[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 06.03.17: Battle of the MH370 theorists continues...  

From the AP - AA&MH370 thread:

Captain's Log 04.03.17: Weekend Oz expose on MH370 3rd anniversary.

Via the Weekend Oz... :

Experts point to MH370 pilot

12:00amSTEFANIE BALOGH

Two globally respected aviation experts continue to point the finger at the captain of ­Flight MH370.


MH370 site a crime scene

12:00amMike Keane

On Wednesday it’s three years since the flight disappeared so it’s timely to review the search. Was it unlucky or wrong?

...If Zaharie was indeed responsible for the destruction of the aircraft, it is not only an aircraft “accident”: it is also a crime scene. It cannot be ignored, or forgotten, that there were 239 people on board MH370. It is highly probable that 238 passengers and crew lost their lives needlessly.

Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak has said we must “not only learn the lessons of MH370 but implement them”.

Several weeks ago, the Malaysian government, which under international law is in charge of the investigation into what happened to MH370, called a halt to the search.

So where is the resolve to find the truth?

To those who query the $200 million cost of the search, there are very good reasons to spend the time and money in solving the cause of this “accident”.

Lessons are learned from all aircraft accidents and these findings are passed on to the industry to enhance safety.

Furthermore, relatives and friends have a right to know what happened to their loved ones — and if any party is found to have been at fault, they have a right to seek compensation.

Finally, it places closure on conspiracy theories that always abound after an unsolved accident. These theories are often distressing for families and friends.
Malaysia is not a poor country and should be making “best endeavours” to find the aircraft so the cause of the loss of MH370 is found, otherwise there will remain the perception of a cover-up...

The Mike Keane article has attracted much of 'the Australian's' usual MH370 followers and critics like Byron Bailey's resident troll 'Mick':

Mick

8 hours ago

@Nicholas That's a terrific idea, Nicholas.  You would think that with nearly a century of flying experience between them Captains Bailey and Keane might be able to make some form of constructive contribution to the debate. 

Captain Bailey's only prognostication to date was on 14 May last year when he stated that the ATSB should focus their search "... at least 400 kilometres south and west ..."  of the current search area.  

That presumably considered "expert" forecast makes absolutely no sense.   The ATSB search area was centred longitudinally along the 7th arc.   Even with World Gliding Champion Jan Rothhardt at the controls, the airplane could not have travelled 400 kilometres south away from the 7th arc (a point some two minutes after fuel exhaustion);  under ideal conditions it might have made a little over half that distance. 

As for 400 kilometres west, well the further west you go, two things happen;  the final leg of the flight gets longer and the track flown by the airplane gets further west of south.   The longer leg means that the airplane must fly faster to cover the extra distance in the same time (the 7th arc is based on the time of 00:19 UTC).   For the airplane to be 400 kilometres west of the current search area would require an average ground speed of around 505 knots over the final leg; not impossible under ideal conditions.   However, the fact that the airplane would have had to have flown a track of around 195° with 40-80 knot westerlies to contend with means that conditions were far from ideal.   The combination of those two factors yields a required a true airspeed of more than 510 knots.  510 knots is the maximum speed of the airplane.  Even if a Yeargeresque pilot had have managed to sustain that sort of airspeed the airplane would have run out of fuel long before 00:19 UTC.

Hmm...them's fighting words...

One thing you notice with Mick's posts is that when it comes to the limited facts and hearsay evidence associated with the information vacuum surrounding MH370, the guy is a verifiable encyclopaedia. Basically put this Bailey troll has done his homework.

However it was the following post that gave me (I think ) a light bulb moment:

Mick

To the extent that there is a crime scene associated with MH370 it is this story and your butchering of the facts. 

Here's the first clue; MH370 was not carrying more than the required fuel load.  The airplane was carrying 49,100 kg of fuel when it left Kuala Lumpur;  37,200 kg of planned trip-fuel plus the mandatory reserves.  The reserves were to cover a 46 minute diversion to the primary diversion airport, Jinan Yaoqiang International Airport, and, because the weather forecast Jinan Yaoqiang was marginal, a further 1 hour 45 minutes worth for the secondary diversion airport, Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport.  I don't know how you can say "the weather was not an issue", it was.  Have you bothered reading the TAFs for ZSJN and ZBTJ for the relevant period?!   Visibility reducing in light snow and rain!
Regarding radio calls, take the time to look at the Factual Information Report (FIR) - it should be mandatory reading for anyone offering expert opinion on this flight.  Page 1, right up front, makes it clear that Captain Zaharie was conducting line training for First Officer Fariq on that flight.  Page 21, Air-to-ground communications makes it clear that the Captain handled the radio for every call after take-off, including the "Maintaining flight level 350" call that you incorrectly attribute to the First Officer.   Why was the Captain handling the radio?  Because the First Officer was flying as the Pilot in Command as would be expected on a training flight. 

With regards to the timing of the diversion, as you would know the handover from one ATC to another is one of the few times when a radio call is expected;  it is perhaps the worst time to try to "disappear" unnoticed. Malaysian air traffic controllers had coordinated the hand over of MH370 to their counterparts in Vietnam some 40 minutes before MH370 approached the boundary.  The failure to make contact was what triggered efforts to locate the flight.  Someone attempting to "disappear" MH370 would have simply made contact with Vietnamese ATC as expected and then diverted the flight; that would have delayed efforts to locate it by 20-30 minutes.

As to this breath taking climb to 35,700 feet, at the time it turned back MH370 was established at 35,000 feet.  Exactly what difference to the performance of emergency oxygen equipment would a climb of 700 feet make?  And you omitted the fact that less than 7 minutes after it "climbed to 35,700 feet" radar tracked it descending to 31,100 feet (FIR, page 3).   It should be noted that all of these altitudes were derived from primary radar which is notoriously inaccurate when trying to simultaneously resolve altitude, speed, vertical speed and bearing over short captures.  When the radar data for the turn back and transit across the Malay Peninsula have been reviewed and resolved to a complete and coherent track it becomes obvious that MH370 did not climb at all.  In fact, it was most probably on a very shallow descent. 

MH370's track back to Penang was entirely consistent with a diversion to what was at that time the nearest operational airport.  The airplane was tracking direct to waypoint KENDI (11 nautical miles south-west of Penang) which is the intermediate fix for an instrument approach to land on Penang’s Runway 04.   Moreover, the deliberate diversion to Penang is not contrary to the  ATSB's “unresponsive pilot” scenario at all.  The ATSB has repeatedly stated that their "... suggested end-of-flight scenario only applies to the final segment of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a southerly direction into the Indian Ocean."  Are you not aware of that ir did you just ignore it? 

As for MH370’s flight up the Malacca Strait, if you'd kept abreast of ongoing analysis of the radar and satellite data you'd know that it is now almost certain that the airplane did not track along airway N571 and while it may have tracked over or near waypoint VAMPI, it most assuredly did not track through MEKAR.  As for your contention that the airplane then "... proceeded to climb to a higher altitude", there is not one scintilla of evidence to even suggest leave alone support that. If anything, the satellite data suggests that the airplane may have initiated a short descent of around 2,600 fpm at that point. 

If you're going to be offering what I'm assuming is meant to be "expert" opinion on MH370 might it be possible that you properly acquaint yourself with the actual factual evidence first?    Surely that's not too much to ask?

Okay now compare that to PlaneTalking's resident (favourite) MH370 theorist 'Mick Gilbert':

Mick Gilbert
February 23, 2017 at 10:19 pm
Dan,
These recent papers don’t call into question everything. In fact they simply reframe two or three of the myriad assumptions that previous work has been based on.
Starting wide and narrowing things down; the airplane crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean; the debris finds support that. Drift analysis places it between 27°-ish – 37°-ish South and between 90° – 110° East. The satellite data cuts us a swathe through that zone. We’ve conducted a reasonable underwater search of the south-western end of the satellite swathe.
If you take Victor’s latest paper and read it in conjunction with the paper by Ian Holland (DSTO) on resolving the 18:25 UTC BFO data together with Richard Godfrey’s most recent paper on drift analysis/possible final major turn you get a relatively coherent story. Most importantly, none of them dispute that MH370 flew up the Malacca Strait – no evidence has ever been put forward to seriously challenge that assumption and there’s plenty that still supports it.
What we are seeing now is the general acceptance that:
a. MH370 was not navigating along airway N571,
b. there was a change in MH370’s direction of flight around the time of the first log-on at 18:25 UTC, and
c. that the final major turn must have occurred much later than previously modelled.
As they are three elements of my hypothesis, I’m just fine and beaut with that, chuffed in fact.
Victor has assumed that the change of direction that was occurring at 18:25 UTC was a one off and that the airplane then continued on a north-west track; his best fit to BTO/BFO is that after heading away from Penang on 290° it then turned slightly north onto 297°. Richard has assumed that the airplane flew on to around 8.5219°N 92.9501°E (which is much further north west than previously considered by others) where it made its final turn south(-ish) at 19:36 UTC. You’ll note that both Victor’s and Richard’s papers still place the airplane in the Malacca Strait.

---

Mick Gilbert
February 24, 2017 at 5:25 pm
Dan,
No problemo. The search for MH370 is most assuredly an exercise in incrementalism; we’re chiselling away at the unknown by tap, tap, tapping on the sliver of what we know with a variety of different hammers called assumptions. And let’s be clear, even much of what we “know” has the fuzzy edges of uncertainty – some people talk about arcs and radar data as though they have laser-like precision; they don’t, the BTO arcs at any altitude are a good 20 nm wide.
Perhaps chief among the assumptions is the time and place of the final major turn; it is almost literally pivotal to our calculation of an impact site. Most modelling to date has assumed an “early” turn south, sometime between 18:28 UTC – 18:40 UTC. The earlier you turn south, the further you get to fly south before you run out of gas. Consequently, the ATSB modelling threw up a crash site that is very close to the south-western extreme of possibilities; an early FMT at 18:28 UTC, navigation by constant true track, autothrottle engaged and FMC in economy cruise mode – you could have only wrangled a bit more distance out of the airplane by progressively step-climbing as you burned fuel. It has always been a source of amusement to me that despite the ATSB pretty much using the same flight parameters that a “rogue pilot” would use to fly as far into the Southern Indian Ocean as possible, the “rogue pilot” theorists have been the ATSB’s most vocal critics. To me, that has underlined the general paucity of scholarship associated with their thinking.
Frankly, we are now at the point where we’ve well and truly rung as much out of the available data as possible so, quite logically, there’s a general re-evaluation of the myriad assumptions, much along the lines you’ve suggested.
(P2 comment - Also see MG's latest here: https://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking...ment-81373 )

To my untrained, ignorant knuckle-dragger mind, the similarities in writing style and bias criticisms of the other 'pilot did it' crowd are quite remarkable - just saying...

Personally I am more in the Botsy (Botswanna Hooligan) crowd when it comes to MH370 and theorising... :

Botswana O'Hooligan



@Andrew That is about how I see it for the norm on the ground is for the F/O to do the radio work and the captain to have his left hand on the tiller and right hand on the thrust levers and the left hand stays on the tiller until 80 knots when the hand over/take over to the F/O is carried out if he is flying the sector. The captain has his hand on the thrust levers until V1 for it is his decision and his alone to either abort or continue with the take off and on landing he does the take over again below 80 knots, resumes direction control via the tiller, and power via the thrust levers, and the F/O does the communication. In between those events on climb and in the cruise the captain takes on the role of the pilot not flying and does the housekeeping as in communication, keeping the log, asking stupid questions, and overseeing etc.

My opinion on 777 systems is worthless because I am not (actually wasn't now, but Boeing Jets have the wonderful option of being able to extend the gear at Mach 0.82) endorsed on 777's but if they are as sophisticated as corporate jets then their systems would be similar and basically fool proof and it would take someone au fait with the aeroplane to reprogram the flight management systems.

The norm, and please bear with me when I say "the norm" is that the flight plans in the flight management systems are inviolate and cannot be tampered with (think Air NZ and Mt Erebus) unless on pain of death via the flight captain of the aeroplane type so I very much doubt if MAS had a flight plan in the system of their 777 fleet to enable one to take a jaunt into the southern Indian Ocean, so someone reprogrammed that flight management system and it certainly wasn't blind Freddie.

And especially this in reply to Mick, for my QOTM nomination... :

Botswana O'Hooligan

@Mick Probably all true but the definitive answers are in the FDR and CVR so the trick is to recover them.

MTF...P2

[Pixie P]

An excellent observation and brilliant detective work! I think it's safe to assume that 'Mick' is indeed Mick Gilbert.
It also seems that the more time that elapses, the greater each camp's certainly in their respective beliefs. I fail to see how 3 years of mulling over the same scant evidence can lead to anything other than doubt.
Bailey, Gilbert, and all the other 'experts' are increasingly more convinced in the validity of their own scenario and scathing in their criticism of 'the opposition'.

None of them have a 'theory', at least not by definition. A theory is a tested, well-substantiated explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence.
In contrast, a hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence, as a starting point for further investigation.

So really.. no matter what any of the 'experts' believe, they can't accurately claim to even have a theory, and therefore cannot dismiss their opponent's hypothesis either.

I am certain of one thing: I have NO clear idea as to what happened in the very early hours of March 8, 2014. Initially I subscribed to 'the Captain must have done it' idea, and I still think it's a leading contender. I also know that I'm no expert in this field... (that's actually TWO things i'm certain of, so I clearly cannot add up effectively either!)

Malaysia's handling of this tragedy irks me more than all the 'experts' put together.
Prime Minister Najib Razak's proclamation that 'we must not only learn the lessons of MH370, but implement them' is a fine sentiment.. but the actions taken couldn't be further removed from there. As with Hishammuddin's 'we will never stop searching'..
I know the search can't continue indefinitely, but Malaysia seems intent on 'forgetting all about it' and consigning MH370 to the annals of history's greatest mysteries.

I don't care which expert is proven right and who is wrong. As wiser people than me have said: The definitive answers are in the FDR and CVR, and in the wreckage itself.
It's unforgivable that every effort isn't being made to ensure this mystery is finally solved.

“K” edit - That, M’lady Pix is a TimTam quality post; spot on.

[JoeDColeman1981]

@Curtis
Re P channel issues - it was in one of the Satcom System Specification Manuals, referenced way back, can't find it just now.  Go over to Victor's blog, they have mentioned it again.

Also note this....

Thanks much, Ventus45

As for P channel: Pardon, bad worded: I saw the specifications, which tells us that a disturbed connection would result in renewing of the  log on, which of course is huge different to log on after power outage. My question was meant like: "How can it happen that the P-channel signal is disturbed?" What can we deduce from that if anything.

I agree about the odd behavior of Inmarsat, which makes it suspicious, of course even more since the resulting search came up blank, and some other possible leads were discarded mainly because of this very data interpretation. This "we gave it to the authorities, go ask them" and the authorities`"investigation ongoing, no publication", "the radar details are too sensitive", "wait for final report" and so on, may be usual for a certain time - but now for almost 3 years?

And WOW! Inmarsat first said, the ca 1830 UTC pings were the closest to satellite?? Will try to find something about it.

It is similar odd,  in my humble view,  like the "later found 0019 ping"; which i cannot understand, when working with a data base - and when the log off MUST be visible in GES logs immediately and giving a good estimate of the last connection before that.

Another point IMO could be, if the ACARS transmission from 1707 was last satcom activity, shouldn´t be there a GES interrogation at  ca. 1807 + max 4 minutes = 1811 with a resulting log off at GES after some attempts?  

And; if the 1721 events would have triggered an ACARS transmission, we would come up at 1825? The latter must be coincidence, because as per data log, there were no further ACARS.

Which would lead to the question who is getting nervous if ACARS is missing? Nobody?

Who took care about the 1737 and 1807 missing ACARS?

And why did the confidential RMP report did not contain - as far as we know - any reports from witnesses, whereas there are several reports about witnesses that have filed some. Witness reports that do not corroborate the official story. And so on.

Well, may be I am mistaking it all - I am no way expert in these matters - but it looks strange; and, it does not help me to believe in ping data´s virginity. (probity).

P7 my edit - Nice post Curtis; "V" is your man, bet he's thinking on it all - right now.

I'm thinking that after sometime after 17:07:48.907 the ACARS may have been turned off because of this a handshake request (1hr) would have been just after 18:07, but didn't happen because MAS tried to get ACARS info (5 requests) at 18:03:41 after ATC contacted (where's your plane) them at 18:02. If the sat comm had never came on at 18:25 and 18:28 then the next handshake because of the 18:03 (5 requests) activity would have been just after 19:04. Then MAS make at call at 18:39 (unanswered) which would make the next handshake request be 19:41 then no other interrupting requests. 20:41 then 21:41 22:41. Then a call at 23:13 would reset the send out request again due for approx an hour later that did happen 00:10:59. Then sat comm comes back on 00:1929 for a partial handshake.

The RMP report once investigated at the time perhaps didn't fully understand what happened with hourly ping interruptions and since seems to have not been corrected or updated.

P7 Edit - Coincidence, happenstance or' enemy action ?

[ventus45]

Just for the record.

The Third Interim Statement  - 4 pages

(N.B. - "not" a "report" - all nicely "legal" like ........)

Page 1.gif Size: 165.5 KB  Downloads: 195

Page 2.gif Size: 216.03 KB  Downloads: 193

Page 3.gif Size: 172.64 KB  Downloads: 193

Page 4.gif Size: 152.73 KB  Downloads: 193

[ventus45]

Then of course, there is this.

"Politics & Diplomacy" trumps all

(no pun intended).

AusBRW-1.JPG Size: 126.26 KB  Downloads: 343

AusBRW-2.JPG Size: 225.24 KB  Downloads: 342

AusBRW-3.JPG Size: 109.43 KB  Downloads: 343

AusBRW-4.JPG Size: 91.09 KB  Downloads: 343

AusBRW-5.JPG Size: 73.8 KB  Downloads: 341

[Kharon]

The whirligig of time.

“Madam, why laugh you at such a barren rascal; an you smile not, he’s gagged?” and thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenges.

Its quite a story though ain’t it; who needs fiction, when reality is so much more twisted and bizarre. Had the FAA and NTSB tried to pull off a stunt like Pel-Air, there would be folk in goal, heads in baskets and a complete clean out of the rats nest, after a Senate committee inquiry. Not here though.

Do we blame those who allowed the law to be so ineffectual? Do we blame them who blatantly broke not only law, but policy, protocol, trust, good faith and confidence? Dare we ask why they acted as they did? Dare we ask why they were allowed to get away with this gross perversion, (twice now).

Will they dare do it again? No brainer, of course they will; in fact they already have. But the final insult comes in the form of the 'delighted', badge wearing, hi-viz Hood.  A man at the very heart of the Pel-Air aberration, decision maker, document signer, he who authorised every perversion possible of an investigation into an accident. No: you’re right, he did not act alone, but do you think Chambers could have manipulated audit and process without a willing accomplice to sign his devious little plots into being? Do you think Hood would have made things happen through his signature had he not had top cover from those above him? IMO Some acts committed during the McConvict era beggar belief; those of Chambers supported by Hood among the worst atrocities ever inflicted, with malice aforethought demand that CASA as part of their rehabilitation address those matters. None of it is ‘secret’, the industry knows what was done, by whom and why. Until these matters are properly addressed, the Senate recommendation enforced and the Forsyth ASRR fully acknowledged and instituted, there can be no hope for industry which knows, deep in it’s very heart, there ain’t any.

That same man, the main cog in a disgusting episode, is now in charge of our accident investigations.  The shambles Dolan left behind as an inheritance includes not only Pel-Air, but a legacy of flawed reports into accidents; a long list of serious incidents all of which may be repeated; and the scandal which MH370 is likely to become. The denial of legitimate requests under the FoI Act tells the tale very clearly. As head of ATSB Hood could release to the public, information which was gathered at public expense. As a matter of principal. What possibly could be so ‘secret’ or ‘sensitive’ that it cannot be released? It was after all supposed to a ‘Search’ in hope of rescue, with the option of recovery. What could prompt a response such as:-  

“would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth”

Pel-Air should have brought about a complete dismantling and restructuring of both CASA and the ATSB; it did not. Why, despite overwhelming evidence, did this not happen?

Why Mr. Hood can Australia not reveal its part in the MH370 search and supply the information requested? Why fuel the roaring flames of speculation on conspiracy to delude the public?  Too hard, then answer this – why is someone so deeply involved in Pel-Air, with a glaring conflict of interest and possibly charges to answer, now running the very agency which is investigating its own part in that disgraceful affair?

The international community, particularly those affected by MH370, who cannot obtain the information requested of your department, deserve that question answered at least.

I wonder how this fellah gets to sleep at night or can shave his face in the morning.  One good thing though, he can stop worrying about when Karen Casey’s ruling will be delivered – Thursday Greg, Supreme court, we’ll know by lunch time; then perhaps you will be able to release the often delayed report into your own investigation into your own part in wrongdoings of Pel-Air.

“Conscience is but a word that cowards use,
Devis'd at first to keep the strong in awe:
Our strong arms be our conscience, swords our law.
March on, join bravely, let us to't pell-mell;
If not to heaven, then hand in hand to hell.”

Selah.

[ventus45]

Time to really consider alternative theories ?









All those little red dots over his right shoulder (left of picture) worry me.

Note also the "Original" NTSB - "Two Tracks" (now but a distant memory for most)

Chris Aikman.JPG Size: 82.3 KB  Downloads: 163

KenS.JPG Size: 60.24 KB  Downloads: 162

LaLaLaura.JPG Size: 53.08 KB  Downloads: 162

MH370-Young.JPG Size: 77.09 KB  Downloads: 165

[ventus45]

From Victor's Blog

Post Aunty.gif Size: 384.66 KB  Downloads: 160

[ventus45]

http://tmex1.blogspot.com.au/2017/03/pathetic.html

DennisW-0.gif Size: 182.88 KB  Downloads: 140

[ventus45]

Let's see if AMSA come good with the details.

[ventus45]

Anyone who has followed my posts here will be well aware that I have been a critic of the ATSB's determination of "the 7th Arc", and their refusal to "validate it", from way back.

In short, long ago I concluded that it was "a mathematical construct of dubious integrity".

As a consequence, if "the arc" is wrong, it is of no surprise at all that the search on that arc failed to find the aircraft.

The following discussion on Victor's blog might be of interest to some.











The reader is left to ponder the matter, and perhaps draw their own conclusions.

1.gif Size: 242.75 KB  Downloads: 124

2.gif Size: 487.1 KB  Downloads: 122

3.gif Size: 156.6 KB  Downloads: 124

4.gif Size: 310.45 KB  Downloads: 122

5.gif Size: 215.18 KB  Downloads: 124

[ventus45]

Well, "surprise - surprise !!" - NOT !!

AMSA has replied, by lawyer, with a typical government lawyer's bullshit "non-answer" answer. (See below).

"The time has come" (the walrus said) to ask the Senators to "demand" that all the "dirty nitti-gritti details" be presented "in full", at the next "Estimates", and that it all be "meticulously" recorded in the "Hansard".

T.gif Size: 282.38 KB  Downloads: 95

[ventus45]

My reply - to the "Reply".

Reply-to-the-Reply.GIF Size: 163.82 KB  Downloads: 80

[Kharon]

LOL. (Big smile and a Tim Tam post).

Gee-Whiz “V”; that is no way to respond. Buttering ‘em up like that has never worked, they just think you’ve fallen for the platitudes. No, no, no; you must, in plain, basic Anglo Saxon tell ‘em exactly what you think.

But it is a remarkable thing: every skerrick of MH 370 information should be made freely available to the public, yet it is kept ‘secret’ or made unavailable. Why? What must be kept away from inquisitive minds. Perhaps the answer lays in the latest barring of lap tops and ‘tablets’ on certain flights; perhaps ET (electronic terrorism) did take the aircraft after all. Now that, good ‘V’, would be a secret indeed and worthy of protection methinks.  

Toot- Cheered me up no end- toot.

[ventus45]

Yes "K", the "secrecy" is starting to smell very badly.

When you go back over, and examine in detail, the time line of events, it is becoming more evident by the day.

This might be worth a read.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/ne...-something

https://www.amazon.com/Someone-Hiding-So...07281/ctoc

MH370-Secrecy.GIF Size: 219.65 KB  Downloads: 64

[ventus45]

Sourced these off twitter from BA Captain Dave Wallsworth
(https://twitter.com/DaveWallsworth)

The advancing "terminator" from FL400.

Advancing-Termiator-1.jpg Size: 20.49 KB  Downloads: 209

Advancing-Termiator-2.jpg Size: 36.02 KB  Downloads: 208

Advancing-Termiator-3.jpg Size: 59.58 KB  Downloads: 209

Advancing-Termiator-4.jpg Size: 56.24 KB  Downloads: 210

Advancing-Termiator-5.jpg Size: 59.12 KB  Downloads: 210

[ventus45]

"K", to my reading, in your post #373, you seem to have adopted a line that effectively says, "let it rest".  

I can not agree.  

I do not have the time to reply in full now, as I have a full week ahead, and have to get moving, but put quickly, this was clearly a crime in my view, not an accident, no way it was a "bona-fide" accident, and all the governments know it. They clearly know what that crime was, why it was committed, and who the perpetrators were, and that is the "secret" that Hoody is "protecting".  

As for the suggestion that China should push for the release of information, I have to laugh, sorry. The manifest fact is that China has had a policy of "studied indifference" to the whole MH370 saga since the day the IL-76's flew back home from RAAF Pearce.  That fact is "telling".

The "unlawful death" of six of his fellow citizens, two from NSW, two from Queensland, and two from Western Australia, seemingly does not figure in Hoody's calculus, or anyone elseses in Canberra for that matter, which is starly in contrast to the attitude they adopted to MH17. Have you never wondered "why" such a contrast ?  It is not as simplistic as "it was obviously shot down".

Finally, your line on "the law" may need revision, because as I understad it, it is a crime in and of itself to withhold information of murder or unlawful death from the "appropriate police" authorities. Perhaps that is the real underlying reason, why some ATSB "insiders" apparently want to speak out (as was reported / suggested), basically to protect themselves from eventual prosecution ?  It would explain why Hoody has clamped down so hard ? A tactic of silencing the troops by countering one threat with another of equal or greater potential retribution ?

[Kharon]

Not at all good Sir; perish the thought.

"V" - "K", to my reading, in your post #373, you seem to have adopted a line that effectively says, "let it rest".

Nope – not on your life will I “let it rest”; I was, clumsily it seems, pointing out that to tackle the ‘big end’ of government ‘legislation’ such as an Act is not a good course to take. In that the case will run up to a decade – if a case can ever be brought. The process is ‘consuming’ (mind, body, soul and time) and incredibly costly. No guarantee of a win and a stacked deck to boot.

To me, the matter is ‘criminal’. There was – in one form or another – ‘unlawful interference’ with the flight; by a person or persons unknown. Where the ‘lie’ lays is that the event has never been treated as such; not by Australia and most certainly not by Malaysia.

When an accident is not an accident"in those rare cases where there is clear evidence, or where there is reasonable proof, that an aviation accident was the result of unlawful interference the ATSB is required to promptly advise relevant authorities, such as the Australian Federal Police, the Office of Transport Security (within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Such an event does not meet the definitional requirements of an accident under Annex 13 and as such the ATSB would normally discontinue it's safety investigation.
"Aviation Law in Australia, 2013, Bartsch, 4th ed, pg 630.

"V" I do not have the time to reply in full now, as I have a full week ahead, and have to get moving, but put quickly, this was clearly a crime in my view, not an accident, no way it was a "bona-fide" accident, and all the governments know it. They clearly know what that crime was, why it was committed, and who the perpetrators were, and that is the "secret" that Hoody is "protecting".

Agreed, completely and utterly. Something is being ‘screened’ – filtered if you will. It is that information which will release the hounds. But how to get it? It is Catch 22, the perfect paradox.

At the most basic level, a paradox is a statement that is self contradictory because it often contains two statements that are both true, but in general, cannot both be true at the same time.

The only way to get the lid off is to (a) independently find the aircraft; or, (b) find unequivocal, empirical evidence to support a criminal event. All I was saying in a nutshell is don’t waste time, resources, energy and hope trying to take down the walls of the castle with a feather duster.  Mark D Young, Mike Chillit and others are putting up a tremendous effort to ‘independently’ find the aircraft – now that I can and do fully support.

Toot toot.

[Curtis]

@ventus45

A question for you, where i have not seen a solid answer - hope i have just missed it:

Still turning around 1707 utc last ACARS, and 1825 the mysterious re-log on of the plane´s system.
In this presentation, kindly tweeted by ALSM,  for NoK in China by Annex 13 team, Yesterday,
https://twitter.com/Airlandseaman/status...4838160385
on page 18 - we find again the satcom activities, including the 1707/1825 gap.

If these are the satcom activities i do not understand why the GES did NOT interrogate the plane´s system, if it is still online - because i have never seen something else than the GES would interrogate in an interval of 1 hour or 1 hour +/- 256 seconds. So after 1707 an interrogation was due at 1807 (or 1803 or 1811).

Some have argued that the text message from MAS ops at 1803 may have interrupted it - but if the official list of satcom activities, 3 years later, still has nothing to offer after 1707, then i am lost why the GES did not do what it shall be designed to do.

Do You have an explanation for this?

Thanks a lot for Your time.

Curtis

[ventus45]

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 ?

Map-CVR-FDR.jpg Size: 46.19 KB  Downloads: 283

FDR-1.jpg Size: 27.63 KB  Downloads: 282

CVR-1.jpg Size: 24.76 KB  Downloads: 280

Ping-Spectra-1.jpg Size: 89.88 KB  Downloads: 274

Ping-Spectra-2.jpg Size: 35.53 KB  Downloads: 273