Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Printable Version

+- AuntyPru Forum (https://auntypru.com/forum)
+-- Forum: MH 370 -Media unscrambled. (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=53)
+--- Forum: P2 - Wheat from Chaff. (https://auntypru.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=54)
+--- Thread: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 (/showthread.php?tid=24)

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 02-04-2016

MH370 tender AQONs 112 - 114

Finally, ahead of next week's scheduled Estimates hearings, the ATSB AQONs are out - see HERE.

The three MH370 AQON were combined & answered comprehensively over 3 pages & four attachments (go to link above for attachments):






MTF...P2

 

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 02-05-2016

(02-03-2016, 10:08 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  DPM Truss this time corrects the record?

In a letter to the Oz yesterday Truss wrote..

"...Letter to the Editor - The Australian - Correcting MH 370 claims by Byron Bailey

2nd February, 2016 

I write to correct inaccurate commentary by Captain Byron Bailey "Ignoring ‘overwhelming evidence’ is hindering search for MH 370", 29/1) .

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has consistently stated analysis of the known facts most closely matches a scenario in which there was no pilot intervention in the latter stages of the flight, but it has never stated hypoxia was the cause of that circumstance. Assertions that the aircraft was hijacked by the aircraft captain are speculation.

Mr Bailey states Bayesian mathematical modelling was used to project the most likely flight path of the Boeing 777 after fuel exhaustion and flame out, and that the inputs of a conscious pilot would invalidate the modelling. This is totally incorrect.

The Defence Science and Technology Group’s Bayesian analysis modelled the flight from the last radar return up to the point of probable fuel exhaustion, not to the end of the flight. The modelling is valid regardless of whether there were any control inputs during this time.

Mr Bailey misrepresents the ATSB, saying it stated that “the right engine flamed out and in each test case the aircraft then turned left”. The ATSB has said no such thing. Testing conducted in the Boeing engineering simulator showed the aircraft began turning to the left only after both engines had flamed out.

Mr Bailey recommends engaging the US National Transportation Safety Board. In fact, it has been part of the Search Strategy Working Group since May 2014..."

If nothing else BB has certainly grabbed the Minister's attention, it took a while but maybe the Truss minders have finally worked out that nobody believes a word that comes out of his Chief Commissioner's office or mouth - one can only hope

Byron Bailey's response to the DPM's letter:

Quote:MH370 final phase: Warren Truss misses point in ATSB report

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• February 5, 2016 12:00AM
  

Last week in these pages I analysed the failures of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in its ­assumptions about the final phase of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss wrote to this newspaper taking issue with this.
Mr Truss said: “The Defence Science and Technology Group’s Bayesian analysis modelled the flight from the last radar return up to the point of probable fuel exhaustion, not the end of the flight.

“The modelling is valid regardless of whether or not there were any control inputs during this time.”

The Deputy Prime Minister continued: “Mr Bailey misrepresents the ATSB, saying it stated that ‘the right engine flamed out and in each test case the aircraft then turned left’ … The ATSB has said no such thing.”

“Testing … showed the aircraft began turning to the left only after both engines had flamed out.” In response, I note that Page 13 of the ATSB report published in December reads: “The aircraft behaviour after the flame-out(s) was tested … In each test case, the aircraft began turning to the left and remained in a banked turn.”

I cannot agree on a turn to the left after second engine flame-out, because this would result in autopilot disconnect and violent left roll into a spiral dive to hit the sea at 1200km/h.

A conscious pilot would most likely descend with enough fuel remaining to carry out a controlled ditching and this would invalidate the ATSB modelling.

And, contrary to what Mr Truss suggests, fuel exhaustion is end of flight — no autopilot and dead pilot equals big crash and lots of debris.

Byron Bailey, a former RAAF fighter pilot and trainer, was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years. He has flown the same model Boeing 777 passenger jet as MH370.

I really find this tit-for-tat (in the Bailey/Oz v ATSB/Truss ongoing saga) quite bizarre, after all BB is really saying nothing more than he repeatedly said in the online version of Newscorp (i.e. news.com.au) & the QLD Daily Telegraph, dating back over a year ago. Why is it that Truss & Mr Mimi are only just taking issue with his opinions & theories on MH370??

Anyway here is the inevitable, "come in spinner", response from Mick & Andy:

Quote:Mick

50 minutes ago

Does anyone at The Australian bother fact-checking Captain Bailey's work before it's published?  Another week, another error of fact from Captain Bailey;  this week's clanger - "fuel exhaustion is end of flight". 

There is ample historical evidence to prove that the Captain is wrong on this point.  To list just two very notable examples:

- Air Transat Flight 236, was an Airbus A330 flying from Toronto, Canada to Lisbon, Portugal on 24 August 2001 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic Ocean due to a fuel leak; after fuel exhaustion at around 35,000 feet it flew on for about 15 minutes, covering some 120 kilometres before making an emergency landing in the Azores.
 
- Air Canada Flight 143, the "Gimli Glider", was a Boeing 767 flying from Montreal to Edmonton, Canada on 23 July 1983 that ran out of fuel due to a miscalculation of the amount of fuel carried; after fuel exhaustion at around 35,000 feet it also flew on for about 15 minutes, covering some 120 kilometres before making an emergency landing at an auto racing track that was previously Royal Canadian Air Force Station Gimli, Manitoba. 

And should the Captain wish to argue that in both those examples, flight after fuel exhaustion was prolonged by the actions of flight crew, there is Helios Airways Flight 522 (a flight that the Captain himself has referenced on at least two occasions).

- Helios Airways Flight 522 was a Boeing 737 flying from Larnaca, Cyprus to Athens, Greece on 14 August 2005 that ran out of fuel after the flight crew were incapacitated/killed by hypoxia; after fuel exhaustion at around 34,000 feet it flew on, unpowered and uncontrolled, for about 4 minutes covering some 40 kilometres before crashing north of Marathon and Varnavas, Greece. 

So, contrary to Captain Bailey's assertion, fuel exhaustion is not end of flight. 

Mick
3 hours ago

Captain Bailey seems to be the one missing the point, once again.   Warren Truss took exception with the fabricated "quote" that Captain Bailey attributed to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in his article last week, specifically:

"First, the ATSB [Australian Transport Safety Bureau ] states “the right engine flamed out and in each test case the aircraft then turned left and remained in a banked turn”.
Let's be clear on one thing - Warren Truss is 100% correct when he says, "The ATSB has said no such thing ..." 

Captain Bailey made the "quote" up by cutting and pasting a heading from a diagram with a sentence that appeared two pages and 550-odd words later in the ATSB report "MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas" dated 3 December 2015 (downloadable from the ATSB website).   On page 11 of the report, in a section of the report entitled "End-of-flight", there is a colour-coded timeline diagram headed "Figure 6: End of flight sequence."   The first point in the timeline is named "Right engine flamed-out".
Two pages later, on page 13 is the "Search area width" section of the report.   The second sub-section is entitled "Simulator data"; the second sentence reads "In each test case, the aircraft began turning to the left and remained in a banked turn."

Captain Bailey has fabricated the statement he attributes to the ATSB by:
- adding a word of his own, the definitive article "The";
- inserting the phrase "Right engine flamed-out" (taken from the diagram on page 11);
- adding another word of his own, the conjunction "and"; 
- inserting the sentence "In each test case, the aircraft began turning to the left and remained in a banked turn."  (taken from page 13); and
- changing initial capitalisations to give the appearance of a coherent, complete and contiguous sentence.

For fear of stating the blindingly obvious, Captain Bailey made that sentence up and passed it off to us readers as a statement from the ATSB.   And as if that deceptive conduct was not enough the Captain then proceeded to point out to readers how stupid the ATSB were,quipping;

"That’s strange because, as any experienced multi-­engine pilot knows, if the right engine stops, the aircraft will want to turn right because of simple moment of forces."

Sadly, this week the Captain, and The Australian for that matter, seem happy enough to gloss over last week's deception - no correction, no apology. 


Andrew
40 minutes ago

@Mick It's interesting how Byron's story keeps changing.   Now he says "I cannot agree on a turn to the left after second engine flame-out, because this would result in autopilot disconnect and violent left roll into a spiral dive to hit the sea at 1200km/h". 

I have access to a 777 simulator too Byron.  Some colleagues and I had some spare time after a training session earlier this week and we tested the ATSB's scenario to see what would happen. Guess what?  The simulator behaved exactly the way the ATSB described in its report.  In other words, the aircraft entered a left hand turn that developed into a spiral dive with increasing speed and rate of descent.  It was by no means "violent", but it was very obvious that the aircraft would have crashed into the sea at high speed and a high rate of descent.

 
Funny how the BB articles seem to have a reverse-trolling effect when it comes to Mick & Andy?? Guys if you feel that strongly about it write to the Editor and complain or contradict the BB missive in print like Truss did - otherwise harden the fuck up, you're being played


MTF..P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - ventus45 - 02-05-2016

It is getting interesting though.
It is getting a bit like two sides in a court battle.
Prosecution's "expert" says this, Defence's "expert" says that.
Judge rolls his eyes.
Jury sinks into discombobulation.
Is that not the intent ?
Najib must be smiling.

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 02-06-2016

(02-05-2016, 01:49 PM)ventus45 Wrote:  It is getting interesting though.
It is getting a bit like two sides in a court battle.
Prosecution's "expert" says this, Defence's "expert" says that.
Judge rolls his eyes.
Jury sinks into discombobulation.
Is that not the intent ?
Najib must be smiling.

Yes indeed "V" the whole slanging match thing is creating the perfect smokescreen...

Here's Mick again in reply to Andy (above):

Quote:Mick

23 hours ago

@Andrew   The one thing that doesn't change is Captain Bailey's contention that:
a.   because no floating debris was found there must not have been any floating debris,  and
b.   because there was no floating debris MH370 must have made a controlled ditching. 
In keeping with the adage that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the fact that no floating debris was found does not mean that there was no floating debris.  The fact that MH370's flaperon washed up on Reunion Island proves that there was floating debris that was not spotted during the initial search. 

We need to remember that 10 days elapsed between when MH370 went into the Southern Indian Ocean and when we started looking for it there.  A lot can happen to floating debris in 10 days; some of it will sink, all of it will drift.   Had we have known the precise point of impact (and we didn't), factoring in modest currents and surface winds and an 80% certainty with regards to direction of drift, after 10 days the area that floating debris may have been scattered across is over 1,000,000 square kilometres.   That's a search zone equivalent to New South Wales and Victoria combined.  If we assume that there were 1,000 pieces of  debris still floating after 10 days (an improbably high number), that averages out to one piece of debris every 1,000 square kilometres. 
And don't forget that the search zone increases in size every day the search goes on; after just one day it has increased by over 20% to well over 1.2 million square kilometres, the next day it is over 1.5 million square kilometres, the day after it is nearly 1.8 million square kilometres, after four days the search zone has almost doubled in size, and after just one week it has tripled in size to about half the area of continental Australia.

Also of interest Kenyon has forwarded to my attention his latest update to his - MH370 Flaperon Failure Analysis:

Quote:Questions & Issues Generated from Analysis:


• An explanation for the four (4) holes on outboard side needs to be identified.

• An explanation of how the ID Tag separated from the Flaperon is needed.

(Exposure to Skydrol and sea water do not appear to be plausible reasons for ID Tag

separating from the Flaperon).

• An explanation for the ‘splattering’ needs to be identified.

• Why are the official investigators silent on releasing preliminary reports on their

Flaperon analysis?

• Could MH370 (excluding final descent scenarios such as spiral dives etc.) have been

subject to abnormal stresses and forces after 17:19:30 UTC due to pushing the

aircraft beyond its normal operating envelope? Note: The combination of limited

and questionable radar data, BTO, and BFO suggest that the aircraft was not likely

subject to such overstresses prior to final descent. R2.0

• Was MH370 damaged in some undefined manner after 17:19:30 UTC as to cause

oscillation or vibration of the right-side wing and or flutter of the right-side

Flaperon? R2.0
• Could the Flaperon have separated from MH370 after nearing equator but prior


to final descent?

• How would fuel exhaustion during final descent impact the Flaperon hydraulic

system and the tendency to induce flutter of the Flaperons? Note: Boeing

documentation indicates that when the Flaperon PCU’s are in the bypass mode the

Flaperons are free to move and can experience flutter. [7]

• How does the loss of right Flaperon impact the flight of a piloted Boeing 777?

How does the loss impact an unpiloted (Auto Pilot) Boeing 777? Note: The author

is not a pilot, however recent communications with more qualified people offer the

following preliminary thoughts on flight without the right-side Flaperon. Author

summarizes and paraphrases said communications as follows:

For both piloted and unpiloted cases, it could continue flight because the Boeing

777 Flaperon provides relatively small portion of the total wing area. In the

cruise phase of flight the Flaperon is used as part of roll control. The outboard

ailerons are locked out, some of the spoiler panels augment roll & the left-side

Flaperon would still be effective. Whether piloted or autopilot, more control

surface input would be made to demand the desired bank angle/roll. As long as

the remaining left Flaperon was not deployed in flap mode, thus causing

asymmetric lift and drag, then the plane could be flown with almost no noticeable

effect. However, if the Flaperon departed the wing prior to the final descent

damage may have been caused to the two PCUs & possibly the hydraulic systems

causing additional flight issues. R2.0

Note: Caution should be used when examining photos since evidence of tampering with the Flaperon is evident.

MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - LabratSR - 02-06-2016

Greets everyone!

LabratSR from Twitter here. Just stopping by to say hi and thank you guys for the great work you are doing.

I have been particularly transfixed by the AQON posted above. The selection of Fugro was always a puzzle to me, however, I am certainly no expert in such things.

I sent the AQON to a guy (thommo101) that rarely posts on Reddit but is a sonar and sub sea systems guy that even worked on a quote for a company that planned on bidding for the search contract.

He posted his comments in this thread.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MH370/comments/44dijj/the_decision_to_use_furgo/


"Whilst I'm not an expert at sonar imaging, reading through the the tender response to the shortlisted tenderers (PDF page 55 on) it all makes sense.

The Svitzer Salvage proposal has a few negatives, use of low frequency SSS (unsure how they could meet resolution requirements when proposing use of large swaths), and the chosen vessel types which would be slow to transit and noisy.

The Phoenix tender looks pretty good, but synthetic aperture sonars are not yet as trusted due to their increased complexity and reliance on accurate inertial reference units. When they work, they work well. When they don't...

Fugro, well, they have some very nice ships dedicated to this type of work, which were available (also a plus for the tender). Using conventional proven sensors and survey techniques. I understand why they were picked. I'm pretty sure that James Fisher (who contacted us early on in the tender process for advice) ended up not bidding because they thought Fugro would be a shoe-in."


Further, I found this quote from the AQON to be on point and interesting.

"The vehicles (both deep tow and autonomous underwater vehicle or AUV) currently used in the search by Fugro Survey Pty Ltd (Fugro) use an independent sonar instrument to cover the nadir area (a multi-beam echo sounder) whereas other systems offered in the tender rely on a high proportion of overlap between the adjacent search lines to cover the nadir area. Similarly, more accurate positioning of the vehicle requires less overlap at the edge of the sonar swath to ensure complete coverage between search lines. The Fugro search vehicles are positioned using a combination of instruments on the surface vessel and underwater vehicle. An inertial navigation system in the search vehicle provides primary positioning which is corrected to an accuracy of around 50 metres using a very long range ultra-short baseline (USBL) acoustic positioning system to provide a very accurate position solution even in the deep waters of the search area.

While most of the other deep tow systems offered in the tender were also equipped with USBL systems, the ultra-deep water in the search area, where the deep tow vehicle may be up to 9 km behind the search vessel, is beyond the effective range of most of these systems. The effectiveness of any USBL system is also compromised when it is mounted on an acoustically noisy vessel. The Fugro vessels, which are also used for hydrographic survey work, are designed and built to be acoustically quiet and therefore the USBL positioning systems have been found to be very reliable and accurate."

That's it for now,

LabratSR

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - P7_TOM - 02-06-2016

Welcome LabRat and a Choc Frog for a good first post and for signing on. Aunt Pru always happy welcome sensible discussion.

Cheers

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - LabratSR - 02-07-2016

Thanks for the welcome Tom!

If anyone is going to be in Canberra on the 16th, a nice video of this would be great ;-)

http://rses.anu.edu.au/news-events/seabed-environments-remote-southeastern-indian-ocean-search-area-malaysian-airlines

Also, the full video of the Paul Kennedy talk that Fugro had taken down is still available for download here. 1.13GB

https://www.adrive.com/public/Ff4uUB/atsb1.mp4

Labrat

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Kenyon - 02-07-2016

Thanks Peetwo, the link did not work for me, maybe it's my browser. The revised Flaperon Failure Analysis can be found on Duncan Steel's website: http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2209

Any constructive criticism or valued feedback is welcomed.  

Rest assured, many dedicated people (non-officials) are genuinely trying to help find MH370. No one I know has expressed giving up the public investigation until MH370 and passengers are recovered.  Lets all just keep chipping away for more facts to be revealed. 
Cheers, Tom

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 02-07-2016

(02-06-2016, 01:35 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  

(02-05-2016, 01:49 PM)ventus45 Wrote:  It is getting interesting though.
It is getting a bit like two sides in a court battle.
Prosecution's "expert" says this, Defence's "expert" says that.
Judge rolls his eyes.
Jury sinks into discombobulation.
Is that not the intent ?
Najib must be smiling.

Yes indeed "V" the whole slanging match thing is creating the perfect smokescreen...

Here's Mick again in reply to Andy (above):

Quote:Mick

23 hours ago

@Andrew   The one thing that doesn't change is Captain Bailey's contention that:
a.   because no floating debris was found there must not have been any floating debris,  and
b.   because there was no floating debris MH370 must have made a controlled ditching. 
In keeping with the adage that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the fact that no floating debris was found does not mean that there was no floating debris.  The fact that MH370's flaperon washed up on Reunion Island proves that there was floating debris that was not spotted during the initial search. 

We need to remember that 10 days elapsed between when MH370 went into the Southern Indian Ocean and when we started looking for it there.  A lot can happen to floating debris in 10 days; some of it will sink, all of it will drift.   Had we have known the precise point of impact (and we didn't), factoring in modest currents and surface winds and an 80% certainty with regards to direction of drift, after 10 days the area that floating debris may have been scattered across is over 1,000,000 square kilometres.   That's a search zone equivalent to New South Wales and Victoria combined.  If we assume that there were 1,000 pieces of  debris still floating after 10 days (an improbably high number), that averages out to one piece of debris every 1,000 square kilometres. 
And don't forget that the search zone increases in size every day the search goes on; after just one day it has increased by over 20% to well over 1.2 million square kilometres, the next day it is over 1.5 million square kilometres, the day after it is nearly 1.8 million square kilometres, after four days the search zone has almost doubled in size, and after just one week it has tripled in size to about half the area of continental Australia.

Also of interest Kenyon has forwarded to my attention his latest update to his - MH370 Flaperon Failure Analysis:

Quote:Questions & Issues Generated from Analysis:


• An explanation for the four (4) holes on outboard side needs to be identified.

• An explanation of how the ID Tag separated from the Flaperon is needed.

(Exposure to Skydrol and sea water do not appear to be plausible reasons for ID Tag

separating from the Flaperon).

• An explanation for the ‘splattering’ needs to be identified.

• Why are the official investigators silent on releasing preliminary reports on their

Flaperon analysis?

• Could MH370 (excluding final descent scenarios such as spiral dives etc.) have been

subject to abnormal stresses and forces after 17:19:30 UTC due to pushing the

aircraft beyond its normal operating envelope? Note: The combination of limited

and questionable radar data, BTO, and BFO suggest that the aircraft was not likely

subject to such overstresses prior to final descent. R2.0

• Was MH370 damaged in some undefined manner after 17:19:30 UTC as to cause

oscillation or vibration of the right-side wing and or flutter of the right-side

Flaperon? R2.0
• Could the Flaperon have separated from MH370 after nearing equator but prior


to final descent?

• How would fuel exhaustion during final descent impact the Flaperon hydraulic

system and the tendency to induce flutter of the Flaperons? Note: Boeing

documentation indicates that when the Flaperon PCU’s are in the bypass mode the

Flaperons are free to move and can experience flutter. [7]

• How does the loss of right Flaperon impact the flight of a piloted Boeing 777?

How does the loss impact an unpiloted (Auto Pilot) Boeing 777? Note: The author

is not a pilot, however recent communications with more qualified people offer the

following preliminary thoughts on flight without the right-side Flaperon. Author

summarizes and paraphrases said communications as follows:

For both piloted and unpiloted cases, it could continue flight because the Boeing

777 Flaperon provides relatively small portion of the total wing area. In the

cruise phase of flight the Flaperon is used as part of roll control. The outboard

ailerons are locked out, some of the spoiler panels augment roll & the left-side

Flaperon would still be effective. Whether piloted or autopilot, more control

surface input would be made to demand the desired bank angle/roll. As long as

the remaining left Flaperon was not deployed in flap mode, thus causing

asymmetric lift and drag, then the plane could be flown with almost no noticeable

effect. However, if the Flaperon departed the wing prior to the final descent

damage may have been caused to the two PCUs & possibly the hydraulic systems

causing additional flight issues. R2.0

Note: Caution should be used when examining photos since evidence of tampering with the Flaperon is evident.

Apologies Kenyon, corrected now & welcome both you & Labrat to AP..   

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - airlandseaman - 02-07-2016

(02-07-2016, 01:21 AM)Kenyon Wrote:  Thanks Peetwo, the link did not work for me, maybe it's my browser. The revised Flaperon Failure Analysis can be found on Duncan Steel's website: http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2209

Any constructive criticism or valued feedback is welcomed.  

Rest assured, many dedicated people (non-officials) are genuinely trying to help find MH370. No one I know has expressed giving up the public investigation until MH370 and passengers are recovered.  Lets all just keep chipping away for more facts to be revealed. 
Cheers, Tom

Excellent work Tom. 
My July 30, 2015 paper on this subject is here: https://goo.gl/JV3WSs

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - BugsyM - 02-07-2016

Hi, been reading this forum for awhile now and signed up.  Thanks for the sign up, but not sure if am in the right spot here, see how this one flies 

I was just reading that flaperon report from Duncan Steel site.  I must say that was a great report and very interesting findings.  Did they have access to this, or is this just details from viewing the pictures of the flaperon.  Great work nonetheless.  This has been a very strange event from the get-go and have read so many far out stories, its sometimes hard to distinguish between the BS and real stuff.  But I must say there are few little real facts to go on.  This report is the first detailed item I've read in a long time.

I truly hope that this plane can be located soon, I think if I was a family member I'd be bout losing my mind about now.  I'm a frequent flyer, but have been a little spooked as of late with recent events in the past while, so have stayed grounded.  Anyhow my first post and hope this gets through to the right place.  

Bugsy

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 02-07-2016

Another welcome to airlandseaman & Bugsy, for those interested there is another Senate Estimates hearing tomorrow (Oz time) - Additional Senate Estimates Program - Next Monday - in which there is a strong possibility (high probability) that the ATSB will again be questioned on & asked for an update on the MH370 SIO search.

The ATSB are listed for 1730-1800 EDST (0630UTC), although times are indicative only & quite often there are delays. However for those wanting to monitor proceedings refer to the 'Watch Parliament' webpage, under the listing for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

Otherwise I will endeavour to copy video across to You Tube within the following 24hrs. Hansard is also usually available a couple days past the public hearing...cheers P2  

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Kenyon - 02-07-2016

Hello BugsyM.  The Flaperon Failure Analysis is drawn from observation of public photos of MH370, Asiana 214, and other photos and videos of B777 Flaperons.  Consultation was obtained from several IG members, a retired 767 pilot, and a professional Structural Engineer (retired).  There were several 3D models made to better understand the structure of the Flaperon and how that structure would fail under multiple scenarios.  I consider the modeling to remain inside the IG's unpublished body of work for now.  Should the French, Malaysians, Boeing, and/or others remain silent on the actual analysis after the upcoming FI then likely the heat will be turned up another level and a Revision 3 can be produced.  Technical corrections, new ideas, new photos (MH370/Asiana214/other) etc. with regards to the Rev 2 report are encouraged welcomed from the team here.

Whether this analysis holds up against a future official report is irrelevant as long as a real analysis is presented in all it's details AND it aligns with what the data public has in its possession.  We need ALL of the questions at the end of the analysis answered. It so frustrating that the official analysis has not been produced, it is not a difficult task for Boeing (and other) experts that have access to the Reunion Flaperon.

The analysis was developed without an end conclusion or scenario in mind.  Essentially let the facts lead to the conclusions or items unresolved.  For a period of time I felt there may not be a conclusion from my efforts and may have to put it in the 'wasted my time basket' (a rather large basket for me on MH370).  I must say that it took me a LOT more hours and effort to come to what Mr. Exner concluded many months before.  My hat's off to Mike, I don't know how he did that! Quite impressive.
Cheers, Tom

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - LabratSR - 02-07-2016

(02-07-2016, 10:55 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Another welcome to airlandseaman & Bugsy, for those interested there is another Senate Estimates hearing tomorrow (Oz time) - Additional Senate Estimates Program - Next Monday - in which there is a strong possibility (high probability) that the ATSB will again be questioned on & asked for an update on the MH370 SIO search.

The ATSB are listed for 1730-1800 EDST (0630UTC), although times are indicative only & quite often there are delays. However for those wanting to monitor proceedings refer to the 'Watch Parliament' webpage, under the listing for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

Otherwise I will endeavour to copy video across to You Tube within the following 24hrs. Hansard is also usually available a couple days past the public hearing...cheers P2  

Really looking forward to this. In particular, the YouTube version.

LabratSR

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - LabratSR - 02-07-2016

I want to add Don Thomson's reply from AQON thread on Reddit

"[–]guardeddon 6 points 12 hours ago

I agree, technically, it does all make sense. The technical evaluation appears sound. Fugro & team Phoenix International ran a close race with ATSB.

Recall that Hishammuddin announced, on 6th July 2014 - during ATSB's bid evaluation period, that he was deploying the assets described by team Phoenix International's bid to ATSB. Normally, in bid/contracting scenarios such as this (& I have experience) no-one makes any direct, public communications concerning the parties involved. As events transpired Malaysia only contracted half of what Phoenix International proposed to ATSB. On 25th July 2014, the search fleet looked like a full 'A' team and 'B' team deployment with 4-6 ships but after Malaysia's intentions became clear ATSB-Fugro's resources were augmented from Malaysia by only 1 ProSAS towfish & ship.

More information in ATSB's progress updates would be a benefit. The structure of the contract including progress based payments may be hindering more detailed updates.

Updates should help understand exactly how much of the search area is complete including categorising the progress towards to final goal. Presumably the search area is gridded for purposes of tracking, the updates might include, for example, status of the 4 levels of analysis (staff located onboard, Perth, Canberra, USA) for each grid zone, where areas require AUV scans or revisits, and a map of the grid zone. The cumulative ship tow tracks are not an indication of seabed scan complete.

It's becoming evident that the search area, south of Broken ridge, is not side-scan sonar friendly abyssal plain. Information to that effect includes:
•Fugro/Paul Kennedy's WA-SSSI presentation;
•ATSB's volcano bathymetry profile;
•Abstract for forthcoming presentation[1].

The ATSB's job is managing the search, they need to evidence their contractors' results.

[1] ...the ocean floor to the south [of Broken Ridge] is less smooth and mainly reflects the younger spreading seafloor. Volcanism associated with the spreading formed shield-like volcanoes (up to 1500 m high and 15 km diameter) on the southern margin of Diamantina Trench. Further south, fracture zones and rift valleys, up to 900 m deep and 8 km wide, cut across spreading ridges of 200 m elevation and >70 km in length. Volcanoes and fluid escape features, including pockmarks and mud volcanoes, are also common throughout the southern area, mainly in the vicinity of fracture zones."


LabratSR

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - BugsyM - 02-07-2016

(02-07-2016, 11:57 AM)LabratSR Wrote:  

(02-07-2016, 10:55 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Another welcome to airlandseaman & Bugsy, for those interested there is another Senate Estimates hearing tomorrow (Oz time) - Additional Senate Estimates Program - Next Monday - in which there is a strong possibility (high probability) that the ATSB will again be questioned on & asked for an update on the MH370 SIO search.

The ATSB are listed for 1730-1800 EDST (0630UTC), although times are indicative only & quite often there are delays. However for those wanting to monitor proceedings refer to the 'Watch Parliament' webpage, under the listing for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

Otherwise I will endeavour to copy video across to You Tube within the following 24hrs. Hansard is also usually available a couple days past the public hearing...cheers P2  

Thanks for the welcome Peetwo, I guess I got my post through ok.  Thanks for the links, will be checking those out soon enough.  I've been reading up on the Pel Air disaster, what a crock of proverbial "chit" that one was.  Wow I am utterly shocked what has transpired there or what has not, definitely not what I would've expected from a national transportation agency.  I guess I'm used to the NTSB and how thorough they have been  during investigations of past air incidents.  A little unsettling to see that this case was like buried under the proverbial carpet....going to do some more reading.  Again thanks for the welcome, looking forward to more information on ATSB and MH370.  It appears to me as though this case has been left up to regular folks to figure out and that really has me wondering why??  But i'm not an expert at anything except being a frequent flyer    So I will read up and learn.  Kudos to all those involved in trying to solve the biggest aviation mystery in our time.

Bugsy

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 02-07-2016

(02-07-2016, 01:03 PM)BugsyM Wrote:  

(02-07-2016, 11:57 AM)LabratSR Wrote:  

(02-07-2016, 10:55 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Another welcome to airlandseaman & Bugsy, for those interested there is another Senate Estimates hearing tomorrow (Oz time) - Additional Senate Estimates Program - Next Monday - in which there is a strong possibility (high probability) that the ATSB will again be questioned on & asked for an update on the MH370 SIO search.

The ATSB are listed for 1730-1800 EDST (0630UTC), although times are indicative only & quite often there are delays. However for those wanting to monitor proceedings refer to the 'Watch Parliament' webpage, under the listing for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

Otherwise I will endeavour to copy video across to You Tube within the following 24hrs. Hansard is also usually available a couple days past the public hearing...cheers P2  

Thanks for the welcome Peetwo, I guess I got my post through ok.  Thanks for the links, will be checking those out soon enough.  I've been reading up on the Pel Air disaster, what a crock of proverbial "chit" that one was.  Wow I am utterly shocked what has transpired there or what has not, definitely not what I would've expected from a national transportation agency.  I guess I'm used to the NTSB and how thorough they have been  during investigations of past air incidents.  A little unsettling to see that this case was like buried under the proverbial carpet....going to do some more reading.  Again thanks for the welcome, looking forward to more information on ATSB and MH370.  It appears to me as though this case has been left up to regular folks to figure out and that really has me wondering why??  But i'm not an expert at anything except being a frequent flyer    So I will read up and learn.  Kudos to all those involved in trying to solve the biggest aviation mystery in our time.

Bugsy

No problem Bugsy...

Also FYI on PelAir debacle - Overdue and Obfuscated #59 :

Quote:

(02-07-2016, 09:54 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  

(02-07-2016, 01:35 PM)kharon Wrote:  Courtesy of Crikey, from Plane Talking, by Ben Sandilands – HERE - is a reminder (not that we need it) that the second version of the ATSB report into the Pel-Air ditching is, as expected, overdue.   So much we knew.

Quote:The most recent update on the re-opened investigation can be read at this link. It is import to then click on the tab marked re-opened, to get a much fuller picture of this saga

But the old question still stands, will the report be not only overdue, but obfuscated?

Before you race off to place your bets, we have some ‘interesting’ little wisp’s of rumour floating around, which may temper your ardour for the favourite.  The first tantalising wisp is that the ‘Invisible Manning’ and only the IM is allowed to tinker with the final draft.  That could just be simply to add credibility and/or deniability to the report.  Some prefer to take a slightly darker view, drawing inferences which make sense.

Another wisp of purely unsubstantiated gossip is that original IIC the and Manning have spent days and days together, discussing the whole sorry episode.  Again, it makes sense that the original IIIC and IM would spend a little time together; but, a short session would indicate lip service to a report, the more time spent, the more detail and understanding is gained.  This is a positive sign.  The IIC was treated most shabbily, sent off to the pencil sharpening cupboard and only allowed to play with small, insignificant make work pieces.  If the Manning report is to have any credibility then a full apology and re-instatement of the original, first class IIIC would lend much respect to a report which will need to withstand some intense, domestic and international scrutiny.  

Aye well, we shall see and we shall compare.  Manning is deemed to be a good egg and should the rumours be true, then the movie and the book will be worth a look see.  We shall wait until Negroni publishes and Warner Brothers call ‘Action’.

No, you bearded buffoon, it’s only over in your mind.  MH 370 was not a good place to hide, you’ve got that wrong too.  No matter, July is not too far away now then you can slither off to the pencil sharpening cupboard to learn how to do something of value.  The Merde’k approved method for where to shove a pencil and how to rotate it.  Maybe he’ll give you the pink ones to start with.  

What angel shall
Bless this unworthy husband? he cannot thrive,
Unless her prayers, whom heaven delights to hear
And loves to grant, reprieve him from the wrath
Of greatest justice.  (AWTEW)

MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - BugsyM - 02-08-2016

(02-07-2016, 10:01 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  

(02-07-2016, 01:03 PM)BugsyM Wrote:  

(02-07-2016, 11:57 AM)LabratSR Wrote:  

(02-07-2016, 10:55 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Another welcome to airlandseaman & Bugsy, for those interested there is another Senate Estimates hearing tomorrow (Oz time) - Additional Senate Estimates Program - Next Monday - in which there is a strong possibility (high probability) that the ATSB will again be questioned on & asked for an update on the MH370 SIO search.

The ATSB are listed for 1730-1800 EDST (0630UTC), although times are indicative only & quite often there are delays. However for those wanting to monitor proceedings refer to the 'Watch Parliament' webpage, under the listing for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.

Otherwise I will endeavour to copy video across to You Tube within the following 24hrs. Hansard is also usually available a couple days past the public hearing...cheers P2  

Thanks for the welcome Peetwo, I guess I got my post through ok.  Thanks for the links, will be checking those out soon enough.  I've been reading up on the Pel Air disaster, what a crock of proverbial "chit" that one was.  Wow I am utterly shocked what has transpired there or what has not, definitely not what I would've expected from a national transportation agency.  I guess I'm used to the NTSB and how thorough they have been  during investigations of past air incidents.  A little unsettling to see that this case was like buried under the proverbial carpet....going to do some more reading.  Again thanks for the welcome, looking forward to more information on ATSB and MH370.  It appears to me as though this case has been left up to regular folks to figure out and that really has me wondering why??  But i'm not an expert at anything except being a frequent flyer    So I will read up and learn.  Kudos to all those involved in trying to solve the biggest aviation mystery in our time.

Bugsy

No problem Bugsy...

Also FYI on PelAir debacle - Overdue and Obfuscated #59 :

Quote:

(02-07-2016, 09:54 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  

(02-07-2016, 01:35 PM)kharon Wrote:  Courtesy of Crikey, from Plane Talking, by Ben Sandilands – HERE - is a reminder (not that we need it) that the second version of the ATSB report into the Pel-Air ditching is, as expected, overdue.   So much we knew.

Quote:The most recent update on the re-opened investigation can be read at this link. It is import to then click on the tab marked re-opened, to get a much fuller picture of this saga

But the old question still stands, will the report be not only overdue, but obfuscated?

Before you race off to place your bets, we have some ‘interesting’ little wisp’s of rumour floating around, which may temper your ardour for the favourite.  The first tantalising wisp is that the ‘Invisible Manning’ and only the IM is allowed to tinker with the final draft.  That could just be simply to add credibility and/or deniability to the report.  Some prefer to take a slightly darker view, drawing inferences which make sense.

Another wisp of purely unsubstantiated gossip is that original IIC the and Manning have spent days and days together, discussing the whole sorry episode.  Again, it makes sense that the original IIIC and IM would spend a little time together; but, a short session would indicate lip service to a report, the more time spent, the more detail and understanding is gained.  This is a positive sign.  The IIC was treated most shabbily, sent off to the pencil sharpening cupboard and only allowed to play with small, insignificant make work pieces.  If the Manning report is to have any credibility then a full apology and re-instatement of the original, first class IIIC would lend much respect to a report which will need to withstand some intense, domestic and international scrutiny.  

Aye well, we shall see and we shall compare.  Manning is deemed to be a good egg and should the rumours be true, then the movie and the book will be worth a look see.  We shall wait until Negroni publishes and Warner Brothers call ‘Action’.

No, you bearded buffoon, it’s only over in your mind.  MH 370 was not a good place to hide, you’ve got that wrong too.  No matter, July is not too far away now then you can slither off to the pencil sharpening cupboard to learn how to do something of value.  The Merde’k approved method for where to shove a pencil and how to rotate it.  Maybe he’ll give you the pink ones to start with.  

What angel shall
Bless this unworthy husband? he cannot thrive,
Unless her prayers, whom heaven delights to hear
And loves to grant, reprieve him from the wrath
Of greatest justice.  (AWTEW)

MTF...P2

Peetwo, thx much for the links. Read up on this and watched the video.  Who did the recovery operation of the parts of aircraft and the black boxes?  I don't know my geography that well, but that norfolk island is quite far away from Australlia, had no idea.  So when was this done?  The report will be out soon, no?  Its a wonder to me how governments can obfuscate as I've seen this word many times in this forum.  That poor dear Karen was put through the proverbial ringer and she was the victim.  Holy Chit mon, if this can happen with a known what happened incident, I can see why the mh370 investigation has been a total chit show from the get go.  I see that regular people are doing the investigating which is very disturbing to me.  Appears Malaysia not want the plane found ever, governments get away with a lot of things these days, seems nobody wants to hold anyone accountable for questionable actions or non-actions.  Sad state of affairs.
Bugsy

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Kharon - 02-08-2016

Welcome Bugsy; sorry for the delay, it takes time to process ‘new’ members and that is not always available.

Quote:Bugsy – “Appears Malaysia do not want the plane found ever, governments get away with a lot of things these days, seems nobody wants to hold anyone accountable for questionable actions or non-actions.  Sad state of affairs.

It’s not (IMO)  ‘the government’ so much here that is the problem, it’s the ‘aviation safety’ business units who can do pretty much as they please, that includes ignoring Ministers, Senators and anyone else who dare challenge the mystique of Australian air safety.  The involvement with MH 370 is a classic example.  When Dolan, head of the ATSB was placed centre stage – none of us could believe it; especially when our peerless AMSA was disconnected.  To place a creature like Dolan in charge after the Senate inquiry into Pel-Air instead of sacking him speaks volumes on just how much ‘power’ is vested in these organisations and how little control government has.  When you add a lazy, whimp of a Minister who will always ‘follow’ advice into the mix; this is what you get.  

IMO removing AMSA from the ‘search’ opened the door to speculation, placing Dolan in charge placed the spotlight of doubt on the integrity of the search, this creates uncertainty.  But, there it stands.

Toot toot.

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - ventus45 - 02-08-2016

(02-07-2016, 01:17 AM)LabratSR Wrote:  If anyone is going to be in Canberra on the 16th, a nice video of this would be great ;-)

http://rses.anu.edu.au/news-events/seabed-environments-remote-southeastern-indian-ocean-search-area-malaysian-airlines

Labrat

I sent an email to Michael Short at ANU as follows.

---