[Peetwo]

MH370: ATSB & the search for IP going global  - Part I

From off the MH370 forum:

Take two and action -

From ABC radio's World Today program:

MH370 search to be called off, recriminations likely after new book on disaster
Peter Lloyd reported this story on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 12:24:00
About JW Player 6.11.4923 (Ads edition)
        
  MP3 download
KIM LANDERS: When the search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 began off the West Australian coast more than two years ago, the then lead investigator, former defence force chief Sir Angus Houston, described the attempt as 'the most difficult search in human history.'

Now that search in the remote southern Indian Ocean is almost over.

Families of the 239 people on board want it to continue, but the Governments in Malaysia, China and Australia are sticking to the plan to wind up the search by the end of July if nothing is found.

But as Peter Lloyd reports, confirmation of that deadline has stirred debate about whether the massive search has been in the wrong area, despite clues that the jet crashed elsewhere.

PETER LLOYD: It's a place sunlight can't reach. Dark, distant, freezing cold. The southern Indian Ocean has refused to give up the wreck of MH370.

The Australian Transport Safety Board chief commissioner Martin Dolin is convinced the plane is out there, but the search is almost done with nothing to show for it.

MARTIN DOLAN: The Governments have commissioned us to cover up to 120,000 square kilometres, we've got about 15,000 square kilometres of that to go.

PETER LLOYD: Barring a discovery, the hunt will end around July, a milestone moment when Australia becomes the custodian of a new world record: supervisor of the most expensive failed search in the history of aviation.

Martin Dolan again. -

MARTIN DOLIN: The Australian Government has given us $60 million and the Chinese Government has given us about $20 million, the total cost is about $180 million, if we have to complete the entire search area.

PETER LLOYD: What is the current thinking about, the confidence you have about whether you're even in the right place?

MARTIN DOLIN: We always said that it was a matter of probability, not certainty, that the aircraft would be found in the area we are searching.

PETER LLOYD: Malaysia Airlines is state owned, it magnifying the loss of face attached to the possibility that one of its pilots is a mass murderer. Suspicion has never quite lifted from the captain and co-pilot.

To aviation writer Christine Negroni, it's been a huge scandal from the get-go, and it's not just Malaysia at fault.

She's written a book that uncovers vested interests competing to shape impressions, from Boeing, to embarrassed defence officials.

CHRISTINE NEGRONI: There were different camps. The investigators arrived at the scene and they would see certain things that they had seen before in previous investigations and it all seemed quite logical and normal.

The law enforcement people would come to the scene and they would see things that were new to them, they don't investigate plane crashes, they investigate crime.

I think the Americans wanted to be involved, American law enforcement, and I think the Malaysians were not exactly welcoming the assistance of the American law enforcement.

And I think the only way the Americans thought that they could sort of push their way in there was to raise more, you know, suspicions in the general public imagination that this was a criminal act.

PETER LLOYD: At the start of the investigation, reports from unnamed sources in the American aviation sector spearheaded the finger pointing at the pilots, just as Malaysians were discovering the staggering incompetence of defence forces that Saturday night.

CHRISTINE NEGRONI: A triple seven was flying across the Malaysian peninsula off track, off course, off radio communication, perhaps off radar, definitely off radar transponder radio, headed towards Kuala Lumpar towards the Petronas Towers.

I mean that's a huge, frightening lapse in security and radar and air traffic control and, you know, in every respect that's terrible.

PETER LLOYD: By law, a crash investigation must be completed by Malaysia, but the Government says its hamstrung by Australia's failure to find the plane.

Christine Negroni believes that is a bogus claim, and worse still, she claims the crash investigation underway right now in Malaysia is a sham.

CHRISTINE NEGRONI: There is no evidence that this is more than just somebody saying, "Oh no, no, no - it's fine don't worry about it, move on.

PETER LLOYD: Who's going to hold them to account?

CHRISTINE NEGRONI: Well, and that really is the tragedy here, because I think because the aeroplane has not been found and may not be found, there is no sort of calling to account Malaysia.

Malaysia can simply sit back as it has and say without the aeroplane, we can't ever know. And that will be I think the, sort of, the conclusion of Malaysia 370; always a mystery, no-one will ever know and we don't know whether that is true.

KIM LANDERS: Aviation writer Christine Negroni ending Peter Lloyd's report.

Also today from Christine Negroni:

[*]Independent Investigators and Malaysia 370
May 16, 2016 / Share your comments...

MH370 wreckage analysis included comparison of stenciling.

My post on Forbes.com last week suggesting the number of clues on the ground that could shed light on what happened to Malaysia Flight 370, generated much interest but particularly the suggestion that a new independent group be selected to give a fresh eyes view to the case. This idea came from Peter Fiegehen, an air traffic control specialist from Australia who also worked with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Peter suggests a small team not previously connected to the investigation could be effective.

The problem is that ICAO Annex 13 which provides guidance to air safety authorities can be interpreted in such a way that it excludes outsiders. “States shall” investigate, the document states. But states can also “delegate“. The ICAO Annex is a compilation of standards and recommended practices. They are not cast in stone. The air accident investigation document is nearly always in a state of revision including one that goes into effect later this year.

In addition, countries are free to file their own exceptions from the ICAO standards. For example the United States makes public the transcripts of cockpit voice recorders which until the latest amendment, were not to be disclosed outside of the investigation.

What is encouraging about the revision of Annex 13 is the recognition that things change and never more so than now with the digitization of the air transport system.

Where international aviation authorities need to be faster on the uptake is in appreciating the value of crowd sourcing of information following air accidents. More people from technical specialists to intelligent onlookers have the means to contribute and that is a good thing. The established tin-kickers must not be threatened. Their own expertise is not diminished because outsiders can sometimes offer value.


An air safety conference in Adelaide in 2014

Every year I attend the meeting of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators I am both impressed and frustrated by what is the two sides of the same coin. The specialists are knowledgeable in their specific areas which is good but closed-minded to the point of dismissive of the contributions of outsiders, which is not good.

Peter Fiegehen recognizes that “group-think, peer or other pressure” and “false hypothesis factors” now infect the official investigation into the mysterious disappearance of MH370. His idea of hitting the reset button is worth consideration. If an agency as cumbersome and bureaucratic as the UN’s ICAO sees the benefit of regular revision, what excuse is there for the resistance of agencies investigating one specific accident?

http://christinenegroni.com/independent-investigators-malaysia-370/

[*]

The above article from Christine Negroni is certainly thought provoking in so many ways:

..The problem is that ICAO Annex 13 which provides guidance to air safety authorities can be interpreted in such a way that it excludes outsiders. “States shall” investigate, the document states. But states can also “delegate“. The ICAO Annex is a compilation of standards and recommended practices. They are not cast in stone. The air accident investigation document is nearly always in a state of revision including one that goes into effect later this year...

[*]
 I fear that the Malaysian's (so called Annex 13 MH370 investigation) are using the A13 to effectively manipulate & control the official MH370 narrative, clearly the original intent & purpose of the A13 SARPs were not designed for this purpose -   

..In addition, countries are free to file their own exceptions from the ICAO standards. For example the United States makes public the transcripts of cockpit voice recorders which until the latest amendment, were not to be disclosed outside of the investigation.

What is encouraging about the revision of Annex 13 is the recognition that things change and never more so than now with the digitization of the air transport system...

[*]   
Negroni points to an example where notified exceptions to the ICAO can be for the betterment & continual improvement to the A13 SARPs.

Unfortunately some States, like Australia, use the exception system to lessen their obligations to the SARPs making regressive (vs progressive) steps to helping improve the air safety system in an ever changing world of technology advancement.

Some examples from the 10 pages of Australia's notified differences to Annex 13:

Definitions:

Safety recommendation - Essence of definition adopted in legislation and in policy and procedures documents. However, Australia reserves the term safety recommendation for making formal recommendations which are used as a last resort.

P2 - This fundamental change, to what is largely accepted by nearly all signatory States (including the US & Canada) as best practice to promoting proactive action to address serious safety issues identified in the course of an AAI, came about when Beaker took over the ATSB. This change was in line with Beaker's 'beyond Reason' (BASR - beyond all sensible Reason) philosophy that was IMO one of the major reasons why the 1st PelAir report (& many other significant investigation reports since) ended up being so flawed & biased in favour of the operator, while crucifying the pilot. 
 
Serious incident - Australia requires reporting of ‘transport safety matters’, which, through definitions and reporting requirements in the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and Transport Safety Investigation Regulations 2003 result in matters being reported which are equivalent to those contained in the Annex 13 definition of a serious incident. The Annex 13 definition of a serious incident is used for classifying reports in the Accident Investigation Authority’s database.

P2 comment - This is yet another cynical attempt to subvert the ATSB's obligations to ICAO and in the process subsequently waters down an important ICAO definition:

Serious incident. An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

Note 1.— The difference between an accident and a serious incident lies only in the result.

Note 2.— Examples of serious incidents can be found in Attachment C of Annex 13 and in the Accident/Incident Reporting

Manual (Doc 9156).

&..


Forwarding

4.1 The State of Occurrence shall forward a notification of an accident or serious incident with a minimum of delay and by the most suitable and quickest means available to:

....e) the International Civil Aviation Organization, when the aircraft involved is of a maximum mass of over 2 250kg.

& also..Pg 5. Ch 5 - 5.1.1 to 5.4


"..Australia may not institute an investigation into all foreign or Australian-registered aircraft involved in serious incidents. Decisions on whether a particular serious incident will be investigated will depend on resources and the likely benefit to future safety..."

There are many examples of where the ATSB has defined on their database a 'serious incident', that has subsequently escaped being forwarded to the ICAO international accident & serious incident database (e.g. LOSA or BOS incidents).

There has also been several cases where a 'serious incident', as defined by the ATSB, has subsequently had no investigation initiated, even under the ICAO definition the ATSB would have been obliged to do so...     

[*]
 Back to Negroni article:

..Where international aviation authorities need to be faster on the uptake is in appreciating the value of crowd sourcing of information following air accidents. More people from technical specialists to intelligent onlookers have the means to contribute and that is a good thing. The established tin-kickers must not be threatened. Their own expertise is not diminished because outsiders can sometimes offer value...

[*]
Nowhere was/is this more evident, in a domestic context, than with the 1st & ongoing ATSB Norfolk Is, VH-NGA (PelAir cover-up) ditching investigation. 

..Peter Fiegehen recognizes that “group-think, peer or other pressure” and “false hypothesis factors” now infect the official investigation into the mysterious disappearance of MH370. His idea of hitting the reset button is worth consideration. If an agency as cumbersome and bureaucratic as the UN’s ICAO sees the benefit of regular revision, what excuse is there for the resistance of agencies investigating one specific accident?..

[*]
I find it extremely ironic that we are already talking about; a) the possible "re"-investigation of MH370 by totally independent aviation accident investigators, when the same thing was repeatedly suggested but ignored, with the ATSB announcement and ongoing PelAir re-investigation; and b) that the Dolan led ATSB is inextricably associated with yet another dodgy & possibly corrupt, aviation accident investigation, that appears to be part of a multi-party political/bureaucratic cover-up -


MTF?- Definitely..P2