04-22-2015, 09:58 AM (This post was last modified: 04-22-2015, 10:06 AM by Peetwo.)
Much like AG has done above, I would like to start a media/blog/social media archive here on this thread. No real rules to be applied just that the story, article, statement, video or pic must be verified and not be a regurgitated, pc'd or photo-shopped version pinched off the endless stream of mindless 24/7 MSM sound bites.
To begin I will start with a link to Clive Irving's latest offering off The Beast..why? Well because the question on debris drift is indeed mystifying (i.e. there is zero debris found at this stage) & questions the whole validity of the SIO search & the whole credibility of the ATSB so called "experts" - MH370 Search May Be in the Wrong Place Again
Quote:CI: "..Something significant was missing when senior ministers from Malaysia, Australia and China announced a new effort to find the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 on Thursday. There was no mention of what is fast becoming the most perplexing feature of this multi-layered mystery: why has no floating wreckage turned up?
Make no mistake, the more time that passes without a single piece of floating wreckage being found the stranger it gets.
There is no previous case in the history of modern intercontinental jets where a crash into an ocean has not produced floating wreckage – and within days of the disaster. No matter how violent the impact of an airplane hitting the water there will always be some scattered debris that never sinks..."
Next article was from the Huffington post - MH370 Malaysia Airlines Search Area To Be Doubled
This article focussed somewhat on Captain Simon Hardy's calculated position on the 7th arc for the MH370 wreckage but the part that piqued my interest was this:
Quote:After losing contact with air traffic control over the China Sea, Hardy says the transponder was turned off and then the aircraft did something “quite remarkable.”
“It did a U-turn and reached landfall exactly at the border between Malaysia and Thailand. Then it flew along the border. It went in and out of those two countries’ airspace eight times. I’ve never seen anything like that, but it is a good way to cause confusion between controllers.” [Hardy's in-depth mathematical analyses can be read here.]
Why?? Well because Hardy is one of very few people that draws the same conclusion that I (& #P9) did i.e. that MH370 purposely flew along the FIR boundary to mask any real interest by the half-asleep ATCOs in possibly 4 surrounding Nations. Of course this theory like so many is dependent on the veracity of the Malaysian radar plot from IGARI west & across the Malay Peninsula to Malacca Straits etc..etc.
Next article was from the IBT - Malaysia Airlines MH370: 'Prove to world assumed flight path' says marine surveyor
I was somewhat taken by this article because I cannot believe that (in bold) has not been done:
"...The 45-year-old is now calling on the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) to prove its theory works by sending a plane along the assumed calculated flight path..."
I know that parts of the ATSB SIO theories are based on many hours spent in a B777 simulator but why haven't we flown the ATSB theoretical route in an actual aircraft?? Surely this exercise would be invaluable to test or invalidate many of the theories like the JW spoofing theory, the hacking theory etc..etc??
Shereef also questions the veracity of no debris findings and proposes:
Quote:Shereef also said to pinpoint the debris of the plane, oceangraphers should start locating it based on choosing a position like somewhere close to Antartica or south east of Maldives, which would be too far for any debris to be washed ashore to an inhabited place within a year.
Finally (for now) for the sake of the NOK and for the credibility of the JIT ICAO Annex 13 investigation I wish to reproduce in full the following article from the Malay Mail online:
Quote:Check out all theories including Maldives sighting before setting them aside, MH370 kin say
BY IDA LIM
Australian Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai and his Chinese counterpart Yang Chuantang address a news conference on the search for flight MH370 in Kuala Lumpur April 16, 2015. — Picture by Saw Siow Feng
KUALA LUMPUR, April 18 — Theories of Flight MH370 sightings and locations should be verified before being thrown out by search teams, the families of those aboard the ill-fated flight said today.
Voice370, the group representing the families, cited as example the claimed sighting of a plane flying low in the Maldives area.
“We believe that other theories put forward if accompanied by credible evidence should be verified by independent investigators before being discounted.
“For example, we would appreciate it if the investigation team would actually interview witnesses, like those in Maldives who claimed to have seen a low-flying plane for evidence to either prove or disprove the theory before they completely dismiss the possibility,” the group said in an email response to Malay Mail Online.
The underwater search for Flight MH370 is currently being conducted in the southern Indian Ocean off the Australian coast, while Maldives is an island in the Indian Ocean-Arabian Sea region.
This Thursday, Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said the alleged sightings of the still missing Flight MH370 in Maldives are “not possible”, noting that recent reports were merely year-old news reports that had resurfaced.
“It’s also completely inconsistent with satellite data that’s available and inconsistent with the radar sightings that were available. It wasn’t picked up by the Maldives air traffic tower or other authorities in that area and so it’s not considered to be a likely possibility,” he had told reporters here.
Truss had also said experts are “quite confident” that the aircraft likely lies within the search zone identified.
The three nations — Malaysia, Australia, China — said this Thursday that it will expand and double the current 60,000-square-kilometres search area if the plane is not found in the current zone.
In the same response to a question on whether Voice370 thinks the search should be conducted elsewhere, the group acknowledged that the authorities were basing their search area “on the only available evidence with a semblance of credibility”.
“We acknowledge the Independent Group of Experts who worked in parallel with the authorities also arrived at a similar conclusion but that does not mean every other possibility should be discounted,” it told Malay Mail Online.
This week, Malaysia’s Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai confirmed that 61 per cent of the current 60,000-square-kilometre search area located within the high priority zone has been scoured.
Both Australia and Malaysia are splitting the A$120 million (RM325 million) pledged for the search, while the expanded search phase is likely to cost the two nations an additional A$50 million.
The year-long search for Flight MH370 — which disappeared with 239 people on board on March 8 last year — has failed to yield any leads.
On January 29 this year, the Malaysian government declared the loss of Flight MH370 as an accident under international aviation regulations.
04-23-2015, 09:11 AM (This post was last modified: 04-23-2015, 09:14 AM by Peetwo.)
(04-22-2015, 09:58 AM)Peetwo Wrote: Much like AG has done above, I would like to start a media/blog/social media archive here on this thread. No real rules to be applied just that the story, article, statement, video or pic must be verified and not be a regurgitated, pc'd or photo-shopped version pinched off the endless stream of mindless 24/7 MSM sound bites...
Overnight (AEST) over on the - Australia, ATSB & MH370 thread - Gobbles caught a Oz MSM story that featured our super sleuth muppet Beaker.. .. yet again flapping his felt gums to the media... :
Quote:
(04-22-2015, 10:49 PM)Peetwo Wrote:
(04-22-2015, 09:51 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: Warning!! The below article contains pictures of Truss playing handsies and Beaker (complete with beard). The article also contains musings and mi mi mi from Beaker;
So there you have it, the 'font of knowledge', the maestro of facial hair, leads the way by telling us they are now going to undertake some tasks that they should've considered 12 months ago!
Mi mi mi.......Muppet!!
Geez Gobbles beardless Beaker one minute..then Beaker resplendent with full greying beard the next?? Bit like the regurgitated MMSM story to which you link, here it was earlier in the week with a few different details in the Irish Independent news:
Open Gallery 1Government ministers from Australia, China and Malaysia said they would double the search area for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 if wreckage is not found in the current target area. Photo: Reuters
Martin Dolan, an Australian career civil servant, has had to get to grips quickly with the murky world of maritime accident investigation.
As the man in charge of the search for the missing MH370 Malaysian Airlines plane, he has also had to work out how to motivate a team searching for months for debris in vast, dangerous and seemingly hopeless waters. But he remains upbeat.
"Do I expect to find the aircraft when I wake up every day? The answer is, I don't expect to, I hope to... but over the period between now and May, we expect to find the aircraft in the search area," he said, speaking from the Australian Transport Safety Board's headquarters in Canberra.
He said this is because he is getting more hopeful, rather than less, after months of disappointment, because he believes that success is closer as more ground is covered.
The prize is a big one: answers to the tragic mystery of what happened to MH370, the passenger jet which disappeared complete with 239 passengers and crew on board on March 8, 2014.
After a surface search for debris failed in the immediate aftermath of the accident, a more in-depth search involving a complex plan has been in place. However, despite all the massive resources and painstaking efforts nothing of substance has been seen or heard of the plane or the passengers since it vanished.
Irish Independent
This was the comment this article drew from Ben Sandilands on twitter...
"...Always entertaining to see him claiming to be doing anything other than following instructions from KL..."
What I found interesting about that article was the date & time - 17 April 02:30. Was that Irish dateline time or Canberra time?? If Canberra time, WTF was Beaker doing on the blower at such an ungodly hour & does that also mean that the muppet was left at home while the miniscule traipsed off to the KL Tripartite meeting?? And what journo worth his salt would dare to ring a foreign country public official after midnight (Oz EST) for an interview??
Now according to the Irish Independent Beaker was apparently telephone interviewed 6 days before at 02:30 in the morning and the story through repeated regurgitation has evolved...& evolved till we get this headline from the MMSM main competitor i.e. Fairfax Media in their SMH newspaper:
Quote:MH370 search to return to square one and comb for any missed clues
Date April 22, 2015 - 9:22PM
Tidal movements in the search zone and the abundance of rubbish in the ocean, have made the search for MH370 problematic. Photo: Reuters
Experts searching for missing plane MH370 will review data collected about a year ago to ensure no clues about the plane's fate have been missed.
As the international search enters its second year, Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief Martin Dolan said satellite data from the plane's last known communications will be combed for any details that experts may have missed the first time.
And an analysis of how planes behave when they run of fuel - something that many experts believed is what happened to the plane - will also be re-examined to help pinpoint the aircraft's possible final resting place.
Commissioner Dolan told News Corp Australia: "We keep on checking because until we find the aircraft everyone can say "well you must be looking in the wrong place because you haven't found it"."
Malaysian Airlines MH370 went missing on March 8 last year, with 239 people on board, including six Australians. The Boeing 777 was travelling from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing when contact stopped unexpectedly.
Since the plane went missing, countless theories have been suggested as to what happened, including terrorism, suicide by pilot and mechanical failure.
Commissioner Dolan said the best possible lead from the plane's tracking system was that the plane had crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean varying significantly off course and running out of fuel.
The international party searching for the plane agreed last week to double the size of the search, which will now cover 120,000 square kilometres of the Southern Indian Ocean.
The bureau would not comment when contacted by Fairfax Media.
The comment at the end (in bold) is interesting..
FFS would someone get a muzzle on the muppet??
Oh well at least Ben brings it back to TAWS & some sense of sanity..
While there are no discoveries reported in the latest MH370 search update, it makes a point of rejecting recent criticism from a range of sources, as well as The Australian’s inexplicable re run of a year old story saying it could have been seen low over a ‘remote’ Maldivian Island on the morning of its disappearance.
The JACC site also has a graphic showing how the existing priority search area will be as much as doubled in size if nothing is found within its boundaries by around the end of next month, while the narrative makes a point of saying that this focus on the 7th arc could be adjusted in the light of further analysis.
Quote:The Search Strategy Working Group continues its analysis of the satellite communication system messages and aircraft performance. This ongoing effort may result in refinements to the search area along the seventh arc.
That could mean that it will be.
And Brock McEwen provides a helping hand followed by "K" & Ben..
Quote:[*] Brock McEwen
Posted April 23, 2015 at 7:33 am | Permalink
In its dismissive suggestion that alternative postulated locations for MH370 are not supported by “known facts and careful analysis”, one presumes the JACC refers to the Inmarsat signal data.
The Inmarsat signal data is flatly contradicted by all other potential sources of physical evidence:
1) Sensitive radar installations along its indicated path
2) Intense surface/deep-sea scans at its indicated terminus
3) Sensitive seismic equipment near its indicated terminus
…all of which add up to a big, fat ZERO.
(Yes, I realize many think wreckage lies south of where searchers have yet been. However, even THAT theory actually contradicts the Inmarsat data, which SPECIFIES flameout right on the 7th arc.)
“Careful analysis” thus suggests the Inmarsat signal data is FAR from a “known fact”.
Which puts alternative destinations in play.
Perhaps the top brass responsible for the many glaring holes in the official story could clear them up for us, rather than complain about the speculation that has filled the void.
[*] Sam Jackson
Posted April 23, 2015 at 8:06 am | Permalink
Well said Brock.
If the current search is standing down for the winter; the Malaysian government (not ATSB) could use the down time to call up a think tank and consider every scrap of evidence, fact, fiction and theory. Correlate, compare, cross check and test, then use that data to define the search area, accept the responsibility for making that decision and ‘front’ the project. Better that than allowing the blame to fall squarely in Australia’s lap.
MH 370 @ http://auntypru.com/forum/index.php
[*] Ben Sandilands
Posted April 23, 2015 at 8:27 am | Permalink
Brock,
Could you elaborate on ‘Sensitive seismic equipment near its indicated terminus’.
In relation to sensitive radar installations along indicated flight path, my much criticised cynicism prompts me to suggest that the Indonesian system was asleep at the wheel, and that the Australian system will be revealed sooner than later to have been an almost total waste of money and incapable of carrying out its proposed over the horizon functions to the extent promised but never audited.
Australia is neither upgrading nor investing in its home grown military radar capabilities. Perhaps for very good reasons?
04-23-2015, 04:24 PM (This post was last modified: 04-24-2015, 04:19 AM by kharon.)
Quote:Gobbles caught a Oz MSM story that featured our super sleuth Muppet Beaker yet again flapping his felt gums to the media...
Well, one of 'em; Beaker or the Irish Journo, must have been legless. The BRB betting is ferocious on who called whom. Go figure – it's an 0230 dateline. So was Beaker on the blower to the Irish at 0230 O'clock, plastered at 1630 Oz time; or, was the Irish off his tits and ringing Beaker at O'Silly a Clock?
You need to think it through before placing a bet with the BRB SP Bookie. Consider this – why? in the seven hells would an Irish journo want to talk to Beaker (beard or no beard); not for 'the' story Shirley. Beaker is not 'official' and must be careful, for the answer to any question carries far reaching ramifications and could affect the MH 370 family relatives; any loose statement capable of being cast as harbinger of doom or the angel hope; in a heartbeat. Look at how the article has been massaged and regurgitated so far. Uncle Angus must be spitting chips.
Anyway – the betting is as follows.
5/2 (odds on) Beaker in a bate, miffed by not getting into the big meeting, missing a photo op and unable to chat to the main stream media on anything from spaghetti to his investigate prowess; frustrated by growing his face wear because someone said it looked good, then because someone said it looked bad, shaving it off - again. So, it's odds on Beaker called the Irish press. You'll need to hazard 5 (beers or bucks) to win two.
Evens – Beaker waited until 0130 O' clock to catch the Irish press just before the last call for copy, to make sure his 'tale' made it in, before the paper was put to bed.
4/1 The Irish waited until 0130 O'clock to call Beaker.
It is amazing how many agencies picked up the piece, some hacked it about a bit, some just lobbed it out into the world without even an acknowledgement. We must hope that the unguarded "Beaker speak" has caused no anxiety to those waiting for resolution.
Please Mr Truss, can we have Uncle Angus back and perhaps one of those 'courage' straps the ASA have to gag the Muppet; before we all are obliged to cringe once again.
04-26-2015, 11:14 AM (This post was last modified: 04-27-2015, 07:01 AM by kharon.)
Yep Gobbles my sentiments exactly, the Sheikh nails it better than most.. :
Quote:The elephant is in the room. Why is the Australian Government spending millions on this? Under ICAO Annex 13, we are not the State of Registry, not the State of the Operator and not the State of Manufacture. As the State of Occurrence is unknown, why are we, with Beaker who is an international embarrassment, trying to pretend to lead the way? Interesting that Boeing has not taken a leading role in this with the NTSB!!!
Someone knows more than we do!
Which leads me perfectly into my next rehashed media blog piece - from the TBA life member Ben Sandilands - not so much for the article itself but for some of the commentary that follows but 1st the short piece from Ben:
Quote:Latest MH370 update takes issue with search criticism
While there are no discoveries reported in the latest MH370 search update, it makes a point of rejecting recent criticism from a range of sources, as well as The Australian’s inexplicable re run of a year old story saying it could have been seen low over a ‘remote’ Maldivian Island on the morning of its disappearance. It’s worth reading the update in fullhere.
The JACC site also has a graphic showing how the existing priority search area will be as much as doubled in size if nothing is found within its boundaries by around the end of next month, while the narrative makes a point of saying that this focus on the 7th arc could be adjusted in the light of further analysis.
Quote:The Search Strategy Working Group continues its analysis of the satellite communication system messages and aircraft performance. This ongoing effort may result in refinements to the search area along the seventh arc.
That could mean that it will be.
Okay then we jump to the Brock McEwan at post #37 & then follow the excellent to & fro banter between Ben & Brock to post #41:
Quote:[*]37 Brock McEwen
Posted April 25, 2015 at 3:02 am | Permalink
Thanks for everyone’s polite, informed replies.
My claim that multiple nations would have had a shot at detecting MH370 along its Inmarsat-indicated path is founded on the graph Duncan Steel’s Independent Group published months ago (see “Radar Coverage…” blog on his site).
The “Curtin Boom” (yes, triangulated in both time and space by the Sept-reported Scott Reef analysis) occurred some 50 minutes before sunrise (0:25 UTC = 5:25 local, vs 6:14 sunrise), and a half-hour’s flight time due west of Kuda Huvadhoo, so I agree any DIRECT relationship seems to defy the laws of physics. What concerns me about the multiple eyewitness account is a) its proximity to this boom (it is the nearest land mass), and b) the fact that nobody has been able to confirm what it was all these fishers DID see. Perhaps they saw a plane REACTING to MH370 having entered this space a few minutes earlier.
But my first comment should not have focused on the JACC’s haughty dismissal of (to me, valid) speculation, because I am far more concerned by their continued rendering of search decisions which conflict with their own analysis:
If the ATSB’s Oct. Flight Path Analysis Update is to be believed, there is no point searching SW of [S38, E88], because that was where the performance limit crossed the 7th arc (translation: they feel MH370 lacked sufficient fuel to make it to any point on the 7th arc further SW of that coordinate, as it would cover too much distance within the prescribed amount of time). In Nov. I pointed out on jeffwise.net what I saw as a flaw in that limit – and published it as Concern #7 in my Jan. report – but this seems not to have made an impression, as the fuel limit of record was never amended.
(Interestingly, the search HAS recently crept beyond this fuel-indicated limit: the Fugro Search Area above was itself extended out to the edge of the Wide Search Area [S39ish, E87ish] a few weeks ago. No explanation was given by the JACC for deciding to search beyond its own fuel limit.)
With this week’s update comes a hint that they are preparing – after 14 months (?!) – to revise their performance limit YET AGAIN – thereby justifying a further SW shift in the search area. The fine print in the above map is instructive: the plotted 120K km2 zone is listed as “indicative” only, while “potential” expansions head out in all 4 directions. I predict they are setting up yet another move SW (otherwise, why even MENTION they are still toying with performance analysis?).
I hear educated readers asking: if you suggested E83/84 in Nov., why aren’t you THRILLED they’re moving that way now? Because they should never have truncated the search at E87/88 to begin with. It would have been far more efficient to run the ships along the 7th arc all the way out to the fuel limit’s FEASIBLE WESTERN BOUNDARY before turning around and scanning back east. Unless they were SURE of their performance limit, this is the only responsible way to conduct a proper search. Instead – and true to form – they chose to take this shaky analysis as gospel, search on that dodgy basis for MONTHS, and then decide (concurrent, this time, with the decision to pack it in for the winter…) to “refine” things.
The ability of a submerged black box to retain data is time-limited. This search bears all the hallmarks of DELIBERATE FOOT-DRAGGING by its leaders (additional proof: see my report). This should be of grave concern to those of us who do not appreciate having the wool pulled over our eyes.
[*]38 Ben Sandilands
Posted April 25, 2015 at 7:24 am | Permalink
Brock, and all,
Why do you keep attributing original thoughts to the Australian authorities?
It’s like confusing the waiters for the chef.
The JACC coordinates. The ATSB manages or allocates resources.
The strategic direction comes from KL.
There is a bit of grandstanding going on in the ATSB. Most people can see right through it.
[*]39 Brock McEwen
Posted April 25, 2015 at 8:11 am | Permalink
Ben, and all: re: any statement I’ve ever made concerning MH370 search leadership:
Please feel free to replace “JIT”, “JACC”, “ATSB”, “AMSA”, or [any other element of the alphabet soup claiming jurisdiction over this mess] with “search directors”, if that gets us past ethnicities, and into accountabilities. I really don’t care; I’m Canadian, and care about closure for passengers families – period.
But the time is long past due for grassroots ACTION – not mere complaining about search conduct, nor bickering amongst ourselves. We must direct our questions re: holes in the official story to those who have actually MADE the holes – in this case, primarily agencies of the Australian government, whether puppets or not. If we ask hard pointedly enough, they’ll have to give up who they’re shilling for.
And then we’ll ask THEM the questions.
And so on, until we get the ANSWERS.
Eventually, we’ll get to someone who knows something – no matter WHAT flag they wave.
[*]
40 Ben Sandilands
Posted April 25, 2015 at 8:32 am | Permalink
Brock,
Surely the starting point in science as well as journalism is to find out who the target for information is.
This is easily discoverable, and has been for months.
It’s like blaming the NTSB for something the FAA is responsible for, or attacking Eisenhower for something Kennedy did.
It’s basic. Who gives the orders? Who carries out the orders? Who would have been in a position to known? The reason the public has largely stopped listening is that the info vacuum has been filled with conspiracy theories that start with the plausible and then build up a matrix of possibilities, some outright inventions, often from the media echo chamber, like the rehash of the Maldives story or the Curtin or Bay of Bengal mining company stories.
As we might or might not agree, the lurid swamp of conspiracy theory bears a very close resemblance to the fetid state of the official narrative.
A focus on deconstruction on the official narrative and testing it is much better than going directly to hypothetical constructs.
My own approach is that of the patient fisherman. Sooner or later, somehow will really f*ck up, and everything will become much clearer. Similar to the amazing admissions of HH on 1 May, that blew apart the truthfulness of the Malaysia govt’s narrative.
[*]
41 Brock McEwen
Posted April 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Hi Ben: we are talking about massive obfuscation in the search for evidence of a potential mass-murder, here. I think we should take our cues not from scientists OR journalists, but from DETECTIVES.
The ATSB has misled us, and misdirected the search. Repeatedly. It is time for the general public to whom they are accountable (you and your compatriots) to bring them in for further questioning. Even if they’re a patsy, intense questioning will prove very useful.
Don’t think of it as damning Eisenhower for Kennedy’s sins – think of it as grilling Dean to get to Nixon.
[*]
Bravo Brock that last paragraph absolutely nails it IMHO, your IOS membership is in the mail...
But wait?? - there's more.. :
Quote:[*]45 Brock McEwen
Posted April 26, 2015 at 2:51 am | Permalink
@Confirmed Sceptic: swells that night in the roaring forties were 5-10m (winds in the week prior were significant & sustained). To a 777 contacting it at any plausible speed & angle of attack, this is akin to madly churning concrete. So regardless of post-fuel-exhaustion pilot scenario, the probability of surface debris is 100%.
With all due respect to PM Abbott, the probability of lifejackets, plastics, etc. waterlogging and sinking is nil. Drift experts and models all suggest this floating debris would drift east, hitting Oz shores by as early as last August. Yet not a single scrap of surface debris has been recovered.
As a rule, dense engine and landing gear components neither disintegrate nor drift. But Fugro publicly confirmed their equipment’s ability to see objects as small as 70cm (which might be a low-ball estimate, as “beer can” bragging has surfaced elsewhere). So if current turns a dot into a line (I AGREE with Simon), that should have sped UP the process of finding it.
The theory that control was taken of the plane at fuel exhaustion in order to glide further south not only strains the limits of credulity (why, if same fate regardless?), but is, I’m told by Independent Group kingpin Mike Exner, flatly contradicted by the signal data itself, which suggested to the IG’s signal data experts that 370 was probably already in steep decline by 00:19.
So I built a “crow’s flight distance, 7th arc–>impact point” probability distribution model, and calibrated it meticulously to Exner’s sense of BTO error margin, and his first-hand experiences in a 777 simulator. The result: even if the debris were all huddled in a tight ball, over 98% of the probability distribution has now been searched by the four scanning ships. If debris is strewn into a line by currents, this probability is even higher.
CS, I’ve been auditing this search since last April. I’m not asking you to trust me – but I will ask you to read my report with an open mind.
Bayesian logic – applied to both the lack of actual physical evidence, and the abundance of shoddy analysis/misleading statements causing interminable search delays – suggests there is a VERY good chance there is something VERY wrong about this entire search, which we should work together to unearth. Ben and I were merely debating TACTICS.
[*]
[*]{Comment: For me the weakest link in the SIO search area theory has always been the zero discovery (to this point in time) of any surface debris from MH370. Combine that with the yet to be confirmed starting point to the SIO - & a certain muppet in charge - leaves me extremely cynical on the veracity of the whole SIO search effort... }
04-28-2015, 05:20 PM (This post was last modified: 04-28-2015, 07:41 PM by kharon.)
{Comment: To Brigitte Lanteri TY for bringing this to my attention... }
From the MMSM this afternoon (approximately 14:45 Oz EST) and just recently updated - New MH370 theory impossible, say Australian searchers - the self-called "volunteer investigator" & publicly recognised shyster has just received a slap-down from none other than the ATSB...
We also get a re-hash of the bearded Beaker's leaked super sleuth appraisal ( to Irish Independent) of the Tripartite meeting and what it all means for the search for MH370 in the SIO:
Quote:EXCLUSIVE
AUSTRALIAN co-ordinators of the MH370 search insist there is no way the aircraft is in the Bay of Bengal as claimed by “volunteer investigator” Andre Milne.
The self-described aviation technology expert is seeking donations to help fund a $2.5 million search of the area between Malaysia and India which he believes is the Boeing 777’s final resting place.
Search theory ... Andre Milne has appealed for donations to mount a $2.5 million search for MH370 in the Bay of Bengal. Picture: asove.net Source: Supplied
He claims satellite data shows an object similar to MH370 resting in the northern part of the Bay of Bengal, and has made a video appeal for funding in order to conduct a search.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has stopped short of recommending against public donations to Mr Milne, but officials insist MH370 is not where he claims.
An ATSB spokesman said theories suggesting the aircraft was located to the north or significantly west of Sumatra “were not supported by known facts or careful analysis”.
“It is for this reason the aircraft cannot be in Kazakhstan, Diego Garcia, the Maldives or indeed the Bay of Bengal,” said the spokesman.
Last week ATSB Commissioner Martin Dolan outlined in detail the reasons for the search in the Southern Indian Ocean, which is now into its seventh month.
Difficult search ... vessels in the Southern Indian Ocean have endured rough conditions looking for MH370. Picture: ABIS Chris Beerens, RAN, ATSB Source: Supplied
He said the fact no trace of the aircraft had been found did not mean it was not there.
“In most cases of aircraft impacting the ocean, there hasn’t been much floating wreckage,” said Mr Dolan.
“The likelihood of there being a lot of floating wreckage isn’t high, and some of the possible floating wreckage would have become waterlogged by now, and the rest of it is likely to be mixed up with a whole lot of other stuff in one of those big gyres in the middle of the Indian Ocean.”
Empty seabed ... the search for MH370 in the Southern Indian Ocean is yet to find any trace of the aircraft. Picture: ATSB Source: Supplied
Mr Dolan said the satellite handshakes that had led searchers to the Southern Indian Ocean were the most “solid piece of information” they had to work with.
“We keep on running the ruler over that (and) we’ve done various things to verify it,” he said.
Almost 14 months have passed since MH370 disappeared on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board, including six Australians.
Now a couple of observations on these quoted bits:
"..An ATSB spokesman said theories suggesting the aircraft was located to the north or significantly west of Sumatra “were not supported by known facts or careful analysis”.
“It is for this reason the aircraft cannot be in Kazakhstan, Diego Garcia, the Maldives or indeed the Bay of Bengal,” said the spokesman...
Does this mean any other theories from those above are still open to consideration by the ATSB?..& why isn't Beaker fronting the media for this statement??
Strangely the MMSM then jumps to a re-hash of Beaker's interview to the Irish Independent at stupid o'clock in the morning (someone's time) err..why?? Hmm..maybe they needed a bit of a gap filler, not much of a story otherwise??
Going back to the Brock McEwan posts on Ben's blog - I noticed that unfortunately the posts that followed diverged into a bit of slanging match between Brock & Confirmed Sceptic. However I wanted to quote from CS's post #49 to help highlight a point...
"...The ATSB may have fallen into the trap of asking the kind of plod that seem to bubble to the top as experts. That’s assuming that they asked a real 777 pilot..."
That to me seems to be the strange disconnect with all this, the so called experts being referred to by the ATSB appear to be faceless men & women - why?? Who are they and what practical and/or operational experience do they have?? Do they have the bona fides of PAIN's very own #P777?? Or in the ATC world that of a Paul Howard, who I see has put out yet another excellent, common sense look at the bollocks revolving around the presumed starting point for MH370's turn towards the SIO - A unifying theory. MH370 - that even a layman could manage to get their head around...
Quote:Occam’s razor is a good method of problem solving until human factors muddy the waters. They’ve always been at the back of my mind but I’ve tried not to let them interfere with what I thought was a matter of factual problem solving.
The problem from the beginning has been the inconsistent information from Malaysia and by looking at what I consider to be realistic human factors, can now see what might have happened. Prepare to be bored because I don’t have a sexy conspiracy theory involving gold, remote hijacking or naughty Russian involvement. {Pure gold Paul, excellent stuff.. }
Paul even seems to have captured some of the Heff's colourful language in trying to review the bollocks that the Malaysians are expecting us to swallow.. :
Quote:I’ve been swinging between cover-up and cock-up and have now decided that it’s both. Malaysian military have been trying to cover their initial ineptitude by making subsequent claims in a state of panic. I suspect their radar was inadequately analyzed, known traffic not eliminated and a false trace led us up the Malacca Straits. Rivalry and blame between civil and military could easily have prevented the co-operation required for exchange of information.
For Paul's efforts to sort the wheat from the chaff or the facts from the bollocks, I think a coupla choccy frogs are in order....
(04-28-2015, 05:20 PM)Peetwo Wrote: "...The ATSB may have fallen into the trap of asking the kind of plod that seem to bubble to the top as experts. That’s assuming that they asked a real 777 pilot..."
That to me seems to be the strange disconnect with all this, the so called experts being referred to by the ATSB appear to be faceless men & women - why?? Who are they and what practical and/or operational experience do they have?? Do they have the bona fides of PAIN's very own #P777?? Or in the ATC world that of a Paul Howard, who I see has put out yet another excellent, common sense look at the bollocks revolving around the presumed starting point for MH370's turn towards the SIO - A unifying theory. MH370 - that even a layman could manage to get their head around...
Quote:Occam’s razor is a good method of problem solving until human factors muddy the waters. They’ve always been at the back of my mind but I’ve tried not to let them interfere with what I thought was a matter of factual problem solving.
The problem from the beginning has been the inconsistent information from Malaysia and by looking at what I consider to be realistic human factors, can now see what might have happened. Prepare to be bored because I don’t have a sexy conspiracy theory involving gold, remote hijacking or naughty Russian involvement. {Pure gold Paul, excellent stuff.. }
Paul even seems to have captured some of the Heff's colourful language in trying to review the bollocks that the Malaysians are expecting us to swallow.. :
Quote:I’ve been swinging between cover-up and cock-up and have now decided that it’s both. Malaysian military have been trying to cover their initial ineptitude by making subsequent claims in a state of panic. I suspect their radar was inadequately analyzed, known traffic not eliminated and a false trace led us up the Malacca Straits. Rivalry and blame between civil and military could easily have prevented the co-operation required for exchange of information.
For Paul's efforts to sort the wheat from the chaff or the facts from the bollocks, I think a coupla choccy frogs are in order....
MTF...P2
P9 quote: "..Amongst the screaming, shouting, chest beating, hair pulling and bitch slapping; the calm, measured, professional voices of common sense and logic can be clearly heard. Paul Howard's amongst them. Bravo that man.."
I’ve been asked what my thoughts were and replied that I reserved judgment until I’d had an in depth look at the contrail theory. It was an important piece of work and not to be dismissed out of hand. Had a northern contrail been visible, it would have given the precise turn into the SIO and further refinement of BTO/BFO and fuel burn.
By reading the discussions of infrared satellite contrail detection, I’ve now ruled that out and returned to the information I already have. What I haven’t ruled out is the southern distrail and suspect that information has already been considered by the JIT.
Occam’s razor is a good method of problem solving until human factors muddy the waters. They’ve always been at the back of my mind but I’ve tried not to let them interfere with what I thought was a matter of factual problem solving.
The problem from the beginning has been the inconsistent information from Malaysia and by looking at what I consider to be realistic human factors, can now see what might have happened. Prepare to be bored because I don’t have a sexy conspiracy theory involving gold, remote hijacking or naughty Russian involvement.
Following the timeline of what we’ve been told has given me a picture and by introducing human factors it becomes clear to me what may have happened.
Societies are divided into factions and so are organizations. An air traffic control organization is divided between civil and military and there are rivalries between those elements. Airspace division is contentious between the users and resolved by periodic conference but political power games can still continue.
The time of day this occurred is the most important human factor. There has been an outcry about the KLATCC supervisor being asleep. He was supposed to be, that’s his job ! He is required to make strategic decisions and at night there are few. Operational staff make tactical decisions and the real mistake is that the operational staff didn’t wake him up. The first suspicion of a missing aeroplane should have got him out of bed, that’s what he’s paid for.
There’s been much discussion about why interceptors weren’t launched. The simple fact is, they lied. HH specified that all radar was from recordings and that was confirmed in the single paragraph from the Preliminary Report. You can’t intercept what you don’t see and recordings couldn’t have been replayed until many hours later. That alone proves Malaysian military have lied and once that happens it’s difficult to believe anything they claim. If it crossed Malaysia, military PSR should have seen it in real time, they didn’t.
I’ve been swinging between cover-up and cock-up and have now decided that it’s both. Malaysian military have been trying to cover their initial ineptitude by making subsequent claims in a state of panic. I suspect their radar was inadequately analyzed, known traffic not eliminated and a false trace led us up the Malacca Straits. Rivalry and blame between civil and military could easily have prevented the co-operation required for exchange of information.
Then the JIT arrived and together with Inmarsat convinced Malaysia to focus on the SIO. I think the JIT initially believed the radar story until they did their own analysis and at that point the SIO search was moved. Diplomatically the JIT can’t publicly announce what they know without embarrassing Malaysia even further and that’s apart from the normal confidential investigation process.
We need to consider the surrounding countries and wonder why they didn’t see anything on radar. It’s perfectly simple, they didn’t see anything for the same reason Malaysia didn’t. Thailand and Indonesia are not going to admit that their military are also incompetent. Indonesia categorically denied seeing it on radar and having made that statement, it becomes diplomatically impossible for the JIT to suggest MH370 entered their airspace.
Let’s have another look at this image from the Interim Report. They’ve given us very specific information from Kota Bharu PSR but the image also shows a track outside that range. The plot seems to give the complete track and the scale indicates that anything at Pulau Perak should have been there, it’s not.
I’m now of the opinion that this could be the complete radar track and the true last Military PSR contact was 6nm south of Penang at 1752.35 UTC. The heights given at Kota Bharu seem genuine because they are calculable from the PSR overhead. PSR’s have a known “dead zone” in their overheads and if they had sufficient trace could estimate from the gap in the trace.
By comparing the images, I believe the track I suggested across Sumatra last June, is close to what actually happened. I also suspect that the JIT know but can’t disclose for reasons already mentioned.
I don’t intend to go further with satellite calculations because considering the debate about the 1825 and 1841 pings, I think the track I’ve shown might prove to be the best fit but I’m not the best qualified to make that judgement.
It has to be assumed that the JIT know what they’re doing and the continuing search shows that they’re certain it’s in the SIO. I’ve now done my bit and it’s up to others to consider how it fits BTO/BFO.
I’ve tripped and stumbled while examining this event and in trying to remain open-minded have even tried on a tin foil hat for size. I’m grateful to a real air investigator for grounding me sufficiently to accept realistic probabilities rather than unrealistic possibilities.
It’s a unifying theory linking radar to satellite and needs further testing but I’d put good money on it being more reliable than Diego Garcia, Maldives, Bay of Bengal, Kazakhstan and a “touch and go” from Banda Aceh.
JACC continue to search the SIO and I wish them luck in their most difficult endeavour.
(Although a peek in the SCS wouldn’t hurt in case something fell off !)
At the request of the Malaysian Government, Australia has accepted responsibility for the search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is leading the underwater search for MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean.
Joint Agency Coordination Centre
MH370 Operational Search Update
29 April 2015
This operational report has been developed to provide regular updates on the progress of the search effort for MH370. Our work will continue to be thorough and methodical, so sometimes weekly progress may seem slow. Please be assured that work is continuing and is aimed at finding MH370 as quickly as possible.
Key developments this week
GO Phoenix arrived back in the search area on Thursday, 23 April and recommenced search operations in the northern part of the search area.
Fugro Discovery continues to conduct search operations to the west of the 7th arc with a focus on the south in order to maximise coverage in this area prior to the deterioration of weather conditions as winter approaches.
Fugro Equator continues to conduct operations to the east of the 7th arc with a focus on the south in order to ensure that this area is searched ahead of the expected deterioration in weather conditions.
Fugro Supporter continues to conduct search operations within the search area. Unfavourable weather conditions have hampered the deployment of the AUV with the vessel obliged to go on stand-by and wait for conditions to abate.
Underwater search
As noted in last week’s update, at a meeting of Ministers from Australia, Malaysia and the People’s Republic of China held in Kuala Lumpur on 16 April 2015, it was agreed that should the aircraft not be found within the current search area, the search will be extended by an additional 60,000 square kilometres to bring the search area to 120,000 square kilometres, thereby covering the entire highest probability area identified by expert analysis.
Ministerial communiqué of the MH370 Third Tripartite Ministerial Meeting.
In the event the aircraft is found and accessible, Ministers agreed to plans for recovery activities including securing all the evidence necessary for the accident investigation.
Click map to enlarge
[i]Click map to enlarge[/i]
The Search Strategy Working Group continues to review evidence associated with MH370 which may result in further refinement of the search area.
The decision by all three countries on 16 April 2015 to expand the search area has led to consideration of the best search plan to ensure continuous operations during winter in the southern hemisphere, and to ensure that the entire 120,000 square kilometre area is searched as quickly and effectively as possible. This work is expected to be finalised in the next few weeks. The onset of winter and generally unfavourable weather conditions means, however, that searching the entire area of highest probability will likely take around a year to complete.
Sea swells of three to five metres will impact upon the search area in the next couple of days. Although conditions will improve on Friday, the longer term forecast is set to impact upon the entire search area. The coming adverse weather systems are indicative of the unfavourable sea conditions that will affect search operations in the colder months.
Okay we are now only a matter of weeks out from the '15-'16 Budget Estimates - & from an Australian perspective our government has committed millions more dollars(??) & resources to the planned expanded MH370 search area in the SIO. Like Brock states above...
"...But the time is long past due for grassroots ACTION – not mere complaining about search conduct, nor bickering amongst ourselves. We must direct our questions re: holes in the official story to those who have actually MADE the holes – in this case, primarily agencies of the Australian government, whether puppets or not. If we ask hard pointedly enough, they’ll have to give up who they’re shilling for.
And then we’ll ask THEM the questions.
And so on, until we get the ANSWERS.
Eventually, we’ll get to someone who knows something – no matter WHAT flag they wave...
..The ATSB has misled us, and misdirected the search. Repeatedly. It is time for the general public to whom they are accountable (you and your compatriots) to bring them in for further questioning. Even if they’re a patsy, intense questioning will prove very useful.
Don’t think of it as damning Eisenhower for Kennedy’s sins – think of it as grilling Dean to get to Nixon..."
...it is in the Australian public/taxpayer interest that the many outstanding questions (that he and many others) have put to the ATSB (that so far are being continuously obfuscated or blatantly ignored) be answered.
IMO the RRAT Committee Senate Estimates is the perfect forum to get these answers. And from last Estimates with the attendance of Mr Peter Foley (Program Director, Operational Search for MH370) it would appear that the powers to be were expecting more QONs to be asked. As it was Foley only gave a very limited update to the MH370 search:
Note: From the latest off the Senate RRAT Committee Estimates page it would appear that Foley wasn't entirely as well briefed as he thought he was:
2.) Correspondence received 17 March 2015 from Mr Peter Foley, General Manager, Australian Transport Safety Bureau, correcting evidence given on 24 February 2015.
Quote:We have, to date, according to my memory, had about eight level
2s. And we have had well over 100 level 3s. I would hazard a guess that some have the dimensions of a shipping container, but we do not know until we get photo imagery. You are not taking a picture with sonar.
I wish to clarify this answer. We have, to date, had 12 level 2s - not eight as referenced above.
So in order to facilitate the many pointed questions that the many concerned & intelligent individuals have in regards to the ATSB managed search for MH370 in the SIO, PAIN is offering to collate the QONs and forward to the RRAT Committee Senators that we feel will be best equipped to ask the questions. Also in order that the Senators are full bottle on all the technical aspects of certain QONs, PAIN will endeavour to ensure that the Senators are appropriately briefed by selected experts where required.
Therefore if anyone wishes to field a question to the ATSB on the MH370 SIO search etc. - at the Budget Estimates on the 25-28th of May - please go to Aunty Pru thread - Senate Estimates - 2015.
Ps I don't know about anyone else but I'd like to know who it is that sits on the SSWG??
Pps I'd also like to know the answer to Brock's question...
"...If the ATSB’s Oct. Flight Path Analysis Update is to be believed, there is no point searching SW of [S38, E88], because that was where the performance limit crossed the 7th arc (translation: they feel MH370 lacked sufficient fuel to make it to any point on the 7th arc further SW of that coordinate, as it would cover too much distance within the prescribed amount of time). In Nov. I pointed out on jeffwise.net what I saw as a flaw in that limit – and published it as Concern #7 in my Jan. report – but this seems not to have made an impression, as the fuel limit of record was never amended.
(Interestingly, the search HAS recently crept beyond this fuel-indicated limit: the Fugro Search Area above was itself extended out to the edge of the Wide Search Area [S39ish, E87ish] a few weeks ago. No explanation was given by the JACC for deciding to search beyond its own fuel limit.)
With this week’s update comes a hint that they are preparing – after 14 months (?!) – to revise their performance limit YET AGAIN – thereby justifying a further SW shift in the search area..."
05-01-2015, 08:24 AM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2015, 08:26 AM by kharon.)
Steam On – Check.
Quote: Wrote:P2 – " IMO the RRAT Committee Senate Estimates is the perfect forum to get these answers. And from last Estimates with the attendance of Mr Peter Foley (Program Director, Operational Search for MH370) it would appear that the powers to be were expecting more QON to be asked. As it was Foley only gave a very limited update to the MH370 search:
The point (IMO) made by P2 post above is that it is high time the estimates committee took a hand in the MH 370 search; before we end up with egg on our collective, national faces. His post calls, as do many other highly qualified, competent people for detail, clarity and proof of accuracy. The reasons are self evident. The questions keep mounting, the search keeps extending the results need little 'technical' explanation. The 'establishment' search area is now believed to be incorrect by so many as to bring reasonable doubt on the official conclusions. The IG, Brock McEwan, Bobby Ulich, Paul Howard, Jeff Wise, Mike Chillit, to name but a few would happily challenge the SSWG conclusions. I believe they would be delighted to be proven wrong and even more pleased to throw their collective, not inconsiderable intellectual weight into assisting refine or remodel the search parameters. But it is very wrong that they should be slapped down, dismissed and denigrated as 'amateurs' - especially by the likes of Dolan. Anyway, this and more has been said many times over, to no avail. However, it appears:-
Quote: Wrote:.....[Australia] has accepted responsibility for the search etc.
and, as this is a democracy; and, as there are more non-believers in the current search than believers – perhaps democracy should be exercised. Let the dissenters speak; lets hear qualified argument; and, please let us see if the collective intellectual ability can prevail over the ruling few, who despite finding Sweet Fanny Adams, will not entertain any new, sensible, plausible, notions. Anyway – just who are these faceless people? this SSWG?, don't see them putting their professional 'cred' on the line. Time to pee in the pot or get off it I'd say...Let them prove their theory, publish it and then be prepared to live or die by intellectual peer review.
On a minor note; some sidebar questions:-
Just what is meant by [Australia] has accepted responsibility for the search etc.? Who has?, and for what, which department?. What does "the responsibility" mean, exactly? No one can be serious about leaving Dolan in charge; he of the slightly tarnished reputation. Crumbs, the slightest hitch, cock up or stray bit of suspect evidence will ensure that it is all Australia's fault that the wretched aircraft is not found.
Then there is the enormous cost - a $100 million-ish impost to provide mineral explorers with free sea bed maps, outrageous. Well it is, when our own schools, families, dog shelters, battered wives, old folk, sick folk, blind folk, and every other poor, benighted sod in the 'lucky' country must tighten belts; to ask WHY? is a very fair question. The poor old Nepalese only got seven millions and there thousands of them for the bleeding heart brigade crowd to toddle outdoors for and put flowers and teddy bears on lamp posts. Malaysia can afford it, the MAS insurers can afford it, the Chinese can most certainly afford it. So why Australia, land of the recession we have to have? Tony and Joe cry poor, every second chance they get, so I am perplexed as why 'Australia' has to foot now not only a large lump of the bill, but the responsibility as well. I hope someone pays the Commonwealth for those sea floor maps, that may recompense – in part; but Dolan probably forgot to ensure exclusive rights to that property.
Why is not mandatory for international carriers to carry SAR insurance? I'm sure Lloyds could work something out.
Someone, please tell me why FFS does Australia have to "accept responsibility" for anything to do with a Malaysian accident?, let alone be responsible and catching the blame for the ineptitude of other governments. Tell the Malaysians to accept their responsibility for the search, for their aircraft. Sure, Australia will do the heavy lifting in our SAR area; but we cannot call the tune. We haven't lost a bloody aircraft from our screens – have we? Nope, ain't right, none of it: not by a long shot.
05-05-2015, 11:48 AM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2015, 11:51 AM by Peetwo.)
The following P7 post off the MH370 forum - Iron to it's magnet. - pretty much asks the same question that "K" does in the above post and is a common QON of any Aussie with a passing interest in our involvement with the MH370 search:
Quote:Iron to it's magnet.
Quote: Wrote:KUALA LUMPUR, May 29 — Today’s admission by Australian officials that the southern Indian Ocean area where pings were detected is not the crash site of the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 has been described as evidence of “a giant cover-up” by some distraught family members of those on board the missing airliner.
The North star of the blame game: Australia – The world and it's wife knows the ATSB management is under a cloud, open to suggestion and easily led astray. Comments ranging between outright corruption to gross incompetence are heard every time ATSB or MH 370 are mentioned in the same sentence.
But still the powers that be insist on centre stage, with all the spotlights facing Dolan. - FCOL someone tackle the fools.
Let us redraft and edit this piece from the Malay Mail to reflect what the world should be reading:-
Quote: Wrote:KUALA LUMPUR, May 29 — Today’s admission by Malaysian officials that the southern Indian Ocean area where pings were detected is not the crash site of the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 has been described as evidence of “a giant cover-up” by some distraught family members of those on board the missing airliner.
Some one give Abbott a shout; tell him the bloody Ostrich house is on fire..Again.... .
From the linked Malay Mail article you can see that there is now a less than subtle shift in the 'blame game' for the final countdown to the end of the current MH370 search Ops in the SIO.
This countdown also happens to correspond to the timing of the next Budget Estimates, therefore it will indeed be a QON that PAIN will endeavour to get through to the Senators... (Ps This is despite the fact they may ask off their own volition)
Next article, blog, tweet reference etc. of merit in recent days was the John Fiorentino contribution titled - Rebuttal to IG Report of 4/24/15 The Last 15 Minutes of Flight of MH370 (i) Brian Anderson. This article highlights that not only is the clock ticking for the ATSB - in regards to the veracity of their best guess for the location of MH370 in the SIO - but so too for the Independent Group...
Quote:By: John E. Fiorentino
5/2/2015
The Independent Group or (IG) for short, of which Brian Anderson is a member seems intent, even at this late date to make a statement designed as they put it to: "... assist the official search teams in their identification of where to concentrate their efforts to achieve the highest likelihood of timely success."
We will ignore for the moment that the (IG) has indeed already had it's chance to achieve this worthy goal by placing various "endpoints" in its reports of where it believes MH370 is most likely to rest. So far, no success has been achieved in locating the remains of MH370 even though the vicinity of the endpoints already suggested has been searched.
With all of that in mind, one wonders about the timeliness of this latest report by the IG. Most of the latest entry is merely a regurgitation of past statements of positions that have already been examined and critiqued. Perhaps the IG simply wishes to "keep its hand in the game" or maybe they are simply holding a ticket on a train that has already left the station.
In any event, we will attempt to analyze the IG's latest report drawing in many instances on our own already published critiques of previous IG reports and commenting on newer developments.
Borrowing from the IG's report we find that Mr. Anderson has made the following assumptions in his analysis:
There was no manual intervention to control the aircraft during the last 15 minutes of flight; The aircraft was flying on autopilot during its passage south over the Indian Ocean until the second engine failure; The flight path is similar to the path discussed in the IG statement dated September 26 (and also a number of other independently-derived flight paths ending at similar latitudes, so that the precise flight path taken over the Indian Ocean is not significant here); The B777 level flight simulator runs previously studied by the IG (per Mike Exner) deliver a valid representation of how MH370 would be expected to have behaved near the end of its flight.
The first three assumptions made by Mr. Anderson offer an adequate description of the guidelines used. It is the fourth assumption that sounds the death knell to the entire endeavor. Since this assumption is essentially the sine qua non of the report it must be accurate and have the ability to fend off criticisms. Unfortunately, this assumption doesn't cut the mustard.
While I could simply deal with the fourth assumption relating to the purported Exner simulator runs, there are a few questions and statements which offer the opportunity to educate those amenable. Unfortunately, I would assume that won't include Exner or the IG who up to this point have simply dealt with these issues by ignoring them. A few Observations
From the IG report:
Turning back to what we know about the actual flight, the BFO at 00:11 suggests that at that instant the aircraft was descending at about 250 feet per minute. Together then, the BFO descent rate, the estimated time of the Right engine failure, and the simulator trials, may all be reconciled if the altitude was greater than FL350, in which case it is possible that a shallow descent commenced just prior to 00:11.
Quite frankly, I have serious issues with that entire statement, but certainly with the significance of the BFO at 00:11. Rather than what is suggested here, the fact is the BFO values were moving in a rather linear fashion from 18:39:58 up and through 00:11 consistent with horizontal flight as shown here:
The basis for the balance of the statement has somehow escaped me.
Mr. Anderson makes some other interesting statements. He says for instance that: "...the ensuing part of the simulator trial was perforce cut short by the failure of the second engine. The speed (and time) at which MH370 would have begun to descend is therefore unknown from the simulator trial."
And yet indicates: "The time required for the entire process, from loss of the second engine until the log-on, is 3m40s. This time was confirmed during the B777 flight simulator trials mentioned previously."
Just how the log-on time would be confirmed in a simulator trial, while "The speed (and time) at which MH370 would have begun to descend..." was undetermined, is a bit mind-boggling to me. I have personally never seen any confirmation of the log-on time from any sim trials (doesn't mean it hasn't been done) and the speed and time of descent should have been readily discernible to any attentive participants. Even without an active APU, the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) (which I haven't even seen mentioned in the IG report) provides power for instrumentation and even limited hydraulics. (The RAT however, does not provide power for the SDU which is not considered an essential system)
Mr. Anderson further asserts, (or more accurately repeats what is indeed a factoid) that: "The appendices in the ATSB report [2] provide an indication of possible vertical descent rates resulting from loss-of-control events at high altitude. Descent rates of greater than 20,000 feet/min have been observed."
While the ATSB appendices do indeed provide examples of vertical descent rates in selected aviation disasters, a thorough reading of the examples provided fails to show anything which closely resembles the circumstances surrounding the MH370 incident. Many of the listings are for smaller aircraft like Lear Jets under extreme circumstances. An in flight break-up is also provided as an example. However, not a single B777 is listed. (iii)
One certainly must question the premise that a B777 – having flown (apparently) without aerodynamic incident for over seven hours – would suddenly and precipitously plunge to earth after a dual engine flameout without other serious exacerbating factors.
Aircraft can either have inherent aerodynamic stability (the typical case), or de-facto stability, in which stability requirements are met with the aid of a control system augmented with sensors and feedback. For example, in order to achieve maximum maneuverability, the F-18 lacks inherent stability, and can't be flown without some operational brainpower on board in addition to the pilot. The Boeing 777 has relaxed inherent longitudinal static stability, which produces efficiencies in cruise from a more rearward c.g. and a physically lighter tail structure than otherwise possible. (iv)
So, the Boeing 777 has "inherent aerodynamic stability." It is extremely unlikely then that the 9M-MRO aircraft would behave like a fighter jet, or drop like a rock under normal conditions even after a dual engine flameout.
Poor Logic and Farfetched Ideas Continue
As it becomes apparent that the 9M-MRO aircraft is not where the IG postulated it is, some have taken to devising more and more speculative scenarios. For instance, the IG's Victor Iannello's latest entry is Northern Routes for MH370 Ending at Airports. Former IG member Jeff Wise entered early with his Russian Sci-Fi adventure and continues to spout the IG's baseless ramblings. Wise, in his latest blog entry has declared that , "it would be virtually impossible for the plane to have traveled very far from the 7th ping arc." Indeed!
Wise, to his credit does admit that this "hypothesis" would be falsified if the plane isn't found during the current search.
So, some from the same group who told us all where MH370 was, but we now know it isn't, wants us to look for the aircraft to the north. No suggestion is made for any other search approach along the remaining southern portion of the 7th arc. In another leap of logic we are guided to the north, preferably near airports.
For my part, I have been in recent communication with the ATSB and hope to be able to submit recommendations on a revised search methodology on or along the remaining southern portion of the 7th arc.
The sine qua non
In Anderson's fourth assumption, the phrase (per Mike Exner) conspicuously appears. This indicates (apparently) then that no other members of the IG participated in the purported sim runs.
The notion of a near vertical descent or dive bomber end to the flightpath of MH370 has been dealt with before. Mike Exner has so stated and I have rebutted the notion. With this newest report by Brian Anderson, it appears we will have to deal with it again.
With this newest report, the IG hasn't swayed from its previous pronouncements:
"….the BFO values at 00:19:29 and 00:19:37 indicate that the aircraft was already in a spiral dive at 00:19:29. We estimate the Rate of Climb (ROC) was approximately -15,000 ft/min at 00:19:37 and accelerating at approximately 22 ft/sec2. Thus, we believe MH370 impacted the water within seconds after the last signaling unit log record, and within 1 NM of the 7th arc."
MH370 Search Area Recommendation The Independent Group September 9, 2014
The question should be asked here: "Is there any support (other than Exner's purported sim runs) for the notion that MH370 made a near vertical descent after the loss of both of its engines?
The answer, in a word is "no." Neither myself, Boeing, or the ATSB has witnessed anything like Exner's description of his sim runs. My prior response to Exner's contentions are included in my article, "ATSB Rebuffs IG Recommendation as Official MH370 Search Area Widens" which includes actual e-mail correspondence between the ATSB and myself.
And what did the ATSB say about the IG's end of flight dive bomber scenario? Well, I asked them and reproduced below are excerpts from their e-mail response to my inquiry: "I've consulted with my colleagues in the MH370 Working Group, and have addressed your queries below. 1. Did ATSB observe anything that could be described as a "near vertical descent" during it's sim(s)? No. In each simulation, the aircraft began a descending spiralling turn. The turn was generally a low bank angle that took up to 12 minutes to descend close to the water from various altitudes."
Conclusions
The weight of the available evidence indicates that a near vertical descent by MH370 as alluded to by the IG's Mike Exner (while not impossible) is the least likely scenario, not the most likely description of events after the aircraft suffered a dual engine flameout on 8 March 2014. Thus the report by the IG's Brian Anderson – which draws heavily on Exner's claims - relating to the last 15 minutes of MH370's flight is not a reliable indicator of events which may have transpired in that time frame and should not be used by the official search teams when making decisions regarding the search area going forward.
Notes and References
(i) [/url][url=http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/category/mh370]http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/category/mh370 (ii) Chris Ashton, Alan Shuster Bruce, Gary Colledge and Mark Dickinson (2015). The Search for MH370. Journal of Navigation, 68, pp 1-22. doi:10.1017/S037346331400068X. (iii) ATSB Report – Definition of Underwater Search Areas - 26 June 2014 (iv) Flightlab Ground School 7. Longitudinal Dynamic Stability Copyright Flight Emergency & Advanced Maneuvers Training, Inc. dba Flightlab, 2009. All rights reserved. (Used under "Fair Use" for Non-profit, educational or news reporting purposes)
Copyright 2015 – J. E. Fiorentino – All Rights Reserved A pdf copy of this report can be obtained by e-mail at the address below.
For further information contact:
John E. Fiorentino Fiorentino Research P.O. Box 324 Oakhurst, NJ 07755 USA Twitter: @jefiorentino E-mail: jefiorentino@optimum.net Tel: 732-361-8599
Well done JF perhaps you should fwd your conclusions to the Senate RRAT Committee, here's the contact details for your reference:
Quote:Committee Secretariat contact:
Committee Secretary
Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Hot off the cyber press this evening (Australian EST) Ben Sandilands from Planetalking vents his frustration on the ATSB's latest MH370 SIO search decision...
Norwegian deep sea robot being checked out before joining the MH370 search: Kongsberg photo
Australia is withdrawing a crucial automated deep sea search vehicle from the search for MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean for the duration of the winter.
The shock announcement may be justified by the deterioration in conditions, but will inevitably cause controversy over a lack of spine or determination from critics of the conduct and methodology of the search.
This is what the Australian agencies responsible for managing the search said in their weekly update today (Wednesday 6 May).
Quote:The search plan has been modified to enable continuous search operations during winter and to ensure that the entire 120,000 square kilometre area is searched as effectively as possible. Safety of the search crews also remains a priority. Searching in the expanded area will commence as soon as possible and will focus search efforts in the south, to take advantage of the last of the better weather in that area. Over 75% of the seafloor in the existing search area has been searched so far. The onset of winter weather is already affecting AUV operations, with rough sea conditions making it difficult to launch and recover the AUV. The decision has been made to suspend AUV operations in the search area during the winter months. As a result, Fugro Supporter will withdraw from the search on completion of her present swing.
What a gutless, mealy mouthed evasive way of saying Australia is destroying its capability to promptly resolve any doubts about possible MH370 wreckage it might find over the southern winter.
This creates the possibility that the reduced search activity that will conducted during the winter months discovers objects that merit close up examination as possibly coming from the missing Malaysian Airlines 777 that will have to be deferred for final verification.
Not just after the end of the winter months either, but quite possibly the tempestuous ocean conditions that plague the south Indian Ocean through the spring months and early into summer.
It’s a situation that would clearly be totally unacceptable to China and many of the next of kin of the 239 people who were known to be onboard MH370 when it disappeared while flying between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing on 8 March 2014.
The ATSB had been optimistic that it will find MH370 in the areas chosen by the the strategic search committee in Kuala Lumpur. That’s why it chartered Fugro Supporter and the Kongsberg HUGIN 4500 AUV. What if its optimism is confirmed during the limited winter search?
Just what sort of fiasco are the fools in the ATSB that botched the Pel-Air crash inquiry cooking up in relation to confirming or dismissing the discovery of potential wreckage from MH370 during this winter semi-recess?
Important questions arises for the Abbott Government and acceptance of anything Kuala Lumpur tells it about MH370? Starting with whether it has intelligence as to whether or not the Malaysian government, which has been caught lying about the accident from day one, has a real commitment to finding the jet, rather than hoping it is never, ever brought to the surface?
We need to knew if ‘winter weather’ is being used as an excuse for not retaining the capacity to prove or disprove that suspicious objects in deep and difficult parts of the search area are from MH370.
Today’s search bulletin can be read in full here. The quality of the latest graphic of the search area is so poor you will need to greatly enlarge it to make sense of the detail, as shown in the example below.
Well said Ben, ATSB 'lack of spine' indeed! A lack of testicles also comes to mind. Perhaps Beaker has a budget to meet? Maybe Beakers boys are close to discovering something so they have been told to back away?
It's all passing strange, however one can't help but be sceptical about this latest intriguing move on the Beaker chess board.
Big question though is this - with winter now settling in, will our least favourite bald buffoon be growing his hairy facial cover again?
05-07-2015, 07:35 AM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2015, 07:37 AM by kharon.)
More SMH, with dribble.
"[to] ensure that the entire 120,000 square kilometre area" – well it ain't that big, is it? not any longer, why not say how much of the original has been covered, they own 75% has been 'done'; so why spin it to seem a bigger task than it is? Mi mi thinks I smell pony-pooh.
"[is] searched as effectively as possible." Why not just plain old ordinary – effectively. The "as possible" implies that the search may not be as effective as it should be. So why bother at all – if you can't do it properly, QED. Mi mi thinks I smell weasel -pooh
"Safety of the search crews also remains a priority". One of the pitiful, puerile excuses offered for the failure to recover the Pel-Air 'black boxes' from 49 meters of sheltered water, five clicks from the nearest pub was "safety" of the crews. Mi mi thinks I can smell the glue factory down the road as the back door slides open.
The BRB predicted ATSB exit strategy, written some months ago is spot on; so far. Started from when the Muppet poked it's ugly head up above the fox hole for a look-see to the imminent press conference. (Chuckle), we may not be able to tell you where the aircraft was lost and where it ended up, but we can, with some accuracy, predict the behaviour of the ATSB boss, down to words expected to be used.
I still cannot work out why the Malaysian government is not making ALL the announcements – or decisions for that matter; and, Beaker is no SAR guru, that's for certain sure. I would have thought a statement to the effect that "with the agreement of China and Malaysia"; or, "in consultation with other expert SAR authorities"; or, "after consultation with Furgo" : even after a chat with his Mum, would make a graceful exit simpler, cleaner and much more believable. But then again, we are dealing with the ATSB, not AMSA; more the pity.
![[Image: mh370_1_16042015_620_413_100.jpeg]](http://www.themalaymailonline.com/images/sized/ez/mh370_1_16042015_620_413_100.jpeg)
![[Image: mh370_search_area_graphic_19042015_620_527_100.jpg]](http://www.themalaymailonline.com/images/sized/ez/mh370_search_area_graphic_19042015_620_527_100.jpg)
.. yet again flapping his felt gums to the media... 
:![[Image: MH370.jpg]](http://cdn2.independent.ie/incoming/article31149662.ece/ad4f6/ALTERNATES/h342/MH370.jpg)
![[Image: 1429701740877.jpg]](http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/1/4/3/9/m/f/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.1mr5qp.png/1429701740877.jpg)
![[Image: screenshot_109-610x372.jpg]](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2015/04/screenshot_109-610x372.jpg)
![[Image: e500aea8da4ab1e296b42d6c9db53037?s=32&d=...nticon&r=G]](http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/e500aea8da4ab1e296b42d6c9db53037?s=32&d=identicon&r=G){kind=small}
![[Image: 6286cc08eb28b62b88aa14c0f4eb7fef?s=32&d=...nticon&r=G]](http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/6286cc08eb28b62b88aa14c0f4eb7fef?s=32&d=identicon&r=G){kind=small}
![[Image: fcd14d3170b34c7335126cd112204cf9?s=32&d=...nticon&r=G]](http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/fcd14d3170b34c7335126cd112204cf9?s=32&d=identicon&r=G){kind=small}
- not so much for the article itself but for some of the commentary that follows but 1st the short piece from Ben:
}![[Image: 886782-2a2f2f30-ed50-11e4-b2ab-57dfa37cc8ba.jpg]](http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2015/04/28/1227324/886782-2a2f2f30-ed50-11e4-b2ab-57dfa37cc8ba.jpg)
![[Image: 886810-90655ed2-ed50-11e4-b2ab-57dfa37cc8ba.jpg]](http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2015/04/28/1227324/886810-90655ed2-ed50-11e4-b2ab-57dfa37cc8ba.jpg)
![[Image: 886836-97659d3c-ed50-11e4-b2ab-57dfa37cc8ba.jpg]](http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2015/04/28/1227324/886836-97659d3c-ed50-11e4-b2ab-57dfa37cc8ba.jpg)
![[Image: 7243888_orig.jpg]](http://www.paulhowardplays.com/uploads/1/6/5/6/16569546/7243888_orig.jpg)
![[Image: 6587654_orig.jpg]](http://www.paulhowardplays.com/uploads/1/6/5/6/16569546/6587654_orig.jpg)
![[Image: 6685043_orig.jpg]](http://www.paulhowardplays.com/uploads/1/6/5/6/16569546/6685043_orig.jpg)
![[Image: 20150413_searchareaextension-120000km_500x353.jpg]](http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5253315/20150413_searchareaextension-120000km.jpg)
![[Image: 20150416_searchareaextension_500x354.jpg]](http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5253320/20150416_searchareaextension.jpg)
![[Image: share.png]](http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4097574/share.png)
![[Image: feedback.png]](http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4097569/feedback.png)
![[Image: Kongsberg-Hugin-4500-610x404.jpg]](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2015/05/Kongsberg-Hugin-4500-610x404.jpg)
![[Image: diagram-blow-up--610x318.jpg]](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2015/05/diagram-blow-up--610x318.jpg)
