[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 17.04.17: Hoody plays the TSI card on MH370 -  

Well I'll be?? Hoody threatening sanctions on those considering leaking/whistleblowing on MH370...

Via the Oz today:

FOI plea on MH370 scotched

12:00amEAN HIGGINS

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material on its hunt.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material about its search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, warning that any bureau ­employee who provides such ­information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.

ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood has used the statute to reject a plea from the families of the Chinese passengers who died on MH370 that he grant a Freedom of Information request from The Australian, with the families claiming failure to do so makes Australia complicit with a cover-up by the Malaysian government.

Some ATSB officers are having second thoughts about the agency’s official line that MH370’s ­pilots were unconscious or dead at the end of the flight.

Mr Hood has declared the Transport Safety Investigation Act covers the FOI request for critical documents the ATSB claims support its “ghost flight” and “death dive” scenario, which holds the Boeing 777 went down in an unpiloted crash.

The theory has been rejected by many commercial pilots and international air crash investi­gators who believe captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end.

The documents sought are the opinions of international experts, including from the US and British air crash agencies, Boeing, aerospace group Thales, and British satellite group Inmarsat, about satellite data that automatically tracked the course of MH370.

The ATSB says the satellite data shows MH370 was in a rapid unpiloted dive at the end, but experts such as former US captain and crash investigator John Cox have said the data is not good enough to reach that conclusion.

ATSB general manager for strategic capability Colin McNamara in February refused The Australian’s original FOI ­request, claiming release of the ­information could “cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth”.

The association representing the families of the 153 Chinese ­victims who died when the plane went down on March 8, 2014, ­issued a statement after The Australian reported Mr McNamara’s decision, saying “we react with extreme displeasure and ­annoyance”.

“Is avoiding offending the ­Malaysian authorities more important than discovering the truth?” the families asked in the statement.

Mr Hood, in an internal ­review of Mr McNamara’s decision, also refused to release the documents. “The activities of the ATSB with respect to assisting the Malaysian investigation are covered by the TSI Act,” Mr Hood wrote in his decision.

He advised that the act holds that if a serving or former ATSB staffer or consultant “discloses ­information to any person or to a court; and the information is ­restricted” they have breached the act, which stipulates a penalty of two years in prison.

In response to an earlier ­inquiry, Mr Hood would not say whether he would allow any ATSB staff who no longer agree with the “ghost flight” and “death dive” theory to publicly express their views.

MH370 disappeared on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board, with its radar transponder turned off and radio communication cut after about 40 minutes.

Military radar and the satellite tracking data shows the aircraft deviated back over Malaysia to the Andaman Sea, before a long track south to the southern Indian Ocean. A $200 million search directed by the ATSB based on its “unresponsive pilots” theory failed to find the aircraft’s wreckage and was suspended in January.

When last year it was revealed the FBI had discovered Zaharie had plotted a course quite close to that track on his home computer flight simulator, the ATSB joined the Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines to hose down suggestions this pointed to the “rogue pilot” hijack theory.

   
UDB!

Here is some recent comments that reflect the general disbelief of the average ATP in respect of the bizarre Hood statement (above):

Walter
9 hours ago

If the ATSB are merely concerned with protecting Australian relations with Malaysia, then they must be concealing something that would cause Malaysia some problems.
It will come out in the end. This Government must release all relevant information.

Tim
1 hour ago


Perhaps the ATSB should actually be concerned about their relationship,with their employers ie the citizens of this country and not so much behaving like an " alphabet agency" normally associated with the murky world of international intelligence gathering .

---

William
3 hours ago

This is absolutely disgraceful.

Everybody could see from an early stage that the Malaysians lost the plane 'easily', weren't all that fussed about finding it and then rushed to the exits when the search was 'completed'.

The constant head in the sand stuff from the ATSB is the most disappointing. Weren't they meant to be neutral and objective?

Australia is making itself complicit in Malaysia's cover up and I think our government needs to be told that Australian tax payers expect more.

---

Peter
2 hours ago


How much of our money as the taxpayer has this agency spent in this search?

What an absolute disgrace and abuse of power.

All should note that the ATSB has powers granted by statute which are extremely draconian, such as preventing individuals from releasing information/ opinion even to a court / judge!

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Passing strange? Passing a pink funk more like.

In Australia we have ‘culture’; we do. Not as the world understands it; but it may be seen through the actions of our Aviation safety bureaus. CASA have a beyond the law culture; ASA have a beyond perception culture; and our ATSB had, up until recently their very own ‘Beyond Reason’ culture. All subscribe to the strictly no accountability culture and are very happy and proud of their collective regime of silence in the rarefied atmosphere they exist in.

The ATSB boss must have his Hi-Viz cottontails on too tight or he’s so delighted with the TT visit that he has introduced an new level of culture – ‘beyond bizarre’. There is a suggestion that investigating his own deep involvement with the scandalous Pel-Air ‘aberration’ has overcooked the circuits as tension mounts and the day of reckoning approaches. Using the TSI act as a threat may signify concerns that some of that report may be leaked. (Too late, mate).

That can be the only reason for this latest ‘steel fist’ in a velvet jockstrap approach. What else could it be? Malaysia lost an aircraft – so what has that to do with Australia? Australia’s fine MTSB, search rescue and recovery (SAR) ‘experts’ were tasked to find the aircraft; rightfully so. Then, for some strange reason the ATSB with zero experience of SAR, led by the discredited Dolan were put in charge. But so what? The aircraft was missing, sketchy details were all there was to work with; the task was difficult; and, in fairness the ‘boffins’ did the best they could with what they had. No guarantees and the potential for ‘intellectual hypothesis’ and conjecture was always there; had to be, human nature and all that. Again – so what?

How can there be anything within the Australian data, search reports or the archived modelling data used to ‘design’ the search which the public may not see? The relatives are Directly Involved Persons’ (DIP). You understand Hoody not wanting his files in the hands of the BRB at the pub; or his troops gabbing away, half cut, to some gutter press reporter; but to deny the DIP; or, genuinely interested researchers, or even the ‘national media’ access to that data is bizarre. There can be no earthy reason for the denial; not a valid one anyway. What can there be to hide? What’s so terrible, so secret that the draconian powers our ‘safety’ body have must be ‘invoked’?

You’d think that as the official’ end of the tale want it buried and forgotten , they’d not light the fuse to conspiracy. It should be an open, above board search for a lost aircraft; that’s what was paid for and delivery was expected. So why threaten your own crew, who are already bound, contractually, to not speak out of school?

Well, at least my ET hypothesis has withstood the test of time. Electronic Terrorism or aliens; take your pick. A security breach so scary that it must not be spoken of. This crew did not commit a mass murder; but someone did. Always said it; someone, somewhere knows exactly what happened to the aircraft, the passengers and it’s crew. Find that person and you will find that aircraft. It would be bizarre, in the extreme, if that person was being kept tied to Hoody’s hi-viz jocks by draconian measures.

Toot Toot

[Ziggy]

The Almighty ATSB & the other Giant$ v Families of the dead.

The ATSB's second only international investigation, once again, like the first one, it is a mountain of controversy that remains unresolved.

Such as...

ASTB claiming the Pilots were either "unconscious or dead" at the end of the flight. An "un piloted crash". A "ghost flight" or "death dive"...yet no real solid answers.

Where is the independent investigation that correlates to the ASTB's findings that this theory is plausible with all the evidence?

The ATSB theory has been rejected by many commercial airline pilots. They believe that Zaharie hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end.

The documents that are being sought seem to be the opinions of many of the "game players". Do these opinions from the corporations and agencies lead to the same conclusion as the ATSB are stating? Is this bias using the opinions of those with a vested corporate interest?

Experts have claimed that the data is not good enough to make that assumption. Yet the ATSB seem sure that the circle of players opinions are adequate enough to conclude this assumption. Therefore the ATSB can enforce the TSI act towards the loved ones searching on how their loved ones died.

We know it was a plane crash, but if the pilots were already dead, there is a high chance passengers were too. How?

The wording of "unconscious" & "Unpiloted" is rather broad.

This wording is able to deflect the involvement of the AFP and other Policing agencies here and overseas. The ATSB can continue leading the investigation.

"Is avoiding offending the Malaysian authorities more important that discovering the truth?"

The decision is covered by the TSI act. The decision being based on a bias theory without rigorous, independent critique of the information. Much needed considering the aircraft is still missing after three years.

This theory keeps the ATSB at the helm of the investigation.
IF, the theory supported what many other experts claim, that Zarahrie was responsible, then a very different part of the TSI would be applicable.

When an accident is not an accident
"in those rare cases where there is clear evidence, or where there is reasonable proof, that an aviation accident was the result of unlawful interference the ATSB is required to promptly advise relevant authorities, such as the Australian Federal Police, the Office of Transport Security (within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Such an event does not meet the definitional requirements of an accident under Annex 13 and as such the ATSB would normally discontinue it's safety investigation.
"Aviation Law in Australia, 2013, Bartsch, 4th ed, pg 630.

How can an Act be upheld that rejects the request from the family to documents that draw a covert conclusion based on a theory?

All individual pieces of information that have been formulated into a theory only.

The ATSB attempts to use their statutory powers to not only impede transparency toward the families, but also subject their employees to restriction of free speech of opinion.

With the ATSB adamant on the "unresponsive pilots" theory, this leaves a broad interpretation.

How do they believe the pilots became unconscious in the first place?

If the authorities know how the victims died, then it is a basic human civil right that should carry the relatives towards knowing this crucial information about their loved ones.

The FBI & the AFP, one would think, need be heavily involved in this possible mass murder.

A discussion regarding following other leads and evidence that has been submitted.
All of it.
Incorporate Human Factors, utilising all evidence without bias.
The ATSB are very into Human Factors and aviation accidents.
The 7 Year Ditch second attempt at an accurate, well investigated report which enhances safety is currently lead by an investigator with a Doctorate in Psychology of Human Factors.
Go Figure...shouldn't he be leading the MH370 investigation with all the assumptions that it was perhaps human behaviour and not mechanical mishap?

The legal ramifications of an independent inquiry that is privileged to all the evidence could potentially discover compounding evidence suggesting an "unlawful interference" are HUGE!!!

Just sayin...

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 18.04.17: MH370 HSSS wars continue

Top post Ziggy and the question of where is the 'independent investigation' could possibly be a postmark for the ATSB for the better part of a decade, or at least since the Lockhart River air disaster - the ATSB independent my arse...

Some further developments today, with Liow and Hood lashing out at the Oz and that man 'Iggins...

First from FMT news online:

We are not hiding any info on MH370, says minister

Predeep Nambiar
 | April 17, 2017

Relatives have access to latest data via a website, which is updated weekly, and the full report will be released by years’ end, says transport minister.


GEORGE TOWN: It’s not fair to say the Malaysian or Australian governments are hiding information on missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, says Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai.

This follows claims by relatives that information was not forthcoming.

Liow said at present, all next of kin of those who perished on the flight were given access to the latest details from the investigation.

He said the information was published on a website and updated weekly.

“Wait for a full investigation report to come out, then everyone will get to see it.

“It’s not fair to accuse the Malaysian government of hiding (information).

“We cannot give everybody these details.

“And it is unfair to accuse the Malaysian and Australian governments of hiding (things).

“We are very thankful to Australia and China, who have helped us all along,” Liow told FMT.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) was accused by a relative of one of the passengers who perished of covering up, after they refused to release material related to MH370’s search efforts.
The information was requested by families of the Chinese passengers on the ill-fated flight.

ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood had said their request was denied under a law that prevents the release of information which could “cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth”, The Australian newspaper reported.

The newspaper also reported some ATSB’s officers were having second thoughts about the agency’s official line that MH370’s ­pilots were unconscious or dead at the end of the flight.
They fear that some of the documents may be leaked.

ATSB also warned staff who leaked information on the investigation that they could be jailed at least two years.

Liow said the investigation data was being sent to an investigation team under Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (ICAO).

He said all will be able to view the final report from the compiled investigation data. The report is expected to be published by the years’ end.

The minister said the seven-member ICAO Annexe 13 safety investigation team, led by Kok Soo Chon, was working around the clock to complete the investigation.

Kok, who is former Civil Aviation Department director-general, is heading the investigation panel, comprising aviation investigators from US, China, France, Australia and also plane manufacturer Boeing and satellite company Inmarsat.

MH370, with 239 people on board, was en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014 when air traffic control staff lost contact with it less than an hour later.

Military radar evidence later revealed the plane had suddenly changed from its northerly course to head west.

Satellite tracking data appeared to confirm that the plane crashed in the Indian Ocean, southwest of Australia.

Australia, China and Malaysia, which jointly coordinated and funded the search operation led by ATSB, announced in January the suspension of the search for MH370.

A flaperon (wing piece), found on Reunion Island near Madagascar, was later reported to be from the plane. Several other pieces of debris were also recovered in other places, believed to have been washed ashore by ocean currents.

And today Hood was quick to fire up the ATSB 'correcting the bollocks' webpage to hit back at the Oz article yesterday... :

Correcting the Record

Inaccurate media coverage on the search for MH370

18 April 2017

On 17 April 2017, The Australian published an article, “ATSB shuts down details on MH370 search” by Ean Higgins. That article contained misrepresentations.

Mr Higgins stated that “(the) Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material about its search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, warning that any bureau employee who provides such information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.”

The ATSB did not issue any such warning.

The Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act) applies to ATSB investigations and reports, requiring investigators to protect evidence from disclosure other than in accordance with performing their functions under the Act. Consistent with international standards, the ATSB does not publish all the documents forming part of the investigation or report. This is to ensure cooperation and the future free flow of information to safety investigations.

However, while not all documents from a safety investigation are released, the results of the investigation are published.  The ATSB has published a number of reports concerning its search for MH370 on the ATSB website. 

In his article, Mr Higgins claimed that the TSI Act covers a request relating to documents for a “ghost flight” scenario. These are not the ATSB’s words and do not accurately reflect the request made by Mr Higgins. The ATSB has made it clear in previous publications that rigorous examination and analysis of the sequence of events and the SATCOM data matches most closely with a scenario in which there was no human intervention during the final phase of the flight.

Without providing any evidence, Mr Higgins suggested that some ATSB officers had second thoughts about the ATSB’s position in relation to the end of flight scenario. The ATSB is not aware of any officers who have concerns with the ATSB’s reported findings in this regard.

The ATSB’s work in the search for MH370 has always been characterised by a willingness to listen to new ideas, and to apply all the known facts to lead the underwater search.

The ATSB does not make any statement lightly, nor does it approach any issue with pre-conceived conclusions.
 



Last update 18 April 2017

 
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

No Greg: no. It just wont do.

Hood –“Consistent with international standards, the ATSB does not publish all the documents forming part of the investigation or report.

Why ever not? When an accident occurs; or even an ‘incident’ the community are entitled to know exactly; as best as may be determined, the what, why and wherefore – all of it. They pay, and pay handsomely to have all the facts; warts and all, made available. The ‘aviation industry’ needs the facts (all of 'em) to develop proper procedures and policy to prevent a reoccurrence. The ATSB CANNOT do this. Can Hood tell us, how, within the last decade any ATSB report has assisted preventing a reoccurrence. Industry can; they have worked, hard, to eliminate those risks; not the ATSB. Industry takes the meagre, PC offerings of the ATSB and turns them into ‘law’; through policy and procedure development; ATSB do not. In fact once the diluted official  ‘report’ is eventually released; how often do the ATSB do a review of operational policy, procedure or SOP to ensure that their ‘advice’ is being correctly applied. NEVER is the short answer. ATSB has become a parasite; feeding off the carcases left strewn after the event. Bullshit Hoody; the entire IOS and BRB call Bullshit of the first water .

Hood – “This is to ensure cooperation and the future free flow of information to safety investigations.”

Why ever would “future cooperation” between honest accident investigators be compromised? The sole purpose of any investigation is to provide, without fear or favour; honest answers to the questions posed. Surely; prevention of repeated events is the purpose of ‘accident investigation’. People are killed and the public are at risk – take Essendon the latest in a long queue. Please explain, exactly how the NTSB and FAA input may ‘compromise’ what  and why? Everyone wants to know how the accident happened; everyone wants to learn from it. If the USA contingent use all  the information gleaned to prevent this ever happening again; why would that ‘compromise’ any ducking thing.

Hood – “However, while not all documents from a safety investigation are released, the results of the investigation are published.”

Which is fine; provided the investigation is open, above board and the ‘documents’ are available for scrutiny by those who paid for them. A fatal accident carries certain legal requirements; any suspicion of ‘unlawful interference’ has a whole raft of ‘legal’ requirements. It may well do to publish ‘a report’; like Pel-Air – provided no one ‘tests’ that report. How then, is the veracity or value of ‘a report’ to be tested – if all the ‘documents’ are not made available to the community at large? Not the stuff of national security now is it? The Coal loader ain’t; the ATR ain’t; Melbourne’s many ‘aberrations’ ain’t and Mildura most certainly ain’t. So? What’s the point of ‘hiding’ any or all information relating to a fatal accident?

Hood - "The ATSB’s work in the search for MH370 has always been characterised by a willingness to listen to new ideas, and to apply all the known facts to lead the underwater search."

May I remind you; that residing for five years, in warm, clear, shallow water; at a known location; just below free diving depth a CVR languished in the hull of an aircraft. It took a Senate inquiry and cost millions of dollars to ‘force’ ATSB to duck down through a few feet of salt water to begrudgingly retrieve the same item. Face it, ATSB know sweet Fanny Adams and care less about ‘salt water’ operations.

I call BOLLOCKS; if there is nothing to hide, then why not release the data? It there is something to hide, then lets have an inquiry into what it is. 239 people missing, presumed dead and Hood wants to play word games.

Words -For those who understand; no more words need to be spoken. For those who do not – a translation. I can do no more this night.

Toot – Well, duck that for a game of silly buggers –toot.

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 21.04.17: New CSIRO report says go North -

By Jake Sturmer & Ben Sveen, via the ABC News online... :

MH370: CSIRO scientists confident aircraft is north of actual search zone
By national science and technology reporter Jake Sturmer and the National Reporting Team's Benjamin Sveen
Posted 23 minutes ago
[b]PHOTO:[/b] The CSIRO modified a genuine used Boeing 777 flaperon for its analysis. (CSIRO: David Griffin)
[b]RELATED STORY:[/b] MH370 was likely in 'uncontrolled descent', new report finds
[b]RELATED STORY:[/b] Malaysia Airlines to hand over secret records to families suing for compensation
[b]MAP: [/b]Malaysia

Australian scientists are now more confident than ever that they have worked out where the wreckage of missing flight MH370 is located.
Key points:

• New research indicates wreckage is north of the actual search zone
  
• If evidence deemed 'credible' the search may resume
  
• A genuine used Boeing 777 flaperon was modified for analysis
  

In a report prepared for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), CSIRO scientists cite new research further indicating the aircraft is north of the actual search zone, in an area twice the size of greater Sydney (25,000km2).
This latest research confirms their earlier drift analysis made in a report released in November.

Two-hundred-and-thirty-nine passengers and crew were on board the flight travelling from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014 when it disappeared from aviation radars.

The search for the Boeing 777 was suspended in January 2017.

Ministers from Malaysia, Australia and China agreed that there needed to be "credible new evidence" if the operation was to continue.

The ATSB and the Federal Transport Minister's office have been contacted for comment as to whether this new data in the report constitutes credible new evidence.

About 120,000 square kilometres of the ocean bed have been searched to no avail, despite the more than $180 million cost of the operation.

Flaperon analysis boosts theory

Since the CSIRO's November report, the scientists conducted further detailed analysis based on the first tangible evidence of the crash — a part of the wing known as a flaperon — which washed up at La Reunion Island in 2015.

Instead of using a replica flaperon as they did for their earlier drift analysis report, the scientists obtained and modified a genuine used Boeing 777 part so that it appeared identically damaged to the debris that washed up on the island.

"Testing an actual flaperon has added an extra level of assurance to the findings from our earlier drift modelling work," CSIRO's Dr David Griffin said.

"We cannot be absolutely certain, but that is where all the evidence we have points us, and this new work leaves us more confident in our findings."

They measured how fast it drifted downwind, what angle it was at in the wind and the waves, and say their proposed crash area was "very consistent with the July 2015 arrival time on [La Reunion Island]".

In their new report, The search for MH370 and Ocean Surface Drift —Part II, the CSIRO team confirmed their new findings correspond to their previous predictions for the plane's location.

"The only thing that our recent work changes is our confidence in the accuracy of the estimated location, which is within the new search area identified ... near 35 degrees south."

It is a region known as the Seventh Arc, which was searched incompletely during 2014-15 before efforts were redirected further south.

Earlier this year, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's Commissioner Greg Hood said it was "highly likely" to be in the 25,000km2 area.

At the time, the Malaysian Transport Minister YB Dato' Sri Liow Tiong Lai acknowledged Mr Hood's view but was resolute.

"We need more credible evidence before we move to the next search area," he said.
[b]PHOTO:[/b] Australia took the lead in the search when it shift to the Indian Ocean. (AAP: US Navy/Peter D Blair (file photo))

Australian Transport Minister Darren Chester also stood by the decision to stop the underwater search.

"I recognise that they're saying the next most likely place to look would be another 25,000km2 to the north of the existing search area, but no-one's actually saying to me as the Minister that they definitely know the location of MH370," he said at the time.

 
Here is a link for the CSIRO paper: The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift – Part II

Hmm...interesting timing -


MTF...P2

[Cap'n Wannabe]

And from the BBC

MH370: New analysis reiterates plane's likely location

Fresh evidence confirms that Malaysia Airlines flight 370 is most likely located to the north of a main search zone, Australian scientists say.
MH370 disappeared while flying to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur with 239 people on board in 2014.
Australia, Malaysia and China called off their hunt for the jet in January.
Analysing drift modelling of a real Boeing 777 wing part for the first time, scientists backed a December report about MH370's likely location.
That location is an area of approximately 25,000 sq km (9,700 sq miles) lying north of the earlier search zone in the southern Indian Ocean.
"Testing an actual flaperon [wing part] has added an extra level of assurance to the findings from our earlier drift modelling work," said Dr David Griffin, from Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).
Earlier modelling had used replicas of a flaperon recovered from Reunion Island, the report said.
Families criticise MH370 search halt
Missing Malaysia plane MH370: What we know
Flight MH370 'made rapid descent'
"We've found that an actual flaperon goes about 20 degrees to the left, and faster than the replicas, as we thought it might," Dr Griffin said.
"The arrival of MH370's flaperon at La Reunion in July 2015 now makes perfect sense."
Last year, Australia's Transport Minister Darren Chester said the December report would not be grounds for a new search because it did not give a "specific location" for the aircraft.
Mr Chester's office has been contacted for comment about the latest development.

[Peetwo]

Update 22/04/17: CSIRO latest MH370 drift report. 

From 'that man', via the Weekend Oz:

MH370 drift modelling raises new search hopes for Malaysian airliner

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• 3:37PM April 21, 2017
  

CSIRO used drift modelling to pinpoint a possible new MH370 search zone.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has said new “drift modelling” research by the CSIRO has confirmed its view that the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 lies in a proposed new search area of the Indian Ocean.

The announcement raises hopes that Malaysia, which under international law has responsibility for the investigation into the loss, might be persuaded to the resume the hunt for the Boeing 777 which was suspended in January.

“We are now even more confident that the aircraft is within the new search area identified and recommended in the MH370 First Principles Review,” the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said in a statement today, referring to the 25,000 sq km proposed new target zone identified by an international panel of experts in December.

The new research by the CSIRO involved releasing into the ocean off Tasmania replicas of the part of the wing called a flaperon which washed up on the French Indian Ocean island of Reunion in July 2015, which was subsequently confirmed to be from MH370.

Released at the same time were an actual flaperon from a Boeing 777 cut down to reflect the damage to that on the MH370 flaperon, and buoys like those the US had used to measure current and wind drift in the oceans over 30 years.

The objects were tracked by transmitters, and the study determined the actual flaperon was caught by the wind in a fashion different from the other objects, and moved at a different angle and speed.

The leader of the study, CSIRO scientist David Griffin, told The Australian this explained how the flaperon from MH370 could have reached Reunion and at the time it did, and confirmed a high certainty that the aircraft lies in the new proposed target zone to the north of the area covered in the original failed search.

MH370 disappeared with 239 passengers and crew on board on March 8, 2014, on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, and automatic satellite tracking determined it ended up somewhere along a band in the southern Indian Ocean.

The original $200 million search of 120,000 square km of ocean led by the ATSB failed to find a trace of the aircraft.

Two independent drift modelling studies soon after the discovery of the flaperon, one by European researchers and one by scientists at the University of Western Australia, determined that the ATSB’s search zone was too far south and the aircraft more likely lay to the north.

While the ATSB is understood to be keen to search the proposed new 25,000 sq km zone, the three governments funding the hunt, Australia, Malaysia and China, agreed last year that it would not be resumed unless “credible” new evidence emerged pointing to a precise location of the aircraft.

Transport Minister Darren Chester today played down expectations the hunt might restart soon.

“I welcome the CSIRO report but it is important to note that it does not provide new evidence leading to a specific location of MH370,” Mr Chester said.

“This body of ‘drift modelling’ work, along with review of satellite imagery, forms part of the ongoing activities being undertaken by the ATSB in the search for MH370.”

“The CSIRO report has been provided to Malaysia for consideration in its ongoing investigation into the disappearance of MH370.”

Via the Oz edition of the Huffpost:

NEWS
CSIRO Report Hints At 'Most Likely' Location Of MH370 Wreckage
Australian scientists have pinpointed a new possible search zone.
21/04/2017 5:40 PM AEST | Updated 14 hours ago

Luke Cooper [/url] Associate Editor, HuffPost Australia

X

Australian scientists at the CSIRO say they have uncovered the "most likely" location of the MH370 aircraft wreckage, according to a new report released on Friday.

[url=http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2017/csiro-mh370-drift-modelling-report/]Research conducted by the CSIRO and presented in a report to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) used ocean drift modelling and part of a Boeing 777 wing, called a flaperon, to determine the movement of the doomed Malaysia Airlines plane and pinpoint its possible location to a 25,000 sq km area north of the original search zone.

The findings support the conclusions of a First Principles Review report handed to the ATSB in November 2016, which recommended a new search area in the Indian Ocean, and provide an "added extra level of assurance" when it comes to locating the wreckage according to researchers.

Lead researcher for the report, Dr David Griffin of the CSIRO said the study using replica wing parts was conducted to test ocean movement in light of a flaperon from the actual MH370 wreckage which was found washed up on the shore of French island, La Reunion, in the Indian Ocean in July 2015.

"Testing an actual flaperon has added an extra level of assurance to the findings from our earlier drift modelling work," he said.

"We've found that an actual flaperon goes about 20 degrees to the left, and faster than the replicas, as we thought it might. The arrival of MH370's flaperon at La Reunion in July 2015 now makes perfect sense.

"We add both together in our model to simulate the drift across the ocean, then compare the results with observations of where debris was and wasn't found, in order to deduce the location of the aircraft."

While Griffin admits it remains difficult to pinpoint exactly where the wreckage may still be floating, he said the findings allow for more confidence when looking in the recommended new search area.

"We cannot be absolutely certain, but that is where all the evidence we have points us, and this new work leaves us more confident in our findings," he said.

Twitter link for David Griffin ABC video segment: ttps://twitter.com/abcnews/status/855311016946614272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com.au%2F2017%2F04%2F21%2Fcsiro-report-hints-at-most-likely-location-of-mh370-wreckage_a_22048939%2F

After the exhaustive search for the MH370 wreckage was officially called off in January,
Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester responded to the CSIRO's findings on Friday saying he welcomes the report, but that "it does not provide new evidence" in the hunt for the missing plane.

"I welcome the CSIRO report but it is important to note that it does not provide new evidence leading to a specific location of MH370," he said in a statement.

"This body of 'drift modelling' work, along with review of satellite imagery, forms part of the ongoing activities being undertaken by the ATSB in the search for MH370.

"The CSIRO report has been provided to Malaysia for consideration in its ongoing investigation into the disappearance of MH370."

Authorities from Malaysia, Australia and China suspended the search after nearly three years of looking and Australia contributing $60 million to a $200-million-dollar underwater search effort, which was the largest in aviation history.



AFP/Getty Images Part of the MH370 wreckage that was found on the French island of La Reunion in July 2015.

MH370 vanished on March 8, 2014, with 239 people on board, sparking a massive, multi-million dollar and multi-nation search for the plane over a 120,000 sq km stretch of the Indian Ocean.

Six Australians were on board.

In July 2016, authorities warned the search would be suspended if no new results were found, which a statement in January confirmed. To date no new information has been discovered to determine the specific location of the aircraft.

Traces of the plane have been found washed up on the island country Mauritius, the French island Reunion and an island off the coast of Tanzania.

Timeline of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
March 8, 2014: MH370 flight departs from Kuala Lumpur, en route to Beijing, and loses contact with air traffic control
March 8,2014: A full-scale international search and rescue operation begins. Authorities target waters between Vietnam and Malaysia.
March 13, 2014: Search fails to find trace of MH370 where Chinese satellites spotted three "floating objects" in the ocean.
March 16, 2014: Malaysia calls for help from 25 countries, as search expands across 11 countries.
March 18, 2014: Australia leads new search for wreckage 3,000 kilometres south-west of Perth.
April 4, 2014: Malaysian authorities release transcript of pilot communication with the final words "all right, good night".
April 6, 2014: Black box was thought to be detected off Perth with signals detected, however signals fell silent days later. No trace of the missing plane was found.
April 30, 2014: Aerial search ends and the preliminary report is released the following day.
June 10, 2014: Search coordinator says the search could take more than two years.
October 8, 2014: Search moves south, off the Western Australian coast after Prime Minister Tony Abbott confirmed an underwater search would take place in September. Australia signed a $50 million contract to use two vessels for the search.
January 29, 2015: Malaysia announced all 239 passengers and crew are presumed dead, and MH370 declared an accident.
March 7, 2015: Malaysia's transport minister says new plan will be formulated and data will be re-examined.
July 29, 2015: Debris found on French Indian Ocean island of La Reunion.
May 10, 2016: Fragment of plane wing found is in Mauritius, and later identified as part if MH370. It is one of 33 pieces suspected to be from the missing flight.
July 22, 2016: Officials announce the search for MH370 will be called off if plane is not found by December.
January 17, 2016: Search for MH370 officially called off.

Finally from creepy Creedy (via asiacruisenews.com) a reminder of Hoody's fatal blunder with MH370:

Air Safety Investigator Rejects MH370 Staff Claims.
 


Steve Creedy -editor


19 Apr 2017
Australian Transport Safety Bureau says no warning was issued to staff.

>
A scene from the MH370 search.

Australian air safety investigators have rejected a newspaper claim  “draconian legislation’’ was invoked in a decision to refuse a freedom of information request for material on the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

The Australian newspaper claimed the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had warned that employees who provided the information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.

But the ATSB said it issued no such warning.

“The Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act) applies to ATSB investigations and reports, requiring investigators to protect evidence from disclosure other than in accordance with performing their functions under the Act,’’ the air safety investigator said in a statement in its “correcting the record” section.

“Consistent with international standards, the ATSB does not publish all the documents forming part of the investigation or report. This is to ensure cooperation and the future free flow of information to safety investigations.”

The newspaper has been attempting to use freedom of Information laws to get hold of the opinions international experts, including from the US and UK air crash agencies, Boeing, aerospace group Thales, and British satellite group Inmarsat, about satellite data used to track the course of the aircraft.

It says it was initially told the information could not be released because it “could cause damage to international relations of the commonwealth’’.  A subsequent review by ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood cited the TSI Act.

The ATSB used the satellite data and other evidence to conclude the plane was most likely uncontrolled when it crashed into the sea.  This runs counter to a theory frequently run by The Australian that the flight ended in a controlled ditching.

The bureau also questioned a suggestion in the April 17 article that some officers were having second thoughts about its end-of-flight scenario.

“The ATSB is not aware of any officers who have concerns with the ATSB’s reported findings in this regard,’’ it said, noting the claim was made without any supporting evidence.

“The ATSB’s work in the search for MH370 has always been characterised by a willingness to listen to new ideas, and to apply all the known facts to lead the underwater search.

“The ATSB does not make any statement lightly, nor does it approach any issue with pre-conceived conclusions.’’

IMO this is why Hoody and the ATSB are a shot duck on anymore involvement with possible future plans to resume the MH370 SIO search. That and the fact that the CSIRO/ATSB boffins have now comprehensively confirmed that they got it wrong and ducked up the 1st $200 million search...  
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Update 24/04/17: Time for some MH370 truth - maybe?

From 'that man', via the Weekend Oz:

MH370 drift modelling raises new search hopes for Malaysian airliner

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• 3:37PM April 21, 2017
  

CSIRO used drift modelling to pinpoint a possible new MH370 search zone.

Air Safety Investigator Rejects MH370 Staff Claims.
 


Steve Creedy -editor


19 Apr 2017
Australian Transport Safety Bureau says no warning was issued to staff.

>
A scene from the MH370 search.

Australian air safety investigators have rejected a newspaper claim  “draconian legislation’’ was invoked in a decision to refuse a freedom of information request for material on the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

The Australian newspaper claimed the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had warned that employees who provided the information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.

But the ATSB said it issued no such warning.

“The Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act) applies to ATSB investigations and reports, requiring investigators to protect evidence from disclosure other than in accordance with performing their functions under the Act,’’ the air safety investigator said in a statement in its “correcting the record” section.

“Consistent with international standards, the ATSB does not publish all the documents forming part of the investigation or report. This is to ensure cooperation and the future free flow of information to safety investigations.”

The newspaper has been attempting to use freedom of Information laws to get hold of the opinions international experts, including from the US and UK air crash agencies, Boeing, aerospace group Thales, and British satellite group Inmarsat, about satellite data used to track the course of the aircraft.

It says it was initially told the information could not be released because it “could cause damage to international relations of the commonwealth’’.  A subsequent review by ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood cited the TSI Act.

The ATSB used the satellite data and other evidence to conclude the plane was most likely uncontrolled when it crashed into the sea.  This runs counter to a theory frequently run by The Australian that the flight ended in a controlled ditching.

The bureau also questioned a suggestion in the April 17 article that some officers were having second thoughts about its end-of-flight scenario.

“The ATSB is not aware of any officers who have concerns with the ATSB’s reported findings in this regard,’’ it said, noting the claim was made without any supporting evidence.

“The ATSB’s work in the search for MH370 has always been characterised by a willingness to listen to new ideas, and to apply all the known facts to lead the underwater search.

“The ATSB does not make any statement lightly, nor does it approach any issue with pre-conceived conclusions.’’

IMO this is why Hoody and the ATSB are a shot duck on anymore involvement with possible future plans to resume the MH370 SIO search. That and the fact that the CSIRO/ATSB boffins have now comprehensively confirmed that they got it wrong and ducked up the 1st $200 million search...   

'That man' in the Oz today:

Searching for the truth about MH370

Leading seaman, boatswain’s mate, William Sharkey searching for debris alongside the HMAS Perth of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in the southern Indian Ocean on April 13, 2014.

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM April 24, 2017
  

[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/searching-for-the-truth-about-mh370/news-story/4b182ead9033308476b4d5ca688d5ba0#comments][/url][img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Three months ago, as he stood on a dock in Perth alongside Transport Minister Darren Chester and ­Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai, Greg Hood must have hoped he would soon enjoy a break from the torture that was MH370.

As chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety ­Bureau, Hood was helping Chester and Liow steer through what they probably thought would be the last tricky media conference for the foreseeable future on the topic, held after they had welcomed back the last vessel from the fruitless underwater search for the Malaysia Airlines aircraft.

Australia had agreed to a ­Malaysian request to take on the challenging task of trying to find a Boeing 777 somewhere in a vast tract of cold, deep and difficult ­waters in the southern Indian Ocean where satellite-tracking data had suggested it had come down.

That two-year hunt, led by the Dutch Fugro marine survey group and funded by Australia, Malaysia and China, had worked to the strategy that the ATSB team had designed. It had cost $200 million, and not yielded even a trace of the aircraft. Hood made it pretty clear the ATSB would have liked to bring closure to the families of the 239 passengers and crew.

“Everybody wants to do the right thing — everybody’s got hopes,” Hood said at the press ­conference. “Having met a number of family members personally, they continue to have protracted and prolonged grief. I’m profoundly sorry for these people.”

It had been a difficult time for Hood since he had taken the reins of the ATSB last July when it was battling growing doubts expressed publicly by a variety of experts about the search strategy. An ­increasing number of highly ­experienced international airline pilots and air crash investigators disagreed with the ATSB’s working premise that the plane was on autopilot at the end with an incapacitated flight crew and crashed down in a rapid “death dive”.

The aircraft turned back towards Malaysia about 40 minutes into its scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014. Its radar transponder was turned off and the last radio contact was made, and it flew what to aviation experts looked like a deliberate route along the Thai-Malaysia airspace border to the Andaman Sea before turning on the long final track south. Independent pilots and investigators believe the evidence shows a rogue pilot, Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, had hijacked his own aircraft and flown it to the end — outside the designated search area.

Another concern for the ATSB was that two sets of world-leading university oceanographers — working independently, one based in Europe and another in Perth — had said their “reverse-drift analysis” modelling of where a few bits of the aircraft had washed up on the other side of the Indian Ocean showed the ATSB had been looking too far south. They believed the evidence of the currents and winds suggested the aircraft lay to the north of the search area. A review the ATSB had commissioned in December through a gathering in Canberra of international experts had in fact agreed the next place to look was north, and identified a new 25,000sq km target zone which, one can estimate based on the last search, would cost about $40 million.

But by that time, the three ­governments — it’s thought most particularly Malaysia, which under international law has leadership of the search — had had enough. At that January media conference, Liow said his government needed “more empirical ­evidence before we move to the next search area”.

[img=558x581]http://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/912681863154237441/1024/10/scaletowidth#tl-912681863154237441;1043138249'[/img]

Some might have thought that after the underwater search ended, the story that has gripped the international media for three years of what happened to MH370 would dissipate and die. The families of the victims might put it all ­behind them, and the aviation ­experts who have been privately burrowing into the data might lose interest. In fact, as it’s turned out, the families are angrier and more vocal than ever, and the experts have if anything intensified their efforts to establish new leads, which could provide clues to what happened to the aircraft and where to look for it.

For Hood, three months on, he’s found himself in controversy more than ever, with families of the Chinese and Australian victims not only blaming the ATSB for a failed search strategy but now, as they see it, for helping the Malaysians cover up the truth.

The ATSB maintains it’s simply doing its job. The ATSB had based what’s become known as its “ghost flight” and “death dive” theory on the automatic satellite data.

But the ATSB’s general manager for strategic capability, Colin McNamara, in February rejected a Freedom of Information request from The Australian to release analyses of the data by a panel of international experts, including from the US and British air crash investigation agencies, the European aerospace group Thales, Boeing and the British companythat owns and operates the ­satellite that tracked MH370, ­Inmarsat. McNamara said in his letter that if the documents were released it could “cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth”.

In a review of McNamara’s decision requested by The Australian, Hood also rejected the FOI application. In his letter, Hood said information on the search work done to help Malaysia had been declared restricted, and subject to the Transport Safety Investigation Act, under which if any current or former ATSB staffer blurts it out to a journalist or even a judge in open court, he or she could be thrown in jail for two years. To the families of the victims of MH370, the ­suppression of the material sought by The Australian is disgraceful and unfathomable, and in their view points to a cover-up to protect Malaysia or the ATSB itself.

“You can’t not show us; what have you got to hide?” asked Queensland woman Danica Weeks, who was left a single mother to two small boys when her husband Paul went down on MH370.

“Mr Hood cannot just pull this draconian law on the FOI here in Australia; it’s unjust,” Weeks told The Australian. “What precedent is he setting for the future of Australia and its people?”

Weeks is taking up the offer of Brisbane barrister Greg Williams to any family members of MH370 victims here or overseas to work pro bono to use every aspect of the law to try to force Hood to release the material.

Williams, whose public and legal campaign against alleged nepotism at the University of Queensland took the scalp of its vice-chancellor, has pointed to various pieces of federal legislation which govern the conduct of the public service, which he thinks can be brought to bear.

Hood declined to comment.

But he and his ATSB colleagues are no doubt thinking the best way out of this continuing world of pain is to find MH370, and behind the scenes that’s exactly what they are trying to help make happen.

Even as Hood and the ministers officially drew the search to a close that January day in Perth, his team was working to that end.

The Malaysians have not said they will never agree to restart the search, but that they need a more precise location to look, and at the Perth press conference Liow had hinted that more drift analysis could help. “We are thinking that there’ll be more debris washing up in a short time to come,” he said.

While the ATSB had belatedly conducted its own drift analysis working with the CSIRO, the trick is that items of different shape, size and weight drift differently with the same winds and ocean currents. The drift models have been developed from the US tracking buoys over 30 years, which may not move the same way or speed as parts of an aircraft wing like a flaperon or a flap — parts of MH370 found washed up, respectively, on the French Indian Ocean island of Reunion, and Tanzania.

So, the ATSB in conjunction with the CSIRO built some Boeing 777 flaperon replicas and also got their hands on a real flaperon and cut it down to resemble the damage found on the one discovered on Reunion, and set them adrift with radio transmitters off Tasmania, beside free-floating buoys.

The goal was to see how differently a real flaperon would have drifted, and refine the model to get a more accurate picture of where the starting point lies.

The ATSB released that modelling last Friday, and said “we are now even more confident that the aircraft is within the new search area identified”.

The CSIRO scientist who led the survey, David Griffin, told The Australian the new data could in fact narrow down the “highly likely” zone where the wreckage would be to 8000sq km, or even 4000sq km, essentially on the southern end of the new proposed search area. In coming weeks, the ATSB will also reveal a further ­refinement of the analysis of the satellite tracking data, and also a report on the original underwater search.

The ATSB is coy about the fact all this material is coming together around the same time, and about what it will do as a result of it. “The drift modelling and satellite data analysis activities are being completed as they were existing projects initiated as part of the operational search for MH370, and to possibly inform any future search activity,” a spokesman said.

Griffin, who said he “obviously” wants the search to recommence, said: “I think everyone who has been involved in the search in the ATSB is absolutely determined to bring it to a successful outcome.”

The expectation is that the ATSB will try to present the new studies as a package to argue it now has a sufficiently good idea of where MH370 is resting for the search to be resumed.

The ATSB leadership would likely make such a case privately to Chester, in the hope that he, possibly with the assistance of Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull, would in turn try to persuade their Malaysian counterparts to agree to restart the hunt. At the same time, Australia might suggest to leaders in Beijing they could again send a Chinese government vessel as their contribution, which could prove attractive to them.

The ship the Chinese sent last time hardly did any actual searching and, security experts believe, was used to spy on Australian military activity around Perth.

Just whether, on an objective analysis of the new ATSB material, Malaysia could be convinced to resume the search, is debatable.

Neither the new drift modelling study, nor the new satellite data analysis, can identify a precise point where MH370 came down, though it could narrow the field of probability.

The University of Western Australia scientist who led the ­independent drift modelling study, Charitha Pattiaratchi, said as soon as the flaperon was discovered in July 2015, it was pretty obvious the ATSB was looking in the wrong place. “We got time on the supercomputer in Perth, which is the fastest computer in the southern hemisphere,” Pattiaratchi said.

It showed clearly that the aircraft must have been farther north, because it would have taken ­another three months for the ­flaperon to get to Reunion had it started as far south as where the ATSB was searching.

“We said that in September 2015,” Pattiaratchi said, noting this was 15 months before the ATSB came to the same conclusion after stubbornly continuing to search the southern zone.

Beyond this, Pattiaratchi said, the science was inexact; while “positive” drift modelling worked well in predicting where a floating object would drift from a starting point, trying to do the reverse, of working out the starting point based on where an object ended up, involved far more variables.

The satellite data is thought to provide a good idea of the track of the aircraft along a band known as the “seventh arc”, but there is a lot of debate about whether it can determine vertical movement well enough to confirm the “death dive” theory the ATSB relies on.

Airline pilots including British captain Simon Hardy and the former chief pilot of Britain’s largest airline, EasyJet, Mike Keane, have been doing more work crunching the numbers on the increasingly popular theory that Zaharie flew the aircraft as far as possible and then glided it down after fuel exhaustion to sink it largely intact in a deep underwater trench, to make it disappear.

“He’s going to make damn sure that it carries through with a neat finish, not have it thrown away with everything else he’s done,” Keane told The Australian.

The rogue-pilot-to-the-end theory would indicate a resting point possibly even farther south than the 120,000sq km original search zone, or in a wider band east and west.

At the end of the day, though, any covert diplomatic campaign by Australia to persuade Malaysia to resume the search based on the new material from the ATSB would probably hinge more on politics than science. It would be conducted behind the scenes, and rely on convincing Malaysian officials they would look a lot better in world eyes and among their own constituents if they used the new material as political cover to bend to the domestic and international pressure while saving face.

The Australian leaders would point out that the relatives of the MH370 victims in Malaysia, not to mention those in Australia, China and other parts of the world, individually and through their international lobby group Voice 370 are going to keep making life difficult until a search is resumed — for as long as that takes.

“We are in a phase of extended consultations on how best to convey our resolve to not let the matter of search be given a quiet burial,” Voice 370 spokesman KS Narendran, who lost his wife of 25 years, Chandrika Sharma, told The Australian. “Our effort will be to ensure that the governments see the merits and their obligations in persevering with the search.

“We do not underestimate the enormity of the task … So we will ‘hasten slowly’.”

TICK..TOCK Hoody...



 
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 25.04.17: MH370 HSSS archive entry 170425

IG critical of ATSB/CSIRO report assumptions.

Via the Guardian today:

MH370: independent experts mistrust 'confidence' about plane's location

Australian authorities accused of using report by national science agency to bolster preconceived ideas



[/url]A flaperon used for drift modelling in the search for MH370. Photograph: CSIRO

Independent investigators looking into the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370have expressed scepticism about the Australian authorities’ statement they are newly confident about the plane’s location.

On Friday Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, published its modelling of the drift of a Boeing 777 flaperon consistent with the one from MH370 that was found washed up on La Réunion in July 2015.

CSIRO said the findings reaffirmed the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s conclusion that the crash site of MH370 was to be found in the new search area the ATSB identified at the end of last year.


Australia's science agency 'more confident' it knows MH370 crash location

The ATSB said in a statement that the 25,000 sq km area identified at its First Principles Review summit in December had been validated by the new CSIRO report as “the most likely location of MH370”.

It went so far as to narrow it down to “the south end of that”, near 35 deg S latitude.

Pointing to the CSIRO report, the ATSB said it was more confident than ever about the plane’s final resting place.

But members of the independent group of experts following the search for MH370 have accused the ATSB of using the research to bolster its preconceived ideas about where the plane is.

Victor Iannello and Richard Godfrey, of the so-called Independent Group, interrogated the CSIRO data and how it had been interpreted in a blog post published on Sunday.

Much of the area at 35 deg S latitude had in fact been scoured by the ATSB in its search of the southern Indian Ocean that concluded without success in January, they said.

Godfrey, an aerospace engineer based in Frankfurt, said the data had been put forward by the ATSB as supporting a “preconceived idea” as to the plane’s location reached at the First Principles Review summit.

“A MH370 endpoint at 35 deg S latitude does not fit the fact that the underwater search has already discounted this location to a 97% level of certainty.”

Godfrey noted that the analysis had been prepared for and funded by the ATSB.

Both CSIRO and the ATSB have been contacted by Guardian Australia for their response.

Godfrey said he believed a crash at 30 deg S latitude, well north of the seabed search, “fit the available data” published by CSIRO as well as the timing and location of debris that had been found.

y hasn't MH370 been found?
 
Read more

The zone from 30.5 deg S to 32.0 deg S was discounted by the CSIRO report, owing to “unspecified ‘other evidence’”.

Iannello said the modelling by both Godfrey and CSIRO indicated that “recent claims about the most likely crash site of MH370 should be carefully reviewed by independent investigators”.

But there is no indication that the search for the missing plane will be renewed, it being dependent on “credible new evidence” coming to light as to its location.

Australia’s transport minister, Darren Chester, said on Friday the findings of the CSIRO report were not specific enough to warrant a new search effort.
[url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/malaysia]Malaysia holds primary responsibility for the investigation.

Also of interest from Victor Iannello's blog post:

Update on April 24, 2017.

For those wishing to explore the drift model results in Google Earth, the KMZ files generated by CSIRO are available for the flaperon debris, for non-flaperon low windage debris, and non-flaperon high windage debris. The particular file I used to create the image at the top of the article is the file for low windage, non-flaperon items starting at 35S latitude. Once dragged into Google Earth, simply move the time slider and observe how the particles travel in time.

& the 'summary' from the Godfrey review of CSIRO (Part II) report:

Summary

Despite the significant contribution in refining the accuracy of the drift model, the new data is interpreted as confirming the findings of the ATSB First Principles Review. The pre-conceived idea, that “other evidence” constrains the MH370 End Point to between 32°S and 36°S is a false assumption. A MH370 End Point at 35°S does not fit the fact that the underwater search has already discounted this location to a 97% level of certainty. A MH370 End Point at around 30°S does fit the available data

  


MTF...P2


#anzacday2017 - 'Lest we forget'

[Kharon]

The CSIRO ‘rubber ducky’ experiment is rightly criticised by the IG. Don’t know how many ‘Typhoons’ they get in the test area, but I’d bet my socks it is not so many as the SIO gets. Now, not being a ‘drift model’ specialist, but having slightly more than a nodding acquaintance with the wind, oceans and aerodynamics I have to wonder why the effect of the hurricanes which rip through the SIO has not been at least acknowledged.

"This report focusses on field testing of a genuine Boeing 777 flaperon. This testing confirmed predictions by Pengam (2016) that the flaperon's motion with respect to the water is about 20 degrees left of the wind."

Winds between 60 and 80 knots do unbelievable things to the surface of the ocean, the dynamics within the ‘quadrants’ are variable; much depends on which part of the storm anything ‘floating’ is in. No mention of this from CSIRO. Down in the trough of a 10 meter wave the wind vector and velocity is a different animal to the forces at the crest; and ‘loose’ objects are affected by forces external to the prevailing current; and they can ‘surf’ anyone who sails can tell this.

It is no wonder IG are critical of CSIRO and ATSB; this latest smacks of arse covering. “Oh, well, we did refine our data and, had we been allowed to continue we would have found 370”. All bollocks of course, typical of the mind set prevailing in the offset the blame game Australian government departments play – at great expense, not to mention embarrassment to the country paying for it.

Toot toot.

P2 edit - Reference pg 10 Godfrey review paper:

[Peetwo]

The CSIRO ‘rubber ducky’ experiment is rightly criticised by the IG. Don’t know how many ‘Typhoons’ they get in the test area, but I’d bet my socks it is not so many as the SIO gets. Now, not being a ‘drift model’ specialist, but having slightly more than a nodding acquaintance with the wind, oceans and aerodynamics I have to wonder why the effect of the hurricanes which rip through the SIO has not been at least acknowledged.

"This report focusses on field testing of a genuine Boeing 777 flaperon. This testing confirmed predictions by Pengam (2016) that the flaperon's motion with respect to the water is about 20 degrees left of the wind."

Winds between 60 and 80 knots do unbelievable things to the surface of the ocean, the dynamics within the ‘quadrants’ are variable; much depends on which part of the storm anything ‘floating’ is in. No mention of this from CSIRO. Down in the trough of a 10 meter wave the wind vector and velocity is a different animal to the forces at the crest; and ‘loose’ objects are affected by forces external to the prevailing current; and they can ‘surf’ anyone who sails can tell this.

It is no wonder IG are critical of CSIRO and ATSB; this latest smacks of arse covering. “Oh, well, we did refine our data and, had we been allowed to continue we would have found 370”. All bollocks of course, typical of the mind set prevailing in the offset the blame game Australian government departments play – at great expense, not to mention embarrassment to the country paying for it.

Toot toot.

P2 edit - Reference pg 10 Godfrey review paper:

Update: David Griffin on ABC PM

Search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight should resume says Australian scientist
Matt Wordsworth reported this story on Thursday, April 27, 2017 17:45:00        
       
 | MP3 DOWNLOAD
The Australian scientist who narrowed down the location of the crash of missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 believes the search should resume.

New research suggests the wreck lies in a region near 35 degrees' south latitude.

That's just north of the zone where Australia spent $60 million on a failed effort to find MH370.

CSIRO oceanographer Doctor David Griffin believes the decision to suspend the hunt was 'a political one'.

And he says it came just when scientists were providing the governments of Australia, China, and Malaysia the compelling new evidence they said was needed to continue the search.

Dr Griffin has just re-done experiments that confirm again the likely crash site.


Featured:

Dr David Griffin, CSIRO oceanographe

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 30.04.17: HSSS Archive entry - Hoody v 'Iggins

Via the ATSB correcting the bollocks webpage:

Correcting the Record

MH370 reporting by The Australian

28 April 2017
Letter to the Editor of The Australian

I am writing to express my concern regarding the manner in which The Australian journalist Ean Higgins continues to inaccurately report on the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 – in particular I am concerned at the negative impact this inaccurate reporting is having on the knowledge of the search by the families of those on board the aircraft.

To reiterate, under the International Civil Aviation (ICAO) Annex 13 provisions, the government of Malaysia is responsible for investigating, determining and reporting the causal factors behind the loss of MH370. It is my understanding that their investigation team is well progressed in the development of a draft report. The role of the ATSB, at the request of the government of Malaysia, is to coordinate the conduct of the underwater search.

Many of Mr Higgins’ recent articles have been centred on the ATSB’s decision not to provide him with a series of emails between members of the group of experts advising the ATSB on the search strategy in 2016. The emails pertain to an analysis of the final series of satellite communications between the aircraft and the ground earth station which indicate that the aircraft was, at that time, in a high and increasing rate of decent. The analysis was performed by one of Australia’s leading scientists in the field, is based on solid evidence and it has been extensively peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal.

The implication of this analysis for the search is that the aircraft probably impacted the surface of the ocean reasonably close to where the transmissions were made (what is known as the 7th arc). This is contrary to the views expressed by Mr Higgins and Mr Byron Bailey from The Australian, who have been vocal critics of the search and have long contended thatthe aircraft was being actively controlled at the end of flight and was glided to a location well away from the area which has been searched. The analysis of the transmission data, when complemented by the recently published CSIRO drift-modelling analysis, provides the best possible definition of an area in which the aircraft is likely to be located between the search strategy experts and members of the ATSB’s search team where none exists. He has suggested in his articles that some ATSB officers have had second thoughts about the ATSB’s position in relation to the end of flight scenario and further;

“(the) Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material about its search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, warning that any bureau employee who provides such information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.” 
       
I find the use of this journalistic tactic particularly objectionable. No such warning has ever been issued, every member of the search strategy group and the ATSB’s search team understands, and is in agreement with, the science associated with the search and the implications on the search area of the analysis of the satellite communication data. Members of the ATSB’s search team are operating under the standard legislation that ATSB employees normally operate under, governing the disclosure and use of information.

Similarly Mr Higgins suggests in his most recent article that the work currently being performed by the ATSB was prompted by negative public opinion about the search. To quote;

“But he (Mr Hood) and his ATSB colleagues are no doubt thinking the best way out of this continuing world of pain is to find MH370, and behind the scenes that’s exactly what they are trying to help make happen.”

This is also incorrect - the CSIRO drift study work we have recently published was commenced in April 2016. It is the most comprehensive and accurate study of the point of origin of MH370 debris performed to date. It forms a part of the ATSB’s ongoing work to bring the best possible science to bear to find the aircraft.

It is particularly regrettable that Mr Higgin’s articles have now led to some of the MH370 next of kin expressing doubts about the ATSB’s conduct of the search, and by implication, our commitment to finding the aircraft. The ATSB’s search team, and the experts from many organisations both in Australia and overseas supporting the search, have worked with absolute commitment, dedication and a single minded focus on finding the aircraft to provide the answers for the families of those on board and to improve transport safety. It is extraordinarily difficult and challenging work.

Leaving aside his harassing and intimidating approach in dealing with my staff when requesting information, you can perhaps now understand why I find Mr Higgins’ approach to attacking the credibility of the search unwarranted. The ATSB reserves its rights not to interact with Mr Higgins.
 



Last update 28 April 2017

Hmmm...no comment -
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Hood v ‘Iggins.

Some would call it a point of view; others would call it spin; many would call bollocks on both versions, the majority would simply be mildly amused. ‘Iggins went fishing and got a bite. Both sides each as bad – or as good as the other in casting a line. The question, to me at least, is this the behaviour we should expect from the head of a national safety agency.

‘Iggins earns his living writing stories that sell newspapers. Take any story in the media you like, but with a grain of salt, and you will find ‘journalistic licence’ (for wont of better) hard at work. Hells bells, if folk believed every word in any given story; or, even if ‘just the facts’ were reported – flat – then either the media; or the government, would be out of business.

Hood has lost round 1, by simply responding and is getting a hiding in round 2. There is world wide scepticism, suspicion and disbelief in the ‘official’ version of the 370 story. ‘Facts’ not withstanding, it has been poorly managed. Any self respecting ‘conspiracy’ buff would have a field day. The lunatic fringe aside, sensible folk reading the ‘Hood Sook’ response would finish with a ‘pot-kettle-black’ reaction to the missive. The official spin every bit as good as the unofficial tale. The difference is ‘Iggins has to earn a living from it; Hood does not. The fact that the ATSB head even bothered to respond feeds the flames, plays into ‘Iggins hands, the now public combat attracting more attention than the core story. No matter, but the Hood spin is worth a quick look at; lets see…

Hood – “in particular I am concerned at the negative impact this inaccurate reporting is having on the knowledge of the search by the families of those on board the aircraft.”

Can Hood prove ‘inaccurate’ reporting? Does he go on to do so? A resounding NO. He does run the inaccurate reporting accusation into ‘concern’ for the families in the opening stanza.  This is a low blow which leads us directly to the Malaysians, Annexe 13 and the ‘accurate’ escape line:-

Hood – “The role of the ATSB, at the request of the government of Malaysia, is to coordinate the conduct of the underwater search.”

That one statement is all that needs to be said, it is Malaysia's indaba.  But no: Hood then has to guild the Lilly and takes us directly back to a very ugly time. The blather reminds serious students of the 370 event to the ‘slippery’ change over between Annexe 12 and the dumping of expert ocean search to Annexe 13 the fumbling, discredited Dolan and the ATSB assuming control. In one fell swoop, any suspicion of a ‘criminal act’ is removed. ATSB cannot continue investigation (by law) if a criminal act is suspected. No matter how you dress it up, someone committed a serious offence; whether it was the flight crew or outside agencies is academic. In trying to deflect attention away from ATSB, Hood has pointed the light into the darkest corner of this mystery. Good thing that light is non too bright; he must now hope his Nemesis ‘Iggins does not spot the dirt piled up in that dim corner. 


Hood – “Many of Mr Higgins’ recent articles have been centred on the ATSB’s decision not to provide him with a series of emails between members of the group of experts advising the ATSB on the search strategy in 2016”. Etc.

It is the ‘etc.’ which is interesting. Clumsy deflection: everyone knows what the information requested ‘is’ and who ‘dunnit’; what is not explained is why this data cannot be provided. This only feeds suspicion: why is everyone so sensitive about releasing ‘the facts’ and the data. Straight back to the Annexe 12 – 13 change over question.

The rest of the Hood Sook is similar drivel; innuendo, aspersions, veiled threat and misdirection finishing up with a subjective opinion of ‘harassment’, a CASA stock standard, not even original. Bollocks Hoody, man up and for pities sake shut up; you are becoming an embarrassment. It’s a rough, tough, hurly-burly world we live in; not a perfumed garden for sensitive little flowers.

Toot – no further comment – toot.

[Gobbledock]

Someone please give Hoody a box of Kleenex and a set of balls, otherwise just send him packing

What a joke, who the hell hired this ridiculous femme fatale? Hoody's response to 'that man Iggins' is lamentable. What a fool. This narcissistic Prima Donna who earns $600k per year needs to grow a set and accept that their will absolutely be scepticism, mistrust and scrutiny of the ATsB when one reviews the past 6 years of questionable management and activities under Beaker, and now Hood. There has been embarrassing accident reports, coverups, questionable decisions over MH370, an abhorrent standard of investigation skills regarding Pel Air, a lack of transparency and autonomy within the agency, and a host of other issues.

In regards to 'Iggins' requesting that specific MH370 email trail and Hoody more or less making out that there is nothing sinister or anything being buried, then why won't he release the emails to Iggins under FOI? It is either a) the ATsB does have something to hide, or b) Hoody is behaving like a sook and not releasing the request because he is acting like a spoilt princess. On an international stage this is yet another downright embarrassing reaction from the emotional Hood. Our industry is a lot more skilled and stable than an individual like Hoody and we are aghast at his persistent defence of ATsB stupidity, including his 'defending the record' page. His husband needs to slap some sense into him.

Again, one has to question the overall veracity and maturity of the ATsB as an organisation and whether it is 'match fit' to carry out its duties under Annexe 13 and subsequent legislation when one views the amount of time it spends defending itself rather than knocking out investigations in less than 3 years. Iggins research along with the work of people like Bailey are attempting to do what the ATsB hasn't been able to do - provide truth and facts pertaining to this tragedy and help bring closure to those who lost friends and loved ones. For Hoody to think otherwise is just plain arrogant and stupid. The ATsB protecting the Malaysians and obeying its USA puppet masters is what is causing pain for those affected by the aircraft disappearance.  

Tick Tock goes Hoody's infantile clock

[P7_TOM]

Choc frog to good GD; I may not have phrased the post with the GD diplomatic delicacy but between “K” and yourself, I reckon enough has been said to make the point. That ‘correcting the bollocks’ page needs to go. Hood could have the ABC panting in the waiting room about 30 seconds after asking them to turn up. You can take the boy out of CASA; but you can’t take CASA out of the boy - that shit sticks.

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 05/05/17: MH370 bounty on the high (SIO) seas -  

Darren Chester: ?It is a tragic and sad reality that we may not find MH370?2:52

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester says the search for missing plane MH370 being called off is tragic, but says in years - or maybe months - to come there may be breakthroughs in technology that could find more 'credible' evidence. Courtesy: Sunrise

• January 18th 2017
  
• 4 months ago
  
• /video/video.news.com.au/News/
  

[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/news/content/v2/origin:video_integrator.k3dG15ODE6x_jp3dZz8sZp_jqO-EGadS?t_product=video&t_template=../video/player[/img]Darren Chester: ‘It is a tragic and sad reality that we may not find MH370’

---

Economist’s solution to stalled MH370 search

Robyn Ironside, National Aviation Writer, News Corp Australia Network
May 4, 2017 4:07pm

A UNIVERSITY economics expert concerned by the suspension of the search for MH370 has come up with an innovative suggestion to help restart the campaign.

Professor Luke Connelly from the University of Queensland said a reward “upwards of $100 million” would be needed to act as an incentive for large companies to invest in a search.

He wrote in Aviation Week that one option for funding such a large sum would be getting the reward underwritten by an insurance company — to be paid out in the event the aircraft or black boxes were found.

“Prize insurance is not as uncommon as may be thought,” he said.

“It’s routinely used for ‘hole-in-one’ and other unlikely sports prizes.”

RELATED: Boeing tipped to take over MH370 search
RELATED: Data withheld as official MH370 search ends
media_cameraATSB diagram showing the area already searched in the Southern Indian Ocean and the zone where MH370 is now considered most likely to be. Picture: ATSB

The search for MH370 ended in January after contractor Fugro finished scouring a 120,000 square kilometre area of the Southern Indian Ocean, a process that took more than two years.

The zone was considered the most likely final resting place of the Malaysia Airlines’ flight, based on a series of satellite ‘handshakes’ with the Boeing 777.

But since then further analysis and drift modelling has identified another area to the north of the original search zone, as the most probable site of the missing plane.

Despite reports by the CSIRO and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau pointing to the new site, the governments of Malaysia, Australia and China have refused to fund another search.

Prof Connelly said another option was to provide a “menu of rewards” depending on the value of the discovery from MH370.

“If you had a menu of bounties people who found lower value parts of the aircraft would have more incentive to hand them over, and it would create more competition among people searching for the fuselage and the blackboxes,” he said.

media_cameraMH370 search ship Fugro Equator was unable to find the missing plane in the Southern Indian Ocean. Picture: News Corp Australia

Another advantage of a reward for the discovery of MH370, was inspiring a higher level of innovation and investment in search technologies.

“Some companies may be enticed to invest in equipment that enables them to conduct incidental searches, perhaps in joint ventures with specialist firms that supply underwater scanning equipment,” Prof Connelly said.

“For instance, new seagoing vessels may be fitted with more advanced underwater scanning and detection equipment than is generally required for navigation.

“Third-party suppliers of such technologies — which are highly specialised and have a limited market — may, for instance, engage with ship builders to extend their market … perhaps with profit-sharing arrangements.”

The disappearance of the Boeing 777 remains one of aviation’s greatest mysteries with no official explanation provided for its sudden change of course and apparent “ghost flight” towards the Southern Indian Ocean.

There were 239 people on board the flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, including six Australians.

Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester has indicated the search would only be resumed if credible new evidence about the plane’s whereabouts becomes available.

Originally published as Bright idea for finding MH370

Rewarding idea for MH370 search
12:00amEAN HIGGINS
The southern Indian Ocean could see a rush of maritime bounty hunters probing the depths for the wreckage of MH370.

Rewarding idea to restart MH370 search

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM May 5, 2017
  

[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
The southern Indian Ocean could see a rush of maritime bounty hunters probing the depths for the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Luke Connelly, an economist from the University of Queensland, has put forward the idea of a reward to encourage companies or even private adventurers to restart the hunt for the Boeing 777 which disappeared three years ago.

Writing in Aviation Week & Space Technology, Professor Connelly said it was understandable that the three governments involved in the underwater search had decided to suspend it after covering 120,000sq km without finding a trace of the aircraft.

“The MH370 search has cost Australia, China and Malaysia approximately $US150 million combined,” Professor Connelly wrote in the magazine. “The problem here arises because no entity is likely to benefit sufficiently from finding the aircraft to justify paying the entire cost of a renewed search, however there could be creative solutions.”

Professor Connelly said a large reward could encourage a higher level of innovation and investment in search technologies, and fishing vessels or cargo ships might be encouraged to search for MH370 on the side as they went about their normal business.

“Some companies may be enticed to invest in equipment that enables them to conduct incidental searches, perhaps in joint ventures with specialist firms that supply underwater scanning equipment,” he said.

“New vessels may be fitted with more advanced underwater scanning and detection equipment than is generally required for navigation.”

Professor Connelly said possible solutions included offering a range of bounties.

“An advantage to offering a menu of bounties, rather than a single bounty, is that it may encourage the production of information by finders of lower-value debris that encourages competition to find high-value components, such as the flight data recorder or fuselage,” Professor Connelly said.

MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014, on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, with 239 people on board. Automatic satellite tracking data showed the aircraft came down in the southern Indian Ocean.

The idea of a bounty for a private exploration to find MH370 was first raised by Malaysia’s Deputy Transport Minister Abdul Aziz Kaprawi.

“There will be cash rewards in the millions (of ringgit) for those who are able to find substantial information or evidence like the fuselage,” he said. One million ringgit is about $300,000.

But the more senior Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai quickly scotched the idea, telling reporters in Perth “it was the deputy minister’s personal view, not the government’s, we are not having any such decision”.

Here is the original article by Luke Connelly, via Aviation Week:

Opinion: How To Revive Search For MH370: Offer A Bounty
Apr 21, 2017 Luke Connelly | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Comments 63

How To Revive the Search for MH370

[/url]The search for [url=http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=18117]Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370) has been abandoned, and three years after the Boeing 777-200ER disappeared, it remains one of aviation’s biggest mysteries. So, what next?

I believe there are free-market incentives that might spur entrepreneurs to mount private searches. A market-based solution would entail a bounty to anyone who locates remains of the aircraft.

Locating the wreckage would undoubtedly help the world determine what happened to the Boeing 777. And that would produce benefits to society, globally. The problem is that no one entity may perceive sufficient benefits to finding the aircraft to fund a continued search.

Credit: Royal Australian Air Force

Over the course of almost three years, the MH370 search has cost Australia, China and Malaysia combined approximately $150 million. Understandably, after three fruitless years, they have reluctantly decided to stop searching.

We economists call this a “public-good” problem. Investments in public goods tend to be suboptimal because there is a tendency of those who are not paying for them to “free-ride” on the efforts. The free-rider problem here arises because no entity is likely to benefit sufficiently from finding the aircraft to justify paying the entire cost of a renewed search.

However, there may be a creative solution. A consortium—governments, aerospace companies, airlines and other organizations—could pool funds and offer a bounty to anyone who finds MH370 wreckage. A “menu” of bounties could be offered. Discovering the flight data recorder or fuselage would be of high value, obviously.

An advantage to offering a menu of bounties rather than a single bounty is that it may encourage the production of information by finders of lower-value debris that encourages competition to find high-value components. The risk of offering a single bounty is that locators of low-value parts may be inclined to treat their findings as high-value private information, since such discoveries (if kept private) may enhance their probability of claiming higher-value targets and bounties. Conversely, private information of this kind may enhance investment in finding high-value targets, and the trade-offs between the values of private and public information, and their effects on incentives and behaviour (e.g., investment) would need to be weighed carefully.

Suppose for argument’s sake that a single bounty, perhaps $100 million, were offered for the location of the aircraft’s fuselage or flight data recorder. One possibility is that dedicated bounty hunters would respond by investing to find the debris. Another is that some companies would be enticed to invest in equipment that enables them to conduct “incidental” searches, perhaps in joint ventures with specialist firms that supply underwater scanning equipment.

For instance, new seagoing vessels may be fitted with more advanced underwater scanning and detection equipment than is generally required for navigation. Third-party suppliers of such technologies—which are highly specialized and have a limited market—may, for instance, engage with ship builders to extend their market, perhaps with joint-venture and profit-sharing arrangements in the event of a discovery that gives rise to a bounty claim.

Whatever bounty options are optimal, at least two options exist for raising the bounty via public or private sources, or both. The capital for the bounty could be raised directly and invested until it becomes due. Another option may be to announce the bounty terms and conditions, with an insurance policy to cover its payment. In the latter instance, the consortium would need to raise the premium, which would be calculated based on the “risk” that someone is able to collect on the policy. 

Luke Connelly is a professor at the University of Queensland, Australia, and the acting director of its Center for The Business and Economics of Health.
 
The views expressed are not necessarily shared by Aviation Week.

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 11.05.17: DOI archive entry 170511.

Pragmatic- as always.

As a professional and ‘interested’ party, I have empathy, sympathy and interest in discovering what happened to MH 370. But, that said, not nearly as much interest in, and discovery of ‘what really happened’. One need go no further than a cursory examination of ‘events’ to realise that this aircraft is not meant to be found. The abrupt disconnection of AMSA and the insidious disregard of the expert agencies AMSA relied on, to total dependency the one pony show of the government’s tame agency CSIRO is enough, standing alone, to raise eyebrows. This needs investigation, of the serious sort...

Drift modelling QON & ATSB fairy tales -  

ATSB MH370 historical reference quotes: 26 November 2014 via CCTV news:

Foley also confirmed the reports that debris of the MH370 might have been washed ashore to the Sumatra.

"Essentially, we ran drift modeling that estimated where debris might wash up, when they wash up. And those models indicated that the first point at which debris might come ashore is on the west coast of Sumatra," said Peter Foley.

Based on a drift model, the debris of MH370 might possibly be first washed ashore to the west coast of Sumatra 123 days after the crash, said Foley.

4 August 2015 - MH370: Aircraft Debris and Drift Modelling

Following the release of the MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas report on 26 June 2014, a drift model was applied by one organisation to the wide search area defined in the report. The drift modelling was run to provide an indication of when and where the first possible debris would make landfall. This modelling indicated that the first possible landfall was on the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia and would have occurred in the first few weeks of July 2014. Indonesian search and rescue authorities were subsequently advised of the possibility of debris washing up on their shoreline.

Q/ Recently a fellow MH370 tweeper asked me if I had a copy of a debris modelling map, picture, or perhaps a graphical video (mentioned by Foley above) that showed how it was that the ATSB believed that debris would wash up on the west coast of Sumatra. To this date I am yet to find even a mud map drawn on the back of a beer coaster. Therefore this is just a general plea to any MH370 followers that may have a copy, of what at this stage remains a fictitious model - .

Q/ "..a drift model was applied by one organisation to the wide search area defined in the report..."  - Who was that 'one' organisation??

One of the members of the DMWG perhaps?? Reference quotes cont/-

A drift modelling working group was set up, comprising a number of organisations including: the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates (APASA), the US Coastguard, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and Global Environmental Modelling Systems (GEMS) to ensure that best practice modelling was put in place for the subsequent search. A number of search and rescue datum buoys were also deployed which were used to measure actual surface drift in the search area and to validate the drift models being used. Similarly, real-time wind and wave data from the search area was used to continuously update the drift model. The surface search for debris ended on 28 April 2014.

And from the ICAO paper: MH370 SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE – JRCC AUSTRALIA (4-8 August 2014):

JRCC Drift Planning

2.18 JRCC Australia uses its own custom designed drift modelling program called Net Water Movement (NWM). For conventional searches, this program has proved a valuable asset to search planning. Results from NWM are validated and compared against another proprietary drift modelling program and also validated as soon as possible through the deployment of Self Locating Datum Marker Buoys (SLDMBs). The SLDMBs are floating devices fitted with a GPS receiver and Iridium satellite transmitter which provide water current and sea temperature information and may be deployed by aircraft or vessels. The buoys transmit their position and sea temperature regularly directly to JRCC Australia. 33 SLDMBs were deployed in this search.

2.19 Due to the magnitude of the MH370 search areas, and taking into account the lessons learned during the previous search for Air France AF447 of 2009, a drift planning working group was established to supplement standard JRCC Australia drift planning methods. Its purpose was to ensure that international best methodology and consensus drift modelling techniques were applied to the MH370 search areas with the primary aims of:

a) Providing the best possible area to locate floating debris
b) Provide the ability to conduct “Reverse” drift backwards to provide an estimated splash point, should debris from the aircraft be located.

P2 comment - Passing strange that there was no mention of the ATSB hypothesis, based on one organisation's drift modelling application, that debris should be washing up on the west coast of Sumatra?? 

Q/ I wonder what happened to the AMSA initiated drift modelling working group? Was it officially disbanded at the end of the AMSA controlled surface search? If so why?

 Reference quote: via - Australia working on new drift modelling for MH370 wreckage - See more at: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/worl...EoJTs.dpuf

...Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan on Tuesday dismissed suggestions there was disagreement among the five groups that make up the international team - America's Boeing Co, France's Thales , US investigator the National Transportation Safety Board and the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation - on where to search.
 
The teams initially agreed an area about 600 kilometres long by 90 km wide west of Perth was most likely. A new report released last month specified two high-priority areas further to the south.
 
"There is no disagreement, just the deliberate application of differing analysis models," Dolan said.
 
All five groups agree that MH370's final resting place is near the "7th arc" a curve that stretches from about 1,000 km off Exmouth, Western Australia, to a point about 2,000 km southwest of Perth, Dolan said...

Ahh yes of course, the top-cover specialist and master of word weasel confections - the Grand Muppet Beaker..mimimimimimi...



"There is no disagreement, just the deliberate application of differing analysis models,"

Q/ Okay so this was the first indication that there maybe dissention amongst the ranks of the SSWG - but what about the DMWG? 

References : Operational Drift Forecast Modelling in Support of the AMSA Search for Malaysia Airlines MH370 

& AMSA RAAA MH370 presentation: The Search for Malaysia Airlines MH370
Australian Search and Rescue (SAR) Experience

Note: Neither presentation mentions a model that predicts debris will wash up on the west coast of Sumatra. Also note the date of CSIRO's David Griffin presentation was July 2015.

Spot the disconnections & contradictions...

Reference: 4 August 2015 - MH370: Aircraft Debris and Drift Modelling

...In November 2014, the ATSB asked CSIRO to perform drift modelling based on the revised search area defined in the MH370 - Flight Path Analysis Update report released on 8 October 2014. This modelling indicated that there was an extremely low probability that any debris from MH370 would have made landfall at that time. As the CSIRO modelling was not consistent with the previous modelling performed by a different organisation, the question was asked as to why the two models were yielding different results and an error was found in the way in which BOM wind data was being transferred into the first model. While this error in that model had no impact on the way the surface search was conducted, it was important in order to understand over the course of time where debris might wash up and help verify or discount the various items found on beaches, particularly on the west coast of Australia.

"...the ATSB asked CSIRO to perform drift modelling based on the revised search area.."  - Q/ Why did Beaker only ask the CSIRO, why not the combined collective expertise of the DMWG?  

"..While this error in that model had no impact on the way the surface search was conducted, it was important in order to understand over the course of time where debris might wash up..."  - Keep the above statement in mind when you read the latest CSIRO debris modelling paper: CSIRO Report 2  - just saying...

Still working on more QON so definitely MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Update: Hood (ATSB) v Higgins (The Oz)      

Via the Oz today:

ATSB boss Greg Hood firm on refusal to release full MH370 data

ATSB staff examine a piece of debris from Malaysian Airlines MH370. Picture: ATSB

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM May 19, 2017
  

Australian Transport Safety ­Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood has declined to accede to pleas from families of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 victims to release key documents about the bureau’s fruitless search for the aircraft.

Danica Weeks, who was left a single mother looking after two young boys when her husband Paul disappeared with MH370 three years ago, has claimed “Mr Hood has simply denied families throughout the world the information we so desperately need about what happened to our loved ones.”

The call came as a second relative of the six Australians lost on MH370, Teresa Liddle, and the association representing the families of the 153 Chinese victims, joined Ms Weeks in urging journalists to continue to probe for answers in the face of Mr Hood’s public attacks on The Australian for reporting critiques of the ATSB’s failed search by independent scientists and aviation experts.

After The Australian reported scientists in Europe and the University of Western Australia had long ago warned that drift modelling of MH370 debris showed early on in the two-year underwater search that the ATSB was looking too far south, Mr Hood, who took up his role in July after a career at Airservices Australia and the RAAF, criticised the reports in a letter to this newspaper and on the ATSB website.

Flight MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014 on a scheduled trip from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, with its radar transponder turned off and radio contact cut 40 minutes into the flight.

Primary radar and automatic electronic satellite tracking data showed the aircraft double backed over Malaysia to the Andaman Sea, then took a long track south to the southern Indian Ocean.

Ms Weeks and the group known as MH370 China Families called on Mr Hood to reverse his rejection of a freedom of information request from The Australian for international assessments of satellite tracking data.

An ATSB spokesman said this week that the data “has been painstakingly analysed by leading experts in their fields, who form the MH370 Search Strategy Working Group, to determine the aircraft’s most likely flight path”.

But Colin McNamara, the ATSB’s general manager, strategic capability, refused The Australian’s initial FOI request for the SSWG analyses, saying its public release “would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth”.

In reviewing and rejecting the FOI request, Mr Hood invoked the Transport Safety Investigation Act, which makes it a crime for current or former ATSB staff to release material deemed restricted, punishable by two years in prison.

While independent experts generally agree that the satellite data gives a good indication of the track of the Boeing 777, they differ on whether it can accurately say how the aircraft finally came down.

The ATSB maintains that the satellite data shows MH370 went down in what’s become known as a “death dive”, or unpiloted crash.

Top US air crash investigator John Cox has said he does not believe the satellite data is good enough to conclusively support the ATSB’s rapid descent theory. Several senior airline pilots and air crash investigators maintain the evidence suggests Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end and outside the ATSB’s 120,000 square kilometre target search area, which it had defined based on the “death dive” theory.

In a letter to the The Australian published this week, Ms Weeks wrote that if Mr Hood continued to put “diplomatic niceties” ahead of “the sensitivities of the families and friends of 239 people”, he should stand down so a replacement could be appointed who would “release the FOI immediately”.

Speaking of the ATSB’s definition of the search area based on its interpretation of the satellite data, the Chinese families association noted that “the search based on this data has failed”.

“We would welcome the ­release of any additional information which highlights inconsistencies in the official ex­planation,” the association told The Australian.

“We are disappointed in (the ATSB’s) explicit and implicit endorsement and their acting as proxy communicators for the ­Malaysian authorities,” the Chinese families said.

The Chinese families spoke of their difficulties in campaigning in authoritarian China.

“There are more than 350 of us, who communicate by social media aliases,” the association said.

“We meet informally in small groups, or in larger approved groups attended by police.”

Mr Hood did not respond to questions from The Australian about whether he would seek permission from members of the SSWG to grant the FOI request, and whether Malaysian authorities had asked for this and other material to be suppressed.

An ATSB spokesman said the bureau was “very conscious of, and deeply saddened by, the prolonged and profound grief suffered by the families of those on board MH370” and remained willing to brief family members “on all aspects of the search”.

Interesting comment from Byron Bailey in reply to this article: http://fyre.it/mWTvN6ZQ.4

Byron

Kudos to Ean Higgins and The Australian for refusing to let the highly suspect matter of what happened to MH370 fade into obscurity. The truth always has a way of eventually surfacing. I shortly have a meeting in USA with parties interested in privately funding a resumption of the search. The proposed search area is a deep trench to the north of the ATSB searched area, based on the excellent calculations of Captain Simon Hardy and agrees with the drift modelling. Captain Byron Bailey.

Hmm...wonder how long it'll be before Hoody has another hissy fit and comes out with yet another sook on the ATSB (ATP funded) 'correcting the bollocks' webpage...


MTF...P2

Ps For those interested I see that Hoody, & the ATCB, is slated for a 'tea & biccys' session with the Senators, next Tuesday between 1630 till 1800:

[Kharon]

Well aided and nicely abetted.

Higgins – “Mr Hood did not respond to questions from The Australian about whether he would seek permission from members of the SSWG to grant the FOI request, and whether Malaysian authorities had asked for this and other material to be suppressed.”

That man ‘Iggins asks one of the top ten most important questions which should be asked of the ATSB.  The fully justified deep suspicion which arose when the Dolan and the ATSB took over the search/rescue/recovery operation from AMSA has never been satisfactorily allayed and remains a large part of the ‘cover-up’ and collusion support argument. Although there was no direct evidence of ‘criminal activity’ (or any other activity for that matter) I believe its safe to say there was – in one form or another – a criminal act committed. The preponderance of available ‘evidence’ supports the argument.

It matters not ‘who’ committed 'the act'; at least not in the first instance. The law is quite clear, the ATSB cannot assume control of an  investigation when criminal activity is ‘suspected’. I say we are well past the point of even questioning whether this was a ‘criminal act’. Dolan and the ATSB had been proven, through a Senate committee hearing to be party to a gross manipulation of an accident investigation; (see Pel-Air). The very idea of pulling the AMSA out of controlling the search and passing the same along into the care of the discredited Dolan was outlandish. Clearly, the move from an ICAO annexe 12 to annex 13 based operation precluded ‘deep and meaningful’ investigation of criminal acts. In short, the move declared that no criminal activity had occurred. This single stroke of the pen, very effectively, precluded any chance of a wide investigation and narrowed the search to that for the ‘aircraft’ alone. To add insult to injury, the AMSA ‘team’ of experts analysts was side lined (dumped) and only the CSIRO opinion of drift modelling was considered. In short the ‘search’ was manipulated and reduced from a multi point focus effort to one single, very narrow, tightly controlled channel.  I digress.

Byron - Kudos to Ean Higgins and The Australian for refusing to let the highly suspect matter of what happened to MH370 fade into obscurity. The truth always has a way of eventually surfacing. I shortly have a meeting in USA with parties interested in privately funding a resumption of the search. The proposed search area is a deep trench to the north of the ATSB searched area, based on the excellent calculations of Captain Simon Hardy and agrees with the drift modelling. Captain Byron Bailey.

If the data Australia refuses to release belongs to Malaysia; then why does Hood simply just say so. “Sorry folks, if it were our data, we would release it without hesitation; but, it ain’t”. “If you want it, petition the Malaysian government, it all belongs to them”.  But Hood does not say this – clearly, that’s not case. So, like Higgins and Byron,  I’m left wondering just who is running this country?

Although I mildly disagree with ‘the Captain’ being guilty argument – purely for lack of evidence (benefit of the doubt) I hasten to add. I can lend my full support to Byron’s opinion and Higgins dogged determination to get to the bottom of this pit of deceit, half truths and misdirection. Well done both, efforts on behalf of those left behind much appreciated. This aircraft must be found, it is the only way the truth can ever be determined. Shame on Malaysia and Australia both.


Toot toot.