AuntyPru Forum

Oh, FCO bloody L.

Higgins - “It (ATSB) has abandoned that claim, without acknowledging it has done so or explaining why.”

That one sentence, (IMO) so typifies the instinctive, automatic response of all and sundry to anything Beakeresque the ATSB do; all thanks to Dolan.  It takes one to the very heart of Australian embarrassment; the action taken so typifies the underhanded, disingenuous antics we have, regrettably, come to expect; not just in regard to 370, but to almost every ATSB investigation conducted over the past few years.  

I am not certain from whom the Princess is taking advice these days; or, even if there is an option on rejecting that advice.  There should be.  I cannot imagine anyone, let alone Hood being so terminally ‘thick’ as to believe that a major shift in stance would go unnoticed.  Why give the critics a free kick?  Why place the ATSB in a dim light – yet again?

OK – so ATSB no longer have a ‘consensus’; there is reasonable, supported doubt about an element which could, possibly, affect the search.  So what?  What’s so wrong with just telling it like it is – “the search is dynamic and; there is some healthy academic disagreement related to the end point”. “We no longer have a 100% consensus, but the majority maintain support for the present search area”.  “This does not imply that the search is incorrectly located or that any new evidence has been provided which could radically change the area considered as ‘most probable’.”  “The change simply means that as part of the on going, vigorous discussion the notion of reasonable doubt is being accommodated and acknowledged”.  

Without empirical evidence, what else can be reasonably said? The ATSB is no more and no less right than any of the other serious groups analysing the scant data provided.  Opinions vary, endless discussion and testing of ‘theory’ is very much part of the daily grind to determine the where and the why of 370.  Even Foley, the man in charge, expressed some doubts and why would he not; there are many to choose from.  But, as he said on RNZ; they are working as best they may, with the highest probability option in a bloody big ocean. Lots of genuine wriggle room there.  I would have thought that a ‘lack of consensus’ was inevitable; so why, Oh why try to hide it?  If there was no doubt then the aircraft would have been found by now: the longer the search produces no evidence, the more room for doubt must exist.   Indeed, there is room for doubt; there is space for speculation; there is ample contradiction; so why exclude reasonable doubt? Why undo the good work done on RNZ? Foley must be kicking Badgers.

P2 – “Oh Hoody, get rid of that web page mate and stop being so bloody sensitive, the ATSB remit is not meant to include self-righteous, sanctimonious media propaganda. Remember this mantra..."Without fear nor favour"-

Princess Hood needs to be less sensitive to media speculation and more sensitive to repairing the reputation of his outfit.  Beaker trashed it; and, left a trail of disgust and suspicion in his wake.  Honest, straight talk kept to a minimum will help with repairs; any whiff of obfuscation or sleight of hand has more potential to irreparably damage the ATSB international and domestic reputation than not finding MH 370 ever will.  

There, glad I got that off my chest; feel much better now.

Toot toot.

Ferryman;

"Honest, straight talk kept to a minimum will help with repairs; any whiff of obfuscation or sleight of hand has more potential to irreparably damage the ATSB international and domestic reputation than not finding MH 370 ever will".

That sums up the situation perfectly. Princess Hoody, you've inherited a lemon, damaged goods, the carcass of a once fattened beast that was sacrificed to Lord Murky 5 years ago during some bizzare religious, bukkake celebration!

Straight talk is essential. So is robust discussion and a view from outside the box. That's how mysteries are unravelled, accidents solved, problems fixed. Putting up some limp wristed 'defence' page is preposterous, and lame in the extreme. It's time to grow a set mate. Throw away the pink tutu and ballet slippers and put on a muscle shirt and denims. Time to 'make the ATsB great again'. (Thanks Trump!)
Get rid of that embarrassing 'please explain' page, you are the Commissioner of the ATsB, f#ck what others think or are saying.  
By pulling on the poopy pants you are making yourself look like an imbecile. The ATsB is already the laughing stock of the aviation community, c/o the facially and follicley endowed Beaker. Greg, you're not off to a good start. Not at all.

#makeATSBgreatagain

Byron chucks another rock on the ATSB roof -  

BB is back with another crack at the ATSB, question is will Hoody again take the bait??

BB via the Oz: 

Quote:So-called experts have their head in the sand over MH370

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM August 19, 2016
  

Not long after the “mysterious” disappearance of MH370’s B777 over the South China Sea, the head of ­Emirates stated live on German TV that “MH370 was flown under control for over seven hours and pilots should not be able to turn transponders off in flight”.

This opinion from Tim Clark, head of the world’s largest inter­national airline and largest B777 operator, should have sounded a warning to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau that it may be wrong in its baffling ­decision to support an unresponsive-pilot ­theory. It’s an important opinion despite protests from the ATSB and its cohorts of armchair supporters who have no flight deck ­experience and are not interested in “who, what, why, when”, but only “where” MH370 ended its flight.

The ATSB analysis of the ­doppler shift of the last satellite ping was predicated on no pilot input, that is, a dead or unresponsive crew.

An email to me from a mathematician, concerning the mathematical modelling, pointed out that input of such a large variable as “pilot control” would render the calculations invalid and likely to produce significant miscalculations in where Flight MH370 rests.

Why did the ATSB go with an unresponsive-pilot theory when there was no evidence to support that scenario in the vital three minutes when captain (Zaharie Ahmad) Shah said goodnight to Kuala Lumpur air traffic control and then MH370 changed direction, obviously under control?

When Shah made this final radio transmission, MH370 was tracking nicely along the airway between Kuala Lumpur and ­Beijing. If a sudden event took out the pilots but the autopilot ­remained engaged, the aircraft would have flown itself to Beijing.

If the event was so serious that the autopilot disengaged, then with unresponsive pilots the aircraft would have quickly crashed. The point is, a jet needs either auto­pilot or a pilot keeping the wings level in controlled flight, otherwise it would crash.

Getting back to those vital three minutes where the aircraft was still under autopilot control monitored by Kuala Lumpur — which is quick to point out any off- airway deviation — the ATSB ­suggested a decompression or similar event to render the pilots unresponsive.

However, pilots are trained to react in seconds to any sudden event by putting on oxygen masks — one pilot then starting a rapid ­descent (to get to a safe cabin altitude while passengers are sucking on their 10-minute chemically generated oxygen-mask supply) and the other pilot immediately selecting emergency squawk on the transponder and radioing “mayday” to air traffic control.

The time of useful consciousness at 35,000 feet is 30 to 60 seconds, so that is plenty for a well-trained crew to comply with Boeing emergency procedures. The same applies to a flight deck fire or any event that is not so catastrophic as to take out the pilots.

I and some airline colleagues realised early that the ATSB was barking up the wrong tree.
When Clark made his statement concerning obvious pilot control of MH370, why did not the upper echelons — especially the flight training departments of Qantas, Virgin, Jetstar and Tiger — speak up and point out the inconsistencies in the ATSB theory of unresponsive pilots.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, too, has professional ­pilots, but it has also adopted a head-in-the-sand silence.

Qantas has excellent rigorous pilot simulator training using world’s-best Boeing flight deck emergency procedures.

All airlines operating B777 do so with their pilots undergoing ­Boeing emergency procedures simulator training. The ATSB ­theory ignored, or did not ask and receive, input from professional pilots about what could have happened in those vital three minutes.

By their silence, Qantas, Virgin, Jetstar, Tiger and CASA have ­allowed a non-aviation entity such as ATSB to muddle along for 2½ years and use the Australian taxpayer to fund the world’s longest and most expensive search that has been proved to have been done in the wrong area.

A 200-tonne B777 is a huge bit of metal and the search by the ships involve very sophisticated technology, so MH370 would have been found if the ships passed over it.

Ok just so I don't get accused of not providing balance to the standard BB diatribe, here is the very first comment which attempts to take apart the 'pilot did it' consensus...

Quote:Gil

22 minutes ago

The reason the others have not commented is most likely because they disagree. A review of the Swissair 111 crash in 1998 is interesting in its closeness to many other assessments of the MH370 situation. A fire resulted in the shut down of transponders and recorder, with the Captain absent from the flight deck at the time of impact, believed to have been fighting the fire.

One view of the MH370 situation by some other pilots is that fire created an onboard emergency that had the crew shutting down circuits to isolate the fire. This explains the loss of transponders. The aircraft made a controlled turn which brought it on track to Penang, the closest major airport without a mountain in between. Aviation and navigation are the priorities, communication only occurring when the other elements are in place - a Mayday call would alert authorities but not assist crew with their hands full. How and why the aircraft re-engaged autopilot is another matter but the most likely scenario is that this occurred as the crew realised they were losing consciousness, and the aircraft then continued with crew and passengers incapacitated.

A final observation that hasn't been mentioned by conspiracists: in other incidents where crew actions, terrorism or equipment failure preceded a crash, numerous passengers used their mobiles to call family. There is no record of a single call.

 
Unfortunately Gil's theory does not explain the FMT, nor does either BB or Gil consider a 3rd party involvement, like ET (electronic terrorism) -
Oh well the 'he said, she said' wars continue seemingly unabated...
MTF...P2

Question:
Why would many nations spend billions of dollars, over 4 decades and more, developing stealth technology, for the F-117, B-2 and other things, so as to get their RCS's down to that of a small bird, (F-117) or even lower, an insect, (B-2), so as to avoid detection, when, (we are told), a totally stock standard, straight off the showroom floor, Kingswood model, B-777-200, is apparently, virtually invisible anyway, as she comes, with an apparent RCS already not only less than that of a small bird, but down at the level of an insect, you don't even have to upgrade to a Premier, let alone a Statesman ?

OK, sarcastic, I know.

A dose of reality.
Take a course on Radar from Lincoln Laboratory at MIT.
https://www.ll.mit.edu/workshops/educati...ntroradar/
Quite a lot there.
Allocate a few days - that's rite - days - to study it.

Now, returning to the subject at hand.

That B-777 did cross over Malaysia M'lud, honest it did, and up the Malacca Strait too M'lud, and silently slipped past both all them Indonesian and Thailand radars too M'lud, and magically, none of those radars saw it M'lud.

(M'lud makes an entry in his case notes - ".... classified ?......")






The 1 Ghz plots are the most interesting, since most Air Search Radars (PSR's or Primary Search Radars) operate in the "L Band", basically in the 1.2 Ghz to 1.6 Ghz range.


[attachment=181][attachment=182]

MH370 & the latest ATSB bollocks - 

After reading the following courtesy the Daily Mail, one wonders what the hell Hoody is playing at...  

Quote:Air crash investigators will dump replica MH370 wing flaps into the ocean and track them by satellite in a bid to find the missing jet

   - A two-year search for MH370 is approaching its conclusion experts warn
   - Only one section of flap has washed up and was outside the search area
   - Experts will track replica flaperons by satellite to determine drift rates
   - It is hoped this will narrow down the search area to help find the jet  

By Darren Boyle
Published: 17:06 +10:00, 19 August 2016 | Updated: 19:46 +10:00, 19 August 2016

Air crash investigators are planning to dump replica Boeing 777 wing flaps fitted with satellite trackers into the Indian Ocean in an effort to discover the wreckage of the missing MH370 jet. 

Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 vanished from radar screens on March 8, 2014 shortly after leaving Kuala Lumpur with 239 people on board. In July 2015, a section of the aircraft's wingtip, known as a flaperon, washed ashore on a beach in Saint-Andre, Reunion Island. Now experts want to 'reverse' the flaperon's journey in an effort to determine the most likely crash site.


Air crash investigators want to create several replicas of this piece of wreckage from MH370 and dump it in the ocean after being fitted with satellite trackers to determine drift rates 


Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood, pictured, said he remains optimistic that the missing Boeing 777 Malaysian Airlines jet will be found 



Peter Foley, Australian Transport Safety Bureau director of Flight 370 search operations will track these replica 'flaperons' which will be dumped in the ocean next March and tracked

So far, experts have searched approximately 46,000 square miles of the ocean floor during a two-year operation but have failed to find the missing jet. 

Greg Hood Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner, who last month took over responsibility for the search, is currently trying to identify new areas where the jet could be.

However, a new search would require a new funding commitment, with Malaysia, Australia and China agreeing in July that the $160 million search will be suspended once the current stretch of ocean southwest of Australia is exhausted unless new evidence emerges that would pinpoint a specific location of the aircraft.

Hood said: 'If it is not in the area which we defined, it's going to be somewhere else in the near vicinity.' 

This Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 vanished on March 8, 2014, killing all 239 people


A multi-national team has searched extensively for the missing jet without success


This piece of wreckage was confirmed as belonging to the missing jet after it washed ashore on the island of Reunion, more than 15 months after the jet disappeared without a trace

Further analysis of the wing fragment known as a flaperon found on Reunion Island off the African coast in July last year — 15 months after the plane went missing — will hopefully help narrow a possible next search area outside the current boundary.

Six replicas of the flaperon will be sent to Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization's oceanography department in the island state of Tasmania where scientists will determine whether it is the wind or the currents that affect how they drift, Hood said. This will enable more accurate drift modeling than is currently available.

If more money becomes available, the Australian bureau, which is conducting the search on Malaysia's behalf, plans to fit the flaperons with satellite beacons and set them adrift at different points in the southern Indian Ocean around March 8 next year — the third anniversary of the disaster — and track their movements.

Meanwhile, barnacles found on the flaperon and an adjacent wing flap that washed up on Tanzania in June are being analyzed for clues to the latitudes they might have come from. The flap is in the Australian bureau's headquarters in Canberra where it has been scoured for clues by accident investigators.

Peter Foley, the bureau's director of Flight 370 search operations since the outset, said the enhanced drift modeling would hopefully narrow the next search area to a band of 5 degrees of latitude, or 340 miles.

Foley said: 'Even the best drift analysis is not going to narrow it down to X-marks-the-spot.'

Some critics argue that the international working group that defined the current search area — which includes experts from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board, Britain's Air Accidents Investigation Branch, the plane's manufacturer Boeing, Australia's Defense Science and Technology Group, satellite firm Inmarsat and electronics company Thales — made a crucial mistake by concluding that the most likely scenario was that no one was at the controls when the plane hit the ocean after flying more than five hours.

The airliner veered far off course during a flight from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing. What happened to the plane has become one of the biggest mysteries in aviation, with a wide range of theories, including that a hijacker could have killed everyone on board early in the flight by depressurizing the plane.

The current search area was defined by analysis of a final satellite signal from the plane that indicated it had run out of fuel. Scientists have determined how far the plane could have travelled from a height of up to 40,000 feet after both engines lost power.

But critics who favor the theory that Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked the plane argue that he could have glided the plane beyond the current search area. Some say he could have made a controlled ditch at sea in order to minimize debris and make the plane vanish as completely as possible. Officials say Zaharie flew a similar route on his home flight simulator only weeks before the disaster.

Foley said Australian analysis of the flap in Canberra suggested that it had not been deployed when it hit the water. It had been retracted inside the wing. A pilot attempting a soft landing would have extended the wing flaps. The Australians are awaiting the verdict of a Boeing accident investigation team on their findings.

Recent analysis of the final satellite signals also suggest the plane was descending at a rate of between 12,000 feet and 20,000 feet a minute before it crashed. A rate of 2,000 feet a minute would be typical of a controlled descent.

Foley said: 'The rate of descent combined with the position of the flap — if it's found that it is not deployed — will almost certainly rule out either a controlled ditch or glide.

'If it's not in a deployed state, it validates, if you like, where we've been looking.'

Crews have not given up hope of finding the plane in the current search area, which because of bad weather and 65-foot swells could take them until December to finish scanning.

Less than 4,000 square miles of seabed, which is outside the original 23,000-square-mile high-priority search zone, remain to be searched.

More than 20 sonar contacts require closer examination by a sonar-equipped underwater drone. These are between 1,700 miles and 1,200 miles from the Australian port of Fremantle where the search ships are based.

Hood said: 'We are still hopeful and optimistic.'
Foley said finding the plane was the only chance of the solving the mystery of what happened aboard Flight 370.

Foley added: 'We will never know what happened to that aircraft until we find it.'

It would be easy to be extremely cynical about this latest revelation and development from the ATSB. Putting it down to just another ploy for the ATSB (& by association the Malaysians) to maintain control of the search narrative and in effect the MH370 SIO probable search area for at least the next 2-3 years.

However for whatever reason the ATSB appear to be coming from way behind on this reverse drift 'idea', the theory behind was mooted quite vigorously from several different sources/ media/forums/blogs (including AP & the CSIRO).

First from a former French Navy officer, via oceankoto...
  

Quote:A French solution for finding the wreckage of flight MH370 
Posted by Meddy Mensah Friday, September 4, 2015: 2:38 p.m.

© AFP © AFP

Next courtesy the CSIRO blog, via yours truly...

(04-05-2016, 12:50 PM)Peetwo Wrote: [ -> ]An update to my DOI chain of posts - It would seem that the debris will continue to keep appearing in and around the East coast of Africa & Madagascar. However as the number of possible pieces of MH370 (including what appears to be an internal piece - see HERE) keeps on adding up, the ATSB & Minister Chester still won't concede that there is an ever decreasing probability that they are searching the wrong part of the 7th Arc or maybe even the wrong sector of the IO.

I guess from the point of view of the Australian government this is somewhat understandable, for to concede they may have got it even slightly wrong would lead to further scrutiny & criticism. Which could then lead to intense international pressure to continue the search, possibly until the whole of the northern section of the Indian Ocean 7th arc is complete.

 In all these debris discovery shenanigans, theories, counter theories etc. I still have a niggling doubt about the ATSB (at least at the executive level) true hand on heart commitment to the defined and then slightly re-defined search priority area...

Maybe it is a prejudice that I carry witnessing the lies, deception and obfuscation by the Dolan led ATSB in the PelAir cover-up? Maybe it is the bizarre scenario that we all witnessed where AMSA, the SAR experts, were dumped in favour of the ATSB? - Still can't get my head around that, as the AMSA I once knew would have exhausted all possible avenues, outside theories, lines of inquiry etc. before abandoning the surface search.

Anyway the following is an example of why I have these lingering doubts.

To begin, reflecting on some of the historical articles and blogs on the debris drift theories, I happened to re-read the CSIRO blog - What does our ocean modeling tell us about the fate of flight MH370?

Graeme Harrison's reply posts very closely reflect my views on the shortcomings of the ATSB led research/actions/inactions to establish the MH370 SIO search priority area:

Quote:5 August 2015 - And further to my earlier comment, the CSIRO approach to the Reunion find of a flaperon is that this confirms our belief that the original ‘search area’ was correct.

But the contrary interpretation is that the flaperon proves that there was debris – ie the ‘whole plane’ did not land without breaking apart and thus sink as an intact-whole. But if we now accept that there was debris at the site of the crash, before it drifted away and slowly dispersed, SURELY the initial fly-overs would have spotted such floating debris? As no floating debris was spotted in the ‘SW of Perth’ corridor, the finding of any substantial piece of debris actually lessens the chance that this is the true location of the crash.

And yes, I am aware that there was a two-week delay before any search was conducted in this area, but I still suggest (in light of the flaperon find) that some debris should have been noticed in any area, before it could be described as the likely crash zone.

What should happen now is a computerised ‘pixel search’ for aluminium-reflection spectrum peaks in the Indian Ocean visual satellite data from the date of the crash till May (when the flaperon stopped on the Reunion beach). If one is to believe the capability of US and Russian satellite capabilities, there should be lots of ‘track strips’ of video as satellites passed overhead. As some point the sun glinting off such a piece of debris should have caused some glary pixels at the point of that debris at that time. Both US and Russian spy agencies should be asked to again focus their attention on any data they might be able to glean by re-examination of their satellite data as already collected. And the US needs to release clear data from Diego Garcia’s long-range radars on the night the plane disappeared, so that the plane’s other potential path along the North of the Indian Ocean can truly be ruled out. 

Sightings by a US woman sailing a yacht from India to Thailand on the night, and observers in the Maldives recorded a low-level large jet flying along the Northern Indian Ocean trajectory. There were no human observations that supported the (less populated) Southern trajectory that the CSIRO favoured, due to ‘ping delay times’, which confirmed only that either a Northern or Southern route was likely.

---

[/url]5th August 2015 at 7:51 pm

I think the radar type you are hoping for is “submarine search radar” where satellites of major military powers might be probing for the reflection of any metal objects at water level or not too deep below that. Given the USA and Russian preference for tracking all of their opponent’s pieces on the chess board at all times, it does seem funny that there are not logs that could be examined to ‘reverse track’ the journey of that flaperon.

I don’t believe that “being heavy” would help debris deposited near the outer-reaches of a gyre to get to “the centre of the gyre” quickly. Wouldn’t the heavier object (once given velocity by the current) be the one to ‘spin outwards’ more than lighter objects, even though the centrifugal force is low, due to low rate of spin. In other words, greater mass provides greater angular momentum.

The bigger issue would be if any component was ‘well out of the water’ acting as a sail, in terms of separating that piece of debris from the rest of the debris. But the flaperon appears to have been almost submerged or close to surface level. But after the crash research team has analysed the part, it would be useful to then ‘float it’ in tropical-temperature seawater, to see if it assumes a single natural float position, or if there are more than one such position indicated by both float tests and barnacle growth. That might give some estimates of any ‘sail effect’.

---

I think it is time to get Boeing to ‘offer’ a few defective flaperons that never made quality control. Then next March, they should be set adrift in various locations, including at least one at the ‘SW of Perth’ search area, and another on approach to Diego Garcia from the East. Each one should be fitted with a tethered GPS tracker and radio beacon. Then let’s see where those near-identical items travel in the Indian Ocean, from March 2016 till May 2017, to imitate the journey the original one took from March 2014 to May 2015 when it reached Reunion. Yes, the gyre is a complex system, so one will never be exactly retracing a path, but that test will certainly exclude a whole bunch of alternative starting locations. And if you want to work out how a flaperon drifts with current and wind, there is no substitute for real near-identical flaperons! Because the drift path does depend upon the object shape and buoyancy, there is no substitute for using the identical shape and buoyancy. And yes, the tracking will take a year to run, but I suspect that this will be like finding the Titanic many decades after it went missing, but without the final latitude and longitude being already known!

   

Quote:[url=https://blog.csiro.au/what-does-our-ocean-modelling-tell-us-about-the-fate-of-flight-mh370/#comment-2812]7th August 2015 at 5:03 pm


David, yes, the flaperons should be set adrift from the various trial starting points mid-March 2016, to mimic the seasonal effects of MH370’s crash in mid-March 2014. And if Boeing can provide some ‘failed’ flaperons, for the trial an air-proof bladder may need to be installed at least in one end, to prevent sinking, as it may have been sheer fluke that the ‘found’ flaperon did not sink over its journey. And if no flaperons are available, then it would be easy to mock-up some using aluminium sheeting and again install a bladder of just sufficient size to ensure against sinking. Small GPS and sat-phone could be installed in plastic box mounted on top surface. Solar panel could be installed if needed, though device only needs to log GPS once per day.

And only if no flaperons are made available, and ‘mock-up’ flaperons are deemed ‘too hard’, then using near-netural-buoyancy buoys is still worthwhile, and cheap compared to mapping sea floor.

If it was up to me, I’d start one at SW extent of current search area arc; a second at NE extent of current search area arc; a third 100km East of Diego Garcia (to see if that general area can be ruled out by current drifts over 16 months to Reunion); and a fourth half-way between the search area and Diego Garcia (to complete the model). I think CSIRO should do that modelling for the Australian search team. Then see where these items end up after 16 months afloat.

Without doing this ‘real test’, we’ll still have politicians claiming that the Reunion debris supports current search area, despite no debris having been found in that region shortly after the crash. This approach is putting faith ahead of the facts.

Quote:Brock McEwen says

15th August 2015 at 5:39 am
Here is my best attempt to compare and contrast various drift models which have been used in the past year to assess MH370 surface debris probabilities – including CSIRO’s latest. I hope it helps generate robust discussion:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yua...sp=sharing
Reply

• Graeme Harrison says
  
  17th August 2015 at 4:14 pm
  
  Excellent work Brock. I think the most telling bits of text from your summary of models are:
  
  1. “The closer the start point is to Fugro’s latest search extension, the less feasible landfall on RI [Reunion Island] becomes”; and
  2. The statement that the ‘forward drift models’ from ATSB’s latest search zone for 14 months and the ‘reverse drift models’ from the ‘given’ of a landing at Reunion show “no co-mingling”.
  
  I think what will go down in history as complete hubris is that initial claim (after the flaperon find) by authorities that a large floating part of the plane washing up on Reunion Island “is entirely consistent with” the current search zone. And Nicholas Kachel’s comment “it appears our [CSIRO] original predictions may have been on the money” is a statement of belief, not facts. If we needed those, we’d turn to religion.
  
  As I posted earlier, if anything, the Reunion flaperon find ‘mildly disproves’ the search zone, as now that we know there was floating debris, including large reflective pieces, why was none found on any initial fly-overs (even given the two week delay)? The ATSB search zones have only had credibility while people thought it credible that the plane might have sunk ‘intact’. As I also posted, this new find should trigger a ‘re-search’ of satellite fly-over visual data and radar data, to see if any field of debris can be found, now that we know there was one.
  
  And on a bigger note, I think this drift modelling discussion for MH370 will change future search protocols for any future ‘missing planes’. It has been standard maritime practice for a century that if someone is lost overboard, you immediately throw something that floats to that same location (or as close as practicable). So why didn’t the first search planes drop GPS satellite broadcast buoys as the first ‘action’ over each new search area. If one had been dropped by an early surveillance plane over the NE and SW extremes of the search arc, the ‘actual’ drift pattern could have been observed/tracked. Instead we are left arguing over models of a complex system, when we could have had ‘reality’. If, at the May 2015 date that the flaperon was first observed on a Reunion beach, those buoys were only half-way from Australia to Reunion in the Northern part of the Indian Ocean gyre, then we’d know almost for certain that the plane crashed in a more anti-clockwise location on the gyre (than the current search area). This should be a sharp reminder to ATSB RAAF search experts, and advising experts at the CSIRO to ‘take on board’ (pun intended) what ship captains have known for a century (at least): Nothing beats a floating marker!
  Reply
  • 4th September 2015 at 3:54 pm
    
    And now (a month later) on 4 Sept 2015, we have the Sydney Morning Herald reprinting a report by The Telegraph, London that “A team at the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel ran extensive computer modelling of ocean currents to trace how the flaperon could have ended up on Reunion.”
    
    The German Kiel-based scientists who are experts in ocean drift are saying that the flaperon must have been ‘deposited’ about 3200km North of the current search area for it to have drifted to Reunion Island in the time taken.
    
    The SMH article is entitled “MH370 investigators ‘looking in wrong place'” and is at:
    http://www.smh.com.au/world/mh370-investigators-looking-in-wrong-place-20150903-gjesjl.html
    
    (though SMH articles are free to view for only some initial days after posting, thence paywall)
    
    The point of my earlier postings here a month ago were along the very same lines “MH370 investigators ‘looking in wrong place'”
    
    The article goes on to note: “Our results show that the current focus of the search south-west of Australia may be too far south,” said Jonathan Durgadoo, one of the researchers.
    
    The study found a number of possible locations for where the aircraft may have crashed. But only one corresponded to the arc of possible last positions from analysis of the plane’s satellite pings: an area of some 518 square kilometres off the south coast of Java.
    
    Separately, the barnacles found on the flaperon might indicate a more northerly crash site, but the Helmholtz Centre said its team had not been able to analyse the barnacles.
    
    While I am a huge enthusiast for what the CSIRO do in general, I again say that coming out and saying that the flaperon find confirmed the original search zone was sheer hubris. The biggest counter-argument is not the German ‘different’ drift modelling, but rather the lack of any debris originally found in the official search zone (now that we know debris did eventuate).
    
    

Understand that I have absolutely no idea what his background is or if he is qualified to comment, however as a former SAR pilot the logic and considered opinions within Graeme's posts I can very much relate. It should be remembered that the CSIRO relationship with marine SAR drift model development goes back a good many years but based on working very closely under the terms of an MoU with AMSA, not the ATSB:

Quote:In a recent media release, CSIRO’s Kirsten Lea outlines the organisation’s role in the search for the missing airliner. As it happens, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and CSIRO have a “Memorandum of Understanding”, which allows the former to request CSIRO’s help “during a maritime incident” and draw upon its technical and scientific expertise.

 

One can only surmise whether CSIRO's David Griffin did indeed take onboard Graeme's suggestions for reverse drift modelling of tracked flaperon drift buoys. However it may well now be a case of too little too late...


MTF...P2  

Stray thoughts, gathered.

Against my basic instincts, I am starting to feel a modicum of sympathy for Foley. Depends on how you look at it of course; but from purely the point of ‘just doing the job’ he must be acknowledged. You can admire his dedication, he has struggled through the unspeakable Beaker era, hardly allowed to speak, although he did do well in estimates that once. Breath of fresh air after listening to the Muppet’s obfuscations. Under Dolan, it was a strange position to be in – in charge of the search – but not able to call the shots or speak. I wonder if he was even allowed to discuss the situation with real search experts, such as AMSA? Then of course there was the two edged sword if they had ever found it, Dolan would have grabbed the glory and maybe said a dismissive thankyou to Foley for clerical assistance; but, if the search turns out to be one of the biggest cock-ups in history; poor old Foley cops one in the arse. But still he tries, everyday, to find his Grail, do his job and ignore the politics. I can respect that.

Things look a little better under Hood; Foley becomes a public figure, is allowed an opinion and even allowed to realistically discuss the problems faced and reasonable doubt; for this is no easy search, even without the white noise, it remains a big ocean.

Even so; if Hood plays a straight bat, the Foley rear end is safer now than it has been and results of the examination in Australia of the aircraft part will at least, at some point, be released. The good vibe for me is that Hood seems to be looking at tearing up the old plan and addressing a new one; or, at least considering modifications. Better late than never.

We can only hope that the break in search caused by the winter seas creates an opportunity to re-think and re-evaluate the entire situation. Anyway, I’m just speculating, thinking out loud and wistfully hoping for a ray of early sunshine to penetrate the darkness surrounding the mystery. Can funding be sourced for another search? I believe so; but only with credible evidence that the search is based on more than conjecture and pony-pooh. We shall see.

Toot toot.

Will Hoody rescind the ATsB's deal with the Devil?

To date, I have been fed not a single 'dot point' that gives me hope, or in fact trust, that any government agency is actually keen to display an open, honest, truthful and transparent approach to the MH370 debacle. However, there is room here to give Hoody a 'Gobbledock endorsed thumbs up'. Although the 'reversal of evidence' approach or concept is nothing new, the fact that Hoody is willing to publicly state that he is considering adopting this approach and dumping a few flaperons into the great deep blue sea and commencing some investigative research by tracking the components is commendable.

Now it could be another purposeful time consuming clever tactic to buy out more time while appearing proactive, just to keep the IOS and the Byron Baileys, Bingers and Iggins of the world quiet. Or it could be a relatively clever 'cheap' way to keep the investigation in the 'open status' and alive on the ATsB books? Time will tell with this, and it will likely be at least a couple more years until we find out. But I guess if anyone were to be able to redeem some faith in the ATsB it could be the Toga boy.

P2 and 'K', I'm just winding the 60 Minutes clock back for another 2 years for starters. Could you please hand me a shifter, Phillips head screwdriver, can of lube and the satellite tracking tool? Cheers

Tick tock Greg

Well the original flaperon sank and still made it to land, but that is fine fitting the bright yellow fake flaperons with bladders to keep them afloat. Plenty of things that should have floated sank. Hopefully they drop these mock flaperons from a plane, so they at least make a bit of a splash, have a chance of getting the same attention as the first lot. I doubt any air filled bladder will keep them afloat if someone decided they should be lower. But they will move, a lot faster than expected.

Having started looking at drift data, I found it amusing that at least some data sets filter out those drifters that were moving too fast. Because obviously some creature had decided to move it for reasons unknown. Any drift study that filters out such data is useless for finding MH370.

Foley's folly & the fabulous, five, flapping, flaperons -  

Given the rather bemused look on Peter Foley's face in the pic I thought it was time for an Aunty Pru caption competition.

I'll kick it off... "Where's the other 495 of them?" 

But seriously do the they expect us to believe that they have only just now come up with this idea when it was mentioned at least a year ago in the CSIRO blog after the discovery of the flaperon on Reunion Is.

Quote from David off JW blog:

Quote:David
Posted August 21, 2016 at 3:23 AM
 
@MH. “I read somewhere either here or elsewhere that the Flaperon debris if sourced from 7th arc should have arrived on Reunion and nearby islands almost an year earlier than they did.”

One assessment that arrival at about the time it did indicated it came from the arc between 32deg and 39deg is at:

http://www.marine.csiro.au/~griffin/MH370/

See 8 Sep 2015, ‘Results’. Related, note para 4, ” The flaperon finding is therefore too late as well as too far south to be consistent with a crash site north of the present sea-floor search region.”

@Ge Rijn. About the time to prepare the dummy flaperons you mentioned, suggest you go also to 8 Sep 2015, ‘Introduction’ and click on, ‘5 August news item’ (a CSIRO blog). Go to comments and you will find a suggestion by Graeme Harrison on the 5th and 7th August 2015 to release dummy flaperons with transmitters, to be done in in March 2016. So the idea is not new and in retrospect it is a shame it was not followed up earlier, if it seen to have merit now. Possibly confidence in the search suggested it was not a priority at the time.

 
That Graeme Harrison comment on the 5th of August 2015 was I believe acknowledged by Dr David Griffin:

Quote:David says
 
7th August 2015 at 11:41 am

I find this fascinating (and saddening of course on a human level) but your ‘sail effect’ tests would be very interesting and not something that I would have thought of. As for tests with flaperons, wouldn’t that need to be done at a similar season/date to the disappearance?

Reply

  
Okay so presumably this is where the idea was germinated, so why was it not possible to meet the 2nd anniversary date to drop these 5 (WTF?) flaperon replicas in the SIO??

&.. Why 5; and where do they intend to drop the 5? 

P2 comment: Feel free to contribute to the QON because it will be our intention that these and other MH370 questions will be asked in the next round of Senate Estimates due in October.  

MTF...P2

Ps Willyleaks incoming: Rumour is that the five flaperon replicas were actually produced prior to the discovery of the MH370 flaperon on Reunion island??

Caption; "Gents, cup the genitals and backs to the walls, here comes the Commissioner"!

"Safe, pithy captions for all".

Five flaperon do not a 777 make.

And, talking of ‘making’; there is absolutely no truth in the scurrilous rumour that the lonesome five were conceived, designed, discussed, approved, funded, ordered, built, tested and stored before ‘the discovery’; none whatsoever.

It’s ridiculous to assume that because ‘Slamdams’ are cheaper, plentiful, easy to manage and are tested proven;  you would use a hundred or so during the search, while the aircraft were airborne in the area. Not when the Beaker “bath tub” prototype can be deployed 2 years after the event.  Five little flaperons v the mighty Indian ocean; no wonder Foley has his hands over his brains.

Perhaps we should give Dolan a rowing boat, a survival at sea manual, two packets of biscuits, a big bottle of kool aid and a hand cranked MF transceiver to follow the famous five to their ultimate destination; he can have a nice little holiday into the bargain while solving the mystery.

Well may you ask “WTF are they thinking?”  If this is the best they can manage, the end product of all their thinking; then MH 370 is, indeed, lost for all time.

(08-22-2016, 07:24 PM)Peetwo Wrote: [ -> ]

Foley's folly & the fabulous, five, flapping, flaperons -  

Given the rather bemused look on Peter Foley's face in the pic I thought it was time for an Aunty Pru caption competition.

I'll kick it off... "Where's the other 495 of them?" 

Some recent entrants to the caption comp...

Quote:First from Nzed's Juanita:

It's very Enid Blyton. Five Go Swimming to Africa. Or do they....?

---

Next from oceankoto:

Caption compet: "Drifting flaperons tour, part 1: in the starting b(ol)locks".

Well the competition is certainly hotting up -


MTF...P2

Foley's "Flip-Flop-Flap" Flotilla

(think "slip-slop-slap")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip-Slop-Slap

Sunscreen Protection = Protection against UV(A) and UV(B)
Flotilla Protection = Protection against Unhelpful French ?

(08-23-2016, 11:19 PM)ventus45 Wrote: [ -> ]Foley's "Flip-Flop-Flap" Flotilla

(think "slip-slop-slap")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip-Slop-Slap

Sunscreen Protection = Protection against UV(A) and UV(B)
Flotilla Protection  = Protection against Unhelpful French ?

Definitely pay that one "V"  -Top of the pops so far...

Short interlude from caption comp, just caught the latest from the JACC???

DOI Update: The plot thickens -  

Quote:Drift modelling study

In July 2015 wreckage from an aircraft was found on La Réunion in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar. As La Réunion is French Territory, the wreckage was taken into custody by French judicial authorities who transported it to France where it was examined.

On 3 September 2015 French authorities confirmed that the wreckage was a wing part from a Boeing 777, known as a flaperon. Furthermore, unique identifiers on the flaperon identified it as definitely coming from MH370.

Over the last nine months there has been a range of debris found along western Indian Ocean shorelines that has been linked to MH370. The flaperon is, however, particularly important as it was the first piece of debris to be found and therefore it spent the least amount of time adrift.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has been working with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation over the past 18 months to model the drift of MH370 debris. Over the coming months a further intensive study will be undertaken.

Phase one involves setting adrift ocean drifter buoys used in the Global Drifter Program along with models of the flaperon which have been fitted with satellite trackers. The models will be tracked to establish the rate and direction of drift relative to the drifter buoys in open ocean conditions when subject to similar winds, currents and waves. Thirty years of real life Global Drifter Program data will then be used to model the drift of the flaperon.

On its own this information will not be able to identify the precise location of the aircraft. It is hoped, however, that when added to our existing knowledge and any future learnings a specific location of the aircraft will be able to be identified.

 
Umm...so does that mean they will be dropping Foley's fabulous, flaperon, flip-flop-flap flotilla soon? Or is it still scheduled for March 2017? Either way I still question why it has taken this long to develop this strategy, we could all now be analysing at least 5 months of drifter tracking info? 

Hmm...and that part in bold, isn't that exactly what Mike Chillit is currently doing?? - UDB!


MTF...P2

Well, well, well ...............

I never thought that the ATSB would ever agree with any of us, on anything, let alone me.

My initial thoughts on becoming aware of the existence of the "drifterons" (model flaperons) was this (posted on Jeff Wise net).  Ge Rijn thought it was a good idea, no one else did, apparently.



I must say I am surprised that the ATSB intends to adopt this strategy.



[attachment=183][attachment=184]

So, I think that what they need to do, starting as soon as possible (do not wait until March 2017), is this:-

1. Since we only have 5 drifterons (note to ATSB - you really do need a couple of dozen at least) seed them as 5 sets of "mated pairs", i.e. (a drifteron and a Global Drifter Buoy) together, as stated above, on the arc, at intervals of 5 degrees of latitude, ie, at 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 degrees south, and track them for a month.
2. During the month, the drifteron will obviously diverge from it's "spouse" GDB.
3. At the end of 30 days, "Let the drifteron drift", and go and grab it's spouse GDB, and bring it back to it's mated drifteron, and drop it in beside it again.
4. Repeat the process every month.
5. Over "x" months, we will get an actual drift track for each of the drifterons themselves, plus, hopefully, they will also be able to build up a reasonable idea of how to calibrate the existing database of GDB's.

That will give us (assuming they start in October 2016), 5 months of data to work with up to March 2017.

By that stage, the drift models of GDB's should have been calibrated well enough to have a pretty good idea of where the "actual flaperon" entered the water.

Therefore, in March 2017, drop all 5 pairs in a 5 star pattern centered on that point, with a radius of 60 nautical miles, and "observe".

A few thoughts, from an old head, for Nick-Z and associates.

The Drifteron Project obviously did not just magically "pop-up" the other day.

It had to have been conceived, reviewed, approved, and funded.
All of which takes time, lots of time.
It must have had a significant "gestation period", many months, perhaps well more than twelve of them.

The initial concept proposal was germinated in someone's head.
Whose I wonder, where and when ?
Was he or she in the ATSB, DSTG, CSIRO, ANU, Geo Sciences Aus, or elsewhere ?

Who reviewed the proposal for technical merit and / or feasibility ?

Who approved the project, where and when ?

Who funded the project ? Defence, ATSB, AMSA, CSIRO, other ?
Which "vote" did it come out of, under Finance Reg (forty something - it has been so long, was it 42) ?

Then the drifterons had to be actually designed and constructed.

Who actually designed them, where and when ?
What were the design requirements and performance parameters ?
What were the acceptance standards ?
Who determined them ?

Who actually built them, where and when ?
Who inspected, tested, and accepted them ?

When were they actually delivered to ATSB Stores, and by whom ?

What is the intended deployment time frame, location(s) and ongoing operational concept ?

How will they be deployed, by ship or by air-drop ? (Presumably by ship)

Who will deploy the Drifterons and mated GDB's ?
Defence ? Navy or RAAF ?
CSIRO ? Their own vessel, or by a "dedicated contractor", or by multiple "vessels of opportunity" ?
ATSB ? (as per CSIRO).
Other ?

Who will track, and recover, and redeploy, both the GDB's and Drifterons ?

Who will get the tracking data, and what will they do with it ?
Will the data be made public in real time ?
Will it be "free to cyberspace" ?

I "really" do want to know.

I'm guessing what will happen is Fugro Equator will leave at the end of September once 120K side scan finished, and the Chinese vessel already equipped with Pheonix equipment date 5th Feb 2016 http://m.subseaworldnews.com/#newsitem-155353 this report was one day after "publish date" on the bottom line of here https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public...AB529271FF will finish the rest. This is just a general idea based on finding of this online information.

(09-01-2016, 06:48 PM)JoeDColeman1981 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm guessing what will happen is Fugro Equator will leave at the end of September once 120K side scan finished, and the Chinese vessel already equipped with Pheonix equipment date 5th Feb 2016 http://m.subseaworldnews.com/#newsitem-155353 this report was one day after "publish date" on the bottom line of here https://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=public...AB529271FF will finish the rest. This is just a general idea based on finding of this online information.

I think your probably right Joe and according to the latest in the Oz the Phoenix equipped Dong Hai Jiu 101 has to make up for lost time due wx and mishaps anyway... : 

Quote:Chinese ship sidelined by bad luck, foul weather in MH370 search



Dong Hai Jiu 101, China’s contribution to the search for flight MH370, sits off Fremantle after its latest mishap.

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 6, 2016
  @EanHiggins
  [img=0x0]http://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]
  

A Chinese government ship hailed by Transport Minister Darren Chester as China’s contribution to the hunt for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has done little actual searching since it was deployed in February, spending far more time in Fremantle.

The Dong Hai Jiu 101 has suffered mishaps including losing its sonar imaging “tow fish” and an injured crewman, but it has often stayed outside the search zone on “weather standby” while other vessels have gone ahead with search operations in the southern Indian Ocean.

The vessel has for the moment given up rejoining the effort until weather improves, while another vessel keeps searching.

The Australian government organisation directing the project, the Joint Agency Coordination Centre, recently said “projected weather conditions for the next several weeks preclude the effective deployment of search equipment from this vessel. Dong Hai Jiu 101 will remain at anchor off Fremantle until weather conditions improve.”

JACC chief co-ordinator Judith Zielke would not reveal how many days the Chinese vessel had spent conducting actual underwater search operations.

But an analysis of weekly operational bulletins issued by the JACC indicate that in the more than six months since it joined the search for the missing airliner, the Dong Hai Jiu 101 had its tow fish in the water looking for MH370 for only 17 to 30 days.

Ms Zielke denied the minimal practical contribution of the Dong Hai Jiu 101 is the major factor in the failure of the Australian-led effort to complete the search of the 120,000 sq km target area around June or July as had been expected earlier this year.

The task of searching the remaining less than 10,000 sq km of the designated area is now not expected to be completed until December. “Poor weather has been the primary cause of delays in the search,” Ms Zielke said.

The Dutch underwater survey consortium Fugro, which has the main contract for the $180 million project, has already sent one of its two ships to another assignment, leaving a single Fugro vessel scouring the sea floor with underwater sonar imaging equipment.

MH370 disappeared on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014, with 239 people on board. Automatic satellite tracking data indicated that after a zigzag course back over Malaysia to the Andaman Sea, it turned south and ended up in the southern Indian Ocean.

The Dong Hai Jiu 101’s involvement is part of China’s $20 million contribution to the underwater search, with Australia providing $60 million and Malaysia committed to fund the rest. The severe conditions have proved difficult for all vessels involved, but the Dong Hai Jiu 101 has often not searched when Fugro vessels were doing so.

Ms Zielke said: “The equipment on Dong Hai Jiu 101 is different to that used on the Fugro vessels. Decisions relating to the launch and recovery of the equipment are based on weather conditions as assessed by the mission crew. Ensuring the safety of crew and minimising the risk of damage to the equipment is paramount.”

The JACC weekly bulletin of March 2 said the Chinese vessel “arrived in the search area on February 25 and commenced search operations.” The March 9 bulletin said the Chinese vessel had “suspended underwater search operations due to poor weather conditions”. The March 16 bulletin reported a resumption, but on March 23, disaster struck.

“Dong Hai Jiu 101 is en route to Fremantle after an incident on the evening of 21 March in which the failure of a tow cable connector resulted in the loss of the SLH-ProSAS-60 tow fish,” the bulletin said.

Then came three weeks back in Fremantle where “Phoenix International’s Remora III remote operated vehicle (ROV) is being mobilised” for a bid to try to recover the tow fish, which was achieved. But then it was back to Fremantle so the tow fish could be “checked and tested”.

The trouble is with Dong's track record, would the ATSB be happy to throw all their eggs in one basket after September 30th?

Time will tell I guess...
MTF...P2

C'mon Hoody, you're guiding the Dong mate, what's the next plan of attack, will you put the Dong inside the perimeter or will you put it outside the barrier?
From where we sit your Dong isn't doing much work, not much use in that old chap.

"Inactive Dongs for all"

Worth a read parts 1 and 2.
http://www.spatialsource.com.au/gis-data...ths-part-1
http://www.spatialsource.com.au/gis-data...ths-part-2

P7 edit -(Good catch "V" enjoyed them both. Cheers.)