[ventus45]

If you ever wanted a heads up for the end of the MH-370 story, there it is. 

The search will end in June 2016.

Like all politicians and senior bureaucrats, Dolan is well versed in the art of "on-message", but he has a masters in "spin" - that's why / how he got promoted to the top job, and keeps it.

Quote:


‘No push to drop rogue theory’

[Image: 4ae29aa39412bb4bbf8e4c0a3343a645]

12:00am

EAN HIGGINS

(001) The head of the MH370 search has denied Malaysia was applying pressure to reject theories a "rogue pilot" flew it to its end.

(002) The head of the Australian organisation searching for Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 has denied Malaysia was applying pressure to reject theories a “rogue pilot” flew it to its end, but said the Malaysians support that approach.

(003) Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Martin Dolan told The Australian the Malaysians accepted the ATSB’s determination the satellite tracking data for the last part of the flight was consistent with the crew being disabled by lack of oxygen from decompression or otherwise “unresponsive”.

(004) In an ABC radio interview yesterday, Mr Dolan rejected assertions by veteran commercial airline pilots that MH370, which disappeared with 239 people aboard on March 8, 2014, on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, was most likely hijacked by captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah and flown right through to ditch in the southern Indian Ocean.

(005) “We have certainly considered that as a possibility; all the evidence we have at the moment says that is very unlikely,” he told the ABC.

(006) As reported by The Australian this week, former US airline captain John Cox said the fact MH370 ended radio contact and radar transponder transmission early in the flight, and flew a course right along the airspace boundary between Thailand and Malaysia before turning south, points to an “intentional act” by the pilot to try to avoid detection.

(007) Mr Dolan said the ATSB was concerned only with what happened to MH370 after it made its final turn south.
(008) “Speculation about who might have done what and why … is the responsibility of the Malaysian investigation and secondly is not important to our job, which is to find the aircraft.”

(009) He said there was no need to change the priority search area to include a “rogue pilot” theory because satellite tracking data indicated the plane was not subject to pilot inputs on the last long leg and was on autopilot.

(010) Some observers in the aviation community have suggested Malaysia was pressuring Australia to ignore the possibility the captain hijacked his aircraft because it could be construed as a political act, since he was a strong supporter and relative of opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim.

(011) Mr Dolan said: “The Malaysian government is aware of and supports the basis on which we have determined the priority search area.”

(012) He denied Malaysian authorities had asked the ATSB to ignore the rogue pilot theory.

Well let's take this apart statement by statement.

He has three messages in this interview.
I have added sentence / statement numbers to the article above. There are 12 statements. Each has a purpose. Ten are Dolan's, two are editorial padding.

Well, let's see what his "on-message" - real message(s) are:.

PRIME MESSAGE = No "rogue pilot theory".
(A-1) First and last statements - opening and closing - "on-message" start - "on-message" finish - always the way.
(001) The head of the MH370 search has denied Malaysia was applying pressure to reject theories a "rogue pilot" flew it to its end.
(012) He denied Malaysian authorities had asked the ATSB to ignore the rogue pilot theory.

(A-2) Reinforce that Prime Message.
(002) The head of the Australian organisation searching for Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 has DENIED Malaysia was applying pressure to reject theories a “rogue pilot” flew it to its end, but said the Malaysians support that approach.
[double-speak = Everyone has got that wrong.  We have not been pressured by the Malaysian. Quite to the contrary - the Malaysians AGREE WITH US - that there was no rouge pilot.]
(004) In an ABC radio interview yesterday, Mr Dolan rejected assertions by veteran commercial airline pilots that MH370, which disappeared with 239 people aboard on March 8, 2014, on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, was most likely hijacked by captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah and flown right through to ditch in the southern Indian Ocean.
(009) He said there was no need to change the priority search area to include a “rogue pilot” theory because satellite tracking data indicated the plane was not subject to pilot inputs on the last long leg and was on autopilot.

SECONDARY MESSAGE = The "Pontius Pilate" - get out of gaol free card - ready for June 2016.
We are ONLY the "searchers" - for the Malaysians. The Malaysians" are the "investigators".
(B-1) We are NOT investigating the CAUSE, we are ONLY SEARCHING for the aircraft.
(007) Mr Dolan said the ATSB was concerned ONLY with what happened to MH370 AFTER it made its final turn south.
(008) “Speculation about who might have done what and why … is the responsibility of the Malaysian investigation and secondly is not important to our job, which is to find the aircraft.”

TERTIARY MESSAGE = Justify the existing "search strategy".
(C-1) Zombie Flight South - not a piloted flight south.
(003) Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Martin Dolan told The Australian the Malaysians accepted the ATSB’s determination the satellite tracking data for the last part of the flight was consistent with the crew being disabled by lack of oxygen from decompression or otherwise “unresponsive”.
(005) “We have certainly considered that as a possibility; all the evidence we have at the moment says that is very unlikely,” he told the ABC.
(011) Mr Dolan said: “The Malaysian government is aware of and supports the basis on which we have determined the priority search area.”

That only leaves two statements for editorial padding.
(006) As reported by The Australian this week, former US airline captain John Cox said the fact MH370 ended radio contact and radar transponder transmission early in the flight, and flew a course right along the airspace boundary between Thailand and Malaysia before turning south, points to an “intentional act” by the pilot to try to avoid detection.
(010) Some observers in the aviation community have suggested Malaysia was pressuring Australia to ignore the possibility the captain hijacked his aircraft because it could be construed as a political act, since he was a strong supporter and relative of opposition figure Anwar Ibrahim.

So, Mr Dolan has in fact told us four things.
(1) Australia, and the ATSB, are only "sub contracted searchers".
(2) The "search" is based on the satellite data only.
(3) We are not in any way involved in the "investigation". 
(4) The search will end on completion of the 120,000 square kilomtres.

We are just like all the volunteers that go out and form the search lines when looking for a lost child in a forest. If we find the child alive - great.  But all too often - we don't - we find the dead body, and our role terminates, the police seal the crime scene - no further involvement - thanks very much - now go home and keep your mouth shut - you are not allowed to talk about what you found or saw - etc - etc - we all know the drill.

The same situation applies here. There are no survivors to be found. In this case, if we find the wreck (if ........ ) we will return to port, and the Malaysians will take custody of the wreck-site (just like the French did with AF-447).

The Australian Government is not interested in the death of the SIX Australians on board, but the French Government are are very much interested in the death of their TWO citizens.  Long ago, they launched a judicial criminal investigation, and they have kept the flaperon under lock and key because of that.

Now you see the "spin" ?

The "real" message - is message number two, not message number one.
The "Pontius Pilate" is not just  for "him", it really is for the government.

A smarter-sneakier bureaucrat, diligently and skilfully serving his masters, would be hard to find.
I will give him that.

Listen to him here.
A Freudian slip perhaps ? at 6-minutes-17-seconds ?

[Kharon]

A small red dot.

Only a small, local curiosity but it comes up from time to time, usually over a beer whenever the 370 search is mentioned.  I’m not even sure they are significant questions, but, they make the old curiosity bump itch – on occasion.

Why was the search passed down the food chain to the ATSB? and why was the discredited Dolan pushed centre stage, into the media spotlight?  Why was AMSA side lined?    

The AMSA have a peerless reputation and they are considered the experts in SAR.  Essentially, (according to the spin) Australia’s 370 role is firmly rooted in the ‘search’ as it is Malaysia’s ‘investigation’.  When it comes to the search, it’s fair enough for the media to ask questions of the Australian end; i.e. Dolan, but there is scant attention to, or reporting of the actual ‘investigation’.  I can’t say I’ve seen a lot of insightful comment on the Malaysian ‘investigative’ effort; speculation sure, but a marked lack of press ‘investigation’.  Speculation and commentary by the cart load, but little independent ‘investigation’ or analysis of  that investigation.  Unless you count the Hedley ‘non sequitur’ as ‘investigative journalism’.  

It’s all passing strange; if Dolan and ATSB are not involved in the ‘investigation’, but simply acting out of role, doing the search heavy lifting, then why were two overseas trips needed; one to Malaysia and one to France?  If you continue the V45 ‘line search’ analogy, there is no requirement for a ‘searcher’ to turn up in the forensic laboratory to examine the finds, so WTF was Dolan doing, swanning off to see the ‘finds’ and being 'seen' as embroiled in the ‘investigation’.  Any changes made to the search would be as a result of Malaysian investigation, not Australia’s.  

It’s also passing strange that despite being ‘under investigation’ ATSB has been allowed such a high media profile, especially given that the ‘man-in-charge’ had to be driven to recover a ‘black-box’ unit from a known wreck, in shallow water after a unique accident.  It took a Senate inquiry, a peer review and a ministerial directive to make that happen.  The re-opened investigation into that accident is only happening as a direct result of that pressure. The industry is still awaiting the resulting report.

There is a line of argument which says that Dolan was shunted into the job as a last chance.  Do well and some of the detritus attached to the reputation could be smoothed off; bugger it up and it’s off to the knackers yard.   Given the ‘malleable’, cooperative nature of the beyond all reason methodology, the relatively simple nature of ‘overseeing’ a search and the total lack of any real responsibility, it seems a reasonable call.  Only one of several possible reasons for explaining why AMSA (SAR specialist) was nudged out of the spotlight.  There are other unresolved arguments about ‘why’, but they, like the above, are pure speculation and as much a mystery as the loss of the aircraft.

Aye, the mystery of messages out and signals in.  

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Bailey v ATSB - RD II - BB takes the points

Well the games have a well & truly begun, in today's episode Byron Bailey systematically ticks off the QRH and even has time to refer to the MH370 SIO FCOM & B777 POH, all in a day's work for today's professional airline Captain...  :

Missing flight MH370 can only be explained by pilot control

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• January 16, 2016 12:00AM
  

Fugro Discovery is one of the vessels searching for the remains of Flight MH370.

Last Saturday, in an article published in Inquirer, I added my voice to others in the aviation community to assert that the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 on March 8, 2014, with the loss of all 239 people aboard, was most likely due to a pilot hijacking. I concluded that the most likely culprit was the flight’s captain, Zaharie Ahmad Shah.

The fact that MH370, an ultra-modern Boeing 777, ended radio contact and radar transponder transmission early in the flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing and flew a course right along the airspace boundary between Thailand and Malaysia before turning south, points to an intentional act by a pilot to try to avoid detection. In my article I pointed out that this shows the aircraft was under pilot control well after communications were lost because without an intentional act by the pilot the auto­pilot would have continued the track to Beijing.

I also relied on an unconfirmed report that Malaysian military radar revealed MH370 had climbed to 45,000 feet as it tracked across northern Malaysia, and that the only reason for doing this would be to incapacitate passengers and crew by hypoxia (lack of oxygen). Pilots, on the other hand, have masks with selectable pressure breathing capacity.
This week, Air Transport Safety Bureau spokesman Dan O’Malley maintained that the authority was standing by its preferred unconscious aircrew theory.

“The final stages of the ‘unresponsive crew/hypoxia’ event-type appeared to best fit the available evidence for the final ­period of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a generally southerly direction,” O’Malley said in a statement to The Australian.

There are two types of decompression events. The first is explosive decompression, which would have to be caused by some extraneous event such as a small bomb that causes a hole in the aircraft fuselage.

In cruise at 37,000 feet, the difference in pressure from having the cabin altitude at 6000 feet to outside pressure is 8.8 pounds per square inch (psi). Loss of all pressure would be very ­noticeable to the crew: ears pop, fog forms, there is noise.

Sitting alongside a pilot’s elbow is a quick-donning “octopus” mask that can be placed over one’s head with one hand to breathe immediately 100 per cent oxygen. This only takes seconds and is practised frequently in simulator recurrent training by airline pilots.
It is inconceivable that pilots from a world-class airline such as Malaysia Airlines would not, as their first immediate action, don their oxygen masks.

The time of useful consciousness at 37,000 feet is 20 to 40 seconds. This is plenty of time for the crew to react. The pilots’ next action is to initiate an emergency ­descent while selecting emergency on their transponder to alert air traffic control.

The second decompression event is creeping decompression and this would probably occur as the result of a technical fault in the aircraft’s pressurisation system. Bear in mind that cabin altitude and differential pressure are continuously displayed in green font on the pilots’ flight display.

Even if the pilots did not notice a slow rise in cabin altitude, the following would occur, courtesy of the engine-indicating and crew-alerting system. At a cabin altitude of 8500 feet an amber master caution light would flash continuously in front of each pilot (until cancelled by pilot action), plus there would be a loud chime as well as a “cabin altitude” warning.

This is to prompt the pilots to take action to sort out the problem by checklist action such as selecting manual control to give direct pneumatic control of the outflow valves to the pilots. The pilots may elect to carry out a rapid descent while troubleshooting.

If this did not fix the problem, then at 10,000 feet cabin altitude, the following occurs: there is a loud voice message — “cabin altitude” — plus three loud chimes, plus a red master warning light flashing in front of each pilot, as well as a red warning message “cabin altitude”.

This is to get pilots to initiate an emergency descent. If they do not, at 13,500 feet a cabin altitude limiter closes the outflow valves so the climb rate in cabin altitude can only be from fuselage leaking.

The people from the ATSB should get some practice in an RAAF high-altitude pressure chamber, as I have done. (I once blacked out at 42,000 feet at night in a fighter jet due to a pressurisation problem and regained consciousness at 16,000 feet.) They should then stop basing their pilot incapacitation theories on 40-year-old movies. - Ol'yeah it is getting personal now 

A spokesman for the ATSB has confirmed again that the bureau’s investigation is based on the theory of an explosive decompression leading to unconscious pilots due to hypoxia.

If this theory had been applied to Qantas, as an example, I am sure the Qantas chief pilot and plenty of line pilots would be offended at the suggestion they were not up to the task of handling such an event. This time-critical event is ­practised frequently and tested in simulator training as part of ­immediate action emergency drills, which are performed from memory.

At 35,000 feet the time of useful consciousness is 30 to 60 seconds but professional airline pilots are trained without hesitation — as their first action on recognising the explosive decompression — to put on their quick-donning masks with emergency 100 per cent oxygen. The managing pilot then initiates an emergency descent while the other pilot selects emergency on the transponder to alert traffic control and verifies that auto passenger masks drop.

Why would this have been any different with Malaysia Airlines? It beggars belief that its pilots would not react appropriately according to their training. An event that totally and immediately incapacitated the pilots would be so serious that it is very doubtful the aircraft could keep flying towards Beijing, let alone for another seven hours. The explosive decompression theory carries very little weight.

I have been criticised (rightly so — I am a pilot, not a journalist) for relying on newspaper reports without confirming the source of the information. An example of this is the supposed climb to 45,000 feet as the aircraft tracked across northern Malaysia. The data supposedly came from subsequent analysis of military radar.

A B777-200, after the 26-minute climb out of Kuala Lumpur for Beijing, would have approximately 40 tons of fuel left and with 239 people on board the optimum cruise altitude would be around 37,000 feet. This altitude would increase as weight decreased with the burning of fuel.

Virgin B737s generally cruise around Australia at 41,000 feet. The B777 would easily make 4000 feet above optimum (41,000) and at a stretch 43,000, but 45,000 would, with the thin air, not be possible as the wing loading would not permit it, even with the excess thrust of those big engines.

So why bother with a climb? If, as postulated, the captain, after donning his own mask, depressurised the aircraft, then the passengers would have only 10 minutes of chemically generated oxygen — assuming the captain had not disabled the auto drop function of the passenger oxygen system.

However, placed around the cabin are walk-around oxygen bottles with a mask that have a duration of more than one hour.

Were the aircraft to climb higher, this would render the walk-around oxygen bottles — if used by the cabin crew, or the co-pilot if he was locked out of the cockpit — ineffective in terms of preventing unconsciousness.

Above 35,000 feet, and especially above 40,000 feet, oxygen under pressure is required to prevent loss of consciousness as the pressure differential is insufficient for the lungs to get enough oxygen. Only pilots’ masks have this selectable pressure breathing capability.

So this may be a reason for the climb.

After MH370’s 26-minute climb to cruising altitude, the cabin crew would be very busy with the service. A good captain, not wanting to interrupt the service, would request the co-pilot to go back to the galley and fetch a coffee or whatever. Since 9/11, airlines mandate the cockpit door is locked at all times and verification is required for entry to the cockpit.

The door unlock switchlight is on a console between the pilots’ seats. When a pilot wishes to leave the cockpit, he stands by the door while the other pilot briefly unlocks it, then re-locks the door after exit. Cockpit entry is therefore impossible for anyone if the pilot inside does not permit it.

Last week I cited a newspaper report that the flaperon found on Reunion Island was broken in a way that indicated low-speed impact with the water. The report attributed this information to John Cox, a renowned aviation safety consultant. It appears this information was from an unconfirmed source, not from Cox.

However, it remains the case that when retracted the flaperon is an integral part of the wing and would not be broken off separately unless it were lowered. The only way for that to occur would, in my opinion, be when an engine is torn off backwards when contacting the water, ripping the flaperon, which is immediately behind the engine, from its brackets — on the proviso that it is lowered.

The ATSB, after initially saying the damage to the flaperon was caused by a high-speed dive prior to crashing, changed its mind to say it supported the flame-out ­theory and an uncontrolled glide to a soft touchdown on water that explained the absence of debris.
Well, flying a heavy aircraft such as a B777 requires the pilot to start selecting flap so it can reduce speed to less than, say, 210 knots (400km/h). An aircraft without the flap lowered would be at such a speed that a soft impact would be impossible; it would be more like a crash, with broken parts and debris. We know it did not crash because there was no debris.

Byron Bailey, a veteran commercial pilot with more than 45 years’ experience and 26,000 flying hours, is a former RAAF fighter pilot and trainer and was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years, during which he flew the same model B777 as MH370.

Over to you Beaker...

Captain: "Handing over..??"
Beaker: "..Mi..mi..mi..mi..mi...."


MTF...P2

[ventus45]

Aircraft Oxygen systems.

From FAR § 91.211 Supplemental oxygen.

(b) Pressurized cabin aircraft.

(1) No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry with a pressurized cabin—

(i) At flight altitudes above flight level 250 unless at least a 10-minute supply of supplemental oxygen, in addition to any oxygen required to satisfy paragraph (a) of this section, is available for each occupant of the aircraft for use in the event that a descent is necessitated by loss of cabin pressurization; and

(ii) At flight altitudes above flight level 350 unless one pilot at the controls of the airplane is wearing and using an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed and that either supplies oxygen at all times or automatically supplies oxygen whenever the cabin pressure altitude of the airplane exceeds 14,000 feet (MSL), except that the one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen mask while at or below flight level 410 if there are two pilots at the controls and each pilot has a quick-donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position within 5 seconds, supplying oxygen and properly secured and sealed.

(Note this bit)
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if for any reason at any time it is necessary for one pilot to leave the controls of the aircraft when operating at flight altitudes above flight level 350, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an oxygen mask until the other pilot has returned to that crew member's station.

<end of FAR extract>


The timing of the first "maintaining FL350" and the second "maintaining FL350" may indicate the interval when the mask was put on, if it was indeed put on.

When you think about it, if a planned event, it would be wise to "ensure" that the mask mike was working, "before" the expected hand-off from KL to HMC. You would not want to be fumbling about then if you had already de-pressurised, now would you.

A forensic audio spectral analysis of the ATC tape "might" be able to confirm that, irrespective of whether or not the two transmissions were made by the same person, or not.  

They might have to do a lot of tests with many test subjects, both pilots and non-pilots, both with mask off, and with mask on, and also both pressurised and de-pressurised, to build up a spectral data base, to enable them to determine that though.

Depending on the "quality" of the ATC tapes, it would be an obvious thing to do, now wouldn't it.

OK, they (the investigators) have already done it, and they have the results, they just aren't telling us. I wonder why ?


ADDED 54 MINUTES LATER

OK, perhaps they may not have got anything very useful.
I did suggest they needed to do the tests both mask on and mask off, and also pressurised and de-pressurised.
That is a 2 x 2 matrix of 4 conditions.
Here is the reason for the FOUR tests.
We have to test for the "NULL" condition at the second "maintaining FL350", to see if it is either the same, or different, at the hand-off.

Consider the time-line:
Time 00:50:08 (16:50:08 utc) MH-370 was cleared to the planned cruising altitude of FL350 by Lumpur Radar.
Time 01:01:17 (17:01:17 utc) MH-370 reported maintaining FL350.
Time 01:07:29 (17:07:29 utc) Last ACARS message from MH-370.
Time 01:07:56 (17:07:56 utc) MH-370 reported maintaining FL350 for the second time.
Time 01:19:26 (17:19:26 utc) Lumpur Radar instructed MH-370 to contact Ho Chi Minh Air Traffic Control Centre, Vietnam:
"Malaysian Three Seven Zero contact Ho Chi Minh 120 decimal 9 Good Night".
Time 01:19:30 (17:19:30 utc) One of the flight crew members replied:
"Good night, Malaysian Three Seven Zero."
Time 01:20:31 (17:20:31 utc) Radar (primary or secondary ?) shows MH-370 at IGARI.
Time 01:20:36 (17:20:36 utc) Mode-S symbol for MH-370 dropped off the radar display.
Time 01:21:13 (17:21:13 utc) Last SSR symbol for MH-370 dropped off the radar display.
Time 01:37:00 (17:37:00 utc) Next scheduled 30 minute ACARS that was never sent.

There is ONLY a 27 second window (time interval) between the sending of the last ACARS at 01:07:29 (17:07:29 utc) and the "second - maintaining FL350" at 01:07:56 (17:07:56 utc).
If it was a "planned event" - this may be the key.

He would know that the cruise ACARS was scheduled for about that time, so he would be waiting for it, he would have the screen up and be watching for it to go out, ie, be transmitted. 

Only then, after it had gone, could he act.  
He could not de-pressurise any earlier, otherwise ACARS would report it.
So he now has 30 minutes before MAS Flight Following might even suspect something.

He then dons the mask, and checks oxygen flow, and then checks the mike, transmit "maintaining FL350" again.

TWENTY SEVEN SECONDS is just the rite amount of time to do that, slowly, methodically, and carefully.

So, 4 seconds later, at Time 01:08:00 (17:08:00 utc) he (whoever it is) is ready.

Let the games begin, any time from now....................

[Peetwo]

Very good post V..   

The recent Byron Bailey contributions if nothing else certainly gets you revisiting past thoughts, cogitations & permutations on the tragic disappearance of MH370.

All still very much speculation but that last BB article severely swings the pendulum to human intervention, way too many unexplained aberrations for mine.

There is still a probability of a 3rd party human intervention that can't be minimised to less than 1% just yet. However the V post does narrow the margin somewhat.

Taking the V observations with the Captain as the last person to transmit (via VHF to KL ATC) the turning off of ACARS, the transponders off past IGARI and the reprogramming of the FMC to track waypoints on FIR boundary etc..etc is pretty damning. 

I guess there is still a chance that a 3rd party who was invited on the flight deck could have disabled/killed the Captain & FO immediately after the last radio TX. However it must be said that he/she/they would have to have been extremely organised, motivated and expert in B777 systems & ATC procedure, to have carried out all the required actions in the short timeline of the currently accepted narrative from the Malaysians & ATSB.

{V from experience (of suffering a rapid decompression) the voice transmissions through a quick don mask on 100% is quite distinctive, very Darth Vader-ish - if that helps  P2}


MTF...P2  

 

[ventus45]

P2

What I am suggesting, is that the mask may have been on, whilst still pressurised, almost certainly for the second "maintaining FL350", but it could be either way at the hand-off. In any case, if he had already slowly, not explosively depressurised, by the time of the hand-off, would he not be able to talk pretty normally ?  

The sounds of pressure breathing would be a give away, if he had to breathe, but for the brief transmission at the hand-off, "Good night, Malaysian Three Seven Zero", he would have said that in one single exhale cycle, so no inhale cycle recorded, so little if any, perhaps very subtle "signal" evidence for the spectral analysis.  Thus many many test subjects may be required to build a database good enough to pick it out of the signal noise, so to speak.

Acoustics is not my thing though, just throwing around "thought bombs".

What do you think of that ?

[Peetwo]

P2

What I am suggesting, is that the mask may have been on, whilst still pressurised, almost certainly for the second "maintaining FL350", but it could be either way at the hand-off. In any case, if he had already slowly, not explosively depressurised, by the time of the hand-off, would he not be able to talk pretty normally ?  

The sounds of pressure breathing would be a give away, if he had to breathe, but for the brief transmission at the hand-off, "Good night, Malaysian Three Seven Zero", he would have said that in one single exhale cycle, so no inhale cycle recorded, so little if any, perhaps very subtle "signal" evidence for the spectral analysis.  Thus many many test subjects may be required to build a database good enough to pick it out of the signal noise, so to speak.

Acoustics is not my thing though, just throwing around "though bombs".

What do you think of that ?

From my experience talking through the mask mic sounds distinctively muffled whether on 100% or NORM.

It would also be easy enough to reinflate quick don (release head pressure) talk on headset mic or handheld & then deflate/refit mask. Probably 1-2 seconds longer than the TX call.

Definitely not much risk if a/c was slowly depressurising or on a max cabin altitude schedule.

P2

[Peetwo]

Ben Sandilands comment on the Bailey latest:

Ben Sandilands

Posted January 16, 2016 at 8:54 pm | Permalink
As I noted at the time, the original BB article may have been edited, and the explainer today restores what I suspected might have been cut out, and concedes the point about the climb to FL450 being rubbish.

Mr Bailey also retracts the comments he attributed to John Cox. What are we left with? I think it’s a good article, as I said at the outset, and some of the conclusions may well be correct. But it’s not a definitive explanation of the mystery, and Mr Bailey has ignored the technical sequence of events preferred by the defence and science study commissioned by the ATSB, parts of which need to be refuted if his version of events is correct.

The critical part concerns the two stage flame out, the deployment of the ram air turbine, and the doppler analysis of the final signal from jet to satellite. This isn’t about the data contained, but the actual sending of the data, consistent with a satellite position of about 44 degrees above the horizon at the seventh arc.

I notice also that the second article today shifts somewhat toward ambiguity as to whether the pilot deliberately flew the jet to its end (deprived of all engine power, which would be odd to say the least) or had been previously incapacitated.

Nowhere has the ATSB definitely said other than through an apparent second hand conversation between Mr Bailey and its spokesperson, that the pilot was unconscious. It says it favours as an explanation, the pilot being unconscious.

I would be the last person in the room to go to bat for the ATSB on many, many issues, but it has been verballed, unintentionally I’m sure, into taking a rigid position that suits the premises of the article, but not the facts.

This is wrong, even if some of Mr Bailey’s suspicions, which are perfectly reasonable ones, are eventually deemed correct.

Let’s go back to the early stages of the narrative from official sources. It was that the aircraft was intentionally diverted from its filed flight path. That has actually been one of the few things consistently said by the authorities in KL throughout this saga. It remains their position, even though it is unclear when or if that intentional diversion was further diverted to a flight to oblivion in the SIO.

The authorities in KL have never said the captain did it. They may think he did it, but they haven’t said he did, and it remains possible someone else did it.

This doesn’t prevent the unconscious pilot scenario coming into effect after whatever the original plot was, came unstuck.

I hope this very untidy comment helps people understand that popular media efforts to simplify the disappearance of MH370 are fraught with the risks of misrepresentation of contrary evidence and uncertainty as to what the known facts actually mean.

[Peetwo]

And at the end of RD II -   The PAIN Moderators have consulted an awarded points, & they are???? Bailey 2pts & Beaker 2pts which means that points are even - WOW who'd of thought     

Correcting the record

When media reports contain incorrect or inaccurate information about the ATSB, we correct the record on this page.

---

Inaccuracies in reporting on the search for MH370

18 January 2016

An article, The Case for Pilot Hijack by Byron Bailey, appearing in the 9-10 January 2016 edition of The Weekend Australian, contained significant inaccuracies and misunderstandings about the ATSB’s role in the search for MH370. Many of those inaccuracies were repeated in subsequent items both in The Australian and other media outlets. It is important that the ATSB corrects the record.

It is the responsibility of the Government of Malaysia, as the state of registration of the aircraft, to establish why MH370 disappeared and it has established an Annex 13 Investigation to undertake this activity. All enquiries in regard to the investigation should be directed to MH370SafetyInvestigation@mot.gov.my.

Australia was asked by Malaysia to assist in the search effort for missing flight MH370. The ATSB’s role is to lead the current underwater search operations for the missing aircraft. The ATSB continues to coordinate the Search Strategy Working Group and their collective work has led to the definition of the search area. This international team has expertise in satellite communications, aircraft systems, data modelling and accident investigation. It includes specialists from (and who draw on the broader expertise of) the following organisations: 

• Air Accidents Investigation Branch (UK)
  
• Boeing (USA)
  
• Defence Science and Technology Organisation (Australia)
  
• Department of Civil Aviation (Malaysia)
  
• Inmarsat (UK)
  
• National Transportation Safety Board (USA)
  
• Thales (UK)  
  
  

Mr Bailey’s article claims that the ATSB rejects any possibility that MH370’s disappearance was the result of a person taking control of the aircraft. For the purposes of its search, the ATSB has not needed to determine – and has made no claims – about what might have caused the disappearance of the aircraft. For search purposes, the relevant facts and analysis most closely match a scenario in which there was no pilot intervening in the latter stages of the flight. We have never stated that hypoxia (or any other factor) was the cause of this circumstance.

Mr Bailey suggests that the ATSB has ignored information coming from sources that should be considered expert, such as Captain Simon Hardy. The ATSB carefully considers and assesses all credible work performed by external individuals and groups in relation to the MH370 search area, including that of Captain Hardy. The ATSB has been in telephone and email contact with Captain Hardy, and have met with him in our offices. Captain Hardy’s proposed location for the aircraft has been part of our search area since August 2014.

Mr Bailey’s article notes that the aircraft ‘avoided Thai military radar, then turned, after circling Zaharie’s home island of Penang.’ While the aircraft passed by Penang, the radar data shows that the aircraft certainly did not circle the island. The ATSB had to consider this issue, because the aircraft’s fuel consumption was an important issue in determining the search area.

Mr Bailey also asserts that “(a)nalysis of Malaysian military radar revealed the aircraft had climbed to 45,000ft as it tracked across northern Malaysia.”

The Malaysian military radar did record values from 5,000 to 50,000 ft. These were subsequently found to be inaccurate and so were disregarded by the search strategy team. The speed throughout that section of the flight was consistent with maintaining approximately FL 300 (or 30,000 ft). At the known weight of the aircraft, flight at 45,000ft would not have been possible at the aircraft speed reflected in the radar data.

Mr Bailey describes his experiences in a B777 simulator to put the ATSB’s assumptions about the end of the aircraft’s flight to the test. He states “The results revealed the ATSB’s theories are completely wrong. It claimed that most of the analysis from an estimated flame-out involved the aircraft making a left turn. But when we flamed out an engine at 37,000ft to simulate fuel starvation of the first engine, the autopilots remained on the commanded track.”

The ATSB’s report MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Areas (published 26 June 2014 and updated 18 August 2014) states on page 33: “In the case of MH370 it is likely that one engine has flamed-out followed, within minutes, by the other engine.” On page 13 of the report, MH370 – Definition of Underwater Search Area Update, we state that: “The aircraft behaviour after the engine flame-out(s) was tested in the Boeing engineering simulator. In each test case, the aircraft began turning to the left and remained in a banked turn.” This is a reference to the behaviour of the aircraft after both engines had flamed out, which is an important question for the search.

Mr Bailey goes on to say: "Last month’s ATSB report had me deeply troubled. It bases search area calculations of projected flight paths on a grossly incorrect assumptions. A B777 cannot fly level at 37,000ft on one engine after a flame-out because of fuel starvation.”

The report in question actually agrees with Mr Bailey on this point. On page 11 of the report, we state:

“Based on the individual engine efficiencies the right engine would have flamed-out prior to the left engine. From this point the aircraft was operating on a single-engine and could not maintain any altitude above 29,000 feet.”

Mr Bailey also commented on the discovery of the flaperon on Reunion Island:
“When the flaperon was analysed by Boeing, the manufacturer said, along with US aviation safety consultant John Cox, that it had been broken off in a lowered position, consistent with the theory MH370 had made a controlled ditching into the sea. The ATSB initially said damage to the flaperon still supported the flame-out theory but showed the aircraft glided uncontrolled to a soft landing on the sea (hence no debris). Really?”

The ATSB has not made this statement. The analysis of the flaperon is the responsibility of the French judicial authorities who have it in their custody. No conclusion has yet been reached about the likely position of the flaperon immediately before it separated from the aircraft. To our knowledge, Boeing have not made any statements regarding the flaperon.

The ATSB has neither the authority under international agreements nor the need for the purposes of its search to make statements about why the aircraft disappeared. The successful completion of our search, based on sound analysis of confirmed data and using the best people, equipment and techniques, is still the best chance of arriving at an answer to the mystery of MH370’s disappearance.

MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

From: Ben Sandilands @ Plane Talking, courtesy Crikey.

There may be many things that justify calling out the ATSB, but for the most part the search for MH370 isn’t one of them, and today it hit back at recent criticism in The Australian over the most basic factual misrepresentations of its role, responsibilities, and the narrative it has updated at regular intervals.

The ATSB’s defence shouldn’t surprise regular readers of Plane Talking, or its twitter timeline.

The loss of MH370 has seen the mystery fall into the hands of fraudsters who faked a photo of wreckage on an Indonesian beach over the weekend, while misappropriating a range of Twitter accounts.

The MH370 search has attracted a great deal of reasonable, informed and no doubt at times, inconvenient criticism, especially in relation to some misleading narratives in Kuala Lumpur, and some hasty and shabby grandstanding in Canberra.

But it has also  become the plaything of conspiracy nutters who are so lazy they can’t get out of their own way to actually research the available documentation, good and bad, by mastering the amazingly useful device of a hyperlink.

And unfortunately for The Australian, which had two goes at publishing a good, but flawed analysis by ex fighter pilot Byron Bailey, it appears to have lost its own ability to use a thing called an editorial library and actually read its own files.

Some of us would crawl over broken glass and barbed wire to have the editorial research resources of any News Group publication. And it didn’t use them.

Under the circumstances, the response by the ATSB to Mr Bailey’s original story, and the one where he later partially corrected earlier errors, is an exercise in restraint.

You can read the ATSB response here, behind this 

Getting it 'wrong' just allows the opposition a free kick.  It had to happen; a little sooner than anticipated, nevertheless... Will that man 'Iggins now mop up? Balance the tale and perhaps explain why AMSA was eased out and ATSB slithered in, with the escape module pre-loaded.

Well, it's not a 'bated breath' issue, but a bit of dust and hair flying about fills in the time until the money clock stops ticking. 

[ventus45]

K, re your "itch" - at #102 - here http://auntypru.com/forum/-MH370-time-to...41#pid3241

I, like you, have had a similar "initial itch" from the earliest days, see here http://auntypru.com/forum/-Australia-ATS...464#pid464

I have taken the liberty of re-ordering your itches, and added (A) & (B).

(A) Why was the JACC spontaneously created out of "magic dust" ?
(B) Why was Merlin (Angus) conscripted to "front it up" ?
(1) Why was AMSA side lined ?    
(2) Why was the search passed down the food chain to the ATSB ?
(3) Why was the discredited Dolan pushed centre stage, into the media spotlight ?


Let's get one thing crystal clear at the start.

Under International Law, Australia's only, repeat ONLY responsibility, in the MH-370 saga, once it became "probable" that MH-370 had entered the SIO, was for the initial SAR actions in the SIO.


That happened on 17th March 2014, 9 days after MH-370 vanished.
AMSA started it's work on the 17th March 2014.

Now, let us be quite clear on this, SAR actions have one purpose, and one purpose ONLY, the saving of life.

Note: and I deliberately repeat and re-emphasise, that responsibility is for SAR, and ONLY SAR, ie, to search for, hopefully to find, and hopefully to rescue, people, and ONLY people, period.

That is AMSA's job, and they did it well, all things considered, until they were "booted off the case".

AMSA were booted off the case after only a staggering 13 days, not even two weeks, on the 30th March 2014.  

The JACC became "head-honcho" the next day, 31st March 2014.

The full timeline of AMSA's involvement, (for the public record), is here. http://www.amsa.gov.au/media/mh370-timeline/
I recommend you spend a couple of "hours" at least, if not more, methodically going through that site.

So, why were AMSA really "booted of the case" ?  
Were they so damn incompetent that they couldn't even last two weeks in the job ?  
Bloody hell, that is not possible, not in the Australian Public Service !!
Gotta be something really smelly around here somewhere !!  
I have a cold.  My nose is all stuffed up.  Can someone "sniff around a bit" for me please ?

Given all that was happening at the time, politically, one might surmise, that AMSA may have been seen by someone, somewhere, as being just too damn good at their job, and they might find something, and that maybe that someone, really did not want that. Perhaps someone needed to move the search away, far.. far.. far away, quickly.

All of a sudden, the JACC is created, the air search is cancelled, and AMSA is booted.
And who fronts up the JACC ?  
One recently retired Chief of Defence.  
No correlation m'lud, no correlation at all m'lud, mere coincidence m'lud.

Realistically, Australia's SAR obligation ended after a few weeks, at the end of the air search, when it was declared that there was (by then) no possibility of any possible survivors, (if the aircraft had ditched), being still alive. That should have been the end of it, period.

But it wasn't.  The game changed.  It was no longer "find and rescue survivors", it was ...........

The sudden creation of the JACC and the unceremonious dumping of AMSA, was a political act, obviously for political reasons. We still don't know why.

Enter the saga of the fake "black box pings".
Even the Malaysians later admitted, in their official report, that the pinger batteries were way out of date, and in all probability would not have worked anyway, certainly not for the mandated 30 days.
Those supposed "black box pings" were bullshit from day one.
Now where were those fake black box pings again ?  
Oh yes, up north somewhere, on the 7th Arc, just 1,000nm west of the VLF submarine communications base, NORTH WEST CAPE. Nice place to keep in easy contact with, what was it, a RN nuclear submarine, HMS Tireless, wasn't it ?
Then, quick as a flash, the sudden appearance of a full 4 ring US Navy Captain with the TPL-25.
A full 4 ringer.  Deploying the TPL-25 is usually a job for a Lieutenant, or a Lieutenant-Commander, and a few sailors, but not this time.  This time, it's a FULL 4 Ring CAPTAIN, and not just any 4 ring Captain, it was Captain Mark Matthews USN, who was, at the time, Director of Ocean Engineering at the US Navy.  
Now one might wonder, why send the top brass, half way around the world, just to look for a black box pinger ?  Interesting. Funny that HMS Echo also makes a mad dash to the area, from the Middle East - via a short stop-over in the US Navy base at Diego Garcia too.  A rather curious sequence of events, isn't it ?  Passing Strange actually.



Photo:  (L-R) Vice Admiral Ray Griggs RAN Commodore Peter Leavy RAN and Captain Mark Matthews U.S. Navy, in front of the Australian Defence Vessel Ocean Shield, at HMAS Stirling naval base near Perth.

Anyway, Ocean Shield makes a dash from the east coast to the west coast, to HMAS Stirling, the TPL-25 is embarked, and off they go.  A little later, Ocean Shield returns to port, the Bluefin-21 autonomous vehicle is embarked,

Royal Australian Navy Ship Ocean Shield.jpg Size: 33.76 KB  Downloads: 2

Director of Ocean Engineering of the US Navy - Captain Mark Matthews holds the acoustic pinger they are searching for.jp Size: 124.28 KB  Downloads: 0

Bluefin-21.jpg Size: 48.46 KB  Downloads: 1

A few weeks pass, and the "pings" pass into history, quietly.
They had served their intended purpose, the "4D's", distraction, delay, deception, discombobulation.
No one remembers them now.

So, we have answered questions (A) (B) and (1) so far.

They are replaced by the next great "story", the Inmarsat "handshakes", a different kind of "pings", radio pings, not acoustic pings.  Perhaps we should call them "pongs".

As stated above, as far as International Law is concerned, Australia's SAR obligation ended at the end of the air search, when it was declared that there was no possibility of any survivors.

The 7th arc does not penetrate Australian "territory" at all. Under Annex-13, The "investigation" is for Malaysia, and no one else (even Dolan himself maintains that line to this day (Jan-2016)).  

So, one must wonder. Why did Australia volunteer, so enthusiastically, to embark on the undersea search of the whole 7th Arc in the first place ?  Was it because:-
(a) we wanted to be seen as a caring people, or was it
(b) taking the opportunity for a little grandstanding on the world stage, or
© were there, deeper, perhaps darker, reasons ?

If any of the above, how do we answer Question (2) ?
There is no logical answer, until we consider Question (3).
Ask, what if the seach "goes wrong" - "fails" - "becomes a farce ?
We need a plan B Prime Minister - a fall guy.
Ah......it all makes sense now.

As of now (19th January 2016) the public position of the Australian Government, which has been made perfectly clear by Mr Truss and Mr Dolan, is that the undersea search will end, whether the aircraft is found or not, at the completion of the designated 120,000 square kilometres, currently expected by June 2016. The only proviso on that, seems to be, if something "new" comes to light.

Conclusion:
So, whatever the initial motive(s) were for the Australian Government embarking on the undersea search of the 7th Arc in the first place, they clearly have "lapsed".  Interesting word that, lapsed.  
Perhaps they now realise that they should never have got involved in it in the first place (unlikely), or, much more likely, perhaps there was some other "real reason" for so suddenly creating, and fronting the JACC, with Angus centre stage, which we don't know about, and likely will never know about, not this side of thirty years hence anyway, perhaps more, and which is, for whatever reason, no longer "extant".  

In either case, it is clear that the Australian Government are now looking forward to a "graceful exit", when the 120,000 square kilometre zone is completed, with the only saving grace being, that at least the money has not been totally wasted, the geo-scientists have a heap of new data to play with for a few years.

[Kharon]

Gun fight at the Not-so-Ok corral.

And Beaker brought his Mum’s pocket knife.  Did the Bailey article (via ‘Iggins) do it’s job?  Oh I think so.  It blew the lid off the ATSB hidey hole and dragged it, kicking, screaming and biting, out of shadow and into sunlight.  Finally.  Whether the Bailey article provided that response, by accident or design, is one topic, among many, for the upcoming BRB.  

Things that fascinate:-

Given Australia’s very supportive role to out near neighbours, why is it that an AAI or two were not permanently assigned as part of the investigation?  As a DIP (Australian body count) and a friendly neighbour and Annexe 13 and the fact that without reliable, informed advice on the ‘investigation’ status, the search could be rendered null and void.

Then there is the strange ‘doings’ where honest, unafraid, incorruptible experts on matters maritime; AMSA, bow out and ATSB slithers in.  I alluded to this ‘anomaly’ –HERE, with many questions begging answers.  The construct is shaping up to a ‘passing strange’ conclusion.  E.g. for those who like coincidence, the commissioners contract expires ? and the search is due to be concluded ?.  Perhaps, there was a need at high paygrades, to provide a suitable escape path and a head, for the rolling thereof.  If and it’s a big IF the powers that be needed a ‘useful’ man to perpetuate a ‘legend’ then, as it happened, Australia had just the boy for the job.  

Brock nails it down and establishes the goal posts back to their rightful place very nicely.  The P2 research (& above) just about spells it out, in simple words, where, when and perhaps why horses were changed – mid stream.

MTF? Absolutely and with the beast neatly popped out of it’s den, it’s open season on the ‘mystique’ and those who promote it.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Update: The Oz (Bailey) v ATSB (Beaker) wars - Game on definitely 

Yesterday the ATSB (read Beaker) came out with a riposte to the Bailey Weekend Oz 9-10 blogged article, AP post reference - And at the end of RD II. The last time this 'correcting the record' approach was seriously deployed by the ATSB, was when the credibility of the MH370 SIO search - & Bean-counter Beaker's (pride & joy) the Fugro tender - came under fire - The capability of the MH370 search operation 2 June 2015.

However again I question the true veracity of the ATSB indignation, for IMO this has nothing whatsoever to do with defending the reputation of the bureau, the JACC, or by default the Australian Government. If that were true then the 'correcting the record' media statement should have come from the JACC. From JACC webpage:

The JACC is the coordination point for whole-of-Australian Government information, messaging and stakeholder engagement, including keeping the families of those onboard and the general public informed of the progress of the search.

The JACC continues working closely with the Government of Malaysia, which under international law has overall responsibility for the search.

The JACC does not perform any search, recovery or investigation activities. These activities remain the responsibility of the expert agencies.

 
So the JACC is supposed to have carriage/responsibility for disseminating all MH370 SIO news, developments etc. not the ATSB. IMO all that any MSM media inquiry, on the Bailey opinions & criticisms, should have elicited from the ATSB was a firm - NO COMMENT. 

---

4
Brock McEwen
Posted January 19, 2016 at 1:55 am | Permalink

It is encouraging to see the ATSB stating so clearly and unambiguously that a) the primary radar track appearing in the Lido Hotel image forces constant cruising speed during MH370’s purported westbound leg, and b) a constant cruising speed forces a constant cruising altitude over this same period.

They should simply be asked to square this unassailable logic with their decision to both enter (“flew faster”, AMSA release, March 28, 2014) and exit (“primary radar data pertaining to altitude is regarded as unreliable” – A. Houston, apparently JUST coming to this realization, June 24, 2014) a search zone thousands of kilometres from where the actual evidence was pointing.

Excellent points Brock makes, this frank disclosure should also not be ignored..

"..While the aircraft passed by Penang, the radar data shows that the aircraft certainly did not circle the island.." 

It is a bit like trying to extract teeth but bit by bit we get small snippets of information that further challenge the veracity of the widely disseminated & accepted official narrative.

P7 quote from 'criminal act' thread..

"..Will that man 'Iggins now mop up? Balance the tale and perhaps explain why AMSA was eased out and ATSB slithered in, with the escape module pre-loaded..."

The question I always come back to, why was AMSA, the Government Marine & SAR experts, shunted out of the way in favour of the transport safety investigator & led by a severely discredited (after PelAir), 30 year bureaucrat with absolutely NFI about aviation safety, let alone marine survey or SAR, in Martin Dolan??

I also question the repeated protestation in the recent missive that the ATSB sole tasked responsibility is to oversee the conduct of the SIO deep underwater search. This seems to conflict with evidence that there has been further analysis of the radar tapes to which the ATSB MH370 program team have referred.

From ATSB missive:

It is the responsibility of the Government of Malaysia, as the state of registration of the aircraft, to establish why MH370 disappeared and it has established an Annex 13 Investigation to undertake this activity.

It should also be remembered that under Annex 13, because we have lost 6 citizens in this tragedy, we are entitled to have representatives on the JIT team. But according to available records we don't (reference para 2.5 ICAO APAC Meeting 4-8 Aug 2014), which IMO is unforgiveable.

2.5 JRCC Australia and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) jointly determined a search area strategy correlating information from a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) located in Malaysia comprised of specialists from Malaysia, China, USA, UK and France, and other government and academic sources. Analysis work was undertaken independently, collaboratively and by consensus. The analysis process included independent validation of results.

It is also clear that in the early stages of ATSB involvement that they were very much regarded as the TS investigators that were assisting the searchers - AMSA/JRCC.

In hindsight the following joint press conference is very interesting when you consider that this what shortly before the ATSB was placed in charge of the deep sea SIO search & two days before former PM Tony Abbott established the JACC:

Day 11 Media Briefing
28/03/2014
 
General Manager of AMSA's Emergency Response Division John Young and Australian Transport Safety Bureau Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan give an update on the search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

• SD Video - MP4 - 421MB
  
• Radio - MP3 - 20MB
  

 
"..He will answer questions about aircraft accident investigation issues.."
 
It is also quite revealing that three days later that the very useful (at the time) & interactive AMSA MH370 timeline finished:

As the search for MH370 transitions from a search and rescue operation to an investigation phase the Joint Agency Coordination Centre takes over the day to day communications.

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) continues to coordinate the surface search but is now part of a larger interagency response including the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Department of Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development.

All these agencies continue the search as part of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre.

Disclaimer
This timeline has been developed as an historical resource to preserve for the record the public information released by AMSA during the period in which AMSA was the lead agency in the search for Malaysia Airline's flight MH370.

During this period AMSA released a large amount of public information in the form of press conferences, media releases, images, charts, video, audio files and social media posts.

This content has been preserved in this timeline without amendment and in the order in which it was released. This timeline was developed as the events occurred. AMSA reserves the right to provide corrected information in the future if any inadvertent errors occurred when this information was first published.

The information contained in this webpage is not a comprehensive report on all of AMSA's operations during this period and as such is only intended to provide an overview of AMSA's public communications and not an official version of events.

 
 A lot changed in the space of three days, & in my opinion it wasn't for the greater good in the search for MH370-  


MTF...P2

Ps Comment: Things were so much more transparent before Dolan took charge, no informative press conferences or interactive timelines from the bureau or the JACC. Just the occasional controlled & PC'd pressers & defensive missives, that the ATSB should never have published anyway. 

Oh well at least AMSA know the rules - "..AMSA's communications to media, government agencies and diplomatic posts are redirected via JACC..."

Edit P2 - Just helping out here "K"  

Gun fight at the Not-so-Ok corral.

And Beaker brought his Mum’s pocket knife.  Did the Bailey article (via ‘Iggins) do it’s job?  Oh I think so.  It blew the lid off the ATSB hidey hole and dragged it, kicking, screaming and biting, out of shadow and into sunlight.  Finally.  Whether the Bailey article provided that response, by accident or design, is one topic, among many, for the upcoming BRB.  

Things that fascinate:-

Given Australia’s very supportive role to out near neighbours why an AAI or two were not permanently assigned as part of the investigation?  As a DIP (Australian body count) and a friendly neighbour and Annexe 13 and the fact that without reliable, informed advice on the ‘investigation’ status, the search could be rendered null and void.

Then there is the strange ‘doings’ where honest, unafraid, incorruptible experts on matters maritime; AMSA, bow out and ATSB slithers in.  I alluded to this ‘anomaly’ –HERE, with many questions begging answers.  The construct is shaping up to a ‘passing strange’ conclusion.  E.g. for those who like coincidence, the commissioners contract expires ? and the search is due to be concluded ?.  Perhaps, there was a need at high paygrades, to provide a suitable escape path and a head, for the rolling thereof.  If and it’s a big IF the powers that be needed a ‘useful’ man to perpetuate a ‘legend’ then, as it happened, Australia had just the boy for the job.  

Brock nails it down and establishes the goal posts back to their rightful place very nicely.  The P2 research (above) just about spells it out, in simple words, where, when and perhaps why horses were changed – mid stream.

MTF? Absolutely and with the beast neatly popped out of it’s den, it’s open season on the ‘mystique’ and those who promote it.

Toot toot.

Liking it very much V & K will definitely have MTF..P2

Edit deletion see below

[Peetwo]

P2 - Correcting the record.

It should also be remembered that under Annex 13, because we have lost 6 citizens in this tragedy, we are entitled to have representatives on the JIT team.

But according to available records we don't (reference para 2.5 ICAO APAC Meeting 4-8 Aug 2014), which IMO is unforgiveable.

STM Loss - I was kindly reminded by a certain Tinkicker   that the ATSB does indeed have accredited reps (as per Annex13 - 5.23):

Ref page 2 MH370 Prelim report:

"..The Australian and Chinese Governments have also appointed Accredited Representatives in accordance with ICAO Annex 13, Para 5.23.."

&..

Ref Interim statement:

[i]"..Also participating in the Team are Accredited Representatives from seven#5 international Air Accident and Incident Investigation Organisations...

..#5 The seven Air Accident and Incident Investigation Organisations:

   Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) of Australia

 Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of United Kingdom

 Air Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of Singapore

 Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation civile (BEA) of France

 Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC)

 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of United States of America

 National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC) of Indonesia.."

 
In my defence referring to para 2.5 of the Australian report presented to ICAO..

2.5 JRCC Australia and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) jointly determined a search area strategy correlating information from a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) located in Malaysia comprised of specialists from Malaysia, China, USA, UK and France, and other government and academic sources. Analysis work was undertaken independently, collaboratively and by consensus. The analysis process included independent validation of results.

 ..indicates that AMSA/JRCC either were not aware that the ATSB had accredited reps; or made a honest omission; or much like CC Dolan did not think worthy of mention -
MTF..P2      

[P7_TOM]

Well done P2.  You may easily be forgiven for missing one small clue buried in the rubble and Beaker is in no hurry to acknowledge that his organisation has ‘boots-on-the-ground’; just wants you believe that the ‘search’ is all he is concerned with and everything else is ‘buy me’.  The video with the AMSA spokesman say it all; from body language to absolute dependence on the man from maritime to answer the tough parts of the questions.  

Irrespective, the bluff is revealed in all it’s sordid glory and only begs one question.

[Peetwo]

Bananas in Pyjamas - Rd III: B is for??

B1 calls bollocks to B2

Courtesy the Oz today:

MH370 mystery: ATSB defies logic with hypoxia theory

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• January 22, 2016 12:00AM
  

Experts contend that the search zone was way too far north and east of the likely ditching area.

Last week in The Australian, Dan O’Malley, Air Transport Safety Bureau spokesman, said the agency was standing by its MH370 theory that an unresponsive crew by hypoxia (lack of oxygen) led to the disaster — this despite overwhelming opinion from experts within the aviation community against this theory.

The ATSB would have us believe that shortly after commencement of cruise a decompression occurred. They then want us to believe the experienced, well-trained pilots of a first-class airline sat there for over 30 seconds without donning their oxygen masks — which only takes a few seconds — as they have been trained to do many times in the simulator.

This meant they became incapacitated, leading shortly to unconsciousness and death.
The aircraft, however, turned left and flew nicely across northern Malaysia. About an hour later, after passing the northern tip of Sumatra, it turned left again.

After a decompression, the interior of the aircraft would quickly cool to less than -50C — the temperature of the outside atmosphere. Everyone on board MH370 would be on the way to becoming blocks of ice, the same as passengers on a Helios flight that failed to pressurise on a route from Cyprus to Athens at 34,000 feet. So why did the aircraft turn left?

Since 1903 we have had the joy of powered flight. In the 1930s autopilots were introduced, relieving the pilots of the tedium of flying straight and level for long periods in cruise. They controlled the aircraft in two axes: pitch (to maintain altitude) and roll (to maintain a heading commanded by the pilot).

The autopilots of modern aircraft have evolved where the aircraft can now fly a track from the GPS without the pilot having to adjust the heading to maintain the required route.

When MH370 turned left at the north tip Sumatra it must have been commanded to do so by the pilot because an autopilot is just a dumb system that relies on commands from the pilot.

It does not have artificial intelligence and ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority know that MH370 would have flown itself to destination Beijing unless someone changed the instructions (in the flight management system) to autopilot when the pilots were suddenly incapacitated — according to their theory.

I mentioned to a famous Australian aviator last week that the ATSB could not be so stupid as to be unaware of this fact. He replied “yes they are”, a typical incompetent government department.

I have colleagues from several major airlines and between us we have hundreds of years and well in excess of 100,000 hours flying A380, B777 and B747 aircraft.

We are disturbed at the theory promoted by the ATSB, which does not have a single shred of evidence to support it.

We are of the opinion that when the Malaysian government requested the ATSB conduct the investigation of MH370, they decided that the result must not be based on a rogue pilot theory. Otherwise, why would the rogue pilot theory not be considered especially when the head of Emirates, the world’s largest B777 operator, said on German TV that the MH370 flew under control for seven hours and that pilots should not be allowed to turn off communication equipment in flight.

I have in previous articles pointed out the aerodynamic absurdity of some of the theories and projections put out by the ATSB based on Bayesian mathematical modelling, which is used for stockmarket analysis.

The ATSB in March 2014 should have asked Virgin Airlines, which has experienced B777 pilots, to project the likely flight path based on known facts, such as fuel on board and upper winds.

What all this means is we, the real experts, contend that the search zone was way too far north and east of the likely ditching area, which means 22 months and more than $100 million wasted. It’s almost as if they did not want MH370 found before the two-year statute of limitations for insurance claims expires in March 2016.

Byron Bailey, a veteran commercial pilot with more than 45 years’ experience and 26,000 flying hours, is a former RAAF fighter pilot and trainer. He was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years, during which time he flew the same model B777 as MH370.

  
What say you B2 - care to comment 




MTF..P2

Ps Thought the stretched MH370 SIO 7th Arc pic (above) was quite appropriate under the circumstances...

[Brock McEwen]

Not promoting a theory - like last time, just hoping to collect facts:

We all remember the ill-fated "Maldives debris" - found just a few days after the Réunion debris, it seemed to have everything going against it:

- impossible to drift there from the 7th Arc

- timing was suspicious (were these just copycat debris finders, looking for cheap notoriety?)

- "looked like a surfboard" (I admit I checked out dozens of pics of vintage "Frantic", etc. logos, seeking a font match, to settle the issue)

- on top of all this, Malaysian authorities definitively ruled it OUT, after having taken it back with all the other debris, and examining it in their labs

Right?

Well...

- The 7th Arc is having trouble agreeing with any aspect of the physical record. Furthermore, the search has been fumbled so badly, many are suspecting a deliberate attempt to search slowly. It is now reasonable to suppose that the signal data may have somehow been rendered invalid.

- while many pieces of debris were retrieved from many Maldivian atolls, the one whose images circled the globe - the aerodynamically angular, beat up chunk of honeycombed aluminum, with a white finish - was one of the few pieces NOT recovered, tested, and ruled on by Malaysian authorities.  More than a month before the pictures hit cyberspace, it was taken away with the regular garbage cycle to an atoll they use as a garbage dump.

- Apparently, the photos were taken on May 31, 2015 - prior, obviously, to being carted away by the local garbage collectors. If this is true, the "hoax" angle loses a lot of steam - while the original group of resort employees who discovered the piece admit they were persuaded to publish their photos only after seeing the Réunion debris, this now doesn't really argue either way, since the timing seems natural for both hoax and genuine discovery.

- the construction has been described by one online expert (I know, I know...bear with me) as "carbon fibre, honeycomb cores and kevlar composite...PRECISELY what they build planes out of. Nothing else requires the expense of materials so strong and light as this".

- I have seen several commenters suggest it looked to them like a piece of wing or tail. A subset explicitly mentioned a 777.

- the letters "IC" - preceded by a probable "T" (or possible "F") - might suggest the word "STATIC" - part of a warning painted on many parts of a commercial jet. Some folks suggest such a warning would be expected on the underside of the extreme edge of a 777's wingtip, because that's where static build-up can occur (I am out of my element, here).

- my own inspection of many photos yesterday suggests the font is consistent with an aircraft warning label, and its red colour consistent with the warning labels on 9M-MRO.

Now.

My question to this forum is simple:

Drawing on your aviation expertise and/or connections, can I be so impertinent as to ask you please to offer your best insights on what you think this object might be?

...WITHOUT bias induced by the assumption that the signal data has already rendered a positive match impossible?

Here's the original photo set:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_f...=660391502

Huge thanks in advance.

[P7_TOM]

Brock – “- the letters "IC" - preceded by a probable "T" (or possible "F") - might suggest the word "STATIC" - part of a warning painted on many parts of a commercial jet. Some folks suggest such a warning would be expected on the underside of the extreme edge of a 777's wingtip, because that's where static build-up can occur (I am out of my element, here).”

Reluctant as I am to enter the MH 370 fray without hard facts, discussing some basics seems innocuous enough.  Traditionally a ‘static port’ is exactly what it claims to be – where “static” air pressure is measured.  I have found a reasonable explanation in Wiki – HERE.

Static pressure.
The static pressure is obtained through a static port. The static port is most often a flush-mounted hole on the fuselage of an aircraft, and is located where it can access the air flow in a relatively undisturbed area.[1]

Some aircraft may have a single static port, while others may have more than one. In situations where an aircraft has more than one static port, there is usually one located on each side of the fuselage. With this positioning, an average pressure can be taken, which allows for more accurate readings in specific flight situations.[1] An alternative static port may be located inside the cabin of the aircraft as a backup for when the external static port(s) are blocked. A pitot-static tube effectively integrates the static ports into the pitot probe. It incorporates a second coaxial tube (or tubes) with pressure sampling holes on the sides of the probe, outside the direct airflow, to measure the static pressure. When aircraft climbs, static pressure will decrease.

‘Problems’ with ‘static ports’ have caused many incidents and accidents, if they are blocked by ice, polish, or paint (masking tape), no matter how sophisticated the systems the data is fed into, if those little holes are blocked things can and do get ‘interesting’.  LINK.

Blocked static port.

A blocked static port is a more serious situation because it affects all pitot-static instruments.[6] One of the most common causes of a blocked static port is airframe icing. A blocked static port will cause the altimeter to freeze at a constant value, the altitude at which the static port became blocked. The vertical speed indicator will become frozen at zero and will not change at all, even if vertical airspeed increases or decreases. The airspeed indicator will reverse the error that occurs with a clogged pitot tube and cause the airspeed to be read less than it actually is as the aircraft climbs. When the aircraft is descending, the airspeed will be over-reported. In most aircraft with unpressurized cabins, an alternative static source is available and can be selected from within the cockpit.[6]

There are some images for the 777 static ports but the two below, on the vertical 'tail fin' of a triple may be of some interest to you.



You will note on almost every aircraft that the static ports are made highly visible and  checking them prior to departure is a time honoured requirement.  

Hope that helps; we can provide 'in depth' systems description, but that seems OTT for now.

Cheers.  P7...

[Kharon]

Brock – “Some folks suggest such a warning would be expected on the underside of the extreme edge of a 777's wingtip, because that's where static build-up can occur.”

That would be ‘static’ as in electricity; Static Wicks are fitted to manage, amongst other things, static build up.  They are not (usually) identified with the annotation ‘Static’ that, as P7 points out, is reserved for the vital ‘static' air pressure port.



'Flying' provided a basic brief.

[Brock McEwen]

Thanks so much for these responses. I certainly want to cast a wider net than "STATIC" among words, 777's among jets, or jets among objects. I've been inspired by the effectiveness of online expertise/image-search in running the H-IIB rocket debris, and am hoping that, whatever the Vabbinfaru debris is, we'll figure it out.

One item I should have added: the surfboard maker (Varial) cited in early days as using a similar honeycomb design publicly ruled out the possibility it was one of their boards:

http://m.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1848...-surfboard