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 - ventus45 - 04-05-2016

An interesting find indeed, and well done Annette.

I have a feeling this may prove the ditch rather than the dive.

The "dive" scenerio.
Considering that the toilet is behind it, a sudden deceleration during a dive impact, would certainly break the toilet from it's mountings, it moves forwards, fracturing the panel, and releasing it. But then, it, and everything else forward of it, and everything behind the toilet to the rear of the aircraft, all concertiner foreward. It, and everything else frangible, would be pulverised, as the impact sequence continued, in only a fraction of a second.
If we assume a crash velocity of around 400 knots virtually vertically, that is about 670 feet per second. The whole of the aircraft, from nose radome to tailcone would enter the water in less than one third of one second.
The dynamics of that, are violent in the extreme.
In short, I can not see any way that this panel could survive such a violent impact sequence in the condition that we see it.

On the other hand:-

The "ditch" scenario.
Considering that the toilet is behind it, a significant deceleration (say around 10 "g" horizonta (fore-aft) during a "diching") could plausibly break the toilet from it's mountings, it moves forwards, fracturing the panel, and releasing it.
Obviously lots of other things like overhead storage bins etc might also be damaged and small pieces become loose items in the cabin, many "free agents" as it were, some floatable, some not.
Now, if the fuselage breaks open at one or more points (ruptures during a ditch sequence - which would take say between 3 and 5 seconds from "splash" to "floating stopped") many of these "frangible & floatable" items may find their way outside before the whole thing sinks.
Any honeycomb core items that remained inside would be crushed by pressure as the sinking proceeded, and thus become non-floatable, so even if they somehow later escaped the fuselage during the trip to the bottom, they would also go to the bottom.

So, the likelyhood of any honeycomb panel "getting outside" in a "floatable condition" is very low, because it would have to "get out quickly", before the aircraft sunk too far, perhaps only 40, 50, 60 feet max, before it was "crushed".
The only way it could do that, in the short time available, would be via a breach in the hull very close by.

Now, this panel is next to the door. This raises some interesting possible sequences.
(1) The door "springs open" due to door frame distortion = very unlikely.
(2) Fuselage side ruptures adjacent to the "very strong" door frame itself = plausible = likely.
(3) Door is deliberately opened by a person = given what we think we know, highly unlikely, but not implausible.

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - ventus45 - 04-06-2016

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 04-07-2016

Update from Ben :

Quote:Twitterverse finds more MH370 interior shots

Ben Sandilands | Apr 07, 2016 8:14AM |


One of the additional photos of the Mauritius find

Brigitte Lanteri@bambou2012 has found and tweeted some additional photos of what most clearly appears to be a fragment from inside the cabin of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

This follows the detective work of Twitter user Annette@aussie500 in trawling through promotional cabin photos of one of the airlines 777-200ERs until she found a fit for the shape of the object found on Rodrigues Island Wednesday week ago.


A broken attachment point on the interior panel

Some users of Twitter are having a problem where once a particular tweet has been displayed on their screen, it can never be found again if the browser moves on to another site before returning to the timeline display.

The images show that the object is partially colonised by goose barnacles.


Further barnacle growths in fragment honeycomb

Last week an IG Independent Group paper put together by scientist Duncan Steel offered an explanation as to why some of the MH370 fragments found to date are clean of significant marine fouling, while this object and the wing flaperon recovered from La Réunion are barnacle encrusted

MTF..P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 04-12-2016

(03-27-2016, 01:08 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Despite the Chillit comment,..

"..But I have the distinct impression David and his work have been heavily influenced by the internal national politics of this search: possibly by the Abbott administration early on, but certainly now by the Turnbull administration. Mr. Turnbull seems determined to prove ATSB has been right about something all along, even if it has been mostly wrong about everything..."

..I would argue this 'passing strange' disparity with popular opinion & empirical evidence is nothing new for the Infrastructure & Transport Ministry and it's agencies.
You only need look at the Civil Aviation Act regulatory reform program, where the bureaucracy has been lording the 'mystique of aviation safety' over governments (of both persuasions) and industry for 30+ years and at a cost of $300 + million (& counting) for little to no benefit, except possibly the decimation of a vital industry..
Perhaps post #56 from the NX thread will help explain... 
 
...It could be that the Turnbull government and it's agencies are privy to some vital cog of information that reinforces their belief that the ATSB SIO search priority area, is indeed correct; or it could be that they are passed the PNR, where to withdraw now is no longer an acceptable alternative - who knows? Still it will be fascinating to see how the government directs the narrative and extricates itself between now and the SIO search conclusion...  

The DOI - Part III

From Jeff Wise blog piece - The Rodrigues Debris Puzzle

Quote:Brock McEwen

Posted April 6, 2016 at 12:43 PM

@Bobby: your argument is perfectly valid – it just still seems highly unlikely: yet another instance in which the true path is on one heading, but some deviant flight dynamic (in this case, a material altitude change at the moment of the ping, despite no evidence supporting material altitude change in the hour before, or the 4.5 hours after) happens to be present, which embeds into the data the impression of a very different path. Occam’s razor says we should search for more rational explanations – such as that the plane suffered a fate some government wants to hush up. Or that it hit at the still unsearched 84°S, like you used to recommend with high confidence (and with my support – though always conditioned on ISAT data authenticity, and before Oz shores came up empty).

To which Paul Smithson replied:

Quote:Paul Smithson

Posted April 6, 2016 at 1:19 PM

@Brock. I agree that the fragments point towards a high energy impact – in which case there should also have been plenty of debris. If the BTO data “might” be wrong (for reasons unclear) then it seems to me that we have a much better candidate end point. Namely the ONLY place where not one, but 6 separate satellites picked detected a debris field – including multiple objects >10m in size. This locations matches with considerable precision the end point of a ghost flight arising from immediate turnback from IGARI towards KL. IMHO this is by far the best candidate for flight end point and its only major problem is mismatch with the BTO range. If we are going to question BTO, then go to 44S, 84E. For those who haven’t read the paper describing the flight path modelling, the pdf can be downloaded at http://www.findMH370.com

And before you mention drift feasibility, I think its worth pointing out that CSIRO reverse drift from Reunion does indeed point to more N locations as most likely origin. It also indicates DSTG/IG area as a low probability origin. But you will also see that there are 6 “virtual tracks” that originated at the area that I am proposing. In other words, there is another route to Reunion “around the outside” (drifts closer to W coast of Oz before going west across the SIO gyre.

Having said this, a crash at 44-45S would likely produce debris finds in S Australia (not West coast), which nobody appears to be looking for…

&..

Paul Smithson

Posted April 6, 2016 at 1:30 PM


edit – should have checked before hitting “post”…

Estimated *origin* of the 100s of objects detected by satellite is 44S, 88E (not 84, as mis-typed above).

By the time they were detected, 8 – 16 days after disappearance, these objects were spread over an area of ocean 44-46S, 89-91E.

Further work that I have been doing on BTO error patterns indicates a very high correlation (but with altered coefficient for reasons that I cannot fathom) for a path that ends about 60NM to the SE of my estimate of debris origin, at position 45S, 89.5E.

This end point corresponds with a diversion to KL initiated immediately at IGARI waypoint

Before we go onto the response from Brock to Paul's posts here is a Youtube re-hash on the ATSB/CSIRO propaganda (from 8 months ago) that they say proved that it was possible that the MH370 flaperon came from their defined SIO priority search area :


Hmm..did anyone else notice how none of that drift model depiction, from the ATSB SIO search priority area, went anywhere near the Mozambique Channel and also the chances of debris hitting the shore in Mossel Beach in South Africa seemed improbably remote??

Anyway here is the self-appointed auditor ( ) of the MH370 search effort Brock McEwan with his excellent and IMO most common-sense response to the possible implications of the possible Rodrigues debris findings:  

Quote:Brock McEwen
Posted April 6, 2016 at 5:55 PM


@Paul: I appreciate that the satellite imagery at 44S has a strong following. I don’t dismiss it: my thesis for well over a year has been that the evidence points to a search that has not been conducted in good faith. The March 28, 2014 decision to utterly abandon (“sprint away from” might describe it better) that region would seem consistent with this thesis.

But I’m not a satellite imagery expert – and have yet to see one weigh in on this topic – so I rely on corroborating evidence.

Like the BTOs. And now the drift studies.

It is not just the BTO data/interpretation with which a 44S debris zone conflicts: the drift studies suggest debris generated that far south is an extremely poor fit to the observed surface debris results – not least of which being the seemingly empty Oz (western, southern, Tasmanian) shorelines. Unless someone scrubbed the sea surface clean, Oz should have seen LOTS of the shrapnel from such a debris field by long before now. -

So the list of conflicts is enough to keep me firmly on the fence, I’m afraid.

Instead of fighting with other theorists for your scenario, I hope you join me in my demand for accountability and transparency from search leaders who’ve thus far failed miserably to explain the many glaring gaps between search decisions they’ve taken, and what their own data can support. Through fuller disclosure, we may vindicate your faith in those images.

  
(bold above) - Here, here to that, bring it on Brock, there is way too much bullshit, spin & obfuscation from the powers to be.

The signs are ominous even the newly appointed spin-meister minister Chester is starting to show signs of withdrawing from past stated response to possible debris findings:     

Quote:24 March 2016 - ...“The analysis has concluded the debris is almost certainly from MH370,” Mr Chester said.

“That such debris has been found on the east coast of Africa is consistent with drift modelling performed by CSIRO and further affirms our search efforts in the southern Indian Ocean..."

&..

Quote:03 April 2016 - Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester today confirmed another piece of debris, found in Mauritius, will be examined in connection to the disappearance of MH370.

“The Malaysian Government is working with officials from Mauritius to seek to take custody of the debris and arrange for its examination,” Mr Chester said.

“This debris is an item of interest however until the debris has been examined by experts it is not possible to ascertain its origin.”

More than 95,000 square kilometres of the 120,000 square kilometre search zone have been completed.

“As we continue the search in the days and months ahead, we remain hopeful the aircraft will be found,” Mr Chester said.

 
Standby for the next round of DOI (Debris Of Inconvenience) findings..


MTF...P2

Ps

Quote:

Clive Irving courtesy 'The Daily Beast'...

Quote:

Olivia Harris/Reuters
[/url]
Clive Irving

THIS AIN’T CLUB MED
04.12.16 3:00 PM ET

[url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/12/why-is-the-search-for-mh370-debris-being-left-to-amateurs.html?via=desktop&source=twitter]Why Is the Search for MH370 Debris Being Left to Amateurs?

The only bits of the missing airliner have been found by tourists and part-time sleuths on beaches. Meanwhile, the $180 million underwater search is running out of time.

A little fragment of paradise named Rodrigues Island in the Indian Ocean has become part of an unfolding controversy about how vital clues to the fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 could have been discovered much sooner than they were—and whether many more are waiting to be found.

Even on the largest and most detailed maps of the Indian Ocean, Rodrigues barely shows up. It is only 41.6 square miles in area—literally the tip of an extinct volcano, part of a ridge that extends for hundreds of miles, mostly underwater.
Like many other volcanic islands, Rodrigues is encircled by a coral reef that works as a natural breakwater, creating broad and shallow lagoons between it and land, and protecting many golden beaches.

Two weeks ago two guests at a budget hotel on the southeastern coast were enjoying one of those beaches when they spotted a piece of gray metal among some flotsam. When they examined it more closely they realized that they might have found a piece of debris from Flight 370.

Although the coral reef would naturally inhibit flotsam reaching the island’s inner coast, there is a gap in the reef close to the Mourouk Ebony Hotel where the guests were staying, resulting in a small channel allowing tidal movement to the beaches.
That piece of debris is now on its way to Australia, where it will be examined by experts who have already confirmed that other pieces of debris found on beaches in the western Indian Ocean were from the Malaysian Boeing 777.

If the debris from Rodrigues does turn out to be from Flight 370 the location of the island is particularly significant. It is part of the Republic of Mauritius but lies some 450 miles east of the main island of Mauritius—and around 550 miles east of the island of La Reunion, where the first piece of Flight 370 debris, a part of the wing called a flaperon, was discovered last July.


Any debris from the airplane will have drifted on currents across the Indian Ocean from east to west, originating in the area some 1,700 miles west of the Australian coast where searchers are looking for main parts of the wreckage presumed to be laying at great depths. Rodrigues would therefore have been, in all probability, the first landmass to intercept any debris.

Computer models run to estimate the time and course taken for wreckage to cross the Indian Ocean toward Africa have allowed 500 days as a rule-of-thumb number for the duration of the crossing. The flaperon was found 509 days from the date of Flight 370’s disappearance, March 8, 2014. By that measure, debris could first have reached Rodrigues in markedly less than 500 days.

Australian experts noted that wreckage found early this year in the Mozambique Channel (a broad sea passage between the Mozambique coast and Madagascar) was found 716 days after the disaster. But, they pointed out, “it had taken possibly much less time to get there.” And it had “probably spent a significant length of time either weathering in the sun and, or, washing back and forth in the sand at this or some other location.”


In saying this, the Australians explained what seemed to be an anomaly: the metal surface of the debris from Mozambique was scrubbed clean (clean enough to read the words “NO STEP” on its edge) whereas the much larger flaperon found on La Reunion was encrusted with barnacles, gathered during its passage. This seems to confirm that the flaperon was discovered within days of washing ashore, before it could be subjected to weathering and scrubbing on a beach.

Even if the wreckage found on Rodrigues proves not to be from Flight 370 the random nature of the confirmed discoveries and the fact that many miles of shoreline in the western Indian Ocean are unpopulated suggests, as one expert told The Daily Beast: “Useful pieces of wreckage for analysis could very well be laying somewhere on a beach, undiscovered and untouched.”

David Griffin of the Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization, CSIRO, based in Australia, who worked on the computer modeling of debris drift patterns, told The Daily Beast, somewhat cryptically: “One way to think of it is this: If there were just three pieces to have landed on beaches, it’s pretty amazing that all three have been found.”

In fact, the total found so far could be five: the flaperon, two pieces in the Mozambique Channel, all confirmed as being from the Boeing 777, a fragment of a Rolls Royce engine casing found on a South African beach and the piece found on Rodrigues, both of these awaiting expert inspection in Australia.

The Daily Beast asked a spokesman for the Australian Transport Safety Board, ATSB, which leads both the underwater search and the inspection of debris, whether in view of the value of even the smallest piece of debris once that it is established that it is from Flight MH370, it is not time for a more systematic search to be made of the coastlines where the highest likelihood exists of finding debris.

He declined to reply and recommended that the question should be put to the Malaysian authorities in charge of the investigation in Kula Lumpur. This was done, but following a familiar pattern, the Malaysians did not respond to several requests for a reply.

After the discovery of the flaperon on La Reunion there was a short and perfunctory search by airplanes and helicopters of surrounding coastlines but it turned up nothing.
All of the debris has so far been found by a combination of amateur sleuthing, beachcombers and observation by people on vacation.

The ATSB has told the Daily Beast that the current undersea search will have cost as much as $180 million at its conclusion. Australia committed $60 million, China committed $20 million in assets and finance and the balance, in both assets and finance, came from Malaysia.

Experts I have spoken to argue that if only a small fraction of the money and resources devoted to the undersea search were devoted to a more systematic search of the coastlines where more debris almost certainly remains undiscovered it would surely be justified.

That said, finding the main body of the wreckage, and particularly the flight data recorders, remains by far the most important part of the search, and the only hope of ever really explaining what happened to create the greatest mystery in modern aviation history.

Of the 48, 263 square miles of the total undersea search area, 9,600 square miles remains to be searched—that is an area more or less exactly the size of Vermont. In February the ATSB said that they anticipated that the search will be completed by June.

“In the absence of credible new information leading to a specific location of the aircraft there will be no further expansion of the search area,” they said.

If—heaven forbid—the search is unsuccessful it will be a tough moment of reckoning and there will doubtless be pressure to reexamine the premise on which the search area was based.

That would also leave the floating debris as the only surviving evidence. And that, at the very least, does prove that the airplane crashed into the Indian Ocean, and did not—as some conspiracy theories proposed—get snatched by some unseen hand to be diverted to a hidden location on land.

Each piece of floating debris, no matter how small, has its own story to tell when investigators examine it. The more pieces that are discovered, the more that can be understood about, for example, how different parts of the airplane were torn away on impact with the water and, possibly, in what sequence. And, based on what has been found, there is no evidence of fire or an explosion playing a role. It is not enough, but in the absence of anything else it is better than knowing nothing.

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 04-19-2016

ATSB debris analysis: 19 April 2016

Quote:



MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - ventus45 - 04-19-2016

(04-19-2016, 02:03 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  ATSB debris analysis: 19 April 2016

A few points to consider.

 

Quote:1.
"The parts were packaged in Mozambique and South Africa respectively and delivered safe-hand to the ATSB in their original packaging, in the custody of the ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team members".

Were they indeed ?
Really ?
I seem to remember the "no step" went to Malaysia, was unpacked, photographed, and held for "some days", "waiting" for the other item to arrive, before being shipped to the ATSB.

Quote:2.
"The following is a brief summary of the outcomes from the debris examination."

Really ?
A core issue re "provinence" of the items concerns the bio-fouling.
No details of that examination are provided at all, brief or otherwise.
See below.

Quote:3.
"This debris examination summary is released with the concurrence of the Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370."

Picture Gomer Pile - just hold that thought for a moment.
"Surprise !! Surprise !!

Quote:4.
"Quarantine and marine ecology

(a)   On arrival into Australia, both parts were quarantined at the Geoscience Australia facility in Canberra.

(b)    The parts were unwrapped and examined for the presence of marine ecology and remnants of biological material.

©    Visible marine ecology was present on both parts and these items were removed and preserved.

(d)    The parts were subsequently cleaned and released from quarantine."

Re 4a.     So they SUPPOSEDLY went direct to the Geoscience Australia facility in Canberra, not to the ATSB facility in Canberra.

Re 4b.     SUPPOSEDLY done by Geoscience Australia staff, not ATSB staff (no ATSB staff would be suitably qualified).
How examined ? 
Read on.

Now we get to the interesting bit, where the scientific forensic process went off the rails.

Re 4c-(i).      Note the emphasis on visible (presumably - only to the naked eye). 
You would expect, that any bio-scientist worth his salt, let alone a forensic bio-scientist, looking for "evidence", would want much more than just the cursory "visible" examination. 
What ever happened to the use of UV and IR techniques for starters, then there is GC, and a host of "other" more advanced technologies that should have been brought to  bear on the subject items.
[EG:   Gas chromatography (GC) is a common type of chromatography used in analytical chemistry for separating and analyzing compounds that can be vaporized without decomposition.]

Re 4c-(ii).      So, Visible marine ecology was present on both parts = established fact.
But, and a big BUT, no mention of ANY effort to establish if anything else was present.
My take, a suspicious, apparently deliberate, lack of scientific rigour.
[After all, the whole purpose of sending the items to Geoscience Australia in the first place, is to convince the public that everything is being done correctly, to the highest standards, and then they do a botched job of it. Yes, very convincing indeed M'lud.]

Re 4c-(iii).      Then we have, "these items were removed and preserved."
Really ? 
They have been "preserved" ?
How about "examined" ?
Oh no M'lud, the Malaysians specifically told us not to do that M'lud.

If they are "preserved", then "how preserved ? - In a bottle of ether perhaps ?
Presumably they are "stored" ? - OR "secured" ?
[Interesting word that - secured.]
If so:-
Where ?
By whom ?
In whose custoody ?
For what purpose, present, future, or otherwise ?
OR
Have these marine ecology samples been sent back to Malaysia ?
Where are they exactly ?
In which legal jurisdiction ?
In what condition ?

Re 4d-(i).      "The parts were subsequently cleaned".................
Pardon me M'lud ?
Cleaned "how" M'lud ?
Cleaned "why" M'lud ?
Are we to assume - M'lud - that these precious items of evidence - were so mis-handled, that they were apparently just "rinsed under the tap in the lab basin, with any further possible chemical or no-visible bio-evidence conviently disolved, and washed away into the drains, and then they simply left the items to air-dry on a rack on a lab bench - overnight - perhaps - M'lud" ?
Hardly professional M'lud.
One might even suggest the possibility, of deliberately destroying potential evidence M'lud, a very serious possibility, that perhaps we should consider - M'lud.

Re 4d-(i).      ".... and released from quarantine."
Are they trying to assure us, that since the items came from Africa, that there were no traces of the Ebola virus ?
No, they couldn't give that assurance.
The virus isn't visible to the naked eye, even the public know that - M'lud - and they didn't do any other tests - now did they M'lud.

Quote:5.
Identification
Part No. 1
"The part had been repainted, which was consistent with MAB maintenance records for 9M-MRO."

Re 5.    Now that is really novel !
I seem to remember that the "MAB maintenance records for 9M-MRO" were consumed in the Avionics Workshop fire.

Quote:6.
Identification
Part No. 2
"A single fastener was retained in the part. The fastener head markings identified it as being correct for use on the stabiliser panel assembly. The markings also identified the fastener manufacturer. That manufacturer’s fasteners were not used in current production, but did match the fasteners used in assembly of the aircraft next in the production line (405) to 9M-MRO (404)"

Re 6.
About the only thing that is believable (perhaps).



Sorry for the ramble folks, but it just don't all smell rite to me.

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - ventus45 - 04-20-2016

Further to point 6.

I wonder why the ATSB did not specify the Line Number where that specific fastener was introduced, and the last Line number that it was used on. After all, Boeing would certainly know, and could have told them.

Perhaps it was all too hard.

Why ?

Possibly because there may be differences in that panel (and thus it's attachment points, and thus possibly the fasteners used) between different B-777 "models".

The production line sequence, is a mixture of different models and configurations for different airlines to meet contracted delivery schedules.

Thus, the subject fastener may not be used on all aircraft produced between Line Number X and Line Number Y. 

But putting my Logistician's hat back on (after many years) Boeing would certainly be able to say when that fastener was introduced (on Date A) and when it was last used (on Date B), and of course, which "models" it was used on. It would then be a simple matter to work out how many aircraft, indeed, which specific aircraft, were so fitted.

Obviously too hard for the ATSB though.

Then of course, look at the photos, of the marvelous condition of the "recovered" fastener, compared to the rather less than marvelous condition of the "405" fastener.

One might ask, how did the ATSB get a photograph of that fastener on the top surface of the starboard horizontal stabilizer of (405) ?


Now, that aircraft (405) was still in service in 2016. 


Where is it now ?

In any case, an examination of the Boeing B-777 Line Number Production List is interesting, might provide a clue, perhaps.

Consider Line Numbers 403, 404 and 405.

See Page 7 here, and just for fun, this.

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 04-20-2016

Fascinating stuff "V", good unpicking..   You weren't a copper in a past life??

Here is Ben's take on the ATSB debris review report, that according to "V" has more holes than a Reason model Swiss cheese...

Quote:Mozambique finds linked to MH370 by part number stencils


The Australian managed search for MH370 is now examining what looks like part of its cabin as well as an engine cowl.


Ben Sandilands
Editor of Plane Talking

One of the striking things about today’s ATSB Update No 1 on its examination of what are almost certainly pieces of wreckage from missing flight MH370 is that two of them may have been side by side on the right hand wing of the Boeing 777-200ER.

One of the fragments studied by the ATSB has been identified as a flap track fairing from the right wing of the Malaysia Airlines jet, and its report shows it as being located adjacent to the same wing’s flaperon which was retrieved from the shores of La Réunion Island last July.

The ATSB update doesn’t compare the obvious damage suffered by this fairing to that visible on the trailing edge of the flaperon, but it is likely that such comparisons might be made with a view to casting more light on force of an impact that might have smashed both adjacent components from the airframe at the same moment.

Today’s update deals only with the two parts of MH370 found 220 kilometers apart on Mozambique beaches, which had been handed over to the ATSB for examination in Canberra. The report explains how stencil part numbers used by Malaysia Airlines make it overwhelmingly likely both came from the missing jet.

The identifying stencils on Blaine Gibson’s part

The first object, now identified as consistent with being a flap tracking fairing on the right hand wing of the Boeing 777-200ER was discovered by a South African tourist, Liam Lotter on 27 December, while the second was found by self funded American MH370 sleuth, Blaine Gibson, on 27 February.

Gibson’s object appears to have been torn from a part of the jet’s horizontal stabilizers, in this case, the right hand stubby wing near the base of its tail.

The Australian safety investigator, which is managing the sea floor search for the sunk wreckage of MH370, says it also received two more recent discoveries, of fragments found in South Africa and Rodrigues Island in Mauritius, on 13 April.

It says officers from the ATSB and the Malaysian authorities are currently examining those two pieces in Canberra for details which would serve to identify them as coming from a Boeing 777, and in particular for any details which might serve to link the debris as coming from MH370.

The South African object appears to be from the engine cowling of one of the engines, as bears part of a prominent Rolls-Royce logo.

The part found on Rodrigues Island appears to be the first piece internal wreckage from MH370’s cabin, as it matches part of an internal bulkhead panel.

MH370 was on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on 8 March 2014 with 239 people on board when it disappeared as a transponder identified flight from air traffic control screens while over the Gulf of Thailand.The focus of the seafloor search is in a priority zone in the south Indian Ocean SW of Western Australia.

 
In the Ventus probing of the ATSB debris providence review report, it is worth noting a couple of relevant points in reference to Annex 13 & the State investigator's responsibility regarding the preservation of evidence.
Courtesy of aviation blog  'Wings of a Dove' .. :

Quote:Protecting evidences under Annex 13 of ICAO

by Brian DOVE • August 10, 2013 • Accident Investigation

Chapter 3 of ICAO Annex 13 relates to the “Protection of evidence, custody and removal of aircraft”. The State of Occurrence is ultimately responsible for taking all reasonable steps to protect evidence and maintain the aircraft and its contents in safe custody. If the State of Occurrence delegates part or whole of the investigation to a foreign agency, it remains that the State of Occurrence and Investigating State are bound to protect such evidence as necessary for the purposes of the investigation through mutual agreement. If the States of Registry, Operator, Design and Manufacture request that particular evidence stay undisturbed for inspection by their accredited representative, the State of Occurrence and Investigative State shall take all reasonable steps to do so, as long as it doesn’t hamper the current investigation. The aircraft and its contents should only be released from custody at the end of the investigation.

To comply with those obligations, the Investigator-In-Charge bares the responsibility of taking all reasonable measures for protecting evidence. These measures should take into account the legislation applicable in the State of Occurrence. If local legislation confers legislative powers to the Investigator-In-Charge such as protection orders, the Investigator should use such powers judiciously for the protection of evidence. Debriefing with emergency services is yet another fundamental step that the Investigator-In-Charge should take to protect evidence. The risks of displacing or destroying important evidences during the extrication of persons, removal of fatalities and the clearance of the site of any OH&S danger for the investigative team can be reduced. Records of the evidences shall be taken with all available means including photographs, videos, notes, drawings and kept in a reliable and powerful database. Securing the accident site is probably the most imperative mean of protecting evidence. The Investigator-In-Charge should ensure the security of the site until the end of the investigation with the assistance of local authorities and police officers.

References:
Protection of evidence, custody and removal of aircraft, “Chapter 3 of Annex 13, Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation”, ICAO, Ninth Edition, July 2011.

  
Q/ In regards to the above do we now define the whole of the IO region as a potential accident site, therefore the State of Occurrence and/or Investigative State is obliged to protect all possible debris and/or evidence (witness sightings/satellite phots etc) found within the IO region?- just asking -
Given the Oz aviation safety bureaucracy penchant for notifying differences (all 3000+ of them) to ICAO  - see HERE - also relevant in regards to local laws for the ATSB has to be the TSI Act 2003
Although the applicable (parallel to A13) section appears to have even more holes than the average Reason Swiss cheese model :

Quote:Division 6—Securing accident sites


44  Securing accident sites

             (1)  The Chief Commissioner may secure the perimeter of an accident site by whatever means the Chief Commissioner considers appropriate.
             (2)  A person is guilty of an offence if:
                     (a)  while the perimeter is secured, a person enters the accident site, or remains on the accident site; and
                     (b)  the person does not have the permission of the Chief Commissioner to do so.
Penalty:  10 penalty units.

             (3)  Subsection (2) does not apply if the person entered the accident site, or remained on the accident site:

                     (a)  to ensure the safety of persons, animals or property; or
                     (b)  to remove deceased persons or animals from the accident site; or
                     ©  to move a transport vehicle, or the wreckage of a transport vehicle, to a safe place; or
                     (d)  to protect the environment from significant damage or pollution.
Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.
             (4)  The Chief Commissioner must not unreasonably withhold a permission under paragraph (2)(b).

     
However Division 7 does seem to be a little clearer when it comes to the 'chain of evidence' and the preservation of evidence:

Quote:Division 7—Miscellaneous

45  Retention, testing etc. of evidential material

             (1)  This section applies to evidential material that:
                     (a)  is produced to the ATSB under section 32; or
                     (b)  is removed from premises under paragraph 36(1)(g); or
                     ©  is seized by the Chief Commissioner under this Part.
             (2)  The Chief Commissioner must provide a receipt for the material.
             (3)  The Chief Commissioner may make copies of the material.
             (4)  The Chief Commissioner may examine or test the material, even though that might result in damage or destruction of the material or a reduction in its value.
             (5)  Subject to subsection (6), the Chief Commissioner must return the material when it is no longer needed for the purposes of an investigation. However, if there is no owner or the Chief Commissioner cannot, despite making reasonable efforts, locate the owner, the Chief Commissioner may dispose of the material in such manner as the Chief Commissioner thinks appropriate.
             (6)  If a relevant body requests in writing particular evidential material for the purposes of:
                     (a)  an investigation under another law of the Commonwealth or under a law of a State or Territory; or
                     (b)  a coronial inquiry;
then the Chief Commissioner must make that material available to that body unless, in the opinion of the Chief Commissioner, making that material available would be likely to interfere with any investigation to which the material relates.
             (7)  However, the Chief Commissioner must not make evidential material available under subsection (6) to the extent that the material is, or contains, OBR information or restricted information.
Note:          Part 6 deals with the protection of OBR information and restricted information.
             (8)  In this section:

owner includes an agent of the owner.
relevant body means:
                     (a)  another Department; or
                     (b)  an agency of the Commonwealth; or
                     ©  a State or Territory Government; or
                     (d)  an agency of a State or Territory; or
                     (e)  a coroner.

46  Compensation for damage to electronic equipment

             (1)  This section applies if:
                     (a)  as a result of electronic equipment being operated as mentioned in section 36:
                              (i)  damage is caused to the equipment; or
                             (ii)  the data recorded on the equipment is damaged; or
                            (iii)  programs associated with the use of the equipment, or with the use of the data, are damaged or corrupted; and
                     (b)  the damage or corruption occurs because:
                              (i)  insufficient care was exercised in selecting the person who was to operate the equipment; or
                             (ii)  insufficient care was exercised by the person operating the equipment.
             (2)  The Commonwealth must pay the owner of the equipment, or the user of the data or programs, such reasonable compensation for the damage or corruption as the Commonwealth and the owner or user agree on.
             (3)  However, if the owner or user and the Commonwealth fail to agree, the owner or user may institute proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia for such reasonable amount of compensation as the Court determines.
             (4)  In determining the amount of compensation payable, regard is to be had to whether the occupier of the premises, or the occupier’s employees and agents, if they were available at the time, provided any appropriate warning or guidance on the operation of the equipment.
             (5)  Compensation is payable out of money appropriated by the Parliament.
             (6)  For the purposes of subsection (1):
damage, in relation to data, includes damage by erasure of data or addition of other data.

47  Self‑incrimination not an excuse

             (1)  A person is not excused from answering a question or producing evidential material in response to a requirement under this Part on the ground that the answer, or the production of the material, might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty.
             (2)  However, if the person is an individual, then:
                     (a)  the answer or the production of the material; and
                     (b)  any information or thing (including any document) obtained as a direct or indirect result of the answer or the production of the material;
are not admissible in evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings.
             (3)  Subsection (2) does not prevent an answer being admitted in evidence in criminal proceedings in respect of the falsity of the answer.
             (4)  Subsections (2) and (3) have effect despite anything else in this Act.

The trouble is, that from the PelAir cover-up debacle, it would appear that CC Dolan and some of his executive muppets have repeatedly breached parts of their Act, eg. from Ziggy on VH-NGA lifejackets: I'd be Very Interested in the Forensic Examination Report of All the possible MH370 Pieces Found.
 

Quote:..Trouble is...as we know. Me, personally. 


Asked the ATSB to Forensically test Life-Vests (3) that showed up in plastic red bag after being "discovered" five years later at the Norfolk,Island Police Storage. Date stamps from clearly removable ink. Looked in fine condition. Considering the duration in the water and stored in a Police Room. Not even asked for by the ATSB.


Can't trust any person within this crooked "business".


Money and Power to some, are worth more than any human life.


Rid them of Leadership...

Or the classic example of the ATSBeaker leaving the VH-NGA CVR/FDR in 40 odd metres of water off Norfolk Island for nearly six years, before being forced to finally recover them...
However the difference this time is that there is much international interest from many very credible & intelligent individuals quietly watching, listening and probing
Minister Chester & DPM Barnaby please take note - reference to a Brock McEwan PT comment ANZAC Day 2015..   

Quote:41

Brock McEwen
Posted April 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Hi Ben: we are talking about massive obfuscation in the search for evidence of a potential mass-murder, here. I think we should take our cues not from scientists OR journalists, but from DETECTIVES.



The ATSB has misled us, and misdirected the search. Repeatedly. It is time for the general public to whom they are accountable (you and your compatriots) to bring them in for further questioning. Even if they’re a patsy, intense questioning will prove very useful.

Don’t think of it as damning Eisenhower for Kennedy’s sins – think of it as grilling Dean to get to Nixon.

Well said that man..


PelAir & MH370 - "Lest we forget!" 


MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 04-20-2016

(04-20-2016, 09:49 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Fascinating stuff "V", good unpicking..   You weren't a copper in a past life??

Here is Ben's take on the ATSB debris review report, that according to "V" has more holes than a Reason model Swiss cheese...

Quote:Mozambique finds linked to MH370 by part number stencils


The Australian managed search for MH370 is now examining what looks like part of its cabin as well as an engine cowl.


Ben Sandilands
Editor of Plane Talking

One of the striking things about today’s ATSB Update No 1 on its examination of what are almost certainly pieces of wreckage from missing flight MH370 is that two of them may have been side by side on the right hand wing of the Boeing 777-200ER.

One of the fragments studied by the ATSB has been identified as a flap track fairing from the right wing of the Malaysia Airlines jet, and its report shows it as being located adjacent to the same wing’s flaperon which was retrieved from the shores of La Réunion Island last July.

The ATSB update doesn’t compare the obvious damage suffered by this fairing to that visible on the trailing edge of the flaperon, but it is likely that such comparisons might be made with a view to casting more light on force of an impact that might have smashed both adjacent components from the airframe at the same moment.

Today’s update deals only with the two parts of MH370 found 220 kilometers apart on Mozambique beaches, which had been handed over to the ATSB for examination in Canberra. The report explains how stencil part numbers used by Malaysia Airlines make it overwhelmingly likely both came from the missing jet.

The identifying stencils on Blaine Gibson’s part

The first object, now identified as consistent with being a flap tracking fairing on the right hand wing of the Boeing 777-200ER was discovered by a South African tourist, Liam Lotter on 27 December, while the second was found by self funded American MH370 sleuth, Blaine Gibson, on 27 February.

Gibson’s object appears to have been torn from a part of the jet’s horizontal stabilizers, in this case, the right hand stubby wing near the base of its tail.

The Australian safety investigator, which is managing the sea floor search for the sunk wreckage of MH370, says it also received two more recent discoveries, of fragments found in South Africa and Rodrigues Island in Mauritius, on 13 April.

It says officers from the ATSB and the Malaysian authorities are currently examining those two pieces in Canberra for details which would serve to identify them as coming from a Boeing 777, and in particular for any details which might serve to link the debris as coming from MH370.

The South African object appears to be from the engine cowling of one of the engines, as bears part of a prominent Rolls-Royce logo.

The part found on Rodrigues Island appears to be the first piece internal wreckage from MH370’s cabin, as it matches part of an internal bulkhead panel.

MH370 was on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on 8 March 2014 with 239 people on board when it disappeared as a transponder identified flight from air traffic control screens while over the Gulf of Thailand.The focus of the seafloor search is in a priority zone in the south Indian Ocean SW of Western Australia.

 
In the Ventus probing of the ATSB debris providence review report, it is worth noting a couple of relevant points in reference to Annex 13 & the State investigator's responsibility regarding the preservation of evidence.
Courtesy of aviation blog  'Wings of a Dove' .. :

Quote:Protecting evidences under Annex 13 of ICAO

by Brian DOVE • August 10, 2013 • Accident Investigation

Chapter 3 of ICAO Annex 13 relates to the “Protection of evidence, custody and removal of aircraft”. The State of Occurrence is ultimately responsible for taking all reasonable steps to protect evidence and maintain the aircraft and its contents in safe custody. If the State of Occurrence delegates part or whole of the investigation to a foreign agency, it remains that the State of Occurrence and Investigating State are bound to protect such evidence as necessary for the purposes of the investigation through mutual agreement. If the States of Registry, Operator, Design and Manufacture request that particular evidence stay undisturbed for inspection by their accredited representative, the State of Occurrence and Investigative State shall take all reasonable steps to do so, as long as it doesn’t hamper the current investigation. The aircraft and its contents should only be released from custody at the end of the investigation.

To comply with those obligations, the Investigator-In-Charge bares the responsibility of taking all reasonable measures for protecting evidence. These measures should take into account the legislation applicable in the State of Occurrence. If local legislation confers legislative powers to the Investigator-In-Charge such as protection orders, the Investigator should use such powers judiciously for the protection of evidence. Debriefing with emergency services is yet another fundamental step that the Investigator-In-Charge should take to protect evidence. The risks of displacing or destroying important evidences during the extrication of persons, removal of fatalities and the clearance of the site of any OH&S danger for the investigative team can be reduced. Records of the evidences shall be taken with all available means including photographs, videos, notes, drawings and kept in a reliable and powerful database. Securing the accident site is probably the most imperative mean of protecting evidence. The Investigator-In-Charge should ensure the security of the site until the end of the investigation with the assistance of local authorities and police officers.

References:
Protection of evidence, custody and removal of aircraft, “Chapter 3 of Annex 13, Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation”, ICAO, Ninth Edition, July 2011.

  
Q/ In regards to the above do we now define the whole of the IO region as a potential accident site, therefore the State of Occurrence and/or Investigative State is obliged to protect all possible debris and/or evidence (witness sightings/satellite phots etc) found within the IO region?- just asking -
Given the Oz aviation safety bureaucracy penchant for notifying differences (all 3000+ of them) to ICAO  - see HERE - also relevant in regards to local laws for the ATSB has to be the TSI Act 2003
Although the applicable (parallel to A13) section appears to have even more holes than the average Reason Swiss cheese model :

Quote:Division 6—Securing accident sites


44  Securing accident sites

             (1)  The Chief Commissioner may secure the perimeter of an accident site by whatever means the Chief Commissioner considers appropriate.
             (2)  A person is guilty of an offence if:
                     (a)  while the perimeter is secured, a person enters the accident site, or remains on the accident site; and
                     (b)  the person does not have the permission of the Chief Commissioner to do so.
Penalty:  10 penalty units.

             (3)  Subsection (2) does not apply if the person entered the accident site, or remained on the accident site:

                     (a)  to ensure the safety of persons, animals or property; or
                     (b)  to remove deceased persons or animals from the accident site; or
                     ©  to move a transport vehicle, or the wreckage of a transport vehicle, to a safe place; or
                     (d)  to protect the environment from significant damage or pollution.
Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.
             (4)  The Chief Commissioner must not unreasonably withhold a permission under paragraph (2)(b).

     
However Division 7 does seem to be a little clearer when it comes to the 'chain of evidence' and the preservation of evidence:

Quote:Division 7—Miscellaneous

45  Retention, testing etc. of evidential material

             (1)  This section applies to evidential material that:
                     (a)  is produced to the ATSB under section 32; or
                     (b)  is removed from premises under paragraph 36(1)(g); or
                     ©  is seized by the Chief Commissioner under this Part.
             (2)  The Chief Commissioner must provide a receipt for the material.
             (3)  The Chief Commissioner may make copies of the material.
             (4)  The Chief Commissioner may examine or test the material, even though that might result in damage or destruction of the material or a reduction in its value.
             (5)  Subject to subsection (6), the Chief Commissioner must return the material when it is no longer needed for the purposes of an investigation. However, if there is no owner or the Chief Commissioner cannot, despite making reasonable efforts, locate the owner, the Chief Commissioner may dispose of the material in such manner as the Chief Commissioner thinks appropriate.
             (6)  If a relevant body requests in writing particular evidential material for the purposes of:
                     (a)  an investigation under another law of the Commonwealth or under a law of a State or Territory; or
                     (b)  a coronial inquiry;
then the Chief Commissioner must make that material available to that body unless, in the opinion of the Chief Commissioner, making that material available would be likely to interfere with any investigation to which the material relates.
             (7)  However, the Chief Commissioner must not make evidential material available under subsection (6) to the extent that the material is, or contains, OBR information or restricted information.
Note:          Part 6 deals with the protection of OBR information and restricted information.
             (8)  In this section:

owner includes an agent of the owner.
relevant body means:
                     (a)  another Department; or
                     (b)  an agency of the Commonwealth; or
                     ©  a State or Territory Government; or
                     (d)  an agency of a State or Territory; or
                     (e)  a coroner.

46  Compensation for damage to electronic equipment

             (1)  This section applies if:
                     (a)  as a result of electronic equipment being operated as mentioned in section 36:
                              (i)  damage is caused to the equipment; or
                             (ii)  the data recorded on the equipment is damaged; or
                            (iii)  programs associated with the use of the equipment, or with the use of the data, are damaged or corrupted; and
                     (b)  the damage or corruption occurs because:
                              (i)  insufficient care was exercised in selecting the person who was to operate the equipment; or
                             (ii)  insufficient care was exercised by the person operating the equipment.
             (2)  The Commonwealth must pay the owner of the equipment, or the user of the data or programs, such reasonable compensation for the damage or corruption as the Commonwealth and the owner or user agree on.
             (3)  However, if the owner or user and the Commonwealth fail to agree, the owner or user may institute proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia for such reasonable amount of compensation as the Court determines.
             (4)  In determining the amount of compensation payable, regard is to be had to whether the occupier of the premises, or the occupier’s employees and agents, if they were available at the time, provided any appropriate warning or guidance on the operation of the equipment.
             (5)  Compensation is payable out of money appropriated by the Parliament.
             (6)  For the purposes of subsection (1):
damage, in relation to data, includes damage by erasure of data or addition of other data.

47  Self‑incrimination not an excuse

             (1)  A person is not excused from answering a question or producing evidential material in response to a requirement under this Part on the ground that the answer, or the production of the material, might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty.
             (2)  However, if the person is an individual, then:
                     (a)  the answer or the production of the material; and
                     (b)  any information or thing (including any document) obtained as a direct or indirect result of the answer or the production of the material;
are not admissible in evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings.
             (3)  Subsection (2) does not prevent an answer being admitted in evidence in criminal proceedings in respect of the falsity of the answer.
             (4)  Subsections (2) and (3) have effect despite anything else in this Act.

The trouble is, that from the PelAir cover-up debacle, it would appear that CC Dolan and some of his executive muppets have repeatedly breached parts of their Act, eg. from Ziggy on VH-NGA lifejackets: I'd be Very Interested in the Forensic Examination Report of All the possible MH370 Pieces Found.
 

Quote:..Trouble is...as we know. Me, personally. 


Asked the ATSB to Forensically test Life-Vests (3) that showed up in plastic red bag after being "discovered" five years later at the Norfolk,Island Police Storage. Date stamps from clearly removable ink. Looked in fine condition. Considering the duration in the water and stored in a Police Room. Not even asked for by the ATSB.


Can't trust any person within this crooked "business".


Money and Power to some, are worth more than any human life.


Rid them of Leadership...

Or the classic example of the ATSBeaker leaving the VH-NGA CVR/FDR in 40 odd metres of water off Norfolk Island for nearly six years, before being forced to finally recover them...
However the difference this time is that there is much international interest from many very credible & intelligent individuals quietly watching, listening and probing
Minister Chester & DPM Barnaby please take note - reference to a Brock McEwan PT comment ANZAC Day 2015..   

Quote:41

Brock McEwen
Posted April 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Hi Ben: we are talking about massive obfuscation in the search for evidence of a potential mass-murder, here. I think we should take our cues not from scientists OR journalists, but from DETECTIVES.



The ATSB has misled us, and misdirected the search. Repeatedly. It is time for the general public to whom they are accountable (you and your compatriots) to bring them in for further questioning. Even if they’re a patsy, intense questioning will prove very useful.

Don’t think of it as damning Eisenhower for Kennedy’s sins – think of it as grilling Dean to get to Nixon.

Well said that man..


PelAir & MH370 - "Lest we forget!" 

Update - Courtesy Dazzling Dazza

Quote:Technical Report Released and Towfish Found

Media Release

DC053/2016

20 April 2016



The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has released the Technical Examination Report on the two items of debris found in Mozambique.


The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said the report pointed to both pieces being from the wing of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.


“I welcome the Technical Examination Report released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau confirming the debris almost certainly originated from MH370,” Mr Chester said.


“Stencilling on both parts of debris provided investigators with evidence of the link. The font and colour of a number stencilled on the first part conforms to that developed and used by Malaysian Airlines.


“The second part contained the words ‘No Step’ with stencilling consistent with that used by Malaysian Airlines and a fastener attached to the part provided evidence linking the part to the aircraft's production line.


“I thank the team from ATSB, Geoscience Australia, Boeing and the Australian National University for their work.”


The search for the missing aircraft continues in the final 20,000 square kilometres.


The Chinese vessel Dong Hai Jiu 101involved in the search is set to be re-deployed to the area after the recovery of sonar equipment lost during the search.


“On 21 March the failure of a tow cable connector resulted in the loss of the ProSAS towfish from Dong Hai Jiu 101,” Mr Chester said.


“I am pleased to advise that both the towfish and its accompanying depressor have been successfully recovered from the floor of the ocean.


“The equipment will be examined and tested and then the vessel will return to the search area.”


The report is available at www.atsb.gov.au/mh370-pages/updates/reports/.

MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - ventus45 - 04-20-2016

(04-20-2016, 10:14 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  

(04-20-2016, 09:49 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Fascinating stuff "V", good unpicking..   You weren't a copper in a past life??

Here is Ben's take on the ATSB debris review report, that according to "V" has more holes than a Reason model Swiss cheese...

MTF...P2

No, not a copper, but in a past life, on various occasions, I  had to conduct a few "one-off" "in-house" investigations and reviews.

In more recent times, I have spent many a long hour - often into the wee-small zero dark whatevers - chewing the fat on this and other aviation matters - with a 20 year younger friend - who actually is a copper. 

Perhaps his "counter-interogation" of me during some of those discussions has influenced my thinking somewhat.

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 04-28-2016


ATSB dissatisfaction survey - Another steaming pile of SMH Beaker Bollocks


From Mike Chillit's Seventh Arc blog :

Quote:ATSB Dissatisfaction Survey 2016

Posted on April 27, 2016 by Mike Chillit — Leave a reply

ATSB is currently conducting what it calls a “Stakeholder Satisfaction Questionnaire 2016”. As far as can be determined, it is the first of its kind for that particular Australian bureaucracy. It comes as Australia prepares to leave the search for MH370 after two years of failed efforts in a very small portion of the most likely terminal “Arc” that extends from Java Island to about -40 degrees south Latitude, a distance of 4,000 kilometers. At no time has ATSB searched north of the most southern 1,000 kilometers, but it has declined to say if that is because it believes the plane flew in a straight southerly direction until fuel was exhausted; because it has radar traces of it from its mostly inoperable “Over the Horizon” radar facility; or for some other reason.


Observers of the search for MH370 almost universally believe Australia has failed on a massive scale. Not just in the obvious sense that it hasn’t found anything, but in the qualitative sense that it really didn’t try very hard. It ran out the clock, and made up the rules as it went.


The following copy of one response to the survey was submitted by Mike Chillit. The survey is said to be “anonymous”, but probably isn’t. It is difficult to believe that IP addresses and other non-voluntary information has not been pulled from computers each time someone has tried to provide responses. So, instead of playing the game ATSB has been playing for two years, I’ve decided to proudly display exactly what I’ve shared with them.

I fully expect Australia to attempt to whitewash its efforts to find MH370. Hopefully, there are or will be enough sentiment within the country’s Parliament to correct the record and take steps to rebuild a completely dysfunctional transportation authority.


[/url]  [url=http://www.seventharc.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/sur-3.png]   
This entry was posted in 7th Arc by Mike Chillit. Bookmark the permalink.

Thought at No. 20 on the BBQ (Beaker Bollocks questionnaire ) that the O&O "V" post would fit perfectly - feel free to cut & paste :

(04-23-2016, 10:45 AM)ventus45 Wrote:  "Lack of trust" is the bottom line, and that is the result of a manifest "lack of credibility" from the far too many BS reports of late, but worse, the lack of "transparency", lack of "due dilligence", and lack of "timely action", on the really important ones.

Two "current investigations", now over two years old and counting, specifically "Mildura" and "Albury", have established the "lack of everythings" - "beyond all reason-(able) doubt" M'lud.

Both "Mildura" and "Albury" are well "on track" to become another "Norfolk".

I, for one, "no longer have any confidence in the efficacy of the "system" itself".

We can not trust the ATSB any more, it is as simple as that.

Probably the only thing we can do now, is prepare for the inevitable royal commission, after the now inevitable "big bang" happens.

The first thing is to draft the "necessary" TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR's),  because "when" it happens, the biggest battle to fight will be the "very first battle", the "framing" of the TOR's themselves, because history clearly shows, that by and large, governments in this country, do not create royal commissions to find the truth, they do so to bury it.  

The first "turning of the sod" is always a "sanitised" set of TOR's.

If they "get up" without a fight, the truth is lost before the start, and the rest of the process simply becomes an abject farce.

(only took 20 minutes with edits M'lud - can NOT spare any more time today !!)

MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Kharon - 04-28-2016

Willyleaks:

Our erstwhile GD has, once again, at great personal risk retrieved the latest recording from the miniscule office private line: click and play.

Quote:Dialling, ringing, pick up (background sounds of an electric beard trimmer flat chat) and a cautious “Hullo”.

Minister – “Beaker, we are hearing some disturbing whispers and rumours, seems the ATSB reputation is being questioned”.  “Now then, what is all the fuss about? you do realise I’ve had to cancel my manicure to chat with you”.

Beaker – “Yes minister, I realise that, but you have no need for concern”.  “Let me send you the results of a recent industry survey and you shall see that all is well”.  “Rest assured and Mike will confirm that the Senate was just on a political point scoring mission and the industry is filled with tendentious bloggers and trouble makers”.  “Just relax, I have it all under control and your back is well covered”

Minister – “Thank you so much; well carry on the good work, need anymore money resources?  We are all concerned about safety, as you know”.

Beaker – “We can always use more money resources in our quest to establish the Beyond all Reason model of excellence, thank you, I appreciate your continued support”.

Minister – “You are welcome, keep up the good work”.

Beaker – “Yes, will do; by the way your hair looked great today in that selfie you took, you must tell me your secret”.

We stopped the tape there in consideration of the more sensitive stomachs in the audience, it launches into a long discussion of various hair and beard products as advertised during MKR segments, of which both are great fans.

Quote:I, for one, "no longer have any confidence in the efficacy of the 'system' itself".

Boycott Beaker’s Bullshit.

Toot toot.... ..

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Gobbledock - 04-28-2016

'K', over the phone there was also the sound of heavy breathing and goats could be heard. I hung up immediately!!

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 05-12-2016

Finally Beaker leaves Estimates - Hoorah!

(05-05-2016, 08:42 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Beaker's last Estimates - All 4 minutes & 18 seconds of it - HOORAH! Don't let the door hit you on your stuffed rump Beaker...

 

(05-10-2016, 07:31 AM)kharon Wrote:  Exeunt Beaker – Halle ducking lujah.

Watch the Heff expression in the first few seconds; priceless.  Then he just ignores the Beaker babble as Sterlo ambles off to the tea trolley, equally disinterested.  Just about sums up the general attitude toward anything Beaker has to say.  

The big question of course is how will Hoody clean up the mess left behind?  It will be a big job for him and it will be the first time he has actually ran a department, let alone a crucial one.  Much of the old guard will still be there, Walsh and Sangston for example; they clearly supported the Beyond all Reason philosophy and the troops will take some time to ‘readjust’ to doing things ‘properly’.  It will be interesting to watch; Hoody knows where the skeletons are buried – in both the ASA and CASA backyards, there may even be a patch or two of payback, if he chose to play that card.  

The question for the IOS/BRB is how much latitude can we afford Hood?  On one hand he has first class knowledge and experience of how things work and should, in theory, be able to hit the ground running. On the other hand, there is the eternal game of dodging the bullets.  To his advantage are the number of sacrificial lambs he has available, there are enough stuff ups on the books to support wholesale slaughter.  

Well, it’s a good riddance to finally be shut of Beaker, that’s for certain sure.  Let’s all hope Hoody can retrieve some credibility and honour for the ATSB.  It would be a fine thing to pick up a report into an accident or incident and say “Well done” ATSB.  It would be a good thing to listen to Estimates and not have to hit my well worn Bollocks key; gods know it needs a break.

Aye well, the best of luck to Hoody; mind you, the tea lady would have outshone Beaker, so there is a chance there that Hoody will shine and breath a little life into the moribund ATSB. Congratulations Greg Hood, your time starts now. Tick tock.  

Toot toot.

From Hansard Beaker on MH370:

Quote:Senator XENOPHON: Finally, in respect of MH370, I note that the budget said there would be no further funds; is that right?


Mr Dolan : That is the position. There are no further appropriations. To summarise: the estimated total cost of covering the entire search area was in the order of $180 million, of which $80 million was—

Mr Foley : $100 million from Malaysia.

Mr Dolan : Yes; sorry, I was going with from Australia first, Mr Foley—of which up to $100 million is contributed by Malaysia and the Chinese have given us $20 million in kind and in cash and the rest—$60 million—is from the Australian government.

Senator XENOPHON: Will anyone else be taking up the search or is there basically an acceptance that there will be no attempt to find MH370?

Mr Dolan : The position of the three governments was: if we completed the search of the defined 120,000 square kilometres without success then the search would then be concluded.

CHAIR: ATSB can go home?

Mr Mrdak : Mr Dolan will be finishing his role as the ATSB's Chief Commissioner in June. I would like to place on record certainly my personal appreciation of his work over the last few years and wish him and his family the best for his retirement.

CHAIR: What do you mean 'retirement'?

Mr Mrdak : For the next phase of his life, shall we put it that way?

CHAIR: That is better. Get out of here while the going is good. Congratulations.

Old Murky Mandarin didn't say that with much conviction, although all things considered he did do a stellar job in obfuscating & covering up several potentially embarrassing incidents for the Ministers (of both colours) & the Department in his nearly 8 years of abacus counting & discrediting of the ATSB - UDB


MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 05-14-2016

Hard to keep a dopey Muppet down - FDS

Binger in the Weekend Oz today:

Quote:Hopes of finding missing MH370 ‘are fading fast’

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• May 14, 2016 12:00AM
  
  

Australian air crash investigators’ hopes that the missing Malaysian Airlines jet will be found are fading fast as time and space run out for locating the aircraft.

As the hunt for MH370 enters the final 13,000sq km of its designated 120,000sq km search area in the south Indian Ocean, the head of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Martin Dolan, said there was a “diminishing level of confidence we will find the aircraft”. “We still think there is a good chance we will find the aircraft but that probability is falling so we have to start contemplating that we may not succeed,” he said. “Everyone … is still focused on the fact that the remaining 13,000sq km is still a lot of territory and it’s still entirely possible the aircraft is there. But we are also starting to think about the implications of not finding it.”

The ATSB is working on a ­report for the government should the search prove fruitless that will consider alternative possibilities for what happened to the plane, including the “rogue pilot” theory that posits the captain of MH370 hijacked his own aircraft and purposely crashed it into the sea.

“If we eliminate the entire 120,000sq km zone, we have eliminated the hypothesis … that there was no control inputs at the end of flight.” Mr Dolan said. “At this point an alternative hypothesis would need to be considered. Since we eliminate the hypothesis of no control inputs, then we look at the ways in which there was control, which would include a controlled ditching or a glide.”

He said there was no indication from the Australian, Mal­aysian or Chinese governments the search would be expanded.

Bloody buffoon couldn't lie straight in bed, it'll be poor bloody Greg Hood that'll have to oversee the audit report on what went wrong with the MH370 SIO search; and you can bet your bottom dollar it will be long after the dust of the election has well & truly settled...

Just like PelAir shameful obfuscation & non-actions typical of the inept machinations of a 'all care' no responsibility bureaucracy covering the government's ass...

Next Byron Bailey gets one last passing shot (maybe??) of the Beaker led ATSB (notice he has dropped the S in SIO ):

Quote:Debris confirms MH370 crash zone in Indian Ocean

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• May 14, 2016 12:00AM
  

Time is running out for the search vessels to locate MH370 before the search is terminated next month after enormous cost to the Australian taxpayer.
We know the plane is in the southern Indian Ocean. Generally, airline pilots and other genuine aviation experts believe captain Zaharie Shah hijacked his own Boeing 777 in a planned suicide mission.

Self-appointed armchair experts are often referred to as “aviation experts” by broadcasters, rather than the aviation consultants they actually are. Such people express opinions that may sound plausible to the non-pilot fraternity but are often rubbish.
This search appears to have been conducted in the wrong area, based on the Australian Transport Safety Bureau unresponsive pilot scenario. Yet we know from the National Geographic recent Air Crash Investigations documentary, which held Shah responsible, that only three minutes elapsed from when he said goodnight to Kuala Lumpur air traffic control to when he disappeared electronically and turned southwest.

If there was no pilot involvement the aircraft just would have flown itself to the programmed destination of Beijing. It was still under control 90 minutes later when it turned south just north of Sumatra.

If, as generally believed, Shah was trying to hide the aircraft in as remote a location as possible to hide his crime then he would endeavour to fly as far as possible before the fuel ran out. As an experienced Boeing 777 captain, this is how I would manage this. Fly at long-range cruise speed mach 0.83 at as high an altitude as possible for maximum range. As the first engine flamed out due to fuel starvation I would start a slow-speed descent at 220 knots indicated airspeed with the second engine at idle. Just before second engine flame-out, I would select flap while still having hydraulic pressure to ensure my sea impact speed would not be so severe as to cause massive amounts of debris. Passing 5000 feet and flying on limited flight control hydraulic pressure from the automatically deployed air driven generator I would turn into wind and try to judge a ditching at low speed so that the aircraft would not break up into pieces. This speed would be still in the order of 250km/h or greater.

I recently was well out to sea and observed how big the sea state can be, with very large waves in a 50km/h wind. In the latitudes south of 40 degrees the winds and sea state is even greater.

Some pieces of debris — confirmed as coming from MH370 — have been turning up. The first was a right flaperon that I suspect was due to the right engine being shorn off, as they are designed to do, in a heavy impact with the sea.

Later an associated piece turned up, also from the area immediately behind the right engine. And then a piece from the horizontal stabiliser (tailplane) leading edge, which also would support the shearing off of the right engine. The weakest part of the fuselage is at the juncture of the body and the wing. It appears to me that during the ditching the aircraft broke at this juncture and this is generally, depending on the seating configuration, where the partition between business class and economy occurs, so some panelling was dislodged.

All this does not answer the question of why the ATSB did not listen to experts who would have placed the search area at least 400km farther south and west. That is why MH370 has not been found.

Byron Bailey, a veteran commercial pilot with more than 45 years’ experience and 26,000 flying hours, is a former RAAF fighter pilot and trainer, and was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years, during which he flew the same model Boeing 777 passenger jet as Malaysia Airlines MH370.

   
MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Gobbledock - 05-15-2016

"Byron Bailey, a veteran commercial pilot with more than 45 years’ experience and 26,000 flying hours, is a former RAAF fighter pilot and trainer, and was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years, during which he flew the same model Boeing 777 passenger jet as Malaysia Airlines MH370".

But what would Byron know, he isn't Martin Dolan, the font of investigative knowledge! Surely Beaker, the man who 'took us beyond Reason', knows better??

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 05-17-2016

Please someone??..anyone??..shut the Muppet up -

(05-15-2016, 12:00 PM)MikeChillit Wrote:  ..As someone who has closely followed efforts to find MH370 from the beginning, it is annoying to read that Martin Dolan continues to blow off his and ATSB’s collective negligence in a horribly botched search for the plane and its victims.

To be clear, no one knows where the plane is: I don’t know where it is; Martin Dolan doesn’t know where it is; the Pope doesn’t know where it is; PAIN doesn’t know where it is. But I know that a random kid working his first job at a fast-food drive-up window would have made consistently better decisions than Martin Dolan made. And on top of it, Dolan has the chutzpah to suggest he has a “diminishing level of confidence”. Such a pretentious shrug of the shoulders!

..Martin Dolan is offensive: 1) he deliberately hired a company that intended to use cheap, outdated, nearly blind sidescan sonar towfish; 2) he deliberately ignored SAR applicants with proven track records in the Air France Flight 447 recovery (because he preferred to save a few bucks); and, worst of all 3) after all ‘Ts’ were crossed and contracts signed, Martin Dolan never looked back; never considered that his strategy halfway to Penguin Land was hopelessly flawed. Instead, he pulled strings to have CSIRO and other Australia General Fund “troughers” contribute ridiculous assessments of the “correctness” of his poorly informed decisions...

...Martin Dolan a free hand to do as he wished with the search itself at the single most critical juncture since the plane vanished.

And Martin Dolan’s instincts were to cover his behind. He quickly came up with a new drift model… invented overnight… to replace the one he had been using for six months. The original drift model predicted aircraft debris was likely to wash up on Indonesia’s Java and Sumatra islands if the plane came down on or near the 7th Arc in the Indian Ocean.

But with recovery of the flaperon thousands of kilometers in the wrong direction, Dolan instantly recognized he had a problem. With a free hand from the diminishing presence of Mr. Abbott, Dolan quickly convinced CSIRO to come up with a joke of an analysis that asked the drift question in a way that required the answer Dolan wanted. (NOAA made a special run for me with the same data, and it points unequivocally to the Wharton Basin area.)

Next, Dolan took steps to make sure he wouldn’t be pressured into moving the search at all. He found someone who came up with a Bayesian model to “prove” ATSB was searching the correct part of the southern Indian Ocean. It is a 27 page farce (128 pages for the full PDF). It was a farce the moment it was published, but it is now a verified farce. The only parts of MH370 that have been found have been found by people who are not being paid to do stupid things or claim they are knowledgeable of Bayesian Statistics...

From the other Aunty AM program (this am), Beaker is again flapping his felt gums:

Quote:MH370 search to be called on in July

Peter Lloyd reported this story on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 08:20:59

| MP3 download
MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: The man in charge of the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 has confirmed the underwater hunt for the missing plane off the West Australian coast will be called off as soon as July unless significant new evidence emerges.

The search spanning an arc of 120,000 kilometres in length has failed to find any trace of the Boeing 777 that went missing in March 2014 on a routine flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 passengers and crew onboard.

Small fragments of wreckage have washed up in Africa, but that's not been enough to convince the Federal Government to commit beyond the $60 million already spent.

Peter Lloyd reports.

PETER LLOYD: It's modern aviation's most enduring mystery, the jet that vanished.

Since experts mapped the plane's final track deep into the Indian Ocean, it's been the Transport Safety Bureau Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan steering the improbable deep ocean hunt.

MARTIN DOLAN: Governments have commissioned us to cover up to 120,000 square kilometres, we've got about 15,000 square kilometres of that to go.

We are at the point of the search where we have to contemplate the possibility we won't find it. The families will be upset, disappointed.

PETER LLOYD: Upset doesn't begin to convey the fury of most MH370 families.

Most are mainland Chinese with less grasp of the megaphone to campaign for more transparency from the Malaysian government.

Sara Bajce is American, her partner Philip was on that plane.

SARA BAJCE: They are clearly hiding something.

PETER LLOYD: Who did it, why, and how are the big questions for those who insist it was foul play, and mass murder.

But the Indian Ocean has given up only five fragments of wreckage.

It took more than a year for the first piece to turn up, part of the wing, and debris was confirmed again this past week.

While the hunt for the hull continues, Malaysia has been doing the investigation.

It's looking at maintenance history, cargo, telco traffic from the plane, and the still unexplained first loss of power to MH370.

It went dark, then regained power as it hurtled into the night sky, off course, and unnoticed by the air traffic defence network operatives of Malaysia and Thailand.

The criminal case is still open in Malaysia and the French still suspect this was a terrorist act.

Sara Bajce just doesn't buy the Malaysian government narrative that the puzzle will be solved with the discovery of the wreck.

SARA BAJCE: That aeroplane flew for a very long time over Malaysian airspace. Got a 777, an unidentified object that theoretically has no communication with the ground, flying over their airspace and they're saying that their military just didn't see it.

Right?

Or that they didn't think it was a threat, they thought it was friendly, I don't believe that. The Malaysian military is quite sophisticated, they've got one of the best radar coverage systems in this part of the world.

PETER LLOYD: The families say they are battling the company for insurance. They say they've been made low ball offers. Malaysia says that's not true.

Regardless of what happens in the courts in this mystery, the ATSB's Martin Dolan says there is one certainty that barring any discoveries come July, the search will be off.

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: Peter Lloyd.

  
He doesn't really say much; but then again he doesn't really have to in order to make any sane MH370 or PelAir follower feel violently ill -  


I find it extremely interesting that Dolan is suddenly spruiking to the MSM while the government is in caretaker mode and when he knows that he no longer has to front the Senators in Estimates - spineless buffoon...


MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 05-17-2016

Take two and action -

From ABC radio's World Today program:

Quote:MH370 search to be called off, recriminations likely after new book on disaster
Peter Lloyd reported this story on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:24:00
About JW Player 6.11.4923 (Ads edition)
        
  MP3 download
KIM LANDERS: When the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 began off the West Australian coast more than two years ago, the then lead investigator, former defence force chief Sir Angus Houston, described the attempt as 'the most difficult search in human history.'

Now that search in the remote southern Indian Ocean is almost over.

Families of the 239 people on board want it to continue, but the Governments in Malaysia, China and Australia are sticking to the plan to wind up the search by the end of July if nothing is found.

But as Peter Lloyd reports, confirmation of that deadline has stirred debate about whether the massive search has been in the wrong area, despite clues that the jet crashed elsewhere.

PETER LLOYD: It's a place sunlight can't reach. Dark, distant, freezing cold. The southern Indian Ocean has refused to give up the wreck of MH370.

The Australian Transport Safety Board chief commissioner Martin Dolin is convinced the plane is out there, but the search is almost done with nothing to show for it.

MARTIN DOLAN: The Governments have commissioned us to cover up to 120,000 square kilometres, we've got about 15,000 square kilometres of that to go.

PETER LLOYD: Barring a discovery, the hunt will end around July, a milestone moment when Australia becomes the custodian of a new world record: supervisor of the most expensive failed search in the history of aviation.

Martin Dolan again. -

MARTIN DOLIN: The Australian Government has given us $60 million and the Chinese Government has given us about $20 million, the total cost is about $180 million, if we have to complete the entire search area.

PETER LLOYD: What is the current thinking about, the confidence you have about whether you're even in the right place?

MARTIN DOLIN: We always said that it was a matter of probability, not certainty, that the aircraft would be found in the area we are searching.

PETER LLOYD: Malaysia Airlines is state owned, it magnifying the loss of face attached to the possibility that one of its pilots is a mass murderer. Suspicion has never quite lifted from the captain and co-pilot.

To aviation writer Christine Negroni, it's been a huge scandal from the get-go, and it's not just Malaysia at fault.

She's written a book that uncovers vested interests competing to shape impressions, from Boeing, to embarrassed defence officials.

CHRISTINE NEGRONI: There were different camps. The investigators arrived at the scene and they would see certain things that they had seen before in previous investigations and it all seemed quite logical and normal.

The law enforcement people would come to the scene and they would see things that were new to them, they don't investigate plane crashes, they investigate crime.

I think the Americans wanted to be involved, American law enforcement, and I think the Malaysians were not exactly welcoming the assistance of the American law enforcement.

And I think the only way the Americans thought that they could sort of push their way in there was to raise more, you know, suspicions in the general public imagination that this was a criminal act.

PETER LLOYD: At the start of the investigation, reports from unnamed sources in the American aviation sector spearheaded the finger pointing at the pilots, just as Malaysians were discovering the staggering incompetence of defence forces that Saturday night.

CHRISTINE NEGRONI: A triple seven was flying across the Malaysian peninsula off track, off course, off radio communication, perhaps off radar, definitely off radar transponder radio, headed towards Kuala Lumpar towards the Petronas Towers.

I mean that's a huge, frightening lapse in security and radar and air traffic control and, you know, in every respect that's terrible.

PETER LLOYD: By law, a crash investigation must be completed by Malaysia, but the Government says its hamstrung by Australia's failure to find the plane.

Christine Negroni believes that is a bogus claim, and worse still, she claims the crash investigation underway right now in Malaysia is a sham.

CHRISTINE NEGRONI: There is no evidence that this is more than just somebody saying, "Oh no, no, no - it's fine don't worry about it, move on.

PETER LLOYD: Who's going to hold them to account?

CHRISTINE NEGRONI: Well, and that really is the tragedy here, because I think because the aeroplane has not been found and may not be found, there is no sort of calling to account Malaysia.

Malaysia can simply sit back as it has and say without the aeroplane, we can't ever know. And that will be I think the, sort of, the conclusion of Malaysia 370; always a mystery, no-one will ever know and we don't know whether that is true.

KIM LANDERS: Aviation writer Christine Negroni ending Peter Lloyd's report.

Also today from Christine Negroni:

Quote:[*]Independent Investigators and Malaysia 370
May 16, 2016 / Share your comments...

MH370 wreckage analysis included comparison of stenciling.

My post on Forbes.com last week suggesting the number of clues on the ground that could shed light on what happened to Malaysia Flight 370, generated much interest but particularly the suggestion that a new independent group be selected to give a fresh eyes view to the case. This idea came from Peter Fiegehen, an air traffic control specialist from Australia who also worked with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Peter suggests a small team not previously connected to the investigation could be effective.

The problem is that ICAO Annex 13 which provides guidance to air safety authorities can be interpreted in such a way that it excludes outsiders. “States shall” investigate, the document states. But states can also “delegate“. The ICAO Annex is a compilation of standards and recommended practices. They are not cast in stone. The air accident investigation document is nearly always in a state of revision including one that goes into effect later this year.

In addition, countries are free to file their own exceptions from the ICAO standards. For example the United States makes public the transcripts of cockpit voice recorders which until the latest amendment, were not to be disclosed outside of the investigation.

What is encouraging about the revision of Annex 13 is the recognition that things change and never more so than now with the digitization of the air transport system.

Where international aviation authorities need to be faster on the uptake is in appreciating the value of crowd sourcing of information following air accidents. More people from technical specialists to intelligent onlookers have the means to contribute and that is a good thing. The established tin-kickers must not be threatened. Their own expertise is not diminished because outsiders can sometimes offer value.


An air safety conference in Adelaide in 2014

Every year I attend the meeting of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators I am both impressed and frustrated by what is the two sides of the same coin. The specialists are knowledgeable in their specific areas which is good but closed-minded to the point of dismissive of the contributions of outsiders, which is not good.

Peter Fiegehen recognizes that “group-think, peer or other pressure” and “false hypothesis factors” now infect the official investigation into the mysterious disappearance of MH370. His idea of hitting the reset button is worth consideration. If an agency as cumbersome and bureaucratic as the UN’s ICAO sees the benefit of regular revision, what excuse is there for the resistance of agencies investigating one specific accident?

http://christinenegroni.com/independent-investigators-malaysia-370/

[*]


MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - Peetwo - 05-18-2016

Latest on the DOI trail -

Another day & another confusing element to the debris providence trail  , courtesy JW blog today:

Quote:Image of Barnacle-Encrusted Debris Surfaces in South Africa
– May 17, 2016Posted in: Aviation
 


Above is a picture that Neels Le Roux Kruger recently posted on the ‘MH370 In search of the truth’ website. He writes:

Quote:An interesting development with regards to “Klein Roy”.

‘This morning I was in contact with an individual from the town of George inland from Mosselbay in South Africa. The person, who is a frequent visitor to Klein Brak beach, was walking on the beach at Klein Brak on 23 December 2015 on an amateur ocean photo assignment. He captured images of the ocean and the beach – and he also took a photo of an object he though was part of a signboard. He said he did not think much of the object at the time and he didn’t examine it (or handle it) since it smelled of decomposing marine life. The fragment was covered in barnacles and mussels. He took a random photo and also notes that when he returned later the day the fragment was gone – probably washed back out to sea by the incoming tide. After reading about the investigation into the MH370 debris and the identification of “Roy” he made the connection to my photos of the piece and came into contact with the media.
Quite amazing – this is definitely the “Rolls Royce” fragment I picked up 3 months later in the same area!

This is exciting since it brings the time frame for the washing up of the RR fragment 3 months forward to at least December 2015. It is also an indication of the presence of substantial amounts of marine life on the fragment when it first washed up along the South African coast.

For reference, here’s an image of the piece as it was found by Kruger in March near Mossel Bay, South Africa:


Taken together, these photos make a compelling case for the idea — which I have strongly disputed here — that barnacle-encrusted pieces could be thoroughly cleaned by wave, sand, and sun after coming ashore.

The implication, then, is that the pieces were not “ineptly planted,” as I asserted, but that the lack of biofouling is due to the pieces spending time ashore before they were discovered.

This is Planetalking's take on this photo posting:

Quote:MH370 debris photo gives doubters a reality check

An amateur photographer has come forward with a photo that torpedoes some of the conspiracy claims made about the disappearance of MH370
Ben Sandilands


This was taken on an amateur photo assignment last year and not recognised as part of MH370

There is a cautionary tale on Jeff Wise’s website today about jumping to conclusions about MH370 debris being planted as part of some far reaching conspiracies involving the missing Malaysia Airlines jet.

It sinks claims that some of the five fragments now recognised as coming from Boeing 777-200ER that vanished on March 8, 2014, were too clean in terms of marine growths to have been what they were claimed to be.

One of those fragments, a part of the cowling of one of the jet’s two Rolls-Royce engines, looked whistle clean when it was recovered from a beach in South Africa late in March, although on closer examination, there was some marine contamination on it.
A photo has now emerged of the same object beached in the same part of the South African coast that was taken in December last year, bearing obvious growths of barnacles that often attached themselves to floating objects in shallow water.

MH370 disappeared as an ATC transponder identified object while on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board. The ATSB managed search for the sunk wreckage of the jet in a priority search zone in the south Indian Ocean is now in its final months, unless there is a discovery before then

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2016/05/18/mh370-debris-photo-gives-doubters-reality-check/

"..An amateur photographer has come forward with a photo that torpedoes some of the conspiracy claims made about the disappearance of MH370.."

Hmm...I am not sure that many of the contributors to the JW blog would totally agree with you on that Ben..

Quote:Brock McEwen
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:05 AM
Does this photography buff have a name, yet?

To summarize: this anonymous figure was interested enough in the piece to not only photograph it, but return to the same beach for a second time that day, remember exactly where it HAD been, and make an explicit mental note of its disappearance – yet apparently did not consider the photo worth sharing with anyone until 5 months later (and fully 2 months after the Rolls Royce fragment became huge news – in SA especially). Does this summarize the state of affairs?

 Trond
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:19 AM

@rich
Im not sure if this one item have been picked up and kept silent about because of what was carved into it.


 Rand
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:22 AM

 DennisW
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:26 AM
@Brock

Elaborate Photoshop?
Is there any way to check the source image for metadata?


 MH
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:48 AM

The photo seems a little bit “staged”. But it’s seems none of the barnacles are attached with a “stalk” to the engine covering. The sand seems artificially placed And not placed by a natural processes.


Tom Lindsay
Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:59 AM

Hi All
Have checked out this pic (RR) with some very good software, which I use on a daily basis. Not one sign of any Exif/meta data to be seen. NOT one. Clean as a whistle. My opinion – looks staged.

Personally I hope the photo is ridgy, didge and did turn up 3 months before to simply be washed out to sea again...
MTF...P2

---

RE: Australia, ATSB and MH 370 - MikeChillit - 05-19-2016

[quote pid='4315' dateline='1463566078']
Tom Lindsay

Quote:Posted May 18, 2016 at 12:59 AM

Hi All
Have checked out this pic (RR) with some very good software, which I use on a daily basis. Not one sign of any Exif/meta data to be seen. NOT one. Clean as a whistle. My opinion – looks staged.

Personally I hope the photo is ridgy, didge and did turn up 3 months before to simply be washed out to sea again...
MTF...P2

==========

Just a caution from Chillit. Far as I know, Twitter scrubs all Exif data off of each and every image posted to a Timeline. In any event, the absence of Exif data may not mean much, and this can almost certainly be traced back through the guy who reported it and is on record as having found it: Neels Kruger. Don't have his address, but Jeff may.

The only part that got my attention the first time I saw it was the striated sand on the lower part of the picture. Looks like it was recently raked. Why? Just presentation, or is there more to it. Personally not concerned about impropriety, but would like to know more. Is it in a quiet bay? How much wave action is there? Was it found between tides, or was it far enough up the beach to be out of the tide zone? What were weather conditions around that time if anyone knows. Just contextual things for me.
[/quote]

---