[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 22.11.16: HSSS archive entry 161122.

AP TWR - "P2 clear to backtrack" -
 
Remember this from a week ago. 

Captain's Log 16.10.16: The trouble with correcting the record.

ATSB jumped gun on MH370
12:00amEAN HIGGINS
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was wrong to say it had consensus on a “death dive” theory for flight MH370.

[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
..Internal ATSB documents obtained by The Australian show that while a senior investigator drew the incorrect “consensus” statement to the attention of colleagues only minutes after the bulletin was released, the organisation never issued a correction and instead secretly deleted the claim from its website the next day, after it had been widely ­reported internationally.

The ATSB repeatedly refused to say why it had deleted the “consensus” claim, and falsely denied doing so in a subsequent post.

Internal ATSB emails ­obtained under Freedom of Information statutes by The Australian reveal the truth behind the organisation’s media manoeuvres...

...The ATSB claimed in its July 27 bulletin the satellite data showed MH370 came down “most likely in a high rate of descent”. As originally released, the bulletin said: “This is indeed the consensus of the Search Strategy Working Group,” referring to experts including from the US and British air crash investigation.

The documents obtained under FOI show that just a few minutes after the bulletin was ­issued, an ATSB senior investi­gator warned colleagues by email this was an “error” and that the sentence should be taken down.

“It is certainly not yet the consensus position of the SSWG … 2 parties are yet to make a formal response on the subject,” the investigator said.

The email chain shows another ATSB senior investigator agreed and gave instructions for the sentence with the “consensus” line to be removed from the ATSB’s and the JACC’s websites.

But the ATSB did not retract the sentence until the next day, by which time it had been reported internationally, including in Mal­aysian and Chinese publications.

As earlier revealed by The Australian, the deletion of the “consensus” line was discovered by British aerospace engineer Richard Godfrey, a member of the independent group of aviation experts who on their own initi­ative have been reviewing the MH370 scientific data.

When, at the time, The Australian rang the ATSB spokesman who had issued the July 27 bulletin to ask why the deletion had been made, the spokesman hung up and JACC director Annette Clark declined to respond.

Subsequently, ATSB MH370 spokesman Daniel O’Malley and JACC chief co-ordinator Judith Zielke would also not say why the “consensus” line had been secretly disappeared.

When The Australian reported the deletion of the sentence, the ATSB issued a denial on its website, saying the report “falsely ­accuses the ATSB of ‘secretly retracting’ information”.

In a statement after it had been made aware of the FOI material, the JACC said:

“The information was retracted when it was learned not all working group members had, at that stage, provided formal responses. Subsequently a consensus view was reached.”

Now I know it is just feeding more of the same 'he said, she said' MH370 bollocks, but given the Oz has obviously gone to some bother chasing FOIs etc. I kind of wonder where 'that man' will go next with chucking rocks on the ATSB chook-house shed -

So out of curiosity I visited the comments section of that Higgins article and I was quite surprised by the dampening effect the article has had on the usual Oz/Bailey/Higgins critics/ATSBsexual trolls like Mick & Andrew.

Mick (1 comment only??) - Since there's mention of the Independent Group of aviation experts who on their own initi­ative have been reviewing the MH370 scientific data, it's also worth pointing out that based on the Inmarsat satellite data, the Independent Group also came to the conclusion that MH370 ended its flight in a rapid descent, a "death dive".   They reached that conclusion nearly two years ago.

---

Andrew (1 comment only) - An 800 word article, the essence of which is contained in the last two sentences:

“The information was retracted when it was learned not all working group members had, at that stage, provided formal responses. Subsequently a consensus view was reached.”

Big deal...

---

Which was excellently countered IMO by Rodger...

---

Rodger - [email=-@Andrew]@Andrew[/email] It is a big deal!

Australian has already spent millions of dollars on the search of MH370 aircraft without any tangible result or benefit.

The ATSB has apparently chosen not to consider or evaluate other experts’ views and theories. If it has, I do not remember The Australian reporting such. Now we read in the above article that when:   “When The Australian reported the deletion of the sentence, the ATSB issued a denial on its website, saying the report “falsely ­accuses the ATSB of ‘secretly retracting’ information”."

The ATSB’s failure to find the wreckage (after many months and millions of dollars), apparent disregard in listening to experts, and the apparent covering up of its inaccurate bulletin, is not a good look.

I think it is time for a Special Board of Inquiry be proclaimed and investigate the apparent “group think” in the ATSB and JACC, the erroneous bulletin release, and other matters of public interest (viz actual receipt of monies from Malaysia and China to cover some of the search costs as well as China’s actual search effort by its dispatched ship).

 

Well while trolling M&Ms website I noted that the 'email chain' released under FOI is now on M&M's disclosure log:

28/09/16 MH370 Operational Update Bulletin (17-18) PDF: 198 KB

---

Subject: Operational Update [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

et al.,

Not sure who to contact about this but I just noticed the words in the operational update:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370‐pages/updates/operational‐update/

“The last satellite communication with the aircraft showed it was most likely in a high rate of descent in the area of what is known as the 7th arc. This is indeed the consensus of the Search Strategy Working Group.”

At this stage it is probably ATSB s47G view that those communications likely indicate a high rate of descent. It is certainly not yet the consensus position of the SSWG as that involves s47G, s47G and, s47G of which 2 parties are yet to make a formal response on the subject.

I suggest we remove the last sentence at the very least.

Also, given that this update has information related to the SSWG, would it be better in the future for myself, or s22 to check the content before public release to avoid this sort of error?

Regards,

s22

---

Yes agree, s22 could you talk to s22 and get the last sentence taken out as per below and reloaded to both websites

Regards

s22

Senior Transport Safety Investigator

Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Search for MH370 – Operations Team

---

FYI.

s22
Director, Joint Agency Coordination Centre

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

  
For those interested s22 of the FOI Act reads:

22  Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant matter deleted
Scope
             (1)  This section applies if:
                     (a)  an agency or Minister decides:
                              (i)  to refuse to give access to an exempt document; or
                             (ii)  that to give access to a document would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request for access; and..etc

&.. s47G reads:

47G  Public interest conditional exemptions—business

             (1)  A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would disclose information concerning a person in respect of his or her business or professional affairs or concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking, in a case in which the disclosure of the information....

The puppetmaster (M&M) to the puppet (4D):

Also I believe that Judith Zielke (the wearer of many hats) was and is still the JACC Director.

This is confirmed by another fascinating document which was also released under FOI three weeks before and basically outlines the script that M&M's department want miniscule 4D Chester to adhere to:

09/09/16 Recent JACC Ministerial Brief (17-10) PDF: 289 KB

Note the box in the top LH corner...

For decision by: 29 July 2016

...considering Zielke cleared the miniscule briefing on the same day, it is quite obvious the decision had already been made before it got anywhere near 4D's office.
The next bit reads...

Reason: To ensure timely notification to Malaysia of funding requirement 

Now consider that the dates from the ATSB acknowledged cock-up email chain feature on the 27th to 28th of July, you begin to see why the JACC & ATSB went into some strange subterfuge mode - i.e. deny-obfuscate-deny..

JACC said...

JACC chief co-ordinator Judith Zielke would also not say why the “consensus” line had been secretly disappeared.
  

& then said...

..In a statement after it had been made aware of the FOI material, the JACC said:

“The information was retracted when it was learned not all working group members had, at that stage, provided formal responses. Subsequently a consensus view was reached.”...

Want to bet the above statement was made after the Malaysian funds were confirmed to be in the bank...


MTF...P2