[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 03.11.16: HSSS & DOI archive entries.

Busy couple of days on the MSM & social media with the ATSB led MH370 SIO search...

Continuing on from yesterday and leading into today..  

Via ABC online:

---

Photo: Investigators said the wing flap was probably not extended when the plane crashed. (AFP: Australian Transport Safety Bureau)

MH370 was likely in 'uncontrolled descent', new report finds

Posted yesterday at 3:33pm Wed 2 Nov 2016, 3:33pm | Updated yesterday at 4:35pm Wed 2 Nov 2016, 4:35pm

It is unlikely the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 was in a controlled descent when it crashed into the Indian Ocean, according to a new report by Australian investigators.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report released today, stated the debris found was "consistent with the aircraft being in a high and increasing rate of descent".

In particular investigators found the outboard flap from the right wing of the plane, which washed up near Tanzania, was likely "in the retracted position".

Greg Hood from the ATSB said that indicated the passenger plane "wasn't configured for landing or ditching".

"You can never be 100 per cent [sure] and we are very reluctant to express absolute certainty, but that's the most likely scenario," he said.

"You can draw you own conclusions as to whether that means someone was in control or not."

The findings provide the clearest picture of the missing plane's last moments to date.
They are being examined by experts from Malaysia, China, the US and UK who are meeting in Canberra over the next three days to review all of the evidence gathered during the ATSB investigation.

Search to wind up early next year

Flight MH3670 disappeared on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing in March 2014 with 239 passengers and crew on board, sparking a two-and-a-half year search.
Authorities had planned to wrap up the operation by the end of this year if they did not find the Boeing 777, but said scouring 120,000 square kilometres has taken longer than expected.

Today Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester confirmed the search would not be completed until early 2017 as conditions in the Southern Indian Ocean off Western Australia had proved to be extremely challenging.

"Keep in mind we're talking about a search area which is located 2,600 kilometres off the coast of WA," he said.

"We're talking of a search area, in many cases, up to six kilometres deep in terms of the water and the sea conditions which have been extreme on many many occasions."

Yesterday the ABC revealed Malaysia Airlines would hand over top secret records to the Australian families suing for compensation.

The surprise development emerged during a Federal Court Directions Hearing in Sydney in a case involving the adult children of four MH370 passengers — Rod and Mary Burrows, and Bob and Cathy Lawton.

It is thought to be the most advanced of all court actions against Malaysia Airlines and the lead insurer Allianz.

Via the Oz:

---

Plane on ‘cruise’ before crash
12:00amBRENDAN NICHOLSON
Examination of wreckage from MH370 indicates its flaps were in a ‘cruise’ position when it crashed.

Worth a 1000 words, Hoody does it again - The pic from the Oz deserves another caption comp but where would you start??

The look on Hoody's face is a classic.." Is this miniscule for real??"
The gent looking under the flap..."what's he got under there??"
The Hoody extended hand...hmm maybe I'll leave that alone...  

HSSS archive entry: The following is IMO a very relevant comment cribbed from the Oz article:

Ricardas

I find it extraordinary that the assumption is that if a pilot were in control, he would have deployed the flaps.  Why would he?  If he was trying to get the plane as far away from detection as possible, and wanted it to disappear permanently, his best bet would be to keep the flaps up, keep his speed up, and rely on a fast, hard, destructive landing when the plane finally hit the water.  

Pretty basic I would have thought. 

Then go back to what Hoody said...

"You can never be 100 per cent [sure] and we are very reluctant to express absolute certainty, but that's the most likely scenario," he said.

"You can draw you own conclusions as to whether that means someone was in control or not."

Following on from the Hoody 'baited' statement, inevitably today in the Oz we get the retort from Byron Bailey:

ATSB blind to pilot action
12:00amByron Bailey

The ATSB members, who are not pilots, are still pushing a dead pilot theory to fit in with their initial decision.

Invariably this will stir up more consternation and self-righteous indignation from the BB critics and ATSB biased supporters (like Mick & Ben S). However IMO the 'he said, she said' & 'the pilot did it vs the pilot didn't do it' is somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of the MH370 search and is merely another cleverly manipulated smokescreen to help cover-up the deficiencies of certain DIPs to the MH370 investigation and search effort.  

IMO both BB & Ricardas make some valid points, that perhaps people in their rush to lambast the likes of Bailey, as an arrogant and ignorant former Skygod, should be considering and supporting.

BB - It appears to me that the taxpayer-funded ATSB members should be more focused on having an open, transparent and truthful inquiry into MH370.

  
On that point we should not forget that it was the Dolan led ATSB, that originally narrowed the scope of the 7th arc deep ocean search to the current high priority search zone. Now that same organisation believes we should be searching 'just a little bit' further North and wants our Government to go cap in hand to the other major DIPs (China & Malaysia at least??) for an additional $30 million to continue....


Which brings me to the DOI archive entry and apparently those five fabulous, flapping, flaperons have already had an interesting and adventurous life floating around a French bay before being assigned to the custody of Folly and recently completing a circuitous tour in the waters off Tasmania...  (refer pages 15 to 18 here - http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5771773/ae-...ov2016.pdf - for the referenced figures):

...As part of the ongoing field testing, the drift behaviour of replica flaperons and other recovered aircraft parts is being assessed. Replica flaperons were constructed with dimensions and buoyancy approximately equal to that of the recovered flaperon (Figure 7), which was float-tested during the detailed examinations in France. The replica flaperons were deployed into a bay for short term tests during various weather conditions. Longer term tests were then performed in the open ocean. For comparison, undrogued drifters were deployed alongside the flaperons. Drogued drifters were also used, because they move predominantly with the currents, as opposed to wind and waves. Data for currents was then able to be subtracted from the flaperons’ drift data so that wind and wave behaviour could be assessed in isolation.

Field tests demonstrated that the replica flaperons drift similarly to undrogued drifters:

• In low wind conditions, the flaperons move slightly faster than undrogued drifters due to the energy absorbed from waves.

In higher winds, the energy absorbed from waves was less significant, and the flaperons’ behaviour was analogous to the undrogued drifters’.

The replica flaperons presented their raised trailing edge to the wind, allowing waves to propel them in the wind direction. If waves tipped or turned the flaperons, the wind quickly reoriented them, so the direction of movement remained consistent.

Replicas of two other recovered items of debris drifted at a rate that was practically indistinguishable from undrogued oceanographic drifters in all wind conditions. Therefore, the trajectories of undrogued oceanographic drifters were valid for use in the analysis.

Preliminary results from the updated drift analysis indicated that the current search area was a possible origin for the recovered debris.

Using the collected field data, a new forward-tracking numerical simulation was performed. Within the simulation, flaperons were deployed on and around the current search area and allowed to drift freely. Results after 500 days of simulated drift are presented in Figure 8. For comparison, Figure 9 shows the results of a simulation where the original undrogued drifter model was used. By comparing the two figures, it can be seen that the flaperons generally moved further west within 500 days due to the extra speed at low winds.

Small errors in the simulation can result in large divergences over time. As such, an examination of the debris behaviour in the first months after the accident was conducted.
Figure 10 illustrates the starting location of the simulated drifters along the 7th arc. After eight months of simulated drift (Figure 11), some initial conclusions can be drawn about the drifter’s path with respect to debris discovered to date. A significant number of drifters arrived on the coast of Western Australia. Similarly, a number of drifters had arrived on the coast of Africa.

The colour of each drifter identifies its starting location as marked along the arc.

• Drifters starting in the southern half of the current search area or below (dark blue, green, light blue) can be observed on and around the coast of Western Australia, with many drifting towards Tasmania. No debris has been discovered on the Australian coast. This indicates that a starting location within the current search area, or further north, is more likely.

• A significant number of red drifters have already reached the coast of Madagascar and mainland Africa. This is not consistent with the time at which debris was discovered. The first item of debris was not discovered on Reunion Island until 16 months after the accident. This suggests a reduced likelihood of debris originating from the northernmost areas shown in Figure 10 (red and white coloured regions).

Refinement of the drift analysis is continuing. Flaperon replicas are currently deployed in the open ocean along with drogued and undrogued drifters, and replicas of smaller debris. This is to study the longer-term drift behaviour of the parts in conditions similar to those expected in the Indian Ocean. The long-term tests may provide additional improvement to the simulations and confidence in the backtracking results...

Passing strange but why is it that the above reasoning & methodology sounds so similar to the Mike Chillit painstakingly methodical analysis and mapping of the NOAA drifters? Even the graphic depictions are very similar??


 It is a crying shame that they can't approach Mike to combine efforts and review/confirm each other's analysis to date. Besides sheer bloody mindedness, it would seem the only reason for not engaging with people like Chillit is purely because to do so would be tantamount to admitting they may have got it wrong in the first place - UDB!


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 05.11.16: Chinese whispers & the fine art of Spin-doctoring...

One & half days ago - because I'm pretty sure the ATSB work off UTC not LMT - Hoody's PR machine stepped into gear and unfortunately made another shameful addition to their Correcting the BOLLOCKS webpage: 3 Nov 2016 -Misleading media reporting on the First Principles Review into the search for MH370

Correcting the Record


Misleading media reporting on the First Principles Review into the search for MH370
3 November 2016

It has been reported by the ABC and news.com.au that the purpose of the First Principles Review meeting in Canberra on 2-4 November 2016 is for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) to seek additional funding from the Australian Government to extend the search for MH370.

This is not correct.

The First Principles review meeting consists of experts from the Search Strategy Working Group including Australian Defence Scientists, Boeing, Thales, Inmarsat, the National Transportation Safety Board of the US and the Air Accident Investigation Branch of the UK along with experts from CSIRO, Geoscience Australia and Curtin University, and with representatives for Malaysia (including officers of the Malaysian Department of Civil Aviation) and the People’s Republic of China. They are reviewing all the available data and associated analysis, assumptions and modelling undertaken to inform the definition of the search area. The review will inform the remainder of the current search effort, and if needed, develop guidance for any future search operations.

Ministers from Malaysia, Australia and the People's Republic of China, agreed at the Tripartite meeting in July 2016 that should the aircraft not be located in the current search area, and in the absence of credible new evidence leading to the identification of a specific location of the aircraft, the search would not end, but be suspended upon completion of the 120,000 square kilometre search area.

It has also been suggested by the ABC that “Australia is understood to be using the meeting to put together the best scientific thinking, along with a sound and reasonable business plan that will make it impossible for Malaysia and China to back away from.” This is not correct. This is not the purpose of the meeting and the agenda is not to expand the search area.

Representatives from both the Government of Malaysia and the People’s Republic of China are present at the three-day meeting, and Australia continues to work closely with Malaysia and the People’s Republic of China on the search for MH370. In accordance with the Tripartite arrangement, Ministers from Malaysia, Australia and the People's Republic of China continue to take decisions together regarding the search.

For the First Principles Review, the ATSB has assembled experts from around the world to reassess the data available. A report detailing the findings of the First Principle Review will be made available following the meeting.
 



Last update 03 November 2016 
 

 
A note on this latest CTB entry...

If you could bother to visit the bureau's media pages - Media Releases and Alerts & News Items - or their twitter page - https://twitter.com/atsbinfo - you will see that the ATSB indignation and outrage does not stretch beyond the CTB page - why not? 

A couple of options:

1) The ATSB are deeply embarrassed that our national broadcaster could be so misled by scuttlebutt & innuendo;

2) The miniscule 4D NFI Chester, representing the Government, is actually the one outraged, indignant and embarrassed that one of the agencies he is responsible for appears to be contradicting the current Government (and Tripartite) policy on MH370.

However if that were the case wouldn't you think the miniscule's office would also be advertising the ATSB CTB statement? A quick peruse of 4D's media page suggests that didn't happen; (P2 comment - I also think the miniscule himself, given Barnbaby's long running feud and criticism with the ABC being too 'leftist', wouldn't pass up the opportunity to mudsling the other Aunty ) 

 3) Option three is my firm favourite and it goes along the lines of my previous post on the subject:   

Invariably this will stir up more consternation and self-righteous indignation from the BB critics and ATSB biased supporters (like Mick & Ben S). However IMO the 'he said, she said' & 'the pilot did it vs the pilot didn't do it' is somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of the MH370 search and is merely another cleverly manipulated smokescreen to help cover-up the deficiencies of certain DIPs to the MH370 investigation and search effort.  

IMO both BB & Ricardas make some valid points, that perhaps people in their rush to lambast the likes of Bailey, as an arrogant and ignorant former Skygod, should be considering and supporting.

BB - It appears to me that the taxpayer-funded ATSB members should be more focused on having an open, transparent and truthful inquiry into MH370.

On that point we should not forget that it was the Dolan led ATSB, that originally narrowed the scope of the 7th arc deep ocean search to the current high priority search zone. Now that same organisation believes we should be searching 'just a little bit' further North and wants our Government to go cap in hand to the other major DIPs (China & Malaysia at least??) for an additional $30 million to continue....

  
If my OBS happens to be true then the question that should be asked of the ABC, news.com.au (& any other MSM or social media outlet that was equally misled on the eve of the First Principles Review)...

Q/ Who was the source/mole that leaked this scuttlebutt as advertised in the B/S CTB statement? 

Ask yourself why is it we hear everything through this carefully scripted information vacuum and media funnel?



Ask yourself why it is not possible to get comment from other members of the SSWG in the above picture? They are not part of the MH370 ICAO Annex 13 JIT, so should not be gagged to comment on their thoughts and expert opinions??

Although I believe there are good expert people within the SSWG (see above) and parts of the ATSB, unfortunately their views and moral convictions are being swamped by bureaucratic, diplomatic and political self-interests...

Therefore for the integrity, transparency and psychological well being of the NOK, I am now totally in agreement with Mike Chillit, it is way past time that a fresh set of fully independent eyes and minds take over the MH370 search effort and investigation.


MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

First Principles- indeed?

ATSB – “For the First Principles Review, the ATSB has assembled experts from around the world to reassess the data available. A report detailing the findings of the First Principle Review will be made available following the meeting.”

Principles – an interesting, oft abused word; and, a strange choice for describing the three day ‘gabfest’ of ‘experts’ intent on reassessing the ‘available data’.

‘Available data’ – this could be put on the back of a coaster and dissected in about 30 seconds by a bunch of dyslexic five year olds; well it could.

In the beginning, apart from the aircraft being ‘in the vicinity’ of the IGARI waypoint there is no conclusive data indicating where the aircraft went after that; best guesses and some fairly wispy satellite data emerged to place the aircraft ‘in the Southern Indian Ocean’. This data provided the ‘Seventh Arc’ – depicted as a fine line, drawn across half a hemisphere – somewhere along that line, it is said, marks the end of the flight: the experts think. Has the ‘available data’ changed in the time between IGARI and the end of the search? In short – No, it has not. Has there been any refinement of the ‘mathematics’ which indicated the terminal zone for the flight – again - No, there has not. Ergo, the ‘available data’ has not significantly changed. We are left only to wonder at what the ‘experts’ will be discussing – if the radical data has not been refined; or re-defined.

The ‘Flaperon’ throws a wee spanner into the works, as does some of the ‘drift’ models being presented – the excellent, logical work done by Chillit for example.  The ‘pilot dunit’ debate rages, but then you have the Howard analysis to contend with, the logic reasonable and worthy of consideration; and yet we see no careful dissection of this data by the ‘expert’ panel, no public discussion, rebuttal or even a begrudged acknowledgement that perhaps the ‘theory’ presented has ‘some merit’.

First principles -

Marcus Aurelius.  6. The nature of the universal has this work to do, to remove to that place the things which are in this, to change them, to take them away hence, and to carry them there. All things are change, yet we need not fear anything new. All things are familiar [to us]; but the distribution of them still remains the same.

The first principle objective was to question – the why, the how and then the where. Without the why and then the how – the ‘where’ becomes little more than flawed guess, based against incomplete information. The rest has simply been window dressing; look at the photograph above – there is no one there with anymore idea now of the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ as they stand there than they did in the beginning.

Marcus Aurelius. This, what is it in itself, and by itself, according to its proper constitution? What is the substance of it? What is the matter, or proper use? What is the form, or efficient cause? What is it for in this world, and how long will it abide? Thus must thou examine all things that present themselves unto thee. (disputed translation).

There has always been a certain flavour of ‘corruption’ associated with this ‘mystery’, a natural response to a serviceable aircraft, disappearing, without semblance of logical explanation; or, witness. There has always been an odour of ‘conspiracy’ associated – again, where credible explanation is not provided, the imagination is left to fill the void and the charlatans, seekers of fame and hopefully fortune will begin to spin the yarn into the fabric of their fancy. I believe the stench of incompetence spoils this feast for the imagination. Plain, pure and simple.  This, of itself, is human and was forgivable until the beasts of ‘vested interests’, national, political and financial raised their ugly heads.  I digress.

‘We’ are no closer to understanding what, why and who now, than we were in the beginning. ‘We’ are probably reasonably sure that the aircraft is not within the search zone.  Despite the Chester claims of ‘heroism’ and extraordinary efforts etc. (Yuk) ‘We’ are no wiser or further on than we were in the beginning.  I, for one, would like to know why not; or, alternatively be informed, honestly and openly that no one, not even the ‘experts’ has a blind clue. It matters not a wit, whether the aircraft ‘plunged’ at high speed into the stygian depths; or alighted like a butterfly on a flower, into the wind swept SIO to float about for while. Only the what, the why and the how of it remain as important now as they were – in the beginning.

So, my ramble ends where I began a long time ago; someone, somewhere, knows the why and the how. Find that person and you’ll find your aircraft. The alternative is to admit that unless fate takes a hand; there is little chance of the wreck being discovered without solid, tangible evidence.

Selah.

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 11.11.16: MH370 Aussie spin & BS continues -

From that man 'Iggins in the Oz yet another MH370 HSSS  archive entry:

MH370 review faces lengthy wait
12:00amEAN HIGGINS
A report by experts reviewing the strategy to find MH370 may not be produced until after a current search is complete.

..The federal government’s Joint Agency Co-ordination Centre for the search conceded the review group’s report may not be produced until after the underwater search of 120,000sq km in the southern ­Indian Ocean is completed, due by January or February.

JACC spokesman Roger Gott­lob said the report “is currently being drafted and will be released in the coming months” but would not say whether it would be complete before the search ended. “The main focus for all concerned will continue to be finding the aircraft to assist the Malaysian investigation team and to bring closure to the families of the passengers and crew of MH370,” Mr Gottlob said...

“is currently being drafted and will be released in the coming months”

From the official ATSB book of word weasels & obfuscation, 'currently being drafted' can mean anywhere as short as 6 months or, in the case of the PelAir cover-up or Mildura Fog cock-up, 2 to 3 yrs (24 to 36 months).
But hang on wasn't there a commitment from miniscule 4D NFI Chester...  
 

Reference 4D PRESSER: MH370 First Principles Review Summit

“The First Principles Review Summit brings together the extraordinary team of Australian and international experts, who have been involved in the search for MH370, to review all the available data and analysis associated with the search to date,” Mr Chester said.


“There are currently more than 20 items of debris of interest to the investigation team which have been located on the coasts of Africa, Madagascar, the island of Mauritius, Reunion and Rodrigues.

“The experts will also inform the remainder of the search effort, and develop guidance for any future search operations.

“A report detailing the findings of the review will be released after the meeting.

   
See another clever use of weasel words to convey a false impression of efficiency and transparency. Apparently the hand-puppet 4D Chester kept within the limitations of the Department prepared WW script, as confirmed by this from the ATSB 'correcting the bollocks' webpage:

..For the First Principles Review, the ATSB has assembled experts from around the world to reassess the data available. A report detailing the findings of the First Principle Review will be made available following the meeting...

   
So another day, another MH370 fairy tale coming out of the Can'tberra spin and bollocks sausage factory -
Hmm...I wonder how quickly the report would be drafted and finalised if China called for an urgent MH370 Tripartite next week?
MTF...P2

[Brock McEwen]

Response to ATSB's latest report: "MH370 – Search and debris examination update" (Published: 2 November 2016):

1. The indication of rapid descent at 00:19 UTC is nothing new - within a week of (finally) being granted access to the pdf file search leaders claim was MH370's Inmarsat data log, signal data experts such as those in the "Independent Group" felt the change in altitude indicated by its :19 BFO values was quite clear.  Why pretend that this is brand new analysis, let alone brand new calculations?  If it is, it is coming out 33 months later than it should have: the data has not changed since March 15, 2014.  Ditto the flight simulator tests.  Both tasks could have - and should have - been completed in March of 2014.  Had they done so, the time spent searching several nautical miles further from Arc 7 than could be reached by a plane in steep descent by 00:19 could have been better spent searching a wider segment of the Arc. (Edit: added "descent" above)

2. The flaperon's indication of a more northerly impact is nothing new - within a week of its discovery, drift experts such as Dr. Erik van Sebille had already suggested a vastly more northerly impact location ("much nearer the equator").  Why did the ATSB choose to rely - exclusively - on CSIRO's result, which a comparative analysis I conducted suggests was an outlier, due to a seemingly aggressive "Stokes effect"?  More importantly:  why search for 16 months in the zone only this outlier work supported, and then correct the analysis now, after those months were wasted?  I am happy to re-post evidence of CSIRO's "outlier" status when benchmarked against ten other expert analyses, if anyone wishes.

3. Any drift analysis that focuses exclusively on the flaperon - and ignores the "Roy" piece - is deeply suspect.  If the reporting is to be believed, this engine cowling fragment was found at the mouth of the Klein Brak river (SA) on December 23, 2015.  This means it had to travel over 45% more distance, yet had under 30% more time to accomplish this.  (Neither of these numbers is a fancy calc: the former was found by drawing paths consistent with the prevailing current on Google Earth; the latter by subtracting and comparing dates.)  Adding this piece to any drift study drives the search zone materially further northeast; why is the potential significance of this piece being willfully ignored?  I am happy to re-post evidence demonstrating that the Roy piece materially shifts the drift-indicated impact point materially further NE than does the flaperon, if anyone wishes.

4. Any drift analysis which suggests an impact at Arc 7 @ anywhere near 30°S - and yet fails even to attempt to explain zero debris on W. Australian shorelines - is deeply suspect.  Studies such as Dr. Charitha Pattiaratchi's (U. of W.A.) suggest these shorelines would be saturated - even if impact was as far up Arc 7 as 25°S.  I am happy to post evidence of this - supplied directly to me by Chari - if anyone wishes.

Response to recently published image resembling a police report of a cell phone connect near Penang:  I am taking a sabbatical on trusting any "evidence" that is not explicitly confirmed by named and proper authorities.  (Remember how much further from the truth the "pilot plotted suicide route to SIO" banner headline took us, before its author recanted, citing the fact that these points were among thousands, and could not even be confirmed to have come from the same simulated flight?)  The timing - 979 days after the fact - is suspicious in and of itself; when one adds the fourth- or fifth-hand nature of this leak - and its "screen shot" quality (par for the course, with the curious case of MH370...) - we are into very, VERY dodgy territory.

For crystal clarity: I do not doubt for a second the motives of the person who actually published the graphic image over which we are now meant to fixate - nor of anyone who is promoting it online. All I point out is that, if the plane did NOT overfly Penang, then misinformation designed to appear like a leak of official data would be precisely what the doctor ordered.  It is possible the "leaker" - far upstream of the actual publisher - managed to fake something designed to shift the narrative away from hard questions designed to hold search leadership accountable.

For background: for my (now 33-month long) quest to hold search leadership accountable for its key decisions, I have been treated to obfuscation, deceit, and even (of late) character assassination.  So yes, I am predisposed not to trust "evidence" paraded before us, without a scintilla of accountability - anywhere - for its provenance.

[P7_TOM]

Nicely said Brock; and no serious disagreement from any here. The questions are valid, the observations pass the smell test; and, to a ‘thinking’ person demand at least some  examination. Then again, so do the conclusions and analysis of several ‘honest toilers’ whose good work, for no gain or fame, continues to fall on profoundly deaf ears.

Australia could have come out of this ‘squeaky-clean’ and smelling of roses, indeed would have, had the discredited, not yet pardoned ATSB ( an 'investigator') not been shoved centre stage. Had the AMSA (crack SAR specialists) been allowed to continue, I believe ‘things’ would have turned out a lot better. The government lost all semblance of credibility by placing the highly compromised Dolan in charge. Dolan had been weighed and measured by a Senate committee and found wanting. Few, if any, who followed the Pel-Air debacle would believe, rightly or wrongly, much of what Dolan said, about anything.  It was a bad error in judgement to foist Dolan into the middle of the 370 search, once again, rightly or wrongly, he was ‘seen’ to be shall we say, flexible.

When credibility or even plausible deniability is quintessential, to place the unimpeachable front of house is an essential. AMSA was, is and remains ‘front of house’ quality; stood down in favour of a person and an organization which was, is and remains – under a cloud. Dolan and the ATSB may well be pure as the driven snow – but, after the Pel-Air inquiry, by the Senate, bringing in ATSB placed an element of doubt over Australia’s involvement. That doubt, to this day, casts a long shadow over Australia’s involvement.  There is enough doubt and confusion without that additional element. Problem for the minister and his word weasels now.

[Peetwo]

Where is Bailey's X?? -

Why’s and whatfor’s – Huh?

Good questions “V”.  One, of the many MH 370 ‘strange things’, which has always troubled me, is the massive ‘clamp down’ on information. I‘ve been wrong before this day, but it seems to me  had I lost a capital aircraft, 200 odd passengers and crew; in the middle of the night, in mysterious circumstances – that I would making sure that every bright mind on the planet had all; I do mean all the information I had; and, keep it updated. Sure, you’d get some strange and wonderful ‘theory’ to discount; but look at some of the sensible, rational, logical notions, provided from the very limited, ‘hard’ data available. Yes, they may be wrong, however, I believe that once the ‘immediate’ initial SAR operation came up dry, and before I launched into a multi million dollar search; every credible scenario had been examined and some sort of ‘best guess’ consensus had been reached.

Another item of concern is the ‘veil of secrecy’ (for wont of better). For example; why on earth would the RAAF deny access to all ‘photographic’ search evidence?  Why must a thing like the ‘first principles’ discussion be kept under wraps and covered by a duplicitous statement from the minister of NFI? There are other examples, but my point is – why? There is nothing ‘top-secret’ about a lost aircraft; no state secrets involved; no political scandal associated. But everything is kept ‘hush-hush’ – why? Why the secrecy?

Amongst others, there is the abrupt termination of the AMSA involvement and the insertion of ATSB; another is the point blank refusal to use sensible search technique and to doggedly stick to one small area. But, enough: looking at my notes for MH 370, there are eight pages of questions which, as yet, I have been unable to reduce since day one. In short, despite reading and analysing every small nugget of information I have been unable to satisfactorily answer any of my questions except that an aircraft was lost, even then, I occasionally wonder, over a beer or two, did they actually loose one?

The notion which keeps sneaking to the top of the pile is just who are ‘the criminals’?  

...Aye well, best stop there, lest we be accused of being contradictory; seems that if you don’t agree with certain travel writers; then by considering other options, you offend the sensitivities of those who believe that ‘they’ and they alone are the voice of MH 370 and would deny all rights to speculate or discuss or consider anything they did not pen. Which is as complete a bollocks as I have ever read.  “Explanation!” shouts GD from the back of the room; well, seems someone has got his panties in a bunch, is pissed off with BB and the Oz for daring to have an opinion, stealing thunder and for taking the odd pot-shot at the broken, discredited ATSB.  At least that is one less ‘opinion’ I have to read, less pontification to tolerate and one less ego to sooth. Happy thought, right there...

P2 Edit - Reason? 4effect

Toot – toot.

Now not wanting to get into the HSSS hair pulling, Turkey slapping & social media trolling, however I'd like to backtrack slightly, to this: Captain's Log 03.11.16: HSSS & DOI archive entries.

ATSB blind to pilot action
12:00amByron Bailey

The ATSB members, who are not pilots, are still pushing a dead pilot theory to fit in with their initial decision.

Invariably this will stir up more consternation and self-righteous indignation from the BB critics and ATSB biased supporters (like Mick & Ben S). However IMO the 'he said, she said' & 'the pilot did it vs the pilot didn't do it' is somewhat irrelevant in the grand scheme of the MH370 search and is merely another cleverly manipulated smokescreen to help cover-up the deficiencies of certain DIPs to the MH370 investigation and search effort.

IMO both BB & Ricardas make some valid points, that perhaps people in their rush to lambast the likes of Bailey, as an arrogant and ignorant former Skygod, should be considering and supporting... 

To refresh Ricardas made this IMO 'nail on the head' comment:

Ricardas

I find it extraordinary that the assumption is that if a pilot were in control, he would have deployed the flaps.  Why would he?  If he was trying to get the plane as far away from detection as possible, and wanted it to disappear permanently, his best bet would be to keep the flaps up, keep his speed up, and rely on a fast, hard, destructive landing when the plane finally hit the water.  

Pretty basic I would have thought. 

Now because so much of this is pure conjecture (even Hoody concedes..."You can never be 100 per cent [sure] and we are very reluctant to express absolute certainty, but that's the most likely scenario," ); I note yesterday that Mike (legend.. ) Chillit is still keeping an open mind on such things as the BB theory...    

Now remembering all the MSM pundits predicted that Trump would never win, here is a couple of MC tweets (which will inevitably be treated with pure gob-smacked incredulity & derision if you happen to be an ATSB-sexual ): 

https://twitter.com/MikeChillit/status/799384666327367684

#MH370 That means the plane could just as easily have gone in 110 km WEST of sixth arc, as 110 km EAST. Big issue. Bailey might be right.

---

https://twitter.com/MikeChillit/status/799385154930245632

#MH370 It goes without saying that if Byron Bailey has been correct all this time, Canberra will be turned upside down and flushed.

---

[/url][url=https://twitter.com/MikeChillit/status/799390094633406468]https://twitter.com/MikeChillit/status/799390094633406468

#MH370 Here is a visual to put some of today’s work in perspective. Pretty clear now that the 6th Arc is the final usable ping.

Read the part in bold black print in the LH top corner of the MC pic - Oh no God forbid...

But in the interests of the EIRR (Earth is really round) society and generally keeping an open mind, here is a request:
"..Byron Bailey please show us your X.." -  

 
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

MH370 QON for the Senators???

From off the Senate thread:

  
Beer & nuts for Hoody at the Barry-O corral..


Apparently Barry-O & Sterl-O have unfinished business & will subsequently be reconvening Supplementary Estimates...  

Well at least Hoody has got some inkling what NX is going to ask...

NX written QON 205 & 206:

Noting the current consideration with respect to Drone regulation changes, what data did ATSB provide CASA with respect to Drones incidents and accidents?
a) Was this data provided to the Minister?
b) Was this data provided to any MPs in the recent briefing to MPs and Senators on the Drone regulations?

---

Please provide an update on the Pel-Air report.

Chuck in a few curly questions on the latest shenanigans on the MH370 cover-up/cock-up and it could be an entertaining half hour or so; prior to dinner -  
MTF...P2
Ps Although he is bound to already have a copy but perhaps Barry-O, just for the public record, could ask for a copy of this recently released report from the ATSB:

Summary

On 11 November 2015, a Jabiru J160 aircraft, Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) registration 19-7549, sustained a partial loss of engine power while enroute from Gunnedah to Cessnock, NSW. Unable to maintain altitude, the pilot elected to divert to Scone aerodrome. However, due to an increasing rate of descent, the pilot conducted an emergency landing into an open field near Scone. The aircraft landed without incident.
Blockage of the wing fuel tank filler vent cap was found during the subsequent inspection of the aircraft fuel system. Partial disassembly of the engine also identified that the number-four cylinder had sustained a broken inlet valve spring.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) commenced an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the engine power loss. CASA requested the technical assistance and oversight of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in conducting a detailed examination of the occurrence aircraft and its engine. To facilitate this assistance, the ATSB initiated an external investigation under the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

A report detailing the examinations and ATSB's findings was provided to CASA, RAAus and the aircraft manufacturer, on 30 May 2016. Enquiries relating to the investigation should be directed to CASA on 131 757.

Figure 1: The engine from Jabiru J160 aircraft, RAAus registration 19-7549
Source: ATSB

Nice to square things away - just saying...

So anyone with any questions for the Senators for tomorrow please feel free to PM, post, email, tweet & we will endeavour to bring to the attention of the good Senators...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

MH370 QON for the Senators???

From off the Senate thread:

  
Beer & nuts for Hoody at the Barry-O corral..


Apparently Barry-O & Sterl-O have unfinished business & will subsequently be reconvening Supplementary Estimates...  

Well at least Hoody has got some inkling what NX is going to ask...

NX written QON 205 & 206:

Noting the current consideration with respect to Drone regulation changes, what data did ATSB provide CASA with respect to Drones incidents and accidents?
a) Was this data provided to the Minister?
b) Was this data provided to any MPs in the recent briefing to MPs and Senators on the Drone regulations?

---

Please provide an update on the Pel-Air report.

Chuck in a few curly questions on the latest shenanigans on the MH370 cover-up/cock-up and it could be an entertaining half hour or so; prior to dinner -  
MTF...P2
Ps Although he is bound to already have a copy but perhaps Barry-O, just for the public record, could ask for a copy of this recently released report from the ATSB:

Summary

On 11 November 2015, a Jabiru J160 aircraft, Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) registration 19-7549, sustained a partial loss of engine power while enroute from Gunnedah to Cessnock, NSW. Unable to maintain altitude, the pilot elected to divert to Scone aerodrome. However, due to an increasing rate of descent, the pilot conducted an emergency landing into an open field near Scone. The aircraft landed without incident.
Blockage of the wing fuel tank filler vent cap was found during the subsequent inspection of the aircraft fuel system. Partial disassembly of the engine also identified that the number-four cylinder had sustained a broken inlet valve spring.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) commenced an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the engine power loss. CASA requested the technical assistance and oversight of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in conducting a detailed examination of the occurrence aircraft and its engine. To facilitate this assistance, the ATSB initiated an external investigation under the provisions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.

A report detailing the examinations and ATSB's findings was provided to CASA, RAAus and the aircraft manufacturer, on 30 May 2016. Enquiries relating to the investigation should be directed to CASA on 131 757.

Figure 1: The engine from Jabiru J160 aircraft, RAAus registration 19-7549
Source: ATSB

Nice to square things away - just saying...

So anyone with any questions for the Senators for tomorrow please feel free to PM, post, email, tweet & we will endeavour to bring to the attention of the good Senators...

MH370 questions for the Senators:

Via Mike Chillit:

Q1/ My question for ATSB would be, Why do so many people now believe we missed the plane at Zenith, and why do you, ATSB, believe you didn’t miss it?

Q2/ A more important question or accusation might be, “there is now evidence the 7th Arc we have been using is incorrect. Should we bring the specialists making that claim to Canberra to let them explain why? And, is it true that the margin of error for the 7th Arc is 120 km or more? We haven’t scanned that wide.”

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 22.11.16: HSSS archive entry 161122.

AP TWR - "P2 clear to backtrack" -
 
Remember this from a week ago. 

Captain's Log 16.10.16: The trouble with correcting the record.

ATSB jumped gun on MH370
12:00amEAN HIGGINS
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau was wrong to say it had consensus on a “death dive” theory for flight MH370.

[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
..Internal ATSB documents obtained by The Australian show that while a senior investigator drew the incorrect “consensus” statement to the attention of colleagues only minutes after the bulletin was released, the organisation never issued a correction and instead secretly deleted the claim from its website the next day, after it had been widely ­reported internationally.

The ATSB repeatedly refused to say why it had deleted the “consensus” claim, and falsely denied doing so in a subsequent post.

Internal ATSB emails ­obtained under Freedom of Information statutes by The Australian reveal the truth behind the organisation’s media manoeuvres...

...The ATSB claimed in its July 27 bulletin the satellite data showed MH370 came down “most likely in a high rate of descent”. As originally released, the bulletin said: “This is indeed the consensus of the Search Strategy Working Group,” referring to experts including from the US and British air crash investigation.

The documents obtained under FOI show that just a few minutes after the bulletin was ­issued, an ATSB senior investi­gator warned colleagues by email this was an “error” and that the sentence should be taken down.

“It is certainly not yet the consensus position of the SSWG … 2 parties are yet to make a formal response on the subject,” the investigator said.

The email chain shows another ATSB senior investigator agreed and gave instructions for the sentence with the “consensus” line to be removed from the ATSB’s and the JACC’s websites.

But the ATSB did not retract the sentence until the next day, by which time it had been reported internationally, including in Mal­aysian and Chinese publications.

As earlier revealed by The Australian, the deletion of the “consensus” line was discovered by British aerospace engineer Richard Godfrey, a member of the independent group of aviation experts who on their own initi­ative have been reviewing the MH370 scientific data.

When, at the time, The Australian rang the ATSB spokesman who had issued the July 27 bulletin to ask why the deletion had been made, the spokesman hung up and JACC director Annette Clark declined to respond.

Subsequently, ATSB MH370 spokesman Daniel O’Malley and JACC chief co-ordinator Judith Zielke would also not say why the “consensus” line had been secretly disappeared.

When The Australian reported the deletion of the sentence, the ATSB issued a denial on its website, saying the report “falsely ­accuses the ATSB of ‘secretly retracting’ information”.

In a statement after it had been made aware of the FOI material, the JACC said:

“The information was retracted when it was learned not all working group members had, at that stage, provided formal responses. Subsequently a consensus view was reached.”

Now I know it is just feeding more of the same 'he said, she said' MH370 bollocks, but given the Oz has obviously gone to some bother chasing FOIs etc. I kind of wonder where 'that man' will go next with chucking rocks on the ATSB chook-house shed -

So out of curiosity I visited the comments section of that Higgins article and I was quite surprised by the dampening effect the article has had on the usual Oz/Bailey/Higgins critics/ATSBsexual trolls like Mick & Andrew.

Mick (1 comment only??) - Since there's mention of the Independent Group of aviation experts who on their own initi­ative have been reviewing the MH370 scientific data, it's also worth pointing out that based on the Inmarsat satellite data, the Independent Group also came to the conclusion that MH370 ended its flight in a rapid descent, a "death dive".   They reached that conclusion nearly two years ago.

---

Andrew (1 comment only) - An 800 word article, the essence of which is contained in the last two sentences:

“The information was retracted when it was learned not all working group members had, at that stage, provided formal responses. Subsequently a consensus view was reached.”

Big deal...

---

Which was excellently countered IMO by Rodger...

---

Rodger - [email=-@Andrew]@Andrew[/email] It is a big deal!

Australian has already spent millions of dollars on the search of MH370 aircraft without any tangible result or benefit.

The ATSB has apparently chosen not to consider or evaluate other experts’ views and theories. If it has, I do not remember The Australian reporting such. Now we read in the above article that when:   “When The Australian reported the deletion of the sentence, the ATSB issued a denial on its website, saying the report “falsely ­accuses the ATSB of ‘secretly retracting’ information”."

The ATSB’s failure to find the wreckage (after many months and millions of dollars), apparent disregard in listening to experts, and the apparent covering up of its inaccurate bulletin, is not a good look.

I think it is time for a Special Board of Inquiry be proclaimed and investigate the apparent “group think” in the ATSB and JACC, the erroneous bulletin release, and other matters of public interest (viz actual receipt of monies from Malaysia and China to cover some of the search costs as well as China’s actual search effort by its dispatched ship).

 

Well while trolling M&Ms website I noted that the 'email chain' released under FOI is now on M&M's disclosure log:

28/09/16 MH370 Operational Update Bulletin (17-18) PDF: 198 KB

---

Subject: Operational Update [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

et al.,

Not sure who to contact about this but I just noticed the words in the operational update:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370‐pages/updates/operational‐update/

“The last satellite communication with the aircraft showed it was most likely in a high rate of descent in the area of what is known as the 7th arc. This is indeed the consensus of the Search Strategy Working Group.”

At this stage it is probably ATSB s47G view that those communications likely indicate a high rate of descent. It is certainly not yet the consensus position of the SSWG as that involves s47G, s47G and, s47G of which 2 parties are yet to make a formal response on the subject.

I suggest we remove the last sentence at the very least.

Also, given that this update has information related to the SSWG, would it be better in the future for myself, or s22 to check the content before public release to avoid this sort of error?

Regards,

s22

---

Yes agree, s22 could you talk to s22 and get the last sentence taken out as per below and reloaded to both websites

Regards

s22

Senior Transport Safety Investigator

Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Search for MH370 – Operations Team

---

FYI.

s22
Director, Joint Agency Coordination Centre

Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

  
For those interested s22 of the FOI Act reads:

22  Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant matter deleted
Scope
             (1)  This section applies if:
                     (a)  an agency or Minister decides:
                              (i)  to refuse to give access to an exempt document; or
                             (ii)  that to give access to a document would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request for access; and..etc

&.. s47G reads:

47G  Public interest conditional exemptions—business

             (1)  A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would disclose information concerning a person in respect of his or her business or professional affairs or concerning the business, commercial or financial affairs of an organisation or undertaking, in a case in which the disclosure of the information....

The puppetmaster (M&M) to the puppet (4D):

Also I believe that Judith Zielke (the wearer of many hats) was and is still the JACC Director.

This is confirmed by another fascinating document which was also released under FOI three weeks before and basically outlines the script that M&M's department want miniscule 4D Chester to adhere to:

09/09/16 Recent JACC Ministerial Brief (17-10) PDF: 289 KB

Note the box in the top LH corner...

For decision by: 29 July 2016

...considering Zielke cleared the miniscule briefing on the same day, it is quite obvious the decision had already been made before it got anywhere near 4D's office.
The next bit reads...

Reason: To ensure timely notification to Malaysia of funding requirement 

Now consider that the dates from the ATSB acknowledged cock-up email chain feature on the 27th to 28th of July, you begin to see why the JACC & ATSB went into some strange subterfuge mode - i.e. deny-obfuscate-deny..

JACC said...

JACC chief co-ordinator Judith Zielke would also not say why the “consensus” line had been secretly disappeared.
  

& then said...

..In a statement after it had been made aware of the FOI material, the JACC said:

“The information was retracted when it was learned not all working group members had, at that stage, provided formal responses. Subsequently a consensus view was reached.”...

Want to bet the above statement was made after the Malaysian funds were confirmed to be in the bank...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 29.11.16: DOI archive entry 161129

GEOMAR latest, via wideorbits.com... :

Investigation | Are we looking for missing flight MH370 in the right place?

by Jonathan Durgadoo on November 20, 2016.
Jonathan Durgadoo, Siren Ruehs, Arne Biastoch


The search for missing flight MH370 has so far been focused on a 120,000 square kilometre region south west of Perth, Australia. But now there are reasons to believe that the search area could be too far south.
 
On March 8th 2014, 239 lives ceased, and are still unaccounted for. Flight MH370, the now infamous Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777-200ER, departed from Kuala Lumpur for Beijing. Soon after take off, half way between Vietnam and Malaysia at the mouth of the Gulf of Thailand, the aircraft was recorded making a sharp turn west. MH370 was last spotted on radar about an hour and half into the flight over the Andaman Sea, south west of Phuket. Then it disappeared.

After disappearing from radar screens, the plane remained airborne for several hours. Evidence for that comes from the hourly automatic satellite log-on communications, so-called “handshakes”. The 7th and last of these hourly handshakes occurred approximately 7.5 hours after take off.

Australian-led search authorities initiated an extensive search campaign shortly after the disappearance. A priority search area was defined in the southeast Indian Ocean around “Arc 7”, the possible location of the aircraft during the 7th handshake. In defining the search area, the authorities also considered the maximum flight range given the amount of fuel carried by the aircraft.

Fast-forward 16 months to July 29th 2015. After months of fruitless search, a 2 meter long flaperon (part of an aircraft’s wing that helps stabilise the plane during take off and landing) beaches at Saint-André, on La Réunion Island, thousands of kilometres away from the search region. Within weeks the authorities confirmed that the flaperon indeed belonged to MH370.

That latest finding naturally begged several questions and fuelled several more conspiracy theories. From an oceanographic perspective, the question was simple, yet difficult to answer: could we track the flaperon back in time to establish where the plane had crashed, and if so, would that position coincide with the priority search area?

“Ocean models describe the motion of water using well-understood mathematical equations”

As an oceanographer this question appealed to my curiosity, and to that of my team. Since the flaperon beached, it must have floated and drifted, that is, moved with the currents. Drift of an object at the surface of the ocean can be affected by 3 factors: surface ocean currents, direct sail effect by the wind, and wave-induced drift. Under the assumption that the flaperon drifted horizontally and mostly submerged in the upper metre of the ocean, direct wind sail effect is negligible. This left us with the need to obtain accurate descriptions of surface ocean currents and that of wave-induced drift.
From the outset, it was clear that we would need the most up-to-date dataset for the period March 2014 – July 2015, and that such a dataset needed to be coherent, containing no gaps in space or time. Since no ocean observations satisfy all of these requirements, we used an ocean model to perform the task.

Ocean models describe the motion of water using well-understood mathematical equations, and are performed using state-of-the-art super-computers. The model dataset that we used also makes use of available ocean observations – from satellites and buoys – in order to provide the best possible coherent simulation of ocean currents for the desired time period. This model ran on a supercomputer at Mercator Ocean in Toulouse, France. The description of wave-induced drift was obtained from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts in Reading, UK.

So, the idea is that we could use an ocean model like this to track the flaperon back in time to establish the flight’s crash location. But the ocean is a chaotic place; it makes no sense to simulate the path of a single “virtual flaperon” backward in time. Therefore a “strength in numbers” strategy is what we used when we placed close to 5 million virtual model flaperons around La Réunion Island during the model month of July 2015. Using the modeled description of the upper ocean currents and of wave-induced drift, these virtual flaperons were backtracked until March 8th 2014 – the date the doomed flight crashed. Daily geographic positions for each virtual flaperon were stored, resulting in approximately five million independent possible trajectories.

“based on our analysis, the chance that the flaperon started its journey from the priority search area is less than 1.3 %”

Now, let us assume the satellite handshake analysis to be credible. This means that the flaperon would originate somewhere close to Arc 7 on March 8th 2014 (see article image). This means that we can refine our analysis by imposing a condition. Keep in mind that we have virtual flaperons starting at La Réunion in July 2015 and tracked backward in time until March 2014. If we only consider those virtual flaperons whose position on March 8th 2014 were, say, within 500 kilometres of Arc 7, then we reduce the number of possible trajectories to around 800 000. The positions of these virtual flaperons on March 8th 2014 are subsequently mapped giving an indication of the most probable locations of their origins (see article image).

While it is impossible to pin-point an exact location, we found that the origin of the flaperon is likely to be to the west rather than southwest of Australia. More importantly, based on our analysis, the chance that the flaperon started its journey from the priority search area is less than 1.3 %. This naturally raises questions. Should the search area be refocused elsewhere? Are the model assumptions that we made correct?

With just a single piece of debris, these questions are hard to answer. But since July 2015, there have been numerous other pieces of debris found along the shores of several east African nations, namely Mozambique, Madagascar, Mauritius, Tanzania, and South Africa. Several of these have been confirmed to be very likely components of the demised aircraft. Our next step is to refine our results by considering these other debris. Back tracking multiple pieces of debris using our ocean model method will further allow us to home in on the likely crash point of the plane. This is what we are now focused on.
 
Dr. Jonathan Durgadoo is an oceanographer interested in ocean circulation and the role of the ocean in climate. He is a post-doctoral fellow at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany.

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

If in doubt, just Google it!

MH370 mystery deepens as Google Earth turns up new clues
Yahoo7 News on November 29, 2016, 2:33 pm

MH370 mystery deepens as Google Earth turns up new clues independent investigator US statistician Mike Chillit

An independent investigator searching for debris associated with the MH370 disaster claims he is using Google Earth to uncover new clues into the baffling mystery.

US statistician Mike Chillit says he used the global mapping site to study the water around Saint Brandon Island approximately 400 kilometres northeast of Mauritius in the six months after the plane disappeared in March 2014.

Chillit chose the area based on the path of drifters being used in a bid to narrow down his results for the missing plane.


US statistician Mike Chillit has uploaded a series of images to his social media accounts. Source: @MikeChillit



"#MH370 This could be just wind-blown sand, but looks more substantial. North part of St. Brandon," he posted to social media. Source: Twitter.

Earlier in the week he posted a series of images onto his social media accounts highlighting objects he believes to be debris from the missing Boeing 777.

“I haven’t tried to use Google Earth for this before other than on Reunion where it picked up debris one week before the flaperon was found (in July 2015),” Mr Chillit told News Corp.

“This does not look like vessel debris but it is hard to know. As far as I know the island has never been examined for debris.”

A significant amount of debris believed to be from the plane has been located off the east coast of Africa, however, the length of time it spent in the water remains a mystery.

Earlier last month Australian air crash investigators confirmed an aircraft part was found washed ashore the island of Mauritius did, in fact, come from flight MH370.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said the item discovered in May was a trailing edge splice strap from a Boeing 777 left outboard flap.

A work order number on the part confirmed it was from the Malaysia Airlines plane, which disappeared in March 2014 with 239 people on board while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.

Despite an extensive search of the Southern Ocean, the aircraft wreckage has not been found.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), staff examine a piece of aircraft debris at their laboratory in Canberra, Australia, July. 20, 2016. The flap was found in June by residents on Pemba Island off the coast of Tanzania. Photo: AAP

But a number of parts that have washed up on Indian Ocean islands have been identified as coming from MH370.

In mid-September, the ATSB confirmed a piece of wreckage discovered on the island of Pemba, off the coast of Tanzania, was from MH370.

The latest piece was collected by a member of the Malayisan MH370 investigation team and delivered to the ATSB for identification.

Well done Mike, Google hey? Bloody genius mate. It's worth a shot, especially based on your current research and limited funds.

If we could just get that stammering imbecile Chester to slide you a few dollars so that you could properly search the area with the tools and people that you need! Leave Hood and his marauders out of it, they are a waste of space. Or if we could just get China, the UK or the USSA to hand over sound wave data from the Sub(s) that were in the crash region at the time she hit the water, or if we could have some of the 'true' satellite data or imagery that was taken by the birds high in the sky, that they have got hidden away from prying public and IOS eyes. No FOI request will see that information handed over any time soon.

#keepsearchingmike

[Peetwo]

#keepjoiningdotsjohn

As much as I am in support of the last GD initiated hashtag -  #keepsearchingmike - I am also very much in support of John Fiorentinos attempts to find transparency in the MH370 iinvestigation. (see post title #hashtag above)

{Before I continue, I'd just like to mention that I believe this is the first Aunty Pru forum thread to pass 100k views... }

This one from JF's archive will (I believe) intrigue Gobbledock...

Open Letter to Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston

By johnfiorentino-1
Thu May 22, 2014 12:53 PM

• world-news
  
• aviation
  
• cnn
  
• investigative-journalism
  
• air-disasters
  
• mh370
  

Discuss: 0 1 !
 May 21, 2014
 
Open Correspondence to
Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston
Head of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre (JACC)
 
 
By: John E. Fiorentino
 
 
 
 
Dear Air Chief Marshal
 
This is my second correspondence to you regarding the investigation: into the disappearance of Flight MH370.
 
It was troubling to learn the following this morning:
 
Malaysia Airlines MH370 ‘ping’ recordings will not be released as doubts grow over their validity
 
NEW doubt has crept into the search for Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 after the Australian search agency said it would not make public the audio recordings of four acoustic “ping” signals.
 
www.heraldsun.com.au
 
This correspondence is to request in the strongest terms that you reconsider your position on this.
 
I have been fighting almost from the beginning to get the authorities to understand that the “pings” detected by the Australian ship Ocean Shield could have come from sources other than the black boxes of MH370. In fact, the available evidence indicates it is quite unlikely that the pings originated from the missing aircraft.
 
My over month long battle with the media finally resulted in CNN breaking this story on its NEWDAY Saturday program, May 10, 2014.
 
Advice from “experts” about these underwater noises has so far been couched in intransigence and guided by tunnel vision.
 
 
The tragedy here takes many forms – not the least of which is the loss of time as these impulses are investigated and re-investigated by whom exactly? The same people who looked at them initially? The same people who thought the frequency changes of the detected impulses had no meaning? The same people who now think those frequency changes are indeed relevant? The same people who reported the signals must have come from a man-made source? The same people who now doubt that they all did?
 
The supposed “convergence of data” - the Inmarsat “hand-shakes” and the most fortuitous underwater “ping” detections – have in my opinion led you down the Yellow Brick Road to a fools paradise. The Inmarsat data, even if correct was and is incapable of pinpointing the final resting place of MH370 to the degree required by the current scenario. That the Ocean Shield should – on the very first run of the Towed Pinger Locator (TPL) – detect impulses deemed to have come from MH370 is beyond belief. Bells and whistles should have signaled the detection of this fools gold, but all was silent.
 
The abandonment of other possible scenarios such as a crash or safe wheels down on land has stunted and derailed the investigation. We are fast approaching, if indeed we have not already passed, a critical juncture where there will be no hope of ever finding that plane.
 
You need to make the tough decisions and take the immediate action necessary to get the investigation back on track.
 
 
Copyright 2014 - J.E Fiorentino - All Rights Reserved
 
For further information contact:
 
John E. Fiorentino
[b]Fiorentino Research[/b]
PO Box 324
Oakhurst, NJ 07755 USA
Twitter: @jefiorentino
e-mail jefiorentino@optimum.net
Tel: 732-361-8599

"K" edit - 100135 at posting. Good job P2.

MTF? Definitely, give us more JF...

[Kharon]

All good except the all important bit. Australia ‘volunteered’ to do “the search” but not the “investigation”. No matter; all is, well Dolan (guru of deep ocean searches) was in command.

[Peetwo]

Captain's Log 05.12.16: The Oz v ATSB - Contrail re-visit?

Courtesy 'that man' in the Oz this AM - :

MH370 aid offer renewed
12:00amEAN HIGGINS
A physicist has renewed a proposal to try to find where MH370 went down using archival satellite imagery.

Are we looking for MH370 in the wrong place?2:57

Pilot Byron Bailey explains the holes in the current theory as to the whereabouts of MH370

• December 2nd 2016
  
• 4 days ago
  
• /video/video.news.com.au/News/
  

[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/spp-api/v1/widgets/newscorpau_reference_widget-226/?format=html&spp_api_key=XuE5eOv3o2Wa4WcljO6E3aQVo8rkmgUVthUN6TtOg-Y&t_product=the-australian[/img]

A Melbourne cloud physicist has renewed a proposal to Australian and Malaysian authorities to try to find where Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 went down using archival satellite imagery to track its contrails.

Aron Gingis, a scientist who held posts at Monash and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem before setting up a consultancy, said tracking aircraft movements by this method was more precise than the satellite electronic “handshake” data relied on by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

The ATSB has based its search strategy on automatic hourly Inmarsat satellite exchanges with MH370 during its flight to the southern Indian Ocean on March 8, 2014, with 239 people on board.

The ATSB has claimed the Inmarsat data shows the Boeing 777 was in a rapid descent at the end of the flight, supporting its “ghost flight” or “death dive” ­theory that it flew on autopilot with “unresponsive” pilots until ­running out of fuel and crashing.

• More: Enigma of MH370: key theories
  

Some international air crash investigators doubt the data is good enough to be confident of that conclusion, while senior commercial pilots such as Australian aviator and commentator Byron Bailey believe Captain ­Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end, outside the current search area.

Mr Gingis noted that in a technical paper Inmarsat scientists “stressed that the sensitivity of the reconstructed flight path to frequency errors is such that there remains significant uncertainty in the final location”.

The $200 million underwater search directed by the ATSB over 120,000sq km is due end in weeks.

Mr Gingis said his consultancy, Australian Management Consolidated, had access to civilian and military archival satellite imagery and meteorological data that could enable it to determine where MH370 went down in one of two ways.

By examining satellite images from March 8, 2014, his experts could look for the condensation trails made by jet aircraft in some conditions, usually clear skies.

Alternatively, Mr Gingis said, when aircraft fly through clouds, they affect the physics of the clouds. Analysis of satellite meteorological data could also potentially track MH370’s route in such conditions.

He only asked that the ­Malaysian and Australian governments cover his firm’s costs.
The ATSB told The ­Australian it had dealt with Mr Gingis in 2014: “The ATSB subsequently sought details on the techniques proposed to be used, however Mr Gingis refused to provide information for consideration on the basis it would be detrimental to his commercial interests.

“Based on the information available, the ATSB and also Geoscience Australia considered his proposal did not warrant further investigation. The ATSB still holds this view.”

Err no comment... - "INCOMING!"

MTF...P2

[ventus45]

By way of background, because water is an incomprehensible fluid, submerged submarines can be detected, and tracked, by radar satellites, by identifying the bulges on the ocean surface, made by the submarine moving underwater.  This bulge is called the Bernoulli hump, and may be detectable from a moving submarine as deep as 300 metres. Like any vessel, submarines also leave a V-shaped trail, known as a Kelvin wake, which can also be detected on the surface.

The point to note here, is that this can not be done in a "real time snapshot" of radar satellite data. Both the submarine's Bernoulli hump and Kelvin wake are extremely small and extremely difficult to detect, even under "good" ocean surface conditions. In "confused seas" it is not possible to extract the "signal" from the "noise". The technique does work under good conditions however, but it requires a great deal of signal processing, done over time, to identify and correlate detected surface disturbances, to identify a "track" of disturbances, that may be attributable to a submarine.

See http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2012/0...rines.html and http://www.popsci.com.au/tech/military/t...ing,376936 for a discussion of the above.

Aircraft move in air, which is a compressible fluid. An airliner moving at 500 knots at altitude leaves a considerable "wake" as we all know (caution wake turbulence) which finally "wraps up" into the two "wingtip vortexes" about three to five aircraft wingspans behind the aircraft, with a separation between their "core axis" of about three quarters of the wingspan.  

Those vortexes are ALWAYS there, but sometimes, they are made visible to the human eye by the condensation of the water vapor produced by the combustion of fuel in the engines, (it makes no difference whether it is jet fuel or piston engine avgas) which we call contrails.

Those with binoculars, will have noticed when viewing say a 4 engine 747 flying overhead at altitude, and producing contrails, that the four individual contrails from each engine are usually visible from very close behind the engines, sometimes about level with the tail, or a little behind, but then, not too far behind the aircraft, the two on each side "merge" into one, on each side.  This is caused by the wing wake "sheet" produced by the wing from the wing root to the wing tip on each side, "wrapping up" into the single vortex on each side, taking the two exhaust trails with it, as spiral wound "filaments" if you like.

The point is, those wing tip vortexes are ALWAYS produced continuously, whether visible or not.  They are extremely powerful, and persist for some considerable time, until they eventually dissipate.  

Their detection from space based Doppler Radar sensors, should be a "no brainer"' with existing synthetic aperture radar signal processing technology.

In the case of MH-370, fyling into the SIO, into a region with virtually no other air traffic, at the time, these wing tip vortexes from 9M-MRO should stick out "like dogs balls" in the data, which is available, both in the open, civilian, and commercial world, and of course, the "spook" world.

Moving on to the subject of the Aron Gingis proposal.

Aron is apparently suggesting that the motion of the aircraft "disturbing" the air through which it is flying, also has other, let's say "secondary effects" on the air itself, it's temperature etc, and thus these produce yet more effects, let's say "tertiary effects" (on cloud structure and dynamics) that may be detectable by "other" means, presumably by examining the data produced by multiple satellites operating and routinely collecting data in other spectral bands, eg, the infra red, and others.

He is apparently trying to protect his IP, by refusing to disclose the details of exactly how he might conduct this analysis of these secondary and tertiary effects, which I think is fair enough. For the ATSB to refuse to consider the possibilities this kind of analysis might produce, simply because he refuses to divulge his methodology, is childish.

Thus, the ATSB's bland comment “Based on the information available, the ATSB and also Geoscience Australia considered his proposal did not warrant further investigation. The ATSB still holds this view.” is quite simply, bollocks, with a CAPITAL "B".

[JoeDColeman1981]

It seems the drift modelling is as vague as the ISAT Data in regards to defining a search area (it must be about there somewhere way of thinking). Different professionals/companies of drift modelling coming up with different models, disagreeing on where the debris came from. Also no-one knows for sure 100% how long the debris were on the shores (where found) for, or whether it drifted back out then in again.

It’s great that some of the families are going out to these shores looking for debris, I would do the same if I was In that situation. It’s in hope that a particular item(s) may hold clues as to what happened. But as to any debris defining a specific area will be and is as we can see from no underwater plane debris find, currently difficult.

Also to mention, as from @richard_e_cole updates https://twitter.com/richard_e_cole/statu...7411022849 can be seen that there are areas of ATSB’s Bayesian that have not been Bathy-scanned would it be feasible for funding if available to be put forward to complete these areas of small probability. Or would it be a waste of money, it’s just seems that the ATSB have their reasons whether public info or restricted info for using Bayesian and would it be correct and complete to fulfil there method, by searching the whole Bayesian of probability however small that probability may be before heading elsewhere.

[Kharon]

A short salute.

You find ‘quality’ in a thoroughbred; the class: the heart, the staying power and a will to win. These qualities are also found in the very best of human kind, combined with an ‘empathy’ for their fellow man. Some folk, simply because they care, strive to rise above the sea of mediocre flotsam in which they swim. Then, of those, a rare example of not only these qualities, but that added edge, that which separates then into a class of their own. Intelligence, wit, common sense , practical application and the will to find a solution.

The race to find MH 370 has been long; made tedious by delay, dramatized by myth, surrounded with soothsayers and self aggrandising story tellers; those stories confounded by obfuscation, corrupted by hearsay and translated into many forms by just as many venal, self serving reasons.

But slowly, class is telling. Chillit for no particular reason has moved mountains to logically examine the search area data; Fiorentino has written a carefully considered work; Howard wrote an analysis of ‘flight planning’; there are others: non claiming to have found the aircraft or solved the puzzle.  Just working quietly away, in their own time at their own expense without publicity or official acknowledgement, for no more than the hope that they may ‘help’ in some small way. Even if it is just to have a ‘theory’ proven incorrect; which is a positive thing, as it eliminates a possibility, so reducing the scope of inquiry.  

It is well past the time where governments can ignore the efforts of these truly independent folk. The so-called ‘experts’, unless they get very lucky, know they are in a dry well. Perhaps the independent researchers are wrong – that would be fine – but at the very least, the sane, credible logic, provided without vested interest, bias, ‘profit or political motive’ by sensible folk should be paid the courtesy of detailed examination; even if only to rule the data out of the game.

In the end, this will only come back to haunt government – when someone ‘unofficial’ turns up with the ‘black –boxes’; then it will be fun to watch the back-flips and excuses come out.  This of course assuming that the aircraft was not shot down for a perceived terrorist threat which had to be covered over – or, electronically ‘hi-jacked’ an equally unthinkable scenario.  But if neither of these two options occurred, then there are errors in the official thinking. Time for some new ideas and some new blood.  I’d say, the thoroughbreds are running rings around the existing mediocre crowd of ‘experts’. Would you not agree?

Never quit; don’t even think about it.

Toot toot.

[Kharon]

For a few dollars more.

Joe DC. “[It] seems the drift modelling is as vague as the ISAT Data in regards to defining a search area etc.

Good point Joe; the drift models are vague, as is ISAT – the paucity of ‘hard’ data is as mind boggling as the ATSB approach. But consider, the only real data we have are the pieces of aircraft and the entire SIO.  The satellite data is as ‘vague’ and chancy as the ‘drift’ pattern data, but the sat/drift analysis may help refine the ‘arc’ and provide a more accurate idea of where to begin searching; now that the original ‘best guess’ search areas have been all but exhausted.

It is only a notion of my own and I could not prove it if my life depended on it but, I keep returning to it, as it teases my curiosity bump. But I feel the ocean search went in ‘too hard, too early’, with too little data; all the eggs in one basket, so to speak.  There was a pressing, although not urgent need to do ‘something’.  The opportunity for search and hopefully rescue was long passed; the chances of survivors being found were anorexic. There was little need to ‘rush’; but there was a need to hasten slowly.

You could not, in fairness, accuse anyone of acting incorrectly; you could however, with hindsight, say that a fairly big bet was laid on an outside chance. It was an outside chance- based on the data available at the time. Even if you take out the political expediency and public pressure, the ego’s, the self interest and all the other hoop-lah which fed, in a frenzy, on the ‘story’; strip away the drama and lunatic antics of some commentators; you still arrive at the inevitable conclusion. As Foley says; it was a “best-guess” bet and they have lost their shirts.

If you are convinced that the aircraft is indeed in the SIO; then it is time to bring together all; repeat: all known facts and data and cautiously, carefully redefine the search area. It still may not be the ‘right’ spot; but, several ‘best guess’ options, searched in the manner that the AMSA would have done it would attract a small wager from me.

If the aircraft is in the wild parts of the SIO then a proper search pattern will find it; provided they begin in the right place, based on the best possible analysis of all available ‘hard’ data and physical evidence.  A large ‘ego’ dump would be a prerequisite of this process; some loss of ‘face’ would be included with that – but; if the aircraft is to be found and the reason for it’s disappearance explained and any possibility of a repeat eliminated; then that would be a small price to pay. It would be, IMO, irresponsible of the governments involved to leave this event in ‘limbo’ or as Chester would have it ‘in suspended animation’ simply to save a little face and few dollars.  Air safety is touted as a ‘top priority’, is it not?

Aye well; Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

miniscule NFI 4D said..

Search for MH370 – Chinese Vessel Dong Hai Jiu 101
Media Release
DC224/2016
13 December 2016

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester today thanked the Government of the People's Republic of China for the services of Dong Hai Jiu 101, a Chinese search vessel which was used as part of the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370.

“The Dong Hai Jiu 101 has provided significant assistance in the search for the missing aircraft,” Mr Chester said.

The vessel commenced search operations in February 2016, initially scanning broad tracks of the ocean floor using deep tow sonar equipment before moving to undertake detailed inspection points of interest, identified by deep tow operations, using a Remotely Operated Vehicle.

“This final detailed inspection, which commenced in late October from Fremantle, has been invaluable undertaking 33 dives in the 120,000 square-kilometre search area,” Mr Chester said.

The vessel has now completed its missions and is returning to Shanghai.
Fugro Equator and its Autonomous Underwater Vehicle remains searching and it is expected the search area will be completed early 2017.

MH370 disappeared on 8 March 2014 with 239 people on board. Australia, Malaysia and People's Republic of China have been working together to find the aircraft since that time.

In July 2016 Ministers from Malaysia, Australia and the People's Republic of China agreed that should the aircraft not be located in the current 120,000 square-kilometre search area, and in the absence of credible new evidence leading to the identification of a specific location of the aircraft, the search would be suspended upon completion of the search area. 

Summary - "Is Dong is good, is gone"