[Peetwo]

Thank you Brock & TY for your comprehensive statistical analysis paper on the DOI (debris of inconvenience):

Hypothesis to Test
•it is claimed that, on March 8, 2014,

•MH370 impacted near the Inmarsat data-indicated location
•Within a few nautical miles of the “7th Arc”, between 32 and 40°S latitudes

•It is known that, by March 31, 2016,
•no authenticated debris from this impact was reported to have hit Australian shores

•Null hypothesis: that this is not unlucky enough to cause concern

•Method in brief:
•Extract probabilities from a respected drift study
•Develop a full statistical model to estimate shoreline hits, discoveries, and reports
•Rigourously test this model via sensitivity analysis
•Employ Monte Carlo simulation to test hypothesis

  

Key data used: International Pacific Research Center (IPRC)

•General info:    http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/about/about.php

•
•MH370 drift model:  http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/news/MH370_debris/model_assumptions_search_suggestions.php
•
•Why IPRC?
•Well respected, well-documented model; strong follow-up support provided, to minimize risk of misinterpretation
•Most optimistic of 9 drift studies in deeming the flaperon reachable from current search box at relatively low (0.8%) windages.
•
•Nikolai Maximenko and Jan Hafner of IPRC are thanked profusely for providing detailed model output
•While proximity probability data are from IPRC, all downstream probabilities, analyses, and conclusions are the author’s alone
•
•Key statistic:  probability of coming within 25-50km of a shoreline
•this is IPRC’s working definition of beaching: once inside this proximity, tracer is removed
•available for each day between April 1, 2014 and January 31, 2016
•Starting point:  line just inside 7th Arc from 34 to 37°S latitudes
•
•Windages tested:   0,  0.8,  1,  2,  3,  4,  5%

Cumulative shoreline probabilities – Single piece of debris
•The slides which follow graph the probability that a single piece of debris at the IPRC starting line on Mar. 8, 2014 would hit each indicated shoreline by the end of each indicated month


•The height of each bar indicates the cumulative probability (that and all prior months combined)

•Single-item probability trends are shown for each of of 0% and 1% windage levels
•
•Slides 5-26:   Windage = 0%  April, 2014 to Jan, 2016 (1 slide per month)
•
•Slides 27-48:   Windage = 1%  April, 2014 to Jan, 2016 (1 slide per month)
•
•(Note: colour of bars is immaterial)

And I note your comments on the Jeff Wise blog:

Brock McEwen

Posted April 30, 2016 at 2:11 AM

Thanks, Jeff. While I wear your description with honour, I must confess to moments when I feel plenty domitable. At times, I feel downright domited. Cyberspace teems with folks willing to stoop to depths I’d thought unimaginable, just to throw roadblocks in the way of independent researchers. For some reason.

Had I known of the Geomar photo, I’d have sent you a picture of me with my finger on a globe, too. Just not sure you’d like where I’d have been pointing…

In all seriousness: it never hurts to emphasize that I am not a drift expert, nor pretending to be one in issuing this report. I am simply transcribing – as faithfully as possible – the probabilities IPRC gave me, and trying to add the additional variables necessary to produce a statistic we can actually compare to the physical record. It is not meant to be “the word” on debris discovery probabilities; rather, a living model in the public domain, to be improved by the “wisdom of crowds”.

In fact, i hope such a public domain model serves as both a challenge to search leaders and as a litmus test for “anti-conspiracy” crowd. The JIT’s minions are challenged to put their models out into the public domain, so we can verify for ourselves that all search strategies were developed in good faith. And those who hurl “conspiracy theorist” epithets have a choice:

– improve this model, and reveal themselves as champions of the pursuit of knowledge, or
– deride and dismiss it, and reveal themselves as partisan hacks.

Broadly speaking: we are all in one of three camps:-

1) No state actor is hiding anything major (so, accident or rogue element); search leadership doing their best, but have just been unlucky. MH370 is, in global terms, not far from search box.

2) A state actor unrelated to the search team is hiding something major (so, MH370 taken far from search box); search leadership are to this day fooled by this deception, and doing their best – but unless they spot the deception, are doomed to fail.

3) A state actor related to the search team is hiding something major; search leadership knows what actually happened, but would rather not admit it (embarrassed by what they either did or didn’t do). Search likely to end either in eternal mystery, or faked discovery.

The evidence drives me into camp 3. I would be in camp 2, were it not for the documented deception of search leadership.

And an online campaign to discredit independent researchers that does not sleep.

 
In response to JW (& don't have a Hernia P1  ):

MH370 Debris Questions Mount

– April 29, 2016Posted in: Aviation

German oceanographers Arne Biastoch (left) and Jonathan Durgadoo
 
Earlier this week the indomitable Brock McEwen completed a much-anticipated statistical analysis of where MH370 debris would most likely wash ashore given a presumptive start point within the current seabed search zone. It’s definitely worth a look, but for the moment I’ll stick to the punch line, which is that while it is quite possible for Indian Ocean currents to carry debris from the search zone to the discovery locations in the western Indian Ocean within the appropriate time frame, Brock was not able to run any simulations in which debris turned up in Africa/Madagascar/Réunion but not in Western Australia. No matter how he changed the parameters, the result came back the same: debris should have washed up in Western Australia long before it washed up anywhere else.

The gap between Brock’s simulations and the actual state of affairs—five pieces of debris in the western Indian Ocean, and none in Australia—indicates, as Brock points out, that “either something’s wrong with the model, or something’s wrong with the search.”
A similar conclusion was reached by a different set of researchers using a different methodology. According to an article in the German newspaper Kieler Nachrichten, scientists from the GEOMAR-Helmholtz Institute for Ocean Research in Kiel (above) have completed a detailed drift analysis of their own in collaboration with colleagues in Great Britain. Simulating the course of two million pieces on a supercomputer, the researchers found that the locations of all five pieces found so far are compatible not with a point of origin in the current search area but instead “the plane, which had 239 people on board, must have crashed a lot further north.” (Hat tip to reader @MuOne for alerting me to this.)

It has long been clear that the wreckage of MH370 will not likely be found in the current search area. This, in turn, means that the “ghost ship” scenario can be ruled out: MH370 did not fly south on autopilot until fuel exhaustion and then plunge into the sea without human intervention. As this fact has become increasingly clear, the most popular backup scenario has been that a suicidal pilot flew the plane southward until it ran out of fuel, then held it in a glide so that it flew further south beyond the search zone. Both of these new drift analyses, however, suggest that this scenario is not correct, either. If the debris originated north of the search area, then the plane must have taken a slow, curving flight under pilot control.

Meanwhile, no further light has been shed on the obviously problematic absence of marine fouling on the African debris pieces. Neither Australian nor Malaysian officials have released any information based on the analysis that the Australians say they have carried out. This state of affairs should be troubling for everyone interested in the mystery of MH370, but naturally it is particularly difficult for the families of the flight’s missing crew and passengers. After I published my last piece on this topic, Chinese next-of-kin issued a statement which read, in part:

Following aviation writer Jeff Wise’s recent article questioning debris found near the coast of Africa, MH370 China families have restated their assertion the missing may still be alive and call for an offer of amnesty in exchange for the release of the missing… An extensive surface search and ocean floor search have found no supporting evidence MH370 crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean.… The sum of this is that there is no reason to believe MH370 crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean and reason to believe in a wholesale attempt at deception. We believe our missing loved ones may still be alive.

I understand that not everyone is ready to accept that the absence of marine life can only mean that the debris was planted. However, I take issue with the implication (made most publicly in a piece in the IBTimes ) that raising questions about the provenance of these crucial pieces amounts to a “conspiracy theory” or that it unjustifiably raises the next-of-kins’ hopes that their loved ones might be alive. If we want to solve this mystery, then we must deal in facts, not sling innuendo. Anyone who is legitimately concerned about solving this mystery will no doubt hope that authorities in Australia and Malaysia will respond forthrightly to the troubling questions that have arisen. It is not acceptable for this information to be buried.

Cheers Brock choccy frog is in the mail...



MTF...P2
Ps I also note that Kangaroo court is sniffing around the French sub deal - err watch out MIM..

Bribery allegations against Australia’s $50 billion submarine contract winner


Australia has just awarded a $50 billion defence project to build Submarines and even before the ink is dry on the contract hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions of dollars have landed in the pockets of Liberal Party crony and former staffer Sean Costello.

To make matters worse the French company DCNS which has won […]

Reminder: MH370 & word association

[Gobbledock]

I know it's slightly off topic but Australia doesn't have a good record with Submarines. Billions of dollars were pissed into the wind with the Collins Class lemons, and no doubt billions more will be pissed away on the new Sub contract and building of them. It's a Government thing, everything of a monetary nature gets fu#ked up monumentally, it's just what they do! There's no chance in Hades that a contract of this magnitude gets signed off without a number of punters becoming very rich in the process!

On the lighter side, apparently the sodomy on-board Australian Subs is very good, so at least some people will benefit from the new machines!

Edit: GD, Rum, Bum and Buggery is the preferred, PC parlance...

[Peetwo]

A debris of inconvenience continued -

Further to a leaked report from Meteo France (the French version of the BOM that was commissioned, much like our CSIRO, to reverse drift plot the flaperon) Jeff Wise blog yesterday:

French Judiciary Report Raises Fresh Doubts About MH370 Debris

– May 2, 2016Posted in: Aviation


After French authorities retrieved the MH370 flaperon from Réunion Island, they flew it to the Toulouse facility of the DGA, or Direction générale de l’Armement, France’s weapons development and procurement agency. Here it was examined on August 9, 2015 by marine biologist Joseph Poupin, a crustacean specialist at the Ecole Navale in Brest. He identifed the barnacles covering the flaperon as Lepas anatifera striata and noted that these creatures “always live on objects floating in the sea. The are situated in the water, just beneath the waterline.” Based on his observation that the flat, lower surface of the flaperon was less densely colonized than the curved, upper part, he surmised that the object must have floated upside-down, and noted that “later flotation tests should be able to confirm this point.”

Such flotation tests were conducted at the DGA’s Hydrodynamic Engineering test center in Toulouse. The results are referenced in a document that I have obtained which was prepared for judicial authorities by Météo France, the government meteorological agency, which had been asked to conduct a reverse-drift analysis in an attempt to determine where the flaperon most likely entered the water. This report was not officially released to the public, as it is part of a criminal terrorism case. It is available in French here.

Pierre Daniel, the author of the Météo France study, notes that the degree to which a floating object sticks up into the air is crucial for modeling how it will drift because the more it protrudes, the more it will be affected by winds:



This translates as:

The buoyancy of the piece such as it was discovered is rather important. The studies by the DGA Hydrodynamic Engineering show that under the action of a constant wind, following the initial situation, the piece seems able to drift in two positions: with the trailing edge or the leading edge facing the wind. The drift angle has the value of 18 degrees or 32 degrees toward the left, with the speed of the drift equal to 3.29% or 2.76% of the speed of the wind, respectively.

The presence of barnacles of the genus Lepas on the two sides of the flaperon suggest a different waterline, with the piece being totally submerged. In this case we derive a speed equaly to zero percent of the wind. The object floats solely with the surface current.

This suggests a remarkable state of affairs.

Inspection of the flaperon by Poupin revealed that the entire surface was covered in Lepas, so the piece must have floated totally submerged—“entre deux eaux,” as Le Monde journalist Florence de Changy reported at the time. Yet when DGA hydrodynamicists put the flaperon in the water, it floated quite high in the water, enough so that when they blasted it with air it sailed along at a considerable fraction of the wind speed.

As point of reference, Australia’s CSIRO calculates that that the drifter buoys that it uses to gather ocean-current data pick up a 1.5% contribution from the wind. Here is a picture of one such drifter, kindly supplied to me by Brock McEwen. You can see that more than half of the spherical buoy is out of the water.



It is physically impossible for Lepas to survive when perched up high in the air. Yet the buoyancy tests were unequivocal. So Daniel pressed on, conducting his analysis along two parallel tracks, one which assumed that the piece floated high, and the other in which it floated submerged. For good measure, he also considered scenarios in which the flaperon floated submerged until it arrived in the vicinity of Réunion, and then floated high in the water for the last two days. (Note that he doesn’t present any mechanism by which a thing could occur; I can’t imagine one.)

After running hundreds of thousands of simulated drift trials under varying assumptions, Daniel concluded that if the piece floated as its Lepas population suggests, that is to say submerged, then it couldn’t have started anywhere near the current seabed search area. (See chart above.) Its most likely point of origin would have been close to the equator, near Indonesia. His findings in this regard closely mirror those of Brock McEwen and the GEOMAR researchers which I discussed in my previous post.

Daniel found that when simulated flaperons were asssumed to have been pushed by the wind, their location on March 8, 2014 lay generally along a lone that stretched from the southwest corner of Australia to a point south of Cape Horn in Africa (see below). This intersects with the 7th arc. However, as Brock has pointed out, such a scenario should also result in aircraft debris being washed ashore on the beaches of Western Australia, and none has been found. And, again, the presence of Lepas all over the flaperon indicates that such a wind contribution could not have been possible.



Pierre Daniel’s reverse-drift analysis for Météo France, therefore, presents us with yet another block in the growing stack of evidence against the validity of the current ATSB search area in the southern Indian Ocean.

The most important takeaway from this report for me, however, is the stunning discrepancy between how the flaperon floated in the DGA test tank and the “entre deux eaux” neutral buoyancy suggested by its population of Lepas. No doubt some will suggest that the flaperon may have contained leaky cells that slowly filled as it floated across the ocean, then drained after it became beached. However, I find it hard to believe that an organization as sophisticated as the DGA would have overlooked this eventuality when conducting their wind tests. Rather, I read Daniel’s report as evidence that the French authorities have been unable to make sense its own findings. I suspect that this is the reason that they continue to suppress them up to this day.

And some comments..

Brock McEwen

Posted May 2, 2016 at 6:14 PM


Jeff’s reporting has implications which go WELL beyond whether to move the search box north. On buoyancy, barnacles, and drift, it seems French investigators were seeing the same fundamental contradictions WE were seeing.


So the task at hand is not to pick which of the above charts is “right” – the task is to reconcile them to each other. How can barnacle-indicated and buoyancy-indicated impact distributions derive from the exact same flaperon, yet come nowhere near to sharing any common ground?


If the entirety of the Meteo report’s analyses are accepted as solid, can anyone construct a plausible scenario in which the flaperon WASN’T planted?

---

 JS

Posted May 2, 2016 at 6:53 PM


@Brock – I could envision it being tangled and dragged in a net. Not likely, but possible. Particularly if the net was not where it was supposed to be, and the flaperon was cut loose.


I think your work, the work of others, and Jeff’s article are converging on “the search is in the wrong place.” Not entirely shocking.


So admittedly a dragged flaperon is a reach. But playing devil’s advocate, what is the shortest distance the flaperon could have been moved by non-current forces to place it on a different drift path? Surely there must be some boundary areas where currents change quickly. Are they frequently fished or even navigated?

---

jeffwise

Posted May 2, 2016 at 8:25 PM


@Phil, the problem is that the Lepas take 6-12 months to reach this size, and they required many months to cross the ocean from the presumed crash site–as I recall, according to Brock’s analysis the flaperon couldn’t even get to Réunion without some help from the wind. So it doesn’t have time to be stuck in rocks.

---

VictorI

Posted May 2, 2016 at 9:41 PM


@jeffwise: Even if no conclusions can be drawn, the Meteo France report is rife with contradictions that demand answers. Perhaps we can get official comments on the sections of the report that are now released. Have you contacted any authorities?


A part drifting across the Indian Ocean completely submerged makes no sense, as many of us have been saying for some time.


But for that matter, I still have questions about how No Step could have drifted across the Indian Ocean. Based on the photographic and video evidence, it appears that the honeycomb cells were either poorly sealed, or not sealed at all, and any trapped air that aided the floatation would have escaped within days.


We have loads of questions. We need more answers.

---

 Brock McEwen

Posted May 2, 2016 at 11:28 PM


@Victor: agree 100%.


The bitter irony is that, for the past 9 months, the world’s drift experts would have KILLED for empirical data on freeboard – by direct buoyancy testing OR as inferred from expert barnacle analysis. Only in the case of MH370 can the one drift group ever shown EITHER end up being shown BOTH – with each pointing the search to a different corner of the frigging OCEAN.


Reeks. To. High. Heaven. - You got that right Brock

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

A DOI - Part??

Fresh off social media this AM, via GEOMAR :

10.05.2016
MH370 – where to search?

11 May 2016 / Kiel. For more than two years an extensive search has been underway for the missing Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airlines (MH370) in the southeastern Indian Ocean. The first confirmed piece of debris was discovered last July on the island of La Réunion, and since then more pieces of the missing Boeing have been found along the southeast coast of Southern Africa. The question arises whether this additional information can be used to optimize the last remaining months of the extensive and costly search effort. A European research consortium under the leadership of GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre of Ocean Research presents results of a new analysis.

Flight MH370 seemed to disappear without trace after it vanished from radar screens on 8 March 2014. The discovery at the end of July 2015 of a part belonging to an aircraft’s wing brought renewed hope. A flaperon belonging to MH370 was found several thousand kilometres away from the suspected crash site on the island La Réunion. Meanwhile, more pieces from this aircraft have been found along the African southeast coast in Mozambique and South Africa as well as on an island belonging to Mauritius. Marine scientists from Kiel presented their first simulations with an ocean model about the possible drift of the flaperon shortly after it was found.  They have now refined their calculations in a joint effort with colleagues in France and the UK. Based on these latest results and under the assumption that analysis of satellite communications are correct, the most likely source region is located west of Australia, north of the current search area.

Dr. Jonathan Durgadoo, Prof. Dr. Arne Biastoch and Siren Rühs from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel used ocean and wave models in combination with observational data. This provides a coherent realistic dataset for their drift analyses to determine the possible origin of the flaperon. To do so, they released particles, representing ‘virtual’ flaperons, around La Réunion and computed their trajectories back in time. "Of course it does not make much sense just to track only a few flaperons within the model," Dr. Durgadoo explains. "We have tracked back almost five million particles over a period of 16 months," Durgadoo continues. "We subsequently calculated the probable region of the particles’ positions on 8-9 March 2014."

“In our recent calculations we included more physical processes in order to simulate the drift more realistically”, Prof. Biastoch explains. “In particular the drift induced by wind generated ocean waves is now included”, Biastoch continues. “Even though we use state-of-the-art modelling systems, representing the ocean currents in the Indian Ocean quite well, all simulations naturally contain limitations. Our investigation is one important piece of the puzzle in finding MH370.”

As a result of the new calculations the possible source region of the flaperon was refined, and “While it is shifted a bit southward from the initial study done last September, our basic result that most particles originate from a region north of the current search area remains unchanged”, states Dr. Durgadoo.

The debris that were recently found at other locations in the southwestern Indian ocean fit this interpretation. “The ocean currents through the Mozambique Channel and along the South African coast are extensions of the route that passes by La Réunion”, says Prof. Biastoch. The Australian search authorities are aware of this report. “Whether or not these new results will be used to facilitate the last few months of the ongoing search for MH370 is not clear”, Arne Biastoch summarizes.
 
Downloads:
The graphic shows the most probable positions during the time of the crash of the MH370 flaperon found on La Réunion. Source: Jonathan Durgadoo, Siren Rühs, Arne Biastoch (GEOMAR),  May 2016
Report: "Backtracking of the MH370 flaperon from La Réunion" (May 2016)
 
Contact:
Dr. Andreas Villwock (GEOMAR, Communications & Media), Phone: +49-431 600-2802, presse(at)geomar.de

Hmm...wonder if there will be any press releases coming out the immaculate miniscule Chester's office refuting the GEOMAR claims that we're looking in the wrong area? Nah that's right the caretaker miniscule is way too busy tweeping phots of his motel room he stayed in for the night..



Meanwhile dedicated Fugro & Chinese crews are risking their lives chasing the ghosts of MH370 in an increasingly low probability search area - FDS!

A cruel winter sea returns to MH370 search zone

If finding MH370 on the floor of a complex deep ocean isn't challenging enough, waves up to 12 metres high have returned with the onset of winter

Ben Sandilands


Somewhere on these undersea peaks MH370 might be at rest

There is nothing new in this week’s MH370 search update except that it notes that a winter sea state has returned to the south Indian Ocean where the wreckage of the lost Malaysia Airlines 777 is thought to lie.

Winter weather has set in, with wave heights in the search area expected to peak at 12 metres and winds of up to 50 knots. Search operations are likely to be disrupted, but will resume as weather permits.

MH370 was on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board on March 8, 2014, when it vanished as a transponder identified flight on air traffic control screens while it was over the Gulf of Thailand.

The illustration at top of page shows a typical topographically enhanced display of the bathymetric data, which facilitates the towing of deep water sonar scanning devices with a safe clearance over obstacles on the otherwise imperfectly mapped sea floor.

Those towfish should be able to detect something as anomalous and metallic as aircraft wreckage as they resolve finer details in the blur of the bathymetric imagery, but can be confounded by the depth and complexity of some areas of the remaining targeted search zone of about 15,000 square kilometres.

This is what the surface of the south Indian Ocean looked like (below) from one of the search vessels last year in conditions far less severe than those typical of the southern winter months.

    
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

A DOI - Part??

Fresh off social media this AM, via GEOMAR :

10.05.2016
MH370 – where to search?

11 May 2016 / Kiel. For more than two years an extensive search has been underway for the missing Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airlines (MH370) in the southeastern Indian Ocean. The first confirmed piece of debris was discovered last July on the island of La Réunion, and since then more pieces of the missing Boeing have been found along the southeast coast of Southern Africa. The question arises whether this additional information can be used to optimize the last remaining months of the extensive and costly search effort. A European research consortium under the leadership of GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre of Ocean Research presents results of a new analysis.

Flight MH370 seemed to disappear without trace after it vanished from radar screens on 8 March 2014. The discovery at the end of July 2015 of a part belonging to an aircraft’s wing brought renewed hope. A flaperon belonging to MH370 was found several thousand kilometres away from the suspected crash site on the island La Réunion. Meanwhile, more pieces from this aircraft have been found along the African southeast coast in Mozambique and South Africa as well as on an island belonging to Mauritius. Marine scientists from Kiel presented their first simulations with an ocean model about the possible drift of the flaperon shortly after it was found.  They have now refined their calculations in a joint effort with colleagues in France and the UK. Based on these latest results and under the assumption that analysis of satellite communications are correct, the most likely source region is located west of Australia, north of the current search area.

Dr. Jonathan Durgadoo, Prof. Dr. Arne Biastoch and Siren Rühs from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel used ocean and wave models in combination with observational data. This provides a coherent realistic dataset for their drift analyses to determine the possible origin of the flaperon. To do so, they released particles, representing ‘virtual’ flaperons, around La Réunion and computed their trajectories back in time. "Of course it does not make much sense just to track only a few flaperons within the model," Dr. Durgadoo explains. "We have tracked back almost five million particles over a period of 16 months," Durgadoo continues. "We subsequently calculated the probable region of the particles’ positions on 8-9 March 2014."

“In our recent calculations we included more physical processes in order to simulate the drift more realistically”, Prof. Biastoch explains. “In particular the drift induced by wind generated ocean waves is now included”, Biastoch continues. “Even though we use state-of-the-art modelling systems, representing the ocean currents in the Indian Ocean quite well, all simulations naturally contain limitations. Our investigation is one important piece of the puzzle in finding MH370.”

As a result of the new calculations the possible source region of the flaperon was refined, and “While it is shifted a bit southward from the initial study done last September, our basic result that most particles originate from a region north of the current search area remains unchanged”, states Dr. Durgadoo.

The debris that were recently found at other locations in the southwestern Indian ocean fit this interpretation. “The ocean currents through the Mozambique Channel and along the South African coast are extensions of the route that passes by La Réunion”, says Prof. Biastoch. The Australian search authorities are aware of this report. “Whether or not these new results will be used to facilitate the last few months of the ongoing search for MH370 is not clear”, Arne Biastoch summarizes.
 
Downloads:
The graphic shows the most probable positions during the time of the crash of the MH370 flaperon found on La Réunion. Source: Jonathan Durgadoo, Siren Rühs, Arne Biastoch (GEOMAR),  May 2016
Report: "Backtracking of the MH370 flaperon from La Réunion" (May 2016)
 
Contact:
Dr. Andreas Villwock (GEOMAR, Communications & Media), Phone: +49-431 600-2802, presse(at)geomar.de

Hmm...wonder if there will be any press releases coming out the immaculate miniscule Chester's office refuting the GEOMAR claims that we're looking in the wrong area? Nah that's right the caretaker miniscule is way too busy tweeping phots of his motel room he stayed in for the night..



Meanwhile dedicated Fugro & Chinese crews are risking their lives chasing the ghosts of MH370 in an increasingly low probability search area - FDS!

A cruel winter sea returns to MH370 search zone

If finding MH370 on the floor of a complex deep ocean isn't challenging enough, waves up to 12 metres high have returned with the onset of winter

Ben Sandilands


Somewhere on these undersea peaks MH370 might be at rest

There is nothing new in this week’s MH370 search update except that it notes that a winter sea state has returned to the south Indian Ocean where the wreckage of the lost Malaysia Airlines 777 is thought to lie.

Winter weather has set in, with wave heights in the search area expected to peak at 12 metres and winds of up to 50 knots. Search operations are likely to be disrupted, but will resume as weather permits.

MH370 was on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board on March 8, 2014, when it vanished as a transponder identified flight on air traffic control screens while it was over the Gulf of Thailand.

The illustration at top of page shows a typical topographically enhanced display of the bathymetric data, which facilitates the towing of deep water sonar scanning devices with a safe clearance over obstacles on the otherwise imperfectly mapped sea floor.

Those towfish should be able to detect something as anomalous and metallic as aircraft wreckage as they resolve finer details in the blur of the bathymetric imagery, but can be confounded by the depth and complexity of some areas of the remaining targeted search zone of about 15,000 square kilometres.

This is what the surface of the south Indian Ocean looked like (below) from one of the search vessels last year in conditions far less severe than those typical of the southern winter months.

Update - Courtesy Oz Aviation on the ATSB further MH370 debris confirmation:

More MH370 debris confirmed
May 12, 2016 by australianaviation.com.au
[/url]A file image of Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER 9M-MRO at Sydney. (Seth Jaworski)

Two pieces of aircraft debris that washed up on the African coast in March were “almost certainly” to have come from missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says.

The ATSB’s report said one part, a segment from an aircraft engine cowling, featured a Rolls-Royce stencil font and details that was “consistent with that developed and used by Malaysian Airlines and closely matched exemplar stencils on other MAB Boeing 777 aircraft”.

However, the ATSB said there were “no significant differentiators on the cowling segment to assist in determining whether the item of debris was from the left or right side of the aircraft, or the inboard or outboard side the cowling”.

[url=http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/rid16-rr-stencil-comparison.png.jpeg]

Meanwhile, the second part was determined to be an interior panel from the main cabin, given its decorative laminate, and associated with a closet near Door R1.

“The pattern, colour and texture of the laminate was only specified by MAB for use on Boeing 747 and 777 aircraft. There is no record of the laminate being used by any other Boeing 777 customer,” the ATSB report published on Thursday said.


However, the ATSB report noted both parts did not have any identifiers that were unique to the aircraft, registration 9M-MRO.

The ATSB said the marine ecology and biological material was still being analysed.
The two parts, as well as a wing and a horizontal stabiliser discovered in Mozambique and a wing flaperon that washed up on the coast of Reunion Island are the only parts of the Boeing 777-200ER that have been found since it disappeared enroute from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in March 2014 with 239 passengers and crew on board.

Efforts to locate 9M-MRO have centred around a 120,000 square kilometre area in the Indian Ocean, with 105,000 square kilometres having been searched so far. The search is likely to be completed by the middle of the year.

  
Even the miniscule was able tear himself away from his selfie/self-flagellation tour, to acknowledge the ATSB MH370 debris providence confirmation:  

Confirmation further debris from MH370

Media Release
DC072/2016
12 May 2016

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has today released a Technical Examination Report into the findings of the examination of debris recovered from beaches in South Africa and Mauritius.

The two pieces of debris—designated in the report as Part Numbers 3 and 4—were initially examined at the Geoscience Australia facility for the presence of marine ecology and remnants of biological material prior to examination by the ATSB.

Part Number 3 found in South Africa has been confirmed as a segment from an engine cowling. It was identified by the Rolls Royce stencil, which was found to be consistent with that developed and used by Malaysian Airlines.

Part Number 4 found in Mauritius in April has been identified as an interior panel from the main cabin. It was found to be consistent with the decorative laminate of a work table used at the forward right hand door on Malaysian Boeing 777s.

More than 105,000 square kilometres of the 120,000 square kilometre search zone in the southern Indian Ocean has been searched.

"The Australia Government will continue to work closely with the Malaysian Government and the People's Republic of China in our efforts to locate the missing aircraft," Mr Chester said.

"We remain hopeful the aircraft will be found," he said.

More information about the search can be found on the Joint Agency Coordination Centre website at jacc.gov.au.

 

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Malaysian's attempt to recapture MH370 narrative.

From off the ATSB MH370 thread:

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.

And two days ago we had this from the INQUISITR publication:

 
New evidence from a computer study shows that Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 apparently crashed into the Indian Ocean hundreds of miles north of where an official, Australia-led search team has been scouring the remote region of the seabed since September of 2014, according to a report from the German scientific team at the GEOMAR Hemlholtz Center For Oceanic Research.

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 — a Boeing 777-200 jumbo jet with 239 people on board — disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on the night of March 8, 2014. With all communications cut off, the only way searchers were able to have any idea where the plane went was from a series of “ping” signals between the plane and a satellite.

Using the “ping” evidence, investigators concluded that the Malaysia Airlines plane, for some unknown reason, flew seven hours off course and crashed into a remote region of the southern Indian Ocean the searchers dubbed “The Seventh Arc.”

The first piece of debris from the plane did not turn up until July of 2015, on Reunion Island in the western Indian Ocean, off the eastern coast of Africa. Since then, four more pieces of debris have been found, all in the same region off the southeast coast of Africa.
The two latest debris pieces discovered were finally confirmed on Thursday to have come from Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, as detailed in the below video news report from CBS News Online

The German scientists, led by Dr. Jonathan Durgadoo, first conducted their study in September of 2015, using computer modeling of oceanic drift patterns to trace the possible routes taken by the Reunion Island debris — a chunk of wing known as a “flaperon” — that would have allowed it to end up on the French-owned island from a crash site somewhere in the Indian Ocean.

To read earlier Inquisitr coverage of the drift pattern revelations see the “Previous Coverage” links in the box below on this page.

Durgadoo and his team on Wednesday released a revised version of their study, in which they updated their simulated drift patterns to show that the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 likely hit the water somewhat south of where their earlier study indicated — but still hundreds of miles north of where the official searchers believe Flight MH370 went down.


In the above map, created by the German team, the “Seventh Arc” is defined by a white rectangle toward the bottom of the pink-colored area. As the chart shows, the possible drift routes for the flaperon are clustered far to the north of the official search area — which, if accurate, would explain why the searchers, despite spending a reported $130 million on the search, have found nothing.

“While it is shifted a bit southward from the initial study done last September, our basic result that most particles originate from a region north of the current search area remains unchanged,” Durgadoo said in a statement issued this week by GEOMAR.

The latest debris pieces turned up on coastlines in Mozambique and South Africa, also in southeastern Africa, and on the island of Mauritias, off the Mozambique coastline. Those debris finds are consistent with the GEOMAR conclusions regarding the flaperon found on Reunion Island, the scientists say.

“The ocean currents through the Mozambique Channel and along the South African coast are extensions of the route that passes by La Réunion,” said Arne Biastoch, another scientist who worked on the drift modeling computer study.

The full GEOMAR report can be read by clicking on this link.

According to independent researcher Jeff Wise, a journalist and aviation expert who has written frequently on the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 mystery, the northerly location of the crash site, if indeed the GEOMAR study is accurate, almost certainly means that either the pilot or some unknown person was at the controls of the Boeing 777 as it curved northward and finally hit the water.

“If the plane was under conscious control until the bitter end, then we cannot assume that, as in the unpiloted scenario, it spiraled into the sea once its fuel ran out,” Wise wrote on his blog this week. “Instead, the conscious pilot might have chose to hold it into a glide far beyond the seventh arc. We have no reasonable expectation, therefore, that a narrow search along the seventh arc would yield the wreckage.”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3090226/malaysi...f618Jmi.99

Then yesterday, via the Allied Press, in what appears to be an apparent attempt by the Malaysians to counter this largely disseminated MSM story:

                          
Malaysia says search area for Flight 370 will not shift

May. 13, 2016 4:10 AM EDT 

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia
3.1412101.687

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia said Friday the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 will not be shifted after the discoveries of five pieces of debris in the western Indian Ocean.

The government this week had confirmed the last two pieces, found in South Africa and Rodrigues Island off Mauritius, are "almost certainly" from the Boeing 777 that disappeared mysteriously more than two years ago.

Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said the discoveries aligned with the modeling pattern established by experts of where debris would drift from a crash in the southern Indian Ocean. He said the 120,000 square kilometers search area, west of Australia, will be completed before authorities decide whether to further extend the hunt.

"We won't shift the search area. From the debris found, it actually confirms that our search area is the right area looking at the drift pattern," Liow said.

The area is the "most probable" crash site and authorities have so far covered more than 105,000 square kilometers, he said.

"It is important that we find more debris, more wreckage, so that we can actually analyze and find the cause of the incident," Liow said. "We are still confident of finding the main wreckage....we are looking for an answer and we need to find wreckage."

Officials from Malaysia, Australia and China will meet by June or July to "chart the future of the search," Liow said without elaborating. Australia has been leading the search, which so far has turned up empty. Most of the passengers on the flight, which carried 239 people, were from China.

The three pieces of debris confirmed from the plane earlier were found on France's Reunion Island and along Mozambique's coast.

Though the discoveries have bolstered authorities' assertion that the plane crashed somewhere in the Indian Ocean, none of the parts thus far has yielded any clues into exactly where and why the aircraft crashed. Those elusive answers lie with the flight data recorders, or black boxes, which experts say may never be found.

One word about the KL presser - BOLLOCKS!


MTF...P2

[MikeChillit]

A Very Newbie Contribution
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!

In a fair world Martin Dolan would be criminally charged for letting the same thing happen in MH370 that happened in Pel-Air. Did he learn anything at all from the Pel-Air fiasco? Yes! He learned how to be even more vague, evasive, and unaccountable. On a visceral level, 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.

A Look Back
ATSB’s original best guess for MH370’s endpoint was at -38.0S, 88.5E. At the time, that was as good a guess as any. I certainly supported it, and set out to monitor search efforts via satellite for as long as it took.

But I am also statistically oriented by training and occupation, and I frequently revisit assumptions I attempt to work within. If I notice that original assumptions are not supported by what I’ve learned since framing them, I stop and review everything. It’s usually called Quality Control, and no modern agency or business succeeds without it. Japan learned that lesson quickly after World War II, thanks in part to W. Edwards Deming. But it was a lesson United States industry failed to learn before it lost dominance in auto markets worldwide, and it is a lesson ATSB and Martin Dolan have never learned.

From Bad to Worse
Unknown to most of the world, Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s term was rapidly drawing to a close in August 2015 when the first piece of debris from MH370 turned up on Reunion Island, thousands of kilometers west of the “7th Arc”. It is impossible to know if anything would have changed if Mr. Abbott had not been embroiled in a fight for political survival. What we know is that it gave 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.

(What most people don’t realize is that “Bayesian” is researcher-speak for “I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing, but I’ll bet you’re impressed I know ‘Bayesian’ is a word.”)

How Do We Know ATSB is Wrong?
By December 2014, less than six months after sidescan sonar began, it was statistically apparent that the search was in the wrong part of the southern Indian Ocean. In fact, it wasn’t at all clear that the plane came down anywhere in the Indian Ocean until the flaperon appeared in late July 2015. (Probability assessments never “prove” something did or didn’t happen; they simply quantify the likelihood of an event; usually less than 100% certainty.)

To the best of my knowledge, ATSB never made a professional, testable statement about where the plane would be found. It picked -38.0S, 88.5E, but I’ve never seen a descriptive analysis of how ATSB believed it got there. Just one more omission in a long string of them.

In any event, it follows that if the plane came down at the coordinates ATSB has been using for two years, it had to have hit the 6th Arc at a predictable point some 100 km northwest. One only has to work it back to find that point, and then work it forward and calculate a couple of statistics to know exactly how much seafloor has to be scanned to either find it or go somewhere else.

Of course, ATSB didn’t do all that formal professional stuff. Probably has no idea what ‘margin of error’ is or how to calculate it. They also subscribe to Mr. Miyagi’s “scan on, scan off” guide. The one that just keeps going until it seems like it’s time to quit. If Toyota made cars that way, they’d have gone out of business long ago.

The endpoint, by the way, was based on a set of assumptions that had the plane turning mostly south somewhere over the south Andaman Sea and flying … probably on autopilot … until fuel was exhausted. Various contributing speculation framed it as a murder / suicide by the pilot, an electrical or cargo fire, or as just a horrible tragedy those on board could not bring under control.

In any event, it turns out that the margin of error for ATSB’s terminal location is not very large: about 15 kilometers in radius for 3-Sigma certainty, which is fairly standard for “government work”; 30 kilometers for 6-Sigma certainty, which is an industrial standard; and about 50 kilometers for what is known as 10-Sigma certainty. The 10-Sigma variety is so rare and so expensive to test, it is never used. But, ATSB has so over-scanned the area it predicted the plane came down in that it is an event that could only happen once in many billions of years. It isn’t there!

[Gobbledock]

For whom the real bell tolls

Mike C, welcome. Your first post is succinct, factual and contains 'root cause'! Well done sir. Here is the key to the Tim Tam cupboard, your 2 free hours....starts.....now!!

Mi mi mi - Apart from the fact that Beaker is a complete Muppet, in actuality he is nothing but a departmental accountant. He received his role as ATsB Commissioner as a reward for being a loyal subservient head bureaucrat for many years. He knows how to cover a Ministers ass, and he knows how to do it well, hence his being gifted his Chief Commissioner role, a reward.However, he knows SFA about aviation, investigative methodology and risk and it shows, my oh my it shows.

As Sunfish would say; 'to put that another way' - One of the worlds greatest dickheads was put in charge of one of the worlds best investigation agencies and put in charge of possibly one of the worlds most important accident investigations. It is of no surprise to me that it has all ended in tears. The MH370 investigation is an utter joke and the ATsB as it currently stands is an utter joke. This is what Dolan's legacy will be. Despised by the aviation industry, despised by his people, and despised by the Senators. The beard on/beard off conceited clown will not be missed and not be remembered for one single achievement. He has fuc#ed up MH370, Pel Air, numerous local incident investigations and re-rated accident and incident categories. All colossal screwup's under his tenure. Then he allowed some of the worlds best investigators to become redundant and single handedly along with Walsh and his Board turned the worlds second best investigation bureau into a lamentable joke, a laughing stock at home and internationally. That my friends is the legacy of Martin 'Beaker' Dolan.

Pumpkin Head - This all took place under the watchful and approving eye of Mike MrDak, the senior bureaucrat on $800k per year, a man who has entrenched himself in the political system and been allowed to operate free from restraint and at his own will. A man who was trained, raised, and nurtured in politics and after more than 20 years has become the centrepiece of the 'iron ring'. The entire despicable system needs to be pulled down before the damage and rot go further.

The Hooded One - Yet again Hoody inherits a steaming pile of dung. Third time lucky. Hopefully after his experiences at CAsA and ASA and after now receiving the ATsB top job Hoody will have the chains removed and actually be allowed to fix something. Farkwitson and Skull were his blockage at CAsA and Harfwit was his blockage at ASA. If anyone can fix Dolan's mess it is Hoody. I even think the Senate like him and believe he can make changes, but only if he is in the drivers seat, which he now is. The first thing will be to get Carmody's backing and get around MrDak. Then Hoody needs a bigger pot of money from the new Miniscule to pay for new Inspectors, new skills and training, new layers of management, redundancies for all the crap that hangs on in the ATsB, and a few spare bucks for whatever else it takes to earn back our once envious reputation for investigative excellence. The next 4 years will be the peak of Toga Boys career, it's up to him whether he wants to really go out on top (so to speak), or be remembered as just another trough dwelling bureaucrat not worth pissing on.....your call Greg.

Until change occurs - Tick Tock Hoody, tick tock.

[P7_TOM]

Welcome indeed is Mr Chillit. Bit rash with the TT’s there GD, but a good post, well drafted, proposition supported by fact and logic is always a refreshing event. I guess the only ‘real’ question that needs to be answered is exactly who were; or are the criminals.

There can be little doubt now that someone, somewhere knows exactly what happened to the aircraft and it’s passengers. As all know too well, I am no fan of Beaker or the ATSB as it stands and the question is Beaker criminally culpable is starting to be openly discussed. A willing accomplice, a cats paw; or, a Knave to the Queens redouble bid? The argument rages. There are those who believe Pel-Air was an aberration, the donation to the Labor party a coincidence; etc. There are others who would have it that after Pel-Air, Beaker became the ‘go-to’ man to fix things up and provide top cover, for a price, citing a journey to Malaysia as a continuum of habits learned. What was that quote from James Bond’s American mate – once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, third time is enemy action.

Who knows? but the Chillit proposition begs the eternal question – and the inevitable answer; cock-up nearly always beats conspiracy. Beaker ignorance, arrogance and penny pinching, combined with a desire to please the minister and to be seen to doing it right is certainly causal to the search failing. Control of the entire mission should never, ever been taken from AMSA; they would have found it. If and I do say IF I could be tempted to side with the conspiracy theorists, having that question answered, unsatisfactorily, would greatly increase my belief. It still beats me; AMSA is peerless, professional and untainted; a far cry from the miserable ATSB reputation of today.

Anyway – Welcome to Aunty Pru Mike, we all have followed your good work on Twitter and enjoyed your comments. Sit a spell, take a load off; can you play darts?

[Kharon]

Second the motion.

Good to see Mike on site and to read his summary.  Folk like Brock and Mike and several others who try to make logical sense through analysis of the MH 370 puzzle always cheer me up.  It is also pleasing to see ‘debate’ and discussion rather than the tub thumping approach which tries to force feed an opinion.  It has been stated, many times, no one, except a very few know what happened and where the aircraft is.  I have always used ‘ET got it’ as a hedge against answering questions to which there is no answer, it’s as good a theory as any and a damn site more realistic than some I have read……

One of those questions which we should be able to answer, but cannot is why the ‘search’ was taken away from AMSA?  Take a look at the AMSA web page – HERE – it screams Search and Rescue, particularly in the maritime environment.  AMSA may not have located the wreck; but, they would have tried, logically, professionally, honestly and diligently.

Had AMSA found the aircraft, then, furry muff, the ‘investigator’ i.e. ATSB could take over and do their thing.  This makes sense to me, but what happened never did and still does not make neither rhyme nor reason.  To put Dolan in charge was risible, operationally and politically. Dolan, Sangston and Walsh stunk to the high heavens after Pel-Air.  Dolan (IMO) should have been fired out of hand, the others with him.  Resignation unacceptable after the damage ‘they’ collectively did to Australia’s once fine record as an investigator of accident and provider of ‘safety’ resolutions.  Enough.

You could get into a seriously heated discussion about what happened to MH 370, you can even find combat in the area of what actually occurred during the flight – hell you can even become embroiled over the power settings used.  But you can’t find anyone, anywhere, who will defend or can understand why taking AMSA off the job and placing Dolan in control was a sound idea.

None of this helps us find MH 370, but it may point us in the direction of why we did not.

Welcome to Aunty Pru Mike; remember ‘ET rules’ – Ok… …

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

F. de Changy - “something happened which cannot be admitted”.

Speaking of Brock -  Here he is commenting on the latest JW blog - The SDU Re-logon: A Small Detail That Tells Us So Much About the Fate of MH370.

Brock McEwen
Posted May 16, 2016 at 9:33 AM

@Jeff: great piece, as always. But it baffles me that “sophisticated abduction” is the only explanation you feel is worth mentioning, when falsified ISAT data – starting from either 18:25 or earlier – is so much simpler, opens the door to far more believable scenarios, and explains so much more of the observable evidence.

If we are now leaning – as I hope we finally are – towards “something happened which cannot be admitted” (F. de Changy’s phrase), a falsified ISAT data log explains…

– the observed delays in its publication

– the timing of this “logon”: 18:25 makes perfect sense as a place to punch in with falsified data AFTER determining that 18:22 is the last radar return anyone wants published; as the IG’s 2014 radar coverage chart made crystal clear, it makes no sense at all to think sophisticated highjackers would expect to be clear of all primary radar while still in the Malacca Strait.

I’ve left out of my argument any specific elements of the disinformation campaign carried out by search leadership, because I expect we will all scale the scope of any such campaign to fit our theory. But in general, a disinformation campaign carried out by the same people who caused the “logon” (simply by appending it to the data log) has fewer moving parts. To me, such a scenario is more rational than supposing a group of sophisticated highjackers took the plane, with an unconnected group – search leadership – risking a disinformation campaign merely to conceal incompetence.

MTF...P2
Ps Also of passing interest was the picture provided by JW of the SDU:

The Honeywell/Thales MCS6000 Satellite Data Unit is the middle of the three boxes shown here.

 
There's that name again - i.e. Thales - sure got their fingers in a lot of pies the Thales group?

[MikeChillit]

F. de Changy - “something happened which cannot be admitted”.

Speaking of Brock -  Here he is commenting on the latest JW blog - The SDU Re-logon: A Small Detail That Tells Us So Much About the Fate of MH370.

Brock McEwen
Posted May 16, 2016 at 9:33 AM

@Jeff: great piece, as always. But it baffles me that “sophisticated abduction” is the only explanation you feel is worth mentioning, when falsified ISAT data – starting from either 18:25 or earlier – is so much simpler, opens the door to far more believable scenarios, and explains so much more of the observable evidence.

If we are now leaning – as I hope we finally are – towards “something happened which cannot be admitted” (F. de Changy’s phrase), a falsified ISAT data log explains…

– the observed delays in its publication

– the timing of this “logon”: 18:25 makes perfect sense as a place to punch in with falsified data AFTER determining that 18:22 is the last radar return anyone wants published; as the IG’s 2014 radar coverage chart made crystal clear, it makes no sense at all to think sophisticated highjackers would expect to be clear of all primary radar while still in the Malacca Strait.

I’ve left out of my argument any specific elements of the disinformation campaign carried out by search leadership, because I expect we will all scale the scope of any such campaign to fit our theory. But in general, a disinformation campaign carried out by the same people who caused the “logon” (simply by appending it to the data log) has fewer moving parts. To me, such a scenario is more rational than supposing a group of sophisticated highjackers took the plane, with an unconnected group – search leadership – risking a disinformation campaign merely to conceal incompetence.

Sorry. Not on a 'real' computer at the moment. Still learning to navigate this website. But this is relevant to Brock's line of reasoning:

..it is not necessary to physically alter the SDU or anything else to fake BTO data. It is only necessary to say 'x data' was recorded, when in fact it was 'y data'.

Remember that the digital record has been withheld by Malaysia and Inmarsat under a 'proprietary' claim. As a result, we have no way of knowing if we were given the real 'x dataset'. For all we know, someone connected with the 'proprietary' group published a totally forged 'y dataset', claiming it is the 'x dataset'. This means that any effort to spoof us would be pretty easy.

The math required to invent alternative BTO data is junior high school level stuff.

Cheers, Mike

[Gobbledock]

The last two blogs by P2 and MC are worthy of thought and deeper discussion. As with most individuals we all have differing opinions as to what may or may not have happenned. But the main reason I don't believe this to be your standard aviation accident (not that there really is such a thing) is because of the actions of the countries involved in the entire episode which includes;

- The  lack of overall interest in the investigation from from Boeing,
- The the farcical nature of Malaysia throughout this entire two year period with their lying and obsfucation,
- The willingness of all involved in the investigation to hand over investigative authority to the ATsB and Beaker - a ridiculously stupid an inept bureaucrat.(perfect if you don't want the truth discovered),
- The avoidance at all costs of a solid look at the 7th arc
- The incredible amount of electronic data that either doesn't add up or doesn't supposedly exist,
- The history of the Captain,
- The trajectory that the aircraft flew,
- The unexplained answers of who all the passengers onboard were,
- The unexplained answers regarding exactly what freight or technical knowledge was onboard the aircraft,
- A lack of full disclosure of who stood to inherit or receive what financial gain/payments/payouts from the passenger(s) deaths.

At the end of the day the disappearance could be related to mechanical failure or pilot error, I won't disagree as human error or mechanical failure are the primary causes of most aircraft accidents. But there are a very small number of accidents that can be attributed to something more sinister. For me, there are just to many unexplained elements of this disappearance to point to crew error or mechanical failure at this stage.

We live in a world where Governments are happy to piss away billions of dollars on an assortment of crap, at the drop of a hat. Yet they are not willing to throw another $100 million into the MH370 search? They are not willing to search the areas that they have been told to search by the real experts. Why? In this case 2 plus 2 does not equal 4 my friends, sorry.

And finally, my biggest suspicion is now directed towards ICAO. Why have they,under the remit of the United Nations, not taken control of this unique situation and done something, anything? All they've done is drive a few meetings, hold a few press releases, masturbate the media with words. Nothing! They've sat on their fat, useless arses while their subordinate states make a mockery of the authority that they operate under. None of this makes any sense in my book.

TICK TOCK? You got that right.

[Brock McEwen]

My ears were burning...

Thanks for the support. Nice to read you, MC, in a forum not restricted to 140 characters. (FYI: I can allay at least one of your recent concerns: my latest drift probability analysis was my own work, albeit fed by probabilities generated by IPRC (U. of Hawaii). I can forward you the e-mail exchanges with them dating back to Jan.2016, if you have any lingering doubts. Also: I notice you have me "blocked" on Twitter - which is a shame, as I continue to appreciate your ship tracking maps. I hope this was unintentional - the only thing you've ever accused me of is drinking the IG kool-aid - which anyone who has read my sharp exchanges with ALSM and GuardedDon may find somewhat ironic...)

I agree, Mike, that the "technology" required to send us all to the SIO is a) the ability to paste the authentic log into a spreadsheet, b) the ability to perform basic algebra to reverse-engineer a desired path, and c) the ability to print to PDF. When the log came out, many people were concerned by the PDF format, for precisely this reason.

Every MH370 study I have ever undertaken has been to TEST either the Inmarsat data's authenticity or a particular interpretation of it, by comparing its predictions to the physical record. The only thing more amazing than the number of tests they fail is the number of people willing to work hard online to discredit these results...

It is long past due for a stiff audit of all search decisions taken since March 8, 2014. Regardless of our favourite perp or plot, I firmly believe we can rally around the simple fact that next of kin particularly - and the public generally - have been left far more in the dark than is acceptable. I've been saying for nearly two years, now, that turning over the rocks of official search agencies will uncover the truth far faster than will yet another run around the Inmarsat mulberry bush. While others have said the same - for just as long - it has been tiring and often lonely work, so it is very gratifying to see the desire to investigate the investigators finally beginning to gather some serious steam.

[MikeChillit]

[quote pid='4309' dateline='1463468315']
Michael Chillit

You are not blocked on Twitter, Brock.

Glad to see your response, but can you help me with a bit of clarification? It is my understanding that Malaysia and Inmarsat have refused to give anyone access to the digital record. If that is true, then we can certainly talk about data manipulation that might have occurred at their end. It is easy. Incredibly easy in terms of BTO values. One only has to know the order and syntax of the source data record. All of that is known to and ready available to Inmarsat. Perhaps not at all for Malaysia.

I'll comment further once I know if I'm correct about the digital record. Thanks.
[/quote]

[Brock McEwen]

Thanks, Mike. Obviously, all I know is who was REPORTED* ever to have seen the raw, unredacted data log: Inmarsat, and the governments of the UK (AAIB), Malaysia, and the US (NTSB) (and perhaps more, if I've missed any other reporting on the subject) - and that it has never been published, so that we might all verify for ourselves its authenticity.

* source: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...0167673144

Of course, the partially redacted PDF of the log would not surface until the end of May. In response to the howls of protest over the delays, redactions, and format, Malaysia and Inmarsat pointed the finger at each other - each saying they gave all they had (Inmarsat to Malaysia, Malaysia to the public) - and then ducked for cover for the eight or nine minutes required to outlast the general public's attention span.

I don't know if this answers your question, but it is my understanding of the data flow.

Note the WSJ article places the raw data in US custody - at Malaysia's bequest - during the key, chaotic period from March 10-14, 2014.

[MikeChillit]

[quote pid='4314' dateline='1463543105']
Brock: I've now had a chance to read the WSJ article. It is helpful, but is not what we need to determine how likely or unlikely it is that MH370 satellite ping ring data may have been SPOOFED.

In the US Court environment (and most Western courts), there is something known as "Chain of Custody" for court-related evidence. It is basically a formal record of everyone who has access to evidence / testimony as it moves through the system. At each stage, a person is identified as "responsible" for ensuring the integrity of the evidence (or whatever). It is not uncommon to have lapses during early stages, but such lapses should quickly disappear as a case / investigation becomes formal. With regard to MH370, everyone knew there were life and death implications within 8 hours of the plane's departure from KLIA. But there is no evidence anyone treated it with emphasis on preserving chain of custody information.

A lot of things would have happened in most Western countries that did not or may have not happened in this instance. I do not see, for example, any evidence there were chain of custody concerns in the investigation into the loss of MH370. For example, we do not have information about who transcribed the digital record, or if multiple parties transcribed their own versions. I am inclined to suspect that Inmarsat owns the only keys to the digital record. That is, it is at least partially encrypted or password protected. If true, it means all requests for transcriptions / copies had to pass through Chris Ashton or one of his colleagues. It also means there was ample opportunity for Inmarsat employees / technicians to make directed or freelance changes to the digital record. In other words, what we have may not be what Inmarsat saw when it first examined 3-F1 data. No way to know without a formal Chain of Custody process.

But that is the worst-case scenario. My inclination is to accept as valid the BTO data Inmarsat gave us. I've checked BTO values against GPS values in several instances and they are within a few kilometers. There is no way to check the seven pings we tend to be most concerned with, but the BTO dataset as a whole makes sense to me.

I have published an explanation of how BTO data can be manipulated, but until we have ancillary evidence that that might have happened, I don't see much value in going down that path. What would convince me we have a problem with BTO data integrity is finding debris in a location I personally consider unlikely, such as Sri Lanka, the Maldives, Bangladesh, Amsterdam Island, Saint Paul Island, Western Australia, or either side of the moon. To name a few.

The other data element we obtained from 3-F1 is BFO (Doppler). I don't believe it is important to even care if BFO could have been spoofed. It hasn't been shown to measure anything useful; no one has ever tried to use it before to find a missing plane; and no one will ever try to use it again to find a missing plane. More importantly, it would NEVER have been used in this instance if not for a handful of unemployed Dowsers who claimed they could find the plane with BFO Dowsing Rods. With moistened fingers held high in the air, they said the plane traveled at 942.6857 kph and was located 231.89765 meters northwest of ATSB's estimate. But, after blowing through $200 million, wasting two years, and telling NOK to kiss-off, it appears that criminal charges against them will be dropped because rank stupidity is not a crime. (Yet people laughed at GeoResonance when it claimed to have similarly effective but unproven tools.)

With that, I'll conclude by saying the obvious. It looks like we will have to wait a little longer to refine the plane's terminal location. No new debris has surfaced in a while, but we know it's out there somewhere. NOAA, Geomar, and others believe Reunion Island drift was likely to have come from the Zenith Plateau area where it intersects the 7th Arc. A lot of my work suggests the same location. But it is still a long arc of up to 1,500 km. It need not take as long as Australia took to reach it's conclusion it was in the wrong place, but it would take up to 3 months. People have to decide if it's worth the expense. Most of us think it is.


[/quote]

[MrPeaBody]

Three new items of debris to be examined in relation to the disappearance of MH370

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester today confirmed reports that three new pieces of debris—two in Mauritius and one in Mozambique—have been found and are of interest in connection to the disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370.

“The Malaysian Government is yet to take custody of the items, however as with previous items, Malaysian officials are arranging collection and it is expected the items will be brought to Australia for examination,” Mr Chester said.

“These items of debris are of interest and will be examined by experts.”

[Kharon]

Has ET claimed another aircraft? It’s a sneaking suspicion which keeps popping up in the back of my conscious. I know most think that by ET I mean the Extra Terrestrial movie star; and, I’ll own that I was quite happy for that notion to exist, but it’s not what I meant.

Electronic Transmogrification (ET) in the form of ‘virus’ or corrupt data creating problems is much more believable than some of the complex ‘conspiracy’ theories floating about. You can, without to much trouble have your computer ’infected’ and made useless; your ‘details’ and identity can be stolen, government and industries spend millions, if not billions on computer security. The ‘Black hats’ demonstrated a couple of years back that ‘aeronautical’ systems can be ‘hacked’.

So I arrive at the parallels between MH 370 and MS 804 and a ‘what if’ question which, IMO, needs an answer. This is not a ‘theory’ which I will defend to the death; just a simple, stray notion which intrigues me in quiet moments. What say you?

[Peetwo]

The IG & the DOI

From off the Duncan Steel website it would appear the IG are now firmly heading north of 36S on the 7th arc:

What the nine debris finds may tell us about the MH370 end point

Richard Godfrey
2016 June 2nd

Introduction
There have so far been  a total of nine finds of debris that are either suspected or confirmed to be from MH370. These are as tabulated below. 

The Rolls Royce name plate from an engine cowling was found twice, firstly by Schalk Lückhoff carrying many barnacles, and then three months later by Neels Kruger, denuded of barnacles.

This has led to the hypothesis that debris items clear of barnacles may have arrived several months earlier than the date of the find, the barnacles having been lost by the debris item after beaching through various mechanisms (physical abrasion; death of the barnacles; etc.).





Method
In this analysis, I have assumed that all nine debris finds are from MH370. 

I used the Adrift model using the forward drift data starting at March 2014.

I found the probability for each point along the 7th Arc subject to two different assumptions:

(1) Assuming that we did not know the time of arrival; and

(2) Assuming that the time of arrival was the fastest possible given by the Adrift model.

For Method (1) I summed the probabilities for the timeframe between the fastest possible time point and the time point of the find to give a weighting.

For Method (2) I used the probability for the fastest time point only for each find and summed those values.

For both methods, it is possible that individual probabilities are zero.


Results
Using Method (1), the accumulated probabilities for all nine debris finds show a peak at 30S 98E on the 7th Arc as shown in the table and graph below.





Using Method (2), the single probability summed for each of the nine debris finds shows a peak at 29S 99E. The graph below shows another peak at 34S 94E, but this does not fit all debris finds (i.e. although the summed probabilities may render a large result, some end locations/find locations are found to have a zero probability in the Adrift model).


 
Only two putative MH370 end points on the 7th Arc fit all the debris finds, as indicated in the table below: 29S 99E and 30S 98E.




Using Method (2), I checked whether there was a possibility that the MH370 end point was either inside or outside the 7th Arc.

There was a clear peak or hot spot at 30S 99E just outside the 7th Arc, almost twice any peak along the 7th Arc, as shown in the following table (red: geographical bins along the 7th Arc; green: the bin containing the peak probability).



Discussion
The debris find at Mossel Bay, South Africa by Schalk Lückhoff and then 3 months later by Neels Kruger, as well as the find at Paindane Resort, Mozambique by Liam Lotter, fit only this hot spot and surrounding cells as a point of origin. 

The indicated average drift speed of the recovered debris is 0.37 knots, the maximum speed being 0.68 knots.

The map below shows the fastest drift from 30S 99E using the Adrift model. The yellow diamond shows the location of 30S 99E (i.e. the MH370 end point indicated above). The yellow squares give the mean locations of drifting debris after the stated number of months in each case. The green circles are the locations of the debris finds.






On this basis it would seem likely that most of the drift items have reached the places where they were found several months before they were identified (i.e. they may have spent some considerable time on or near the coastlines/beaches).

For MH370 to have crashed at near 30S two possibilities immediately suggest themselves: either the flight south was “low and slow”, or the path of MH370 included a loiter around Sumatra and the Andaman Islands before heading south. The latter case would require that although the BFO data shows a southerly direction at 18:40, subsequently MH370 circled back before finally heading south.

Victor Iannello has suggested a third possibility: that the plane turned toward the south later than 18:40, and the BFO value at 18:40 is the result of a descent. This allows cruise speeds for the entire path and no loiter. It is interesting that the region around 29-30S was the hot spot suggested by the ATSB in their June 2014 report, in which the BFO at 18:40 was ignored for unknown reasons. Perhaps the ATSB was right after all, to initially ignore the BFO at 18:40.


Don Thompson has noted that a lower flight level may have been an intentional consideration: the cruise altitudes of flight routes from Australia to the Middle East would be in the path of an aircraft (i.e. MH370) heading south from its final major turn, and adopting a lower altitude would avoid the possibility of a collision.



Conclusion
The area around 30S 99E should be considered as a hotspot for underwater searching, as soon as all nine debris finds are confirmed as from MH370.

It is noted that drift modelling such as that employed here of necessity contains various vagaries and conditional outcomes. Alternative drift models should be used to check the above results, and it is urged that others should use such models so as to verify (or not) the results obtained here.


The possibility still remains that some contingent events (e.g. particular storms) may have made it feasible for the debris items that have been found in South Africa and Mozambique to have started out further south than 30S (e.g. the subsidiary peak near 34S mentioned above), but the discovery of the latest four items in Mauritius and Mozambique (yet to be confirmed to be from MH370) adds weight to the previously-stated result from drift modelling that MH370 appears unlikely to have crashed to the south of 36S. 


Acknowledgements
I am indebted to Dr Erik van Sebille of Imperial College, London, and the Adrift organisation.

I am also indebted to Henrik Rydberg, Mike Exner, Victor Iannello and Don Thompson of the Independent Group for their helpful suggestions in preparing this paper.

  MTF...P2