[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 27.01.17: More spin'n'bollocks from Liow -

Via 'The Star' online:

‘We want to review MH370 data’
by adrian chan

BENTONG: Although the search for MH370 in the south Indian Ocean has been suspended, experts are going back to the drawing board to locate the wreckage, says Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai.
 
“Malaysia, China and Australia will continue to work together in the search for MH370.

“We suspended the search so that we can go back to the drawing board and re-look into deep sea water search data, the debris data, as well as the drifting pattern.

“We want to re-look into whatever info that we can gather, including satellite data,” he told reporters at a press conference after attending a road safety campaign held at the Genting Sempah rest and recreational stop here yesterday.

Liow added that the experts had determined the 120,000 sq km search area based on satellite communications data.

The two-year search, he said, has proven that the wreck is not in the area.

“Only when we are confident of the plane’s exact location, will we move in.

“At the moment, we do not have the data to show us its exact location.

“What the expert team gave us is just the probable area. We can’t make a decision based only on that,” he said.

Say cheese: Liow taking a wefie with staff of highway concessionaire ANIH Bhd after launching its road safety campaign.

Liow assured the public that the Australia Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) would continue to analyse avai­lable data, including drifting patterns and debris.

He added that Malaysia has also set up a response team, led by Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) director-general Datuk Seri Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, to search for more debris.

“We have contacted all countries around the south Indian Ocean. They will assist us in looking for debris.

“So when we find debris, we will quickly send it to Australia for ana­lysis.

“Once we have more debris surfacing, we will be able to collect more data to determine the exact position of the aircraft,” he said.

On keeping the next-of-kin of those on board MH370 informed, Liow said a meeting will be held between them and the DCA, ATSB as well as MAS.

“We will keep them informed of the latest developments, we do not want them to feel that we have just suspended the search.

“We are together with them and we want to look for answers together with them,” he said.

MH370 was a scheduled passenger flight bound for Beijing from Kuala Lumpur. It disappeared on March 8, 2014 with 239 passengers and crew on board.


Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/20...tvv2VTR.99

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

An orchestrated litany of lies

Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Laincan can kiss my ass. You are full of shit old mate.

Liow is a prime example of a government covering up for its major carrier, MAS. They've done so to save face, reputation, their darling carrier and to cap payouts. Same thing happens in Australia, the government wouldn't dare fart in the direction of the Flying Roo. And as for the epitome of coverups - Robert Muldoons government in New Zealand covered up for ANZ after the 1979 Erebus crash. It was the accident that could have bankrupted ANZ and the country. Plus Prime Minister Robert Muldoon was a friend of Air New Zealand CEO Morrie Davis and Deputy Chairman of the Board Des Dalgety, and as Minister of Finance was the company’s principal shareholder.

Governments are a pox on society.

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 29.01.17: DOI archive entry 170129 

From a South African aviation blog apparently there may have been more MH370 debris discovered. Via Avcom...

Aircraft parts wash up on local beach - Transkei

Post by Steve » Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:20 am
This morning, a local person found some items that washed up on a beach on the Transkei coast near East London that looked like they could be from an aircraft. They sent the cell phone pics taken of these parts to one of our local aviators and the pics have been sent to our local ATC who will circulate them and notify the relevant authorities.

Can anyone identify perhaps what type of aircraft they are from?

  
It also sounds like the possible debris may end up in the right hands of senior (Malaysian AAIB) AAI investigator Aslam Khan:

Post by  AslamKhan » Sat Jan 28, 2017 3:29 am
Good morning
Thank you for including me in the forum.
My name is Aslam Khan from AAIB Malaysia. I am involved in the missing MH370 investigation.

The photos posted of the debris indicate that it is an Aircraft component. The profile looks like a wing to body fairing or flap track fairing. (As identified in subsequent postings)

PLEASE inform the person who found it to contact the South African CAA. Possible contact point could be the local airport and they could contact the duty officer at the CAA SA.

Appreciate if the DEBRIS can be placed in a plastic bag ( big garbage bag will work ) and then into a cardboard / carton box. We would like to examine it in detail to identify if it is from a B777 n possible link to MH370.

Thank you for your kind assistance and God Bless.

Aslam Khan
Mobile : +60123005540
Email :aslam@mot.gov.my

While on Aslam Khan I note that he also appeared in the recent France24 program on MH370... :

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 13.01.17: All quiet on the KL MH370 front...  

Probably what Malaysia secretly desire, there is not too much to report on MH370 of late...

Guess we're just marking time till the 3rd anniversary interim or final (inconclusive) report is published but in the meantime there is some general scuttlebutt from the loyal MH370 followers...

First from the Africa Daily a follow up on the latest possible piece of debris found in South Africa: 

SACAA waits for suspected Malaysian MH 370 debris

• Written by Farhana
  

Steve Onions A piece of what is likely to be part of the missing MH370 has washed up a beach in East London

Is debris found in SA from MH 370?
February 9, 2017
Snenhlanla Ndudula 

East London, South Africa: The South African Civil Aviation Authorities are working with their Malaysian counterparts to determine whether a piece of what looks like a part of the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 washed up on the shores of East London two weeks after a multi- million pound search for the plane was called off, is in fact a genuine lead.

Till now, there has been no sign of any survivors of the ill fated flight which was en route to Beijing.

Pictures showing this piece suspected to belong to the MH370 were posted on the Aviation Communication, a chat site for aircraft enthusiasts by a forum member, Steve Onions, recently. 

Onions said: “This morning, a local person found some items that washed up on a beach on the Transkei coast near East London that looked like they could be from an aircraft. They sent the cell phone pics taken of these parts to one of our local aviators and the pics have been sent to our local ATC who will circulate them and notify the relevant authorities.”

Onions continues to wait for a response from the South African Civil Aviation Authority  who are working with their Malaysian counterparts on the missing debris.

Mpume Motaung, Senior Manager, Corporate Communications & Marketing of the SACAA confirmed that it was aware of the  Malaysian MH370 flight, however, the debris once received from Onions will be handed over to the Malaysian Air Accident Investigation Bureau officials for further investigation.

 "In terms of the International Civil Aviation Organizational (ICAO) obligation to South Africa, the SACAA cannot make any pronouncement on the progress of the investigation, nor make available any information relating to the Malaysian MH370 flight accident, since South Africa is not the state that is investigating the accident nor the state of the occurrence," said Motaung.
 
The find has sparked an online discussion amongs the members on the Aviation Communications website about whether it was from the missing airline and comments suggesting that the part looks like ‘part of the gear door,' 

Millions of pounds were invested on a three year search for the missing airline which went off the radar on March 8 2014 with 277 passengers and 12 crew members, while on route to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur.

Pressure for the search to resume has been placed by the relatives of the missing passengers as they had hoped that numerous pieces found on the coast of Africa could help solve the puzzle and help locate the remains of their loved ones.

Three pieces of the plane were found in Nosy Boraha, on the east coast of Madagascar in June 2016, while another piece had been located on Kangroo Island, in Australia. 
The plane was recorded to be a Boeing 777. 

The part which was found in South Africa is suspected of being part of the trailing edge structure of the wing of a large commercial airline similar to a Boeing 747 or B777, aviation experts have found.

A Malayasian official from The Air Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) involved in the investigation of plane, Aslam Khan made contact with the forum on January 28, 2017, saying, “The photos posted of the debris indicate that it is an Aircraft component. The profile looks like a wing to body fairing or flap track fairing.”

Khan also advised on how to handle and store the debris as the AAIB would like to examine it to identify if it is from a B777 and link to the MH370.
 
In December 2016, a report issued by the Australian Government found that the authorities responsible for the search had likely been looking in the wrong section of the ocean, reported ABC News.

 
Next Victor Iannello from the IG has set up his own MH370 blog and he begins by tackling - Why We Need Data Withheld by Malaysia - & then two days ago: Singapore Radar and MH370.


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 20.02.17: HSSS archive entry 170220.

Victor on Godfrey & Hampton. -  

Link references:

Godfrey - The Probable End Point of MH370
Holland - The Use of Burst Frequency Offsets in the Search for MH370

More Analyses of MH370 Data
by Victor Iannello Posted: Thursday, 2/16/2017

Predicted location of debris in July 2015 from a crash site of 30S latitude along 7th arc.

...In the past week, there were two serious technical papers released that discuss evidence surrounding MH370 and with implications on where it may have crashed along the 7th arc.  The two papers demonstrate that there is still significant disagreement about how to interpret some critical technical data...

Chillit on Godfrey - 

Godfrey:: Probable MH370 Endpoint?

Posted on February 20, 2017 by Mike Chillit

A copy of Richard Godfrey’s recent paper on the possible location of MH370’s fuselage is reprinted below. I have endeavored to make it verbatim, but I cannot assure that because the source document is not publicly published in the usual sense, and is therefore subject to modification without notice.

It is helpful to have this perspective from Mr. Godfrey. It caught my eye largely because it makes no mention of NOAA’s recent drift study that appears to place the likely location of the fuselage much farther north. It is unfortunate that there has been so little effort to link and build upon prior efforts, largely by authors who refuse to cite the work of others.

In any event, there are serious issues with Mr. Godfrey’s analysis that need to be addressed in some manner:

1. Drift simulation based on incorrect drift dynamics is almost certainly incorrect;
   
2. MH370’s flaperon was FOUND 508 days after March 8, 2014; it is NOT KNOWN how long the flaperon was in Mauritius / Reunion waters before it was reported to police;
   
3. The actual average drift time from the Final Arc to Madagascar is only 227 days, less than half of the drift time estimated by Mr. Godfrey;
   
4. The last two drift charts depict drift patterns that do not exist immediately north of the Circumpolar Current;
   
5. Mr. Godfrey’s paper should be considered an interesting beginning; not a final work product.
   

The following Excel excerpt identifies 14 NOAA satellite-tracked drifters that physically crossed the FINAL ARC at the identified location, and ended their respective drift paths at the indicated GPS (~50°E longitude). Anyone anywhere in the world with access to a computer can pull the drift records on these buoys and check the accuracy of that information.

Efforts that characterize drift time as something larger than about 227 days all tend to use a “Horseshoes and Hand Grenades” approach to measuring drift time. For example, they all use hypothetical catchment boxes or “plots” to identify drifters that may have no relevance to the study. And in that way, they grossly overestimate drift time. [USDA pioneered the use of “Plots” decades ago and, in the process, Fisher Statistics evolved.
But USDA’s plot construct did not float or move around. The concept is not entirely applicable to sea surface drift models. NOAA’s recent efforts have the same problem.]


Excel Excerpt 1 of 1

Mr. Godfrey’s full article begins below.

P2 - Excerpt of Godfrey conclusion:

Conclusion

The drift analysis appears to support a probable end point of MH370 around 30°S near the 7th Arc. This fits with a late final major turn south at 19:36 UTC and a flight at the normal cruise speed of 0.84 Mach until fuel exhaustion. There is a good fit to the satellite data and a good fit to a great circle path toward Wilkins Runway (YWKS) as the final waypoint.

The drift analysis also explains the reason why MH370 floating debris originating around 30°S near the 7th Arc could end up in Reunion and South Africa with barnacles via tracks that pass through sea water between 19°C and 25°C and end up in Madagascar, Mozambique and Tanzania without barnacles via tracks that pass through sea water above 25°C.

On 19th August 2014 07:37 Barry Carlson of the Independent Group posted on the ATSB Blog: “Strange as it may seem, the ATSB assessment for the Priority Bathymetric Survey is centred exactly where the GC track to YWKS crosses the 7th arc. If YWKS has never featured in your considerations, then I assume it would now be a further confidence booster in validating the work done to date.”

Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner responded on 20th August 2014 09:13: “Thank you, Barry, for your insight. You will be pleased to hear that the search strategy group did consider YWKS as a possible waypoint. The location of the search area however, is based on the analysis of the satellite communications data.”

 Off Beaker's blog - which strangely still exists on the ATSB website... -  here is the full text of the exchange between Carlson & Beaker:

Barry Carlson said...

Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that 9M-MRO had turned to the north prior to the 1839 BFO resulting from an unanswered incoming phone call. The aircraft tracked toward waypoint IGREX then west into the Chennai FIR before turning south and passing near to or over Car Nicobar (VOCX) and arriving on the 1941 arc about 90NM to the south.

I reasoned that from about that point, the Wilkins Runway, Antarctica (YWKS) waypoint had been entered into the FMC, and the LNAV provided the Great Circle track.
http://countjustonce.com/mh370/mh370-map-1.html
( P2 - Changed link:http://mh370.countjustonce.com/)

Strange as it may seem, the ATSB assessment for the Priority Bathymetric Survey is centered exactly where the GC track to YWKS crosses the 7th arc. If YWKS has never featured in your considerations, then I assume it would now be a further confidence booster in validating the work done to date.
August 19, 2014 07:37

Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner (author) said...

Thank you, Barry, for your insight. You will be pleased to hear that the search strategy group did consider YWKS as a possible waypoint. The location of the search area however, is based on the analysis of the satellite communications data.
August 20, 2014 09:13

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 21.02.17: Chillit update.

Via 7th Arc blog:

How We Measure MH370 Drift Time
Posted on February 20, 2017 by Mike Chillit

My previous article yesterday examined the “average drift time” postulated by Godfrey, Iannello, et al in an informal paper titled: “The Probable End Point of MH370”. The paper is dated February 12, 2017 and was distributed via Dropbox.

The foundation assumption in the Godfrey paper is that the 508 days that elapsed between the presumed crash of MH370 on March 8, 2014 and the flaperon’s discovery on Reunion Island is an accurate and useful estimate of drift time across that expanse of ocean: some 4,581 km or 2,473 nm.

It cannot be stressed too much that the 508 days that elapsed between March 8, 2014 and July 29, 2015 is arbitrary and a wholly unsatisfactory estimate of drift time across the Indian Ocean. It is in fact whimsical.

NOAA satellite-tracked drifters have been in the Indian Ocean for about three decades. They update their positions via satellite four times each day. We know where they are and how long it takes them to go from their respective points of deployment to any location they happen to be during their drift lifespan.

While we have all of this glorious NOAA drift data, working with it is a lot of work. It is complicated and it takes time to understand its subtleties. (I certainly do not claim to know all there is to know about those drifters; I simply consider them a very rich source of information that must be used with caution.)

For example, there are at least 14 of those NOAA drifters that crossed the Final Arc where MH370 is believed to have come down. (See the Excel excerpt below)

If one simply calculates the time it took each of those drifters to reach a NOAA-defined endpoint … counting drift time back from the date of original deployment … we get a ridiculous estimate for average drift time. The reason it is ridiculous is because only actual drift time from Point A (Final Arc) to Point B (Mascarenes) is relevant to aircraft-related debris drift time estimates. (For my purposes, drifters that fail to beach on a Mascarene Island – nearly all of them – are considered to be terminated when they reach 50°E longitude (Madagascar’s northeastern shore).


Excel Excerpt: NOAA Satellite tracked drifter statistics for drifters crossing the Final Arc where MH370 is believed to have crashed.

Not only do we have to manually go through drifter records to figure out when and where each of them crossed the Final Arc, we have to make sure they didn’t cross the final arc again before ultimately reaching our definition of a proper end point (landfall on a Mascarene Island, or 50°E).

In fact, of the 14 NOAA buoys shown above that initially merited review, five crossed the Final Arc more than once. If we fail to remove superfluous drift time, we end up with enormously incorrect average estimates of drift time, and that is precisely what happened to Godfrey, et al.

Similarly, some of those drifters continue to move west and south AFTER they arrived at Madagascar’s shores. All of that additional drift time has to be removed to end up with useful average drift time estimates.

In yesterday’s article I noted that average drift time for all 14 drifters was 227 days. If I remove the drifter that ended up north of the Mascarenes (#18689), and the two drifters that did not reach the Mascarenes (#9727915, #11270030), the average only goes up 4 days to 231 drift days. That works out to about 7.7 months. In other words, debris from MH370 should have been washing up on the Mascarene Islands in September and October 2014: roughly the same time Australia and Fugro Equator began using bathymetric scanners to examine seafloor contours 2,000 km southwest of Perth.

By publishing some of my work here, I urge others to check it and, if any of it appears to be incorrect, bring it to my attention. Only in this way will we ever agree on a likely terminal location, which I currently believe is very near Batavia Seamount.

The following charts show drift paths, average latitude “crawl”, and other bits of information relevant to determining how MH370 debris arrived in the Mascarene Islands, and beyond.



NOAA Satellite tracked drifters that crossed the Final Arc and reached the Mascarene Island area. This shows, among other things, how tight the drift path is between about 100°E and 50°E.

 

Shown in magenta are NOAA satellite tracked drifters that either drift much farther north than most other drifters, or that did not complete the journey to the Mascarene area.
 

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 27.01.17: Abbott & Chillit the search must go on..

Via the Advertiser:

Former prime minister Tony Abbott believes Australia should still be searching for missing flight MH370. Picture: AAP/Mick Tsikas

Former prime minister says search for missing flight should continue

CHARLES MIRANDA, News Corp Australia Network
February 26, 2017 12:00am

The search for lost flight MH370 should be continuing with the pilots’ “murder-suicide” likely to have forced the aircraft to a further southern radius than suspected, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott said yesterday.

Speaking on the eve of the third anniversary of the Malaysian Airlines’ flight disappearance, Mr Abbott said he did not believe all search avenues had been exhausted and nations owed it to their citizens to resolve the mystery.

The whereabouts of missing flight MH370 is one of the great myetries of modern aviation. Picture: AFP/Manan Vatsayana

He said while he no longer received the official briefings since becoming a backbencher, based on what he had seen he believed there were two areas that could still be searched.
“There’s absolutely no doubt that while there is any, any reasonable prospective places to search we should still be searching, no doubt about that in my mind,” he told News Corp Australia, adding reasonable prospective sites still existed.

“I have always said the most plausible scenario was murder-suicide and if this guy wanted to create the world’s greatest mystery why wouldn’t he have piloted the thing to the very end and gone further south? Then there was the analyses that suggested there might be a prospective place to the north.

North or south? Despite the discovery of debris, the final resting place of the passenger jet is still unknown.

“When you’ve got nearly 240 people missing, the greatest mystery of modern times, as long as there is any reasonable prospective place to search you just keep searching.”
MH370 vanished on March 8, 2014 on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with contact lost over the South China Sea with all tracking lost after the aircraft looped west over the Andaman Sea, prompting the biggest international search in aviation history.

Murder-suicide was one scenario air crash investigators backed by the FBI probed including the background of pilot Captain Shah, but there was little to no evidence uncovered to support the theory.

More than 270 people perished on the ill-fated flight. Picture: 60 Minutes.

Mr Abbott said he thought often about the crash and it was always about giving families of loved ones closure over the cost, which for Australia he said totalled about $100 million.

“It was one of the critical points in my time as prime minister, I was pleased that we were able to take a leading role in the search, I was pleased we worked so closely with so many other countries and it did show that countries who aren’t normally partners could work together in a very very good cause and I think it reflected well on our country,” he said.

“I just don’t think (Prime Minister) Malcolm Turnbull cared as much,” said Amanda Lawton, whose parents were on the flight. Picture: Mark Cranitch

Amanda Lawton whose parents Bob and Cathy were on the flight, said she had always been heartened by Mr Abbott’s leadership on the issue.

“He spoke to us after the incident and he was so determined and I have always wondered if he was still in power whether it could have been found,” she said.
“I just don’t think (Prime Minister) Malcolm Turnbull cared as much,” she said.

And via MC's 7th Arc:

Does Anyone Want to Find MH370?
Posted on February 27, 2017 by Mike Chillit

With 4,000 km of “final arc” to search, Australia spent three years searching less than 300 km of it. Those in charge of the search refused to communicate with anyone not a member of “the team”, and they didn’t find so much as a hubcap.

Australia also defaulted on former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s promise to search until it was found.



The only debris found to date has been found by beachcombers on the Islands of Reunion, Rodrigues, and Mauritius. Unlike those paid millions to search for the plane, beachcombers asked nothing, were paid exactly nothing, and without so much as a “thank you” in several instances.

Some debris was also found on Madagascar beaches and on East African beaches, but it offers no help in the search, or in understanding what may have happened to the plane. All debris ends up in only two places if it misses the Mascarene Islands: 1) Madagascar, and 2) the long East African coast between northern Tanzania and South Africa. Nothing that ends up on Madagascar or East African coasts can be traced to a starting point. It is absolutely worthless in the effort to find the plane.

Importantly, debris was NOT found on Western Australia beaches or along the Great Australian Bight. Nor was it found on the islands of St. Paul or Amsterdam to the south, or Cocos or Christmas islands to the north. Likewise, there were no acoustic detections at Rottnest Island or farther south at Cape Leeuwin where nuclear proliferation stations should have picked up artifacts of a “hard crash”. Implications: it came down where it would have been extraordinarily unlikely for debris to drift east; it probably came down as a “soft crash” water ditching; and it is likely to still be mostly in one piece.

Part of the search problem is that searchers hypothesized it was a murder / suicide and then they used that to decide where to search. It may very well turn out to be a murder / suicide, but whomever did it was infinitely smarter than those who are trying to second guess him.
I personally gave up on the official search area when the flaperon was found on Reunion Island on July 29, 2015, 508 days after the crash. We do not know how long the flaperon was adrift in the Reunion Island area before it was retrieved, but it may have been there for six months or more. We know from NOAA’s satellite-tracked drifters that, on average, it only takes 230 days for debris to drift all the way to Madagascar from the most likely initial areas along the plane’s “final arc”.

Those who have followed me for a while know I have been enormously critical of the Australian government for refusing to listen to anyone not on its own payroll. But I try to be an equal opportunity critic, and my patience has also run out on Malaysia’s small “next of kin” support group, which has been indecisive and supportive of failure for nearly three years. It takes more to go beyond official government intransigence. In my opinion, which I share too willingly at times, new leadership is required for the NOK group. It needs a decisive voice, a visionary voice, not just a soft shoulder.

Unless and until that happens, the real question has to be, Does anyone really care if the plane is recovered? I frankly can’t tell, and that isn’t a good sign. But if there are still some who care, it’s going to cost between $5 million and 10$ million USD, and those who want it need to roll up their sleeves now. If I am involved in any capacity, I will only work with Williamson and Associates of Seattle. No more amateur sidescan towfish like EdgeTech and ProSAS-60. It’s time to get the job done right, and quickly or not at all.
Posted in 7th Arc

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

  Captain's Log 03.03.17: TA's OP, latest on JIT MH370 Final Report and win for NOK -

Reference JDC on 'Criminal Act' thread: 

I have seen a couple of online news reports as regards to speculation that Abbot thinks there could be have been a possibility of murder suicide, we will still have to keep an open mind about this because the conclusions of the so called leaked RMP and analysis of Flight sim, are said to have nothing to pin this on Z or anyone on board or not on board.

There's a possibility he could have done it and MY don't want their airline to be held accountable or for a suicidal pilot.

There's also possibility that some people like Abbot could have inside info. But if he doesn't have inside info, like many others it's the added thought of this so called Flight sim route analysis to SIO that was carried out as shown in the leaked RMP report  that makes them think there's a possibility he did it, but there is no conclusive link this was from the same flight plan/path Z was or was not trying to simulate.

It may even be that Inmarsat and other experts saying "it went south" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q7dBO8uEq7o feeling confidant about this because of the data and this added inconclusive so called route on Flight Sim. Putting two and two together. They all must have known about the Flight sim co-ordinates in early days.

Let's just not hope that this whole conclusion of going south isn't just based on added extra confidence of the flight sim analysis.

From above article this is the TA comment to which JDC refers:

“...I have always said the most plausible scenario was murder-suicide and if this guy wanted to create the world’s greatest mystery why wouldn’t he have piloted the thing to the very end and gone further south? Then there was the analyses that suggested there might be a prospective place to the north..."

The point I would like to make is until Tony Abbott was rolled in September 2015 by Turnbull, Abbott was heavily invested in the tragic disappearance and subsequent search for MH370, mainly I guess because it occurred on his watch. IMO this put TA as arguably the most well briefed/informed public identity on the planet when it came to MH370.

Therefore he has developed an opinion, which he is now free to voice unencumbered by the Prime Ministership and international diplomacy, that on the surface would appear to be contrary to the official government(s) and/or agencies' (ATSB/CSIRO/DSTG) expert opinions/theories etc. This would suggest that there is either two schools of thought within the government departments and bureaucracy; or there is a cover-up propaganda play in action - just saying...

Next Ventus touches on the recent Liow announcement that the MH370 Annex 13 JIT final report will be ready (note different to - "will be released"):      

V also tweeped a link for Victor's latest blog piece...

See Victor's latest. http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2017/03/...ing-mh370/ …

Finally it would appear the NOK have had a win in the ongoing (compensation case) court battles...
Via the Star online:

MH370: Next-of-kin's appeal to retain MAB as defendants allowed



PUTRAJAYA: A ray of hope has emerged for the next-of-kin of three passengers of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 who are seeking to retain Malaysia Airlines Berhad (MAB) as a defendant in their lawsuit.
 
This follows a decision by a Federal Court three-man panel chaired by Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Richard Malanjum to allow them to appeal against the High Court ruling removing MAB as a defendant.

Justice Malanjum, who presided with Federal Court judges Tan Sri Abu Samah Nordin and Datuk Aziah Ali, granted leave to the children and parents of engineers Tan Ah Meng, 46, and his wife Chuang Hsiu Ling alias Cindy Chuang, 45, to appeal the ruling.

The couple and their eldest son, Tan Wei Chew, 16, were among 239 passengers and crew on board the plane which disappeared during a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014.

Justice Malanjum allowed the leave-to-appeal application on a single legal question to be considered by the Federal Court.

The question is whether the non-vesting of the contingent liability of the defendant, Malaysian Airline System Berhad (MAS), to MAB under the Malaysia Airlines System Bhd 2015 Act to satisfy any judgment entered against MAS after all its assets are vested in MAB would constitute asset-stripping of MAS, and carried out in order to defeat the satisfaction of such judgment against MAS; in consequence, whether it is an unlawful exercise of discretion under the Act.

MAB was incorporated on Nov 7, 2014, as part of a restructuring exercise that saw the national carrier changing hands from MAS to MAB.

The Court of Appeal on Oct 7 last year allowed MAB's appeal to be struck out as a defendant in the suit after the court agreed with the submission by MAB counsel that MAB should not be named as defendant in the lawsuit because there was a vesting order under the Act which stated that MAS liabilities transferred to MAB did not include the MH370 and MH17 lawsuits. Flight MH17 was shot down over eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014.

The other defendants named in the lawsuit are MAS, the Malaysian Civil Aviation Department (DCA) director-general and the Malaysian Government.

The five family members, including the couple's teenage sons Tan Wei Hong and Tan Wei Jie; Tan Ah Meng's parents Tan Hun Khong, 85, and Lai Chew Lai, 83; and the mother of Hsiu Ling, Chuang Hung Chien, 76, sued for damages over the loss of the couple and their son.
In court, the family's lawyer Tommy Thomas submitted that they were concerned that it would be "a paper judgment" if the High Court ruled in favour of the family as MAS would be a shell company because all its assets had been transferred to MAB except the MH370 and MH17 lawsuits.

He said that according to the vesting order gazetted on Nov 6 last year, pursuant to the Malaysian Airline System Berhad (Administration) Act 2015, it appeared that MAS assets such as aircraft, buildings and properties were transferred to MAB and about 1,000 MAS liabilities relating to its trade and business creditors, such as suppliers of catering and maintenance services, were also transferred to MAB.

Thomas said none of the 500 MH370 and MH17 passengers' families' claims were transferred.

He said there were a total of 27 lawsuits filed by families of passengers on board the MH370 flight pending at the Kuala Lumpur High Court and litigation pending in the courts in the United States, China and Australia.

Lawyer Logan Sabapathy, acting for MAB, submitted that MAB did not exist at the time of the incidents and claims of alleged stripping of assets were speculative.

He said the insurance policy taken up by MAS for MH370 was not transferred to MAB and remained in MAS. – Bernama

Read more at http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/20...i7wQ7Jz.99

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Money where your mouth is Tone -

Here is your chance Mr Abbott to live up to your former Prime Ministerial promise and your moral belief that the search must go on... : 

 When "they" give up, ordinary people have to become "they"!



This aircraft took off from Malaysia on 8 March 2014 and never arrived at its destination.
Several governments have spent vast sums trying to find it, to no avail. Officially, as of January 2017 - until such time as "new evidence" becomes available - all underwater surveying has been suspended.

The Project 370 foundation is an international, a-political, non-denominational, non-profit volunteer initiative of a diverse group of planetary citizens who believe the aircraft must be found and who are intent on helping to locate it;

Firstly: To ensure the integrity of the aviation safety process, to complete the record and execute the primary mandate of any aviation accident investigation.
Secondly: As a humanitarian imperative to assist - if at all possible - to bring closure to the families of 239 of our fellow human beings who were aboard the airliner.

Nobody can ever know the "why" of this accident until someone solves the "where".

Project370 is a crowd-funded initiative to help find the missing aircraft.

You can help by DONATING to our crowd-funding campaign or volunteering. 

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 09.03.17: Boeing v 44NOK in US courts...

Via news.com.au:

MH370 families launch court cases against Boeing, Malaysia Airlines
March 8, 201712:42pm

New lawsuits have been filed against Boeing and Malaysia Airlines over the disappearance of the Boeing 777 MH370 in March 2014.

A LAWSUIT filed in the US suggests a series of catastrophic electrical and other failures may have led to the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 over the Indian Ocean.

Only small pieces of debris from the plane have been found since it disappeared in March 2014. It was carrying 239 people including six Australians.

The lawsuit, filed against Boeing in US District Court in South Carolina, says an electrical fire could have caused the Boeing 777 plane to depressurise, incapacitated the crew, caused the transponder to fail and led to the plane flying undetected until it ran out of fuel and crashed.

The suit argues a long list of manufacturing defects in the missing airliner had been produced before the aircraft disappeared.

Already, the Australian Defence Science and Technology report officially acknowledged the doomed Malaysia Airlines flight suffered a sudden electrical failure before its disappearance.

This backs the popular “zombie plane” theory, whereby the missing plane’s avionic systems are ravaged, rendering the flight crew helpless, and the aircraft continued flying on autopilot until it ran out of fuel.


The MH370 search area, where investigators found nothing. Picture: SuppliedSource:Supplied

“The defects caused and/or allowed a massive and cascading sequence of electrical failures on-board the lost plane which disabled vital systems, including the lost plane’s ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) and Mode S Transponder,” the lawsuit alleges.

Such failures would have prevented the crew from properly flying the aircraft or communicating with the ground, it says.

“Boeing elected to equip the lost plane with these ineffective ELTs (Emergency Locator Transmitters) and ULBs (Underwater Locator Beacons) despite the presence of other readily available and reasonable alternative technologies that would have allowed the lost plane, the FDR (Flight Data Recorder), and the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) to be tracked in real-time anywhere in the world, especially in cases of crashes, disruption of communications and other losses,” it reads

The suit was filed by Gregory Keith who is a special administrator for families who lost loved ones on the flight. It names 44 victims as plaintiffs.

Boeing says it doesn’t comment on pending lawsuits.


Children write messages of hope for passengers of missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. Picture: ReutersSource:Supplied

Meanwhile, the Chinese next-of-kin of 15 passengers on Tuesday filed papers announcing their intention to sue Malaysian Airline System BHD (MAS), the parent company of Malaysia Airlines.

Malaysian media reports the families argue the disappearance of MH370 cannot have happened without culpable negligence by MAS, the Department of Civil Aviation, the Royal Malaysian Air Force and the Malaysian Government.

The writ seeks damages for ‘wrongful acts’ which have caused the defendants losses in financial support, family members and has produced irreparable psychological harm.


A girl has her face painted during the Day of Remembrance for MH370 event in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on Saturday, March 4, 2017. Picture: APSource:AP

FAMILIES SEEK TO RAISE $20 MILLION

The families of those on board missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 also have launched efforts to raise at least $US15 million ($A19.75 million) to fund a private search as they mark the third anniversary of the plane’s disappearance.

The nearly three-year search in the southern Indian Ocean was suspended on January 17 with no trace of the plane, which disappeared March 8, 2014, while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board.

Jacquita Gomes, whose husband was a flight attendant on the plane, said at the weekend families have no choice but to take matters into their own hands. She said Flight 370 “should not go down in history books as a mystery”.

Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said a final report on the plane’s disappearance will be released this year.

And today via the Oz:

MH370 mystery goes to court

12:00amEAN HIGGINS

The debate over the biggest aviation mystery this century will be fought out in a US courtroom.

The debate over the biggest aviation mystery this century will be fought out in a US courtroom where aircraft manufacturer Boeing may argue that a rogue pilot brought down Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 rather than any ­inherent mechanical defect in the Boeing 777.

The civil action, launched by aviation lawyer Mary Schiavo from US firm Motley Rice on behalf of the relatives of 44 of the 239 people who perished, could also apply more pressure on Boeing to contribute to a fund established by the families aimed at renewing the search for the aircraft.

Ms Schiavo, a former US ­Department of Transportation ­inspector-general and a regular commentator on CNN, lodged the suit against Boeing in a South Carolina court at the weekend on ­behalf of Gregory Keith, a special administrator for the relatives of three US citizens or permanent residents lost on MH370 and 41 Chinese victims.

The suit, publicly revealed yesterday on the third anniversary of MH370’s disappearance, alleges the crash of MH370 “was caused or partially caused by defects in the design, manufacture and/or ­assembly of the aircraft”.

The suit states the failure to ­locate the plane caused a “lack of finality and an enduring mystery that has caused unprecedented levels of economic and non-economic losses, emotional and physical pain, distress and mental pain and suffering to those lost on the plane and to their families”.

MH370 vanished on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014, with its radar transponder turned off and radio communications cut 40 minutes into the flight, after which, primary radar and automatic satellite tracking shows, the aircraft doubled back over Malaysia and flew up the Malacca Strait until turning on a long track to the southern Indian Ocean.

The plaintiffs’ case focuses on an alleged complex series of failures and adverse events starting with an electrical fault and fire ­disabling communications on MH370 and leading to decompression of the aircraft, with the ­pilots unable to fully regain control, ultimately leaving the plane flying on autopilot at high altitude until it ran out of fuel and crashed.

The scenario is similar to a theory developed by former RAAF supply officer, retired Ansett logistics manager, private pilot and amateur aviation investigator Mick Gilbert. In Mr Gilbert’s narrative, a windshield fire caused by an electrical fault becomes a conflagration when one of the pilots’ oxygen hoses comes loose, damaging the radio and controls, and leading to rapid decompression, with the pilots, possible seriously injured or with one dead, only able to make limited manoeuvres before they run out of oxygen. Mr Gilbert’s work was described as well-researched by respected US former airline pilot and air crash investigator John Cox, who has placed equal weight on the probability of a series of adverse mechanical events, and pilot hijack.

Most airline pilots and air crash investigators, however, believe Mr Gilbert’s scenario involves too many highly improbable events happening in a particular ­sequence, and think it unlikely the pilots would have flown the aircraft for an extended period of time during the emergency without issuing a distress call.

The majority of professional aviation opinion holds that Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah ­hijacked his own plane, killed the passengers and remaining crew by depressurising the aircraft while he remained on a long oxygen supply, and flew the aircraft to the end.

(P2 comment - Mick Gilbert a former RAAF/Ansett baggage chucker...   Now why does that sound so familiar... - )




MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Gold;

(P2 comment - Mick Gilbert a former RAAF/Ansett baggage chucker...   Now why does that sound so familiar...  -  )

Indeed. Obviously GT's cousin? Everyone is an expert when it comes to earning good money from speaking shit. Arseholes like these two blokes are an embarrassment. Comments from Thomas regarding the Essendon crash were embarrassing. The clown doesn't even have experience on Microsoft SIM. His claim to fame is sitting at Perth airport with scanner in one hand and his doodle in the other, plane spotting.

P2 - Actually Gobbles I was thinking of the former McComic Chamber-maid called Wodger, the infamous wascily Wabbit, but I will still pay GT of anorak fame...  

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 18.03.17: The MH370 search must go on!

KS Narendran via the Deccan Chronicle:

Opinion, Columnists

K S Narendran


MH370 victim's husband explains why the search for the plane must go on
Published Mar 17, 2017, 6:26 pm IST
Updated Mar 17, 2017, 11:21 pm IST

The search and investigation is a complex challenge, a hazardous one that MH370 families don't have the resources and capacity to manage.

 MH 370
On March 8, three years ago, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 370 vanished from radar as it was crossing the Indian Ocean. The plane was carrying 239 passengers and crew and was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing when air traffic control declared it missing from their screens. Three years later, there's still no trace of the plane and authorities who had once promised to keep searching, seem to be giving up. Narendran K.S., whose wife Chandrika Sharma was on board the plane, explains why the search must continue.

At the outset, let me make it clear: the responsibility for the search (of MH370) remains with the Malaysian government. Sadly, that government has chosen to suspend the search under questionable pretexts. It is very important for the aviation sector and the flying public to uncover how a large jetliner, claiming to be the safest, most sophisticated and successful commercial aircraft with hundreds of passengers on board, can just disappear without a trace. Finding the missing plane is crucial to understanding what might have happened. Knowing the answer can help evolve strategies to avoid a recurrence. I don't believe we can feel safe while flying when the possibility of another similar incident lurks.

Our immediate priority then is to press the governments around the world to urge Malaysia, China and Australia to resume search and persevere until we find satisfactory answers to what actually happened. The attitude of governments, aviation-related businesses and the world at large of 'business as usual' must end. There exists poorly-understood safety and security hazards that need sustained inquiry.

The search and investigation is a complex challenge, a hazardous one that MH370 families don't have the resources and capacity to manage. However, we are unequivocally against the premature end to the search. Should Malaysia fail to respond, we will work to elicit fund commitments from world governments, corporations, high net-worth individuals and the travelling public. This is not likely to be easy. It brings up its own challenges of mobilisation, utilisation, accountability to the public, and suitable systems and processes.

The search in the ocean also requires experts, expensive equipment, and importantly, bathymetric data. If the fruitless efforts of the past three years, and the successful search for Air France flight 447 is anything to go by, it is a painstaking venture not to be taken lightly. We have had initial discussions with the best and highly-experienced experts in the world to scope the entire task.

Sometime in the future, we may see an alternatively funded and managed search prominently represented by the next - of -kin of MH370 passengers. We do not envisage such a search replacing the government or in any way releasing the governments involved in the search thus far from their obligations. We are clear that such an unprecedented search not directed by governments will nonetheless draw on their willing cooperation, data resources, analysis and assets.

Who knows, this may yet turn out a model for collaboration, even if its origins are traced to a sense of disappointment anger, betrayal, and sadness.

Also, Malaysia has at most times in the past three years not engaged as much with the families as desired or as mandated by international conventions. We have on many occasions pointed out that Malaysia has avoided any direct dialogue or consultation with the affected families, and have given every reason to believe that the families have been seen as irritants rather than those deserving active listening.

Our meetings with authorities have been few and far between and in any case, way fewer than the circumstances warranted. It hasn't mattered whether one is in India, Malaysia, Beijing, or elsewhere. The meetings have been formalities focused on rolling out prepared briefs or repeating what is already out in the press, rather than an occasion for deep engagement. Our most recent meeting with the transport minister of Malaysia, early March 2017 in Kuala Lumpur, offered some possibility that we may have turned a corner.

We remained unconvinced with his reasons from suspension of the search and told him so. We expressed our dissatisfaction with the efforts to locate debris along the African Coast along the Western Indian Ocean. We expressed our wish that our relations with the authorities don't have to be adversarial, and greater transparency and more frequent contact could offer a productive bridge. He lent a patient ear. For the first time in three years, he, from the government participated in a remembrance event on March 4.

Australia has tended to be more forthcoming in its contacts with families, and demonstrably exerted itself to search without let up based on the advice from experts and directions from Malaysia. The families had hope for more from China considering that it had 152 of its nationals on board MH370, and continue to be optimistic that it will lend its weight and resources to a more sustained search and effort to find answers. 

Because unless we have a credible investigation and a commitment to transparency, any number of theories will emerge. In the absence of independent verification / scrutiny of facts, data, analysis, video footage, etc, we continue to feed those who seek to sensationalise and speculate. There are far too many theories doing the rounds, some even re-circulating after having been debunked, to merit a serious response. In the first week of March this year, there have been two such stories: one suggesting that North Korea was responsible of the hijacking of MH370, presumably to ride the wave of news about the killing of North Korean dictator's brother in Kuala Lumpur recently. The other suggest that there was a suspicious extra passenger on board MH370, not hitherto accounted for. I would leave this for the authorities to respond to this one.

So at present, our energies are focused on getting the search back on track. There was a recommendation in December last by experts assembled by authorities as part of the First Principles Review held in Australia to search an additional 25,000 sq kms in an area north of the search area in the Southern Indian Ocean focused on till recently. This factors in the ocean drift patterns and the debris found in places such as Reunion, Madagascar, Tanzania, South Africa and Mauritius... yes, thousands of kilometres west of where the search has been on for the past three years.

Like most family members of passengers, I have survived. It is not to say, that the living process has been repaired and normal has been restored. While I presume that lives of passengers have ended, memories are strong, vivid and make the process of looking ahead painfully difficult. It is made worse by the knowledge that we actually don't know very much more than what we gathered on March 8, 2014... that a plane had just disappeared.

And from the UK's 'The Week':

MH370: Malaysia's response was 'sloppy and shocking'
Mar 16, 2017
Opposition leader calls on government to continue search for missing plane


Credits 
AFP
Description 
In the three years following its disappearance, no sign of flight MH370 has yet been found

Page 1 of 8 MH370: Malaysia's response was 'sloppy and shocking'

• 1MH370: Malaysia's response was 'sloppy and shocking'
  
• 2MH370: Google Earth used to pinpoint possible crash site
  
• 3MH370: Malaysia's response was 'sloppy and shocking'
  
• 4MH370: Plane was deliberately flown into sea, says investigator
  
• 5Flight MH370: Four new pieces of possible debris found
  
• 6Flight MH370: two years after disappearance – what do we know?
  
• 7MH370: debris 'very likely' to be part of plane - but does it solve mystery?
  
• 8MH370: Malaysia's response was 'sloppy and shocking'
  

A Malaysian politician has criticised his country's handing of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and called for continued efforts to solve the mystery.

Lim Kit Siang, who fronts the DAP, Malaysia's largest opposition party, said the government’s response to the Boeing-777’s disappearance was “sloppy” and “shocking”, reports Free Malaysia Today.

He added that Malaysians have since "been ashamed to admit they are from this country" and called for investigations into the final resting place of the plane to continue.
MH370 vanished in March 2014, en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in China, with 239 people on board. Officials decided earlier this year to end the search for the plane, which is thought to have vanished over the southern Indian Ocean, after investigators admitted they had probably been looking in the wrong location.

The Malaysian government has been widely criticised in the mishandling of the tragedy.

Relatives of those who died on board the plane travelled to Madagascar in December 2016 to perform their own search for debris and take the investigation into their own hands.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Seemed like a good idea – at the time.

'Iggins - "Ms Weeks said she was so ¬enraged by Mr Hood’s decision that she was inclined to take up an offer from Brisbane barrister Greg Williams to work pro bono to use every legal avenue available to force him to release the documents."

I have a modicum of sympathy for the plight of Ms. Weeks and the rest of the MH 370 world and the last thing I’d ever want to do is crush their hopes; but a word of caution is needed. The ‘legal’ road is not the best route. Time and time again challenges to the system which protects the minister, the departments and the safety agencies have failed. The Acts and regulations alone are designed with exactly this purpose in mind; in short, they are not a level playing field and the goalposts are moveable feasts. It is, I believe, also fair to say the costs in both time and money would almost match the cost of mounting a new search.

No intention of dashing good intention; just well meaning words of caution. IMO, this time quite humble, the best way of confounding the ‘system’ is to find the aircraft; or, at least present overwhelming evidence of where it is. The first hurdle to that is of course, the lack of information; which the government will not release.

Essentially, we are no better informed today than we were the night 370 disappeared. It may well be that there is, in reality, no useful information available. That said, I would like to know why that information cannot be released. The TSI is a very powerful Act, invoking national security, heavily supported, politically, legally and by the vested financial interest which feed off it. A tough nut to crack – even before the international political interests weigh in.  

The legal challenge route is probably the last avenue I’d choose to travel so long as there were other options. I’ve no alternate route to suggest, just trying to prevent hopes and expectations being dashed yet again. The solution is of course to have the information released. There can be no valid reason for the Malaysians not doing so. Essentially, it is their aircraft, their accident and their investigation; if anyone is to be held to account it is them.  Perhaps the Chinese government will lend some weight to a request for information; start there.

Toot – toot.

[Peetwo]

Seemed like a good idea – at the time.

'Iggins - "Ms Weeks said she was so ¬enraged by Mr Hood’s decision that she was inclined to take up an offer from Brisbane barrister Greg Williams to work pro bono to use every legal avenue available to force him to release the documents."

I have a modicum of sympathy for the plight of Ms. Weeks and the rest of the MH 370 world and the last thing I’d ever want to do is crush their hopes; but a word of caution is needed. The ‘legal’ road is not the best route. Time and time again challenges to the system which protects the minister, the departments and the safety agencies have failed. The Acts and regulations alone are designed with exactly this purpose in mind; in short, they are not a level playing field and the goalposts are moveable feasts. It is, I believe, also fair to say the costs in both time and money would almost match the cost of mounting a new search.

No intention of dashing good intention; just well meaning words of caution. IMO, this time quite humble, the best way of confounding the ‘system’ is to find the aircraft; or, at least present overwhelming evidence of where it is. The first hurdle to that is of course, the lack of information; which the government will not release.

Essentially, we are no better informed today than we were the night 370 disappeared. It may well be that there is, in reality, no useful information available. That said, I would like to know why that information cannot be released. The TSI is a very powerful Act, invoking national security, heavily supported, politically, legally and by the vested financial interest which feed off it. A tough nut to crack – even before the international political interests weigh in.  

The legal challenge route is probably the last avenue I’d choose to travel so long as there were other options. I’ve no alternate route to suggest, just trying to prevent hopes and expectations being dashed yet again. The solution is of course to have the information released. There can be no valid reason for the Malaysians not doing so. Essentially, it is their aircraft, their accident and their investigation; if anyone is to be held to account it is them.  Perhaps the Chinese government will lend some weight to a request for information; start there.

Toot – toot.

Media references -  

First via 'that man' and the Oz:

ATSB ‘looks guilty of cover-up’

12:00amEAN HIGGINS

The refusal of authorities to release documents on the MH370 search makes them ‘look more guilty’ of a cover-up.

Australian and Chinese families of those who died on Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 yesterday expressed outrage at Australian authorities’ refusal to release crucial documents, with an Australian widow saying it made them “look more guilty” of a cover-up.

Danica Weeks, whose husband Paul perished when the flight went missing three years ago, called on Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood to reverse his decision to reject a freedom of ­information request from The Australian. “Who are they trying to save face for; is it the Malaysians or the ATSB?” Ms Weeks, who lives on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast, said yesterday.

Mr Hood upheld another ATSB officer’s decision to not ­release opinions of an international team of experts about satellite data which the bureau claims support its theory that MH370 went down in an unpiloted crash with the flight crew incapacitated.

The ATSB relied on what has become known as the “ghost flight” and “death dive” theory to design the strategy for its failed $200 million underwater search for the aircraft.

Many aviation experts claim the search could never have succeeded because the ATSB’s “unresponsive pilots” premise was wrong, and suggest instead that captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah ­hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end and outside the search zone.

The Boeing 777, with 239 ­people on board, deviated about 40 minutes into a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014, when its radar transponder was turned off and radio communications ended, with automatic satellite tracking data showing it ended up in the southern Indian Ocean.

Ms Weeks said she was so ­enraged by Mr Hood’s decision that she was inclined to take up an offer from Brisbane barrister Greg Williams to work pro bono to use every legal avenue available to force him to release the documents.

“It is our loved ones, and it ­affects the whole flying public,” Ms Weeks said. “The Australian taxpayer paid a significant amount for the search; surely we have the right to know.”

The association representing families of Chinese MH370 victims issued a statement noting the ATSB’s general manager for strategic capability, Colin McNamara, originally refused the FOI request on the basis it could “cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth”. The families said they believed this formed a pattern in which Malaysian authorities “have something to hide”, and Australian authorities were assisting them to this end.

In justifying his rejection of the FOI application, Mr Hood wrote “the activities of the ATSB with respect to assisting the Malaysian investigation are covered by the Transport Safety Investigation Act” and the documents sought had been classified as restricted.

&.. via IBTimes...

Will MH370 Ever Be Found? Missing Flight Details Won’t Be Released


Shared by
Claudio Santovito


[url=http://www.ibtimes.com/will-mh370-ever-be-found-missing-flight-details-wont-be-released-2526918][/url]
www.ibtimes.com - Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 disappeared in 2014 on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, but no closure ever came for the families of those on board. An extensive, multi-country search mounted fo...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Presentation to NOK China THE MALAYSIAN ICAO ANNEX 13 - 20 April 2017

Link: http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...l-2017.pdf

---

---

Again interesting timing...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Hood & Griffin try to swim out of $200 million SIO trench -

Still sifting through the latest MH370 drift analysis offering from David Griffin and the CSIRO:

MH370 - drift analysis
David Griffin
21 April 2017


Our 2nd report to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau was released today. This report focusses on field testing of a genuine Boeing 777 flaperon. This testing confirmed predictions by Pengam (2016) that the flaperon's motion with respect to the water is about 20 degrees left of the wind. Arrival of MH370's flaperon on Reunion in July 2015 now makes perfect sense, rather than just being plausible according to our earlier simulations. Our estimate of the location of the crash, however, is unchanged by this work, because the drift of the flaperon was just one of several considerations. The report is available from the ATSB. See also todays [ECOS article] and yesterday's [seminar].

What debris and the Indian Ocean told drift modellers about MH370 search area
 
Posted in: Issue 230 Models, Oceans, Transport

By Thea Williams
April 21, 2017
CSIRO scientist David Griffin with the Boeing 777 flaperon used for drift modelling in research on the MH370 search operation. Hobart , Tasmania. Image: Peter Mathew

It started with the discovery of a piece of wing, the flaperon, found in Réunion Island in July 2015.

The long search in the Indian Ocean for missing Flight MH370 has since been punctuated by the arrival of debris along African coastlines.

New drift testing research using a flaperon from another Boeing 777 has shown how that first piece of debris might have travelled so quickly from the presumed southern flight path of the missing plane west across the Indian Ocean.

The findings in the CSIRO’s latest, and final, report to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau made public today give increased confidence in the drift modelling and in what is now identified as the most likely search area of missing Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370.

The ATSB’s First Principles Review committee of experts working on the Australian-led search for the plane in the Indian Ocean met last November. As a result of oceanographic studies done by CSIRO and presented to the meeting, a new search area near 35 degrees south was recommended.

The CSIRO’s report confirms those recommendations, based on new testing of a real flaperon.

CSIRO engineer Rob Gregor and oceanographer Emlyn Jones deploy the cut-down flaperon in Storm Bay.

“Our final recommendation is way more precise than I dreamed we would be able to achieve,” says CSIRO’s Dr David Griffin, team leader of the oceanographic study.

“When we started on this I thought we would be basing our conclusion on backtracking across the ocean. But that is doomed because of the distances involved.

We stumbled upon something that gave much more certainty about the whereabouts of the plane than we anticipated.”

UNDERSTANDING THE PHYSICS OF THE INDIAN OCEAN

Dr Griffin’s work with oceanographic satellite data and how that information could be used to examine ocean currents started in 1996, studying the life cycle of rock lobsters of western Australia

Oceanography has come a long way since it was applied in the two-year search for Air France Flight 447 which crashed in June 2009, he says.

“We have a much more detailed model of the global oceans, a much greater ability to analyse the satellite data measuring sea levels, and a clearer picture of ocean surfaces.

“It’s the ability of those models to get value out of the data which has improved so much in the past 10-20 years.”

To understand the mystery of missing Flight MH370, you need to understand some of the peculiarities of the Indian Ocean.

Down south, around 40-50 degrees latitude, ocean currents go from west to east in the Sub-Antarctic Current, with the band of westerly winds.

Up around the 20 degree south mark, the wind and South Equatorial Current are going to the west.

In between is the intermediate zone – no great movement east or west.

Then there are the forces at play as the ocean fringes approach coastline.

On the Australian side of the Indian Ocean there’s a slow, generally northward movement , apart from the southward Leeuwin Current near Australia. On the African side there are fast boundary currents, southward in the southern region, and northward in the northern region.

APPLYING OCEANOGRAPHY TO THE MH370 SEARCH

The Boeing 777-200ER aircraft registered as Malaysia Airlines 9M-MRO and operating as Flight MH370 disappeared from air traffic control radar after taking off from Kuala Lumpur on March 7, 2014.

The flight was a scheduled passenger service to Beijing, China with 227 passengers and 12 crew on board.

Satellite analysts relied on a series of ‘handshakes’ between Flight MH370’s Boeing 777 engines and the Inmarsat satellite made on March 7 and 8 to determine the likely trajectory of the plane through the air after it disappeared from radar control.

They identified the southern corridor flight path, with a terminal point somewhere along a curved line known as the 7th Arc.

The Australian Government took the lead in the initial search and rescue operation and then in the extensive sea floor search and recovery operation in the southern Indian Ocean, in support of the Malaysian accident investigation.

CSIRO was commissioned by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in 2016 to conduct surface current modelling.

DRIFTERS TRACKING THE CURRENTS

After the initial search and rescue operation, the hope was to find debris which would provide vital clues to the fate of the plane and its passengers.

The initial challenge for oceanographers was, if the splash point of the plane was in the intermediate zone – how could they predict the likely trajectory of debris?

“We had to work out what the ocean currents were doing every day for more than two years,” Dr Griffin says.

Hundreds of buoys deployed by the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Global Drifter Program were important indicators of likely trajectories.
“Buoys give you the temperature of the surface of the ocean and often atmospheric pressure, for input into the world’s weather forecasting,” he explains.

“For me, they give you a trajectory of something drifting in the ocean. For MH370, it’s the later half of the buoys’ lives which are interesting to us because, when they’ve lost their drogue (anchor) they become an item floating on the surface just like a piece of aircraft.”

Simulated trajectories of many flaperons drifting in accordance with what was observed in field testing. It shows that none of the black dots marking the end of trajectories land in Australia, they all head towards Reunion Island.

Initially, the team thought ocean eddies would confuse those trajectories, instead they found that initial trajectories had a lasting impact.

What the satellite data told them and the report said was that there were “two prominent ~150km-wide bands of westward flowing surface current crossing the 7th Arc in March 2014 – one near the 35 degree south and one near 30 degree south”.

“A ridge of high sea level cut across the 7th Arc on March 8th, so flow was initially to the west, changing the long-term destiny of potential debris, offering an explanation for non-arrival of debris off Australia,” the report concludes.

DEBRIS CONFIRMS THE MODELS

Once debris was found on the African side of the Indian Ocean, clearer conclusions could be made using those models. The piece of debris which has received the most attention is the flaperon, the first piece of debris to be found, on Réunion Island in July 2015.

“For our work, the value was knowing that many things are drifting,” says Dr Griffin.
What mattered was that a debris field existed and that items were being found exclusively on the African side of the Indian Ocean and not along the West Australian coastline.

It was the absence of debris to the east of the Indian Ocean which narrowed the latitude span for the likely search area.

“The `penny drop’ moment is described in Section 3.3 of the first report.

“There was only one place that explains the absence of findings on the West Australia coast while being consistent with other factors. It was the only chance of precision. It leapt out of the page.”

REPLICA FLAPERONS REFINE THE MECHANICS

The remaining question was how to convincingly explain the arrival on Réunion Island of the flaperon in July 2015.

The oceanographic map of currents and likely trajectories of the water is only half the story. The mechanics of wind and wave forces on a floating object in those conditions is also critical to understanding the passage of floating objects over such a wide expanse.

“The details of how drifting items sail through the water is important,” says Dr Griffin.

“To get to the bottom of that, we built some replicas of the plane parts using Boeing diagrams and information gathered by the French authorities. We put them into the water next to oceanographic buoys and compared how quickly they moved. And that came up with same fascinating results.

“The flaperon moved faster than the drifting buoys whereas other plane parts moved more slowly or at a similar speed. Once we had that information we could use the thousands of buoys that are out there in the ocean now and over the past 20 years to calibrate our model and then change that slightly so that it can simulate a flaperon.”

It was this information which led to the December 2016 report to the ATSB; “The search for MH370 and ocean surface drift”, and which provided the basis for the First Principles Review committee’s recommendation of 35 degrees south as the most likely search site.

A REAL BOEING 777 FLAPERON VALIDATES THE PREDICTIONS

Transport ministers of Australia, Malaysia and China jointly announced in January 2017 that the 120,000 square-kilometre search was suspended.

It was a month later, in February, that an actual Being 777 flaperon was sourced by the ATSB from the US and shipped to Hobart where it was cut down to resemble the recovered Flight MH370 flaperon.

The flaperon was tank tested to compare its buoyancy to the French Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA) results for the recovered flaperon.

Dr Griffin and his team then conducted 13 days of field tests in North West Bay and Storm Bay off Hobart, comparing the real Boeing 777 flaperon to the replicas and to the buoys.

The actual Boeing 777 flaperon in the foreground and the replica in the background, comparing drift patterns in real conditions.

“This last bit of work has made one slightly uncomfortable cog fall into place,” says Dr Griffin.

“The surface current model said most debris went north of Réunion Island.

“The model also said that arriving on Réunion in July is too early but possible for the flaperon. I was prepared to accept that but I was always nagged by it. I suspected the real flaperon would go faster because it floated higher in the water and the French modelling said it would go left.

“We did the field testing and I saw straight away on our boat that it was going to the left. I knew this would explain the arrival at Réunion.”

The genuine flaperon goes about 20 degrees to the left, and faster than the replicas, as expected.

“The arrival at La Réunion in July 2015 now makes perfect sense.”

THE VALUE OF SCIENCE

Internet memory will peak over this period with speculation on the fate of Flight MH370, expert and otherwise.

What lasting impression will the search itself leave?

“It is causing a lot of grief for the families of the 239 people on the flight and it has captured the imagination, perhaps ghoulish curiosity, we have for these disasters. We don’t like mysteries,” says Dr Griffin.

“I don’t think I’ve ever been so completely consumed by a scientific question, applying to a mystery that so many people are so desperately wanting to solve.”

---

Read the full report at the ATSB website.

  
All good academic stuff, a lot of which I admit is totally beyond this knuckle-dragger...

P2 comment - Maybe it is just me, however there is one thing I simply can't go past with these boffins and their lovely timescale colour graphics etc. and that is the sheer audacity in simply glossing over having already spent $200 million+ on searching in the wrong area - UDB...   

I also note a good pick up from Julie today (via twitter) in regards to 'that man' 'Iggins article in the Oz (reference AA&MH370 post - Update 24/04/17: Time for some MH370 truth - maybe?): https://twitter.com/nihonmama/status/856376516053147648

 


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Problem with MH370 spin, BS & cover-ups -

The following enlightening article, from the APPS highlights the conundrums posed by organisations associated with the MH370 disaster, being non-transparent, not forthcoming and secretive with making any information available to the NOK, MSM and general public..

Broken promises and a breach of trust

In times of crisis, organisational reputation depends on communication. Malaysian Airlines’ response to the disappearance of MH370 is a case study in what not to do.


policyforum.net


27 April 2017

The mishandling of communications with the public and victims’ families following MH370’s disappearance only exacerbated an already dire situation, write Jensen Moore and Robert Pritchard.

Malaysia Airlines’ handling of the crisis since the 8 March 2014 disappearance of flight MH370 has been marred by a lack of transparent communication, a poor relationship with the victims’ families, and the abrupt and badly-communicated suspension of the search.

Though the airlines promised “open” and “transparent” communications in its press releases and media statements following the disappearance, the communication efforts have been anything but. Over the last few years, Malaysia Airlines has been accused of dumping information on the public without providing context, refusing to address questions and concerns and hiding investigation data. In addition, the airline had a fraught relationship with the victims’ families and even removed them from search talks.

Now the airline has inexplicably ended the search without communicating with the victim’s families after promising from the beginning to provide “its utmost to provide support to the affected family members.”

It comes as no surprise then, that Malaysian Airlines’ financial fortunes have taken a turn for the worse. Amid the speculation and rumour regarding what went wrong on the flight, tensions between Malaysia and China grew increasingly tense, as two-thirds of the 239 passengers on the flight were Chinese nationals.

Lawsuits brought against Malaysia Airlines by the victims’ families have had a negative influence on both revenue and reputation. Revenue dropped 12 per cent in 2014 with Malaysia Airlines reporting a net loss of 576 million ringgit ($170 million) directly after the disappearance. Talks of privatising the company emerged as customers continued to flock to other airlines.

More on this: Is the push to make airlines more competitive compromising safety?

Public sentiment analysis of Twitter mentions of #MH370 and #MA370 immediately following the 22 January announcement to suspend the search indicated 94 percent negative mentions of Malaysia Airlines.

Each of these factors is intrinsically linked to public trust in the organisation. The explicit promise by Malaysia Airlines of transparency and openness followed by “no comment” and the withholding of investigation details were the first indications that the airline was not perceived as trustworthy. The brusque end of the search without including victims’ families in the discussion or decision is likely the final straw for many potential investors and patrons of the airline.

Nature abhors a vacuum and there are sources only too ready to fill the void with inaccurate information, speculation and conspiracy theories. Our research shows that the lack of transparency created a situation where the public filled in ambiguous reports with rumours. These rumours ranged from the missing flight being shot down by the US, to being sucked into a black hole, seized by the Illuminati or attacked by aliens. We suggest quick responses and complete disclosures would have alleviated many of the most ridiculous rumours.

Furthermore, when information was provided, the nature of the Malaysia Airlines responses ranged from what Coombs in Situational Crisis Communication Theory identifies as diversionary responses (attempting to shift the public gaze to something else) to defensive responses (attempting to focus on issues with the victims’ families during the search). The selection of defensive strategies, rather than expressing concern, condolences and support, often serves to alienate the public.

In addition, in what we consider a diversionary response, 39 exchanges (three pages) between the airplane pilot and Air Traffic Control at Kuala Lumpur were released to the public. These were distributed without context for what “normal” communications should be and not released until more than 20 days after the MH370 disappearance. Not only does this not fit into what is considered a timely crisis communication response, but flooding the public with non-contextual information also impedes trust. This “data dump” also served to increase rumours regarding the flight and led to fewer public social media posts about the flight containing factual information.

More on this: Missing MH370 to remain a mystery

Indiscriminate information dumped on the public without perspective, meaning and background creates another source of ambiguity. That again leads to rumours and speculation and a loss of public trust. Attempts at transparency must be couched within the provision of purposeful information that helps the public make sense of the situation.

Finally, Malaysia Airlines allowed the Malaysian government to handle much of the communication (in many cases releasing bad news for the airline), which may have increased perceptions of dishonesty, decreased public trust and certainly indicated a total lack of transparency. A better approach for organisations is to handle their own crisis communications.

When making the decision regarding crisis actions, organisational leaders must take into account the owners and shareholders, the public affected, and the greater public at large. Ethical decisions should not simply reflect the organisation’s self-interests. In our view, the public most directly affected by the crisis – the victims’ families – are the ones Malaysia Airlines needs to assuage. Calling off the search without their involvement certainly does not do this. Communications by Malaysia Airlines immediately following the flight’s disappearance that promised a continued search for MH370 should have been honoured. Another round of negative effects on the airline’s revenue and reputation is likely to follow.

For communications to succeed, the public must trust the communicator and the organisation. This means spokespersons and organisations must be open, honest, and transparent. They cannot provide the public with alternative or ambiguous truths or diversions. Organisational reputation – and revenues – hinge on truthful discourse, especially during times of crises.

This project was supported by a Page Legacy Scholar Grant from The Arthur W. Page Center at the Penn State College of Communications under Page Legacy Scholar Grant. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pennsylvania State University.

  
P2 comment - Pay attention Hoody & 6D Chester...


MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 03.05.17: DOI archive entry & Kirill CVR/FDR pingers.


Via MH370 criminal act thread:

Ocean Shield's "PINGS" Revisited.

Kirill Prostyakov‏ (https://twitter.com/kprostyakov) has released some very interesting information on the Famous TPL-25 ping detections obtained by Ocean Shield.

He thinks the discounted ping detection by HMS Echo on 2-Apr-2014 was in fact exactly on top of the 5-Apr-2014 detections by ADV Ocean Shield.

The quick takeaway is that he thinks that the pings were real, and that the CVR and FDR are 35 kilometres apart, on an azimuth axis of 167 degrees true.

The direct implication of which is, that the aircraft may have (probably) broke up in flight, at high altitude. Moreover, the apparent tensile failure of control surface elements, (I presume he means Item 8 - the flap track fairing rear aerodynamic cone cover) and the actual presence of cabin debris indicates breakup at altitude, because he thinks that if the aircraft collided with the water intact, all debris would get compressed.

His data and computer code is here:
https://github.com/kprostyakov/beacon_location
6.7Mb File (ZIP)
https://codeload.github.com/kprostyakov/...zip/master

There is some interesting "reasoning" in his presentation here:
https://github.com/kprostyakov/beacon_lo...slides.odp
2.36Mb File
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kprost...slides.odp


His twitter posts of 2nd May 2017 are summarised as follows:

The CVR had a better battery than the FDR, and he thinks that the TPL survey was done below refraction cone (layer ?), thus he seems to think that the actual "detections" were made when  the TPL-25 was pulled up (through the layer ?) during Ocean Shield's turns at the ends of the straight towing runs.

Locations on map.
Image Map-CVR-FDR.jpg

The FDR and CVR separated by 35km at sea bottom at approx 167 deg azimuth (N->S). Mid-air breakup.

The code uses real bathymetry and does ray tracing to get transmission loss for all points on the bottm outside UAV survey limits. Red = can hear.

FDR transmission map - the source is likely to be in NW corner not covered by UAV due to being at a depth greater than 5,000 metres.

Image FDR-1.jpg

CVR transmission map - at reported 27kHz (lower parasite mode around battery depletion time)

Image CVR-1.jpg

~31 kHz in first video - possibly pinger #2 at 1.02sec repetiton rate.
More distant, as only lower frequency parasite band left.



05-Apr-2014 ADV Ocean Shield DID detect 37.5kHz signal.
33.3 peak is LSB, USB @ 41.6kHz.  Why modulation though ?

And from Malaysian MOT MH370 Annex 13 investigation webpage:

DEBRIS EXAMINATION REPORTS - UPDATED 30 APRIL 2017 (81 pages)

---

SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE MH370 DEBRIS RECOVERED - UPDATED 30 APRIL 2017 (14 pages)

I guess one step closer to the release of the MH370 Annex 13 JIT final report -

However off Victor's blog "V" makes the following very valid points in regards to the ATSB history of obfuscation on 'Final Reports' and the Malaysian historical disinformation and obfuscation of the MH370 search and investigation to date..

ventus45 says:
May 2, 2017 at 10:42 pm
@TBill

” I suppose any serious efforts to 2nd guess or re-interpret the data must wait until the final report.”

“Wait for the final report” – or variations of it.

How many times have I heard that over the years, concerning both this, and other accident investigations.

Those familiar with the ATSB’s “track record” on Mildura, and in particular, the Norfolk Island ditching of the PelAir Westwind, will know full well what I mean. My’s track record on MH370 is many times worse than the ATSB’s.

My has made numerous “promises” in the past, that have not been honoured. From very early on, and still very near and dear to Victor’s heart, (I presume), was the early promise by MY to him personally, of providing the detailed post Penang radar data. Did you ever get it Victor ? Silly question I know.

What are we going to do when “the final”, turns out to be as useful as “the interims”. Cry and chuck some tanties like a bunch 4 year olds ?

No. I think it is high time we pre-empt the “fob off” that the final will almost certainly be, and made a detailed list of what we “demand” is included, in detail, and publish it, very soon.

To that end Victor, a new thread ? “What we demand to know” or similar ?

MTF...P2

Ps Oops thank you for that "V"   - should be fixed now...

[ventus45]

The links to the reports above don't work.

SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE MH370 DEBRIS RECOVERED - UPDATED 30 APRIL 2017 (14 pages)
http://www.mh370.gov.my/phocadownload/3r...300417.pdf

DEBRIS EXAMINATION REPORTS - UPDATED 30 APRIL 2017 (81 pages)
http://www.mh370.gov.my/phocadownload/3r...300417.pdf

[Kharon]

Page 13 – Unlucky for some.

Chillit - “I now tend to believe Captain Zaharie Shah brought his own plane down for reasons only he understood. I have come to that conclusion recently.”

“[the] plane was brought down intentionally, and that only one person on the plane had the expertise to do it: etc.”

1. ACARS appears to have been manually disabled from the cockpit when one of three VHF radios was turned off 15 minutes before the plane reached Waypoint Igari; (it was not disabled with the Avionics circuit breaker, which would have also disabled SATCOM);

I timed it – it took me less than 15 seconds to find, through Google, thousands of technical details related to the 777 aircraft ‘avionics systems’; and less than 90 seconds to find out where, precisely, every system switch is. Simply because the #1 VHF was turned off and the transponder went dark at IGARI does not, IMO, constitute a cast iron proof that it was the Captain. It requires very little technical expertise to ‘flip’ a switch’. The ‘fact’ that many other methods of communication were left ‘active’ could, equally, be interpreted as ‘proof’ that there was no intent. More importantly; the assertion fails, utterly, to prove that it was the PIC hand which 'flipped the switch'.

Please, in simple terms, explain exactly how you can prove “[when] one of three VHF radios was turned off 15 minutes before the plane reached Way-point Igari;” etc. This one sentence, stand alone, is risible.

2. The primary transponder (ADS-B) was manually turned off at IGARI; the backup transponder remained off / unused;

How do you know, beyond reasonable doubt that the PIC, reached up and deliberately turned the transponder OFF?   There is no evidence, one way or the other to support the assertions being made - not one single, solitary scrap.  Maybe the pilot did it, maybe he did not - who knows? Sorry Mike; I stopped reading about there; same reason as above.  Alt_file_delete.

No offense intended, indeed I was eagerly anticipating reading the whole thing – today; happily arranged my day and allocated whatever time it took to do so. Seems I have time on my hands now. Appreciate the effort – Alas….