suddenly a number is found but people are on vacation.

What is going to be their excuse next week when everybody is back all fresh and tanned?