[Brock McEwen]

Below is the full text of a comment I just submitted to the latest jeffwise.net article of his interview with DTSG's Dr. Neil Gordon.  Each of my previous (hundreds of) posts have appeared immediately - this is the second in a row not to appear.  I'm posting it here merely for documentation purposes, since I know many of you share my drive to uncover the truth behind MH370's fate - as well as my concern over the quality of the search effort to date.  Apologies to all others for the long and relatively off-topic post (which also requires you read the jeffwise article, for context).

* * *

Yes, thanks much, Jeff.  Very revealing.  For instance:

1) Search box width

- The IG's original Sep/14 search box width recommendation was ~20nmi
- by Mar/15, this had widened to ~30nmi ("high probability")
- by Apr/15, my stochastic model, calibrated to IG flight sim results, suggested the ~40nmi width already scanned contained 99% of the statistical likelihood

Each of the above took both of Dr. Gordon's points about BTO uncertainty into consideration. Yet:

- in Dec/15 - with the search already ~60nmi wide - the DTSG "book" - without any stated justification - paved the way for a FURTHER widening of the scan zone

- now, here in Sep/16 - after 9 months spent (wasted?) widening the search to ~70nmi - Dr. Gordon deflects Jeff's invitation to reconsider zone width, suggesting only 70% of the recommended zone has yet been searched, and pretending that BTO errors account for much more than a TENTH of this width.

Perhaps a greater proportion of density near the arc COULD have been searched by now, had his organization's "book" not in essence told the ATSB to go wide instead.

2) Debris found to date

Interestingly, it was the NORTHERN half of the DTSG's 34-40°S zone (per above graphic) which my Apr/16 IPRC data-based drift study suggested should have resulted in significant quantities of debris hitting Australian shorelines by Dec/14.  While the IPRC study which generated the shoreline hit probabilities was not publicized until after the flaperon sparked interest in drift analyses, such data was not dependent on any found debris - it could have been generated as soon as the priority search zone was set, back in Sep/14.  And the absence of debris on Oz shores could have been used to force a rethink of this zone by as early as Jan/15.

Hiding behind the uncertainty factor of drift analyses is a cop-out.  If the entire WIDE distribution of, e.g. the "Roy" piece's possible starting points misses your search zone by a wide margin, it is time for a re-think.

This reminds me of the two months spent searching the Wallaby plateau, despite the obvious counter-indications of the FDR's frequency and range, the BFO data fit, and the ridiculously trigonometric path curvature required to access it.  Deaf ears + failure of media to hold anyone accountable = dysfunctional search. Highly suspicious.

@Jeff: can you please request from Dr. Gordon...

A) concrete support for the DTSG's baffling decision to push the scan zone width past 60nmi - and now past 70nmi, and

B) a reason (better than the one given) to ignore what IO shorelines cry out to us (OZ seemingly empty to Sep/16, SA seemingly "full" by Dec/15)?

Thanks in advance for your consideration of these requests.

[Gobbledock]

Very well articulated Brock.
I believe that we all know the reason why your specific question hasn't been published by Mr Wise.
Nonetheless, keep up the good work and drop as much relevant input as you want onto AuntyPru. You have a support network here also keen to find out the truth about MH370.

[Brock McEwen]

Re: new time delay on jeffwise - update: largely a "chicken little" moment on my part - post had been published by the time I'd posted here, & checked back.

There still seems to be a delay before my posts go up that wasn't there before - I'd be interested in hearing whether any others in this forum experience similar new delays when posting there. But as long as the delay is very small, I've no concerns - I'm sure it is no picnic running an online forum, and expect this change may be simply admin/security-related. Sorry for the fuss.

[ventus45]

Brock,
The "time delay" on posting on JW seems to be a "variable".
In the past, some of mine have come up virtually immediately, in other cases, some hours have elapsed.

[ventus45]

[ventus45]

What happened to the "ten second radar data" ?

Ventus-radar.JPG Size: 54.22 KB  Downloads: 89

But then, there is this:

#00:22:27-5# Right. Okay. It’s not.
From 18:02, let’s imagine that, let’s just go from 18:02 because you’ve got continuous track up to that point, and then just use BTO only. #00:22:39-8#



From what Neil says (he even hedges his bets by going back to IGARI for Christ's sake !) as per this passage of his, from #00:12:24-1# to #00:14:03-2#

<Quote>

#00:12:24-1#  

Neil Gordon:
Ah, we’ve based—you’ve got to understand what our job in this investigation is.
Our job is to take the data as presented to us, by the accident investigators and they —

Jeff Wise - interviewer:
‘what do you project as a trajectory from that?’

Neil Gordon:
I guess from our point of view as data processors we would always want to inject more uncertainty than—we don’t like anything that’s got, “This is exactly the — where it was at this time.’

We’re always going to be a bit more careful about applying some realistic notion of uncertainty to that.

And that’s why, rather than take this delta function truth about that final radar point, you’ve got to be realistic and say, ‘Okay, that’s actually not quite true, there is a spread of uncertainty around it.’

One of the things you’ll also see in the book, I think, is, we did run the analysis without using any of the primary radar data.

Because you can just take the final secondary radar, when it was still heading northeast towards China.

You can start the analysis from there.

And you’re just going to end up with a more uncertain distribution that covers a bigger area, but it’s all down in the South China Sea. Sorry the southern Indian Ocean.

#00:13:53-2#

Jeff Wise - interviewer:
But if it’s more constrained, then the distribution will be tighter. #00:13:57-9#

Neil Gordon:
Yes. The danger is, if you make it more constrained in the wrong way, then you’ll miss it.
#00:14:03-2#

<End Quote>


So, reading between the lines, Neil is effectively saying - without actually saying it, is that "we were DIRECTED" to start our analysis from a "NORTHERN FMT".

He is also saying, QUITE POINTEDLY, AND QUITE DELIBERATELY, ALMOST AS "A THROWAYAY LINE", that if you work from the "last secondary radar contact" ie, at IGARI, you still end up in the SIO, but your search area is "much bigger".

Taken all together, I am calling a spade a spade.

I am more and more convinced, that the whole Malacca Strait radar story is total Malaysian Government Bullshit, deliberately designed to keep the search north of where it really went, to ensure that it is never found.

The only theory that makes sense is "my - SOUTHERN FMT - via Medan theory", as previously published in this blog, over on the "Criminal Act" thread.

[Peetwo]

What happened to the "ten second radar data" ?





But then, there is this:

#00:22:27-5# Right. Okay. It’s not.
From 18:02, let’s imagine that, let’s just go from 18:02 because you’ve got continuous track up to that point, and then just use BTO only. #00:22:39-8#

From what Neil says (he even hedges his bets by going back to IGARI for Christ's sake !) as per this passage of his, from #00:12:24-1# to #00:14:03-2#

<Quote>

#00:12:24-1#  

Neil Gordon:
Ah, we’ve based—you’ve got to understand what our job in this investigation is.
Our job is to take the data as presented to us, by the accident investigators and they —

Jeff Wise - interviewer:
‘what do you project as a trajectory from that?’

Neil Gordon:
I guess from our point of view as data processors we would always want to inject more uncertainty than—we don’t like anything that’s got, “This is exactly the — where it was at this time.’

We’re always going to be a bit more careful about applying some realistic notion of uncertainty to that.

And that’s why, rather than take this delta function truth about that final radar point, you’ve got to be realistic and say, ‘Okay, that’s actually not quite true, there is a spread of uncertainty around it.’

One of the things you’ll also see in the book, I think, is, we did run the analysis without using any of the primary radar data.

Because you can just take the final secondary radar, when it was still heading northeast towards China.

You can start the analysis from there.

And you’re just going to end up with a more uncertain distribution that covers a bigger area, but it’s all down in the South China Sea. Sorry the southern Indian Ocean.

#00:13:53-2#

Jeff Wise - interviewer:
But if it’s more constrained, then the distribution will be tighter. #00:13:57-9#

Neil Gordon:
Yes. The danger is, if you make it more constrained in the wrong way, then you’ll miss it.
#00:14:03-2#

<End Quote>


So, reading between the lines, Neil is effectively saying - without actually saying it, is that "we were DIRECTED" to start our analysis from a "NORTHERN FMT".

He is also saying, QUITE POINTEDLY, AND QUITE DELIBERATELY, ALMOST AS "A THROWAYAY LINE", that if you work from the "last secondary radar contact" ie, at IGARI, you still end up in the SIO, but your search area is "much larger".

Taken all together, I am calling a spade a spade.

I am more and more convinced, that the whole Malacca Strait radar story is total Malaysian Government Bullshit, deliberately designed to keep the search north of where it really went, to ensure that it is never found.

The only theory that makes sense is "my - SOUTHERN FMT - via Medan theory", as previously published in this blog, over on the "Criminal Act" thread.

Here is the original PM piece that covered the Dr Neil Gordon interview:

Top Mathematician Says MH370 Probably Crashed North of the Search Zone
Neil Gordon, who helped to define the search zone for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, gives PM his first-ever press interview.


[/url]



More than two years after the disappearance of MH370, and a month after the three countries directing the investigation said they may be giving up, one of the leading scientists who told investigators where to look is saying that searchers may have been hunting in the wrong area all along. Australian government scientist Neil Gordon headed up the team whose mathematical analysis of satellite signals transmitted by the plane defined the boundaries of the 120,000-sq-km seabed search zone. With the hunt for MH370 still empty-handed, he thinks the plane most likely came down further to the northeast.

"If you look at the probability distribution, it would say, 'Go up north,'" says Gordon, head of the Data and Information Fusion group at Australia's Defense Science Technology Group, in his first-ever press interview.

"What's the probability you think you'll find it in there? I'd have said, mid-70s, because that's the probability content of that zone."

Gordon's group was brought into the search mission in mid-2014 when Australia was given responsibility for finding the missing aircraft. Starting with the set of seven "pings" the plane sent to an Inmarsat satellite during its last six hours in the air, the group used a branch of mathematics called Bayesian analysis to assess all the possible routes the plane might have flown to see how well each path fit with the data. Their results showed the most likely resting place of the plane, which was along an arc defined by the seventh and final ping. The ATSB then performed a separate analysis to determine how far the plane might have flown from the seventh arc. The result was a probability "heat map" showing where on the surface of the ocean the plane might have impacted. The current search area is a rectangle than encompasses the highest-probability portion of the heat map.

Yet, even though his team helped to define that area, Gordon is not entirely surprised that searchers have not located the wreckage. We're talking about probabilities, after all, and probabilities based on a lot of unknowns. "If you'd said before they started searching this 120,000 square kilometers, 'What's the probability you think you'll find it in there?' I'd have said, 'mid-70s,' because that's the probability content of that zone." In other words, even if Gordon's math was spot-on, there's a 25 percent chance MH370 crashed in a place outside the search box.

For the plane to have traveled somewhere beyond the search zone, there are a couple possibilities. Either the airliner was held in a slow, gliding descent and hit the sea further to the southeast, or it followed a curving path further to the northeast.

• 
  

The current MH370 search area.

[ The current MH370 search area. The dark green box is the 120,000 sq km search area defined by DSTG analysis. The light green area shows the portion of the seabed already scanned (an earlier portion of the search, guided by a slightly different analysis, searched further to the northeast). "Area 1" shows the area, stretching 100 nautical miles beyond the 7th arc, where MH370 could have ended up if the pilot held it in a glide after fuel exhaustion. "Area 2" shows the as-yet-unsearched area where Gordon suggests the plane might have gone. The two red arcs lie 15 nautical miles inside and outside the 7th arc, and define the region within which the plane most likely ended up if it was plummeting as quickly as the metadata for the final ping suggest.]

At one time, both were considered viable possibilities, but recently search officials took a more careful look at the data from the 7th ping and determined that it did not fit with the glide scenario. "The final electronic communication signaling points to very high descent rates," Gordon says. "If you look at the simulation results that Boeing has done for uncontrolled descent from that time, they're consistent with the numbers you get from the final data messages pointing to a very rapid descent rate."

Specifically, the metadata indicate the plane was descending at about 5,000 feet per minute (compared to 2,000-3,000 feet per minute for a typical airliner descent into landing) and then, eight seconds later, somewhere between 12,000 and 20,000 feet per minute.

This is a high rate of descent, and it indicates that the dive was steepening. Therefore, it would have struck the surface of the ocean soon thereafter and at high speed. This scenario would be consistent with the small size of most of the pieces recovered so far, as well as the recent assessment by the ATSB that the plane's right flap was stowed inside the wing during impact with the sea. If the pilot were making a gentle ditching, you'd expect that flap to be deployed.

If this new interpretation of the data is correct, there is essentially a zero probability that the wreckage will turn up in the course of the current search, which is expected to stretch on until December. After that? It depends whether the investigating nations put enough stock in this idea to keep the hunt going.

P2 comment: I don't know about anyone else but there is something about this statement that I find quite disturbing:

.."If you'd said before they started searching this 120,000 square kilometers, 'What's the probability you think you'll find it in there?' I'd have said, 'mid-70s,' because that's the probability content of that zone." In other words, even if Gordon's math was spot-on, there's a 25 percent chance MH370 crashed in a place outside the search box..."

As a taxpayer, I am not sure that I am happy with the rationale of basing an expensive search on a 25% chance of being unsuccessful and that is only if Gordon's math was spot-on..

And now we are being told that money was not the issue and we are left with the open ended options of either expanding the search 'further north', or calling it quits until some undefined 'credible' evidence pops up - UDB!

Wouldn't it have been way more prudent to have left the MH370 SIO deep sea search contract open-ended with cost and time. Started from the boffins high prob % search zone and worked your way out? God forbid we might actually have been in the more northerly sector of the 7th arc by now with increased resources and a bigger team...

Botsy with simple logic and a knowledge of SAR IMO nailed it   :

[url=http://auntypru.com/forum/-Senate-Estimates-2016?pid=4842#pid4842]Botswana O'Hooligan

17 minutes ago

Simple logic would dictate the maximum size of the area where the wreckage should be so one takes the maximum altitude the aeroplane may have been at and where they thought it would run out of fuel, draw a circle based the best lift/drag ratio, add in a projected wind effect, and you come up with a circle of about 240,000 square kilometres in area, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less, and that's the area to be searched. In case the ATSB theory is correct and the aeroplane went straight in, you start either a creeping line ahead search or an expanding square search from the most likely spot where the final glide started. Anybody with SAR experience can figure that out and one suspects that the ATSB know it too unless they are incompetent, but why didn't they use it?

But what did we get? Mathematical boffins and other assorted scientific/analytical experts, who are all totally dependant on the pollywaffles & bureaucrats for funding to ensure their livelihood, making flippant remarks (like in the quote above), which is essentially saying - "oh well stiff shit!"    
  
Sorry for the drift "V" - err back to you mate..


MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Latest entry to the MH370 DOI archives -

MH370: Possible debris could prove fire theory in Malaysia Airlines missing plane mystery
The World Today
By Peter Lloyd
Posted about an hour agoMon 12 Sep 2016, 4:46pm
Photo: Debris was found off Mosambique in March this year. (Supplied: Aircrash Support Group Australia)

New wreckage that may be from missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 could be the first proof for the theory that the plane was exposed to intense heat or fire.

Key points:

• New debris could prove there was a fire onboard the plane
  
• It has similar honeycomb pattern unique to Boeing's composite materials
  
• Victims relatives want Malaysia to hand the investigation over
  

The debris was brought to Australia and handed to officials at the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in Canberra this morning.

If the debris is confirmed to be from flight 370, it would support the theory that an onboard fire crippled the Boeing 777's systems, leaving pilots struggling to get back to safety before being overwhelmed by fumes or lack of oxygen.

It was found on the coast of Madagascar, the huge island nation off the southeast coast of Africa where the majority of suspected debris has come ashore so far.

Blaine Gibson, an American lawyer turned self-styled investigator into the mystery of flight 370, has brought more suspected and confirmed pieces of wreckage back from Africa than anyone else.

"I am bringing these [new pieces of debris] over to ATSB, which will give the absolute best forensic analysis and investigation possible," he told the ABC.

"There are two that have burned and singe marks on them, and if those are found to be from Malaysia 370 and if it is discovered that the fire took place before the crash, then this is a real game changer that could help identify what was the cause of the planes demise.

"I'd add that of these five pieces, three of them are from the fuselage."

While it remains too soon to know whether Mr Gibson's theory as to the provenance of the objects was correct, the new debris has the honeycomb pattern that was unique to Boeing's composite materials.

And some strongly resemble panelling used in the Boeing 777.

Mr Gibson has speculated that the panel with a scorched appearance could be from the avionics bay — which is located below and behind the cockpit under the main cabin floor.

"One of the theories is that there was a fire on the plane," he said.

He said that so far there was no evidence to support that theory, but if the new debris was determined to be from flight 370 and the heat exposure occurred before the crash, "then that's a very significant clue".

Malaysia should step aside: relatives

Relatives of the plane's passengers and crew have also been in Canberra to visit the ATSB.

It was meant to be a private visit, initiated by Australian search officials who saw firsthand how the next of kin are sidelined in Malaysia.
         
Audio: Listen to Peter Lloyd's story (The World Today)

Grace Nathan's mother Anne was on the missing flight and on behalf of the next of kin she seized the moment to ask Australia's search officials to petition Malaysia to step aside from the investigation.

"I think the topic will come up about whether it's possible for Malaysia to really push its authority over the search, its power over the search," she said.

"And to hand it over to another nation that is willing and capable of taking over."

Next of kin who were not in Canberra said they wanted it to be known that they stood united against the airline.

K S Narendran, whose partner was on flight 370, said the families and the public at large were being "short-changed".

He said he believed that for almost three months potential debris had been "languishing in Madagascar".

"It boggles our mind as to why that country, which is in charge of the investigation, would simply not pick it up," he said

&..

Also via the West Oz:

MH370 relatives: Please don't give up search

Angela Pownall and Geoffrey Thomas 08 Sep 2016


Relatives of MH370 passengers plea for search to continue Bai Shuan Fu, Jennifer Chong, Jiang Hui, Grace Nathan.

Relatives of passengers presumed dead on Malaysia Airlines flight 370, which disappeared off the WA coast in 2014, have pleaded with Australia not to abandon the search for the aircraft.

Family members of MH370 victims met Australian investigators leading the A$180 million search for the Boeing 777 in Perth on Wednesday.

They told The West Australian newspaper of their anguish and frustration that their loved ones remain lost 2 1/2 years after the plane disappeared.

Jennifer Chong, whose husband Chong Ling Tan was on the doomed flight, appealed to the Australian, Chinese and Malaysian governments to continue the search.

“Please don’t give up on searching for MH370, for our loved ones, for us and for the flying public,” the Victorian mother said.

MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014, after communications were cut during what was to be a routine flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

The search is due to be suspended in December when Dutch search company Fugro completes the current 120,000sqkm search zone.

The Australian, Malaysian and Chinese governments agreed on the suspension in July in the absence of “credible new evidence” pointing to the plane’s location.

Ms Chong was among a group of Australian, Chinese, Malaysian and Indonesian relatives of MH370 victims who were in Perth to meet the crew of the Fugro Equator ship, which was in Fremantle for a crew change yesterday for its search in the remote southern Indian Ocean.

Malaysian Grace Nathan, whose mother Anne Daisy was on MH370, appealed for help to find evidence before the search ended in December.

“It is our understanding that if they dismantle the whole search, it will take a very long time to remobilise it because they will have to have the assets come back to the location and that will take time,” she said. “It’s everyone’s best interests that something comes up sooner rather than later.”

Ms Nathan, a lawyer, said she would raise the issue when the group meets Australian Transport Safety Bureau officials in Canberra on Monday.

The group praised the Australian Government, which has contributed A$60 million to the search. But they were disappointed with the Malaysian Government’s handling of the tragedy.

Ms Nathan said the Malaysian officials leading the investigation into the plane’s disappearance had refused to meet victims’ relatives despite repeated requests.

“We don’t understand why they never want to see us, speak to us. We struggle to come to terms with this,” she said.

The relatives met US lawyer and investigator Blaine Gibson, who has found 10 pieces of debris, some confirmed to be from MH370. They praised his efforts and believe it is credible evidence to continue the search.

- See more at: http://www.airlineratings.com/news/799/m...IFsDp.dpuf

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Hoody swallows the MMSM bait again -

Not sure what it is with Byron Bailey and the ATSB but for some reason BB stirs up the 'powers to be' at the bureau to the point where they feel like they need to respond to defend their dismal & obviously obfuscated record. Here is a bit of history:

The new ATsB hey? None of this precious 'correct the record' bullshit took place when Stray looked after the place. Back then the ATsB would investigate thoroughly, providing a factual and succinct report, and by their actions not leave themselves open to scrutiny. And if people did judge them or comment about them, well they would ignore it, life moves on, they couldn't have given a shit what the knockers had to say. And rightly so, they set the bar, they knew their shit, well. But under Beaker and now Hood, well dear oh dear, what a clusterf#ck.

He said she said

The 60 Minutes piece was interesting to watch, but mostly covered old ground. But I had two observations from the story;

1. Foley never looked at ease, not for one second. His body language mirrored that of a man who had just had a broomstick shoved up his ass sideways. And;

2. The lines were very very blurred as to who is running this effing investigation. The Aussies, Malays, or the god damn French?? One piece of wreckage goes to Australia directly, another piece goes to Malaysia and then to Australia. Another piece goes directly to the Frogs and after a year the Malaysians still don't have that piece in their possession and the Aussies can't answer why that is the case!...

To follow on from Gobbles line of ATSB criticism & observations, the following was Byron Bailey's quite understated spray in the Oz today:

Dear Dazza cc Wazza - L&Ks Byron Bailey

Via the Oz today:

MH370: enough of the spurious counter-theories

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM August 2, 2016
  

Fiction is easier to manipulate than fact. When the MH370 ­flaperon was found on a beach on Reunion, and shipped to France, amazingly the ATSB sent one of its experts to Airbus in Toulouse.

I did not know that the ATSB had any B777-qualified pilots or engineers so what was the purpose of the trip?

The real experts in Toulouse concluded the damage to the trailing edge of the flaperon was consistent with its being in a lowered position during an attempted ditching. It was not the hand of God that moved the lever to lower the flaps, but a human hand very familiar with the B777.

Shortly after, a report ­appeared in The Daily Telegraph, attributed to an ATSB spokesman, stating damage to the trailing edge of the flaperon was consistent with high- speed flight and therefore not the result of a ditching.

I immediately pointed out the absurdity of this claim, only to have the ATSB’s cheer squad spend an inordinate amount of ­effort to come up with alternate theories showing why I was wrong.

I have been supersonic thousands of times. Flying a B777, I have experienced M. 9 — 90 per cent of the speed of sound — during slight overspeed conditions. In certification the B777 is taken to more than M. 95.

But a B777 with an unresponsive pilot and engines dead from fuel exhaustion definitely would not be able to exceed — due alone to gravity in a dive — the huge transonic critical drag rise that ­occurs around M. 97, because of the huge drag of those big engines.

A flaperon in the streamlined position definitely would not suffer damage to its trailing edge and control surface flutter to rapidly destroy or detach the whole surface. In other words The Daily Telegraph report, if it was from the ATSB, was a figment of someone’s imagination.

I have been attacked in the media by aviation industry people with their own agendas, some billed as aviation experts though they have never flown an aircraft.

Those self-appointed experts have variously described as ­“malicious”, “scurrilous” and “hysterical rubbish” my ­attempts to make the ATSB ­recognise what it was feeding the public was just plain wrong. The ATSB, described by one of those experts as “the best of the best”, accused me of causing ­anguish to the MH370 families. Look in the mirror, ATSB and then transport minister Warren Truss; I am waiting for your apology.

In addition read & absorb from Sandy:

As many of us from the aviation industry have been saying for a number of years our 'independent' aviation oversight bodies leave much to be desired. It is truly disgraceful that the facts have been obscured for reasons we can only guess at. Perhaps questions of insurance liability, follow the money type concerns. Perhaps deference to the Malaysian's state owned airline and its reputation. Overtones of Malaysian politics may be involved.

Evidence appears to point to controlled flight, certainly from what we know this seems to be a more plausible scenario. What's known of the flight path never looked like a random, out of control meandering because auto pilots don't meander. But what do I know?

Having had a long career in General Aviation, I do know that the independent Commonwealth corporations, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and Air Services Australia have wasted millions of industry and taxpayer moneys in more ways than one. They are failed models of governance.

CASA has half killed General Aviation with an unworkable and ever changing rules, criminal and strict liability provisions plus huge fees for permissions. ASA huge expense and riddled with union controlled procedures which are dangerously behind the times.

Plenty of instances where good luck has narrowly averted tragic outcomes, Qantas and Virgin landing in fog at Mildura with little more than fumes in the tanks. Qantas Boeing south of Canberra below lowest safe altitude. Plenty more search the PAIN website.

Then the one directly involved spending umpteen millions in the search: ATSB, well used to covering and putting spin on issues that might point to the fallibility of CASA or ASA, must be greatly embarrassed by this revelation of material evidence in the MH 370 search which puts a big question mark over where the search has been conducted.

Dear Hoody might I suggest that now be a good time to pull, the obviously Dolan initiated, 'correcting the record' bollocks webpage and that you harden the duck up, steer clear of the running MSM commentary on investigations like MH370, the Mildura or ATR top-cover duck-ups. Simply put the ATSB is meant to be a fully independent (which includes government & other agencies), no fear nor favour Annex 13 principled AAI - but from where I'm standing that is simply a lie and deceitful deception of the public purse.

In the past words (not sure if he is still there?) of a Jetstar Perth based Senior Base pilot - "Toughen up Princesses!"  

All of which led "K" to break out into a spot of poetry...

The boy stood on the burning deck
 With crackers he had frolics
Till one went off between his legs
And blew off both his bollocks

Well unfortunately it looks like the 'Hooded One' has chosen to ignore the well meaning IOS advice and again made another addition to the 'correcting the bollocks' ATSB webpage, in retaliation to the BB piece in the Oz last week...

Correcting the Record

Inaccurate media reporting on search for MH370
9 September 2016

An article, Inquiry into MH370 to probe ‘years of wasted effort’ by Byron Bailey which appeared in The Australian on 8 September 2016 contains inaccuracies that require correction and clarification.

Firstly, the article says that “the Australian Transport Safety Bureau decided on an unresponsive pilot scenario…”

The ATSB's suggested end-of-flight scenario only applies to the final segment of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a southerly direction into the Indian Ocean. This was for a period of about five-and-a-half hours. Analysis of the sequence of events and the SATCOM data matches most closely with a scenario in which there was no human intervention during that time, and most critically, the final phase of the flight when the aircraft had probably exhausted its fuel. 

Mr Bailey also states that “… instead of asking the advice of aviation professionals, they passed the baton to a group of scientists. These scientists with qualifications more suited to esoteric pursuits of gravitational waves and dark matter analysed the final satellite ping based on an unresponsive pilot scenario.”

The ATSB has consulted widely with aviation experts, including Boeing, the aircraft’s manufacturer.  The Search Strategy Working Group includes representatives from Boeing, the NTSB, the AAIB, Thales, INMARSAT, and the Defence Science and Technology Group.

The world-leading scientists who specialise in satellite communications, aviation, physics, and probability are the most appropriate experts  to examine the satellite communication signals to determine the most likely final resting place of the aircraft.

Mr Bailey also states that the ATSB is a taxpayer-funded organisation that deals with road, rail, ship and aviation safety.

The ATSB is Australia’s national safety investigator for aviation, rail and maritime transport. The ATSB’s remit does not include road safety.

Mr Bailey’s article claims that the ATSB has no in-house aviation professionals, but is staffed by bureaucrats.

In fact, many of the ATSB’s investigators had extensive industry experience before joining the ATSB in a range of areas of aviation. These include airline and general aviation pilots, licensed aircraft maintenance engineers, aeronautical engineers, air traffic controllers and human factors specialists.

Mr Bailey also suggests an inquiry is needed into why the ATSB went with an unresponsive pilot scenario that ended in 2.5 years of wasted effort.

The search for MH370 is on-going and we continue to review all credible evidence that will help define the priority search area.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, working closely with other members of the Search Strategy Working Group, has defined the MH370 search area based on careful consideration of all of the pertinent evidence and analysis of all the hard data available.
 



Last update 09 September 2016
 

Inevitably this has led to yet another probing, laying the bait, piece from 'that man' in the Oz today... :

MH370 data unreliable on ‘dive’
12:00am EAN HIGGINS
The ATSB admits it can’t measure altitude from the satellite data it relies on for its MH370 ‘death dive’ theory.

 
Come on Hoody swallow a cup of concrete and harden the duck up - FDS!


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Full steam ahead Ferryman - the boilers have been stoked, the coals are burning, and I've just hit the 'engage' button.....

The ATsB 'We are on the defence' page is an embarrassing piece of work. It is not, as has been already mentioned, a mature approach from an entity that is separate (or should I say that it should be separate) to other bureau's. And think about it for a minute Greg - your aganecy has been a clusterfu#k for some years. We all know it, you know it, other global investigative bureaus know it, even Kim Jong Un knows it, so why try to polish the turd mate. What you have in your hands is a steaming pile of monkey crap!

And besides, all of you government agencies are about as useful as a lap dancer at an Amish bachelor party!
 
Isn't it amazing how governments lie and deceive on a monumental scale, daily, every time they open their mouths, yet someone like BB gives an honest opinion based on fact rather than bullshit and the government (ATsB) gets it's back up? Face it Greg, many IOS, reporters, groups of people think your organisation and it's handling of MH370 is utter bollocks. No matter what you put on the website to counteract your 'perceived' attacks we still think it is all a crock-of-shit.  I suggest you 'put up and shut up', find the fucking plane and then prove Bailey to be incorrect. Otherwise SFU, head down, take off the Princess outfit which includes a pink tutu and do something value adding rather than posting mealy mouthed statements on your lack of credibility website.

Steam off.........for now.

[Peetwo]

Hoody swallows the MMSM bait again -

Not sure what it is with Byron Bailey and the ATSB but for some reason BB stirs up the 'powers to be' at the bureau to the point where they feel like they need to respond to defend their dismal & obviously obfuscated record. Here is a bit of history:

The new ATsB hey? None of this precious 'correct the record' bullshit took place when Stray looked after the place. Back then the ATsB would investigate thoroughly, providing a factual and succinct report, and by their actions not leave themselves open to scrutiny. And if people did judge them or comment about them, well they would ignore it, life moves on, they couldn't have given a shit what the knockers had to say. And rightly so, they set the bar, they knew their shit, well. But under Beaker and now Hood, well dear oh dear, what a clusterf#ck.

He said she said

The 60 Minutes piece was interesting to watch, but mostly covered old ground. But I had two observations from the story;

1. Foley never looked at ease, not for one second. His body language mirrored that of a man who had just had a broomstick shoved up his ass sideways. And;

2. The lines were very very blurred as to who is running this effing investigation. The Aussies, Malays, or the god damn French?? One piece of wreckage goes to Australia directly, another piece goes to Malaysia and then to Australia. Another piece goes directly to the Frogs and after a year the Malaysians still don't have that piece in their possession and the Aussies can't answer why that is the case!...

To follow on from Gobbles line of ATSB criticism & observations, the following was Byron Bailey's quite understated spray in the Oz today:

Dear Dazza cc Wazza - L&Ks Byron Bailey

Via the Oz today:

MH370: enough of the spurious counter-theories

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM August 2, 2016
  

Fiction is easier to manipulate than fact. When the MH370 ­flaperon was found on a beach on Reunion, and shipped to France, amazingly the ATSB sent one of its experts to Airbus in Toulouse.

I did not know that the ATSB had any B777-qualified pilots or engineers so what was the purpose of the trip?

The real experts in Toulouse concluded the damage to the trailing edge of the flaperon was consistent with its being in a lowered position during an attempted ditching. It was not the hand of God that moved the lever to lower the flaps, but a human hand very familiar with the B777.

Shortly after, a report ­appeared in The Daily Telegraph, attributed to an ATSB spokesman, stating damage to the trailing edge of the flaperon was consistent with high- speed flight and therefore not the result of a ditching.

I immediately pointed out the absurdity of this claim, only to have the ATSB’s cheer squad spend an inordinate amount of ­effort to come up with alternate theories showing why I was wrong.

I have been supersonic thousands of times. Flying a B777, I have experienced M. 9 — 90 per cent of the speed of sound — during slight overspeed conditions. In certification the B777 is taken to more than M. 95.

But a B777 with an unresponsive pilot and engines dead from fuel exhaustion definitely would not be able to exceed — due alone to gravity in a dive — the huge transonic critical drag rise that ­occurs around M. 97, because of the huge drag of those big engines.

A flaperon in the streamlined position definitely would not suffer damage to its trailing edge and control surface flutter to rapidly destroy or detach the whole surface. In other words The Daily Telegraph report, if it was from the ATSB, was a figment of someone’s imagination.

I have been attacked in the media by aviation industry people with their own agendas, some billed as aviation experts though they have never flown an aircraft.

Those self-appointed experts have variously described as ­“malicious”, “scurrilous” and “hysterical rubbish” my ­attempts to make the ATSB ­recognise what it was feeding the public was just plain wrong. The ATSB, described by one of those experts as “the best of the best”, accused me of causing ­anguish to the MH370 families. Look in the mirror, ATSB and then transport minister Warren Truss; I am waiting for your apology.

In addition read & absorb from Sandy:

As many of us from the aviation industry have been saying for a number of years our 'independent' aviation oversight bodies leave much to be desired. It is truly disgraceful that the facts have been obscured for reasons we can only guess at. Perhaps questions of insurance liability, follow the money type concerns. Perhaps deference to the Malaysian's state owned airline and its reputation. Overtones of Malaysian politics may be involved.

Evidence appears to point to controlled flight, certainly from what we know this seems to be a more plausible scenario. What's known of the flight path never looked like a random, out of control meandering because auto pilots don't meander. But what do I know?

Having had a long career in General Aviation, I do know that the independent Commonwealth corporations, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and Air Services Australia have wasted millions of industry and taxpayer moneys in more ways than one. They are failed models of governance.

CASA has half killed General Aviation with an unworkable and ever changing rules, criminal and strict liability provisions plus huge fees for permissions. ASA huge expense and riddled with union controlled procedures which are dangerously behind the times.

Plenty of instances where good luck has narrowly averted tragic outcomes, Qantas and Virgin landing in fog at Mildura with little more than fumes in the tanks. Qantas Boeing south of Canberra below lowest safe altitude. Plenty more search the PAIN website.

Then the one directly involved spending umpteen millions in the search: ATSB, well used to covering and putting spin on issues that might point to the fallibility of CASA or ASA, must be greatly embarrassed by this revelation of material evidence in the MH 370 search which puts a big question mark over where the search has been conducted.

Dear Hoody might I suggest that now be a good time to pull, the obviously Dolan initiated, 'correcting the record' bollocks webpage and that you harden the duck up, steer clear of the running MSM commentary on investigations like MH370, the Mildura or ATR top-cover duck-ups. Simply put the ATSB is meant to be a fully independent (which includes government & other agencies), no fear nor favour Annex 13 principled AAI - but from where I'm standing that is simply a lie and deceitful deception of the public purse.

In the past words (not sure if he is still there?) of a Jetstar Perth based Senior Base pilot - "Toughen up Princesses!"  

All of which led "K" to break out into a spot of poetry...

The boy stood on the burning deck
 With crackers he had frolics
Till one went off between his legs
And blew off both his bollocks

Well unfortunately it looks like the 'Hooded One' has chosen to ignore the well meaning IOS advice and again made another addition to the 'correcting the bollocks' ATSB webpage, in retaliation to the BB piece in the Oz last week...

Correcting the Record

Inaccurate media reporting on search for MH370
9 September 2016

An article, Inquiry into MH370 to probe ‘years of wasted effort’ by Byron Bailey which appeared in The Australian on 8 September 2016 contains inaccuracies that require correction and clarification.

Firstly, the article says that “the Australian Transport Safety Bureau decided on an unresponsive pilot scenario…”

The ATSB's suggested end-of-flight scenario only applies to the final segment of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a southerly direction into the Indian Ocean. This was for a period of about five-and-a-half hours. Analysis of the sequence of events and the SATCOM data matches most closely with a scenario in which there was no human intervention during that time, and most critically, the final phase of the flight when the aircraft had probably exhausted its fuel. 

Mr Bailey also states that “… instead of asking the advice of aviation professionals, they passed the baton to a group of scientists. These scientists with qualifications more suited to esoteric pursuits of gravitational waves and dark matter analysed the final satellite ping based on an unresponsive pilot scenario.”

The ATSB has consulted widely with aviation experts, including Boeing, the aircraft’s manufacturer.  The Search Strategy Working Group includes representatives from Boeing, the NTSB, the AAIB, Thales, INMARSAT, and the Defence Science and Technology Group.

The world-leading scientists who specialise in satellite communications, aviation, physics, and probability are the most appropriate experts  to examine the satellite communication signals to determine the most likely final resting place of the aircraft.

Mr Bailey also states that the ATSB is a taxpayer-funded organisation that deals with road, rail, ship and aviation safety.

The ATSB is Australia’s national safety investigator for aviation, rail and maritime transport. The ATSB’s remit does not include road safety.

Mr Bailey’s article claims that the ATSB has no in-house aviation professionals, but is staffed by bureaucrats.

In fact, many of the ATSB’s investigators had extensive industry experience before joining the ATSB in a range of areas of aviation. These include airline and general aviation pilots, licensed aircraft maintenance engineers, aeronautical engineers, air traffic controllers and human factors specialists.

Mr Bailey also suggests an inquiry is needed into why the ATSB went with an unresponsive pilot scenario that ended in 2.5 years of wasted effort.

The search for MH370 is on-going and we continue to review all credible evidence that will help define the priority search area.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, working closely with other members of the Search Strategy Working Group, has defined the MH370 search area based on careful consideration of all of the pertinent evidence and analysis of all the hard data available.
 



Last update 09 September 2016
 

Inevitably this has led to yet another probing, laying the bait, piece from 'that man' in the Oz today... :

MH370 data unreliable on ‘dive’
12:00am EAN HIGGINS
The ATSB admits it can’t measure altitude from the satellite data it relies on for its MH370 ‘death dive’ theory.

 
Come on Hoody swallow a cup of concrete and harden the duck up - FDS!


MTF...P2

Full steam ahead Ferryman - the boilers have been stoked, the coals are burning, and I've just hit the 'engage' button.....

The ATsB 'We are on the defence' page is an embarrassing piece of work. It is not, as has been already mentioned, a mature approach from an entity that is separate (or should I say that it should be separate) to other bureau's. And think about it for a minute Greg - your aganecy has been a clusterfu#k for some years. We all know it, you know it, other global investigative bureaus know it, even Kim Jong Un knows it, so why try to polish the turd mate. What you have in your hands is a steaming pile of monkey crap!

And besides, all of you government agencies are about as useful as a lap dancer at an Amish bachelor party!
 
Isn't it amazing how governments lie and deceive on a monumental scale, daily, every time they open their mouths, yet someone like BB gives an honest opinion based on fact rather than bullshit and the government (ATsB) gets it's back up? Face it Greg, many IOS, reporters, groups of people think your organisation and it's handling of MH370 is utter bollocks. No matter what you put on the website to counteract your 'perceived' attacks we still think it is all a crock-of-shit.  I suggest you 'put up and shut up', find the fucking plane and then prove Bailey to be incorrect. Otherwise SFU, head down, take off the Princess outfit which includes a pink tutu and do something value adding rather than posting mealy mouthed statements on your lack of credibility website.

Steam off.........for now.

[Kharon]

ATSB - Now Tendentious bloggers?

GD – “The ATsB 'We are on the defence' page is an embarrassing piece of work.”

P2 – “Not sure what it is with Byron Bailey and the ATSB but for some reason BB stirs up the 'powers to be' at the bureau to the point where they feel like they need to respond to defend their dismal & obviously obfuscated record.”

It’s a queer situation all round. Perhaps Hoody does not have ‘control’ of the MH 370 ‘thing’. There are some big players who will end up with egg on their faces – ministers and the like – who also had no input to the situation, but are publically in the firing line; like it or not. I reckon the ‘correcting the record’ webshite page has little to do with Hoody.  It’s much more in the style of Creedy, GT and that Gibson creature, wannabe tendentious bloggers and active Trolls.  I say this because the interview Foley and Hood did on RNZ was, IMO, very reflective of the Hood style and lifted the ATSB reputation out of the gutter for a couple of days, before the ‘CtR’ page started up again, which threw ‘em right back into the gutter.  It’s a shame, Foley and Hood earned credit for that interview and had the sick public image on the road to recovery for a brief period; alas.

The big question in my mind is how can Hood and the ATSB extricate themselves from the bind Dolan dropped them into. No matter how you slice it up; the Dolan chapter comes out murky, shrouded in suspicion, clouded with doubt. The CSIRO are also besmirched, their drift modelling efforts being denigrated to simple cooperation with the ‘story line’.  Gibson is turning up parts; Chillit has nailed the drift model; Howard has blasted the ‘suicide’ simulator to pieces and McEwan has just about killed off the bull-shit. Clearly, for whatever the reason,  the search has been too far South.  The less cynical and more forgiving minds would say ‘furry muff’, difficult task, big ocean, little fact and lots of pressure – easy to get it wrong and forgivable.

For mine, what will be unforgivable is to persist with the farce in the face of empirical evidence. A new search, in season, based on two years worth of valid studies will, quite probably find the aircraft – it may not – but it is a better bet than banging about the SIO, in winter over a dry hole.  A smart move would be to pass the ‘search’ element back to AMSA; they actually have a clue about the oceans and search. ATSB could be assigned to ‘investigate’ the incident, it is what they are supposed to do (in theory). Get the whole shooting match back on an even keel and do it properly.

Like it or not; if there has been some sort of cover up; or even a massive cock-up, the Australian government of the day will catch some of the flack. Seems to me that a proactive stance now would go a long way to reducing the blow back; directing a revised search and finding the aircraft will see criticism of the government disappear like a dollar in the tax mans hand.

Hoody’s best hope for cred is in producing first class reports on incidents which occur on his watch, or are within his remit. That is what the ATSB is supposed to do.  

Aye, ‘tis indeed a tangled web. Too many spiders, not enough flies.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Hoody - "Thar she blows..!!"

It would seem that the steady stream of DOI being discovered by Blaine Gibson and his voluntary mob of MH370 beachcombers, has finally tipped the scales for Hoody, Foley and the ATSB. Via Spatial Source :  

New MH370 search areas to be mapped with drift modelling

By Anthony Wallace on 14 September, 2016 in GIS & Data, Latest News

Simulations reveal suspected origins of the Boeing flaperon. Image: GEOMAR, September 2015
 
The search for missing flight MH370 in the so-called 7th Arc in the Southern Indian Ocean will be completed by the end of 2016 and the authorities involved are already looking to establish new search areas further afield.

While the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 and its 239 passengers are still yet to be found after two and a half years of searching, the authorities are turning to the suggestions of drift modelling based on the debris found to date.

To get stories like this delivered to your mailbox every week, subscribe to our weekly newsletter. 

In September 2015, drift simulations by German oceanographers from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel suggested that the crash site was different from that currently being searched (see header image). Then in early 2016, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau who are managing the search, revealed that investigators were planning a second phase of the search based on revised drift modelling using replica flaperons in the southern Indian Ocean. They hoped that this modelling would provide evidence needed to continue the search beyond the current priority zone.

The 7th Arc in the southern Indian Ocean is the current search area, now under question.
 
Since then, however, more pieces of debris have been discovered throughout the western Indian Ocean, including “scorched” parts in Madagascar and Mozambique found in recent weeks. This presents a “join-the-dots” scenario that has families of lost passengers calling for inquiries into the current search and for new search areas to be established.
Evidence that ATSB’s alternate plans are already underway came last week when ATSB issued a call for tender entitled “Provision of a Drift Modelling and Search and Rescue System.” In the tender, MH370 is not specifically mentioned. It does, however, call for support in prosecuting and managing search and rescue incidents with drift modelling for partner countries Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Mauritius- all nations surrounding the areas highlighted in the German modelling.

While it has not been confirmed that the tender is for MH370, due to the location and methods requested it is highly likely to be the case. If this is true, it suggests either doubt in the methods used to identify the crash site in the South Pacific or simply a move to leave ‘no stone unturned’ for the families of the missing passengers. In either case, for many it will appear as a last ditch effort using chaotic, probabilistic modelling methods that will likely be inadequate at identifying a search area small enough for any practical search operations.

Most people—including the families of those lost—hope only that one of the methods prove fruitful. It remains to be seen which, if any, will be successful at locating the missing aircraft and discovering the fate of its 239 lost passengers and crew. It may just be found in the final stages of scanning in the so-called 7th Arc over the coming few months.

Or could it be perhaps that Hoody has discovered a way to extricate himself, the ATSB and by association Malcolm's Government, from a very embarrassing WOFTAM of a search, that was blinkered at the outset by his predecessor Beaker?

Anyway a very interesting development indeed, so anyone putting in for the tender...


MTF...

Ps Bye the bye I see 'that man' couldn't help but chuck still more rocks on the ATSB chook house shed...

Go north, MH370 searchers told
12:00amEAN HIGGINS
The scientist who led a review to refine the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 says the hunt should move north.

...A recent European study that analysed bits of debris from MH370 found on the coast of ­Africa and on islands concluded that the patterns of currents suggested a more northerly resting place. The independent group of scientists and engineers who have examined available data have come to a similar conclusion from a different analysis.

They say the point at which MH370 made its last turn over the Andaman Sea is unknown and could have been farther north, in which case it would have run out of fuel farther north along what is known as the “seventh arc” of satellite data.
Dr Gordon told Popular Mechanics the analysis of the data was always a balance of probabilities. “If you’d said before they started searching this 120,000sq km, ‘What’s the probability you think you’ll find it in there?’, I’d have said ‘mid-70s,’ because that’s the probability content of that zone.”
Dr Gordon did not return calls or emails from The Australian. - P2   Hmm...I wonder why that is??

A Defence spokesman said Dr Gordon ­“advises that from the statistical analysis any future search should be directed to the area (with) the most probability of finding the aircraft.

“This would mean continuing the search northeast along the final arc of Inmarsat data.”

[Kharon]

Of Moby and his Dick.

What a strange tender; it’s got me beat; why ATSB would have a need for ‘drift modelling’ let alone put out a tender for such?  Now, AMSA seeking ‘new’ data and techniques I could readily understand; they are after all, Australia’s #1 go to Search and Rescue outfit; they don’t bugger about, know what to do and manage very nicely; thank you.

Now it seems to me the Beaker ATSB relied on CSIRO for narrative support, Beaker’s Aunty Petunia for tea leaf readings and the tea lady for tactical advice.  The Dolan decisions could not have been based on much more solid evidence – unless the Malaysian tarot card readers convinced him otherwise.  The ATSB record with recent recovery of ‘debris’ in any sort of water has been dismal; there was no interest in Hempel’s little wreck and a Qld police officer (bless) did all the hard yards there; there is, I believe, the wreckage of a West-wind jet languishing in warm, shallow, calm waters fairly close to a port which will become a ‘lump’ in due course.  So, I reiterate – WTD do ATSB want with things they know nothing about, have little use for and are way outside their ‘remit’  AMSA ‘find ‘em’ ATSB investigates the why and what for. All seems a little extravagant and hysterical to me.

Aye well; strange are the ways of departmental thoughts when their nuts are in a blender; maybe it’s an economy measure. Although they will need sophisticated equipment to track their Flip, flop Flaperons; seems to be a harmony of reason there.  Who knows, but we all know who’ll end up paying for the exercise; don’t we children.  No doubt all will be explained by the newly minted tendentious bloggers on the 'Apologists' blog. Log in for click bait.

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

Of things aeronautical and glass bottom boats

I'm leaning towards Capt. Ahab Hood, Murky and PMC putting up some defensive protective barriers that will shield the Guv'mint from any scrutiny. Standard 'political ass covering 101'. The sea is slowly giving up its secrets and they are worried they will be eventually made to look like the arseclowns they truly are.

So their plan is this - put all their sneaky eggs in multiple baskets as they wind down the search and pridefully stick to their story. They will say they did all they could do based upon 'expert opinion'. But because they now fear the truth will certainly come out, they will contract out some minor ongoing investigations. If and when those contractors find the plane, the Guv'mint will say they 'helped' to eventually find the plane.

It's all very strategic, and their only concern is saving face. They couldn't give a shit about the dead ones or the ones who now have to live their lives in grief. It's all about ego and pride and saving face and electoral votes. Just look at Krudd - spent billions on BER and 'pink bitts' against advice, all so that he didn't have to backtrack. He preferred to cost us exponentially rather than look like a complete twat for a few wee moments.

No, trust them not. Any 'about face' is temporary, it is strategic and it is all about 'self'.

Toot toot all aboard the HMAS Ahab toot toot

[P7_TOM]

And so: “despite having done our very best, in the scientifically acknowledged ‘highest probability area’ alas, we are unable to locate the wreckage.” “New evidence which, unfortunately, came to light toward the end of our diligent, scientifically based, best bet search has caused our world class drift modellers to rethink their original prognosis; it seems they forgot about a cyclone, which, just may have affected the calculations a tiny fraction”.  “Unfortunately, mostly due to political trough gorging, Australia is short of the ready’s and cannot finance another search in another area; unless the UN or the World banks kick the tin and throw a few dollars our way”. “We are truly sorry and our thoughts and prayers go out to those left behind, wondering WTF was Australia playing at” (cue crocodile tears).

Bollocks.

Send Julia over to have tea with Vlad, she can take Tony Abbott’s Mum’s note of apology along, to square the books.  Not as flippant as it sounds; maybe Taiwan will sponsor a new search; hell even the North Koreans may have a passing interest and kick the empty search tin.  But, if I had my way, I’d ask the big petro-chemical boys to sponsor a ‘look-see’ in the new area, who knows what lies trapped beneath those fascinating sea beds.  Motivation, means, motive and opportunity.  Lots of choice candidates to take over the ‘search that would not go away’.

The Australian government reminds me of a stranger, slightly lost, looking for an exit ramp on a high speed motorway, in a foreign land, trapped in the middle lane by heavy traffic; lost, confused and ever so slightly terrified of missing the exit.  

Two more here please barkeep; and keep ‘em coming - it's the lad, he's thirsty.

[Peetwo]

Correcting the record - slightly

Spatial Source - "..Evidence that ATSB’s alternate plans are already underway came last week when ATSB issued a call for tender entitled “Provision of a Drift Modelling and Search and Rescue System.”..."

"K" said - "..What a strange tender; it’s got me beat; why ATSB would have a need for ‘drift modelling’ let alone put out a tender for such?  Now, AMSA seeking ‘new’ data and techniques I could readily understand; they are after all, Australia’s #1 go to Search and Rescue outfit; they don’t bugger about, know what to do and manage very nicely; thank you..."

Well actually Ferryman Spatial Source have reported that slightly wrong, you might be somewhat pleased to discover that AMSA have issued the request for tender:

ATM ID:
16AMSA084
Agency: Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Category: 83121604 - Online database information retrieval systems
Close Date & Time: 19-Sep-2016 2:00 pm (ACT Local Time)
Show close time for other time zones

Publish Date: 24-Aug-2016
Location: Other, Overseas
ATM Type: Request for Tender

---

Multi Agency Access: No
Panel Arrangement: No

---

Description: AMSA is assisting in the establishment of a Drift Modelling and Search and Rescue system to support the search and rescue (SAR) agencies of our partner countries.

A system is required to support the search and rescue (SAR) agencies of Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Mauritius (the “partner countries”) to model the drift of floating objects and to provide support in prosecuting and managing search and rescue incidents.

This tender is for the provision of the system (including the first year’s maintenance) and the payment of the second year’s maintenance fee.

Contracting and payment for maintenance of the system beyond the second year will be undertaken directly between the successful tenderer and the respective partner countries should they choose to continue.

Conditions for Participation:

1. Tenderers must meet the following conditions for participation in this ATM: 
   • The system provided must have screens, documentation, training material and printouts in the English language.
     
   • The system provided must have drift modelling capability.  Incident response support capability is highly desirable but not essential.
     
   • The system provided must be currently available and not a planned development.
     
   • A test version of the system provided must be made available for evaluation if the tenderer is short listed.  This is preferably through internet access or installation of the product in Canberra, however, a Webinar or similar process would be considered.
     
2. For all other conditions please refer to the RFT documentation.
   

 
Timeframe for Delivery: The Term of the subsequent contract will be for a potential minimum period of 20 months. 
Address for Lodgement: https://www.tenders.gov.au
Addenda Available: View Addenda

Now maybe it is purely coincidental but I am not really a great believer in coincidences and AMSA have had a long running MoU with the CSIRO on oceanography research & support, including SAR drift modelling:

Ref: CSIRO blog - "..CSIRO has a Memorandum of Understanding with AMSA that allows them, during a maritime incident, to call on us for scientific knowledge and technical support.

Incidents include oil spills, search and rescue, shipping accidents and in the case of MH370, modelling and projecting the track of debris spotted by satellites..."

  
Ever an optimist, what I'd like to think is that the 'powers to be' have finally seen the error of their ways and are now going to pass back responsibility to the true Maritime expert Government agency AMSA. After all, as "K" eloquently put, WTD does the ATSB know about SAR, deep sea search/salvage and drift modelling...
A further sign that there is something afoot, our friendly frog Oceankoto ()  picked up on the fact that Fugro tender period has been extended and an additional $4 million has been added to the MH370 tab... :

CN ID: CN2562511-A10
Agency: Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Amendment Publish Date: 7-Sep-2016
Category: Marine transport
Contract Period: 11-Aug-2014 to 11-Aug-2018
Contract Value (AUD): $143,401,427.50
Amendment Value (AUD): $4,275,000.00
Amendment Start Date: 11-Aug-2016
Description: Prime Contractor for provision of Services for the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370)
Parent CN: CN2562511
Procurement Method: Open tender
ATM ID: RFT570-04
Confidentiality - Contract: Yes
Confidentiality Reason(s) - Contract: Costing/profit information
Intellectual property
Confidentiality - Outputs: Yes
Confidentiality Reason(s) - Outputs:
Intellectual property
Consultancy: No
Agency Reference ID:

---

Supplier Details

Name: Fugro Survey Pty Ltd
Postal Address:
Town/City: Balcatta
Postcode: 6021
State/Territory: WA
Country: AUSTRALIA
ABN: 81 009 172 990

   
Could this extension (and additional monies) be to keep Fugro on standby until such time as AMSA can narrow down a higher probability search zone, based on independent expert analysis (drift modelling) from the AMSA tender? The timeframe of the tenders certainly matches...
Cynically speaking these tenders also mean that the ATSB will keep effective narrative and control of the MH370 southern sector of the 7th Arc until 11 Aug 2018...
MTF...P2

[ventus45]

"Confirmation Bias" is an interesting thing.

Everyone seems to "want" the Pemba Island Flap piece to be from the accident flight - but is it - really ?

The sad fact is, there is no "proof" - beyond "Reasonable Doubt" M'lud.

The ATSB says the "Italian Manufacturer" has "confirmed" it was manufactured as part of the "ship set" for Boeing B-777 "Line Number 404".

Just "by-the-way", here are a few little "tit-bits" re the "Italian Manufacturer".

"Alenia Aeronautica is sole supplier to Boeing for the 777 radome and outboard flap. The flap is the largest on any airliner and the longest composite part on the 777."
Ref: http://customers.aleniaaermacchi.it/en-U...g-777.aspx

"Boeing 777 Alenia Aeronautica is sole supplier to Boeing for the 777 radome and outboard flap. The flap is the largest on any airliner and the longest composite part on the 777."
Ref: http://www.epicos.com/EPCompanyProfileWe...x?id=21829

"In addition to being the current flap track fairing and wing tip supplier for the 777 program, Korean Air Lines, Aerospace Division, will manufacture the airplane's new wingbox extension and raked wing tips.
Each 777-300ER wing is being extended by 6.5 feet (1.98 meters), and raked wingtips are being added to improve the overall aerodynamic efficiency. The raked wingtips help reduce takeoff field length, increase climb performance and reduce fuel burn.
Major European suppliers that continue to be involved in production of the newest 777 include:
Spain -- Constructionnes Aeronauticas SA continues to produce the 777s, ailerons, flaperons and radome;
Italy -- Alenia Aerospazio continues to produces the 777s outboard flaps; and United Kingdom -- BAE SYSTEMS produces the fixed leading edges and Smiths Aerospace produces the electrical load management system and fuel quality indicating systems."
Ref: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2002-06-11-D...-777-300ER

"(Source: Alenia Aeronautica; issued June 14, 2006)
Also involved is the Foggia plant, the only one in Europe able to produce for the first time in composite material components as long as the Boeing 777’s flaps (14 metres)."
Ref: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article...n-21).html

Now, returning to the matter at hand.

Boeing B-777 "Line Number 404" is Boeing Manufacturer's Serial Number (MSM 28420, which is a 777-2H6ER, which first flew on the 14th May 2002, and was subsequently delivered to MAS and became 9M-MRO.





Now, having been manufactured "for" Line Number 404, and having been "Installed On" Line Number 404 in 2002, does NOT mean "it was still fitted to Line Number 404 on the 7th March 2014".


The ATSB update is here:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inve...-2014-054/"

Note as always: "This debris identification summary is released with the concurrence of the Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370."

First Quote - ATSB

"On arrival at the ATSB, several part numbers were immediately located on the debris that confirmed the preliminary identification. This was consistent with the physical appearance, dimensions and construction of the part.

A date stamp associated with one of the part numbers indicated manufacture on 23 January 2002 (Figure 2), which was consistent with the 31 May 2002 delivery date for 9M-MRO.

All of the identification stamps had a second “OL” number, in addition to the Boeing part number, that were unique identifiers relating to part construction. The Italian part manufacturer recovered build records for the numbers located on the part and confirmed that all of the numbers related to the same serial number outboard flap that was shipped to Boeing as line number 404. Aircraft line number 404 was delivered to Malaysian Airlines and registered as 9M-MRO."

End First Quote - ATSB




Now, this is the important one.

Second Quote - ATSB

Based on the above information, the part was confirmed as originating from the aircraft registered 9M-MRO and operating as MH370.

End Second Quote - ATSB

Now, call me a cynic if you wish, but for mine (my money), that Second Quote is just "too well written, too well crafted" to swallow whole.

It is deliberately crafted to make one "assume" that it "is confirmed" that the item came from "the accident flight", but it does not actually say that at all, and more to the point, it is very carefully crafted "not to actually say that" - M'lud (your honour).

The JACC and ATSB could never risk being caught telling an outright bare faced lie, but perhaps an innocent "poorly constructed set of words - M'lud" could save them in court.

Although the manufacturer confirms it is from ship-set 404, which was fitted at the Boeing Factory to 9M-MRO, it is a (deliberately intended) stretch of logic to assume "that it was still definately fitted to 9M-MRO on the 7th March 2014".

The fact is that "ramp and tarmac rash" is a major fact of life. Many flaps, ailerons and flaperons, not to mention a host of other components, get replaced on aircraft all over the world every single day.  Those of us who spent a working lifetime in the logistics world, know that only too well, the general public does not. In other words, the conspiracy nuts think you need a missing or scrapped B-777 as a "source" for a "spare" component. You don't.  

The logistics world exists because things do get damaged, necessitating that they be changed out. Handling spare parts, both "new" and "refurbished", is what the logistician's life is all about. ENSURING the "efficacy" of those parts (you have heard of bougus parts - no ?  the FAA has ...) is the major headache of the logistician's life. The "paper trail" is key and vital. I could go on for hours, but I will not.

Then, of course, all the maintenance records for 9M-MRO were lost in that mysterious fire - weren't they. How convenient.

Then, of course, this flap was found beneath an overhang that could only be seen from a small boat, close in-shore.

Then, of course, this flap was also found with very few if any marine life encrusted. Compared to the flaperon and "Roy", how "odd".

Call me a cynic if you wish, but I have been around way too long to swallow that second quote "hook-line-and-sinker".

The reality is:  The part was "originally fitted" to 9M-MRO in 2002.  BUT - There is "absolutely no proof what-so-ever" that it remained on-wing, on "that airframe / aircraft", "continuously", up to and including 7th March 2014, but the reader is "whole-heartedly encouraged" to "assume - precisely that".  M'lud.  

(Note to the members of the jury - BOLLOCKS !!)

Now read this carefully.



Note, from the Malaysian press release above:
(1) ATSB experts "have completed" analysis.
(2) Analysis was "thorough".

So, why no "Engineering Report" ?
Surely the ATSB have "determined" whether it either "separated in flight" (flutter ?) or was on the aircraft when it hit, either "UP" (retracted) or "Down" (extended), and if so, at what position ?

Whether or not it "separated in flight" or "broke off on impact" should be easily determined by detailed examination of the broken "outboard" end of the flap structure, and in particular, the remaining piece of the flap support.

Furthermore, "if it was still on wing when it hit" the sea, the probable dynamics of that impact must have also been "determined". What was it, a high speed high angle dive, or a low angle ditch, either high speed flaps up - or low speed flaps down ?

The ATSB needs to grow some gonads here.

A lot of people died on this flight, including 6 Australians. When does a so called "accident" investigation" turn into a "criminal" investigation, of possible, even probable "unlawful death" ?

"Pandering" to the Malaysian Investigation's wishes for "vagueness", can be seen as being complicit in "hiding the facts / evidence". That could have serious repercussions in court, at some time in the future.

The ATSB must either "spit out the details", or publicly shut up, (whilst providing the "evidence" to the Federal Police) and let the Malaysians make "all" the press releases themselves.

Line Number 404.JPG Size: 137.73 KB  Downloads: 164

fig2_exemplar-part-number-and-date-stamp_debris3 (1).jpg Size: 172.66 KB  Downloads: 156

7.jpg Size: 329.45 KB  Downloads: 141

[Peetwo]

MH370 HSSS update: "Take cover, INCOMING!" 



Bailey (via the Oz) with another rock on the ATSB chook-house shed...  

Search bosses ‘in a bit of a pickle’ as MH370 mystery deepens

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 21, 2016
  

The head of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, Peter Foley, said last month analysis of the recently retrieved outboard flap suggested it had not been deployed when it hit the water.

The ATSB, however, ­announced on Thursday that the item was still being examined and tested for any evidence to determine the position of the flap at the time of separation from the wing.

The ATSB bosses are in a bit of a pickle: 2½ years of searching under their guidance has not as yet produced any results and we are left with three competing theories.
Each would indicate a different area of where to search.

Theory 1. The ATSB scenario of an event that rendered the ­pilots incapacitated, and the aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed at high speed into the southern Indian Ocean.

Theory 2. A rogue pilot hijacked the aircraft three minutes after saying goodnight to Kuala Lumpur air traffic control and flew the aircraft via a pre-planned route to the southern Indian Ocean then descended. The pilot then carried out a controlled ditching under engine power with flaps extended. A 170-tonne aircraft hitting rough seas at well over 200km/h would essentially wreck it, tearing off the engines and flaps, which would be the first parts of the aircraft structure to make contact with the water.

This is the scenario favoured by many airline pilots and overseas air crash investigators of vast experience.

Theory 3. As in Theory 2 ­except that to extend the south­erly distance flown by approximately 200km, fly at cruise altitude until engines flame out because of fuel exhaustion then glide at an ­approximate glide ratio of 16:1, with limited hydraulic and electrical power from the now ­extended Ram Air Turbine and carry out a water impact with no flaps at about 300km/h. This would not be survivable but if suicide was the intent, it would not matter.

Unfortunately, we as yet do not really know what happened after MH370 turned south, ­obviously under pilot control, north of Sumatra. Deduction reasoning based on the ATSB’s subjective analysis by mathematical probabilities amounts to speculation. We need the “black boxes” — the Flight Data Recorder and Cockpit Voice Recorder — to provide the truth. That is why the search must go on.

The Norfolk Island ditching, a few years ago, by a Pel-Air Westwind medical jet involved a suspect, rapid investigation by the ATSB that, without benefit of the black boxes, produced a verdict that unfairly blamed the captain.

When it comes to MH370, the ATSB appears to have been similarly rather hasty in going with its unresponsive pilot scenario, perhaps to avoid embarrassing the Malaysian government, which is keen to douse the rogue pilot ­theory.

As more evidence came to light, it was a shame the ATSB leaders did not have the courage to consider possible pilot involvement in the end-of-flight scenario, which may have altered how they defined the search area.

Personally I think there is a few more worthy theories, including ET did it -   , but heck what would I know??

Besides the continued heckling of BB by Mick, the resident Oz Aviation section troll, there was one short comment worth regurgitating so far, courtesy Digger Ray   :

Ray 50 minutes ago

I agree with you, Byron, but we must remember that bureaucrats are never wrong, & even if they know that they are wrong, they will never, ever, admit it. That is the luxury afforded to those who have none of their own money invested in being right, and more to the point, whose well-remunerated career must be protected at all costs.

Couldn't have put it better myself Ray, choccy frog is in the mail...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

DOI archive entry: 22/09/16 - ATSB Debris (preliminary) analysis No. 4.

Via ATSB website:

Debris Report 4 (22 September 2016)
Published: 22 September 2016
Debris examination – update No. 4
Preliminary examination of two items of debris recovered near Sainte Luce, Madagascar

Introduction
Two items of fibreglass-honeycomb composite debris were recovered near Sainte Luce on the south-east coast of Madagascar, having reportedly washed ashore in February 2016. They were hand-delivered to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau on 12 September 2016. The items were initially reported in the media as being burnt.

This document summarises the ATSB’s preliminary examination of the items for any evidence of exposure to heat or fire.

Examination
No manufacturing identifiers, such as a part numbers or serial numbers were present on either item, that may have provided direct clues as to their origin. At the time of writing, the items had not been identified and work in this respect is ongoing.

A dark grey colouration was present on a significant proportion of both sides of each item (Figures 1, 2 and 3). Detailed examination of these areas showed that the colour related exclusively to a translucent resin that had been applied to those surfaces (Figure 4).

A cross section through the panel showed a clear delineation between the dark resin and the other surface coatings without any evidence of gradual transition. The lighter grey surface areas resulted from a thinner film of the same resin applied over an off-white background. Figure 5 shows the cross section directly and Figure 6 shows the same section at an oblique angle. This confirmed that the dark colour of the coating was an inherent property of the resin, and not the result of exposure to heat or fire.

Despite no evidence of overall gross heat damage, two small (<10mm) marks on one side of the larger item and one on the reverse side were identified as damage resulting from localised heating (Figures 2 and 3). A burnt odour emanating from the large item was isolated to these discrete areas. The origin and age of these marks was not apparent. However, it was considered that burning odours would generally dissipate after an extended period of environmental exposure, including salt water immersion, as expected for items originating from 9M-MRO.

Figure 1: Smaller composite panel[/url][url=http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5771511/rid18-small-part.jpg]
Source: ATSB
Figure 2: Larger composite panel showing discrete area of heat damage
Source: ATSB
Figure 3: Reverse side of larger composite panel showing discrete areas of heat damage

Source: ATSB
Figure 4: Close-up of applied coatings
Source: ATSB
Figure 5: Cross-section through composite skin, showing surface colouration through thickness
Source: ATSB
Figure 6: Higher magnification image of Figure 5, showing clear delineation between layers
Source: ATSB

Summary
The following findings were made during a preliminary examination of two items of composite debris, recovered near Sainte Luce, Madagascar. At the time of writing, work is ongoing to determine the origin of the items, specifically, whether they originated from a Boeing 777 aircraft.

1. The dark grey colouration on the outer surfaces of the items related to an applied resin and was not the result of exposure to heat or fire.
   
2. Three small marks on the larger item were indicative of localised heating. The age and origin of these marks was not apparent.
   

Download PDF of the Debris report 4
 
Ongoing work:
Any further evidence that becomes available, and may be relevant to refining the search area,will be considered.
 
 
 
Overview

At 1722 Coordinated Universal Time on 7 March 2014, Boeing 777-200ER aircraft, registered 9M-MRO and operating as Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, disappeared from air traffic control radar and a search was commenced by Malaysian authorities. The aircraft had taken off from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on a scheduled passenger service to Beijing, China with 227 passengers and 12 crew on board.

Under Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation (Annex 13) Malaysia, as the country of registration, has investigative responsibility for the accident.

On 31 March 2014, the Malaysian Government accepted the Government of Australia’s offer to take the lead in the search and recovery operation in the southern Indian Ocean in support of the Malaysian accident investigation. This assistance and expertise will be provided through the accredited representative mechanism of Annex 13.

In accordance with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of Annex 13, on 1 April 2014, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) appointed an accredited representative and a number of advisors to the accredited representative (ATSB investigators). These investigators’ work will be undertaken as part of an External Investigation under the provisions of the Australian Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

The Malaysian Ministry of Transport is responsible for and will administer the release of all investigation reports into this accident. Information on the investigation is available from the following websites:

• www.mh370.gov.my
  
• mh370.mot.gov.my
  

Any enquiries in respect of the ongoing investigation should, in the first instance, be directed to:

Malaysian Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team
Email: MH370SafetyInvestigation@mot.gov.my
 
General details 

Date: 07 Mar 2014
 
Investigation status:
Active
 
Time: 1722 UTC
 
Investigation type: External Investigation
 
Location   (show map): Southern Indian Ocean
 
Occurrence type: Missing aircraft
 
State: International
 
Occurrence class: Technical
 
Release date:
24 May 2016
 
Occurrence category:
Technical Analysis
 
Report status: Pending
 
Highest injury level: Fatal
 
Expected completion:Nov 2016
 
 
Aircraft details

Aircraft model: 777-200ER
 
Aircraft registration: 9M-MRO
 
Operator: Malaysian Airlines
 
Type of operation: Air Transport High Capacity
 
Sector: Jet
 
Departure point: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Destination: Beijing, China
 
 
 

&.. the presser from miniscule Dazzling Dazza where it seems this time he has got his lines down Pat ... :

Examination of suspected MH370 debris
Media Release
DC123/2016
22 September 2016


Debris recovered from near Sainte Luce on the south-east coast of Madagascar suspected to be from Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has not been able to be linked to the missing aircraft.

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said Blaine Gibson had provided the two items of fibreglass-honeycomb composite debris to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) on 12 September 2016.

“With the agreement of the Government of Malaysia, the ATSB examined the items but found no manufacturing identifiers such as part numbers or serial numbers that provided clues as to the items' origins,” Mr Chester said.

“At this stage it is not possible to determine whether the debris is from MH370 or indeed even a Boeing 777.

“What is known is that contrary to speculation there is no evidence the item was exposed to heat or fire.

“Further work will be undertaken in an attempt to determine the origin of the items, specifically whether they originated from a Boeing 777 aircraft.

“The search for MH370 is continuing and we remain hopeful the aircraft will be located.”

Ministers from Malaysia, the People's Republic of China and Australia agreed at a tripartite meeting on 22 July 2016 that the search for MH370 will be suspended on completion of the 120,000 square kilometre high priority search area unless credible new evidence about the specific location of the aircraft emerges.

Next a couple of article links summarising the ATSB findings so far.

1st from PT: ATSB unable to link 'burnt' objects to MH370 

[i]..While the ATSB continues to investigate these objects, its findings so far undermine rather comprehensively, any view that these amount to evidence of an onboard fire on MH370...[/i]

 Next from the AP via the  New York Times:

MH370 Investigators Cast Doubt on Catastrophic Fire Evidence
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS SEPT. 22, 2016, 2:12 A.M. E.D.T.

CANBERRA, Australia — Accident investigators on Thursday cast doubt on the possibility that blackened debris found on Madagascar is evidence of a catastrophic fire aboard the missing Malaysian airliner that went down more than two years ago.

Wreckage hunter Blaine Gibson hand-delivered five pieces of debris last week to officials at the Australian Transport Safety Bureau who are searching for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.
The bureau said in a statement Thursday that investigators had yet to determine whether the pieces were from the Boeing 777 that is thought to have plunged into the Indian Ocean with 239 people on board southwest of Australia on March 8, 2014.

But a preliminary examination found that two fiberglass-honeycomb pieces were not burnt, but had been discolored by a reaction in resin that had not been caused by exposure to fire or heat, the statement said.

There were three small areas of heat damage on one of the pieces which created a burnt odor. However, that odor suggested the heat damage was recent, it said.

"It was considered that burning odors would generally dissipate after an extended period of environmental exposure, including salt water immersion, as expected for items originating from" the missing plane, the statement said.

Continue reading the main story

Gibson has collected 14 pieces of debris potentially from the missing plane, including a triangular panel stenciled "no step" that he found in Mozambique in February. Officials say that panel was almost certainly a horizontal stabilizer from a Flight 370 wing.

Gibson had said the darkened surfaces of the latest debris could be evidence that a fire ended the flight far from its scheduled route from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Beijing. But he conceded he had no idea when the apparent heat damaged had occurred.

A sonar search of 120,000 square kilometers (46,000 square miles) of seabed which is calculated to be the most likely crash site in the southern Indian Ocean is almost complete without any trace of the plane being found.

While on recent MSM reporting, I note 'that man Higgins' in maybe a sign he is getting bored with chucking rocks on the ATSB chook-house, has come from a different tack in the Oz coverage on MH370...  

Chinese MH370 search vessel ‘not looking but spying’



The Australian
12:00AM September 23, 2016
@EanHiggins

The Chinese government ship tasked with hunting for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has done little searching but has probably used the opportunity to spy on Australian military activity, ­according to security experts.

Its captain and crew are also likely to have used interaction with Australian and international experts to acquire knowledge of advanced Western underwater search techniques and equipment, and tested out submarine tracking technology.

As revealed by The Australian earlier this month, the Chinese search and rescue vessel Dong Hai Jiu 101 has hardly performed any actual search operations in the seven months since it first came to Fremantle.

The federal government’s Joint Agency Co-ordinating Centre, which guides the strategy for the MH370 search, this week again refused to say how many days the Dong Hai Jiu 101 had conducted search operations.

GRAPHIC: The hunt for MH370

But an analysis by The Australian of weekly operational bulletins on the search put out by the JACC has determined that the vessel’s sonar imaging “towfish” has in fact been in the water looking for the downed aircraft between only 17 to 30 days.

The Dong Hai Jiu 101 has spent most of the time in or just off Fremantle for one stated reason or another, or on “weather standby” in the southern Indian Ocean or “north of the search area”.

It gave up attempting to search altogether in early August, when the JACC reported the ship would “remain at anchor off Fremantle until weather conditions improve”.

The Dong Hai Jiu 101 is a major component of China’s $20 million contribution to the $180m effort to find the Boeing 777, which disappeared on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014 with 239 people on board, ending up in the southern Indian Ocean, according to satellite tracking data.

In April, Transport Minister Darren Chester joined the Chinese Consul-General in Perth, Lei Kezhong, on a visit to the ship.

“On behalf of the Australian government, I thanked the Chinese government for its contribution and the captain and crew for their efforts in the search for MH370,” Mr Chester said in a press release at the time.

Leading security experts told The Australian that as a Chinese government vessel, as a matter of course the Dong Hai Jiu 101 would be monitoring Australian and ­allied military activity.

Western Australia is home to the Australian submarine base near Perth at HMAS Stirling; the Special Air Service Regiment also in a suburb of Perth; the Australian Defence Satellite Communications electronic spying station at Kojarena near Geraldton; and the North West Cape naval ­communications station near ­Exmouth.

“From my past intelligence experience I would be surprised if a vessel like the Dong Hai Jiu 101 did not have an intelligence collection role,” said Clive Williams, a former Australian army officer who was Director of Security ­Intelligence.

“WA is of course a target-rich environment in terms of various Australian defence activities,” said Mr Williams, who now teaches at the Australian National University.

“China’s intelligence collection effort against Australia goes back at least 30 years. China also has an active collection effort within Australia as documented by defectors. The People’s Liberation Army Navy has a strong interest in the Indian Ocean where ‘research’ activity is conducted by Chinese ships including its hospital ship, the Peace Ark.”

Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings said the Dong Hai Jiu 101 “isn’t purpose built to be an intelligence-gathering ship”.

“That said, this ship would as a matter of routine be noting any activity into and out of Fremantle and HMAS Stirling, which all adds to a database of ship movements and observed capabilities,” Mr Jennings said.

“I would say that the real value of the Dong Hai Jiu 101’s activities is that it is … learning first-world techniques, tactics and procedures on how to do search and ­rescue.

“The PLA-N (and other Chinese maritime units) has been lifting its skill levels through ­activities like this as well as counter-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa; extended deployments and exercising.”

Greg Barton from Deakin University said the Dong Hai Jiu 101 would probably be spying “as a matter of course”.

“Apart from actual intel, it would also represent an opportunity to gauge their signals intelligence capacity in terms of working out what they can pick up at that sort of distance, such as working out how well their hydrophone instrumentation can track submarine movements,” he said.

The JACC did not respond to a question from The Australian about whether the Dong Hai Jiu 101 might be spying.

In a statement. the JACC, which works with federal agencies and departments including Foreign Affairs and Defence, said: “Dong Hai Jiu 101 has been available for search operations since February 25, 2016. The crew of approximately 30 remain on board the vessel when it is at anchor.”

The Chinese embassy in Canberra, and the Chinese consulate in Perth, did not respond by deadline to a request for comment.

Hmm...maybe some more potential for political embarrassment in that lot for miniscule Dazzling Dazza and PM Malcolm...


MTF...P2