One thing that is immediately notable from an investigation perspective is that every one of the nine pieces is from an external location on the airplane, where it is vulnerable to damage from a controlled ditching event. Also, as discussed earlier, it is interesting to note a lack of items from inside the airplane, such as personal effects, luggage, or other items from the cargo area. You would expect to see lots of floating material from the cargo after a high-speed diving crash.
The only pieces recovered that were identified as being from the interior of MH370 are the three that we have already addressed (above). It should be noted that other small pieces have been found, but none of them have been positively identified as being from MH370. It is possible that some of them might be, and if so, they would be consistent with being produced during a pilot controlled ditching, the same as the other pieces we have analyzed.
Let’s look at the remaining nine pieces of recovered wreckage. Three of the nine are pieces dislodged from the flap system (piece #’s 2, 10 and 27). We have already discussed how a flaps-extended (down) controlled ditching would make such pieces highly vulnerable to becoming dislodged. We would expect to see those pieces.
Two of the nine remaining pieces were dislodged from the engine cowlings (piece #’s 4 and 6). Engine cowl pieces would be particularly susceptible to being dislodged during a controlled ditching, given that the engines would be first to enter the water. We would expect to see those pieces.
Another two of the nine are pieces from what is called the wing-to-body fairing (piece #’s 7 and 20). As implied in the name, these fairings are located at the meeting point between the wing and the fuselage (at the wing root). One fairing piece was positively identified as being from the right wing. The in-service location of the other is unknown, but we could speculate that it is also from the right wing. We know about the crushing that happened at that precise location during the controlled ditching, so we would expect to see those pieces.
One of the nine pieces was identified as part of the right-hand nose gear forward door (piece # 18). In a controlled ditching, that area of the airplane’s forward underside would be subjected to extreme water forces. There would be a high potential for this nose gear door piece to be dislodged during a controlled ditching.
The last one of the nine pieces is from a bottom panel on either a wing, or the horizontal stabilizer, which is part of the tail (piece #12). A piece from either of those locations would be subject to the forces we have already discussed as being present during a controlled ditching event.
From an investigation perspective, the information from these nine pieces is very powerful. When we include these remaining nine pieces, we have now analyzed all twenty of the identified pieces recovered from MH370. We have shown that each of the twenty can be directly connected to a controlled ditching event.
As an investigation exercise, we can now try to connect these twenty pieces to a high-speed diving crash scenario. As we know, a high-speed diving crash would have created hundreds (and realistically thousands) of pieces of floating debris. Many of those pieces would be at least as buoyant as the twenty pieces that have actually been recovered.
Staying with our investigation exercise, let’s assume there actually was a high-speed diving crash. We would start with thousands of buoyant wreckage pieces floating in a debris field on the ocean surface. Let us now say that we could magically go to the floating debris field, and tag the exact twenty pieces that have been recovered and identified. Now we wait for several months, to see what happens, as these thousands of pieces float randomly in the ocean.
Let us assume that over the many months, most of the original thousands of pieces deteriorate, and sink to the bottom. But logic (and physics) tells us that there would still be many dozens, and more realistically hundreds, of pieces that would continue to float for just as long as the twenty that we magically marked (the ones that made it to a shoreline and were recovered).
What do you think the odds would be that of the hundreds of pieces that remained floating, the only pieces to float to a shoreline would be the exact twenty pieces that we magically marked? These are the same twenty pieces that we have directly connected to a controlled ditching event. There are no other pieces. You do not have to be a specialist in probability theory to recognize what the odds are against that happening. Essentially, the chance of that happening is zero.
The reason that no high-speed dive type pieces have been found is that they were not created in the first place. There was no high-speed diving crash. The reason that only pieces linked to a controlled ditching have been found is that they were the only ones that were created. We have seen the evidence that explains how they were created.
Once again, this type of analysis should not have been a challenge for the official investigation. You can judge that for yourself. It is simply common sense.
We can assess why the official investigation was unable to figure it out. As explained previously, from very early in the investigation they became fixated on their unpiloted airplane theory. That theory was reinforced when their experts pointed to what they believed to be electronic evidence of a high-speed dive.
It appears they were influenced by that bias when they looked at the few recovered wreckage pieces. Apparently, they saw the twenty pieces as a random assortment that had washed ashore from what was once a much larger debris field, made up of small floating pieces. They reasoned that only a few pieces made it to shore because all the others had eventually become water saturated, and sank to the bottom.
Apparently, they never recognized that all of the pieces that were being recovered would fit nicely into a pilot controlled ditching scenario. It seems they had no inclination to look at all the recovered pieces collectively to see if there was a scenario other than their own that could explain how they were created.
All the information above gives us an even clearer picture of what happened to MH370 as it approached and then entered the water. During the descent, the engines were running normally. Towards the bottom of the descent, the pilot extended the flaps to full down. The pilot put the airplane in a slightly nose-up (landing) attitude, with the wings level. The two engines touched first, and they were ripped away.
Then, the trailing edges of the extended (down) flaps (on both wings) started to contact the swells and waves. The airplane would still be travelling at a near flying speed. This contact with the water surface is what caused the trailing edge erosion and shattering damage we see on the recovered pieces from the flap system (the flaperon, and the section of the outboard flap).
As the airplane settled further into the water, the water pressure against the two flaperons caused the twin (mirror image) pieces to pop off the wings, as discussed above. The airplane continued to slow, and eventually the right wingtip entered a wave/swell, causing the right wingtip to dig into the water.
As explained earlier, the drag on the right wingtip is what created the spanwise loading that crushed the flaperon and outboard flap into each other. It was this crushing force, combined with the water forces, that caused them to break free. No such spanwise loading would have occurred on the left wing, because its wingtip did not dig into the water. This likely explains why similar pieces from the left wing flap system were not recovered (because they never broke free from the wing).
The extensive damage at the right wing root caused a rupture in the fuselage, creating a pathway for pieces from inside the fuselage to escape. It is likely that the most forward door on the right side of the fuselage popped open. It is possible that the entire right wing broke free from the airplane. It was either the entire right wing, or some significant piece from the right wing, that damaged the tail and dislodged pieces from there.
Water would have very quickly invaded into the fuselage through these holes, and the airplane would have quickly started to sink. The inrushing water would have allowed only a minimum number of pieces from inside the fuselage to escape.
Although this would have been a violent sequence overall, very few pieces of floating debris would have been created. This is the sequence that accounts for all the wreckage pieces that have been recovered. A high-speed diving crash scenario simply does not fit.
We must reinforce the significance of the flaps being extended (down) when MH370 entered the water. Only a deliberate selection by a pilot can extend the flaps. The fact that MH370’s flaps were extended (down) proves that a pilot was controlling MH370 at the end of its flight, and proves that the official investigation is not correct in their contention that MH370 was an unpiloted airplane.
The position of the flaps also proves that the airplane did not run out of fuel. To extend (lower) the flaps requires both a functioning hydraulic system, and a functioning electrical system. The flaps are electrically actuated, and hydraulically driven.
Some people will point out that the B777, like other transport category airplanes, has an auxiliary power unit (APU) that is capable of supplying both hydraulic and electrical power, even if the engines are not running. More will be included about the APU later, but for now, let me assure you that you do not have to understand the complexities of the B777’s backup systems to accept that the flaps cannot extend unless the pilot intentionally selects them down.
It is also not a stretch to accept that the pilot would want to have full control of the airplane all the way to the surface by having engine power available. He would have made certain that he had enough fuel to get the airplane on the water. It is much easier to control the airplane with the engines running than to try to control it without the engines running, especially if your intent is to conduct a controlled ditching.
Listed below are thirteen descriptions of physical evidence that prove the flaps were extended when MH370 entered the water. In my opinion, each one of the thirteen is sufficient, all on its own, to prove there was no high-speed diving crash.
From an investigation perspective, and even from a common sense perspective, when you look at these thirteen physical pieces of evidence collectively, they provide overwhelming and indisputable proof that MH370 entered the water in a flaps-extended (down) pilot-controlled ditching.
Here are the thirteen descriptions of the physical evidence that confirm that the airplane’s flaps were extended (down):
1 – The basic pristine condition of the recovered flaperon (see Figure 4)
If the airplane had entered the water in a high-speed diving crash, the entire airplane would have been destroyed in the blink of an eye. It would be impossible for the flaperon to have maintained its normal curved shape at its leading edge, and to have maintained its normal curvature along its upper and lower surfaces.
2 – The erosion damage along the trailing edge of the flaperon (see Figure 7)
The damage along the trailing edge of the flaperon could not have occurred in a high-speed diving crash, where the flaps would be in a streamlined (trail) position. The erosion damage resulted from the force of water being directed down and around the extended (down) flaperon as the flaperon was being pulled through the water during a controlled ditching event.
3 – The uncrushed (basically pristine) condition of the recovered piece from the right outboard flap (see Figure 9 and Figure 19)
Similar to the flaperon, it would be impossible for the flap section to have maintained its normal curved shape at its leading edge, and its normal curvature along its upper and lower surfaces, if the airplane had entered the water in a high-speed diving crash.
4 – The shattering damage along the trailing edge of the recovered flap section (see Figure 9)
Similar to the flaperon, the damage along the trailing edge of the recovered flap section could not have occurred in a high-speed diving crash, where the flaps would be in a streamlined (trail) position. This shattering was caused by multiple impacts on the trailing edge of the extended (down) flap as the airplane settled into the swells and waves during a pilot-controlled ditching event.
5 – The compression fracture in the end plate of the flap section, caused by spanwise crushing forces that crushed the flap and the flaperon together (see Figure 12)
The compression fracture was caused by the spanwise crushing forces along the trailing edge of the right wing. Spanwise forces could not have been created in a high-speed diving crash. The spanwise crushing forces were created when the right wingtip dug into the water during a pilot-controlled ditching event.
6 – The “V-shaped” black smudge witness marking on the outside of the seal pan endplate (see Figures 11, 14 and 16)
This smudging was created when the severe spanwise force caused crushing between the outboard end of the flaperon and the endplate. The location of the smudge witness marks shows the relative positions of the flaperon and the outboard flap when the crushing occurred. This witness mark evidence is proof that the flaps were extended when MH370 entered the water.
7 – The damage around the edges of the entry hole for the flap support track to extend into the seal pan (see Figure 20)
The support track and carriage assembly caused that damage when they were pulled out through the hole. This could only happen if the wing was going forward, while at the same time the flap was being held back. The flap was extended (down) and was being pulled through the water. It is impossible for that scenario to be created in a high-speed diving crash.
8 – The witness mark damage inside the seal pan that shows the flailing flap section moved in two different directions – at one time moving forward, and at another time moving aft (see Figure 21)
A high-speed diving crash would explosively rupture the wing in a tiny fraction of a second. The entire airplane, with all its pieces, would have only massive forward momentum. In a high-speed diving crash scenario, it is physically impossible for the flap to have moved so that it could create damage while travelling in two opposite directions.
9 – The significant inward bend in the flap’s push/pull rod that proves it was experiencing a significant spanwise (inboard) bending load before it finally broke (see Figure 22 and Figure 23)
Such a spanwise force could never be created in a high-speed diving crash.
10 – The overlapping gouging on the recovered flap section that confirms the presence of compressive buckling loads along the fracture line (see Figure 24)
The spanwise loading caused the trailing edge of the wing to buckle in a wave pattern. It was buckled downward at the seam line where the recovered flap section ultimately broke free from the rest of the flap. In a high-speed diving crash, it would be impossible to create such spanwise loading and compressive buckling.
11 – The end-point damage at the outboard leading edge corner of the recovered flap section, caused by the downward buckling at the location of the eventual fracture line (see Figure 24)
This end-point damage confirms the presence of compressive buckling loads that would be impossible to create in a high-speed diving crash scenario.
12 – The impact witness mark left by the aft end of the flap support track on the stiffener bracket inside the seal pan (see Figure 25)
The location of the witness mark (it is both off-centre, and beyond the normal full up position of the support track) proves that when this mark was made, the liberated flap section was flailing and moving towards up (retracted). In order for this flap section to move “up” at the instant it was liberated, it had to have started in a down (extended) position.
13 – The pristine condition of the front (forward) part of the seal pan endplate (see Figure 26)
Had the flaps been fully retracted, the spanwise crushing would have left three significant crushing imprints at the front of the endplate. The front of the endplate would have crushed into the three robust structural pieces inside the wing. The complete absence of this type of damage is proof that the flaps were not retracted.
As stated earlier, each of these thirteen physical pieces of evidence is, by itself, sufficient to prove the flaps were fully extended (down) when MH370 entered the water. When they are looked at collectively, they leave absolutely no doubt.