The Almighty ATSB & the other Giant$ v Families of the dead.
The ATSB's second only international investigation, once again, like the first one, it is a mountain of controversy that remains unresolved.
Such as...
ASTB claiming the Pilots were either "unconscious or dead" at the end of the flight. An "un piloted crash". A "ghost flight" or "death dive"...yet no real solid answers.
Where is the independent investigation that correlates to the ASTB's findings that this theory is plausible with all the evidence?
The ATSB theory has been rejected by many commercial airline pilots. They believe that Zaharie hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end.
The documents that are being sought seem to be the opinions of many of the "game players". Do these opinions from the corporations and agencies lead to the same conclusion as the ATSB are stating? Is this bias using the opinions of those with a vested corporate interest?
Experts have claimed that the data is not good enough to make that assumption. Yet the ATSB seem sure that the circle of players opinions are adequate enough to conclude this assumption. Therefore the ATSB can enforce the TSI act towards the loved ones searching on how their loved ones died.
We know it was a plane crash, but if the pilots were already dead, there is a high chance passengers were too. How?
The wording of "unconscious" & "Unpiloted" is rather broad.
This wording is able to deflect the involvement of the AFP and other Policing agencies here and overseas. The ATSB can continue leading the investigation.
"Is avoiding offending the Malaysian authorities more important that discovering the truth?"
The decision is covered by the TSI act. The decision being based on a bias theory without rigorous, independent critique of the information. Much needed considering the aircraft is still missing after three years.
This theory keeps the ATSB at the helm of the investigation.
IF, the theory supported what many other experts claim, that Zarahrie was responsible, then a very different part of the TSI would be applicable.
When an accident is not an accident
"in those rare cases where there is clear evidence, or where there is reasonable proof, that an aviation accident was the result of unlawful interference the ATSB is required to promptly advise relevant authorities, such as the Australian Federal Police, the Office of Transport Security (within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Such an event does not meet the definitional requirements of an accident under Annex 13 and as such the ATSB would normally discontinue it's safety investigation.
"Aviation Law in Australia, 2013, Bartsch, 4th ed, pg 630.
How can an Act be upheld that rejects the request from the family to documents that draw a covert conclusion based on a theory?
All individual pieces of information that have been formulated into a theory only.
The ATSB attempts to use their statutory powers to not only impede transparency toward the families, but also subject their employees to restriction of free speech of opinion.
With the ATSB adamant on the "unresponsive pilots" theory, this leaves a broad interpretation.
How do they believe the pilots became unconscious in the first place?
If the authorities know how the victims died, then it is a basic human civil right that should carry the relatives towards knowing this crucial information about their loved ones.
The FBI & the AFP, one would think, need be heavily involved in this possible mass murder.
A discussion regarding following other leads and evidence that has been submitted.
All of it.
Incorporate Human Factors, utilising all evidence without bias.
The ATSB are very into Human Factors and aviation accidents.
The 7 Year Ditch second attempt at an accurate, well investigated report which enhances safety is currently lead by an investigator with a Doctorate in Psychology of Human Factors.
Go Figure...shouldn't he be leading the MH370 investigation with all the assumptions that it was perhaps human behaviour and not mechanical mishap?
The legal ramifications of an independent inquiry that is privileged to all the evidence could potentially discover compounding evidence suggesting an "unlawful interference" are HUGE!!!
Just sayin...
The ATSB's second only international investigation, once again, like the first one, it is a mountain of controversy that remains unresolved.
Such as...
ASTB claiming the Pilots were either "unconscious or dead" at the end of the flight. An "un piloted crash". A "ghost flight" or "death dive"...yet no real solid answers.
Where is the independent investigation that correlates to the ASTB's findings that this theory is plausible with all the evidence?
The ATSB theory has been rejected by many commercial airline pilots. They believe that Zaharie hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end.
The documents that are being sought seem to be the opinions of many of the "game players". Do these opinions from the corporations and agencies lead to the same conclusion as the ATSB are stating? Is this bias using the opinions of those with a vested corporate interest?
Experts have claimed that the data is not good enough to make that assumption. Yet the ATSB seem sure that the circle of players opinions are adequate enough to conclude this assumption. Therefore the ATSB can enforce the TSI act towards the loved ones searching on how their loved ones died.
We know it was a plane crash, but if the pilots were already dead, there is a high chance passengers were too. How?
The wording of "unconscious" & "Unpiloted" is rather broad.
This wording is able to deflect the involvement of the AFP and other Policing agencies here and overseas. The ATSB can continue leading the investigation.
"Is avoiding offending the Malaysian authorities more important that discovering the truth?"
The decision is covered by the TSI act. The decision being based on a bias theory without rigorous, independent critique of the information. Much needed considering the aircraft is still missing after three years.
This theory keeps the ATSB at the helm of the investigation.
IF, the theory supported what many other experts claim, that Zarahrie was responsible, then a very different part of the TSI would be applicable.
When an accident is not an accident
"in those rare cases where there is clear evidence, or where there is reasonable proof, that an aviation accident was the result of unlawful interference the ATSB is required to promptly advise relevant authorities, such as the Australian Federal Police, the Office of Transport Security (within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Such an event does not meet the definitional requirements of an accident under Annex 13 and as such the ATSB would normally discontinue it's safety investigation.
"Aviation Law in Australia, 2013, Bartsch, 4th ed, pg 630.
How can an Act be upheld that rejects the request from the family to documents that draw a covert conclusion based on a theory?
All individual pieces of information that have been formulated into a theory only.
The ATSB attempts to use their statutory powers to not only impede transparency toward the families, but also subject their employees to restriction of free speech of opinion.
With the ATSB adamant on the "unresponsive pilots" theory, this leaves a broad interpretation.
How do they believe the pilots became unconscious in the first place?
If the authorities know how the victims died, then it is a basic human civil right that should carry the relatives towards knowing this crucial information about their loved ones.
The FBI & the AFP, one would think, need be heavily involved in this possible mass murder.
A discussion regarding following other leads and evidence that has been submitted.
All of it.
Incorporate Human Factors, utilising all evidence without bias.
The ATSB are very into Human Factors and aviation accidents.
The 7 Year Ditch second attempt at an accurate, well investigated report which enhances safety is currently lead by an investigator with a Doctorate in Psychology of Human Factors.
Go Figure...shouldn't he be leading the MH370 investigation with all the assumptions that it was perhaps human behaviour and not mechanical mishap?
The legal ramifications of an independent inquiry that is privileged to all the evidence could potentially discover compounding evidence suggesting an "unlawful interference" are HUGE!!!
Just sayin...