First Principles- indeed?
ATSB – “For the First Principles Review, the ATSB has assembled experts from around the world to reassess the data available. A report detailing the findings of the First Principle Review will be made available following the meeting.”
Principles – an interesting, oft abused word; and, a strange choice for describing the three day ‘gabfest’ of ‘experts’ intent on reassessing the ‘available data’.
‘Available data’ – this could be put on the back of a coaster and dissected in about 30 seconds by a bunch of dyslexic five year olds; well it could.
In the beginning, apart from the aircraft being ‘in the vicinity’ of the IGARI waypoint there is no conclusive data indicating where the aircraft went after that; best guesses and some fairly wispy satellite data emerged to place the aircraft ‘in the Southern Indian Ocean’. This data provided the ‘Seventh Arc’ – depicted as a fine line, drawn across half a hemisphere – somewhere along that line, it is said, marks the end of the flight: the experts think. Has the ‘available data’ changed in the time between IGARI and the end of the search? In short – No, it has not. Has there been any refinement of the ‘mathematics’ which indicated the terminal zone for the flight – again - No, there has not. Ergo, the ‘available data’ has not significantly changed. We are left only to wonder at what the ‘experts’ will be discussing – if the radical data has not been refined; or re-defined.
The ‘Flaperon’ throws a wee spanner into the works, as does some of the ‘drift’ models being presented – the excellent, logical work done by Chillit for example. The ‘pilot dunit’ debate rages, but then you have the Howard analysis to contend with, the logic reasonable and worthy of consideration; and yet we see no careful dissection of this data by the ‘expert’ panel, no public discussion, rebuttal or even a begrudged acknowledgement that perhaps the ‘theory’ presented has ‘some merit’.
First principles -
Marcus Aurelius. 6. The nature of the universal has this work to do, to remove to that place the things which are in this, to change them, to take them away hence, and to carry them there. All things are change, yet we need not fear anything new. All things are familiar [to us]; but the distribution of them still remains the same.
The first principle objective was to question – the why, the how and then the where. Without the why and then the how – the ‘where’ becomes little more than flawed guess, based against incomplete information. The rest has simply been window dressing; look at the photograph above – there is no one there with anymore idea now of the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ as they stand there than they did in the beginning.
Marcus Aurelius. This, what is it in itself, and by itself, according to its proper constitution? What is the substance of it? What is the matter, or proper use? What is the form, or efficient cause? What is it for in this world, and how long will it abide? Thus must thou examine all things that present themselves unto thee. (disputed translation).
There has always been a certain flavour of ‘corruption’ associated with this ‘mystery’, a natural response to a serviceable aircraft, disappearing, without semblance of logical explanation; or, witness. There has always been an odour of ‘conspiracy’ associated – again, where credible explanation is not provided, the imagination is left to fill the void and the charlatans, seekers of fame and hopefully fortune will begin to spin the yarn into the fabric of their fancy. I believe the stench of incompetence spoils this feast for the imagination. Plain, pure and simple. This, of itself, is human and was forgivable until the beasts of ‘vested interests’, national, political and financial raised their ugly heads. I digress.
‘We’ are no closer to understanding what, why and who now, than we were in the beginning. ‘We’ are probably reasonably sure that the aircraft is not within the search zone. Despite the Chester claims of ‘heroism’ and extraordinary efforts etc. (Yuk) ‘We’ are no wiser or further on than we were in the beginning. I, for one, would like to know why not; or, alternatively be informed, honestly and openly that no one, not even the ‘experts’ has a blind clue. It matters not a wit, whether the aircraft ‘plunged’ at high speed into the stygian depths; or alighted like a butterfly on a flower, into the wind swept SIO to float about for while. Only the what, the why and the how of it remain as important now as they were – in the beginning.
So, my ramble ends where I began a long time ago; someone, somewhere, knows the why and the how. Find that person and you’ll find your aircraft. The alternative is to admit that unless fate takes a hand; there is little chance of the wreck being discovered without solid, tangible evidence.
Selah.
ATSB – “For the First Principles Review, the ATSB has assembled experts from around the world to reassess the data available. A report detailing the findings of the First Principle Review will be made available following the meeting.”
Principles – an interesting, oft abused word; and, a strange choice for describing the three day ‘gabfest’ of ‘experts’ intent on reassessing the ‘available data’.
‘Available data’ – this could be put on the back of a coaster and dissected in about 30 seconds by a bunch of dyslexic five year olds; well it could.
In the beginning, apart from the aircraft being ‘in the vicinity’ of the IGARI waypoint there is no conclusive data indicating where the aircraft went after that; best guesses and some fairly wispy satellite data emerged to place the aircraft ‘in the Southern Indian Ocean’. This data provided the ‘Seventh Arc’ – depicted as a fine line, drawn across half a hemisphere – somewhere along that line, it is said, marks the end of the flight: the experts think. Has the ‘available data’ changed in the time between IGARI and the end of the search? In short – No, it has not. Has there been any refinement of the ‘mathematics’ which indicated the terminal zone for the flight – again - No, there has not. Ergo, the ‘available data’ has not significantly changed. We are left only to wonder at what the ‘experts’ will be discussing – if the radical data has not been refined; or re-defined.
The ‘Flaperon’ throws a wee spanner into the works, as does some of the ‘drift’ models being presented – the excellent, logical work done by Chillit for example. The ‘pilot dunit’ debate rages, but then you have the Howard analysis to contend with, the logic reasonable and worthy of consideration; and yet we see no careful dissection of this data by the ‘expert’ panel, no public discussion, rebuttal or even a begrudged acknowledgement that perhaps the ‘theory’ presented has ‘some merit’.
First principles -
Marcus Aurelius. 6. The nature of the universal has this work to do, to remove to that place the things which are in this, to change them, to take them away hence, and to carry them there. All things are change, yet we need not fear anything new. All things are familiar [to us]; but the distribution of them still remains the same.
The first principle objective was to question – the why, the how and then the where. Without the why and then the how – the ‘where’ becomes little more than flawed guess, based against incomplete information. The rest has simply been window dressing; look at the photograph above – there is no one there with anymore idea now of the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ as they stand there than they did in the beginning.
Marcus Aurelius. This, what is it in itself, and by itself, according to its proper constitution? What is the substance of it? What is the matter, or proper use? What is the form, or efficient cause? What is it for in this world, and how long will it abide? Thus must thou examine all things that present themselves unto thee. (disputed translation).
There has always been a certain flavour of ‘corruption’ associated with this ‘mystery’, a natural response to a serviceable aircraft, disappearing, without semblance of logical explanation; or, witness. There has always been an odour of ‘conspiracy’ associated – again, where credible explanation is not provided, the imagination is left to fill the void and the charlatans, seekers of fame and hopefully fortune will begin to spin the yarn into the fabric of their fancy. I believe the stench of incompetence spoils this feast for the imagination. Plain, pure and simple. This, of itself, is human and was forgivable until the beasts of ‘vested interests’, national, political and financial raised their ugly heads. I digress.
‘We’ are no closer to understanding what, why and who now, than we were in the beginning. ‘We’ are probably reasonably sure that the aircraft is not within the search zone. Despite the Chester claims of ‘heroism’ and extraordinary efforts etc. (Yuk) ‘We’ are no wiser or further on than we were in the beginning. I, for one, would like to know why not; or, alternatively be informed, honestly and openly that no one, not even the ‘experts’ has a blind clue. It matters not a wit, whether the aircraft ‘plunged’ at high speed into the stygian depths; or alighted like a butterfly on a flower, into the wind swept SIO to float about for while. Only the what, the why and the how of it remain as important now as they were – in the beginning.
So, my ramble ends where I began a long time ago; someone, somewhere, knows the why and the how. Find that person and you’ll find your aircraft. The alternative is to admit that unless fate takes a hand; there is little chance of the wreck being discovered without solid, tangible evidence.
Selah.