[Peetwo]

MH370: Proper AAI vs criminal negligence.
 

A Very Newbie Contribution
As someone who has closely followed efforts to find MH370 from the beginning, it is annoying to read that Martin Dolan continues to blow off his and ATSB’s collective negligence in a horribly botched search for the plane and its victims.

To be clear, no one knows where the plane is: I don’t know where it is; Martin Dolan doesn’t know where it is; the Pope doesn’t know where it is; PAIN doesn’t know where it is. But I know that a random kid working his first job at a fast-food drive-up window would have made consistently better decisions than Martin Dolan made. And on top of it, Dolan has the chutzpah to suggest he has a “diminishing level of confidence”. Such a pretentious shrug of the shoulders!

In a fair world Martin Dolan would be criminally charged for letting the same thing happen in MH370 that happened in Pel-Air. Did he learn anything at all from the Pel-Air fiasco? Yes! He learned how to be even more vague, evasive, and unaccountable. On a visceral level, Martin Dolan is offensive: 1) he deliberately hired a company that intended to use cheap, outdated, nearly blind sidescan sonar towfish; 2) he deliberately ignored SAR applicants with proven track records in the Air France Flight 447 recovery (because he preferred to save a few bucks); and, worst of all 3) after all ‘Ts’ were crossed and contracts signed, Martin Dolan never looked back; never considered that his strategy halfway to Penguin Land was hopelessly flawed. Instead, he pulled strings to have CSIRO and other Australia General Fund “troughers” contribute ridiculous assessments of the “correctness” of his poorly informed decisions...

The above quote off Mike Chillit's 1st AP post, poses an interesting question and a question that does not only hang over the soon to be former ATSB Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan.

The following article is by Christine Negroni (courtesy of Forbes) and relates once again to the many holes in the factual information and commentary provided by the Malaysians (the Malaysian induced MH370 information vacuum):

ID'ing Of New MH 370 Debris Is Meaningless -- Here's The Evidence Malaysian Authorities Should Release




Christine Negroni,  
Contributor

I write about the business of aviation and travel.

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

I am an aviation and travel journalist whose work appears in The New York Times, Air & Space, Hearst Newspapers and other publications. I am an aviation safety consultant to ABC News and write two popular blogs, Flying Lessons and GoHow. My book, The Crash Detectives, soon to be published by Penguin, examines the disappearance of Malaysia Flight 370 and other aviation mysteries. My first book, Deadly Departure (HarperCollins 2000) was a New York Times Notable Book. I am a member of International Society of Air Safety Investigators.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

---

Maybe because it is the easy story, or maybe it is because Malaysian aviation officials are so good about confounding reporters, but the “news” this week that more debris has been identified as coming from Malaysia 370 is a big ho hum, and that’s frustrating for anyone who really cares about what happened two years ago to the flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The world already knows that the airplane with the registration 9M-MRO flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014, inexplicably went down far off course in the South Indian Ocean about 7 hours after takeoff.

Engineers at Inmarsat were able to determine the general direction of MH 370

This general location was established within a week of the disappearance based on satellite signals sent from the plane. It was confirmed 16 months later when the first debris, a part of the airplane’s wing was found on Reunion Island and confirmed again this week when more recovered wreckage including a piece of Rolls-Royce engine cowling was said to be from the missing jetliner by Malaysia’s Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai.

The real question that has gone unanswered by Liow or anyone else in Malaysia is what else is new in the investigation?

The missing plane has given the Malaysian aviation authority a jumbo jet sized excuse for making no apparent progress in resolving one of the world’s most curious aviation mysteries. They insist they can’t do anything until the airplane is found, even though there’s evidence in abundance right there in Malaysia. Not everything disappeared with the airplane.

In writing my book The Crash Detectives, which includes my own theory about what happened to Malaysia 370, and which will be published by Penguin in September, I put many questions to officials at the Civil Aviation Bureau and the airline. I never received a reply. They’re not talking.

I am just one one of many who wonder what is being learned from the evidence on the ground. This includes the airplane’s maintenance history and cargo on the flight, whether any communication signals transmitted or received from the hundreds of cell phones on the plane provided any useful information. What has been learned about the curious first loss of power on the airplane which happened early on in the flight and ended sometime around 2:25 a.m. Malaysia time? We know that means the plane experienced a total loss of power and then regained it. Why?

I asked several people who have paid attention to the halting progress in this case, to make their own suggestions about what information the Malaysians should release so that we may get a step or two closer to understanding the mysterious flight of Malaysia 370.

Nearly a year after the first wreckage was discovered, former airline captain and safety consultant John Cox wonders about that flaperon found on Reunion Island. “What did metallurgical analysis of the fracture surfaces show? Could a determination of (its operating) position be made?” he wants to know.

Jeff Wise, a private pilot and freelance writer who proposed an alternative theory and wrote a book about it is also focused on the flaperon. What information is there he asks “about the species and distribution of barnacles, their length (and) results of oxygen isotope analysis?”

These men and several others think there has to be more information than what’s been released from the various radar zones through which the airplane passed before disappearing.

Only a few pieces of MH 370 have been found

“I’m curious that we haven’t seen any greater tracking by Malaysian military radar,” airline pilot and safety specialist, John Gadzinski said. “Assuming they kept recorded tapes of their radar it would have provided a pretty good picture of the event, at least until it travelled out to sea.”

And Victor Iannello a scientist and entrepreneur who has been part of a loose group of MH 370 citizen investigators is doubtful that the Malaysians have been rigorous about the accuracy of the information they used to track the plane across Malaysia.

“There are anomalies surrounding this radar data that need to be explained,” he wrote in an email.

Armchair investigators, experienced outsiders, alternative theorists and book authors, we all have our reasons for wanting to know more. But it is Sarah Bajc and the others who lost loved ones on Flight 370 who have the emotional investment. When asked what she wants the Malaysians to share about their probe, she does not limit her answer.

Radar, background on the flight crew, actions of the air controllers and the airline, cargo, discrepancies in the reports already issued by the authorities are some of the areas she wants information about.

“The list is endless,” she said.

Frustrated family members and members of the international air safety community may find the suggestion of Peter Fiegehen, an Australian air traffic control specialist and former accident investigator, worth considering. He believes the time has come to create an independent team of professional investigators to give the case fresh perspective.

“Considering the complexities, massive expenditure and possibility of group-think, peer or other pressure or false hypothesis,” Fiegehen says, a small team not previously connected to the investigation could be effective.

The silence of the Malaysians leads me to wonder if the officials there really don’t want to know what happened to the plane being operated by the government-owned airline. If the media would stop focusing on non-news as if it was big news that might be another question worth asking

I am not sure how to make it happen (perhaps talk to Al Akbar) but I am strongly in support of the Peter Fiegehen proposal for a fresh team of qualified AAI investigators. The trouble is until such time as the Malaysians complete their so called - IMO bogus - 'Annex 13 MH370 investigation' and publish a final report, such a team is not going to be able to establish any real lines of inquiry due to the restrictions imposed by the annex.

I suppose somewhat reliant on what such a team was able to uncover, through all the Malaysian & Beaker induced murky layers of spin & obfuscation, it could come to a point (much like the PelAir cover-up ) where evidence of deliberate subterfuge of an ICAO annex 13 aviation accident investigation could lead to suspicion of criminal negligence.

I am not sure of the international standpoint (international law) on such a case, perhaps MH17 will explore that before MH370; but it is worth noting that under Australian law there is S24 of the TSI Act (also still actively relevant to PelAir - http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2...ReOpen.pdf):

Reference - TSI Act.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C0...c393713891

24. Offence to hinder etc. an investigation


(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:


(a) the person engages in conduct; and


(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:


(i) that is being conducted at that time; or


(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and


© the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not


the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct); and


(d) the conduct is not authorised by the Chief Commissioner.


Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the conduct was necessary:

(a) to ensure the safety of persons, animals or property; or

(b) to remove deceased persons or animals from an accident site; or

© to move a transport vehicle, or the wreckage of a transport vehicle, to a safe place; or

(d) to protect the environment from significant damage or pollution.

Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2). See

subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the conduct was:

a) the withdrawal of the person’s consent to the Chief Commissioner entering premises

under section 34; or

(b) the refusal to give any assistance to the Chief Commissioner (in relation to that entry)

after the withdrawal of that consent.

Note:A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3). See

subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(4) The Chief Commissioner must not unreasonably withhold an authorisation under

paragraph (1)(d).

(5) In this section:

conduct includes omission.

   
It is worth noting that Martin Dolan (and I can't find the direct reference or dates), not long before the ATSB taking over the MH370 search from AMSA, was reported as being sighted in KL and attending several formal meetings with Malaysian officials in charge of the MH370 investigation? Much like the question with Dolan appearing in French Toulouse at the time of the French BEA flaperon analysis, why the hell would Dolan personally need to meet with the Malaysians? Surely that was the function of the Minister in charge at the diplomatic level & the TSIs at the expert level???


MTF...P2