Less Noise and More Signal

Speaking of dross, guess who poked their stuffed noggin up yesterday??- Yep our resident MH370 super sleuth Muppet is back, pandering to the MSM... Dodgy
   
Quote:Wing panel gives up little data on missing MH370  
[Image: steve_creedy.png]
Aviation Editor
Sydney

Australia’s top safety investigator has cautioned that a “flaperon” movable wing panel from missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 may yield only limited information, despite confirmation from French authorities yesterday that it is from the missing Boeing 777.  

Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief Martin Dolan said the bureau would continue to use an analysis of satellite communication with the plane as the main basis of determining the search area, and it remained confident it was looking in the right place.

The plane disappeared in March last year while flying between Kuala Lumpur and Beijing with 239 people on board, including six Australians.

The bureau used analysis of communications between the B777 and a geostationary satellite to determine an area off the coast of Western Australia in which it most likely crashed.

A long search had failed to find any sign of the aircraft until the flaperon was discovered on ­Reunion Island, a French territory east of Madagascar, more than a month ago.
“It is possible today to say with certainty that the flaperon discovered on Reunion Island on July 29 came from Flight MH370,” Paris prosecutors said yesterday.

Mr Dolan said it was still uncertain how much other information the flaperon would yield.
It was not possible to track the flaperon’s journey to Reunion with any level of confidence to confirm or change the search area.

The bureau has been working with the CSIRO to look at potential drift patterns, and remains unconvinced by claims by German oceanographers that it should be looking in a region close to Java.

“We are still looking at all the analysis of the satellite data and we’re still very confident in that analysis,’’ Mr Dolan said.

He said damage to the flaperon did not give any indication about the force of the impact, despite some views being expressed on the subject, but the ATSB would work with the French experts to see if any more could be gleaned from the flaperon.

Two ships continue to investigate an expanded 120,000sq km search area but have had to scale back operations because of the rough winter weather.
"..Australia’s top safety investigator..." - "Aunty Pru I have much need of a bucket!"... Confused   

MTF maybe?? Undecided
Reply

"..Australia’s top safety investigator..." - "Aunty Pru I have much need of a bucket!"...

Forget the bucket, not even an empty Sydney harbour could contain the amount of puke I just offloaded...FFS, the guy is a complete embarrassment. Miniscule, please end our misery and give Beaker an office, an abacus, and a job at the ATO where he belongs. PLEASE.
Reply

Oh dear, what an insult and embarrassment to the Australian Flying Public for a journalist to keep praising an incompetent "leader" in Aviation Investigations.

If the Minister does not stomp his unsteady feet into solid ground and stand firm, realising that Aviation Safety, Investigations and learning is in the hands of his dodge every bullet Commissioner, then he is a very foolish man.

Protect your people in the air. Help GA to flourish. Stop resisting the piles of reports that lay dormant for what reason, no-one knows. 

Mr Truss's own Party's Treasurer, cuts through the corruption which is so very obvious with a very Sharp knife. 

Why? Because they all can. 

The "Cover Our Chums Knobs Syndrome" (COCKS)

Mr Creedy, are you confident with our Aviation Safety?
Mr Creedy, are you confident that you are safe when you fly?
Mr Creedy, do you understand what these people have done to their own?
Mr Creedy, do you really write articles that are well researched or are you told what to release with the blessing of your buddy Mr Dolan. 

That's the way, diverge from the truth to score a wink and a handshake rather than doing your job as a real investigative journalist Instead, each day those who know the truth are repulsed at the praise you continue to give to a man who bumbles along. With the help of you!

Take a look at Ben Sandilands articles, researched and written with a true passion to bring awareness to our spaghetti portfolio called Aviation.

Anthony Klan, truth writer. Thank you.

I do not believe or trust your words Mr Creedy.
I've spoken to you before, with FACTS, you were very rude and told me I was rambling, hung up and put Dolan on a pedestal the next day in another article. 

Have a long think one day about what you are writing. 
This is NO game. I can assure you as a survivor of a plane crash.

The ATSB has a lot to answer for regarding the Pel-Air crash investigation, yet you continuously have blinkers on regarding factual information about the man you so adore. 

Maybe an FOI would be a start regarding correspondence with him.

Mr Truss, I beg you to hear voices of reason and remove this highly paid, clueless Commissioner now. He can only duck and cover for so long until the wings fall off in Australia. I hope this never happens, but there is not much confidence when clowns run the show.

Then what will Mr Creedy release. Probably excuses for Mr Dolan.
Geez, these pair must be tight.

Just makes me want to shout....


.jpg image.jpg Size: 53.87 KB  Downloads: 0



Mr Truss, Albo ditched Australian Aviation with a White paper that is probably collecting dust. Now we have you. Save future lives and stop the stupidity of internal fixing. 

That is not a solution to a very vast problem.

You can call for the changes, you can make our skies safer if you just took the initiative to remove the COCKS far, far away from Aviation. You know who they are. Let them go, maybe they could get some insider trading info from your treasurers' other position as CEO, they'll get by I'm sure with a little help from corrupt friends.

Do your friggin job journo. Stop writing glorified rubbish when the Porfolio is in crisis. 

I challenge you Mr Creedy, that I could write a more comprehensive, factual article regarding this matter. 

Promise I won't ramble. 
How dare you!

Get on with the job with the truth in mind and then print a projection of that truth. Media blocks, handshakes and winks will not make our skies safer.
The removal of Mr Dolan needs to be seriously looked at. Not a noble removal, but a disgraceful one.

Let's see what more crap you can spew out. 
Think, you are suppose to be a Professional. This I can not see as I know the truth about this man who NEVER has spoken a word to the occupants of NGA to learn or concern. Oh no, that would be the end of him. 

Challenge yourself, or challenge me. I have piles of accurate information that would smother your articles with truth. A very lacking trend each time you write.

I can not conceive the idea of releasing such rubbish to the tax paying public to read, thinking all is well in our skies. 
Such disrespect towards our hard working Pilots and industry.

Time for change. Stop stalling around with cyclic stories that never leave the circle of lies as the truth exposed would crumble the walls around the ATSB and CASA.
Best thing in our Aviation history that could happen.

A rebuild for this millennium with people that are passionate about Aviation Safety and GA longevity in our large land.

But nope, each article praises a man whom I've no respect for as I know what he has done to the NGA matter. Something the people of this country are quite unaware of, yet!

Get it right before you type!

The scare in the air will bite your arse one day as karma is chomping at the bit. 

Ziggy  Heart
Reply

Well said Ziggy.

I rate Creedy's articles on par with Geoffrey Thomas's musings. They shouldn't be called newspaper articles they should be called toilet paper articles and said papers should  be used liberally after a big night at the Birdsville races in which 15 schooners and 2 lamb kebabs have been orally punished!
The real articles, the ones that include facts, unbiased wording and are accurate in scope come from Sandilands, the Klan-man and Ean 'that man' Higgins.
As an example and as Sunfish would say 'to put that another way', if you want to see the true state of the worlds financial situation go to Zerohedge and you will see accurate, factual, evidential reporting. If you want to read the 'everything is ok' bullshit story just listen to David Koche, Michael Pascoe and Commsec's Craig James (although I don't recommend it).
Journalists have agendas, and some agendas are are to keep their puppet masters happy. It's a disgrace.

Ziggy, you just keep doing what you are doing Darl, keep the bastards honest!
Reply

Interesting little article – HERE – brings up some questions to which definitive answers would be nice –  Dodgy
Reply

The flaperon was never at the bottom of the SIO, it spent months drifting below the surface till it ran into a little island in it's way, no mystery in that. And I would not be so willing to accept what the media came up with to amuse themselves about any numbers not matching. The Boeing s/n on the flaperon was on a little plate that was only stuck on, it came off, as you would expect being in the water that long. Malaysia said right at the start it had their maintenance number on it. They were happy it was theirs they were only missing the ones from MH370, they needed no further proof.

Malaysians never said anything about it not matching their records for MH370, how could they recognize it as theirs other wise? I would say it was just more of the misleading or outright false info the media keeps coming up with. They knew the tests were going to take time. And if the little label with the Boeing s/n was not there, they were going to wait for the test results, since they wanted all the details before they confirmed it was from MH370.
Reply

And on the media circus, what is with the Maldives conspiracy? We started with the large white plane that we were expected to believe from the media reports could have been MH370.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...g-jet.html
The Malaysians quickly decided it was not, but never explained their reasons. All the media kept up with the story of these eye witnesses that saw MH370. The only eye witness account I listened to, the one doing the interview had to remind the witness that the plane had red and blue stripes, hardly a reliable witness. And then after a year the Australians regurgitated the old story and passed it off as new, and it did the rounds yet again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...story.html
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malays...-sightings
Till someone came along and debunked it.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcr...259926.htm
Plane flying the wrong way to be MH370, towards a known airport and it was not that big at all. Why deliberately mislead, by running the story?

Then there was the debris that washed up in the Maldives early on, the supposed fire bottle that looked nothing like a B777 fire bottle, could have been easily checked and discounted.
http://www.maldivesfinest.com/mh370-evidence
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n17l7edm5f8631...s.jpg?dl=0
closer look at the number engraved on it
https://twitter.com/idannyb/status/449704069020413953

A real genuine B777 fire bottle, from MH17
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wdwtvr84abcoq...e.jpg?dl=0
We never did find out what the debris actually was, but we can be sure it was not a firebottle from MH370. could have been the innards of a data buoy of some kind.

Now the Maldives are a landing point for junk from a wide area, they get everything, even what looks to be real debris from a plane.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-upd...7476689654
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...ebris.html

And how do some of the media respond?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...light.html
It looks nothing like a surfboard, why suggest it? A surfboard does not need to be that strong. And it is the wrong shape for a surfboard, it seems wider on one end and a bit tapered.

Now it could be from any plane, even QZ8501, the AirAsia one that was destroyed, small bits of debris from it could conceivably end up in the Maldives. The style of the red lettering does not match what I have seen of the outside of a B777. But I can only go on what I can compare it to. Experts are scarce when you need them to actually do something.

But you have to wonder, why does the media not want to give that find more attention? A wider spread of debris is not going to do the current 7th arc theory any favors.

The running story now is
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/au...0-malaysia

And that chunk of debris seen in the pictures was likely burned along with all the junk that washed up from the ferry. Typical way the search is going so far, but you cannot blame the ATSB for that stuff up. Although warning people bits of MH370 might be washing up on their shores might have had people out looking, but no, the ATSB warned it would wash up on West Sumatra, where nothing is likely to wash up. Deliberate misinformation, or a stuff up?
Reply

(09-19-2015, 12:23 PM)aussie500 Wrote:  And that chunk of debris seen in the pictures was likely burned along with all the junk that washed up from the ferry. Typical way the search is going so far, but you cannot blame the ATSB for that stuff up. Although warning people bits of MH370 might be washing up on their shores might have had people out looking, but no, the ATSB warned it would wash up on West Sumatra, where nothing is likely to wash up. Deliberate misinformation, or a stuff up?

"..And on the (MH370) media circus.." cont/-

Been a bit quiet on here in the last couple of weeks but it would appear that the media circus maybe about to ramp up again.. Confused

Today there is several re-hashed versions of this article from Astro Awani:

Quote:MH370: Search resumes, strategies to improve - Tiong Lai

Rahimah Abdullah, Astro Awani |
[Image: icon-minicalendar10.png] September 30, 2015 00:08 MYT



[Image: 61443541043_TiongLai.jpg]
Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai says improvements in aircraft search strategy needs to be done from time to time. -Photo: Astro AWANI/Rahimah Abdullah

KUALA LUMPUR: The search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 will continue through the trilateral cooperation of Malaysia, China and Australia.

A tripartite meeting at the ministerial level will be held next week in China.

Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai said the talks will focus on a more effective search strategies.

"We are continuing the search for MH370 even if the Prime Minister of Australia has changed. However, we would like to thank Australia for their commitment in the search for MH370.

"We will hold a tripartite meeting officially in China next week to discuss details about the search strategies," he told reporters after officiating the closing ceremony of World Communication Forum Kuala Lumpur in Putra World Trade Centre (PWTC) here today.

He said that the improvements in aircraft search strategy needs to be done from time to time.

"We will improve the strategy to find the exact location of MH370. We know the area (search location) is right, but we want to find (the plane) more quickly so that we are able to find MH370 earlier.

"We've found the flaperon. So it is true that the aircraft ended in the Indian Ocean and from the discovery of the flaperon, the plane has moved from that location to Reunion island,” he said.

French investigators have confirmed that the fragments known as flaperon belongs to the missing MH370 which went missing on March 8, 2014.

The plane was carrying 239 passengers, and was en route from Malaysia to China.

Meanwhile, Malaysia also urged the establishment of the International Tribunal on flight MH17 tragedy which was shot down in eastern Ukraine, on July 17 last year.

Tiong Lai said the move was crucial to ensure justice for the victims of the plane crash.

"We would like to discuss how to establish a tribunal although our resolution was rejected by Russia, but we are still having discussions with Joint Investigation Team (JIT) on how do we keep an effective international court to get justice for MH17 victims.

"We seek a solution to ensure justice for the innocent," he said.

He added that the matter should be solved immediately through an international platform.

The statement about the change in PM is quite bizarre.. Huh  

Ben Sandilands thinks so too -

Quote:[Image: blogmasthead.png?ver=1292892237]

Malaysia ‘hopes for’ MH370 search talks in China next week
Ben Sandilands | Sep 30, 2015 3:31PM |
[Image: Liow-Tong-Lai-610x398.jpg]
Hoping to arrange a date with China, Malaysia transport minister Liow Tiong Lai

Following on China’s snubbing of a tripartite meeting concerning the search for missing flight MH370, Malaysia’s transport minister Liow Tiong Lai says he hopes Australia, Malaysia and China will meet in China next week to discuss a more effective search strategy.

All that has been said about this in Australia at this hour is that today’s weekly MH370 search update will not happen until tomorrow.

Perhaps Australia is working the ‘phones to ensure that Malaysia’s hopes are realised.  It is reasonable to hold that Australia’s relations with the PRC are somewhat better than Malaysia’s.

There are some nuanced references to the progress of the search in this brief Malaysian news report, plus a weird linkage being made between the removal of Tony Abbott from the position of PM and the continuation of the search under Malcolm Turnbull

There was also a report from the FMT (Free Malaysia Today) publication yesterday, which was also bizarre in the disconnection with most of the MSM coverage (above).. Undecided :

Quote:M’sia, China, Australia to continue search for MH370


September 29, 2015

Options will be explored, taking into account available resources, equipment and vessels, says DCA director-general.


[Image: mh3709.jpg]

BEIJING: Malaysia, China and Australia are still committed to locating the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 aircraft which vanished in the southern Indian Ocean last year, says Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) director-general Azharuddin Abdul Rahman.

He said the three countries had a meeting in China today to discuss the ongoing search operations for the Boeing 777 aircraft, following a meeting in Canberra earlier this month.

The meeting started at 8.30am and finished at 6pm, and was attended by officials from China’s Ministry of Transport and Foreign Affairs, officials from Australia’s Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC) and Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), as well as representatives from Malaysia’s Transport Ministry, DCA and MH370’s next-of-kin committee.

“I am happy to report that the three countries are still very much committed to the search. As you know, the flaperon found on July 29 (in the French territory of Reunion Island) has been confirmed as coming from MH370.

“This confirms the drift modelling by the experts that we are looking in the right place,” he told Bernama here today.

In addition, Azharuddin said tests were being conducted to determine if it could yield any other information over what happened to the plane.

“Even the barnacles (on the flaperon) are being examined by marine biologists for clues,” he added.

Azharuddin said based on advice from the experts, options would continue to be explored for the search, taking into account the available resources including funds, equipment and vessels.

“As always, we are hopeful that the mystery of MH370 will be solved and the families can find closure,” he added.

On March 8 last year, the aircraft carrying 239 passengers and crew from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing vanished from the radar.
– BERNAMA

Ok trying to get this straight??- the officials from the three countries involved in the MH370 SIO search have just met and the Malaysians, with Australian support, are proposing  a Tripartite meeting at a Ministerial level in China next week - ok got it I think?? Confused  

Finally courtesy of Duncan Steel there was this blogpiece which was a copy of a Victor Ianellio paper with questions for the Malaysian MH370 investigators (JIT):

Quote:Questions about the Radar Data for MH370



by Victor Iannello, ScD
September 24, 2015
A PDF version of this report may be downloaded by clicking here or here (540 kB).
Notice: The views expressed here belong solely to Victor Iannello and do not necessarily represent the views of the Independent Group (IG), or any other group or individual.
Introduction
In a recent paper [1], we analyzed the position and time data derived from the publicly-available radar data for MH370, and made the following observations:

  • After the turn back towards the Malay Peninsula, the flight path recorded by civilian primary surveillance radar (PSR), civilian secondary surveillance radar (SSR), and military radar are consistent with a flight at a Mach number (M) equal to 0.84 at a cruising level of FL340.
  • If the aircraft did fly at a steady M = 0.84, then the timestamps for some of the PSR contained in the Factual Information (FI) [2] are offset by about 35 seconds.
  • After the left turn at around 17:23:38 UTC, the aircraft might have descended from FL350 to FL340 and accelerated from a ground speed of 473 kn to a ground speed of greater than 500 kn.
  • In the FI [2], the PSR data between 17:47:02 and 17:52:35 UTC are attributed to the radar site at Kota Bharu, but more likely were collected by another radar site. The PSR data between 17:30:37 and 17:44:52 are correctly attributed to Kota Bharu.
  • In the FI [2], it is stated that Indonesian military radar recorded MH370 as it traveled toward IGARI but not as it traveled back over Malaysia. One explanation is that Indonesian radar site was powered down after midnight, local time.
  • The sharp turn to the left at around 17:23:38 UTC is unexplained, and could be due to either an inaccurate graphical portrayal of the radar track, or crossing radar tracks from two aircraft.
  • The curve in the radar path close to Kota Bharu can be explained by “slant range” due to high altitudes and close distances.
  • Fuel consumption models which assume that MH370 flew near Long Range Cruise (LRC) speeds and at cruising altitudes between 17:07 and 18:22 are likely accurate.
The estimated path and speeds for MH370 from takeoff to the last radar point [1] is shown in Figure 1.
Bob Hall [3] used the software package STK to calculate the radar range for various military radar installations in Thailand and Malaysia that may have seen MH370. The range calculations were solely based on the line-of-sight between the target aircraft and the radar head, including any obstruction caused by terrain features such as hills and mountains. The calculations were performed for a geometric altitude of 37,000 ft, which corresponds to a pressure altitude of about 35,000 ft (i.e. FL350) over Malaysia at the time of the disappearance. The results are shown in Figure 2. (The path shown for MH370 in Figure 2 is not exactly correct because at the time the plot was generated in October 2014, the details of MH370’s path as derived from the radar data were not known.)
Based on the work performed in [1] and [3], we have developed a list of questions related to the radar data that would help the public to better understand this incident. We believe that the answers to many or all of these questions are known to the Malaysian investigators, and we see no valid reason for not making this knowledge available to the public.
[Image: VI_radar_Fig1.jpg]


Figure 1. Estimated path and speeds for MH370 from takeoff to the last radar point [1]. 
[Image: Figure2.png]


Figure 2. Range of military radar sites for an aircraft at 37,000 ft [3]. 
[Image: radar-FOV-37000.bmp]

(A higher-resolution, bitmap version of Figure 2,
without the annotation at left.)
Questions

1. Was the turn to the left after IGARI captured by Malaysian military radar? It was in range of the radar head at Bukit Puteri, Jirtih, but near the range limits of Western Hill, Penang Island.
2. Was the turn to the left after IGARI captured by Thai military radar? It was near the range limits of the radar heads at Ko Samui Island and Khok Muang.
3. The turn to the left after IGARI was depicted in two ways. At the meeting with the next-of-kin (NOK) on Mar 21, 2014, at the Lido Hotel in Beijing, it was depicted as a looping, 270-degree turn to the right, as shown in Figure 3. By contrast, in Figure 2 of the ATSB report [4] from June 26, 2014, the turn is depicted as a sharp turn to the left. What is the reason for this discrepancy of the depictions of the turn after IGARI? Which of these depictions is correct?



[Image: VI_radar_Fig3.jpg]
Figure 3. Flight path shown to the NOK on March 21, 2014, at the Lido Hotel in Beijing.
4. The depiction of the turn after IGARI as a sharp turn to the left seems to be beyond the performance limitations of a B777. Was the turn accurately depicted in Figure 2 of the ATSB report [4] from June 26, 2014?
5. Is it possible that the sharp turn to the left after IGARI is actually the crossing of the radar returns from two aircraft?
6. What specifically led investigators to conclude that the unidentified aircraft that crossed the Malay Peninsula and proceeded up the Malacca Strait was indeed MH370?
7. On March 21, 2014, military radar data from an unidentified aircraft (assumed to be MH370)) above the Malacca Strait was presented to the NOK at the Lido Hotel in Beijing, and shown in Figure 4 . Were these radar returns captured by the radar installation at Western Hill, Penang Island?



[Image: VI_radar_Fig41.jpg]
Figure 4. Radar data shown to the NOK on March 21, 2014, at the Lido Hotel in Beijing.
8. At the time of disappearance of the unidentified aircraft from military radar at 18:22 UTC, the aircraft was within range of the Thai military radar head at Phuket. Did this radar station also capture this unidentified aircraft? Is so, what was the path after 18:22?
9. In Figure 1.1F of the FI [2], the radar returns between 17:30:37 and 17:52:35 are attributed to the primary surveillance radar (PSR) returns as captured at Kota Bharu. The unidentified aircraft was supposedly captured by Kota Bharu radar until it reached just south of Penang, which exceeds the 60 nm range of the radar head at Kota Bharu. How is it possible that the radar returns are correctly attributed to Kota Bharu for the entire interval between 17:30:37 and 17:52:35? Is it possible that the radar returns after 17:44:52 were captured by another installation such as the terminal approach radar at Butterworth?
10. What was the cause of the disappearance of radar returns from the unidentified aircraft after 17:44:52, 17:48:39, 17:52:35, and 18:07:16? Some believe this indicates the unidentified aircraft was descending at these times, but this interpretation is not consistent with calculations [1] that indicate that the unidentified aircraft flew at nearly constant 498 KTAS, corresponding to M=0.84 at FL340.
11. Is it possible that the disappearance of the unidentified aircraft from radar was due to electronic countermeasures such as jamming and deception?
12. In Figure 1.1F of the FI [2], there is a point labeled as P1706 that is located near Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA), but has a timestamp which appears to be 17:28:41, which should place the target much closer to the left turn after IGARI. What is the reason for this anomalous capture?
13. As described in [1], there seems to be a time shift of about 35 sec from some of the radar returns attributed to the PSR head at Kota Bharu. Are all of the timestamps from Figure 1.1F of the FI [2] referenced to a single clock, or at least from synchronized clocks?
14. In Figure 4, there is an anomalous return (as labelled in black by VI) at 02:07:06 MYT (18:07:06 UTC) that is north of the other returns and is not explained. Was this target possibly another aircraft?

15. The radar images presented to the public to date show no other traffic. What other traffic was in the vicinity of MH370 and the unidentified aircraft?

References
[1] Victor Iannello, “Some Observations on the Radar Data for MH370”, August 18, 2015. Also available here.
[2] Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370, “Factual Information, Safety Investigation for MH370”, March 8, 2015; updated April 15, 2015.
[3] Bob Hall, private email to the Independent Group, October 16, 2014; used with permission.
[4] Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), “MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Areas”, June 26, 2014.

It will be interesting to see if Victor gets answers to his 15 QON.. Huh


MTF..P2 Angel
Reply


  1. [Image: At5D-HdQ_bigger.jpg]Peter Creswick ‏@PeterCreswick  12 hrs12 hours ago
    @RadiantPhysics Need more like this for 35 - 33 - 31000 and lower. http://www.duncansteel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/radar-FOV-37000.bmp 
    Also other radars especially Indonesian. Doable ?



  2. [Image: wNnCp_04_bigger.jpg]Victor Iannello ‏@RadiantPhysics  2 hrs2 hours ago
    @PeterCreswick Can do for other heights accounting for terrain with a tool like STK. However, there is no point in more calcs w/o more info.




  3. [Image: wNnCp_04_bigger.jpg]Victor Iannello ‏@RadiantPhysics  2 hrs2 hours ago
    @PeterCreswick Ind'sian radar at Lhokseumawe in Aceh, Sumatra, should have seen entire path in Malacca Strait, but claim they saw nothing.



  4. [Image: wNnCp_04_bigger.jpg]Victor Iannello ‏@RadiantPhysics  2 hrs2 hours ago
    @PeterCreswick Anybody willing to seriously analyze radar data and regional capabilities will conclude there are major inconsistencies.



  5. [Image: wNnCp_04_bigger.jpg]Victor Iannello ‏@RadiantPhysics  2 hrs2 hours ago
    @PeterCreswick Unfortunately, the press is either unwilling or incapable of understanding and then pressing for answers from Malaysia.



  6. [Image: At5D-HdQ_bigger.jpg]Peter Creswick ‏@PeterCreswick  43 mins43 minutes ago
    @RadiantPhysics True for both, unfortunately.


Reply

(10-01-2015, 01:27 AM)ventus45 Wrote:  
  1. Victor, the reason I think we need the lower altitude RSR plots for all 5 radars, and crucially, every radar on Sumartra as well, is that they would set the lowest altitude possible for some of the track points for the "attributed radars".

    In doing so, it might disprove any "low altitude" scenario, (like the Penang turn) and / or, they might even lead to a conclusion that one or more track points are either spurious, OR that the data may have come from an as yet "undisclosed" / secret radar, which could raise even more questions.

    A long shot perhaps, and tedious to do, but in this situation, perhaps worth the effort, especially if the STK system can churn them out relatively simply and quickly.
Reply

Victor Iannello ‏@RadiantPhysics

Can do for other heights accounting for terrain with a tool like STK. However, there is no point in more calcs w/o more info.

Indonesian radar at Lhokseumawe in Aceh, Sumatra, should have seen entire path in Malacca Strait, but claim they saw nothing.

Anybody willing to seriously analyze radar data and regional capabilities will conclude there are major inconsistencies.

Unfortunately, the press is either unwilling or incapable of understanding and then pressing for answers from Malaysia.
Reply

I doubt any of that primary radar is MH370, they as usual misdirected things with incorrect information. Better they had admitted they had nothing.

Pity we cannot find out which radar would have actually been on at that hour of the morning. So someone could at least work out where MH370 did not go.
Reply

Aussie500 - Phuket and Ache were BOTH on and recording.
That was established early on was it not ?
Neither Phuket nor Ache saw MH-370, only, allegedly, Butterworth.
Note that the range ring plots are for 37,000 feet (FL350 due to the temps).
It is not credible that neither Phuket or Ache saw it if it was at FL330+ and M0.84 AND if the Butterworth Malacca Strait Plot is legit, so obviously it is not legit.
Remember that the "Penang turn" was allegedly at "a lower altitude" than cruise.
How low has never been stated with any substance.
But if MH-370 descended to between FL180 and FL250 approaching Penang, and continued SW from Penang over Sumartra via Medan at that level, neither Puket or Ache could see it, but Medan radar could have, and would have, if it was on.
But, Indonesia denies any radar contact at all, except outbound from KL to Igari, but they never said which radar, and whether it was a PSR or SSR or both.
It is likely therefore, that Medan was "closed" for the night, and the perp probably knew that, and took advantage of it, to "slip through the net" SW over Medan and into the SIO.
It was the perfect escape plan, because Butterworth fighters could not chase him into Indonesian Airspace.
H2 himself gave the "game" away in the now famous 4 Corners Interview - "if I had shot it down I would be in more trouble than now" etc.
The Malaysian Gov knows that it "got away" by heading strait into Indonesian Airspace.
That is what they are "protecting".
I have said before that I beleive the "Malacca Strait" plot is fiction, and I stand by it.
This means the true "FMT" was west of Sumartra, SW of Medan, and NOT north of Ache.
This means, (and I have also said it before) that the aircraft ended up about 200 nm west of the ATSB's current 7th Arc SW search limit.
Given that the Malaysians are directing the search, that is, the ATSB are simply "following Malaysia's orders", and since the Malaysians have always used "any" excuse for a "northern and eastery" search, it is clear that the Malaysian Government do not want it found, and if the Australian Government continues to follow Malaysia's directions / orders, they will never find it.
My tax dollars have far more deserving uses.
It is time for the Australian Government to call an end to this abject farce.
Reply

(09-30-2015, 04:48 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  
Quote:[Image: blogmasthead.png?ver=1292892237]


Malaysia ‘hopes for’ MH370 search talks in China next week
Ben Sandilands | Sep 30, 2015 3:31PM |

[Image: Liow-Tong-Lai-610x398.jpg]
Hoping to arrange a date with China, Malaysia transport minister Liow Tiong Lai

Following on China’s snubbing of a tripartite meeting concerning the search for missing flight MH370, Malaysia’s transport minister Liow Tiong Lai says he hopes Australia, Malaysia and China will meet in China next week to discuss a more effective search strategy.

All that has been said about this in Australia at this hour is that today’s weekly MH370 search update will not happen until tomorrow.

Perhaps Australia is working the ‘phones to ensure that Malaysia’s hopes are realised.  It is reasonable to hold that Australia’s relations with the PRC are somewhat better than Malaysia’s.

There are some nuanced references to the progress of the search in this brief Malaysian news report, plus a weird linkage being made between the removal of Tony Abbott from the position of PM and the continuation of the search under Malcolm Turnbull

Ok trying to get this straight??- the officials from the three countries involved in the MH370 SIO search have just met and the Malaysians, with Australian support, are proposing  a Tripartite meeting at a Ministerial level in China next week - ok got it I think?? Confused  

In an update to the above it would appear that the Malaysians are still trying to get that meeting happening, won't be this week though... Confused

Courtesy the IBT:
Quote:Flight MH370 Update: Malaysia Proposes Tripartite Meeting To Discuss Next Step In Search Operation

By Suman Varandani @suman09 s.varandani@ibtimes.com on October 06 2015 5:50 AM EDT

[Image: mh370-search-area.jpg]
The map shows the area where the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 is concentrated. Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Malaysia has proposed a tripartite meeting with transport ministers of Australia and China to discuss the next step in the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. The news of the meeting comes weeks after French prosecutors confirmed that a wing component found in July on Réunion Island came from the missing plane.

Datuk Seri Azharuddin Abdul Rahman, director general of Malaysia’s Civil Aviation Department (DCA), said Monday that the three countries remained committed to the search for the aircraft, Star Online, a local newspaper, reported. The Boeing 777-200 went missing on March 8, 2014, with 239 people on board while on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

“We are looking for a suitable date for the ministers to meet on the way forward in searching for MH370,” Azharuddin reportedly said. “I attended a meeting of senior officials in Beijing last week and the three countries are still committed to the search at the current existing area.”

Azharuddin reportedly said that Malaysia’s Transport Minister Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai has been briefed on the Beijing meeting, which was attended by officials from China's Transport and Foreign ministries and Australia's Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC) and Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). Officials from Malaysia’s transport ministry and DCA as well as representatives from the Flight MH370’s next-of-kin committee also attended the meeting.

However, no other details of the meeting were revealed by Azharuddin, who said that the search operation will continue until next year.

The international search, led by Australia, is underway in a 46,332-square-mile area in the southern Indian Ocean, where authorities believe the plane went down.

In an operational update released last week, JACC stated that Fugro Discovery, which is focused on returning to more than 30 sites in the southern Indian Ocean where search vessels have previously made “sonar contacts of interest,” resurveyed two sonar contacts.

“The resurvey by Fugro Discovery over the past week was able to assist in assessing these contacts as not related to the search for MH370,” JACC said, in the statement, adding that bad weather conditions in the remote part of southern Indian Ocean were hindering the operations.

In regards to Victor's QON:

[Image: wNnCp_04_normal.jpg] Victor Iannello @RadiantPhysics

Malaysian investigators will not address important questions regarding radar until next report in March 2016. #MH370

[Image: untitled.png]

Victor did keep trying but I'm afraid he got the same 'up yours' response...FCOL Dodgy


MTF..P2 Undecided  
Reply

P2;

"Victor did keep trying but I'm afraid he got the same 'up yours' response...FCOL"

Silly Victor. Doesn't he realise that these Governments are all full of piss and wind and all they are good for is 'talking' and sitting in boardrooms 'discussing' things!
Victor brought to them a bag full of hard boiled lollies - one peek into the bag and the spin doctors knew their teeth would get broken so they scampered!

Ha-ha. All the talkers talking together, discussing this, discussing that, gab gab gab. Theories here and hypothesise there, bureaucratic bullshit everywhere!!

Wankers!
Reply

They said they would answer them next year, they answer them now, people might wake up the information is not what it seems. No, wait till next year, after the money runs out and the Aussies have given up looking.
Reply

Aussie my dear girl, the "modern" Annex-13 IS the PROBLEM, not the answer.

A clasic example is our own ATSB.  

Dolan's masterpiece on the ditching at Norfolk Island is up there as a prime example of the problem.
Years, to produce what ?
Rubbish.
May I remind you of the little matter of the spat between Chief Commissioner Dolan (ATSB) and Senator Fawcett, the Senate Estimates ?
Remember that ?

A recap.
They were arguing over which "amendment" to Annex-13 was applicable to the "ditching".
It was all about whether or not the cvr/fdr could, should, would, or must, be recovered.
Dolan used a later amendment than both the date of the accident and the date of the initial decision and report, to post-facto justify his prior decision not to recover them.
He wiggled and squirmend, but he got away, effectively, scott free.
We (the people) lost - yet again.

Sir Humphry Appleby on the other hand, probably smiled.......

The ATSB did not even do any significant investigation of the evacuation or the life jackets etc.  
They are "significant" requirements in Annex-13 are they not ?  
APPARENTLY NOT.

Last I heard, the life jackets were still in the Police Station on Norfolk Island.
It makes you wonder why we have a Senate anyway, when such "incompetence and deriliction of duty" is "allowed" to pass for "world's best practice".
Way beyond reasun me-lud, way beyond reason.

If you have been around as long as I have, grey hair, thick glasses, etc, you can look back at older, earlier reports, and older editions of Annex-13.  
It becomes clear, that over the years, the industry has very skillfully, and very deliberately, progressively amended Annex-13, to water down it's fundamental original purpose, "enhance safety", and have managed to morph it, into a document, seeming designed only to "protect the industry".

With each passing amendment, required time frames get longer, investigative requirements get diluted, and reporting requirements get diluted almost to the point of "why bother at all".  Modern investigations thus take longer, and they produce less substance at the end.  
If you read reports of 20 years ago, and compare them to those of recent years, the trend is clear, as is the obvious intent.

In short, Annex-13's reporting "milestones" have become the "millstone of the truth", in this, and many other investigations.
In days of old, "genuine" investigations were updated more or less "on the fly" so to speak.
Interim reports were issued, and recommendatiions produced, issued, published, and acted upon, also, "on the fly", in public, with full disclosure. The "final report" effectively "consolidated" the lot.

What we have today, is, unfortunately, entirely different.

Annex-13 gives the industry the luxury of playing the time game, to protect itself, it's own interests, not the public interest.
The best way to do that, is to release as little as possible, as late as possible.
People eventually forget, time goes on, it drops of their radar, especially so with the media.

In the case of MH-370, they are not just "letting the money run out", more importantly, more significantly, and more specifically, they are deliberately "running out the clock".

I listened to an address on ABC Radio by Angus Houston in Adelaide recently.
http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programitem/...?play=true
He spent almpost the entire speech on MH-17.  
What little he said about MH-370 (at the very end) was all about "damping down expectations" - "it took us 75 years to find HMAS Sydney" ... etc.
What does that tell you ?
Cast your mind back.
When did Angus come on scene with the JACC ?
When did he leave the JACC ?
The JACC still exists, and does what, of substance ?

The Chinese have walked away from the sham of this investigation already.
How long before it is shut down entirely ?
Reply

Two wise, far too much Wise.

I got really fed up with the “Wise” pontification when he had the aircraft halfway to hells gate in some place long forsaken by the gods.  The endless self promotion and leaps of faith required turned the stomach.  

Now he’s got barnacles – and a good story until once again a leap of faith is required.  Now I can support the ‘research’ done by others; all sound – then “tethered” is brought into the mix and it’s off on another Wise self advertising spree.  

None of the serious researchers have drawn conclusions from the ‘barnacles’ let alone a notion that somehow, the bloody aircraft was “tethered” like an old horse to a tree stump somewhere.  I call Bollocks, from a purely ‘engineering’ perspective, it’s bollocks, before we get anywhere near logistics and technique and damage.  Bollocks: even Beaker makes more sense.

Apart from that, the research was 'interesting' and well argued, pity it was hi-jacked.
Reply

Tethered or snagged? Big difference in definition & implication, especially when you read this bit:

Quote:Duration of immersion


Up until now, it has been assumed that the flaperon was deposited somewhere along the 7th arc soon when MH370 impacted the southern Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014. If it was actively tethered to the seabed, obviously, this timeline is no longer relevant. Instead, we can turn to the barnacles to provide some indication of the likely duration of the flaperon’s immersion.

“Assuming they have enough food, and the temperature is good, barnacles will follow a steady growth progression,” Venn says.

The clock starts running the moment the flaperon hits the water: So long as the water is warm enough, Lepas will begin to colonize an object almost immediately. (Yachtsman who make long oceanic passages report that after spending a few weeks heeled over on a single tack a section of hull that is normally high and dry can pick up a colony of Lepas; Venn says she has seen cyprids attach to material as ephemeral as floating paper bags.) While the precise growth rate depends on water temperature and food availability, a rough notion of these parameters is enough to yield a ball-park figure for how long immersion has continued. Earlier this year, Venn co-authored a paper in which she and her colleagues ascertained that a human body found floating off the cost of Italy must have been in the water at least 65 to 90 days, based on the size of the Lepas barnacles growing on its clothes.6

We can do something similar for the barnacles on the flaperon, using the Mayotte boat as a reference. Since both traveled through a similar stretch of the southern Indian Ocean, their growth rates should be in the same ball park.

By comparing features on the flaperon to reference objects of a known size (e.g., the rear door of a Gendarmerie Land Rover Defender in Figure 16) we can estimate the capitulum lengths of the largest barnicles on the flaperon. They turn out to be approximately 2.3 cm.

Applying the same technique to the Mayotte barnacles yields capitulum lengths of about 3.5 cm.

Yusa’s paper on Lepas growth rates states that “Individuals <5 mm long (mean ± SE = 3.09 ± 0.19 mm) grew rapidly, reaching 12.45 ± 0.54 mm on day 15 (Fig. 2). After that, their growth slowed and finally reached 16.26 ± 0.49 mm on day 42.”

The Lepas anserifera that Yusa studied are somewhat smaller than the Lepas anatifera that predominate on the flaperon, but if we use Yusa’s growth rate as a conservative lower bound, and suppose that the largest flaperon barnacles were 16.3 mm at day 42 and grew at 0.1 mm/day thereafter, that means it would take them another 67 days to reach 2.3 cm, for a total growth time of 109 days, or about four months.

If they proceeded to grow at 0.1 mm for the following four months, that would take them to 3.5 cm, which is what the Mayotte barnacles achieved.

Interestingly, when I asked Yusa via email how long it seemed to him that the colony had been growing on the Reunion Island flaperon, based on photographs I sent, Yusa answered: “I would guess that they had been there for a short time (between 2 weeks and a few months).”


Venn’s seat-of-the-pants estimate was “less than six months.”
 
As always some of the best parts of the Wise blog piece is in the comments from some of the usual suspects & regular MH370 followers, worth the time the read & digest.
This comment from Ed is a still developing story...
Quote:[Image: d19ab11ee9ed2e6a7721cd08242eb0d7?s=32&d=mm&r=g] Ed
Posted October 10, 2015 at 2:33 PM
This just appeared about possible wreckage, thought you might find it of interest.
http://english.astroawani.com/malaysia-n...ines-76029
  
Quote:Police receive report on wreckage believed to be MH370 found in southern Philippines

Astro Awani | October 11, 2015 00:59 MYT

[Image: 51444494827_950x600.jpg]
Datuk Jalaludin Abdul Rahman confirmed receiving a report and said investigations will be carried out. - File Photo

KUALA LUMPUR: Sabah police have confirmed they received a report on Saturday of an aircraft wreckage that was found on a southern Philippine island.

Sabah police chief, Datuk Jalaludin Abdul Rahman in a statement released late Saturday, confirmed receiving the report and said investigations will be carried out.

The report was lodged at the Sandakan police station by Jamil Omar on Friday.

According to Jalaludin, Jamil claimed his aunt Siti Kayam had stumbled upon the aircraft wreckage on Sugbay Island, Tawi-Tawi.

“Jamil claimed his aunt had entered the aircraft wreckage which had many human skeletons and bones. She also found a Malaysian flag measuring 70 inches long and 35 inches wide,” he said.

He said, the Special Branch will record a statement from Jamil to obtain more information regarding the find.

Jalaludin however stressed, the information received has yet to be verified.

[Image: 81444494525_freesize.jpg]
 

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the French-led investigation team previously have confirmed that an aircraft wreckage known as ‘flaperon’ which was found on Reunion Island belonged to MH370 which went missing on March 8, 2014.

The aircraft, carrying 239 passengers and crew members, was on its way to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur.
..&
Quote:Man claims MH370 wreckage on south Philippines island

by ruben sario

[Image: mh370reporttawi101015.ashx?w=620&h=413&crop=1&]

KOTA KINABALU: Sabah police have received a report claiming that an aircraft wreckage with the Malaysian flag painted on it was found on a southern Philippines island.

The report was made by a man who said the wreckage with human remains inside was spotted by his nephew, from the southern Philippine island of Tawi Tawi,  at Ubian Island in southern Phillippines several days ago.

State Commissioner Datuk Jalaluddin Abdul Rahman said the man made the report at the Sandakan police station on Saturday.

“This matter is being investigated,” he told The Star in a text message.

In the report the man, an audio visual technician in his 40s, said his nephew and a few others were hunting for birds when they spotted the wreckage on the island. 

They managed to get near the wreckage where they found human bones. They also found skeletal remains in the pilot's chair with the seat belt fastened.

Before leaving the area, they took a flag they found in the wreckage.

The man said he informed police as the wreckage could be that of an airplane that disappeared last year.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 disappeared in March last year en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 passengers and crew on board, most of them China nationals.
The incident triggered one of the largest search for an aircraft focusing in the Southern Indian Ocean.

Last month, French authorities confirmed a  piece of wing found on the shore of Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean has been identified as part of the MH370 wreckage.

The flaperon was found on the shore of the French-governed island on July 29 and Malaysian authorities have said paint colour and maintenance-record matches proved it came from the missing Boeing 777 aircraft.

Hmm...so a something? or a nothing?

MTF..P2 Huh
Reply

(10-11-2015, 07:36 AM)kharon Wrote:  Two wise, far too much Wise.

I got really fed up with the “Wise” pontification when he had the aircraft halfway to hells gate in some place long forsaken by the gods.  The endless self promotion and leaps of faith required turned the stomach.  

Now he’s got barnacles – and a good story until once again a leap of faith is required.  Now I can support the ‘research’ done by others; all sound – then “tethered” is brought into the mix and it’s off on another Wise self advertising spree.  

None of the serious researchers have drawn conclusions from the ‘barnacles’ let alone a notion that somehow, the bloody aircraft was “tethered” like an old horse to a tree stump somewhere.  I call Bollocks, from a purely ‘engineering’ perspective, it’s bollocks, before we get anywhere near logistics and technique and damage.  Bollocks: even Beaker makes more sense.

Apart from that, the research was 'interesting' and well argued, pity it was hi-jacked.

Maybe tethered was the wrong word to use, maybe it hung around in the water off the island  for a while, waiting for a current strong enough to get it washed up on the beach. Being submerged, and pretty big, it might have run into a sand bank or something. Barnacles grow pretty quick, if it was colonized where it dropped, it would be covered in the things.

Plane wreckage found on Tawi Tawi island could be from QZ8501, have to wait and see what they announce, if they investigate it.

There is also the missing Flying Tiger 739 from 1962 they never found.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 5 Guest(s)