[Peetwo]

Taking the Mickey Bliss on Annex 13 & MH370?  

Q/ Is the MH370 search & parallel investigation being conducted in direct contravention of ICAO Annex 13?

References, No1: What now for the JIT Annex13 MH370 investigation? 

&.. 

Peetwo - To follow up on my 'Rosenker the realist' post, while trolling the JW blog I noted a couple of posts from a 'David' that pretty much (IMO) nails down the true 'elephant' or 'blue whale' in the SIO - see HERE - that for some reason the MSM (until recently with the Oz) have conveniently or negligently overlooked...

The elephant:

However they are not the elephant. Were there was a pilot at the end he could have pushed his nose down sharply (if BFO are to be satisfied) then glided beyond search areas past, proposed, or otherwise might be. He could have extended fuel consumption on the way by step climbing. He could have been responsible for both logs-on.

While there is no evidence there was a pilot there is none ruling it out either. Therein I regret to say is a stopper to finding a ‘specific location’ in which there can be confidence.

And the question that was left IMO too late to ask:

After the ATSB decided, necessarily, to make this assumption, for the search area to be practicable, the effect of that on search success probability went unremarked, at least publicly.

Without evidence either way the possibility of there being a pilot was around 50/50. Had it been assumed there had been one the search area would have been multiplied (glide distance say 100 miles) and the prospects of finding the wreckage in the search area settled on would have been less than halved. A 50% chance of there being a pilot still lowers the 90% a good deal and to that should be added the like effect of other assumptions (eg route weightings and simplifications).

The outcome is that had the funders been aware of the much lower search probability they might not have approved the search, that is unless politics overrode. In either case the next-of-kin and public were misled, presumably inadvertently.

   
This is the clanger...

"..So as to your above remark, as things stand there is little prospect of either the three countries or any benefactor standing up and swallowing the cost unless that elephant can be shot..."

IMO there is strong evidence to suggest that certain DIPs to this smelly investigation & search effort, have no intention of that rogue elephant being identified let alone 'shot'...

Why? David either very cleverly or naively points out why:

Were the ATSB search report to reflect on this, and bearing in mind the prospects of there having been a pilot now remain much the same, there might well be grounds to abandon the search for wreckage rather than suspend it on the grounds the prospects are unlikely to improve enough, clearing the way for a final report by Malaysia.

Naturally any unexpected development could lead to reopening of the investigation. There is precedent for this.

Definitely MTF on this and the vagaries of ICAO signatory States potentially interfering/compromising the integrity and independence of an Annex 13 sanctioned international AAI...

Ps Hmm...wonder if the ATSB TSI Act still applies with the MH370 Annex 13 JIT investigation?

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 Executive Director.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months.

PAIN & the IOS witnessed, throughout the PelAir cover-up inquiry and Senate Estimates, many instances of where Beaker and the ATSB simply took the Mickey Bliss, let alone the spirit and intent, on many of their so called obligations to ICAO Annex 13.

Example:

Now as much as the ATSB propaganda line seems to imply a degree of separation between the MH370 JIT Annex 13 investigation and the SSWG defined MH370 SIO search, there is much evidence to the contrary that says they are very much inseparable.

Quote from - SECOND HIGH-LEVEL SAFETY CONFERENCE 2015 (HLSC 2015) PLANNING FOR GLOBAL AVIATION SAFETY IMPROVEMENT (Montréal, 2 to 5 February 2015) - Para 1.4 & 1.5 of the paper:

1.4 From that date, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) became the lead agency under Annex 13 — Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation to the Chicago Convention for operations in the Australian SRR. AMSA continued to coordinate search operations for floating material until 28 April 2014, when the Australian Prime Minister, the Honourable Tony Abbott MP, announced that the search would transition to an intensified underwater search.


1.5 AMSA and ATSB jointly determined a surface search area strategy, correlating information from a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) located in Malaysia, comprising international specialists and other government and academic sources. AMSA hosted a working group that complemented the JIT, provided additional specialist advice on the likely movement of floating material with weather and ocean currents, and incorporated advice from the United States National Transportation Safety Board and United States Coastguard. Together, these sources permitted AMSA to be fully informed on the optimum search areas.

---

And at 2.2 it states:

On 17 March 2014, Australia agreed to Malaysia’s request to assume responsibility for
the coordination of the search effort for the aircraft within the Australian SRR. In accordance with Annex 13, Malaysia remains the State responsible for the investigation of the occurrence involving MH370.

The ATSB makes a similar claim to compliance with the Annex in their MH370 search oversight in their blurb that accompanies their report webpage for MH370: 

Malaysia, as the country of registration, has investigative responsibility for the accident. In accordance with Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation, the ATSB appointed an accredited representative and a number of advisers (ATSB investigators) to the Malaysian investigation. As part of Australia’s role in leading the search and recovery operation in the southern Indian Ocean, the ATSB has opened an external investigation, AE-2014-054: Technical assistance to the Department of Civil Aviation Malaysia in support of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 on 7 March 2014 UTC.

Therefore I would argue that any sane international observer and/or DIP, without the PAIN/IOS insight of the PelAir cover-up (like Boeing for example), would logically concur that the ATSB would conduct it's oversight of the MH370 SIO deep search and it's interactions with the SSWG, as per the conditions (spirit & intent) of Annex 13.

PAIN would argue that under Beaker that simply was never going to happen (watch the video again if you have any doubts)...

Okay so for the average international punter, what is it that the ATSB have a difference of opinion on when it comes to ICAO Annex 13?

See HERE the 10 pages of notified differences to A13...  

Also consider the conditions outlined under Annex 13 Chapter 5.12:

Non-disclosure of records

5.12 The State conducting the investigation of an accident or incident shall not make the following records available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact such action may have on that or any future investigations:

a) all statements taken from persons by the investigation authorities in the course of their investigation;
b) all communications between persons having been involved in the operation of the aircraft;
c) medical or private information regarding persons involved in the accident or incident;
d) cockpit voice recordings and transcripts from such recordings; and
e) opinions expressed in the analysis of information, including flight recorder information.

5.12.1 These records shall be included in the final report or its appendices only when pertinent to the analysis of the accident or incident. Parts of the records not relevant to the analysis shall not be disclosed.

Note.— Information contained in the records listed above, which includes information given voluntarily by persons interviewed during the investigation of an accident or incident, could be utilized inappropriately for subsequent disciplinary, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings. If such information is distributed, it may, in the future, no longer be openly disclosed to investigators. Lack of access to such information would impede the investigation process and seriously affect flight
safety.

And under 5.26:

Obligations

5.26 Accredited representatives and their advisers:

a) shall provide the State conducting the investigation with all relevant information available to them; and
b) shall not divulge information on the progress and the findings of the investigation without the express consent of the State conducting the investigation.

Note.— Nothing in this Standard precludes prompt release of facts when authorized by the State conducting the investigation, nor does this Standard preclude accredited representatives from reporting to their respective States in order to
facilitate appropriate safety actions.

And 6.2:

Release of information — Consent

6.2 States shall not circulate, publish or give access to a draft report or any part thereof, or any documents obtained during an investigation of an accident or incident, without the express consent of the State which conducted the investigation, unless such reports or documents have already been been published or released by that latter State.

In the case of MH370, the clearest example that the ATSB has absolutely zero regard for the spirit, intent and compliance to ICAO Annex 13 was when they released the bogus website statement:

“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.”

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

I would argue that not only is this 'not' the consensus of the SSWG it is also in direct conflict of Annex 13 (as per the annex references above). I would also argue that besides the self-interest of the ATSB justifying their limited scoped search priority zone, the premise of the unsubstantiated ATSB evidence/aspersions is at this stage totally irrelevant to the MH370 Annex 13 investigation...

     
MTF...P2