[P7_TOM]

Nicely done TK - I will donate a CF &TT to the pot.  Many of us ‘know’ the Boeing fleet and one of the more specious arguments is the fire/emergency/no calls/no wreckage etc. While I greatly appreciate the efforts made by those with the skill and knowledge to produce a lucid, reasoned construct, based on whatever has piqued the interest bump; I object to gobbledegook, cobbled together from pieces of other work to suit a theory.  Evidence, facts and proof; before theory.   There are some pretty persuasive theories out there, some even have merit; but, would I bet the house on ‘em?  No way José.

(‘cept for maybe K’s dinner party ET theory; it has the benefit of being so totally outré that no one wants to argue it, works for me, great little topic changer)… ….

[Peetwo]

Fred gets it...& comments made in relation to the B777 are 'technically' correct!

Moreover, Fred understands that the B777 shed the conventional federated avionics structure for an integrated avionics structure from it's inception. The integrated avionics architecture of the Airplane allows several functions normally housed in separate LRUs (i.e. CMU), to now be processed & implemented from within a single avionics system--the AIMS cabinet.  There are two of these systems on board the B777.  Each AIMS cabinet operates totally partitioned from the other. This provides system redundancy in the event that a cabinet fails.

Simon's technical knowledge, especially with regard to the B777, often appears lacking! To those who 'know' the Aircraft that comes as no surprise. But to those who don't, it's easy to fall prey to anyone over-claiming knowledge & experience, & confusing fact with opinion.

On a different note, #3 Ben says: "This matrix of events and possibilities is the main reason why I have no coherent theory as to what happened to MH370 that I’d be prepared to defend." Fair do's, Ben!    

I'll throw in another choc frog & a Tim Tam.  

 
I freely admit that I'm not type rated on any Boeing, I do still however appreciate the technological avionics advancements of the Tripler AIMS system. For those interested here is a technical overview of that system - The Avionics Handbook_Cap_29

29.1 Introduction

The avionics industry has long recognized the substantial cost benefits which could be realized using a large-scale integrated computing architecture for airborne avionics. Technology achievements by airframe, avionics, and semiconductor manufacturers allow implementation of these integrated avionics architectures resulting in substantial life cycle cost benefits. The Boeing 777 Aircraft Information Management System (AIMS) represents the first application of an integrated computing architecture in a commercial air transport.

MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

This may have already been covered somewhere, or maybe not, and it is more of an Engineering type question, but here goes; I understand Inmarsat detected the deployment of the RAT, which is good. But my question is 'can Inmarsat detect if the RAT was deployed manually or automatically'?

I'm not so sure that the aircraft technology nor the satellite technology is equipped to determine that, but it is a thought that keeps bugging me and one I would dearly love answered by those more technically minded than this simple stick and rudder man. I believe the difference between a manual or automatic deployment is quite a critical point.

Regards
P_666

[ventus45]

The latest from the IG. http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/2152

[Tinkicker]

But my question is 'can Inmarsat detect if the RAT was deployed manually or automatically'?

Don't believe ISAT has that capability

[Peetwo]

That man again - This time on MH370, courtesy the Oz:

Searchers hope arc reveals secrets of mysterious flight MH370

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• January 9, 2016 12:00AM
  

The holy grail is thought to lie on a navigational band known as the Seventh Arc, up to 6km below the waves, south of a dramatic underwater mountain chain and chasm in the Southern Ocean called Broken Ridge.

On that arc, in some of the most remote and wild seas on the planet, the hunt for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 launched this week into its final months, with three vessels and three unmanned underwater sonar “fish” — two towed and one darting around on its own.

By about June, the wreckage of the Malaysian aircraft that went down approaching two years ago will have been found or will keep the secrets to what happened to it and the 239 souls aboard locked away forever.

It has all the trappings of a blockbuster action-adventure movie and, no doubt, if the searchers do miraculously find the aircraft, a film will be made with a star-spangled cast.
If, on the other hand, the search of the remaining 40,000sq km of the target 120,000sq km of ocean is completed without a find, that will be the end of it.

Such an outcome would dash the hopes — apart from those of the victims’ families — of the hundreds of mariners, scientists, public servants, military sailors and airmen who have been involved in the search since MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014, on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The search has been in two phases: the initial sweep by air and sea for any wreckage on the surface (and, of course, any survivors) and, once that came to naught after a few weeks, the slow and methodical underwater mapping survey and sonar “photography”.

The mapping of the ocean topography was a required first step to prevent the two towed sonar fish from crashing into uncharted underwater mountains, and allowed the third, tether-free, torpedo-like autonomous device to be programmed to search the more difficult terrain on its own.

The sonar images have been analysed to see if any show wreckage — which would spark a recovery operation to retrieve the debris and the ultimate prize, the aircraft’s “black box” voice and flight data recorders.

There’s no collective estimate of the cost of the initial surface search in the Southern Ocean.

“The initial search phase involved 22 military aircraft and 19 ships from eight countries, covering search areas of more than 4.6 million square kilometres,” says a spokesman for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, whose transport portfolio covers the search operation. “All countries absorbed their own costs and we do not have an estimate of the costs borne by each country.”

But measured by what the federal government’s Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre, which is overseeing the hunt for MH370, says military and civilian government aircraft and ships actually have done, it would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars had it been carried out by the private commercial sector.

The surface search involved 345 sorties by military aircraft for a total of about 3000 flight hours, more than 30 per cent of which were flown by Royal Australian Air Force planes.

The aircraft burned up more than 25 million litres of aviation fuel, worth $34 million alone based on this week’s price at Perth airport.

For the second, undersea, part of the search, run by Dutch subsea survey company Fugro, Australia has committed $60m, China $20m and Malaysia the balance, thought to be about $10m.

Some critics claim the search was always a needle-in-a-haystack operation based more on hope and a desire to be seen to be doing something than a realistic possibility of success.
Others say it could have worked but authorities, using the wrong theory, looked in the wrong place.

Those in charge of the search insist that, while challenging, it is based on real and impeccably assessed technical indicators of the plane’s probable flight path, and is being professionally prosecuted.

“We are absolutely confident that we are using the best technology, approach and individuals,” a JACC spokeswoman says.

“Everyone is so dedicated. We are just looking forward to the day we have found it.”
The normal communication and radar identification signals from MH370 mysteriously went dead early in the flight, but an automatic hourly “handshake” from the aircraft to satellites continued for seven more hours.

Each of those handshakes has been analysed to produce seven notional “arcs” of where the plane would have flown, and part of the last one, the Seventh Arc, is where authorities think MH370 lies. The calculation of where to search has been adjusted by several variables, including ocean currents and weather on the day. But where to look also depends critically on assumptions of what might have happened on board, since different scenarios produce different likely outcomes of where it hit the water.

A key debate is whether the pilots were incapacitated and the aircraft flew on its own until “flaming out” for lack of fuel, or whether a rogue pilot flew it farther in a controlled fashion, including ditching it.

That, notes feted Qantas captain Richard de Crespigny, of flight QF32 fame, is the ultimate bind in the search for MH370: not knowing what happened on the flight makes it difficult to know where to search for the wreckage and black boxes, and without finding those it’s impossible to know what happened. “Pilots just work on facts, and there are no facts — (other than those) in the Southern Ocean,” he says.

Good to have Higgo back on the boards, also good to see he didn't bother getting any direct quotes from the resident MH370 super sleuth Muppet...


MTF...P2   

[Peetwo]

That man again - This time on MH370, courtesy the Oz:

Searchers hope arc reveals secrets of mysterious flight MH370

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• January 9, 2016 12:00AM
  

The holy grail is thought to lie on a navigational band known as the Seventh Arc, up to 6km below the waves, south of a dramatic underwater mountain chain and chasm in the Southern Ocean called Broken Ridge.

On that arc, in some of the most remote and wild seas on the planet, the hunt for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 launched this week into its final months, with three vessels and three unmanned underwater sonar “fish” — two towed and one darting around on its own.

By about June, the wreckage of the Malaysian aircraft that went down approaching two years ago will have been found or will keep the secrets to what happened to it and the 239 souls aboard locked away forever.

It has all the trappings of a blockbuster action-adventure movie and, no doubt, if the searchers do miraculously find the aircraft, a film will be made with a star-spangled cast.
If, on the other hand, the search of the remaining 40,000sq km of the target 120,000sq km of ocean is completed without a find, that will be the end of it.

Such an outcome would dash the hopes — apart from those of the victims’ families — of the hundreds of mariners, scientists, public servants, military sailors and airmen who have been involved in the search since MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014, on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The search has been in two phases: the initial sweep by air and sea for any wreckage on the surface (and, of course, any survivors) and, once that came to naught after a few weeks, the slow and methodical underwater mapping survey and sonar “photography”.

The mapping of the ocean topography was a required first step to prevent the two towed sonar fish from crashing into uncharted underwater mountains, and allowed the third, tether-free, torpedo-like autonomous device to be programmed to search the more difficult terrain on its own.

The sonar images have been analysed to see if any show wreckage — which would spark a recovery operation to retrieve the debris and the ultimate prize, the aircraft’s “black box” voice and flight data recorders.

There’s no collective estimate of the cost of the initial surface search in the Southern Ocean.

“The initial search phase involved 22 military aircraft and 19 ships from eight countries, covering search areas of more than 4.6 million square kilometres,” says a spokesman for Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, whose transport portfolio covers the search operation. “All countries absorbed their own costs and we do not have an estimate of the costs borne by each country.”

But measured by what the federal government’s Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre, which is overseeing the hunt for MH370, says military and civilian government aircraft and ships actually have done, it would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars had it been carried out by the private commercial sector.

The surface search involved 345 sorties by military aircraft for a total of about 3000 flight hours, more than 30 per cent of which were flown by Royal Australian Air Force planes.

The aircraft burned up more than 25 million litres of aviation fuel, worth $34 million alone based on this week’s price at Perth airport.

For the second, undersea, part of the search, run by Dutch subsea survey company Fugro, Australia has committed $60m, China $20m and Malaysia the balance, thought to be about $10m.

Some critics claim the search was always a needle-in-a-haystack operation based more on hope and a desire to be seen to be doing something than a realistic possibility of success.
Others say it could have worked but authorities, using the wrong theory, looked in the wrong place.

Those in charge of the search insist that, while challenging, it is based on real and impeccably assessed technical indicators of the plane’s probable flight path, and is being professionally prosecuted.

“We are absolutely confident that we are using the best technology, approach and individuals,” a JACC spokeswoman says.

“Everyone is so dedicated. We are just looking forward to the day we have found it.”
The normal communication and radar identification signals from MH370 mysteriously went dead early in the flight, but an automatic hourly “handshake” from the aircraft to satellites continued for seven more hours.

Each of those handshakes has been analysed to produce seven notional “arcs” of where the plane would have flown, and part of the last one, the Seventh Arc, is where authorities think MH370 lies. The calculation of where to search has been adjusted by several variables, including ocean currents and weather on the day. But where to look also depends critically on assumptions of what might have happened on board, since different scenarios produce different likely outcomes of where it hit the water.

A key debate is whether the pilots were incapacitated and the aircraft flew on its own until “flaming out” for lack of fuel, or whether a rogue pilot flew it farther in a controlled fashion, including ditching it.

That, notes feted Qantas captain Richard de Crespigny, of flight QF32 fame, is the ultimate bind in the search for MH370: not knowing what happened on the flight makes it difficult to know where to search for the wreckage and black boxes, and without finding those it’s impossible to know what happened. “Pilots just work on facts, and there are no facts — (other than those) in the Southern Ocean,” he says.

Good to have Higgo back on the boards, also good to see he didn't bother getting any direct quotes from the resident MH370 super sleuth Muppet...


MTF...P2   

For & on behalf of Sandy (copied from his comment on the Byron Bailey Oz article, see here):

My post to the Aus article as follows:-

Byron Bailey makes a rational and considered case, in contrast to the inconsistent ATSB. This body has a poor record by any measure, including its attempt to heap total blame on a hapless young pilot in deference to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and friends of government. The aforementioned Pelair (Rex subsidiary) ongoing ditching inquiry is only reopened by dint of a Senate inquiry. CASA and the ATSB follow the now dubious model of a 'GBE' (the dishonest terminology of Government Business Enterprise, neither businesses nor enterprising). The common practice of both is to decide an outcome then proceed to fit the facts where suitable. 

Why you should ask? Because these barely accountable independent bodies, separated from the Minister and not subject to the Public Service Rules are little caring beyond their inflated perks and salaries. It is that simple. Besides to be shown up as something less than smart or knowledgable from an outside citizen is bad for ego, Canberra status and possibly a negative response to the next round of planned industry levy increases.

In regard to the motivation of Zaharie, or possibly that of his copilot, only more information will help our understanding. What seems a bizarre and illogical act should not detract from reading the facts that may lead us to some useful conclusion.

Cheers,
Sandy

 
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Fred gets it...& comments made in relation to the B777 are 'technically' correct!

Moreover, Fred understands that the B777 shed the conventional federated avionics structure for an integrated avionics structure from it's inception. The integrated avionics architecture of the Airplane allows several functions normally housed in separate LRUs (i.e. CMU), to now be processed & implemented from within a single avionics system--the AIMS cabinet.  There are two of these systems on board the B777.  Each AIMS cabinet operates totally partitioned from the other. This provides system redundancy in the event that a cabinet fails.

Simon's technical knowledge, especially with regard to the B777, often appears lacking! To those who 'know' the Aircraft that comes as no surprise. But to those who don't, it's easy to fall prey to anyone over-claiming knowledge & experience, & confusing fact with opinion.

On a different note, #3 Ben says: "This matrix of events and possibilities is the main reason why I have no coherent theory as to what happened to MH370 that I’d be prepared to defend." Fair do's, Ben!    

I'll throw in another choc frog & a Tim Tam.  

WOW! - Twice in one week  
Simon Gunson gets taken apart yet again, this time by another Aunty...

32
Aunty Conspiracy
Posted January 11, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

Any Twitter follower of this saga will know I’m not a fan of Gunson’s play-loose-with-the-facts approach, even if he *might* be doing it with the intention of protecting the PIC’s family. I say might because motive is difficult to ascertain. His motive could be more self serving but in the end is irrelevant.

Often I agree with Simon. For example I agree there is no official support for the rumours reported that 9M-MRO was ever observed (by any means) climbing to FL450.

The problem I have with Mr. Gunson is he flits from one bad approach to another. In this one thread we see grasping at the unsubstantiated and flat out errors:

1) “Electrical failure … indicates prolonged failure of the SDU satellite antenna.”

No. There are three SDU antennas. And let’s not use “electrical failure” when investigators are only willing to consider that power was interrupted to certain equipment (explaining the SDU outage). Interruption does not have to equal failure.

2) “If the SDU was out of operation then so too was AIMS.”

No. Factually incorrect, one can not surmise either or both AIMS cabinets were affected by a *power interruption* to the SDU. Quite the contrary, the SDU can be brought off line by situations that do not affect either or both AIMS cabinets.

3) “keep following a basic magnetic heading, but not navigate from waypoint to waypoint.” No, as others have pointed out.

4) “with the kind of power failure MH370 experienced.”

Exactly what kind of power failure do you *imagine* MH370 experienced? The ATSB has not indicated a massive power anomaly, just that power must have been interrupted, twice, to the SDU. It is easily possible the first could have been commanded by a person; the second by a flameout. There are other scenarios too, but no evidence exists to support any scenario. You talk as if that is not the case, because imagining a massive power anomaly suits your scenario.

5) “Given the bizarre fact that ACARS still functioned yet did not send any flight data, for example position, altitude, airspeed etc, ”

There is no evidence whatsoever that “ACARS still functioned”. In fact there was ACARS activity after the last transmission.

What was functioning as a SATCOM datalink, after power was restored to it. No ACARS activity recorded after that point in time.

You need to stop using ACARS as a synonym for SATCOM. The two are not the same.

6) “ACARS itself is simply one of the three digital VHF radios slaved to work”
Not accurate at all. A VHF radio in data mode simply provides a datalink over RF function. I’m not going to bother with further details because I’ve pointed this out to you before, although history shows you need to be beat about the head with facts for an extended period of time.

7) “From the SAT phone log on exchanges at 18:39 there was a self test protocol which followed an order. By counting off the self test ACARS exchanges and identifying at which exchange the SAT calls were abandoned one can grasp which test failed and therefore the nature of the failure.”

You are making stuff up. The specification is very clear on this. Without having the contents of the data packets (not published by Malaysia; some country authorities will do so in a final factual report) we can’t ascertain this at all. From what has been published the SATCOM system appears to have delivered the incoming call to the intended set. No one answered.

 8) “The second of these SAT phone attempts the incoming call was re-routed from forward relays to the cockpit back to the CCS or Cabin Crew System, not to the IFE system per se.”

Your story continues to deviate farther and farther down the fantasy road. Nothing in the published logs allows for this speculation. Nothing.

9) “ATSB’s report of 3 December 2015 about major power failure early in the flight”
Last point for now: The ATSB never said this. They did say:
An interruption to the SDU may be caused by:

• loss of AC power requiring an APU auto-start or
• the cycling of the left generator and backup generator switches with the bus tie isolated (all switches are located on the overhead panel in the cockpit), or
• the circuit breakers in the electronic and equipment bay being pulled and then later reset or
• intermittent technical failures.

The word “failure” is used only once in the entire report, right there.

Some in the press have latched on to “major power failure” but nothing published in the official account supports this. It’s just good headline writing because drawing eyeballs to a story is, for some organizations, more important than communicating accurately about an inherently complicated story.

That’s sad. Sadder still Simon’s efforts only serve to further confuse matters for those who aren’t equipped with the time or knowledge to learn otherwise.

MTF..P2


Ps On the very sad news of David Bowie's passing - RIP Legend! "Ground Control from Major Tom..I'm outta here"

[Peetwo]

Fred gets it...& comments made in relation to the B777 are 'technically' correct!

Moreover, Fred understands that the B777 shed the conventional federated avionics structure for an integrated avionics structure from it's inception. The integrated avionics architecture of the Airplane allows several functions normally housed in separate LRUs (i.e. CMU), to now be processed & implemented from within a single avionics system--the AIMS cabinet.  There are two of these systems on board the B777.  Each AIMS cabinet operates totally partitioned from the other. This provides system redundancy in the event that a cabinet fails.

Simon's technical knowledge, especially with regard to the B777, often appears lacking! To those who 'know' the Aircraft that comes as no surprise. But to those who don't, it's easy to fall prey to anyone over-claiming knowledge & experience, & confusing fact with opinion.

On a different note, #3 Ben says: "This matrix of events and possibilities is the main reason why I have no coherent theory as to what happened to MH370 that I’d be prepared to defend." Fair do's, Ben!    

I'll throw in another choc frog & a Tim Tam.  

WOW! - Twice in one week  
Simon Gunson gets taken apart yet again, this time by another Aunty...

32
Aunty Conspiracy
Posted January 11, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

Any Twitter follower of this saga will know I’m not a fan of Gunson’s play-loose-with-the-facts approach, even if he *might* be doing it with the intention of protecting the PIC’s family. I say might because motive is difficult to ascertain. His motive could be more self serving but in the end is irrelevant.

Often I agree with Simon. For example I agree there is no official support for the rumours reported that 9M-MRO was ever observed (by any means) climbing to FL450.

The problem I have with Mr. Gunson is he flits from one bad approach to another. In this one thread we see grasping at the unsubstantiated and flat out errors:

1) “Electrical failure … indicates prolonged failure of the SDU satellite antenna.”

No. There are three SDU antennas. And let’s not use “electrical failure” when investigators are only willing to consider that power was interrupted to certain equipment (explaining the SDU outage). Interruption does not have to equal failure.

2) “If the SDU was out of operation then so too was AIMS.”

No. Factually incorrect, one can not surmise either or both AIMS cabinets were affected by a *power interruption* to the SDU. Quite the contrary, the SDU can be brought off line by situations that do not affect either or both AIMS cabinets.

3) “keep following a basic magnetic heading, but not navigate from waypoint to waypoint.” No, as others have pointed out.

4) “with the kind of power failure MH370 experienced.”

Exactly what kind of power failure do you *imagine* MH370 experienced? The ATSB has not indicated a massive power anomaly, just that power must have been interrupted, twice, to the SDU. It is easily possible the first could have been commanded by a person; the second by a flameout. There are other scenarios too, but no evidence exists to support any scenario. You talk as if that is not the case, because imagining a massive power anomaly suits your scenario.

5) “Given the bizarre fact that ACARS still functioned yet did not send any flight data, for example position, altitude, airspeed etc, ”

There is no evidence whatsoever that “ACARS still functioned”. In fact there was ACARS activity after the last transmission.

What was functioning as a SATCOM datalink, after power was restored to it. No ACARS activity recorded after that point in time.

You need to stop using ACARS as a synonym for SATCOM. The two are not the same.

6) “ACARS itself is simply one of the three digital VHF radios slaved to work”
Not accurate at all. A VHF radio in data mode simply provides a datalink over RF function. I’m not going to bother with further details because I’ve pointed this out to you before, although history shows you need to be beat about the head with facts for an extended period of time.

7) “From the SAT phone log on exchanges at 18:39 there was a self test protocol which followed an order. By counting off the self test ACARS exchanges and identifying at which exchange the SAT calls were abandoned one can grasp which test failed and therefore the nature of the failure.”

You are making stuff up. The specification is very clear on this. Without having the contents of the data packets (not published by Malaysia; some country authorities will do so in a final factual report) we can’t ascertain this at all. From what has been published the SATCOM system appears to have delivered the incoming call to the intended set. No one answered.

 8) “The second of these SAT phone attempts the incoming call was re-routed from forward relays to the cockpit back to the CCS or Cabin Crew System, not to the IFE system per se.”

Your story continues to deviate farther and farther down the fantasy road. Nothing in the published logs allows for this speculation. Nothing.

9) “ATSB’s report of 3 December 2015 about major power failure early in the flight”
Last point for now: The ATSB never said this. They did say:
An interruption to the SDU may be caused by:

• loss of AC power requiring an APU auto-start or
• the cycling of the left generator and backup generator switches with the bus tie isolated (all switches are located on the overhead panel in the cockpit), or
• the circuit breakers in the electronic and equipment bay being pulled and then later reset or
• intermittent technical failures.

The word “failure” is used only once in the entire report, right there.

Some in the press have latched on to “major power failure” but nothing published in the official account supports this. It’s just good headline writing because drawing eyeballs to a story is, for some organizations, more important than communicating accurately about an inherently complicated story.

That’s sad. Sadder still Simon’s efforts only serve to further confuse matters for those who aren’t equipped with the time or knowledge to learn otherwise.

To follow on from Aunty Conpiracy's PT post above, Grizzly & Fred make some more valuable observations on the unexplained MH370 early 'power interruption':

24
Grizzly
Posted January 13, 2016 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

The ATSB report dated 3 December 2015 does not say “electrical failure”. It says (page 9) “power loss to the SDU”. We do not know how or why that “power loss” occurred.
According to the report “To experience a power interruption long enough to generate a log-on request, a loss of both AC buses (page 8), or a disabling of the automatic switching would be required.” The report later expands on this (page 9):

“An interruption to the SDU may be caused by:
• loss of AC power requiring an APU auto-start or
• the cycling of the left generator and backup generator switches with the bus tie isolated (all
switches are located on the overhead panel in the cockpit), or
• the circuit breakers in the electronic and equipment bay being pulled and then later reset or
• intermittent technical failures.”

In other words, either a failure, or a switch off by someone. And in the absence of clear evidence about which of those two possibilities occurred, it is possible that a pilot or hijacker (not necessarily Zaharie) switched off the power to the SDU.

We also do not know why or how the power to the SDU was later restored.

25
Fred
Posted January 13, 2016 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
Some other points to ponder:

If the power interruption to the SDU was caused by the loss of both Main AC buses, then the APU should have started automatically to restore AC power. However, the ATSB (& presumably Boeing) believes the APU didn’t auto-start until both engines flamed-out much later in the flight, as evidenced by the SATCOM system’s final log-on attempt. That leaves three possibilities for the power interruption to the SDU that occurred earlier in the flight:

1. The left main generator, left backup generator and left bus tie switches would need to be selected off and then subsequently selected on again to restore power.
2. Various circuit breakers in the Main Equipment Centre beneath the flight deck/cabin floor would need to be pulled and then subsequently reset.
3. An intermittent technical fault that initially tripped the left main and backup generators off-line and prevented the bus-tie breaker from closing, removing power from the left Main AC bus. The fault would need to clear itself to allow the bus-tie breaker to close and restore power to the left Main AC bus.

The first and second possibilities obviously require some kind of human intervention. I tend to think that the second possibility, while not impossible, is probably the least likely. I also question why a suicidal pilot or hijacker would go to the trouble of disabling the left Main AC bus only to restore power later in the flight.

That leaves the third possibility, some kind of intermittent technical fault such as a short circuit somewhere on the left Main AC bus. However, that does not explain how the fault was subsequently removed and power restored.

So many questions and so few answers!  - Ain't that the truth

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

LTGB Part III: KL right of reply? - via the URM (URM - Unmanned remote Muppet)

In what would appear to be a pre-emptive move, early yesterday the Malaysian's deployed their SMH URM (incognito with beard on) to the ABC studios in Can'tberra & here is what they had to say in defence of recent Senior Airline Pilot's assertions that the Pilot did it..

Renewed speculation over the fate of MH370

• Listen now(Link will open in new window)
  
• Download audio
  

Broadcast:Wednesday 13 January 2016 8:05AM (view full episode)
Image: Co-pilot Brett McKenzie of the Royal New Zealand Airforce helps to look for objects during the search for missing MH370 (Pool/Getty Images) Link to larger image.Image: Co-pilot Brett McKenzie of the Royal New Zealand Airforce helps to look for objects during the search for missing MH370 (Pool/Getty Images)

There's been renewed speculation about the fate of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370, nearly two years after its disappearance.

Now, senior airline pilots from Australia, Britain and the US claim the search team's theory of oxygen deprivation could be wrong.

They're suggesting a rogue pilot steered the plane down.

The clock is ticking; the Federal Government expects the search will be called off MH370 in June this year, after covering 120,000 square kilometres.

Martin Dolan, Commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which is leading the search, joins Sarah Dingle on Summer Breakfast.

Which has led to 'That Man' updating the running commentary in the Oz today:

‘No push to drop rogue theory’

12:00amEAN HIGGINS

The head of the MH370 search has ­denied Malaysia was applying pressure to reject theories a ‘rogue pilot’ flew it to its end.

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.


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”.

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.

“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.

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.

Mr Dolan said the ATSB was concerned only with what happened to MH370 after it made its final turn south. “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.”

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.

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.

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

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

How can you tell when the URM is under direct control from Malaysia? The felt lips are moving & a couple of seconds later, rising slowly in crescendo, you can hear mi..mi..mi..mi..mi..mi
MTF..P2  

[Kharon]

I do like to try and keep an open mind; and, much as it goes against the grain to agree with anything Beaker says; I have to agree with some of the comments made.  But not this one. 

[for] the last part of the flight was consistent with the crew being disabled by lack of oxygen from decompression or otherwise “unresponsive”. Etc.

Unintentional depressurised argument has far too many holes in it (pardon the pun) to stand a test, almost every scenario for that can, logically, be gainsaid.  The notion of an intentional act has merit and it explains the great difference between ‘crew response’ to an in flight emergency and points toward premeditation.  We can argue the matter all day and still come up with little more than speculation.

“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

It’s a fair argument; even if he is playing for the Malaysians, he is more likely to have ‘facts’ not available to the unwashed.  Once again we hit the brick wall of investigation done; IMO had there been a shred of evidence to support the notion that ‘the’ pilot deliberately committed mass murder and suicide we should have known about it by now.  A political ‘scandal’ is not a new thing and the arts of cover up are well practiced, it may have been headlines for a week, even caused a change in government, but it would have been a ‘full-stop’.  

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

If, and it’s a big IF Dolan had shown himself to be, as was Caesars wife, above suspicion then that practical, logical statement would be easy to accept; for it’s a fair call.  Alas, he ain’t and much of the common sense evaporates to be replaced by suspicion that Dolan is simply the glove puppet.  A role he has starred in many times now, to critical acclaim.

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.

Sound argument.  Someone, somewhere knows what happened.  Someone had ‘technical’ knowledge, who and why are the unanswered questions.  If MH 370 is to be found, it will be found through investigation pertaining to the ‘pre departure phase’; not the after departure, in flight phase. Once airborne, the fate of MH 370 was well and truly sealed.

Caesar gave no evidence against Clodius at his trial, and he was acquitted. Nevertheless, Caesar divorced Pompeia, saying that "my wife ought not even to be under suspicion." This gave rise to a proverb, sometimes expressed: "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.

[Peetwo]

ATSB MH370 QON -

Slight drift but for those interested the QON index for last Estimates has very belatedly been released & in the mix of ATSB QON there is three questions asked on MH370:



It will be interesting to see the AQON & we won't have to wait long as next Estimates for the RRAT Committee are listed for the 8-9th February, so the ATSB has got till then to answer the QON.


MTF..P2   

[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. 

Ben also picked up on the (Beaker endorsed) bureau missive: 

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. 

Respectfully to Ben  on certain aspects of his article I disagree but I vigorously agree with the Brock McEwan assessment & opinion on the ATSB missive : 

3
Brock McEwen
Posted January 19, 2016 at 1:13 am | Permalink

I have never paid any attention to Bailey.

However, neither his nor The Australian’s failures should excuse the ATSB from being “called out” for the things it HAS said, and the decisions it HAS taken. Particularly when the latter conflict with the former, the laws of physics, or both.

I know from prior discussions you wouldn’t have meant that, Ben. It’s just that your opening sentence, on strict reading, suggests that the ATSB should NOT be “called out” – i.e. held accountable – for the MH370 search. I wouldn’t want your readers to get the wrong impression of the strength of your support for efforts to hold MH370’s search leadership accountable.

This principle holds regardless of who may be pulling their strings – if a tanked or dysfunctional search costing millions is (as you always imply) the product of foreign intervention (on intervention, we agree; of WHICH foreigner, I’m not yet sure), then all the MORE reason to press Oz officials, to bring any such expensive corruption to light.

CF for that man..

However I also feel that Bailey & the Oz wouldn't see this attempted dress down by the ATSB as a 'failure', on the contrary IMO they would feel they've achieved their first objective and that is to drag Dolan out into the open.
{P2 comment- It should not be forgotten that 'that man' Higgins, was legendary with that same tactic in the Dick Smith v Airservices feud & like then it is all about dragging these bureaucrats out from under their rocks & challenging the spin -'Mystique' - & bulldust}. 

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.

TBC..P2

[Peetwo]

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..."

[P7_TOM]

Sorry chaps - tried to get the 'quote' whatdycallit to work; fail.  No matter .  P9 below.

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]

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]

“K” we got the gunfight bit right– wrong corral: maybe.

After some serious digging it seems (perhaps) the brick-bats related to the transfer from the AMSA – Search and Rescue (Annexe 12) to the Search and Recover (Annexe 13) is quite legitimate. Whether there was; or, is some ‘friction’ between the camps remains firmly speculative. The ICAO ‘requirements’ may have prompted the need for JACC as the AAI is not allowed to make public comment or statement.

The ATSB’s reoccurring forays into the media (Annexe 13 –{5.12}) however may be brought into question and go some way toward explaining the apparent differences between the rival camps. Then there is the question of whether Malaysia stipulated Dolan, and only Dolan, to lead from the rear. Indeed, it all remains passing strange, but part of the mystery appears at least to be partly, if not completely solved at very least.

It’s all fairly complicated, but it is, as it is.

[Peetwo]

“K” we got the gunfight bit right– wrong corral: maybe.

After some serious digging it seems (perhaps) the brick-bats related to the transfer from the AMSA – Search and Rescue (Annexe 12) to the Search and Recover (Annexe 13) is quite legitimate.  Whether there was; or, is some ‘friction’ between the camps remains firmly speculative.  The ICAO ‘requirements’ may have prompted the need for JACC as the AAI is not allowed to make public comment or statement.

The ATSB’s reoccurring forays into the media (Annexe 13 –{5.12}) however may be brought into question and go some way toward explaining the apparent differences between the rival camps.  Then there is the question of whether Malaysia stipulated Dolan, and only Dolan, to lead from the rear.  Indeed, it all remains passing strange, but part of the mystery appears at least to be partly, if not completely solved at very least.

It’s all fairly complicated, but it is, as it is.

In an effort to explain it is worth referring again to the abruptly ended, interactive, AMSA MH370 timeline where it stated...

"...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 JACC became operational on the 31st of March 2014 and the transition from a SAR phase (Annex 12) to an investigation phase (Annex 13) was already occurring?? This was despite the fact that the surface SAR would not cease operations for yet another month.

IMO the reason the Malaysians wanted to go to the investigation phase is that they desperately needed to wrest back control of the search & more importantly the narrative of the search, Annex 13 enabled the Malaysians to do that by being the State of registry for MH370.

However the transition from Annex 12 to 13 is dependent on (balance of probabilities) there being no survivors - hence going from SAR to 'search & recovery'.

How this decision could be justified, in the case of an aircraft disappearing without a trace, is beyond me but quite obviously legally this was somehow established?? 

It is interesting to note that in the AMSA/JRCC presentation to ICAO - MH370 SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE – JRCC AUSTRALIA - under heading Search Challenges (para 2.2) at subpara q)) it states..

q) Clearly defined division of responsibilities between the search and rescue function (Annex 12) and the air accident investigation search and recovery function (Annex 13).

...which signifies that the JRCC found this 'transition' from Annex 12 to 13 as an impediment to their effective control & management of the SAR phase.

The irony of all this is that it is the Malaysians who were responsible for putting Beaker in charge of the greatest aviation mystery of all time. The question is did they do this by design or was there political/bureaucratic influence from our end??

IMO it is not possible to accept, after the Senate PelAir inquiry & numerous less than convincing Senate Estimates appearances, that either the Malaysians or the miniscule would honestly believe (unless there were ulterior motives) they had the best man for the job - or would they??

It would have been simple for Truss to appoint an acting commissioner with sole responsibility for MH370 in the interim, as the Chief Commissioner's contract was soon to expire. Instead Truss bizarrely extended the CC's contract for a further 2yrs, which coincidentally (like the SIO search) is due to expire in June 2016.

MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

Control of narrative.

Spot on P2, nicely done (again).  Now we have the cover story and can see the machinations.  As neat and tidy a piece of legal/political jiggery-pokery as you will ever see scripted.  Totally plausible and well within the ICAO framework.

But does it satisfactorily answer the underlying questions; the big ones.  IMO no, it does not.

AMSA remain the ‘expert’ body and even if the ‘transition’ from rescue to recovery had been explained to the public, the operation would have retained ‘search’ status.  As such, had it been acknowledged that AMSA must now, technically hand over the ‘search’ operation but would remain ‘active’ in an advisory capacity; i.e. they would continue but now brief ATSB, all would have been believable and above board.  Just common sense, the man at the back of the room could understand.

But it’s not done that way, is it.  ‘Snap’ and AMSA is set adrift, to be replaced by ATSB. Placing Dolan in charge was a calculated gamble.  Few, in Australia, even less in Malaysia would have heard of the Pel-Air accident, let alone the ‘inquiry’ or the results of the Senate deliberations, or the shellacking Dolan and ATSB received as a result.  So, to the world and it’s wife, Dolan was a ‘clean-skin’ wearing the mantle of the Australian reputation as a world class aviation nation.  The fact that Dolan (ATSB) and McCormick (CASA) had done more to damage that reputation than any other pair had done gets lost in the rhetoric.

Why the Truss advisors failed to recommend and promote someone like Folley to the front of house remains a mystery.  Dolan was ‘on the nose’.  P7 reckons that had they by-passed Dolan it would be seen as an admission of government fault in the Pel-Air debacle.  There were two choices; fire Dolan and wear the recriminations or; roll the dice, extend his contract and give him a plum job.  Makes sense to me.  Mrdak could not have two of his agencies publicly tainted, like it or not, there was a repair job to be done.  

Little doubt remains that Malaysia desperately wanted control of the narrative and the flexible, cooperative beyond all reason methodology best suited their purpose.  

Politically and legally it has been a ‘win-win’ situation.  The safety blanket deployed for Dolan’s soft landing, under his golden parachute.  Time will tell whether it has been of benefit to those who wait daily for news of loved ones; or, those of us who wonder WTF has happened, why it happened and ‘who-dunnit’.

Neat, tidy and Oh so legal; the exemplar; defining the art of jiggery-pokery and mass embuggerance.

Selah.

[Peetwo]

'That man' Higgins sniffs a rort?

Courtesy the Weekend Oz x2 :

A question of confidence in filling $100m MH370 black hole

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• January 23, 2016 12:00AM
  

The revelation that Australia is relying on Malaysia to meet a potential $100 million “black hole” in the search to find MH370 demonstrates the pitfalls in the government’s approach to this project.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief Martin Dolan said on ABC Radio last week that Australia did not need to find out what happened on board MH370, since under international law the investigation was Malaysia’s responsibility.

The fact that Malaysia promised to contribute a survey vessel to the search, and it never showed up, does not augur well for the country’s enthusiasm over solving the mystery.

Mr Dolan and the bureau have fallen over themselves to avoid the clear evidence that the most likely scenario, given the deliberate flying evident in the first part of the flight back over Malaysia and the turning off of the radar transponder and cut in communications, is that captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own plane.

The bureau has said the first part of the flight doesn’t matter for its purposes, and is working only on the track from the last turn south and a scenario consistent with the crew passing out from lack of oxygen because of decompression or otherwise becoming “unresponsive’’.

Zaharie was a strong supporter and relative of Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who the day before the flight had faced court where his acquittal on sodomy charges had been overturned, in what is widely seen as a politically motivated trial.

If it turns out that the loss of MH370 was a political statement by Zaharie, it would be a bad look for the Malaysian government. One has to ask in those circumstances how confident Australian taxpayers, who have so far put up $60m for the underwater search, can be that if the cost blows out, Malaysia will stump up as much as $100m to meet it.

&..

Questions over MH370 search funding shortfall

• Ean Higgins
  
• The Australian
  
• January 23, 2016 12:00AM
  

Australia is relying on Malaysia to fund a potential $100 million shortfall in the search for Flight MH370, as it emerges that a survey vessel promised by Malaysia to join the search never showed up.

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss’s office would not produce any public statement from the Malaysian government in which it committed to meet the remaining cost of the search, and the Malaysian high commission did not respond to a similar request.

The Weekend Australian can also reveal that while nearly two months ago Mr Truss, whose transport portfolio covers the search for the Malaysia Airlines plane, said a Chinese vessel would join the search this ­summer, none has appeared; his department did not say when one would.

The federal government has taken prime responsibility for the search for MH370, which dis­appeared on March 8, 2014, on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, because its presumed final resting place, in the southern ­Indian Ocean, is within Australia’s search and rescue zone.

The hunt will be called off once the designated 120,000sq km target zone has been searched, ­expected in June.

Australia has committed $60m to the cost of the search, and China has recently committed $20m in “assets and financial ­contribution”.

In a statement this week to The Weekend Australian, the Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre, set up within Mr Truss’s department to orchestrate the search, said: “It is expected that the underwater search may cost up to $180m.’’

Asked how the $100m gap, understood to be the result in part of a declining Australian dollar against a US contract with the Dutch Fugro survey group whose three ships are conducting the search, would be met, Mr Truss’s spokesman said: “Malaysia has committed assets and financial contribution to fund the balance of the cost of the underwater search.”

The spokesman would not provide a copy of the tripartite agreement he said embodied the commitment, or produce any other corroborating statement from the Malaysian government.

Since the Boeing 777 was ­Malaysian-registered, under international aviation law Malaysia is charged with investigating its ­disappearance.

This point has been repeatedly stressed by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau when asked why, rather than work on the dominant opinion put by commercial airline pilots and other aviation experts that MH370 was hijacked by its captain, it relies on a theory consistent with the pilots becoming unconscious due to lack of oxygen during decompression or otherwise “unresponsive.”

Early last month, Mr Truss said “within the coming months a fourth vessel to be provided by China will add to the search ­effort’’.

Recent weekly bulletins from the joint co-ordination centre about the search have made no mention of a Chinese vessel joining the effort.

“Any new vessel entering the search will be announced at an appropriate time, prior to it arriving in the search area,” a co-ordination centre representative said.

Hmm...sounds like there are some serious questions that fall within the remit of 'the Heff' & his band of merry men & women that they could possibly ask at Estimates in a couple of weeks time...


MTF..P2