[ventus45]

The new search has begun.
Eight AUV's in the water.
From Richard Cole.
https://twitter.com/richard_e_cole/statu...3441526784

[Peetwo]

Independence of MH370 investigation under threat -

The following story from the other Aunty should concern all those 'tin kickers' that live and breath the ISASI/Annex 13 principles of effective and independent AAI:

---

MH370: Malaysian military sidelines crash investigators as power play emerges on search team

PM

Exclusive by Peter Lloyd

Updated about an hour ago Fri 9 Feb 2018, 8:45am

 
Photo: The Seabed Constructor search ship comes in to dock at Fremantle. (ABC News: Robert Koenig-Luck)

A power struggle has emerged in the Malaysian-led investigation into the disappearance of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 over the Indian Ocean four years ago.

Key points:

• Four civilian air crash investigators sidelined over reported budget constraints
  
• Malaysian military wants to replace them with fighter and helicopter pilots
  
• Figures linked to the investigation are concerned it has tarnished the search's independence
  

Four civilian air crash investigators, including the lead authority on analysing black box flight data, have been sidelined over reported budget constraints.

The Malaysian military wants to replace them with seven Royal Malaysian Air Force fighter and helicopter pilots with far less crash investigation experience.

The lead aviator, Colonel Lau Ing Hiong, confirmed his secondment to the search team
"Yeah, it's correct," he said.

The colonel said he saw his role on the team as being there in anticipation of the black boxes being found, but denied there would be a military operation to secure them.

Figures linked to the investigation have told the ABC on condition of anonymity they are concerned the recent move has tarnished the search's independence.

 
Photo: A relative of a passenger onboard Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 cries as she talks on her mobile phone. (Reuters: Kim Kyung-Hoon)

One said unauthorised people like Air Force personnel on board the search vessel could raise questions about the chain of evidence.

That is due to a perceived conflict of interest for military personnel between the civilian chief of the search and their military commander.

But insiders say the search has already been muddied merely because of the presence of military personnel on the team.

Search ship has been centre of conspiracy theories

The director-general of Malaysia's civil aviation authority declined an extended interview, but said: "These investigations need to be done by independent bodies."

The ABC has approached the Malaysian Prime Minister for clarification about the role of the Air Force.

New MH370 conspiracy theory



Wild conspiracy theories about Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 have now spread to the search ship tasked with finding it.

It is not unprecedented for Malaysian Air Force personnel to be involved in air crash investigations — they were in the case of MH17, which was shot down over Ukraine.
The private sector vessel currently searching for the plane's wreckage, the Seabed Constructor, docked at Fremantle to refuel on Thursday.

Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said so far the search had gone smoothly in the ship's 90-day race against the clock to find the wreckage.

"[In] one day they can search more than 1,000 square kilometres. We will continue to keep the public informed," he said.

The ship has been the subject of conspiracy theories after it turned off its transponder for 80 hours, fuelling internet speculation.

Malaysian authorities know why the ship was not reporting its location, but did not disclose the information in their weekly update on the search.

Until now, the MH370 search has been conducted by eight civilian aviation experts including Malaysians as well as foreign nationals, one of them from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. 

---

MTF...P2

[Fori362]

@Resident Team:

You guys who run and moderate here - you often report things from the media and link to official reports, and sometimes you give your views on those things.

And from some of your comments it sounds like you may have aviation backgrounds.

What are your theories about what happened?

[P7_TOM]

Fori362 – “What are your theories about what happened?”

There’s no ‘maybe’ about aviation backgrounds, across many disciplines, but in the main pilots; mostly professional. This is why very few have any comment to make, at all, about the MH 370 tragedy. Most PAIN associates have an in depth understanding of aircraft, their navigation and various operations, many qualified to make ‘expert’ comment in those disciplines; but,,, very few have any knowledge whatsoever related to the clinical, forensic ‘investigation’ required of an event like MH370.

Occasionally, over an ale or two the flight details, such as they are, may be explored, even the operation of the aircraft maybe speculated upon. But none would have the temerity to voice those opinions publicly; and far too much common or garden sense to relate the same to the media.

The short answer is we have NDI; the long answer is, like the rest of the world and half the folks involved in ‘the search’ we have no ducking idea. We must await the answers – and hope that there are some credible ones, soon.

[Fori362]

I guessed that might be the case. Not only here but in other, well-known, places where (in their case) discussion seems to have been locked and/or heavily edited with long-standing (professional) contributors being suddenly banned for expressing a seemingly unwelcome view.

And a great pity that is so, for that knowledge could perhaps be very helpful in determining what might/could have happened; to whittle down the likely actions and responses, if only to say (for example) 'A pilot finding himself in that situation (or his aircraft) would not do that; he would more likely instead do this...' or: 'The aircraft would behave like this...'. But I'm sure you've all been through the possible scenarios and options as given many times, contradictory as they seem to be.

Hopefully there is some section of the search effort that does want to find the aircraft and its FDR (irrespective of the MYG's seeming wish that it won't be) and wants to make that public in full.

Although the MY airforce observers being put on board OI to take charge of the FDR, when found, doesn't bode well for transparency and truth of the FDR data after the MYG's previous refusal to release the raw radar data and its subsequent classification of the radar, CCTV and ATC recordings.

Yet that placement is also an interesting departure from previous practice which suggests that perhaps a find this time is expected. No observers were placed at any point in the first search.

Credible would be good, but would be an unexpected, novel, new development in this saga.

[Kharon]

Nah; no locking down or editing on Aunt Pru; just a general, natural quietness and reticence, as Lincoln put it  “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt”.

What Tom said is the truth of it; without accurate ‘technical’ data nobody with half a brain would be prepared to ‘speculate’. There are enough hare-brained, half arsed ‘theories’, articles and books published about the event without Aunt Pru becoming publicly involved.

Should you read the accident threads, you will see that speculation on accident is, for the most part, restricted, by individual choice, to comment on ‘fact’ established by official report. The MH 370 saga has no such solid data available; and for many of us, credibility and integrity was lost the moment the ATSB became involved and the AMSA unceremoniously dumped.

Someone, somewhere knows the truth of it; but, until that that someone is found, the mud settles and the water becomes clear, what can any sensible person add to what has already been said?

“I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn’t know”. (Twain).

[ventus45]

http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2018/03/...ment-13644

Lido Slide - Richard Godfrey.JPG Size: 149.53 KB  Downloads: 140

[ventus45]

These are from Victor's blog.

ventus45 says:
March 29, 2018 at 8:15 am

@DennisW

I made my position on the flaperon quite clear, long ago, 13th January 2016 in fact.

To be blunt, I think it (and the Pemba flap) were “planted”, and here is why, and how.

The essential points, both then and now are:-

The French established that:-
(a) the flaperon was part of the initial “ship set” installed at build by Boeing.
(b) the data plate was missing and it looked to have been geliberately “removed”.
© there was evidence of an apparent attempt at some “repair” AND also an apparent attempt to comply with implementing an AD, that had been, apparently, botched.

The Malaysians, when they went to France to see it, emerged after only an hour or so – to proclaim that they recognised MAS Maintenance Markings on it.

I don’t think either maintenance work or work to impliment AD’s to flight control surfaces are done “on wing” Dennis, in fact, I know for an absolute fact, from practical experience with glider inspections, maintenance and repair in the 1970’s, that they most definately are not. They are removed, and they go to “the shop” to be worked on. Ailerons and elevators being critical, balance and rigging wise. Even painting them required “doing it all again”. In the meantime, the aircraft is “AOG”, or is returned to service by fitting a spare. Note that last bit.

But to move on from the obvious.

Notwithstanding all that, there are a multitude of unresolved issues regarding:-
(a) trailing edge damage,
(b) leading edge is undamaged,
© failure modes of the mounts and PCU attachments are unresolved,
(d) and of course, there is the case of the barnacles.

But setting all that aside for the moment.

Now consider the Pemba Flap segment.

Malaysia, after having made a big song and dance about the French refusing to give them the flaperon mind, were apparently not interested in the flap initially – strange don’t you think ? Why ?

Enter the ATSB. The ATSB eventually gets the flap sent to Australia, themselves.

Again, no data plate at all, trailing egde damage, no leading edge damage, flap track attachment mount snapped through the middle and a steel rod broken in the middle, but no reported evidence of any damage let alone stress cracking at the point of mounting to the composit structure. The forces required to break those metal parts are huge, yet the composite structure that reacted those loads is undamaged ? Not credible. Then of course, that flap mounting was removed, and has never been seen again. Why ?

Anyway, the ATSB then decides (after consulting the French) that the damage to both the flap and flaperon is consistent with them both being in the up position at the time of damage, which occurred simultaneously, ie, they damaged each other.

Now, there is no way that I can see that any of that is consistent with either a high speed dive flutter separation, a high speed dive water entry, or a ditching.

So what does that leave us ?

There is a very simple explanation.

In 2012, 9M-MRO was involved in a ground acident – a taxi accident.
It stuffed it’s right wing tip through the lower tail and rudder of an A340 in China.
The A340 was stationary. 9M-MRO was the aircraft in motion, ie, with the “energy”.
We know the aircraft was repaired and eventually returned to service, but how long it took, who did it, and what components were replaced, I can not find out, and I have looked. Perhaps others can put it on their “to-do-lists”, someone might find some useful information.

But in the absence of hard evidence, a little though exercise says that a heavy B777 taxing at 10 knots or so, clouting an A340, puts a hell of a lot of energy through the right wing, with a very long leverage arm, which flexes the wing spanwise, both laterally (to the rear) and in torsion about the wing box elastic axis. Trailing edge bits, hanging off two mount points each, get compressed together laterally. Well low and behold, they are in the up position too.

Now it gets speculative.

Being damaged, they are removed, and are replaced with spares, as well as the outer 5 feet or so apparently, of the right wing tip. All good, signed off, and the aircraft retuns to service.

So, what happens to the removed components ?
Chuck them in the nearest dumster ?
No. Too valuable, and damage is apparently minimal.
Obviously, they are shipped back to MAS for repair.

Some time later, repair is attempted, and ……….. botched ?

As a result, the item(s) are then condemned, so the data plates are removed and destroyed as part of the standard protocols in place, (safety remember – fake unauthorised parts – unorthorised recycling of damaged and condemned parts – etc – a BIG issue in the aviation industry) and the big bits go to the disposal guys. All this takes time, sometimes people are slack, and it takes a while. It didn’t get done.

They languish under a tarp somewhere, out the back of a hangar, or more likely, at some spare parts storage facility. Every major airline has them, and they are most often not on the airport. Airport space is limited and expensive. You keep your big spares and repairables in an industrial warehouse area, usually not too far away.

Come 2014, 9M-MRO goes missing.

By 2015 people were openly asking – “where is the debris”.

Now it gets really speculative.

Someone needed an answer, for, “where is the debris”.
Suddenly, those two major components, have a “resurrection”, of sorts.

As I see it, desperate attemts to prove that the first and most major component (the flaperon) can hit a specific target (a small island), in the middle of a huge ocean, at pretty much precisely the right time frame, to supposedly prove, that it came from a defined range on the northen part of the arc, on 8th March 2014, leaves me cold. The fact that it was found on that very small island of Reunion, is way too “cute”, way beyond credible. Thus, I do not consider the drift studies to be worth the paper they are printed on. Sorry to be so brutally blunt about it – but there it is.

And then, there is the Pemba flap, the flaperon’s partner, allegedly “found” by fishermen, in a hidden little bay, under a cliff, only visible, let alone accessible, from and by, a small boat ?
I wonder who tipped them off to go look in that little bay.


DennisW says:
March 29, 2018 at 8:26 am

@Ventus
Wow. You have obviously put a great deal of thought (and effort) into those two pieces of debris. I am very impressed, and I have no rebuttal to provide.


Victor Iannello says:
March 29, 2018 at 8:32 am

@ventus45: Besides throwing out the drift analyses and the BFO data at the log-on at 18:25, in your scenario, if I understand things correctly, the Malaysians are co-conspirators in planting the flaperon. And why would they do this?

I will now add the following here.

@DennisW

A little video for you.
Right Wing tip of an Airbus A330 slicing through the tail of an Airbus A321.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKyygyiM...e=youtu.be
Freeze the frames, it is hard to see, but note that the A330 wing deflects slightly, both upwards and backwards.

The 60 Minutes program is clearly laying the groundwork for:-
"the pilot did it - unfortunate, tragic, but an isolated and rare event - case closed - don't worry about it - stop the search - look at how to prevent a rouge pilot doing it again".

Very simplistic, and the public will swallow it.

But was it simply suicide, or political martyrdom ?

Simple suicide is too simple.

This was too complicated to be simple suicide. Months of planning, detailed, indeed, meticulous.

The elephant in the room, is why he did it, and who knew he was doing it, and when, and what they did about it afterwards.

The first few days were telling. It wasn't incompetence. It was coverup, and still is.

Given recent political events, he may ultimately have helped precipitate those events, which were quite clearly, and undeniably, his aim / desire / wish / hope / objective.

[ventus45]

@Sabine

My comment to Mike about end of flight BFO's in "that" glide was hypothetical. It is not what I think actually happened. If you want to know what my end of flight is, and how I developed it, you can read Auntypru. There is a very long thread that starts here.
http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=28

[ventus45]

ventus45 says:
May 15, 2018 at 10:11 pm

@Sabine

To save you the trouble of reading the whole Auntypru thread, the essential details are in post #229
http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread...86#pid4886

[Peetwo]

Did corrupt Najib government doom the MH370 search?

Not that I really want to weigh into the whole Malaysian 1MDB corruption thing but I note that Clive Irving gives a pretty good insight into how much of huge impediment the murky world of Malaysian politics was to the success of the MH370 search effort - via the Beast..  

Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast

END GAME
MH370 Didn’t Just Disappear, It Was Caught in a Swamp of Corruption

From the beginning, the crash investigation fell victim to a regime in Malaysia now revealed to have been one of the most corrupt in the world. There are other scandals, too.

Clive Irving
06.01.18 10:41 PM ET

It seemed that they did not want to quit. Even as the end of the search for the remains of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 was announced the crew of the ship conducting the search continued to scour the deep ocean floor in one last sweep.

But it’s over now. Any hope of finding the remains of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 any time soon—or maybe ever—has died. The Texas-based deep-sea search company Ocean Infinity has pulled the plug on its self-funded search in the Indian Ocean after three months.

This means that the world’s most advanced deep-sea search technology has been defeated by the same challenges that ended the previous 27-month search. It also means that the fate of the 239 souls on board the Boeing 777 that disappeared on March 8, 2014, remains part of the most baffling mystery in modern aviation history.

But this is so much more than a mystery. It is a calamity that indicts the organizations charged with setting the safety standards for international air travel for their failure to anticipate and remove a long-evident weakness in regulations.

And, equally seriously, it highlights the problem that air crash investigations can be seriously compromised by the political culture of the nations under whose jurisdictions they fall. In the case of MH370, that has exposed a singularly egregious example.

Looking for the Truth in a Kleptocracy

The Hermes Birkin handbag is one of those accessories that a woman carries casually while aware that it sends an identifying message: I am filthy rich. Or I have a close friend who is.

The bag is named for Jane Birkin, who, as a winsome, somewhat androgynous actress and singer became an icon of Swinging London in the 1960s.

The bag dates from the early 1980s, when the CEO of Hermes on a flight from Paris to London saw Birkin spill the contents of a straw bag while attempting to stow it in an overhead bin. He offered to create something more elegant specially for her—and, presto!—there emerged an instant classic of conspicuous consumption. Depending on which kind of animal skin it is fashioned from, a Birkin bag can cost up to $300,000.

That price is no obstacle to women who really want it now.

Take, for example, Rosmah Mansor, the wife of Najib Razak, the erstwhile prime minister of Malaysia.

Her husband’s annual salary was, officially, a modest $70,000. But in Malaysia, if you were the wife of any high government official, if you wanted something badly enough you could, apparently, be gratified with the help of a little looting of the public funds.

The true scale of the looting was disclosed only when Razak’s party was voted out of office early in May after more than 60 years in power. They were replaced by a coalition government led by 92-year-old Mahathir Mohamad who promised to clean up what appears to have been one of the world’s most avid kleptocracies.

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

At the heart of the corruption was a sovereign wealth fund, 1MDB. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at least $4.5 billion was diverted and laundered from the fund. Around $680 million is alleged to have ended up in Razak’s personal bank account.

Searches ordered by the new government of properties used by Razak and his family discovered 284 boxes of designer handbags, including Birkins, 72 bags stuffed with cash, watches, and jewelry—including a 22-carat pink diamond necklace valued at $27.3 million belonging to his wife.

These mind-boggling details bring their own chilling perspective to the way the Malaysians met their largest single responsibility to the outside world during more than four years of being in charge of investigating the disappearance of MH370.

Forty percent of government spending under Razak was—according to his opponents—lost to corruption, and the effort to cover the enormous debts of the looted fund means that the new government will impose an austerity regime. The new Malaysian government has also made it clear that it is not prepared to fund or devote any resources to new searches for MH370.

But here is an unpalatable illustration of the equation involved and its ethical message: Three nations, Malaysia, China, and Australia funded the first unsuccessful search which is estimated to have cost $180 million. Of that, Malaysia contributed $100 million, Australia $60 million, and China $20 million.

For Malaysia that works out at just over $400,000 per passenger lost, or little more than the cost of a Birkin bag.

Finding a Scapegoat

From the beginning, in March 2014, the Razak government displayed a combination of incompetence and a natural instinct to avoid public scrutiny. Suddenly faced with a tragedy that gripped the whole world’s attention, ministers showed little grasp of what had happened and even fled from press briefings when their lack of grip was exposed.

Within a week the government selected the easiest targets to blame for the tragedy, the pilots. They staged a deliberately public raid on the home of the pilot, Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah. Soon after they suggested that Captain Shah had used a flight simulator on his home computer to rehearse a plan to hijack his own airplane.

Some of the people ordering this search and promoting the theory have now had their own homes publicly searched in the course of the corruption investigation.

A year later the government had to admit that it had found no evidence or motive for either of the pilots to have planned a mass murder-suicide.

Under a regime like this it was not surprising that the country has come nowhere near to meeting its obligations under international treaties to make the investigation into MH370 publicly transparent. Officially, the investigation is led by Malaysia’s Department of Civil Aviation, always headed by government appointees. In an administration that incorporated patronage, cronyism, and the intimidation of opponents as a matter of course there was no semblance of transparency.

Nor was there any chance that the Malaysian media would take a deep dive into how the investigation was being handled. The main newspapers and news channels were either owned or controlled by friends of the ruling party. Websites critical of the government were accused of publishing “offensive” content and to silence them Razik, picking up his tone from the Trump White House, introduced the so-called Anti-Fake News Act. Fifteen of his political opponents were charged with sedition. Repressive police powers were enabled by a new “anti-terror” law.

The international agreement covering air accident reports states: “The sole objective shall be the prevention of accidents, it is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability.”

But as the campaign against the pilots indicated, assigning personal blame to people who could never answer was the government’s first instinct and the role of the government ministry has offered no protection from overt political interference.

“Websites critical of the government were accused of publishing ‘offensive’content and to silence them Razik, picking up his tone from the Trump White House, introduced the so-called Anti-Fake News Act.”

There were also indications that the airline’s observance of international regulations was lax. A year before the flight vanished, the company auditors at Malaysian Airlines discovered that the airline was not compliant with its own rules governing the airplane’s on-board system for automatically sending bursts of data reporting its vital systems to managers at its headquarters in Kuala Lumpur. The auditors pointed out that because of this, by law, MH370 should not have been cleared to fly. The Malaysian transport minister knew of the audit but never admitted to it.

Technically the investigation team includes representatives from America’s National Transportation Safety Board, the U.K.’s Air Accident Investigation Branch, China’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Department, the Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses of France, and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. But apart from a bare-bones “factual report” issued on the first anniversary of the disaster nothing remotely resembling a normal air investigation report, which would include regular updates, has ever emerged.

There have been signs that career civilian investigators have been clashing with the military establishment over technical issues. Early this year the Australian news network ABC reported that there had been a power struggle that had led to four civilian air crash investigators, including the lead authority on analyzing black boxes (flight data recorders retrieved from crashes), being sidelined and replaced by members of the Royal Malaysian Air Force.

Of the international partners involved, the Australians have been by far the most active. The ATSB issued regular detailed reports of the 27-month long initial deep-sea search. Australian oceanographers spent more than two years attempting to predict the most likely location of the airplane with an analysis of debris from the Boeing 777 that washed up on beaches in the western Indian Ocean—but, as it turned out, to no avail.

And now, with the cleaning of Malaysia’s Augean stables, there is a new transport minister, Anthony Loke, who announced as the search for MH370 ended, “There will be no more extensions. It cannot continue forever.” But he did say that he was committed to transparency and will release details for public scrutiny “in due time.”

For Voice 370, the organization that represents the families of the victims, that is the kind of promise they have heard before. For a while they have demanded an independent review, particularly including any possible falsification or elimination of maintenance records for the Boeing 777 involved. Perhaps this time they will get the answers they deserve.

An Industry Fails to Act

As this catastrophe unfolded in 2014 the world’s first response was, reasonably: How could this happen? How could you lose an airplane of this size in an age where the privacy of movement has been so intruded upon and where there are so few ways left for people (or things) to just disappear?

Fingers pointed, rightly, to the regulator responsible for the safety of international air travel, the International Commercial Aviation Organization, a United Nations body based in Montreal. The ICAO has a long history of bureaucratic torpor. Like most of the airline industry, the ICAO didn’t think that it was any longer likely that an airplane could disappear without trace while crossing an ocean.

That belief was shaken in 2009 when Air France Flight 447 vanished on a flight from Rio to Paris. It took two years to find the Airbus A330 and during that time the French air crash investigators, the BEA, urged that all airplanes regularly crossing oceans should be equipped to constantly send their position via real-time tracking using existing satellite communications systems.

Nothing happened. The ICAO was abetted in its nonchalance by the airlines’ lobbying organization, the International Air Transportation Association, whose view was that the chances of another Air France 447-type disaster were so minimal that it wasn’t worth spending the money required to install the tracking technology—even though, at the same time, the airlines were spending millions to equip airplane cabins with new entertainment systems, part of which used links with satellites.

The loss of MH370 finally forced a response. But, incredibly, the ICAO displayed little sense of urgency. They set a deadline of 2024 for new tracking technology to be in universal use. However, the European Aviation Safety Agency, EASA, was having none of that. They mandated that airlines under its authority should have its airplanes equipped to report their position from anywhere in the world every 15 minutes by the end of this year.

The ICAO could not be seen to allow double standards, one for Europe and one for the rest of the world, and was forced to mandate the same deadline, November 2018, for the first phase of its new tracking regime, the Global Aeronautical Distress and Safety System.

This is only a half-measure, at best. A lot can happen to an airplane in 15 minutes—for example, a Boeing 777 at cruise speed can cover 150 miles in that time. A deadline has been set of January 2021 requiring that all airplanes should have a failure detection and alert system able to transmit an automatic distress signal once a minute—that includes data bursts indicating specifically what has happened.

“A lot can happen to an airplane in 15 minutes—for example, a Boeing 777 at cruise speed can cover 150 miles in that time.”

In fact, technological change is outpacing the bureaucracies. This year a satellite operator, Iridium, launched the first batch of a fleet of mini-satellites capable of providing real time tracking and transmitting all the crucial data once every second—wherever in the world a flight operates.

Competition between satellite fleet operators has reduced the cost of installing the new tracking systems so markedly that many airlines are not waiting for the new regulations to kick in. They will install the systems in their trans-oceanic fleets as soon as they are available.

But a truly effective system will have to include three abilities—to know precisely where the airplane is; to know what has failed, and an ability, in the words of the ICAO, to recover the essential data from the airplane’s black box “in a timely manner.”

This was always the fundamental failing of the international air safety regime—that the critical data, the detailed record of what doomed an airplane, went down with the airplane. Obviously, if it went down into an ocean the chances of retrieving the black box recorder were greatly lessened.

As the case of MH370 demonstrates, this problem can still defeat the most advanced deep-sea search technology in the world. Seabed Constructor, the vessel operated by Ocean Infinity, deployed a swarm of as many as eight autonomous underwater vehicles simultaneously. In little more than three months they swept more than 112,000 square kilometers of deep and challenging seabed—almost the same area that it took 27 months to cover in the initial search with earlier generation equipment.

Wherever the 239 victims of MH370 are entombed, they represent a comprehensive failure of the systems and people that were supposed to protect them from such an appalling fate. For sure, air travel is safer today than it has ever been. Nonetheless, the last thing that we can tolerate is that the cause of a crash should remain unknown. As all crash investigators will tell you, the cause might well be something that has never happened before. And might happen again.

I note that, although the OI contract with Malaysia has been officially terminated, Seabed Constructor will be continuing to scan north-east of the original 7th arc, until the 8th of June. It may only be another 4 days but it will be fascinating to watch how they go about their business now that they don't have the constraints of the Malaysian contract - a big good luck and safe travels to the crew of SC...       

Here is the latest of where Constructor is at courtesy of Kevin Rupp, via Book of Research:

#MH370: Latest Updates: 
Thank you Ocean Infinity! @Ocean_Infinity #MH370 #Searchon
#MH370: Looking back into Area 25S 101E (Batavia/HAI XUN 01’s 37.5 kHz Ping Detection’s)

---

Monday 4 June 2018
Search updates by Kevin Rupp @LabratSR
.
#1: Seabed Constructor has been updating and recovering AUVs. It seems like they are starting to ramp down a little, probably to allow data processing to catch up. The weather is crappy and her present position is 25° 36′ 19″ S 101° 58′ 33″ E

#MH370 My night time update. Seabed Constructor has been updating and recovering AUVs. It seems like they are starting to ramp down a little, probably to allow data processing to catch up. The weather is crappy and her present position is 25° 36' 19" S 101° 58' 33" E pic.twitter.com/kZuvSIZP5u
— Kevin Rupp (@LabratSR) June 4, 2018

 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

MH370 in the Oz today - 

MH370 investigation report 'must find pilot hijacked aircraft'

The Australian


MH370 investigation report 'must find pilot hijacked aircraft'. Veteran air crash investigator Larry Vance.

Aviation experts have warned that the credibility of the new ­Malaysian government and the integrity of international air crash investigation will be jeopardised if a four-year probe into the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 finds other than that a pilot, most likely the captain, hijacked his own aircraft.

“The final sentence of this report should be a recommendation that a full criminal investigation be conducted to identify the perpetrator(s) and examine the potential motivation(s),” renowned Canadian air crash investigator Larry Vance told The Australian.

The Malaysian government will today bring down its much anticipated MH370 investigation report at the country’s administrative capital of Putrajaya, first briefing next of kin of the 239 lost and then international media.

Malaysian government spokesman Mohammed Afiq Hassan Bin Mohammed Ayub insisted the investigation and the report were independent of political influence, with seven international accredited representatives on the panel including one from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

Mr Hassan said the investigation and report were conducted strictly under what is known as the International Civil Aviation Organisation Annex 13 convention, and that he did not know what conclusions had been reached.

“This only proves Malaysia’s commitment and transparency in complying with its obligations as one of the contracting states,” Mr Hassan told The Australian.

Mr Vance warned: “All participants in the investigation have a responsibility to ensure the report accurately reflects what happened. If this final report into MH370 fails to identify that it was a criminal act, and if it fails to show the evidence that proves that to be the case, then it will be a very dark day in the history of international ­investigation efforts.”

MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014, on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

Two undersea searches, the first led by the ATSB and the second by Houston-based subsea survey company Ocean Infinity, failed to find the aircraft.

While some observers have put forward an in-flight fire or decompression accident as possible explanations, the lack of any distress calls and the clearly deliberate flying of the aircraft for at least two hours has led most professional air crash investigators, including former US airline captain John Cox, to point to pilot hijack.

“The evidence, in my opinion, is sufficient to draw the conclusion the MH370 deviation from its intended route was a deliberate act,” Captain Cox said.

“The person with the knowledge and opportunity … was most likely the captain.”

MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

THE SMELL OF PONY POOH WAFTS THROUGH THE AIR

P2’s article concerns me greatly.
How can anyone in good conscience make a conclusion on this incident when not all of the facts or evidence, in fact when hardly any facts or evidence have even been discovered?

The methodology of root cause analysis is based around fact and evidence. It is irrelevant ‘how guilty the Captain appears’ or ‘what the ATsB’s flawed logic and ridiculous investigative ability is’. The facts are there are no confirmed or proven facts or evidence that comclusively prove what happened. What has been proven is that the Australian and Malaysian Governments investigative bureaucracies were woeful investigators, the Governments were complicit in hiding information, ICAO were pathetic in their input and oversight, and this whole sorry exercise post-disappearance has been a complete and utter clusterf#ck. The Governments should hang there incompetent heads in shame.

Condolences in advance to the loved ones of MH370 victims for the load of drivel that appears to be going to be released later today.

TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

'MH370 findings inconclusive?' - Well no shit Shirlock...

Via the ABC:

'The answer can only be conclusive if the wreckage is found': MH370 investigators say findings are inconclusive Video
Video
ABC News
 49sec
Posted about 3 hours ago
Investigators into the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 say they were unable to determine the cause of one of the world's greatest aviation mysteries

Via news.com.au:

---

MH370 final report: Missing aircraft behaviour reveals it was under manual control
THE only way MH370 would have been able to deviate from its flight path was if it was under deliberate, manual control. But there’s still more questions than answers after the report was handed down.
Staff writers, AFP
News Corp Australia NetworkJULY 30, 20186:29PM

• Video
  
• Image
  

THE Malaysian Government has released its final report into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. It says all the evidence points to an incontrovertible conclusion — that it was under manual control, and that it was deliberately flown out into the Indian Ocean.

The Malaysian government’s chief investigator into the disappearance of the Boeing 777 has been addressing a press conference in Kuala Lumpur today.

Flight MH370, carrying 239 people, including six Australians, disappeared on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014. It is one of the world’s greatest aviation mysteries.

“The autopilot has to be disengaged,” Chief Investigator Kok Soo Chon described the first turn tracked by civilian and military radar after the flight deviated from its course.

“It has to be on manual. We have carried out seven simulator tests, flight simulators, three at high and four at low speed and we found the turn was made indeed under a manual, not autopilot.”

However, it could not be established that the next two turns over the south of Penang and the north of MEKAR were under manual control or autopilot, he added.

The rest, he said, remained a mystery.

But he was quick to say that the findings were not part of a “final report” into the plane’s disappearance.


MH370 Chief Investigator Kok Soo Chon speaks during a media briefing in Putrajaya, outside Kuala Lumpur. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

“This is not the final report,” Chief Investigator Kok said.

“It will be too presumptuous of us to say this is the final report, if the wreckage hasn’t been found, if no victims have been found ... How can we call the report our final report?”

He also appeared to handball responsibility for the final answer to the mystery of MH370 to the Australian government, which took responsibility for the search and rescue operations:

“The answer can only be conclusive if the wreckage is found ... as far as our team is concerned, we have done our job ... We do not deal with search. Search is not our area. You have to ask the people responsible for the search. I can only answer your question relating to the investigation,” he said.


Copies of the MH370 safety investigations report are seen on the floor during a media briefing in Putrajaya, outside Kuala Lumpur. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

‘UNABLE TO DETERMINE CAUSE’

“The radio and telephone communication by the pilot and first officer with the controllers show there was no evidence of any anxiety or stress. The aircraft maintainers record indicates the aircraft was well maintained … There was no record of any malfunction or defect of the aircraft — none that could have contributed to the disappearance,” Investigator Kok said.

“It is possible that the absence of communications prior to flight path diversion was due to the systems being manually turned off, whether with intent or otherwise … the route followed by the aircraft, the height at which it flew, did not suggest any mechanical problem with the aircraft’s control system, fuel or engines.

EXPLORE MORE: How the MH370 tragedy unfolded

“The lack of evidence includes the information recorded on the fly data recorder, and other recording devices on the aircraft that could indicate why is aircraft had flown to the southern Indian Ocean.

“In conclusion, the team is unable to determine the real cause for the disappearance of MH370.”


MH370 Captain Zaharia Ahmed Shah, who was in the cockpit. Picture: SuppliedSource:Supplied

FLIGHT CREW

“We cannot establish if the aircraft was flown by anyone other than the pilot,” he said.

“We can also not exclude the possibility that there’s unlawful interference by a third party. And based on the military record, there was no evidence of a rapid change in the altitude and the speed to indicate that MH-370 was deliberately evading radar.”

Suspicion naturally fell upon the flight crew, he said.

“We examined the pilot (Zaharia) … He has no conflict issues with friends or family and had shown no signs of social isolation, self-neglect, no abuse of alcohol or drugs, no change of habit or interest, no stress or anxiety was detected in his audio recordings and no signs of significant behavioural changes as observed in the CCTV footage. We examined his competency. He was a very competent pilot, almost flawless in the records, ability to handle work stress very well.”


The seven 'waypoints' found plotted on a flight simulator found on Captain Zaharia's personal home computerSource:Supplied

Analysis of what was considered suspicious flight simulator tracks on his home computer were found to be too confused and limited to provide any real detail, he said.

“So in conclusion in the forensic report of the Royal Malaysian Police was there was no unusual activities other than the flight simulations,” he said.


First officer, Fariq Hamid, who was with Captain Shah. Picture: SuppliedSource:News Corp Australia

The co-pilot, Fariq Hamid, also had no known cause to divert the flight, he said, and the alleged signal picked up from his mobile phone after the aircraft diverted was too fragmented to be reliably identified.

He said a “signal hit” appeared to show the phone was on “on-mode”, but there was no message in the data.

The lack of radio contact with MH370 before it turned aournd could indicate systems being manually turned off whether with intent or otherwise, the report added.


A file photo dated 29 July 2015 showing officers carrying a flaperon from an aircraft apparently washed ashore in Saint-Andre de la Reunion, eastern La Reunion island, France. Picture: EPASource:AAP

AIRCRAFT CONDITION

Chief Investigator Kok said the aircraft itself was fully certified as airworthy.

The final report itself adds: “there is no evidence to support the belief that control of the aircraft 9M-MRO (operating as MH370) could have been or was taken over remotely as the technology was not implemented on commercial aircraft.”

While mechanical fault could not be ruled out, it was most likely its communications, tracking and emergency beacon systems had been deliberately disabled.

“Without the benefit of the examination of the aircraft wreckage and recorded flight data information, the investigation is unable to determine any plausible aircraft or systems failure mode that would lead to the observed systems deactivation, diversion from the filed flight,” the formal report reads.


Copies of the final investigation report on missing flight MH370 are offered to the media. Picture: APSource:AP

Investigator Kok said the satellite ‘handshakes’ received by automated systems on-board MH370 gave tantalising hints to its final minutes, but no more.

“There are two significant events … (one of) which is 2:25. The aircraft initiated a handshake. And it was most likely due to power interruption to the SATCON avionics but we do not know why. There was another handshake at 8:19. We are more clear on this handshake because it is actually due to low fuel levels at this time resulting in the loss of both engines.”


MH370 is still a mystery causing anguish to many who lost loved ones. Picture: SuppliedSource:Channel 9

RESPONSE ‘ERRORS’

The report also found that Ho Chi Minh airport had made a mistake by not notifying Chinese authorities earlier when the plane did not make contact.
Kok said the air traffic controllers didn’t initiate various emergency phases available to them, delaying search and rescue operation.


The last contacts with MH370, as detailed by the Malaysian report.Source:Supplied

SEARCH AND DEBRIS

“We went on to examine the wreckage and impact,” Investigator Kok said. “As to date, there are 27 pieces of debris that had been collected or that we know of.”

Only three, however, are certain to be from MH370 because of registration numbers. The remainder are believed to be highly likely from the Boeing 777.

He said the clues pointed the aircraft being in normal flight mode when it hit the water.

“When we examined the wreckage, the debris, we found that the right flaperon was in the neutral position, whereas the outward flap was in the retracted position.”

The position of the flaperon helps explain investigators’ theory that nobody was conscious when the plane crashed.


The MH370 search area. Picture: Supplied/ATSBSource:Supplied

Captain Shah was unconscious, and researchers assumed MH370 dived, ran out of fuel, and landed in the ocean close to its final satellite position.

If someone was flying the plane, they could have glided the plane. But given the flaperon was not deployed, they concluded nobody was in control.

“Damage examination indicates that the right outboard flap was most likely in the retracted position and the right flaperon was probably at, or close to, the neutral position, at the time they separated from the wing,” the report said.

The chief investigator said: “All this gives us the indication and belief that the aircraft at that time was not configured to land”.


The Malaysian Government report included this detail of what cargo was stored where aboard MH370.Source:Supplied

CARGO QUESTIONS

He confirmed that the aircraft was carrying Motorola lithium-ion batteries, but these had been classified as not being dangerous.

“It’s interesting to note that through the same period there were 99 shipments of lithium iron batteries to China,” he said. “There were 36 occasions were both lithium iron batteries and mangostine (fresh fruit) were shipped together to China between the period of January to May. And we have not found any irregularity in the packing assessment.”

MYSTERY REMAINS

Chief investigator Kok the report is not a final one, saying that with no victims found and without the bulk of the wreckage, “how could we call our report the final report?”

When asked whether it is realistic to think families would ever get conclusive answers, he said:

“The answer can only be conclusive if the wreckage is found,” he said.

“As far as our team is concerned, our work is done, we have released the report.”

Key mysteries remain a sticking point, he admitted.

DELVE DEEPER: What we still don’t know about MH370

That the first turn could only have been deliberate. That the radar transponders, radio communications and emergency beacons appear to have been deliberately deactivated “with intent or otherwise”.

“We are not ruling out any possibility,” Investigator Kok said. “We’re just saying that no matter what we do, we cannot exclude the possibility of a third person or third party for unlawful interference.”


A policeman and a gendarme standing next to a piece of debris later identified from missing Malaysia Airlines plane MH370, found on the French Indian Ocean island of La Reunion. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

RECOMMENDATIONS

Safety recommendations offered by the investigation team were: 
reviewing the duty roster system with the objective of improving working conditions, refresher training for air traffic controllers, introduction of new security measures for cargo-scanning, and to ensure medical conditions of flight crew are reported to relevant bodies.


Sarah Nor, the mother of Norliakmar Hamid, a passenger on missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, cries after she attended a briefing on the final investigation report. Picture: APSource:AP

Intan Maizura Othman, a relative of passengers on missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, speaks to journalists after being presented with the final investigation report. Picture: AFPSource:AFP


[size=undefined]FAMILY REACTIONS[/size]

Family members had been hoping that the official investigation team’s report could provide them with some closure, over four years after the Malaysia Airlines flight carrying 239 people went missing.

But grieving relatives said the technical document appeared to contain little new beyond a lengthy description of the plane’s disappearance and search efforts, and that officials were unable to answer their questions. Some angry relatives walked out of the briefing.

“It is so disappointing,” said Intan Maizura Othman, whose husband was a flight steward on MH370, which was flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing when it vanished in March 2014.

“I am frustrated. There is nothing new in the report.

“Those who gave the briefing from the ministry of transport were not able to give answers as they were not (the ones) who wrote the report.” She said that the meeting between relatives and officials descended into a “shouting match” as family members’ frustration boiled over.

“Many asked questions,” said G. Subramaniam, who lost a son on the flight, but added that “unsatisfactory responses left many angry”.

Chief Inspector Kok was asked how come it took so long to release the report. He laughed, saying:: “This is a very difficult question so far, it is maybe the most difficult.”

He said there were many reasons for the delayed publication. As new information came in they had to keep changing the report, “It’s a dynamic document,” he said.

“We cannot release our document, no matter how ready we are, when the search is still going on.”

He said “sweat, tears and also joy” had gone into it.

“It won’t be satisfactory to everybody.”

---

MTF...P2 

Ps For those interested here is a link for the full (not) final report...  

MH370 Safety Investigation Report

[Peetwo]

Bailey at it again - FDS!  

Like a broken record Bailey can't help himself and has to put his 2 bob's in...  

 Via the Oz:

MH370 victims deserve better than invalid searches

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has some serious questions to answer after its accredited representative signed off on the Malaysian government’s recent investigation report into the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

The report contains a couple of howlers, the first being the suggestion a mysterious unknown “third party” might have hijacked the aircraft, which vanished on a routine scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014.

This intervention would have had to be by an expert Boeing 777 ­airline pilot with Special Air Service combat skills. The assailant would have had to get past the cabin crew, get through a locked reinforced door, overpower the ­pilots and turn off the transponder in well under two minutes from when captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah said goodnight to Kuala Lumpur air traffic control.

The second howler is letting the Malaysians include the statement that the flaperon and flap probably were retracted.

It is now confirmed the French engineers in Toulouse ­advised the Malaysians and the Australian Transport Safety ­Bureau 2½ years ago that the flap­eron was in a lowered position, therefore confirming a pilot was controlling the aircraft to the end.

Those world-class experts in Toulouse, where I have done Airbus simulator training, are the only ones to have examined the right flaperon in person.

The French engineers, after detailed analysis, confirmed that the damage to the flaperon indicated it was in the lowered position when it separated from the wing during an obvious ditching. The flap is directly linked to the flaperon, which also must have been in the lowered position.

The French supplied the ­Malaysians and the ATSB with this information, yet they both continued with the search on the basis of pilots not being in control at the end of the flight.

It was suggested to me that the reason the French refused to release this item, critical to the possible criminal investigation, is that they did not trust the Malaysians or the ATSB.

For the flap and flaperon to be lowered, there are two things that need to be present.

The first is hydraulic power, from ­engines running or from the auxiliary power unit. The second is a pilot’s arm to position the flap lever to extend the flap and flaperon.

The ATSB therefore should have immediately discarded its discredited ghost flight theory, that at the end the pilots were ­unresponsive and the plane went down in an uncontrolled rapid death dive.

Instead, it should have searched the small close-by area identified by British airline captain Simon Hardy a couple of years ago, based on his analysis of the scenario that the captain made a controlled ­ditching.

Everyone involved agrees that the B777 started its rapid descent at the probability “hot spot” identified by the Defence Science and Technology Group, based on the satellite tracking data, at latitude 38 south.

It is simple mathematics to calculate, using B777 performance characteristics of a cruise climb to 40,000 feet to extend the flying distance on the known fuel, where the fuel exhaustion point coin­cided with the seventh arc from the satellite handshakes. This occurred at 38 south, and the captain then put the aircraft into a steep accelerating dive of 20­ ­degrees, equal to an initial descent of 17,500 feet per minute, before converting kinetic energy into a glide that achieved a distance of 88 nautical miles (about 160km).

This was demonstrated by Hardy in a simulated flight during the Nine Network’s 60 Minutes report MH370: The Situation Room, broadcast in May.

He also demonstrated, as I did in an Emirates B777 simulator 2½ years ago, that the uncontrolled crash scenario favoured by the ATSB achieved a distance of only eight nautical miles (14km).

We believe Shah maintained the true track of 188 ­degrees, or close to due south, even past 38 south, which we calculated he had been steering ­towards in full ­autopilot navigation mode since turning south, north of Sumatra.

I believe that after 70 nautical miles on the descent past the 38 south hotspot — that is, at latitude 39 degrees 10 minutes south — Shah then turned the aircraft into the southwesterly wind and, with the first light of sunrise at sea level, assessed the primary swell radiating northwards from deep low pressure weather systems far to the south.

A flap-up ditching at 400km/h would have resulted in considerable debris, which would have ­negated Shah’s intention of hiding the aircraft in a condition as intact as ­possible.

For 4½ years the search was conducted on the initial erron­eous assumption that the pilots were rendered unresponsive and were not in control at the end of the flight.

There was no evidence to support the ATSB theory and indeed there were masses of evidence and opinions of real aviation ­experts that a pilot was in control at the end.

Since this is now a criminal ­investigation, as well as an incomplete investigation of a missing airliner, then surely a coronial ­inquest is required to examine the deaths of our Australian MH370 passengers.

Also, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, presented with the French evidence, is now duty-bound to declare the 4½ years of Fugro and Ocean ­Infinity searches invalid and ­initiate procedures for the search of the small pilot-controlled ­ditching area, 100km down range of the original search area, as originally defined by B777 captain Hardy.

Byron Bailey is a former RAAF fighter pilot who flew B777s as an airline captain.

Not that I particularly want to weigh into yet another hypothesis devoid of any firm facts or hard evidence, on the contrary there is much evidence which disproves the BB hypothesis. However was this statement from BB true?

  "...It is now confirmed the French engineers in Toulouse ­advised the Malaysians and the Australian Transport Safety ­Bureau 2½ years ago that the flap­eron was in a lowered position, therefore confirming a pilot was controlling the aircraft to the end..."


MTF...P2 

[ventus45]

P2,

If you consider BB to be a broken record, do you likewise consider all of us who dispute the official 7th arc death dive scenario, as being in the same set of shattered vinyl ( 33.3 - 45 or 78 ) ? ?

Do you "buy" the official scenario ?

If you do, you must remember of course, that the recorded 00:19 BTO's were corrupt, and so far off into fairy land, that they had to be "corrected", with some very creative integer logic, and then, magically, the accompanying BFO's (undoubtedly also corrupted) are accepted a gospel, and give us the death dive ? ?

I think the official scenario is non credible.

The record is still whole, and that revered fat lady hasn't even stepped on stage yet, let alone up to the mike.



So far we have only had a whole lot of very low class supporting acts, assaulting, not only our eyes and ears, but our intelligence as well.

Now now Ventus, no need to ventus at P2. He is simply saying that B.B hasn’t produced anything really new in his recent comment.
GD

[Peetwo]

P2,

If you consider BB to be a broken record, do you likewise consider all of us who dispute the official 7th arc death dive scenario, as being in the same set of shattered vinyl ( 33.3 - 45 or 78 ) ? ? P2 - No not at all? 

Do you "buy" the official scenario ? P2 - No not at all? At this point in time I'm keeping an open mind on all but the seriously deluded hypothesis/fantasies. One of my warm favourites is ET (electronic terrorism - read Dale Brown's Price of Duty). However that falls down, merely because if terrorists managed to accomplish such a feat then why aren't the terrorists claiming responsibility?       

If you do, you must remember of course, that the recorded 00:19 BTO's were corrupt, and so far off into fairy land, that they had to be "corrected", with some very creative integer logic, and then, magically, the accompanying BFO's (undoubtedly also corrupted) are accepted a gospel, and give us the death dive ? ? P2 - N/A 

I think the official scenario is non credible. P2 - I agree given the past association with the seriously discredited Beaker led and now HVH led ATSB 

The record is still whole, and that revered fat lady hasn't even stepped on stage yet, let alone up to the mike.



So far we have only had a whole lot of very low class supporting acts, assaulting, not only our eyes and ears, but our intelligence as well.

Now now Ventus, no need to ventus at P2. He is simply saying that B.B hasn’t produced anything really new in his recent comment.
GD

P2 - My question still stands: Q/ Where did BB get his information that from analysis of the flaperon in their custody the French claim that the flaperon was deployed at the time of ditching?

Ps Thanks GD, that's exactly what I meant.

[Peetwo]

P2,

If you consider BB to be a broken record, do you likewise consider all of us who dispute the official 7th arc death dive scenario, as being in the same set of shattered vinyl ( 33.3 - 45 or 78 ) ? ? P2 - No not at all? 

Do you "buy" the official scenario ? P2 - No not at all? At this point in time I'm keeping an open mind on all but the seriously deluded hypothesis/fantasies. One of my warm favourites is ET (electronic terrorism - read Dale Brown's Price of Duty). However that falls down, merely because if terrorists managed to accomplish such a feat then why aren't the terrorists claiming responsibility?       

If you do, you must remember of course, that the recorded 00:19 BTO's were corrupt, and so far off into fairy land, that they had to be "corrected", with some very creative integer logic, and then, magically, the accompanying BFO's (undoubtedly also corrupted) are accepted a gospel, and give us the death dive ? ? P2 - N/A 

I think the official scenario is non credible. P2 - I agree given the past association with the seriously discredited Beaker led and now HVH led ATSB 

The record is still whole, and that revered fat lady hasn't even stepped on stage yet, let alone up to the mike.



So far we have only had a whole lot of very low class supporting acts, assaulting, not only our eyes and ears, but our intelligence as well.

Now now Ventus, no need to ventus at P2. He is simply saying that B.B hasn’t produced anything really new in his recent comment.
GD

P2 - My question still stands: Q/ Where did BB get his information that from analysis of the flaperon in their custody the French claim that the flaperon was deployed at the time of ditching?

Ps Thanks GD, that's exactly what I meant.

Pps From the Oz today:

MH370 pilot’s emotional final farewell?

• By MIKE KEANE
  
  
• 12:00AM AUGUST 18, 2018
  

Officers carry off MH370’s flaperon after it washed ashore in Saint-Andre de la Reunion.
The Malaysian government had a lot riding on its much-anticipated safety investigation report into the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 — and so did the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.


It has been 4½ years since the Boeing 777 disappeared on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, and the families of the 239 people on board had hoped the Malaysian report, released late last month, would provide some answers to help them reach closure.

The international aviation community also was looking for at least a rational assessment of what most likely happened on the balance of probabilities.

The Australian government’s reputation also was on the line: the ATSB was one of the accredited representatives on the investigation panel under what is known as the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s Annex 13 air accident protocol.

Under that protocol the ATSB had the opportunity to have its own separate opinions and assessments included in the Malaysian safety investigation report, but it accepted the report without comment.

I have been on the board that investigated an aircraft accident when I was in the Royal Air Force and I am well aware of the difficulties and the painstaking process leading up to the final findings. Like all investigations, the credibility of the findings in the Malaysian MH370 report depends on the exhaustive analysis of information that is gathered.

Furthermore, unless the investigation has been pursued without bias, prejudice or a preconceived conclusion, it is flawed and open to criticism.

The Malaysian investigation, to my mind, has failed on all of these criteria and has not provided justice to the victims and families. The one factor that has not been adequately addressed in the main report of 450 pages and another 1000 pages of appendices is pilot involvement. I hold the opinion that this was not an accident but the deliberate destruction of the aircraft, resulting in the deaths of 238 innocent victims.

The Malaysian investigation concluded it could not determine what happened to MH370.

But in the press conference releasing the report, Malaysian chief investigator Kok Soo Chon placed a lot of emphasis on possible “third party” involvement, suggesting a hijack by one or more passengers, and appeared to clear the pilots from suspicion.

Of the captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, Kok said: “He was a very competent pilot, almost flawless in the records, able to handle work stress very well. We are not of the opinion it could be an event committed by the pilot.”

Most observers in the professional aviation community believe pilot hijack by the captain is the only realistic scenario that fits with the known facts, and the Malaysian report, and by implication the ATSB, shied away from it.

MH370 departed Kuala Lumpur airport at 42 minutes past midnight local time on March 8, 2014, with 227 passengers and 12 crew. Zaharie was pilot in command, and the first officer was Fariq Abdul Hamid.

Up to the cruise altitude of 35,000 feet the flight was uneventful. However, shortly afterwards there was a series of abnormal events. About 40 minutes into the flight, Kuala Lumpur air traffic control gave a radio frequency change to contact Ho Chi Minh City air traffic control. Zaharie famously responded with “Goodnight, Malaysian Three Seven Zero” in a calm voice. However, he failed to read back the frequency he had been given, which is a required response.

Within less than two minutes from Zaharie’s radio call the aircraft’s secondary radar transponder was turned off, meaning it disappeared from the screens of air traffic controllers, and the aircraft began an aggressive left turn through 180 degrees.

As far as air traffic control was concerned, the aircraft was now invisible, and the knowledge of this turn and the aircraft’s subsequent flight path was revealed only later, after reviewing military primary radar. This is where it becomes more ­interesting.

The turn was timed to have taken two minutes and eight seconds, and subsequent simulator trials revealed it could not be replicated by using the autopilot — the aircraft had to be manually flown. Furthermore, to achieve this turn rate there would have been an audio “bank angle” warning and additionally the stick shaker (stall warning) would have been activated. To fly the aircraft in this manner, on a dark night with no moon, with few if any visual clues and without losing control, would require a degree of skill and familiarity with handling the B777.

The report’s statement “the possibility of intervention by a third party cannot be excluded ­either” raises the question as to how a third party could have gained access to the cockpit, disabled the aircraft’s electronic equipment, “neutralised” the two pilots, then seated themselves before flying the aircraft through a demanding manoeuvre in the space of two minutes. It beggars belief. Besides, access could be gained only through a locked cockpit door that is also monitored by a flight deck entry video system from the cockpit.

After the sharp turn, the aircraft took up a southwesterly track to a point 10 nautical miles south of Penang Island, where it then flew a lazy turn to the right before joining one of the thousands of official airway routes, in this case airway N571.

Zaharie was born and went to school in Penang, so the routing of the aircraft could be regarded as significant. The 10NM displacement to the south of the island would have provided him with a good view from the left seat of the aircraft. This could be interpreted as a last, emotional farewell.

After the Penang overfly, the aircraft continued to progress up the airway to the north of Sumatra before turning south on to a southerly heading into the Indian Ocean.

The report found the aircraft was airworthy and any technical issue that could have affected the flight was improbable. Similarly, after significant testing of the cargo contents — an odd mix including mangosteens and lithium ion batteries, which some theories suggested could have caused a fire if the fruit leaked on to the batteries — no issues were raised.

The aircraft did not fly by itself, which means in all likelihood one of the two pilots was responsible for what in effect was an aircraft hijacking — and it is highly unlikely to have been the first officer.
It would be very easy for Zaharie, under some pretext, to ask the first officer to retrieve something from the cabin. Once he was outside Zaharie could have locked the cockpit door and thereby been free to take whatever action he wished with total impunity. My belief is Zaharie deliberately locked the first officer out of the cockpit, then disabled the aircraft transponder and automatic flight data and communications system. He then manually flew the tight 180 degree turn towards Penang, after which he depressurised the aircraft — which resulted in the death by hypoxia, or lack of oxygen at high altitude, of the passengers and remaining crew.

To my mind the circumstantial evidence points to the captain hijacking his own aircraft. One indicator is the timing. The radio frequency and air traffic control change 40 minutes into the flight was an ideal time to go missing by turning off the transponder and ceasing radio transmissions. It proved very successful in creating confusion among controllers in Kuala Lumpur and Ho Chi Minh City, and thereby substantially delaying the subsequent search.

The report also conflicts with its own content. For example, on page 6 it states: “On the day of the disappearance of MH370, the military radar system recognised the ‘blip’ that appeared west after the left turn … was that of MH370.

“Therefore, the military did not pursue to intercept the aircraft since it was ‘friendly’ and did not pose any threat to national airspace security, integrity and sovereignty.”

Really? In my fighter pilot days there would have been a scramble to intercept the aircraft to find out what was happening.

However, it gets even better on page 337: “In interviews … controllers informed that they were unaware of the strayed/unidentified aircraft (primary radar target) transiting.”

The contradiction between these two statements creates an element of doubt about other sections of the report.

In the absence of any other likely cause for MH370’s disappearance, the investigation should have paid far more attention to Zaharie’s possible involvement.

It is known that Zaharie had co-ordinates in his home simulator that were similar to MH370’s final route into the southern Indian Ocean. Indeed, one of the co-ordinates was only a little farther south than the point where the aircraft ran out of fuel. However, the Royal Malaysian Police forensic report “concluded that there were no unusual activities other than game-related flight simulations”.

This report is in stark contrast to an independent investigation led by US engineer and entrepreneur Victor Iannello that found several co-ordinates in Zaharie’s computer matched MH370’s final flight into the southern Indian Ocean. I find it difficult to take the Royal Malaysian Police report as a serious contribution to the investigation.

In regard to fuel, the report says “there was also no evidence that more than the reasonable amount required was carried”. I disagree.

The weather at Beijing was well within landing limits yet, despite planning on an alternative airport 45 minutes away, Zaharie also carried additional fuel for an extra one hour and 45 minutes from his destination.

Carrying extra fuel unneces­sarily incurs a considerable cost and I would not expect that from an experienced captain. In effect, Zaharie carried 3000kg of additional fuel above what was required, and this equates to an additional 30 minutes of flight and an extra range of 250NM.

Zaharie was passionate about politics and democracy. He was a fervent supporter of Anwar Ibrahim, who was then leader of the opposition party in Malaysia and distantly related by marriage. In 2012, Anwar was acquitted of sodomy charges. However, the decision was appealed and Anwar was declared guilty and sentenced to prison on the day Zaharie reported for his flight.

From what I understand, Zaharie was upset about Anwar’s fate. There is no mention in the investigation regarding Zaharie’s involvement in politics — I feel it is relevant and should have been addressed.
From a pilot’s point of view, MH370’s deviation from its planned route shows that the person flying the aircraft had meticulously planned, and executed, an aircraft hijacking.

It’s also a reasonable assumption that he would stay conscious until the end. Why then does the Malaysian government, and indeed our ATSB, insist that this was a “ghost flight” with dead pilots at the end?
There is little or no evidence to support this supposition. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the aircraft was ditched in a controlled manner with the flaps in the landing position. This totally dispels the “ghost flight” theory.

Several aircraft pieces were washed up on Indian Ocean islands and mainland Africa. Among these recovered items were a flaperon and an outboard flap. Both items were from the right wing. The flaperon was washed up on the French island of Reunion, and the subsequent damage study by French experts indicated it was in the down position on impact. This information was passed on to the Malaysian government and the ATSB more than two years ago.

Further examination of the flaperon and outboard flap by Larry Vance — a highly experienced Canadian air accident investigator — clearly shows witness marks and damage that could have occurred only if the flaps were down when the aircraft made contact with the sea. Vance’s book MH370: Mystery Solved provides a detailed explanation of why the aircraft must have been ditched as opposed to having crashed down uncontrolled.

The search area has been based on the assumption that the aircraft crashed in a steep dive immediately after it ran out of fuel. The possibility that the aircraft was ditched has been totally ignored by the ATSB and the Malaysian investigators. This makes a significant difference to the search area because if the aircraft was ditched it would have flown for the best part of another 100NM.

Simon Hardy, a former British Airways Boeing 777 captain, provided detailed information on the aircraft track and likely area to search if a ditching had been made. This information was passed on to the ATSB not long after the search it was leading began. Unfortunately it has not been put into effect and a fruitless search, wasting time and money, has been driven by the assumption of a “ghost flight” followed by a near vertical dive.

I have little doubt that this was a well planned and executed deviation from the initial flight path between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing. At the time of MH370’s fuel exhaustion the sun was 7 degrees above the horizon. Was this fortuitous or well planned? Note the extra fuel carried.

A ditching would not be a severe challenge to an experienced pilot, and it would help sink the aircraft in only a few parts rather than creating a big debris field.

The wind was from the southwest at 15 to 20 knots with a moderate swell. Landing into wind, on the back of the swell with the sun behind, would result in the engines being ripped off and the right wing being pulled back and possibly detached.

The witness marks and damage to the flap and flaperon match this scenario. All the material available to me, Hardy and Vance was available to the ATSB and the Malaysian investigation team. They either failed to interpret it correctly or, worse still, at least subconsciously avoided it because it contradicted their original “ghost flight” theory.

The ATSB is complicit in the deeply flawed Malaysian government MH370 safety investigation, by granting Australian government endorsement to the final report without comment.

Transport Minister Michael McCormack should demand the ATSB publicly account for why it did so — the families of the six Australians on board MH370 deserve nothing less.
-
Mike Keane has spent 45 years in aviation. He served for six years as a navigator in the RNZAF and 14 years as a fighter pilot in the RAF. He then spent 25 years as an airline pilot, of which half was in management, including as chief pilot of Britain’s largest airline, easyJet.

[Peetwo]

P2,

If you consider BB to be a broken record, do you likewise consider all of us who dispute the official 7th arc death dive scenario, as being in the same set of shattered vinyl ( 33.3 - 45 or 78 ) ? ? P2 - No not at all? 

Do you "buy" the official scenario ? P2 - No not at all? At this point in time I'm keeping an open mind on all but the seriously deluded hypothesis/fantasies. One of my warm favourites is ET (electronic terrorism - read Dale Brown's Price of Duty). However that falls down, merely because if terrorists managed to accomplish such a feat then why aren't the terrorists claiming responsibility?       

If you do, you must remember of course, that the recorded 00:19 BTO's were corrupt, and so far off into fairy land, that they had to be "corrected", with some very creative integer logic, and then, magically, the accompanying BFO's (undoubtedly also corrupted) are accepted a gospel, and give us the death dive ? ? P2 - N/A 

I think the official scenario is non credible. P2 - I agree given the past association with the seriously discredited Beaker led and now HVH led ATSB 

The record is still whole, and that revered fat lady hasn't even stepped on stage yet, let alone up to the mike.



So far we have only had a whole lot of very low class supporting acts, assaulting, not only our eyes and ears, but our intelligence as well.

Now now Ventus, no need to ventus at P2. He is simply saying that B.B hasn’t produced anything really new in his recent comment.
GD

P2 - My question still stands: Q/ Where did BB get his information that from analysis of the flaperon in their custody the French claim that the flaperon was deployed at the time of ditching?

Ps Thanks GD, that's exactly what I meant.

Pps From the Oz today:

MH370 pilot’s emotional final farewell?

• By MIKE KEANE
  
  
• 12:00AM AUGUST 18, 2018
  

Officers carry off MH370’s flaperon after it washed ashore in Saint-Andre de la Reunion.
The Malaysian government had a lot riding on its much-anticipated safety investigation report into the loss of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 — and so did the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.


It has been 4½ years since the Boeing 777 disappeared on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, and the families of the 239 people on board had hoped the Malaysian report, released late last month, would provide some answers to help them reach closure.

The international aviation community also was looking for at least a rational assessment of what most likely happened on the balance of probabilities.

The Australian government’s reputation also was on the line: the ATSB was one of the accredited representatives on the investigation panel under what is known as the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s Annex 13 air accident protocol.

Under that protocol the ATSB had the opportunity to have its own separate opinions and assessments included in the Malaysian safety investigation report, but it accepted the report without comment.

I have been on the board that investigated an aircraft accident when I was in the Royal Air Force and I am well aware of the difficulties and the painstaking process leading up to the final findings. Like all investigations, the credibility of the findings in the Malaysian MH370 report depends on the exhaustive analysis of information that is gathered.

Furthermore, unless the investigation has been pursued without bias, prejudice or a preconceived conclusion, it is flawed and open to criticism.

The Malaysian investigation, to my mind, has failed on all of these criteria and has not provided justice to the victims and families. The one factor that has not been adequately addressed in the main report of 450 pages and another 1000 pages of appendices is pilot involvement. I hold the opinion that this was not an accident but the deliberate destruction of the aircraft, resulting in the deaths of 238 innocent victims.

The Malaysian investigation concluded it could not determine what happened to MH370.

But in the press conference releasing the report, Malaysian chief investigator Kok Soo Chon placed a lot of emphasis on possible “third party” involvement, suggesting a hijack by one or more passengers, and appeared to clear the pilots from suspicion.

Of the captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah, Kok said: “He was a very competent pilot, almost flawless in the records, able to handle work stress very well. We are not of the opinion it could be an event committed by the pilot.”

Most observers in the professional aviation community believe pilot hijack by the captain is the only realistic scenario that fits with the known facts, and the Malaysian report, and by implication the ATSB, shied away from it.

MH370 departed Kuala Lumpur airport at 42 minutes past midnight local time on March 8, 2014, with 227 passengers and 12 crew. Zaharie was pilot in command, and the first officer was Fariq Abdul Hamid.

Up to the cruise altitude of 35,000 feet the flight was uneventful. However, shortly afterwards there was a series of abnormal events. About 40 minutes into the flight, Kuala Lumpur air traffic control gave a radio frequency change to contact Ho Chi Minh City air traffic control. Zaharie famously responded with “Goodnight, Malaysian Three Seven Zero” in a calm voice. However, he failed to read back the frequency he had been given, which is a required response.

Within less than two minutes from Zaharie’s radio call the aircraft’s secondary radar transponder was turned off, meaning it disappeared from the screens of air traffic controllers, and the aircraft began an aggressive left turn through 180 degrees.

As far as air traffic control was concerned, the aircraft was now invisible, and the knowledge of this turn and the aircraft’s subsequent flight path was revealed only later, after reviewing military primary radar. This is where it becomes more ­interesting.

The turn was timed to have taken two minutes and eight seconds, and subsequent simulator trials revealed it could not be replicated by using the autopilot — the aircraft had to be manually flown. Furthermore, to achieve this turn rate there would have been an audio “bank angle” warning and additionally the stick shaker (stall warning) would have been activated. To fly the aircraft in this manner, on a dark night with no moon, with few if any visual clues and without losing control, would require a degree of skill and familiarity with handling the B777.

The report’s statement “the possibility of intervention by a third party cannot be excluded ­either” raises the question as to how a third party could have gained access to the cockpit, disabled the aircraft’s electronic equipment, “neutralised” the two pilots, then seated themselves before flying the aircraft through a demanding manoeuvre in the space of two minutes. It beggars belief. Besides, access could be gained only through a locked cockpit door that is also monitored by a flight deck entry video system from the cockpit.

After the sharp turn, the aircraft took up a southwesterly track to a point 10 nautical miles south of Penang Island, where it then flew a lazy turn to the right before joining one of the thousands of official airway routes, in this case airway N571.

Zaharie was born and went to school in Penang, so the routing of the aircraft could be regarded as significant. The 10NM displacement to the south of the island would have provided him with a good view from the left seat of the aircraft. This could be interpreted as a last, emotional farewell.

After the Penang overfly, the aircraft continued to progress up the airway to the north of Sumatra before turning south on to a southerly heading into the Indian Ocean.

The report found the aircraft was airworthy and any technical issue that could have affected the flight was improbable. Similarly, after significant testing of the cargo contents — an odd mix including mangosteens and lithium ion batteries, which some theories suggested could have caused a fire if the fruit leaked on to the batteries — no issues were raised.

The aircraft did not fly by itself, which means in all likelihood one of the two pilots was responsible for what in effect was an aircraft hijacking — and it is highly unlikely to have been the first officer.
It would be very easy for Zaharie, under some pretext, to ask the first officer to retrieve something from the cabin. Once he was outside Zaharie could have locked the cockpit door and thereby been free to take whatever action he wished with total impunity. My belief is Zaharie deliberately locked the first officer out of the cockpit, then disabled the aircraft transponder and automatic flight data and communications system. He then manually flew the tight 180 degree turn towards Penang, after which he depressurised the aircraft — which resulted in the death by hypoxia, or lack of oxygen at high altitude, of the passengers and remaining crew.

To my mind the circumstantial evidence points to the captain hijacking his own aircraft. One indicator is the timing. The radio frequency and air traffic control change 40 minutes into the flight was an ideal time to go missing by turning off the transponder and ceasing radio transmissions. It proved very successful in creating confusion among controllers in Kuala Lumpur and Ho Chi Minh City, and thereby substantially delaying the subsequent search.

The report also conflicts with its own content. For example, on page 6 it states: “On the day of the disappearance of MH370, the military radar system recognised the ‘blip’ that appeared west after the left turn … was that of MH370.

“Therefore, the military did not pursue to intercept the aircraft since it was ‘friendly’ and did not pose any threat to national airspace security, integrity and sovereignty.”

Really? In my fighter pilot days there would have been a scramble to intercept the aircraft to find out what was happening.

However, it gets even better on page 337: “In interviews … controllers informed that they were unaware of the strayed/unidentified aircraft (primary radar target) transiting.”

The contradiction between these two statements creates an element of doubt about other sections of the report.

In the absence of any other likely cause for MH370’s disappearance, the investigation should have paid far more attention to Zaharie’s possible involvement.

It is known that Zaharie had co-ordinates in his home simulator that were similar to MH370’s final route into the southern Indian Ocean. Indeed, one of the co-ordinates was only a little farther south than the point where the aircraft ran out of fuel. However, the Royal Malaysian Police forensic report “concluded that there were no unusual activities other than game-related flight simulations”.

This report is in stark contrast to an independent investigation led by US engineer and entrepreneur Victor Iannello that found several co-ordinates in Zaharie’s computer matched MH370’s final flight into the southern Indian Ocean. I find it difficult to take the Royal Malaysian Police report as a serious contribution to the investigation.

In regard to fuel, the report says “there was also no evidence that more than the reasonable amount required was carried”. I disagree.

The weather at Beijing was well within landing limits yet, despite planning on an alternative airport 45 minutes away, Zaharie also carried additional fuel for an extra one hour and 45 minutes from his destination.

Carrying extra fuel unneces­sarily incurs a considerable cost and I would not expect that from an experienced captain. In effect, Zaharie carried 3000kg of additional fuel above what was required, and this equates to an additional 30 minutes of flight and an extra range of 250NM.

Zaharie was passionate about politics and democracy. He was a fervent supporter of Anwar Ibrahim, who was then leader of the opposition party in Malaysia and distantly related by marriage. In 2012, Anwar was acquitted of sodomy charges. However, the decision was appealed and Anwar was declared guilty and sentenced to prison on the day Zaharie reported for his flight.

From what I understand, Zaharie was upset about Anwar’s fate. There is no mention in the investigation regarding Zaharie’s involvement in politics — I feel it is relevant and should have been addressed.
From a pilot’s point of view, MH370’s deviation from its planned route shows that the person flying the aircraft had meticulously planned, and executed, an aircraft hijacking.

It’s also a reasonable assumption that he would stay conscious until the end. Why then does the Malaysian government, and indeed our ATSB, insist that this was a “ghost flight” with dead pilots at the end?
There is little or no evidence to support this supposition. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the aircraft was ditched in a controlled manner with the flaps in the landing position. This totally dispels the “ghost flight” theory.

Several aircraft pieces were washed up on Indian Ocean islands and mainland Africa. Among these recovered items were a flaperon and an outboard flap. Both items were from the right wing. The flaperon was washed up on the French island of Reunion, and the subsequent damage study by French experts indicated it was in the down position on impact. This information was passed on to the Malaysian government and the ATSB more than two years ago.

Further examination of the flaperon and outboard flap by Larry Vance — a highly experienced Canadian air accident investigator — clearly shows witness marks and damage that could have occurred only if the flaps were down when the aircraft made contact with the sea. Vance’s book MH370: Mystery Solved provides a detailed explanation of why the aircraft must have been ditched as opposed to having crashed down uncontrolled.

The search area has been based on the assumption that the aircraft crashed in a steep dive immediately after it ran out of fuel. The possibility that the aircraft was ditched has been totally ignored by the ATSB and the Malaysian investigators. This makes a significant difference to the search area because if the aircraft was ditched it would have flown for the best part of another 100NM.

Simon Hardy, a former British Airways Boeing 777 captain, provided detailed information on the aircraft track and likely area to search if a ditching had been made. This information was passed on to the ATSB not long after the search it was leading began. Unfortunately it has not been put into effect and a fruitless search, wasting time and money, has been driven by the assumption of a “ghost flight” followed by a near vertical dive.

I have little doubt that this was a well planned and executed deviation from the initial flight path between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing. At the time of MH370’s fuel exhaustion the sun was 7 degrees above the horizon. Was this fortuitous or well planned? Note the extra fuel carried.

A ditching would not be a severe challenge to an experienced pilot, and it would help sink the aircraft in only a few parts rather than creating a big debris field.

The wind was from the southwest at 15 to 20 knots with a moderate swell. Landing into wind, on the back of the swell with the sun behind, would result in the engines being ripped off and the right wing being pulled back and possibly detached.

The witness marks and damage to the flap and flaperon match this scenario. All the material available to me, Hardy and Vance was available to the ATSB and the Malaysian investigation team. They either failed to interpret it correctly or, worse still, at least subconsciously avoided it because it contradicted their original “ghost flight” theory.

The ATSB is complicit in the deeply flawed Malaysian government MH370 safety investigation, by granting Australian government endorsement to the final report without comment.

Transport Minister Michael McCormack should demand the ATSB publicly account for why it did so — the families of the six Australians on board MH370 deserve nothing less.
-
Mike Keane has spent 45 years in aviation. He served for six years as a navigator in the RNZAF and 14 years as a fighter pilot in the RAF. He then spent 25 years as an airline pilot, of which half was in management, including as chief pilot of Britain’s largest airline, easyJet.

Some comments from that article which closely reflect my sentiments on the ATSB involvement in the MH370 cover-up:

Peter3 HOURS AGO


The real worry about this is the complicity of the ATSB, that should frighten everyone flying in an aircraft in Australia. If these people are not being honest then it is seriously worrying that there are a good many other incidents in Australian airspace that are being covered up. The government of Australia should have an immediate investigation into the ATSB and McCormack should be all over it like a rash. Then again the aircraft industry in Australia from flight paths to noise over all our cities are a law unto themselves and I suspect untouchable. Go talk to Dick Smith!

---

Craig31 MINUTES AGO




Very well written. I have also agreed with this analysis from the start. It’s disappointing to see the ATSB act in regards to political persuasions rather than facts from the start. Time for a cleanout.

---

Jonathan2 HOURS AGO





While there may be other explanations for the incident the only reason the ATSB could ignore all of the pilot related evidence is a conspiracy with Malaysian/Australian/Chinese Governments. It is inconceivable that they would not even address this issue! My guess is they have addressed it in secret!

An OPEN Royal Commission/Senate investigation should be held as long as it is not stacked or nobbled by terms of reference!

---

Geoffrey2 HOURS AGO


Dead right.  The ATSB are now complicit with the Malaysian Govt in covering up what actually happened.  The motive for this cover-up is clear - to protect the Govt-owned Malaysian Airlines from ruinous litigation that would follow admissions that its pilot was responsible for the hijack and resultant deaths of all passengers and crew.

FLAG
SHARE

18LIKEREPLY

Shaun1 HOUR AGO


@Geoffrey 100% All about escaping liability

---

Helen5 HOURS AGO




Who instructed the ATSB to take this tack with the investigation? Could it be that our government gave them guidance? Of course we I'll never know.

---

Roger5 HOURS AGO


ATSB need to be dragged before a Senate Committee and required to give an account of themselves.

FLAG
SHARE

12LIKEREPLY

Helen4 HOURS AGO


@Roger let's hope it's not another political whitewash!

FLAG
SHARE

1LIKEREPLY

[size=undefined]




Charles3 HOURS AGO


No Senate Committee would be competent for the task.[/size]

FLAG
SHARE

3LIKEREPLY

[size=undefined]




Peter3 HOURS AGO


@Roger the whole aircraft industry should be investigated including the power of the airports to pee off thousands of people with excess noise day and night to save a few bucks.


[/size]

---

LIKEREPLY






Grant7 HOURS AGO


The ATSB should be ashamed at their role in this whole affair.

FLAG
SHARE

15LIKEREPLY

Helen5 HOURS AGO


@Grant they MUST have had political guidance from government in this matter.

FLAG
SHARE

5LIKEREPLY

[size=undefined]




Gimiston3 HOURS AGO


@Helen @Grant Yes, don't embarrass a friend and ally, etc.[/size]

FLAG
SHARE

2LIKEREPLY

---

Stan9 HOURS AGO


A classic case of Malaysian butt-covering, aided by the gutless Australian authorities. Shameful and enormously disrespectful and distressing to the grieving families of the unfortunate passengers

FLAG
SHARE

2LIKEREPLY

Roger5 HOURS AGO



@Stan The ATSB failings are so bizarre as to be absurd. There simply MUST be some explanation for that. 
Surely it can't just be embarrassment at having persuaded the Australian government to spend a fortune on a search which, in finding nothing, seems to have proved the Malaysian causation theory to be wrong.  

FLAG
SHARE

3LIKEREPLY

[size=undefined]




G2 HOURS AGO


@Stan As we have seen from the royal commission into banking Australian Commissions such as ASIC and ACCC are all front and no substance.So having the ATSB as useless and well paid is not unusual.

[/size]

[Gobbledock]

A lot of angst is being directed at the ATsB. I don’t disagree with that, but the ATsB are just the puppets. Real anger and fury should be directed at the Governments in Australia, the USA, China and Malaysia. The Australian Government pulls the ATsB’s strings.

There is no doubt that there are some strange anomalies with this aircrafts disappearance, but we will have to keep waiting for the sea to give up its secrets. Relying upon the honesty, integrity, transparency of any Government is naive, foolish and misdirected. If you don’t believe in a Deep State then you are asleep in the Matrix. There are reasons the Governments are colluding in their mismanagement of this event. The question is why?