[Peetwo]

Ref: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines...059d9227f5

Q/ Has the Hooded Canary breached S24 of the ATSB's own Act?

A stone – Unturned.

MH 370 leaves a mountain of serious questions in it’s wake. But there is one neglected which IMO needs to be answered; it may be a gold seam; maybe not. But its worth asking.

Why was the very competent, search expert Australian AMSA pulled out of the search and the incompetent, no expertise in maritime search ATSB placed in charge?

Usually, AMSA find the wreckage and ATSB ‘investigate’ (yes I know) the wreckage – that’s the system. So why bump AMSA off their anointed task? This is akin to asking the local plumber to do a heart transplant.

It ain’t much of a hole to dig in – but perhaps it’s a new place to dig out information under FOI. First principals – Clarrie.

Another stone - Unturned.

Someone kindly sent me a copy of Larry Vance's book, 'MH370 MYSTERY SOLVED' -   

Not really into the semantics of who was at the controls and why (ET still my strongest hunch) , because in all reality until such time as the aircraft is found the speculation, hypothesis and debate is pointless until you have hard irrefutable physical evidence in front of you - END OF.     

This brings me back to the LV book which I have now read from nose to tail because IMO (and it is only my opinion) Chapter 4 of that book brings us as close as we are going to get to an independent SME (subject matter expert) analysing and unpacking the real physical evidence to come up with a completely different 'end of flight' conclusion to that of the Hooded Canary led ATSB...

Reference article extracts from the 3/11/16 Oz article linked above: 

---

...Examination of wreckage from the missing Malaysia Airlines jet MH370 indicates its flaps were in a “cruise” position and not lowered for a controlled landing when it slammed into the ocean, according to the air safety watchdog...

...The Australian Transport Safety Bureau based its selection of the area to be searched on analysis of automated signals ­received from MH370 during its fatal flight. They indicated that the aircraft flew steadily southward for several hours before running out of fuel and then falling fast into the ocean. Latest research by the ATSB includes the results of an examination of a wing flap ­believed to have been torn from the jet as it hit the water. It says the flap is unlikely to have been ­deployed for landing as it would have been had there been a pilot at the controls...

See HERE for link for Google review of Larry Vance book. I am sure that there are people out there with the expertise to refute some of the evidence and analysis put forward by Vance and his fellow SMEs. However I challenge anyone to completely ignore the documented evidence and analysis to the point where the ATSB 'end of flight' hypothesis is of an overwhelming higher probability than that of Vance and his crew.

If you agree that based on the balance of probabilities the pilot controlled 'end of flight' scenario is more likely than that of 'ghost flight scenario, then the next question is if Vance and his former TSBC (SME) colleagues (plus presumably the French BEA with the flaperon) came to those conclusions based on the physical/pictorial evidence of two major components of the RH wing of MH370 -

Q1/ How come the ATSB boffins didn't come to the same or similar conclusions?

This could suggest that they know where it is and for some reason they don't want it found? This is where the remote hacking or electronic takeover scenario could be the hypothesis for why?

Q2/ However my major concern is why is the ATSB and by association Australia involved? And final question -

Q3/ Has the ATSB breached S24 of it's own Act through blind manipulation/ignorance/ineptitude/malfeasance of not properly examining and analysing the physical evidence of both the RH flap or flaperon to discount the possibility of pilot controlled ditching of MH370?

link - https://legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00617

24  Offence to hinder etc. an investigation

            (1)  A person commits an offence if:

                    (a)  the person engages in conduct; and

                    (b)  the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:

                              (i)  that is being conducted at that time; or

                            (ii)  that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and

                    ©  the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct); and

                    (d)  the conduct is not authorised by the Chief Commissioner.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 12 months.

MTF...P2