[Peetwo]

KS Narendran totally nails it -

Via Facebook:

Sorry folks, the search as we knew it is over.
NARENDRAN KS·TUESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2017

It is a little over a year since the July 2016 joint statement by Malaysia, China and Australia (the tripartitie group) hinting at suspension of search for MH370, and close to seven months since the search for MH370 was actally suspended after the extended search area (in all, about 120,000 sq kms) was searched without any success. A comprehensive review (called the First Principles Review) late last year by experts recommended a new search area of about 25,000 sq kms based on updated Inmarsat analysis, debris finds and ocean drift studies in the Southern Indian Ocean (SIO).

The good souls of the Tripartite Group since last July 2016 never tire of repeating that they will consider resuming the search for MH370 once suspended when credible new informationis available that helps pinpoint the precise location of the aircraft, a stance written into a July 2016 joint communique. In a touching tribute to their confabulations, they invoke it whenever the three come under public pressure following compelling new data, analysis, or debris that shrinks the area recommended for a renewed search in the Southern Indian ocean. As recently as this week, we have heard the same reflexive response from the Tripartite in concert when the latest anaylsis by Australian scientists recommeded a further narrowing down of the search area to about 5000 sq kms. These scientists went as far as to offer precise coordinates ‘to search’, matching the oxymorons coming from the Tripartite.

The position of the Tripartite Group is intriguing and merits a closer examination. We will for the moment hold in good faith the Ministerial assertions that money is not a constraint in the decision on search resumption.

Consider this:

The Tripartite Group began the SIO search and persisted with it in the vast swathe of SIO waters for over 30 months, focusing on different segments along the 7th Arc based on analysis and refinement of available Inmarsat data. This data as we know it is limited, incomplete and not beyond doubt. However this data has been dealt with as infallible. The conclusions of where the plane might have crashed involves a combination of Inmarsat data analysis, and a set of assumptions on fuel consumption, speed, whether piloted or a ghost plane, flight parameters otherwise being normal, and I guess many more assumptions that have a bearing on distance flown, where it came down and the manner in which it the flight ended (ditched, crashed, whatever…).

The Tripartite Group was willing to spend millions to search for MH370 based on information that was fairly imprecise and its conclusions that were probablistic. Apparently it had little else to go by but was undeterred.

The first debris find, by accident, was in coastal Africa along the Western Indian Ocean, thousands of miles away west of where MH370 had supposedly gone down brought the oceanographers into play prominently. Every new debris find led to a louder chorus that the landing sites of debris were in agreement with the extant hypothesis on where the plane went down (in the SIO), and was indeed a vote of confidence that the search was in the right area. New input brought in fresh hopes, refinement in analysis and modified recommendations on search area. As always they raised new questions.

There are no arrival dates written on debris that landed and have been found. Where they came from, how long was it tossed about in the seas and when did it hit shores for the first time are educated guesses or conclusions based on a forensic study of the debris and the current understanding of ocean currents.

Such deductions are imprecise, a fact known and perhaps accepted. Imprecision doesn’t of course mean false, but just that we deal in a set of possibilities and ranges whose scope narrows with new input rather than a number, a point, a location, the precise hour, the exact date… you get the drift.

The mathematics, meteorology, oceanography, avionics, telematics, data processing, computing, modelling, scanning, mapping… and much more had all come to this: a revised new search area of 25 000 sq kilometres in the vicinity of the area searched thus far. Not that much considering 120,000 sq kms of the SIO that has already been searched so far.

The limitations of the Inmarsat data and oceanographic studies must have been well known to the Tripartite group when they met in July 2016.They had access to the best that science and technology, industry and experts had to offer. It must have been obvious that the search will have to continue, moving  with a process of selecting a probable search area and eliminating those parts of the ocean floor where no debris was found. Commitment to the search was even more important where there was no certainty of success on offer.

Instead what was offered was a concession as it appeared then, namely, a suspension of the search rather than an end to it, if nothing was found in the ongoing phase of search. Conditionalities were imposed for a resumption of search once the search was suspended: the requirement of credible newinformation that can help pinpoint the precise location of the aircraft. This in hindsight was clever. It was also an act of bad faith, and a betrayal of the solemn promises to persevere with the search.

Thus in this Tripartitie communique was sown the first steps of a very public burial of the search.It provided a single point rationale to shoot down any and every new analysis, and recommendation thereof. The burden of what qualifies as credible new information, where might one chance upon it, what might its size, contours or smell be was not engaged with.

It was therefore not surprising that theTripartite Group yawned its way through inquiries asking if a resumption of search was imminent after ATSB released two new reports last week based on updated ocean drift studies and analysis of French military satellite images of March 23rd, 2014. While it is highly unlikely that the reports were not circulated amongst the Group’s members in advance and comments, suggestions or objections taken on board before the Reports’ release, Malaysia’s Transport Minister said that a collective view will be taken after assertaining everyone’s views.

Australia’s Transport Minister was categorical that the new recommendations did not meet the qualifying requirements set out by the Tripartite. Apparently, it was not sufficient that the search area recommendation had been brought down to about 5000 sq kms after factoring the French satellite images and working backwards to figure out where might the objects seen in the images have been on the morning of 8th March, when MH370 disappeared.

It appears that the Australian institutions ATSB, CSIRO, and Geoscience have persisted with ‘residual analysis activity’ (a strange choice of phraseology by ATSB) after the suspension of search, and would like to see the search resumed.

Australia’s Transport Minister’s ready and rapid dismissal of even a hint of resumption suggests the ‘reject search’ code is personal, internalised and non-negotiable. A more positive outlook for the search lies maybe in a portfolio reshuffle. In other words, one can expect nothing under his watch.

Questions will be raised about the satellite images: why now? Why these and not other satellite images that did the rounds back then in 2014? Why are the French being a tease or playing hardball by holding back high-resolution images? Is there confirmation bias – are images selectively being picked to bolster findings from the ocean studies? And many more questions. They will be part of other discussions, elsewhere.

It is apparent that all sources of information relied on to determine the location of MH370 – Inmarsat, oceanographic studies, debris forensics and satellite images – can at best provide a field to search and not a pinpointed location.

Knowing the sources and the quality of information that was available, and at hand, did the Tripartite group:

a. Believe there were other sources of information?

b. Did they believe there was additional information being withheld by persons known or unknown?

c. What kind of information does the Tripartite group believe can excite them to reconsider: Radar? Debris? Any withheld Inmarsat logs? Human input? Eye witness reports (And must these have to reconcile with the Inmarsat data / track?)

d. Who do they believe has the burden of responsbility to unearth ‘credible new information’ other than themselves?

I have come to believe that the Tripartite’s decision was not clever but cowardly. They wanted to appear sympathetic, but instead showed their insincere face. In seeking to avoid a backlash and an avalanche of criticism, they allowed a simmering discontent.

In pretending to keep options open, they have demonstrated time after time, how tight the doors are shut. In seeking credible new information (from whom is not clear) they have framed a demand that their own teams have not been able to meet for more than two years (in July 2016) and now more than 3 years. Contrary to their protestations, they tossed their moral obligation overboard and (susp)ended the search once a contractual obligation to search 120,000 sq kms. was over.

So make no mistake. This Malaysia-led, Australia-managed tripartite group controlled search is over. China’s beligerence of the early days has long been overtaken by its stony silence and inpenetrable opacity. The Tripartite group appears to have no appetite left. They have freed themselves of any lingering sense of duty and shifted the burden of producing ‘actionable’ information to parties, whose identity is still not clear.

They will continue to retain the prerogatives and privileges to study, evaluate, judge, award or deny direcly or indirectly their blessings for a third party’s bid to persist with the search.

While Malaysia must be held to account for disengaging from the search and abdicating its responsibility, it is time for the families and concerned citizens to press on with alternative search options. It seems daunting, but inescapable.

It is time for the MH370 families to see the truth for what it is and give up this fantasy of a change in Malaysia’s stance. I would love to be proved wrong.

(The image at the top is a personal favourite. I find it telling. I don’t know the artist. I share it here, admiring  an ability to sum up the search for MH370 with such a simple illustration.)

"..Australia’s Transport Minister’s ready and rapid dismissal of even a hint of resumption suggests the ‘reject search’ code is personal, internalised and non-negotiable. A more positive outlook for the search lies maybe in a portfolio reshuffle. In other words, one can expect nothing under his watch..." - Unfortunately KS we worked that out a long time ago here in Oz (reference the Ventus post above)...


MTF...P2