[Gobbledock]

The Dong has been rested

Well it's not as if it was out there searching for very long anyway. Who remembers the below salient article;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national...a8b5a91b1e

The Dong spent more time in Perth than it did searching for the elusive MH370. Are we really to be led to believe that this vessel was innocent of conducting any spy operations whatsoever while docked in Perth ? Keep in mind that Perth has some pretty important naval and strategic activities in its region. And Chester toured the ship!! Whoppydoo. As if he would be granted access to the ships software and capabilities. Hell they could've showed him a covert mapping tool and he would've mistook it for a tool to capture sea urchin's. And, remember Chester is part of the Abbott and Turnbull joke who also sold a slice of Darwin's port to the Chinese! Another strategic and secure military region, Darwin, gifted to the spying enemy! Good ol Obama wasn't too happy from what I recall? Seriously, Australia's oversight of intelligence is a farce. If it was up to me I wouldn't even allow China to drop so much as a container load of cheap TV's on our docks, let alone park a boat capable of 'intelligence collection' off the Freemantle Coast. But heck, what would I know.

So yes, long rest the Dong. She was a good ship, did her job well for the Chinese intelligence community, and has now earned herself a trip back to mainland China where stored information can be uploaded and dissected! Cheers lads.

P.S Malcolm, Barmybaby and Minister NFI; if you really want the Chinese to find MH370, forget allowing their spy ships on our coast, just ask them for their spy satellite data or the data from the Submarine network that would've picked up the MH370 crash on the night the aircraft pancaked into the ocean!! If that fails, just ask the Pentagon for same same! Can't hurt to ask, surely?

Tick Tock you crooked, deceiving governments, all of you.  Davey Jones locker will give up its secrets eventually, of that you can be assured.

[Peetwo]

miniscule NFI 4D said..

Search for MH370 – Chinese Vessel Dong Hai Jiu 101
Media Release
DC224/2016
13 December 2016

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester today thanked the Government of the People's Republic of China for the services of Dong Hai Jiu 101, a Chinese search vessel which was used as part of the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.

“The Dong Hai Jiu 101 has provided significant assistance in the search for the missing aircraft,” Mr Chester said.

The vessel commenced search operations in February 2016, initially scanning broad tracks of the ocean floor using deep tow sonar equipment before moving to undertake detailed inspection points of interest, identified by deep tow operations, using a Remotely Operated Vehicle.

“This final detailed inspection, which commenced in late October from Fremantle, has been invaluable undertaking 33 dives in the 120,000 square-kilometre search area,” Mr Chester said.

The vessel has now completed its missions and is returning to Shanghai.
Fugro Equator and its Autonomous Underwater Vehicle remains searching and it is expected the search area will be completed early 2017.

MH370 disappeared on 8 March 2014 with 239 people on board. Australia, Malaysia and People's Republic of China have been working together to find the aircraft since that time.

In July 2016 Ministers from Malaysia, Australia and the People's Republic of China agreed that should the aircraft not be located in the current 120,000 square-kilometre search area, and in the absence of credible new evidence leading to the identification of a specific location of the aircraft, the search would be suspended upon completion of the search area. 

Summary - "Is Dong is good, is gone"

Update: Via the BBC.

MH370: Last ship departs to search for missing Malaysian aircraft

• 3 hours ago
  
• From the section Asia
  

Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The Dutch vessel Fugro Equator is the only ship still involved in the search operation

The one remaining ship still looking for missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 has begun what is likely to be its final search.

Dutch-owned Fugro Equator left the Australian port of Fremantle on Monday.

Several ships have combed the seabed of a vast search area in the Indian Ocean since the plane disappeared in 2014.

The Fugro Equator is expected to finish scouring the final portion of the search area by early 2017.

Officials say they will suspend the search if the plane is not found by then.

Not a single piece of wreckage or any clues to the whereabouts of the plane have been found so far by the operation.

• Missing Malaysia plane MH370: What we know
  
• Flight MH370 'made rapid descent'
  
• Families take the lead in MH370 mystery
  

Image copyright EPA Image caption The search for the Malaysia Airlines plane is due to end in early 2017

"It has been an heroic undertaking but we have to prepare ourselves for the prospect that we may not find MH370 in the coming weeks, although we remain hopeful," Australian Transport Minister Darren Chester told the West Australian newspaper.

Several countries including Australia and China have taken part in the underwater search.

Earlier this month the Chinese vessel Dong Hai Jiu 101 completed its mission and is returning to Shanghai, leaving the Fugro Equator as the last ship scouring the vast 120,000 sq km (46,332 sq miles) search area.

Whether the Fugro Equator's voyage is the ship's final month-long deployment would depend on the weather, the office of Mr Chester told AP news agency.

Image copyright Reuters Image caption Passengers' families looked for clues on Madagascar's beaches last week

MH370 was carrying 239 people when it disappeared en route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur. Many of the passengers were Chinese.

Last week family members of some passengers journeyed to Madagascar to look for clues on the ship's whereabouts.

A few aeroplane fragments confirmed to be from MH370 had been found by members of the public on the East African and Madagascan coasts in recent months.

The location of the debris is in line with drift modelling patterns based on the theory that MH370 went down in a part of the Indian Ocean near Australia.

The families have expressed frustration at the lack of concrete evidence turned up by the official search, and have called for a coordinated effort to search beaches for debris.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 15.12.16: Chillit - "Not happy Jan"

Please read the following article from the Guardian yesterday (14/12/16):

Oceanographers offer clues to Malaysian airlines crash
Deploying drifters and using computer models, oceanographers identified the most likely crash area for flight MH370   
     
[/url]  Officers carrying pieces of debris from an unidentified aircraft apparently washed ashore in Saint-Andre de la Reunion, eastern La Reunion island, France, 29 July 2015. Photograph: Raymond Wae Tion/EPA

John Abraham
Wednesday 14 December 2016 22.00 AEDT

No doubt nearly everyone is familiar with the story. In early 2014, Malaysian flight MH370 left Kuala Lumpur Malaysia, on a flight to China. The flight disappeared from communication and was never found; despite great search efforts.

It isn’t that there is no evidence of the crash. In July of last year, a portion of a wing was found near Madagascar and Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean. Since then, other debris has been found in the Western Indian Ocean.

Using the location of where the wing debris were found, oceanographers from University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain), the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the University of Miami, University of Hawaii, and the Commonwealth Science Industrial and Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia have a lead. Their hypothesis is published in the Journal of Operational Oceanography and can be found here.

The authors used two sets of data to help track the possible paths of the debris. First, they took advantage of observations from NOAA’s Global Drifter Array. These drifters have a surface float and an anchor or drogue that extend to 15m deep, and a suite of sensors that communicate via satellite their location and parameters like ocean currents, surface ocean temperature, pressure, wind, and salinity. In the Indian Ocean alone, there are approximately 400 of these drifters at any time, providing continuous ocean measurement information. At some point the drifters loose their drogue and these are the ones used in this study as they better simulate debris dynamics. 

   

Deployment of a drifter. Photograph: NOAA

The authors tracked drifters that were released or that traveled near the search area in the southeastern Indian Ocean. Several of these drifters traveled across the Indian Ocean to the final destination near Reunion Island, very near where the wing debris was found, and the duration it took the drifters to make their trek was similar to that of the debris.
 
   

Diagram of a drifter. Illustration: NOAA

In addition, the authors used a computer model of ocean currents from the University of Hawaii. This model incorporated the surface ocean winds and provided a realistic simulation of ocean currents during and after the plane crash. Using these computer-derived currents, the scientists released thousands of replica drifters to see where they traveled.

By combining the real trajectories from actual instruments with the simulated trajectories, scientists were able to identify the location where a crash was most likely, shown in the image below.
  

Trajectories calculated from computer simulations. Illustration: NOAA

More recent debris discoveries confirm the general westward drift predictions from the computer program and analysis. While the assessments from this study are interesting in that they are related to the MH370 accident, the techniques that the researchers developed can be used for other ocean-debris scenarios and are useful both for basic research as well as more tangible applications for societal benefits, such as search and rescue efforts, oil spills, and fish larval transports.

I contacted author Joaquin Trinanes to ask about the difficulties of this project and its importance. He told me:

There are many factors that affect the trajectories and distribution of ocean debris. A critical aspect is related to the exposure of the floating objects to the wind, which can greatly impact the forecast of the location of the debris. It is challenging to solve but imperative with the advance in the developments of the observational and modeling efforts.

 
 
[url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/dec/14/oceanographers-offer-clues-to-malaysian-airlines-crash#img-5]
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Dr. Joaquin Trinanes
His colleague, Gustavo Goni added,

Studies like the one carried out here shows the value of maintaining a global ocean observing system to monitor different parameters in the oceans, such as ocean currents in this case, but of others like sea surface temperature, winds, salinity, oxygen, etc.; which are key to understand how the ocean is linked to weather, climate, and ecosystems. In addition, this monitoring also serves for other direct applications, such as debris tracking, oil spill monitoring, fisheries stock assessments, sea level rise, etc.

I think it is really great to solve a basic research problem but also to connect it to practical applications. Great work, folks.

Now for those of you have been following the considerable efforts of Mike Chillit to research and model, then openly document his findings in this particular area, will more than understand why it is that MC is - "Not happy Jan!!"

For those who don't understand well perhaps I will let the man himself spell it out...

MikeChillit
3h ago

This article violates copyrights held by Mike Chillit. The findings are correct because they are my findings, published extensively on Twitter and my own website throughout most of 2016. My personal goal is to help find MH370, and I have worked very hard toward that end. Beginning in 2014 ATSB, David Griffin, and his employer, CSIRO, claimed debris would hit Java and Sumatra. But when the flaperon washed up on Reunion Island instead in July 2015, they quickly amended their predictions and claimed the earlier prediction was the work of an employee who had been fired. But they insisted they were still searching the correct area 2,000 km south of the actual crash site. Griffin's boss, Niel Gordon has published a tour de force on how not to do Bayesian Statistics, also claiming the plane could only be in the now thoroughly debunked search area. The only distinguishing feature of all work flowing out of David Griffin's and CSIRO's offices for the past three years is that they have been consistently wrong about everything.

I communicated my concerns with Griffin early in 2016, and explained why his earlier theories have been wrong. I have explained where the plane must be and how the currents work west of Australia. As unbelievable as it is, Griffin insisted the plane went down in the empty search area. I have copies of his email. I can show you precisely what Griffin said, and it is obvious none of this stems from his own work. It is unconscionable to me that Griffin and his peers have lifted huge portions of my work to smooth over their own inability to understand the south Indian Ocean. (I was also told by Scripps Oceanography early on that debris would drift from Perth to the Mascarenes, so it wasn't just Griffin and CSIRO who had no idea how debris would move west of Australia.

I insist that this article be retracted and rewritten, and that I receive an apology. More importantly, family members of those lost deserve apologies for the shoddy response Australia has given to the search effort for almost three years. This is just another example of how little respect those families have received.

As a footnote, the real story now is that debris from MH370 washed up on St. Brandon island well north of Reunion Island before Australia sent the first deep sea sonar vessel to the search area. Malaysia and Australia should have known the plane could not possibly have gone down where they were searching, but they didn't take time to investigate other possibilities. And it wouldn't have cost a penny.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Righteous Chillit indignation.

Chillit:-It is unconscionable to me that Griffin and his peers have lifted huge portions of my work to smooth over their own inability to understand the south Indian Ocean.

Not only to Mike is this ‘unconscionable’ but also to many ‘thinking’ people, independent of; and not dependant on, the ‘political’ sphere of influence to earn a crust. The old expression “a nod is as good as a wink to a blind man” comes to mind.  This mindless ‘culture’ is rampant within Australian government agencies; a quiet word over a drink between those with ‘power’ over peoples mortgage and kids schooling, very quickly becomes a matter of not only keeping a ‘nice’ job, but of survival. I can’t count the number of ‘public-servants’ who must either play nice or piss off. Protection of one’s rice-bowl is a reflex action, endemic to the corridors of power – but who could rat? One of my favourite lines in ‘Batman’ – “in a town this bad – who is there to rat to?” says it all really.

Chillit – “I was also told by Scripps Oceanography early on that debris would drift from Perth to the Mascarenes, so it wasn't just Griffin and CSIRO who had no idea how debris would move west of Australia”.  - QED. Big time.

Chillit “[More] importantly, family members of those lost deserve apologies for the shoddy response Australia has given to the search effort for almost three years.

We – (PAIN) have been trying (alas, to no avail) to warn of the folly. The moment Dolan was allowed (or ordered) by the lady sub boss of the MM to take over ‘the search’ Australia was always going to be the bunny – lay down misère.

Who; and, for what reason influenced the Australian lacklustre performance will remain unknown – even a Royal Commission will fail to plumb the grubby depths of perfidy. That statement by the way is fully supportable; history proves it, categorically.

Chillit – “As a footnote, the real story now is that debris from MH370 washed up on St. Brandon island well north of Reunion Island before Australia sent the first deep sea sonar vessel to the search area. Malaysia and Australia should have known the plane could not possibly have gone down where they were searching, but they didn't take time to investigate other possibilities. And it wouldn't have cost a penny”.

We have, in the aviation sector, seen countless examples of this ‘blind’ persistence; the dogged determination to; no matter how, be seen to be ‘right’; this in the face of all logic or reason. The really bizarre part is that the Australian tax payer just keeps paying, not complaining and swallowing, holus-bolus, whatever the official line is.

There is a notion of ‘criminal’ involvement in the 370 saga; I am left to wonder; just who, exactly, are the ‘criminals?

Bravo Mike – keep ‘em honest.  Choc frog follows.

Toot toot

[Curtis]

Hi, all,
i am lurking since a while here - interesting stuff from all of You.

i would like to ask a non-expert question - re the BTO data log and the only two calls from MAS and the GES-timer resetting for handshake interrogation.

From what i have read about it i do understand, that the GES is routinely interrogating the AES for the so called handshakes, IF there were no other activities like ACARS or Satcom-calls, in an interval of 1 hour +/- 4 minutes - means if GES has not heard anything from the plane, it will ask "are You there" and an answer "yes".

The two calls from ground (MAS ops) at 1839 and 2313 utc have each reset the timer for this interrogation, resulting in interrogations at 1941 and 0011 respectively.

Am i right, that IF MAS would have called more or less non stop  -  what common sense would usually dictate IMO - that there would have been no BTO´s at all? Only for the re-logon´s at around 1825 and 0019 ? (And a whole lot of BFO logs from the calls).

Best regards
Curtis

[ventus45]

Curtis.

Correct. Any attempted phone call resets the timer. If there had been a series of attempted calls they would reset the hourly timer every time. If those calls were at regular intervals less than an hour, there would have been no GES interrogations at all, and thus no GES generated BTO pings. The only BTO's we would have would be the AES logon generated ones.

[Gobbledock]

Drone wars - China vs USA

China's Navy Seizes American Underwater Drone In South China Sea

http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/12/1...china-sea/

Apparently the Chinese have agreed to return the drone. Its a pity because I was sort of hoping that they would give it to Mike Chillit to use to find the final resting place of MH370!

Keep up the good work mate. You're a legend.

Gobbles

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 18.12.16: DOI archive entry 161218

Via WA's Sunday Times:

             


Ellenbrook resident Sheryl Keen believes these items that washed up on Madagascar could be from MH370. Picture: Ross Swanborough
[/url]WA News

[url=http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia]MH370: Perth woman in possession of ocean debris collected from Madagascar
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/3b8a848543a77be071518c6f7aa90cb8?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storyheader/index&t_product=PerthNow&td_device=desktop[/img]
Kate Campbell, PerthNow
December 17, 2016 3:22pm
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/3b8a848543a77be071518c6f7aa90cb8?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storymeta/index&t_product=PerthNow&td_device=desktop[/img]
KEY clues to help solve the MH370 mystery could be inside a suitcase in an Ellenbrook home.

Perth woman Sheryl Keen, the chairwoman of Air Crash Support Group Australia, has had about 20 items stored in a suitcase at her home since September, which she’s confident are personal effects belonging to passengers aboard the doomed Malaysia Airlines jet.

The items, mainly shoes and handbags, were handed to Ms Keen by amateur MH370 investigator Blaine Gibson, a US lawyer who has been scouring the islands off east Africa for debris belonging to the mystery plane. Unfortunately, none of the battered items contain anything that identifies their owners.

The Malaysian Government refused to take the debris, claiming they were not linked to MH370, Ms Keen said.

media_cameraSheryl Keen with the slipper. Picture: Ross Swanborough

To date, seven pieces of debris recovered from islands and the east African coast have been confirmed as part of the missing plane which vanished on March 8, 2014, with JU239 passengers and crew on board, including Perth man Paul Weeks.

Ms Keen said she contacted the Australian Federal Police, which has agreed to catalogue and forensically examine the items in her possession, all of which were found along a 13km stretch on Riake Beach in Madagascar.

She said the items in her suitcase were only a small sample of the personal effects found washed ashore in the area, much of which still remains in Madagascar.

“How many beaches have you been to where 100 handbags wash up and not just 100 handbags, but 100 handbags all in the same condition? It’s not like some were there 10 years and some were there 10 months, they’d all deteriorated to the same level,” she said.

“The fact the items we’ve recovered are all cabin-type debris, we’re not seeing suitcases or things that would be in the (cargo) hold ... it tells me that part of the aircraft (cabin) broke apart.”

Among the items is a single brown slipper, which Ms Keen believes may belong to an Asian woman seen wearing similar footwear with white socks on CCTV footage before she boarded MH370.

The unknown woman has been dubbed “Cinderella”.


CCTV pic of woman about to board MH370. Debris hunters believe the shoes she's wearing could very well be one of the brown slippers found washed up on a Madagascar beach. They have dubbed the unknown woman "Cinderella". Picture: Supplied


Cinderella's slippers. Picture: Supplied

“Without hope, what have you got?” she said. “We want to find out what happened to the aircraft and bring answers to the families. This is a travesty, we can’t allow this to go on with no answers because what will stop it from happening again and again and again.

“The families want people to know it’s bigger than just them. It affects everyone that flies. Although it’s really sad for them, they want answers for us as much as for their own circumstances.”

The AFP confirmed it had been contacted by ASGA regarding items in the group’s possession and it was seeking advice from the Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre. The JACC, which is co-ordinating the search and recovery mission, said the AFP’s request was under consideration.

Ms Keen, who lost her agriculture pilot husband in a 2009 plane crash, said the Malaysian Government, which had responsibility for returning any personal effects to next of kin, was dragging its feet and had only just sent officials to travel to Madagascar to collect pieces of debris.

Seven relatives of MH370 victims are in Madagascar to search for debris and urge locals to keep a lookout for further items from the missing Boeing 777.

Aviation expert Geoffrey Thomas said every avenue should be examined in a bid to solve this extraordinary mystery. He said Malaysia’s lack of interest in potential MH370 debris was “deeply troubling” when the country should be supporting and funding such efforts.
“Some of the stuff they have been finding has been incredibly important in confirming we are looking in the right general area,” he said.

Unlike physical hardware of the plane, personal effects were more difficult to identify unless relatives came forward, Mr Thomas said.

“It’s the most tragic jigsaw puzzle and every single piece is important ... history has shown that the smallest, most inconsequential piece of debris can lead to the discovery of what went wrong.”

Search vessel MV Fugro Equator left Fremantle this week to conduct a final sweep of deep-sea ravines. When the 120,000sqkm search zone is fully combed early next year, the search will be suspended without any new credible evidence.

And in case you missed it, & for the record (plus the Aunty Pru DOI archive ), the PRweb (press release distribution) released this Lev Vozchikov research study paper/article 2 weeks ago:

Advanced Report Debris Drift Mapping MH370

Lev Vozchikov presents an expert interpretation of MH370 debris mapping research and a computer simulation that shows the appearance of the African and Indian coastal drifts. Vozchikov worked for 20 years in Special Transportation (STA) and published a graphical prognosis of the newest known debris oceanic transport map for an Indian Oceanic region in the journal Applied Science.

Stamford,CT (PRWEB) December 04, 2016

The author presents a progressive interpretation of debris drift map in the area of the Oceanic crash of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370. In the meantime, the surface and underwater searches, according to the ATSB, who led the search, reported no results for wreckage of aircraft. Models of MH370 debris drifts, being consistent with a general oceanic currents direction, are partially in agreement with satellite data and known debris chronology.

The author’s research utilizes experimental approaches in the study of possible alternative crash locations for the missing MH370 aircraft. There has been a controversy regarding the site of the accident of the MH370. Recent findings suggest in a review that there could be two possible debris crash sites.

The author centered his experimental simulation on the possibility of debris transport across the North Indian Ocean to explain the unique flaperon appearance at Reunion Island. The simulations, by mapping experiments, use a graphical visualization of a possible conveying exchange for the North Gyre debris. The traced simulations, according to the examinations, have an inclination towards the coast of South Africa, Mozambique, Tanzania, and India, that is in agreement with the debris discovered in 2016.

Findings recently indicate that fragments and wreckage debris of the MH370 flight were located near the coast of Madagascar at Reunion Island. During 2016, new debris fragments were reported off the coast of South Africa, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Madagascar. A simulation study demonstrates that there could be two possible impact sites for the crash of flight MH370.

In the study, Lev Vozchikov (http://file.scirp.org/pdf/OJAppS_2016022615425842.pdf) showed that the probable debris crash sites of MH370 could be the Indian coast or the Australian coast. The simulations and assumptions were based on drift satellite observation of ocean currents in the Indian Ocean.

Experimental simulation map results given in the article centered on the current, satellite pointed underwater location search approach. The first debris was found in 2015 off the coast of Madagascar - Reunion Island.

In the experimental simulation conducted by the author, varied comparisons of the start point made on the South and North Gyre prototypes, which allowed for the actual computation and boosting of the explanations underlying mappings of debris drift.

The advanced calculations on the NASA’s Oceanic Drift Ship simulator as made in the 2014-2015 season’s range successfully proved the positive results from the drawings developed.

The simulated computation was based on the interval statistics of oceanic debris transport - the cyclical flow of ocean currents, the surface winds of the marine region, and the data observed regarding the location of the flaperon. The time lag between the data of the accident, - March 08 2014 and the appearance of the flaperon at the Reunion Island, - 2015 was considered as the constant in the regression analysis or the simulation analysis. The graphical mapping of two alternative start points of the debris crash could be obtained from the simulation/regression satellite observer analysis. These two sites are the West Indian coast and the West Australian coast.

Drifter (flaperon) examination in a simulation resumes the possibility of traces leading to the coast of South Africa, Mozambique, Tanzania, and India. New debris was discovered there by 2016, confirmed later as being from MH370, in South Africa, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Madagascar, which supported the precision assumptions of experimental research to forecast marine debris appearance. We can definitely conclude from the summary of the article debris appearance off the Indian Coast.

The study interval statistics indicated the strong possibility the North Indian Gyre was transporting the debris from the point of the crash. These assumptions were based on correlation data of the time of arrival of debris and the speed of the North Indian, and South Indian gyre. Initially, the search operations were based off the coast of Australia.

However, the alternative methods of search based on simulation and interval statistics indicated that the site of the crash could have been the start points of North Indian Gyre.

The derived simulations off the Bengal Bay and the Australian coast traced back to the Reunion Island. It was definite that the location of the alternative points was on the seventh arc, and this in comparison indicates a possible reliable prediction as the start point. The study depicted from the summary indicates that the debris drift was closer to the Indian coast. Two points were necessary to execute to emulate the experimental graphical map. A resulting map is the best approximation known at this time.

Although the inferential statistics indicated the possibility of a North Indian gyre, the statistical analysis carried out through time-series analysis followed the transport of debris based on ocean current movements observed in the North Indian Gyre and South Indian Gyre.   
 
Experimental study depicted in the summary of the tracing showed that the wreckage drift was closer to the Indian coast. From the previous research published in OJAppS journal, there was no consensus regarding debris schedule, since the factual knowledge proved the presence of five debris pieces on the coast of Africa.

Author contact
Special Transportation, STA
Lev Vozchikov
Phone: 1-203-602-9958

Key Words:
Transport, debris, drift, MH370, prognosis

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

HSSS archive entry 161219: 'Qui ose gagne'

IMHO for a lesson in humility grace & dignity, one can not go past Mike Chillit on this day 19 December 2016... :

IG Comments on Possible MH370 Debris
Posted on December 18, 2016 by Mike Chillit

Nearly everyone who has followed MH370 efforts on Twitter and elsewhere has some knowledge of a group known collectively as “IG”. Some say it means “Independent Group”, Others say the “I” is for “IQ” or something and the “G” is for something else. Whatever it means, it is a social net gang best known for taking research and plots from others, and harassing those who disagree with its Kazakhstan and Penguinville tours de force; not to forget its enthusiastic support for helping spend $180 million Australian taxpayer dollars on an effort that hasn’t exactly been hugely successful.

Attached below is the latest example of IG’s efforts at teamwork. They didn’t send it to me, they had a newly minted Twitter troll follow me for a while and then send me a link. 

For the record, all of the research I conduct is my own and predates everything else I’ve seen. Contrary to Mr. Godfrey’s assertions, I have seldom accessed Duncan Steel’s website. It just isn’t a place I regard as particularly informative. The focus for those who hang out there tends to be aircraft systems esoterica.

Mike Chillit’s work on two NOAA drifters. Mr. Godfrey states that he published his work on October 18, 2016. This shows that a small part of Mike Chillit’s NOAA drifter work STARTED on September 9, 2016. It was published on Twitter almost immediately, and continued to be a work in progress that began in February 2016 when I wrote to CSIRO’s David Griffin to tell him his drift models had serious problems. It is my understanding that all of Mr. Godfrey’s work is published in obscure places, like Duncan Steel’s website. In contrast, mine is published on Twitter where everyone and anyone can view it, copy it, claim it is their own work. Some of my biggest fans hang out on Jeff Wise’s blog. That’s our world in today’s social media.

As of Sunday, December 18, updated images from WorldView-3 confirm that the objects I thought could be aircraft debris are more likely wrecked boats. However, my version of Google Earth, even today, does not show any of the photos shown in Godfrey’s treatise. Not sure why.

It was only when we got a spectral signature from the boat on the left that nearly matches the signature of a Boeing 747 that I decided to personally pay for updated images. Experts told me it almost had to be aircraft debris. Little did I know that all I had to do was ask Mr. Godfrey.

So the bad news today is that there does not appear to be MH370 debris on St. Brandon Island. But the good news is that I spent my own money to get that education, and it didn’t take three years to accomplish it.
The IG 

  
You win some, you lose some but if you don't dare to win well...??

OK MC tick that box mate and let's move on you've got a plane to find...


MTF...P2

Ps P2 OBS - 'Once a troll always a troll.' 

[Curtis]

Curtis.

Correct.  Any attempted phone call resets the timer. If there had been a series of attempted calls they would reset the hourly timer every time. If those calls were at regular intervals less than an hour, there would have been no GES interrogations at all, and thus no GES generated BTO pings.  The only BTO's we would have would be the AES logon generated ones.

Thanks much, Ventus.
So without this stunning neglegence of the owner of the missing plane there would be no SIO-theory possible, given the other circumstances (silence/ACARS off).
If we later learn there were more calls - e.g. during the trials against MAS/MAB - we should remember this.

A happy Christmas time for all of You.
Curtis

[P7_TOM]

P2 – “IMHO for a lesson in humility grace & dignity, one can not go past Mike Chillit on this day 19 December 2016... :”

Well said P2, 100% support the motion. Two things come out of this, well three, if you want to count the academic bitch slapping, hair pulling and name calling; which IMO is not worth the wind.

1) Chillit has provided a ‘positive’ result – at least we can rule out one potential, legitimate line of inquiry. It is the curse of the investigator; to run down leads and come up with nothing. Except it eliminates a possibility; which is good, as it reduces the list of possible, make the list shorter and therefore one step closer to an answer. Instead of bagging MC, he should have our thanks for effort.

2) The whole process he has conducted should be set as the bench mark for all MH 370 investigators, systematic, careful, cross checked. Not like some who go off half cocked; spout off in the media, take money for it, then write silly books to flog off to the unwashed masses and have their ego stoked by 15 grubby, tawdry minutes of ‘fame’. There are enough of them.

No Chillit backed his own selection, with his own money for all the right reasons; it ran last, so what, The question is did he have fun? Bet he had some Malaysian hearts beating faster.

Bravo Mike, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Take a breather, get back to ‘Go’ and roll the dice.

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 20.12.16: 1st Principles report released -  

A rehash on the 1st Principles review:

First Principles- indeed?

ATSB – “For the First Principles Review, the ATSB has assembled experts from around the world to reassess the data available. A report detailing the findings of the First Principle Review will be made available following the meeting.”

Principles – an interesting, oft abused word; and, a strange choice for describing the three day ‘gabfest’ of ‘experts’ intent on reassessing the ‘available data’.

‘Available data’ – this could be put on the back of a coaster and dissected in about 30 seconds by a bunch of dyslexic five year olds; well it could.

In the beginning, apart from the aircraft being ‘in the vicinity’ of the IGARI waypoint there is no conclusive data indicating where the aircraft went after that; best guesses and some fairly wispy satellite data emerged to place the aircraft ‘in the Southern Indian Ocean’. This data provided the ‘Seventh Arc’ – depicted as a fine line, drawn across half a hemisphere – somewhere along that line, it is said, marks the end of the flight: the experts think. Has the ‘available data’ changed in the time between IGARI and the end of the search? In short – No, it has not. Has there been any refinement of the ‘mathematics’ which indicated the terminal zone for the flight – again - No, there has not. Ergo, the ‘available data’ has not significantly changed. We are left only to wonder at what the ‘experts’ will be discussing – if the radical data has not been refined; or re-defined.

The ‘Flaperon’ throws a wee spanner into the works, as does some of the ‘drift’ models being presented – the excellent, logical work done by Chillit for example.  The ‘pilot dunit’ debate rages, but then you have the Howard analysis to contend with, the logic reasonable and worthy of consideration; and yet we see no careful dissection of this data by the ‘expert’ panel, no public discussion, rebuttal or even a begrudged acknowledgement that perhaps the ‘theory’ presented has ‘some merit’.

First principles -

Marcus Aurelius.  6. The nature of the universal has this work to do, to remove to that place the things which are in this, to change them, to take them away hence, and to carry them there. All things are change, yet we need not fear anything new. All things are familiar [to us]; but the distribution of them still remains the same.

The first principle objective was to question – the why, the how and then the where. Without the why and then the how – the ‘where’ becomes little more than flawed guess, based against incomplete information. The rest has simply been window dressing; look at the photograph above – there is no one there with anymore idea now of the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ as they stand there than they did in the beginning.

Marcus Aurelius. This, what is it in itself, and by itself, according to its proper constitution? What is the substance of it? What is the matter, or proper use? What is the form, or efficient cause? What is it for in this world, and how long will it abide? Thus must thou examine all things that present themselves unto thee. (disputed translation).

There has always been a certain flavour of ‘corruption’ associated with this ‘mystery’, a natural response to a serviceable aircraft, disappearing, without semblance of logical explanation; or, witness. There has always been an odour of ‘conspiracy’ associated – again, where credible explanation is not provided, the imagination is left to fill the void and the charlatans, seekers of fame and hopefully fortune will begin to spin the yarn into the fabric of their fancy. I believe the stench of incompetence spoils this feast for the imagination. Plain, pure and simple.  This, of itself, is human and was forgivable until the beasts of ‘vested interests’, national, political and financial raised their ugly heads.  I digress.

‘We’ are no closer to understanding what, why and who now, than we were in the beginning. ‘We’ are probably reasonably sure that the aircraft is not within the search zone.  Despite the Chester claims of ‘heroism’ and extraordinary efforts etc. (Yuk) ‘We’ are no wiser or further on than we were in the beginning.  I, for one, would like to know why not; or, alternatively be informed, honestly and openly that no one, not even the ‘experts’ has a blind clue. It matters not a wit, whether the aircraft ‘plunged’ at high speed into the stygian depths; or alighted like a butterfly on a flower, into the wind swept SIO to float about for while. Only the what, the why and the how of it remain as important now as they were – in the beginning.

So, my ramble ends where I began a long time ago; someone, somewhere, knows the why and the how. Find that person and you’ll find your aircraft. The alternative is to admit that unless fate takes a hand; there is little chance of the wreck being discovered without solid, tangible evidence.

Selah.

Captain's Log 11.11.16: MH370 Aussie spin & BS continues -

From that man 'Iggins in the Oz yet another MH370 HSSS  archive entry:

MH370 review faces lengthy wait
12:00amEAN HIGGINS
A report by experts reviewing the strategy to find MH370 may not be produced until after a current search is complete.

..The federal government’s Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre for the search conceded the review group’s report may not be produced until after the underwater search of 120,000sq km in the southern ­Indian Ocean is completed, due by January or February.

JACC spokesman Roger Gott­lob said the report “is currently being drafted and will be released in the coming months” but would not say whether it would be complete before the search ended. “The main focus for all concerned will continue to be finding the aircraft to assist the Malaysian investigation team and to bring closure to the families of the passengers and crew of MH370,” Mr Gottlob said...

“is currently being drafted and will be released in the coming months”

From the official ATSB book of word weasels & obfuscation, 'currently being drafted' can mean anywhere as short as 6 months or, in the case of the PelAir cover-up or Mildura Fog cock-up, 2 to 3 yrs (24 to 36 months).
But hang on wasn't there a commitment from miniscule 4D NFI Chester...  
 

Reference 4D PRESSER: MH370 First Principles Review Summit

“The First Principles Review Summit brings together the extraordinary team of Australian and international experts, who have been involved in the search for MH370, to review all the available data and analysis associated with the search to date,” Mr Chester said.


“There are currently more than 20 items of debris of interest to the investigation team which have been located on the coasts of Africa, Madagascar, the island of Mauritius, Reunion and Rodrigues.

“The experts will also inform the remainder of the search effort, and develop guidance for any future search operations.

“A report detailing the findings of the review will be released after the meeting.

   
See another clever use of weasel words to convey a false impression of efficiency and transparency. Apparently the hand-puppet 4D Chester kept within the limitations of the Department prepared WW script, as confirmed by this from the ATSB 'correcting the bollocks' webpage:

..For the First Principles Review, the ATSB has assembled experts from around the world to reassess the data available. A report detailing the findings of the First Principle Review will be made available following the meeting...

   
So another day, another MH370 fairy tale coming out of the Can'tberra spin and bollocks sausage factory -

Hmm...I wonder how quickly the report would be drafted and finalised if China called for an urgent MH370 Tripartite next week?

Although I am very suspect about the timing, it would seem that wonders will never cease, with the ATSB today releasing the 1st Principles review report... :

Media release
Title
MH370 First Principles Review and CSIRO reports
 
Date: 20 December 2016
Today the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) released its report MH370 – First Principles Review and CSIRO’s supporting report The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift.
The First Principles Review report summarises the outcomes of a meeting conducted in November and attended by Australian and international experts in data processing, satellite communications, accident investigation, aircraft performance, flight operations, sonar data, acoustic data and oceanography.  
The purpose of the First Principles Review was to reassess and validate existing evidence and to consider any new analysis that may assist in identifying the location of MH370. The CSIRO report, which should be read in conjunction with the ATSB report, was commissioned by the ATSB earlier in 2016 and was considered by the experts attending the First Principles Review.
The experts confirmed their agreement that the analysis of the last two SATCOM transmissions, the likely housed position of the main flaps at impact, and results from the recent flight simulations indicate with high probability that the aircraft lies within 25 NM of the 7th arc that had been derived from analysis of the last satellite communications with the aircraft.
Given the high confidence in the search undertaken to date, the experts agreed that the previously defined indicative underwater area is unlikely to contain the missing aircraft between latitudes 36°S and 39.3°S along the 7th arc.
The experts also agreed that CSIRO’s debris drift modelling results present strong evidence that the aircraft is most likely to be located to the north of the current indicative underwater search area. When considered together with updated flight path modelling, the experts concluded that an unsearched area between latitudes 33°S and 36°S along the 7th arc of approximately 25,000 km², has the highest probability of containing the wreckage of the aircraft.
MH370 disappeared on 8 March 2014 with 239 people on board. Australia, Malaysia and People's Republic of China have been working together to find the aircraft since that time.
Given the international protocols for aircraft recovery scenarios such as this, Malaysia will continue to take the central role in the determination of any future course of action in the search for MH370.
This report has been provided to the three principle Governments involved in the search effort for their consideration.
 
Read reports: MH370 – First Principles Review [/url]and [url=http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ae-2014-054/][i]The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift.[/i]

 


Last update 20 December 2016 

 
What next an urgent request for miniscule DDDD_MNFI to attend an impromptu Tripartite meeting in Beijing prior to Xmas, with the aim to get the immaculately manicured & coiffured (M&Ms) Department hand-puppet back in time for the MCG boxing day test...  
The reason I surmise this is because in the conclusion of the 1stPR report, amongst other things, it says:

4. The participants of the First Principles Review were in agreement on the need to search an additional area representing approximately 25,000 km² (the orange bordered area in Figure 14). Based on the analysis to date, completion of this area would exhaust all prospective areas for the presence of MH370.

    
And from the latest accompanying CSIRO drift analysis report:

There is a region within the 36-32°S segment of the arc, near 35°S (see Fig. 3.3.3) that is most consistent with all of the following lines of evidence, taken together:

1. absence of detections during the 2014 surface search
2. absence of findings on the WA coastline
3. July 2015 arrival time of the flaperon at La Reunion
4. December 2015 and onwards (only) arrival times of other debris in the western Indian Ocean.

We therefore conclude that while the whole 36°-32°S region (outside the searched area but within the latest estimates of maximum likely off-arc distance) is prospective, the subset region near 35°S appears to be the most likely location of the aircraft.

Can we rule out other locations? Of course not, especially the 33-32°S shoulder region which appears likely from some considerations (lack of WA debris, flaperon finding timing) but less likely from others (African debris timing, surface search). Regions beyond that are much less consistent with available information than the relatively-small remaining prospective region. They are also spread over a very wide region (north, south, east and west) that is far too large to search with present technology.

Off you go to Beijing with cap in hand 4D. Get going now you'll be back well in time for Xmas chow and the 1st ball to be bowled at the Boxing day test...L&Ks MT (big smile)

MTF...P2

Ps P2 comment in regards to the above and this quote from the Negroni blog piece: ref MH370 & the Beaker effect

Here’s an example. In July 15, 2015, I contacted Martin Dolan, the then chairman of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau asking why, in light of all the money being spent in the sea, the ATSB had not also tried an aerial search of the shoreline where debris might be expected to wash up. Mr. Dolan replied that local authorities were responsible for that.

Relying on the attentiveness and current affairs awareness of residents in some of the world’s most remote communities, seemed a lethargic approach but more puzzling was Mr. Dolan’s statement that debris would offer little of value.

So is this a sign that the ATSB, CSIRO etc. has finally stepped out of the cloak & dagger, secret squirrel and beyond all sensible reason methodology of the top-cover Beaker years?? - Nah couldn't be, could it -

Pps Q/ After the Beaker comment to Negroni how do we know that the WA coastline does not contain other flotsam and jetsam from MH370. I can't even remember a BOLO notice going out, let alone a full blown NW to SW Cape beachcombing search -

[Peetwo]

Although I am very suspect about the timing, it would seem that wonders will never cease, with the ATSB today releasing the 1st Principles review report... :

Media release
Title
MH370 First Principles Review and CSIRO reports
 
Date: 20 December 2016
Today the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) released its report MH370 – First Principles Review and CSIRO’s supporting report The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift.
The First Principles Review report summarises the outcomes of a meeting conducted in November and attended by Australian and international experts in data processing, satellite communications, accident investigation, aircraft performance, flight operations, sonar data, acoustic data and oceanography.  
The purpose of the First Principles Review was to reassess and validate existing evidence and to consider any new analysis that may assist in identifying the location of MH370. The CSIRO report, which should be read in conjunction with the ATSB report, was commissioned by the ATSB earlier in 2016 and was considered by the experts attending the First Principles Review.
The experts confirmed their agreement that the analysis of the last two SATCOM transmissions, the likely housed position of the main flaps at impact, and results from the recent flight simulations indicate with high probability that the aircraft lies within 25 NM of the 7th arc that had been derived from analysis of the last satellite communications with the aircraft.
Given the high confidence in the search undertaken to date, the experts agreed that the previously defined indicative underwater area is unlikely to contain the missing aircraft between latitudes 36°S and 39.3°S along the 7th arc.
The experts also agreed that CSIRO’s debris drift modelling results present strong evidence that the aircraft is most likely to be located to the north of the current indicative underwater search area. When considered together with updated flight path modelling, the experts concluded that an unsearched area between latitudes 33°S and 36°S along the 7th arc of approximately 25,000 km², has the highest probability of containing the wreckage of the aircraft.
MH370 disappeared on 8 March 2014 with 239 people on board. Australia, Malaysia and People's Republic of China have been working together to find the aircraft since that time.
Given the international protocols for aircraft recovery scenarios such as this, Malaysia will continue to take the central role in the determination of any future course of action in the search for MH370.
This report has been provided to the three principle Governments involved in the search effort for their consideration.
 
Read reports: MH370 – First Principles Review [/url]and [url=http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ae-2014-054/][i]The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift.[/i]

 


Last update 20 December 2016 

 
What next an urgent request for miniscule DDDD_MNFI to attend an impromptu Tripartite meeting in Beijing prior to Xmas, with the aim to get the immaculately manicured & coiffured (M&Ms) Department hand-puppet back in time for the MCG boxing day test...  
The reason I surmise this is because in the conclusion of the 1stPR report, amongst other things, it says:

4. The participants of the First Principles Review were in agreement on the need to search an additional area representing approximately 25,000 km² (the orange bordered area in Figure 14). Based on the analysis to date, completion of this area would exhaust all prospective areas for the presence of MH370.

 

Update: Miniscule 4D has now received his lines -  

Contrary to some media reports...

"..MH370 partners have decided to look into the depths of a final 25,000 square km sea floor search zone in south Indian Ocean.."

...it would seem that the miniscule's script did not include verification that search will go on, in fact 4D's lines were quite clear that the 1st Principle's findings are not regarded as new and 'credible evidence..that identifies the specific location of the aircraft..":

MH370 First Principles Review report

Media Release

DC241/2016

20 December 2016

 
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester today welcomed the release of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's (ATSB) report MH370—First Principles Review.

“The ATSB report is the result of the First Principles Review workshop in November which was attended by members of the Search Strategy Working Group and international experts,” Mr Chester said.

“The information in the ATSB report, however, does not give a specific location of the missing aircraft.

“We are very close to completing the 120,000 square kilometre underwater search area, and we remain hopeful that we will locate the aircraft.

“As agreed at the Tripartite Ministers meeting in Malaysia in July we will be suspending the search unless credible evidence is available that identifies the specific location of the aircraft.

“The search for MH370 has been the largest in aviation history and has tested the limits of technology, and the capacity of our experts and people at sea.

“Our thoughts remain with the families and loved ones of the 239 people on board,” Mr Chester said.

The report is available on the ATSB website: www.atsb.gov.au/mh370/

Okay job done, back to my afternoon of personal grooming appointments...


MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

P2;

" Okay job done, back to my afternoon of personal grooming appointments".  

Indeed. Busy busy Miniscule Chester, getting the PMC to draft his letters after they have been engaged by Team Hood. All done over an afternoon of wine and canope's. Cleverly worded bullshit statements carefully crafted not to commit to anything tangible. It is such an old method of trickery and obsfucation that it is really becoming boring. Well, not boring to the sheeple who are easily fooled by such despicable tactics. But not the IOS my dear 'Minister for no intelligence', we aren't so easily fooled.

Anyway, the Miniscule will be busy packing his dick-togs and sunscreen readying himself and Mrs NFI for a trip to China, Macau, or maybe the Maldives? So much to do and so little time - pack the portable mirrors, skin cleanser, nail file, selfie stick, camera, nose powder, multiple hairbrushes, wallet size picture of Barnaby......

[Kharon]

So, that’s it then.

“The information in the ATSB report, however, does not give a specific location of the missing aircraft.

“As agreed at the Tripartite Ministers meeting in Malaysia in July we will be suspending the search unless credible evidence is available that identifies the specific location of the aircraft.

Done and dusted. No search unless ‘a specific’ location is provided. I’m intrigued to know exactly how a ‘specific’ location can be provided when there is no search activity, or continuing research; and, what precisely defines a ‘specific’ location. ‘X’ marks the spot within what size area, the debris field could cover many square kilometres.

I don’t put much store in this ‘no money’ gambit; funds could be found.  There is a growing, persuasive argument that taken North, there is a good chance that a search may find something of value.  I don’t claim expertise in analysing the data, indeed some of the theory and calculation is well beyond my comprehension, but the latest data seems to indicate, very clearly, that the first search area is barren.

There is enough brain power and revised data available to ‘re-think’ the search area. I guess I just fail to see why a second round is being ruled out.  A half year, in the ‘good‘ season, looking in the revised area seems to be ‘do-able’. I for one, would like to know why that’s not being discussed at the tripartite meetings? Seems to be the very least ‘they’ could do; unless there is something to hide.

Toot toot

[Peetwo]

So, that’s it then.

“The information in the ATSB report, however, does not give a specific location of the missing aircraft.

“As agreed at the Tripartite Ministers meeting in Malaysia in July we will be suspending the search unless credible evidence is available that identifies the specific location of the aircraft.

Done and dusted. No search unless ‘a specific’ location is provided. I’m intrigued to know exactly how a ‘specific’ location can be provided when there is no search activity, or continuing research; and, what precisely defines a ‘specific’ location. ‘X’ marks the spot within what size area, the debris field could cover many square kilometres.

I don’t put much store in this ‘no money’ gambit; funds could be found.  There is a growing, persuasive argument that taken North, there is a good chance that a search may find something of value.  I don’t claim expertise in analysing the data, indeed some of the theory and calculation is well beyond my comprehension, but the latest data seems to indicate, very clearly, that the first search area is barren.

There is enough brain power and revised data available to ‘re-think’ the search area. I guess I just fail to see why a second round is being ruled out.  A half year, in the ‘good‘ season, looking in the revised area seems to be ‘do-able’. I for one, would like to know why that’s not being discussed at the tripartite meetings? Seems to be the very least ‘they’ could do; unless there is something to hide.

Toot toot

All good OBS you make "K" but the problem for DDDD_MNFI & the Turnbull government, is the perception of ineptitude and/or cover-up that headlines like this convey when deciding to back the conclusions of the latest CSIRO/ATSB efforts:

CNN - MH370: Searchers almost certainly looking in the wrong place, report says

---

USA Today - MH370 search teams may be looking in wrong area

---

New likely location of MH370
12:00amEAN HIGGINS

A panel has identified a new 25,000 sq km area of the Indian Ocean as the likely resting place of Flight MH370.

The latest report findings also again raises the questions on why it was the original search box was so narrowly defined. When perhaps it would have been more prudent & Reasoned to have asked for a slightly bigger pot of money that could have covered a much larger search box?

The problem was Australia put in charge bean counter Beaker, who had a history of being so tight in the past that he wouldn't even spend an ATSB budgetary excess to pay to recover the VH-NGA black boxes (Reference PG 1 - Research/ATSB/NLK/Reporting.).

Subsequently due to the damning findings of a Senate Inquiry and the independent Canadian TSBC peer review report, Beaker was forced to put out to tender the recovery of the VH-NGA BBs at an extra cost to taxpayers of over half a million dollars.

It should therefore be no surprise that the ATSB is now desperately trying to save face by trying to head north on the 7th Arc.

Perhaps the ATSB should have had a testable hypothesis before they stepped away from Reason and put themselves in that narrow (coffin corner) box... : MC & the MH370 'testable hypothesis'

The first thing we need for a Testable Hypothesis is a hypothesis with limits. ATSB did some of that when it proposed that MH370 came down at -38S, 88.5E. But it did not take the next step, which is: “How will we know it is NOT at -38S, 88.5E? Consequently, the agency has been wallowing in a quagmire it has no idea how to get out of except to say, “we came, we looked, and we didn’t find anything”. A testable hypothesis has to be able to measure success AND failure. It can’t be open ended...

...So, obviously, there are some very clear advantages to having a “Testable Hypothesis” that includes an unambiguous “Exit Plan”. For example, it would have taken a month or two to determine there was nothing at all related to MH370 in the far Southern Indian Ocean if ATSB and others had simply followed Duncan Steel’s suggestion and adopted a testable hypothesis before heading off to a remote part of the planet where the plane certainly never flew...

 Not being an expert on such things but as a former SAR pilot, one personal OBS from the CSIRO report that I find quite disconcerting is this statement:

..Now that we know (from the number and size of items found) that there definitely was a surface debris field, the fact that the sea surface search detected no wreckage argues quite strongly that the site was not between 32°S2 and 25°S. Those latitudes are also contra-indicated by an absence of aircraft parts being found off Africa earlier than December 2015. Latitudes south of 39°S are quite strongly contra-indicated by the arrival times of the flaperon and other debris reaching Africa, and the fact that those items were many while findings anywhere on the Australian coastline were nil. Latitudes north of 25°S are strongly contra-indicated by the absence of findings on African shores in 2014...

For oceanography and scientific research boffins, that statement seems way to generalised and based on unsafe, almost naïve, non-evidence based assumptions.

Firstly how do they know there hasn't been debris that landed earlier on the East African coast and/or local islands?

Secondly how do they know, with high probability that there was no debris field within and beyond (North) of 32°S to 25°S? After all it was nearly 2 weeks before the AMSA surface search began in that area. Plus anyone who has been involved in ocean SAR Ops knows that despite thorough coverage of a search area, when you are largely reliant on mark one eyeball, sometimes smaller pieces of debris or even survivors get missed, only to be picked up the next day or two later in the same area by a fresh set of eyes - just saying...


MTF...P2  

[ventus45]

K

The only logical explanation, is that there is most definitely something of critical international importance to hide. All the "involved" Governments clearly know what it is, and are in complete agreement that it must remain secret. The public never will know, because all the involved governments desperately want, and perhaps even "need" it to remain forever secret.

Malaysia was lying from day one, and there was the famous "evidence that must remain sealed" statement.

After the "initial flurry" of the first two weeks, China's attitude for the past 30 plus months has been one of "studied indifference".

After Jay Carney "directed" the search to the SIO, he was quickly "shut up", and unceremoniously disposed of by the US Intelligence insiders, and the NSA classified everything the US has. The US has remained steadfastly "silent".

Australia, as the compliant and obedient lapdog, has dutifully conducted "the search that never was", AKA, "Operation Mincemeat TWO".

Remember that the the "original" high priority area was only 60,000 square kilometres. When it was clear that the aircraft was highly unlikely to be there, and since public interest was still "high" , they had to "buy more time" for the "heat" to diminish, so we had the "magic doubling" to 120,000 square kilometres, which bought another year for the "heat" to subside.

Now, the "tripartite" governments have "decided" that "enough is enough", the heat has subsided to only "lukewarm", and it is time to end the farce, and simply "wrap it up".

It is interesting that the ATSB is now proposing just "one more small area" to search, clearly against the wishes of our dear Minister Selfie, and clearly knowing that it will not be accepted or acted upon. It can only be a forlorn attempt by the ATSB to recover some small amount of dignity for itself.

You can just hear Hoody at some news conference down the track:- "We wanted to go on, but the government(s) would not let us".

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 22.12.16: MH370 DOI archive entry 161222.

In deference to the thought provoking "V" theory for the Tri-parties pulling up stumps, I note that today Paul Howard has got a very different take on the why?

Courtesy PH blog... :

Should the search for MH370 continue ?
22/12/2016
 
My understanding is that despite ATSB having specified an extended search area of a further 25k square km north of the current 120k sq km zone, Australia intends to suspend the search at completion of 120k sq km zone. I also understand that the extended area is largely based on the latest CSIRO drift modelling; 
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5772119/mh370_ocean_driftv29.pdf

To return to my title question, I reluctantly have to conclude that my answer is no. The search should only continue if the base data is as correct as possible and it isn't. I agree with the political decision to SUSPEND the search after 120k sq km. There is nothing to be achieved by continuing a wild goose chase based on unreliable data.

I'm not an oceanographer and don't pretend to understand the complexities of the science but I do understand that a timing difference of three months can make a vast difference to the result of drift modelling. Why three months ?

From the above CSIRO report Executive Summary bullet point 3;
• the July 2015 arrival time of the flaperon at La Reunion

They've chosen the date it was first reported and the media credited a Johnny Begue with the finding.

BUT it was also reported that it was found by Nicholas Ferrier in early May.
I tried to resolve the conflicting timing by contacting the local reporter (Antoine Forestier) on twitter and here is the conversation;

For some reason the rest of the conversation is irretrievable from Twitter. When specifically asked about Ferrier he told me he was an unreliable witness. I asked why and he said it was because he didn't take photographs !
This link reports what Ferrier said about his flaperon finding;
http://www.smh.com.au/world/plane-door-washes-up-on-reunion-island-20150802-gipugz.html

He also saw the wing part that washed up on Wednesday – although in May, the barnacles encrusting its side were still alive. By the time it washed ashore again this week, the crustaceans were dead."Like the seat, I didn't know what it was," he said. "I sat on it. I was fishing for macabi [bonefish] and used it as a table. I really didn't pay it much attention – until I saw it on the news." 

So CSIRO are basing a very important and resource consuming drift model on the word of journalists whose only criteria for witness credibility is whether or not they took photographs !

Has there been a police interview of witnesses? To give benefit of doubt maybe Reunion Police sent a confidential report to ATSB. NOT ! France still holds the flaperon and the secrets it contains and Reunion reports to Paris.

Let's not forget CSIRO's first drift model and the statement that “it supports the current search area” later changed to “not inconsistent with”.

Geomar's first reverse drift model was VERY inconsistent with the current search area but Geomar at the time weren't superglued to the 7th arc. Their latest model comes more into line with CSIRO's latest but they are also using July as a start point and have related to 7th arc.

Then we have the Vestas Wind rudder post which washed up on Reunion and as it turned up after the flaperon put Reunion on the map, I think we can be pretty certain of its arrival time. We also have a very good estimate for when it departed Cargados & both Geomar and CSIRO should have included it in their models, to my knowledge they didn't. Johnny Begue later tried to take credit for another find which wasn't aircraft and probably another piece of Vestas Wind.

Factor in a May start date for drift models and the very slow drift of Vestas debris and there is a huge discrepancy between drift models and ISAT 7th arc.

This I believe, is why ATSB refuse to consider anything other than a July date.

Are they just fooling themselves or are they trying to fool us into thinking the ISAT data is carved in stone ?

For these reasons the search must be suspended until ALL the data is reconciled to a single area and that requires months if not years, to thoroughly audit and review every scrap of data and verify its source.

 
MTF...P2

[ventus45]

For what it is worth, my frank opinion of the ISAT data (assuming that what we have been given is in fact legit, i.e. it is "as recorded" and not tampered with in any way) is that only the 5th, 4th and 3rd arcs can be considered a "homogeneous data set", in the sense that there were no known extraneous events between them.

By that I mean:-

The 6th Arc (00:11 UTC) has to be excluded from the "homogeneous" and regarded with some suspicion, because it was 90 minutes after the 5th, because the 2nd phone call had reset the GES monitoring system.

The 7th Arc was originally "not understood" by the ATSB or Inmarsat or anyone else for that matter, since the "recorded BTO" was obviously way corrupted. What eventually came out from the "matho-gencia" was a "corrected BTO", which was based on so many assumptions, that frankly, I think it is a pure mathematical "fudge". It has never sat well with me, as I have said many times, many months ago, in this place, and elsewhere.

To rely on the 7th Arc data for anything is a "stretch too far" in my view. To have based the entire search on this mathematical fudge was, shall we say, "brave" at best. It has turned out to have been a porker.

So, you have to ask the question, "why did they do it, why did they "correct" the 7th BTO ?

When you look at the history of all this (the "official's history") I can only see one possible, indeed "necessary" reason why they (the officials) would want, and "need" to ascribe "validity" to the 7th Arc "corrected BTO", and that is to justify the 7th's Arc BFO's.

Why you ask ? Simple. Remember that "early on", everything (the search) and most people's thinking was based on the 6th Arc data, which we all thought showed "controlled flight" (in simple terms) and we were wondering what may have happened after that (00:11 UTC).

This "end of flight" (since we knew that the fuel would be exhausted "around" that time) "needed" an answer (that would fly - with the public). (Poor choice of words - no pun intended).

The only scenario that was was "politically acceptable" at that time was the ghost flight scenario, another Helios perhaps, but in any case, not a mad man doing a Sully in the middle of no-where.

Thus, those 7th Arc BFO's became critical to back up and justify the "unresponsive - fuel exhausted descent scenario", to the "exclusion" of any other scenario. Thus, they needed the 7th Arc BFO's to be set in stone, to "solidify" the "unresponsive crew" theory. Without the 7th Arc BFO's being "accepted", they have no case.

The only way to justify the 7th Arc BFO's was to justify the complete "7th Arc DATA SET". After all, too many people would ask too many questions. How can you say the 7th BFO's are good when the 7th BTO's are clearly crap ? There could be no credible answer to that.

So the 7th Arc BTO's had to be "understood, explained, and corrected".

And so it was, by the "fudge", and everyone bought it, at a cost of around $200 million, nearly three years of wondering, with no result, no warranty, no refund, and no apology.


ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.

Paul makes an interesting point regarding the time criticality of the "selected start date" of the flaperon based drift models in the post above.

I think the CSIRO, as a "scientific" group of independent thinkers, "should" have asked the most obvious of questions:-
"What if the flaperon did NOT arrive when it wash up in July, what if it "arrived" and was there earlier, "before" it was found ?"

If they asked that question, they should have run additional models for other "arrival" months, say, going backwards at least three or four months, say for March, April, May and June of 2015, perhaps even further back, given Micke Chillit's data suggests it is possible to get from the northern sections of the 7th Arc to Reunion in only a few months.

Those additional monthly models would give more clues to the "true likely source" of the flaperon.

It would only take a small amount of time and effort for CSIRO to do those additional model runs, and publish them. I can't see why they have not done so.

[Peetwo]

"V" said:

I think the CSIRO, as a "scientific" group of independent thinkers, "should" have asked the most obvious of questions:-


"What if the flaperon did NOT arrive when it wash up in July, what if it "arrived" and was there earlier, "before" it was found ?"

If they asked that question, they should have run additional models for other "arrival" months, say, going backwards at least three or four months, say for March, April, May and June of 2015, perhaps even further back, given Micke Chillit's data suggests it is possible to get from the northern sections of the 7th Arc to Reunion in only a few months.

Those additional monthly models would give more clues to the "true likely source" of the flaperon.

It would only take a small amount of time and effort for CSIRO to do those additional model runs, and publish them. I can't see why they have not done so.

The obvious contention here is that much like the ATSB and the ABC, the CSIRO are as far from being a - "scientific" group of independent thinkers - that you can possibly get when their funding is constantly under threat from a government with an ever shrinking revenue pot. 

So the real take on MH370 can only be painfully extracted from the government (read miniscule) fully scripted response, not from it's rice bowl protecting so called independent agencies. Here is an interview yesterday of DDDD_MNFI diligently adhering, without deviation, to his prepared lines. Read & weep for MH370... :

Transcript—2GB Sydney Live
Interview
DCI027/2016
20 December 2016
Subjects: Search for missing flight MH370

Michael Mclaren: I thought we'd have a chat to Darren Chester, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. He joins me now. Darren, Merry Christmas, good afternoon.

Darren Chester: Good afternoon Michael.

Michael Mclaren: Obviously, MH370 more than two years now missing. The search has been expensive, it has been extensive, and now the report is well, in fact, we've been looking in the wrong area, we should be further north. Just how long will the search continue, Darren?

Darren Chester: It is almost three years, Michael, you're right and it has been a search which by aviation history standards has been the biggest ever undertaken. It has cost in the order of $200 million, the majority of which has come from our support from the Chinese and Malaysian governments. The Australian Government has put a great deal of effort into the underwater search but most of the funding has come from Malaysia and China in that regard. The plan has always been, sort of for the past 18 months, to do 120,000 square kilometre search area; that was the area that was identified as the most highly-probably location for the aircraft through the available evidence we had at the time, and we are not very far away from finishing that 120,000 square kilometres. So we're looking to finish that part of the search in, I think, early January at this stage if the weather stays fine, and the agreement between Malaysia and China and the Australia Government was unless there's any credible evidence available to us at that time that identifies the specific location of the aircraft, then we would suspend the search at that time.

So, that's where we sit at the moment. It has been a search of epic proportions; it has really tested the endurance of the people involved. Their searching in water which is up to six kilometres deep and 2000 kilometres off the West Australian coast in some of the most inhospitable seas in the world. So, it has been a tough and arduous search and unfortunately for the families of those missing, it has been unsuccessful at this stage.

Michael Mclaren: Obviously, leading up to Christmas, it would be acutely difficult for the families of those still registered as missing. Although, I suppose people would question the need to continue the search considering, one, the costs—and we've just had MYEFO, et cetera, come out—but also the lack of evidence thus far found.
I mean, how important is it, though— I mean to counter that—how important is it from our point of view and the airline industry's point of view and others that the wreckage be found so that the evidence can be worked through and questions can be answered?

Darren Chester: Well, it is enormously important from that perspective and human nature is we don't like mysteries and this is a mystery of epic proportions and also a tragedy of equally epic proportions. So, for the family and friends of the 239 people on board, this has been an ongoing nightmare for them. For the people involved in the search effort, you know, we have got the world's best researchers, analysts working on this, it is not only from our own ATSB, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, we have brought in experts from around the world to validate the search effort. We need to keep in mind that it is quite a limited amount of evidence available and data available to them in the work they have done and they have had to try and work their way through what is a very difficult problem to calculate the aircraft's last movements, last known movements, and then try to figure out where it may be in the ocean as a result.

So, it has been a very difficult search and it really has tested the limits of science and technology, and human endurance as well. So, it has, by aviation history standards, it has been the largest search ever undertaken and obviously it is frustrating and disappointing for everyone involved that we haven't been able to locate the aircraft at this stage. We remain hopeful that these last few thousands square kilometres may yield a result but we need to prepare ourselves for the likelihood or the prospect that we won't find MH370 in that 120,000 square kilometres.

Michael Mclaren: Yeah, exactly. I mean, there's a lot of armchair experts in this but there is also a lot of people with quite a bit of experience in the aviation industry, they've been saying for a long time, in fact, that we've all been looking in the wrong area. I mean, what's your response to them in light of the fact that basically the ATSB and CSIRO reports suggest in fact that's true; we should be looking in a different spot?

Darren Chester: I am not going to second guess the experts in that regard, Michael. The information that they had available to them and the work they've done has indicated that they're in the vicinity of where the aircraft went down. Now, obviously, if we don't find the aircraft in that 120,000 square kilometre search area, we are open to the criticism that you had looked in the wrong place. Well, if it is not there it must be somewhere else and that's a pretty obvious assumption to make.

Michael Mclaren: That's evidence, yeah.

Darren Chester: But where is the next place you look becomes pretty difficult. My involvement with the Malaysian Government and the Chinese Government in July this year when we met in Malaysia was around that point, that unless there is credible evidence which is available to us at the time that identifies a specific location of the aircraft, we would suspend it at 120,000 square kilometres. And we need to keep in mind that we don't want to be raising false hope among the family and friends if, in fact, we don't know where the aircraft is once we complete that 120,000 square kilometre area and it would be appropriate to suspend the search at that time.

Of course we still remain hopeful— we've got people at sea right now doing that underwater search effort. They have located missing shipwrecks from over 100 years ago, they have found oil drums on the bottom of the ocean floor, but they haven't been able to find the missing aircraft, which is obviously what we are all most interested in.

Michael Mclaren: Indeed. Well it's, as you say, one of the great mysteries at this point in time. Let's hope before too long it can be solved. Darren Chester, for your time this afternoon, thank you.

Darren Chester: All the best for Christmas, Michael

MTF...P2