[Peetwo]

Yep Gobbles my sentiments exactly, the Sheikh nails it better than most.. :

The elephant is in the room. Why is the Australian Government spending millions on this? Under ICAO Annex 13, we are not the State of Registry, not the State of the Operator and not the State of Manufacture. As the State of Occurrence is unknown, why are we, with Beaker who is an international embarrassment, trying to pretend to lead the way? Interesting that Boeing has not taken a leading role in this with the NTSB!!!
Someone knows more than we do!

Which leads me perfectly into my next rehashed media blog piece - from the TBA life member Ben Sandilands - not so much for the article itself but for some of the commentary that follows but 1st the short piece from Ben:

Latest MH370 update takes issue with search criticism

Ben Sandilands | Apr 22, 2015 6:46PM

While there are no discoveries reported in the latest MH370 search update, it makes a point of rejecting recent criticism from a range of sources, as well as The Australian’s inexplicable re run of a year old story saying it could have been seen low over a ‘remote’ Maldivian Island on the morning of its disappearance.   It’s worth reading the update in full here.

The JACC site also has a graphic showing how the existing priority search area will be as much as doubled in size if nothing is found within its boundaries by around the end of next month, while the narrative makes a point of saying that this focus on the 7th arc could be adjusted in the light of further analysis.

The Search Strategy Working Group continues its analysis of the satellite communication system messages and aircraft performance. This ongoing effort may result in refinements to the search area along the seventh arc.

That could mean that it will be.

Okay then we jump to the Brock McEwan at post #37 & then follow the excellent to & fro banter between Ben & Brock to post #41:

[*]37
Brock McEwen
Posted April 25, 2015 at 3:02 am | Permalink
Thanks for everyone’s polite, informed replies.
My claim that multiple nations would have had a shot at detecting MH370 along its Inmarsat-indicated path is founded on the graph Duncan Steel’s Independent Group published months ago (see “Radar Coverage…” blog on his site).

The “Curtin Boom” (yes, triangulated in both time and space by the Sept-reported Scott Reef analysis) occurred some 50 minutes before sunrise (0:25 UTC = 5:25 local, vs 6:14 sunrise), and a half-hour’s flight time due west of Kuda Huvadhoo, so I agree any DIRECT relationship seems to defy the laws of physics. What concerns me about the multiple eyewitness account is a) its proximity to this boom (it is the nearest land mass), and b) the fact that nobody has been able to confirm what it was all these fishers DID see. Perhaps they saw a plane REACTING to MH370 having entered this space a few minutes earlier.
But my first comment should not have focused on the JACC’s haughty dismissal of (to me, valid) speculation, because I am far more concerned by their continued rendering of search decisions which conflict with their own analysis:

If the ATSB’s Oct. Flight Path Analysis Update is to be believed, there is no point searching SW of [S38, E88], because that was where the performance limit crossed the 7th arc (translation: they feel MH370 lacked sufficient fuel to make it to any point on the 7th arc further SW of that coordinate, as it would cover too much distance within the prescribed amount of time). In Nov. I pointed out on jeffwise.net what I saw as a flaw in that limit – and published it as Concern #7 in my Jan. report – but this seems not to have made an impression, as the fuel limit of record was never amended.

(Interestingly, the search HAS recently crept beyond this fuel-indicated limit: the Fugro Search Area above was itself extended out to the edge of the Wide Search Area [S39ish, E87ish] a few weeks ago. No explanation was given by the JACC for deciding to search beyond its own fuel limit.)

With this week’s update comes a hint that they are preparing – after 14 months (?!) – to revise their performance limit YET AGAIN – thereby justifying a further SW shift in the search area. The fine print in the above map is instructive: the plotted 120K km2 zone is listed as “indicative” only, while “potential” expansions head out in all 4 directions. I predict they are setting up yet another move SW (otherwise, why even MENTION they are still toying with performance analysis?).

I hear educated readers asking: if you suggested E83/84 in Nov., why aren’t you THRILLED they’re moving that way now? Because they should never have truncated the search at E87/88 to begin with. It would have been far more efficient to run the ships along the 7th arc all the way out to the fuel limit’s FEASIBLE WESTERN BOUNDARY before turning around and scanning back east. Unless they were SURE of their performance limit, this is the only responsible way to conduct a proper search. Instead – and true to form – they chose to take this shaky analysis as gospel, search on that dodgy basis for MONTHS, and then decide (concurrent, this time, with the decision to pack it in for the winter…) to “refine” things.
The ability of a submerged black box to retain data is time-limited. This search bears all the hallmarks of DELIBERATE FOOT-DRAGGING by its leaders (additional proof: see my report). This should be of grave concern to those of us who do not appreciate having the wool pulled over our eyes.

[*]38
Ben Sandilands
Posted April 25, 2015 at 7:24 am | Permalink
Brock, and all,
Why do you keep attributing original thoughts to the Australian authorities?
It’s like confusing the waiters for the chef.
The JACC coordinates. The ATSB manages or allocates resources.
The strategic direction comes from KL.
There is a bit of grandstanding going on in the ATSB. Most people can see right through it.

[*]39
Brock McEwen
Posted April 25, 2015 at 8:11 am | Permalink
Ben, and all: re: any statement I’ve ever made concerning MH370 search leadership:
Please feel free to replace “JIT”, “JACC”, “ATSB”, “AMSA”, or [any other element of the alphabet soup claiming jurisdiction over this mess] with “search directors”, if that gets us past ethnicities, and into accountabilities. I really don’t care; I’m Canadian, and care about closure for passengers families – period.

But the time is long past due for grassroots ACTION – not mere complaining about search conduct, nor bickering amongst ourselves. We must direct our questions re: holes in the official story to those who have actually MADE the holes – in this case, primarily agencies of the Australian government, whether puppets or not. If we ask hard pointedly enough, they’ll have to give up who they’re shilling for.

And then we’ll ask THEM the questions.
And so on, until we get the ANSWERS.
Eventually, we’ll get to someone who knows something – no matter WHAT flag they wave.
[*]
40
Ben Sandilands
Posted April 25, 2015 at 8:32 am | Permalink
Brock,
Surely the starting point in science as well as journalism is to find out who the target for information is.

This is easily discoverable, and has been for months.
It’s like blaming the NTSB for something the FAA is responsible for, or attacking Eisenhower for something Kennedy did.

It’s basic. Who gives the orders? Who carries out the orders? Who would have been in a position to known? The reason the public has largely stopped listening is that the info vacuum has been filled with conspiracy theories that start with the plausible and then build up a matrix of possibilities, some outright inventions, often from the media echo chamber, like the rehash of the Maldives story or the Curtin or Bay of Bengal mining company stories.
As we might or might not agree, the lurid swamp of conspiracy theory bears a very close resemblance to the fetid state of the official narrative.

A focus on deconstruction on the official narrative and testing it is much better than going directly to hypothetical constructs.

My own approach is that of the patient fisherman. Sooner or later, somehow will really f*ck up, and everything will become much clearer. Similar to the amazing admissions of HH on 1 May, that blew apart the truthfulness of the Malaysia govt’s narrative.
[*]
41
Brock McEwen
Posted April 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Hi Ben: we are talking about massive obfuscation in the search for evidence of a potential mass-murder, here. I think we should take our cues not from scientists OR journalists, but from DETECTIVES.

The ATSB has misled us, and misdirected the search. Repeatedly. It is time for the general public to whom they are accountable (you and your compatriots) to bring them in for further questioning. Even if they’re a patsy, intense questioning will prove very useful.
Don’t think of it as damning Eisenhower for Kennedy’s sins – think of it as grilling Dean to get to Nixon.

[*]

Bravo Brock that last paragraph absolutely nails it IMHO, your IOS membership is in the mail...
But wait?? - there's more.. :

[*]45
Brock McEwen
Posted April 26, 2015 at 2:51 am | Permalink
@Confirmed Sceptic: swells that night in the roaring forties were 5-10m (winds in the week prior were significant & sustained). To a 777 contacting it at any plausible speed & angle of attack, this is akin to madly churning concrete. So regardless of post-fuel-exhaustion pilot scenario, the probability of surface debris is 100%.
With all due respect to PM Abbott, the probability of lifejackets, plastics, etc. waterlogging and sinking is nil. Drift experts and models all suggest this floating debris would drift east, hitting Oz shores by as early as last August. Yet not a single scrap of surface debris has been recovered.

As a rule, dense engine and landing gear components neither disintegrate nor drift. But Fugro publicly confirmed their equipment’s ability to see objects as small as 70cm (which might be a low-ball estimate, as “beer can” bragging has surfaced elsewhere). So if current turns a dot into a line (I AGREE with Simon), that should have sped UP the process of finding it.

The theory that control was taken of the plane at fuel exhaustion in order to glide further south not only strains the limits of credulity (why, if same fate regardless?), but is, I’m told by Independent Group kingpin Mike Exner, flatly contradicted by the signal data itself, which suggested to the IG’s signal data experts that 370 was probably already in steep decline by 00:19.

So I built a “crow’s flight distance, 7th arc–>impact point” probability distribution model, and calibrated it meticulously to Exner’s sense of BTO error margin, and his first-hand experiences in a 777 simulator. The result: even if the debris were all huddled in a tight ball, over 98% of the probability distribution has now been searched by the four scanning ships. If debris is strewn into a line by currents, this probability is even higher.

CS, I’ve been auditing this search since last April. I’m not asking you to trust me – but I will ask you to read my report with an open mind.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yua...sp=sharing

Bayesian logic – applied to both the lack of actual physical evidence, and the abundance of shoddy analysis/misleading statements causing interminable search delays – suggests there is a VERY good chance there is something VERY wrong about this entire search, which we should work together to unearth. Ben and I were merely debating TACTICS.

[*]

[*]{Comment: For me the weakest link in the SIO search area theory has always been the zero discovery (to this point in time) of any surface debris from MH370. Combine that with the yet to be confirmed starting point to the SIO - & a certain muppet in charge - leaves me extremely cynical on the veracity of the whole SIO search effort... }

MTF..P2