Back to basics.
P2 - “[The Australian Transport Safety Bureau based its selection of the area to be searched]” etc.
Why was it the ATSB that ‘selected’ the area to be searched. When an aircraft or ship is ‘lost’ it is always the AMSA that manages and coordinates the ‘search’. That is one of their primary functions and they have, in the past, proven to be very good at it. Contacts, expertise, and working agreements in place with ‘emergency’ services to support a search effort.
Then I wonder about the methodology used to define the search area – again, ATSB have no expertise in that area, AMSA have; and then the speed at which the area selected reduced in size based on limited data raised many an eyebrow. The speed at which ATSB reached their conclusion of a ‘ghost flight’ on flimsy evidence begs many questions.
Speculation and theorising is all well and good, in the media, in professional circles, in academia – I’d bet good money there were (and are still) some on going ‘discussions’. This is all a normal, routine response to any air accident, particularly 370 as it is shrouded in mystery. But for a government department only the known provable facts should be considered. Investigation first, evidence second, search area definition based on that; not on one of a possible three ‘viable’ scenarios.
There is a growing number of people who are coming to the conclusion that it would be most inconvenient to find the aircraft. There is some fairly substantial reasoning behind that theory; I do stress ‘theory’. But, the question begs a honest answer.
Time passing usually blunts interest and inquiry; but 370 remains a ‘great mystery’. The biggest question of all is why has it not been found? Perhaps it is not meant to be found. If the spectre of Electronic Terrorism (ET) has been seen, it would be a fair bet that no government would want it to be known. That, stand alone, supports a reasonable argument for what appears to be a cover up. The first clue, IMO, is the summary dismissal of a world class Search and Rescue operation (AMSA) and replacing it with an accident investigator – without an aircraft to ‘investigate’.
Fascinating idle speculation I know; but the Vance book raises many questions; which deserve at very least, serious academic discussion.
Toot - toot.
P2 - “[The Australian Transport Safety Bureau based its selection of the area to be searched]” etc.
Why was it the ATSB that ‘selected’ the area to be searched. When an aircraft or ship is ‘lost’ it is always the AMSA that manages and coordinates the ‘search’. That is one of their primary functions and they have, in the past, proven to be very good at it. Contacts, expertise, and working agreements in place with ‘emergency’ services to support a search effort.
Then I wonder about the methodology used to define the search area – again, ATSB have no expertise in that area, AMSA have; and then the speed at which the area selected reduced in size based on limited data raised many an eyebrow. The speed at which ATSB reached their conclusion of a ‘ghost flight’ on flimsy evidence begs many questions.
Speculation and theorising is all well and good, in the media, in professional circles, in academia – I’d bet good money there were (and are still) some on going ‘discussions’. This is all a normal, routine response to any air accident, particularly 370 as it is shrouded in mystery. But for a government department only the known provable facts should be considered. Investigation first, evidence second, search area definition based on that; not on one of a possible three ‘viable’ scenarios.
There is a growing number of people who are coming to the conclusion that it would be most inconvenient to find the aircraft. There is some fairly substantial reasoning behind that theory; I do stress ‘theory’. But, the question begs a honest answer.
Time passing usually blunts interest and inquiry; but 370 remains a ‘great mystery’. The biggest question of all is why has it not been found? Perhaps it is not meant to be found. If the spectre of Electronic Terrorism (ET) has been seen, it would be a fair bet that no government would want it to be known. That, stand alone, supports a reasonable argument for what appears to be a cover up. The first clue, IMO, is the summary dismissal of a world class Search and Rescue operation (AMSA) and replacing it with an accident investigator – without an aircraft to ‘investigate’.
Fascinating idle speculation I know; but the Vance book raises many questions; which deserve at very least, serious academic discussion.
Toot - toot.