[Peetwo]

Update: The Oz (Bailey) v ATSB (Beaker) wars - Game on definitely 

Yesterday the ATSB (read Beaker) came out with a riposte to the Bailey Weekend Oz 9-10 blogged article, AP post reference - And at the end of RD II. The last time this 'correcting the record' approach was seriously deployed by the ATSB, was when the credibility of the MH370 SIO search - & Bean-counter Beaker's (pride & joy) the Fugro tender - came under fire - The capability of the MH370 search operation 2 June 2015.

However again I question the true veracity of the ATSB indignation, for IMO this has nothing whatsoever to do with defending the reputation of the bureau, the JACC, or by default the Australian Government. If that were true then the 'correcting the record' media statement should have come from the JACC. From JACC webpage:

The JACC is the coordination point for whole-of-Australian Government information, messaging and stakeholder engagement, including keeping the families of those onboard and the general public informed of the progress of the search.

The JACC continues working closely with the Government of Malaysia, which under international law has overall responsibility for the search.

The JACC does not perform any search, recovery or investigation activities. These activities remain the responsibility of the expert agencies.

 
So the JACC is supposed to have carriage/responsibility for disseminating all MH370 SIO news, developments etc. not the ATSB. IMO all that any MSM media inquiry, on the Bailey opinions & criticisms, should have elicited from the ATSB was a firm - NO COMMENT. 

Ben also picked up on the (Beaker endorsed) bureau missive: 

From: Ben Sandilands @ Plane Talking, courtesy Crikey.

There may be many things that justify calling out the ATSB, but for the most part the search for MH370 isn’t one of them, and today it hit back at recent criticism in The Australian over the most basic factual misrepresentations of its role, responsibilities, and the narrative it has updated at regular intervals.

The ATSB’s defence shouldn’t surprise regular readers of Plane Talking, or its twitter timeline.

The loss of MH370 has seen the mystery fall into the hands of fraudsters who faked a photo of wreckage on an Indonesian beach over the weekend, while misappropriating a range of Twitter accounts.

The MH370 search has attracted a great deal of reasonable, informed and no doubt at times, inconvenient criticism, especially in relation to some misleading narratives in Kuala Lumpur, and some hasty and shabby grandstanding in Canberra.

But it has also  become the plaything of conspiracy nutters who are so lazy they can’t get out of their own way to actually research the available documentation, good and bad, by mastering the amazingly useful device of a hyperlink.

And unfortunately for The Australian, which had two goes at publishing a good, but flawed analysis by ex fighter pilot Byron Bailey, it appears to have lost its own ability to use a thing called an editorial library and actually read its own files.

Some of us would crawl over broken glass and barbed wire to have the editorial research resources of any News Group publication. And it didn’t use them.

Under the circumstances, the response by the ATSB to Mr Bailey’s original story, and the one where he later partially corrected earlier errors, is an exercise in restraint.

You can read the ATSB response here, behind this 

Getting it 'wrong' just allows the opposition a free kick.  It had to happen; a little sooner than anticipated, nevertheless... Will that man 'Iggins now mop up? Balance the tale and perhaps explain why AMSA was eased out and ATSB slithered in, with the escape module pre-loaded.

Well, it's not a 'bated breath' issue, but a bit of dust and hair flying about fills in the time until the money clock stops ticking. 

Respectfully to Ben  on certain aspects of his article I disagree but I vigorously agree with the Brock McEwan assessment & opinion on the ATSB missive : 

3
Brock McEwen
Posted January 19, 2016 at 1:13 am | Permalink

I have never paid any attention to Bailey.

However, neither his nor The Australian’s failures should excuse the ATSB from being “called out” for the things it HAS said, and the decisions it HAS taken. Particularly when the latter conflict with the former, the laws of physics, or both.

I know from prior discussions you wouldn’t have meant that, Ben. It’s just that your opening sentence, on strict reading, suggests that the ATSB should NOT be “called out” – i.e. held accountable – for the MH370 search. I wouldn’t want your readers to get the wrong impression of the strength of your support for efforts to hold MH370’s search leadership accountable.

This principle holds regardless of who may be pulling their strings – if a tanked or dysfunctional search costing millions is (as you always imply) the product of foreign intervention (on intervention, we agree; of WHICH foreigner, I’m not yet sure), then all the MORE reason to press Oz officials, to bring any such expensive corruption to light.

CF for that man..

However I also feel that Bailey & the Oz wouldn't see this attempted dress down by the ATSB as a 'failure', on the contrary IMO they would feel they've achieved their first objective and that is to drag Dolan out into the open.
{P2 comment- It should not be forgotten that 'that man' Higgins, was legendary with that same tactic in the Dick Smith v Airservices feud & like then it is all about dragging these bureaucrats out from under their rocks & challenging the spin -'Mystique' - & bulldust}. 

4
Brock McEwen
Posted January 19, 2016 at 1:55 am | Permalink

It is encouraging to see the ATSB stating so clearly and unambiguously that a) the primary radar track appearing in the Lido Hotel image forces constant cruising speed during MH370’s purported westbound leg, and b) a constant cruising speed forces a constant cruising altitude over this same period.

They should simply be asked to square this unassailable logic with their decision to both enter (“flew faster”, AMSA release, March 28, 2014) and exit (“primary radar data pertaining to altitude is regarded as unreliable” – A. Houston, apparently JUST coming to this realization, June 24, 2014) a search zone thousands of kilometres from where the actual evidence was pointing.

Excellent points Brock makes, this frank disclosure should also not be ignored..

"..While the aircraft passed by Penang, the radar data shows that the aircraft certainly did not circle the island.." 

It is a bit like trying to extract teeth but bit by bit we get small snippets of information that further challenge the veracity of the widely disseminated & accepted official narrative.

TBC..P2