[Peetwo]

Senators on the prowl - The Heff, Senators Johnson, Gallacher etc have suddenly caught a sniff of the stench emanating from the ATSB 'blank check' MH370 SIO search and they're 'not happy Jan'...

Parts I & II – the MH 370 stuff up; I wonder does the world realise that the chair of our esteemed, aviation savvy Senate Committee regards it as a “stuff up”, which is Ozspeak for a right royal duck up – or, a load of Bollocks.  The most telling statements, the full stop deadline on the search, has been decided.

Hansard 19/10/15:

CHAIR: I think generally you may face some questions about the MH370 stuff-up.

Senator JOHNSTON: Mr Dolan, could you very briefly tell us what we are doing as of right now?

Mr Dolan : At the moment we have two vessels with deep tow equipment in the Indian Ocean or en route to continue the search of the surface in the defined area for this event.

Senator JOHNSTON: That is pursuant to a contract which is worth how much?

Mr Foley : The contract value varies depending on a sliding scale in the contract. We initially started with a contract for 30,000 square kilometres and in three successive moves we have upped the number of square kilometres that we have been asked to search.

Senator JOHNSTON: To 90?

Mr Foley : We are currently at 80,000 square kilometres.

Senator JOHNSTON: You have 10,000 square kilometres to go?

Mr Foley : We have done 70,000 at this point. So, what we have got on AusTender, where we report periodically when we change the value of the contract, is $90 million.

Senator JOHNSTON: So, what is the value of the contract all up with what we have spent so far on the search?

Mr Foley : It is $97 million as of end of September.

Senator JOHNSTON: What is the term of the contract and how is it terminated?

Mr Foley : The term of the contract is two years from the date at which it started and it is terminated at our request, effectively, which is obviously triggered when we find the aircraft.

Senator JOHNSTON: So, two years or anytime thereafter on reasonable notice, I take it, is roughly right?

Mr Foley : No. Two years is the fixed term of the contract. We extend the contract in terms of square kilometres periodically to, if you like, pre-empt what we think we are going to need to search in the coming months.

Senator JOHNSTON: But after two years we finish?

Mr Foley : After two years we finish.

Senator JOHNSTON: And you estimate the total value of that contract after two years will be?

Mr Foley : It depends on how much we search.

Senator JOHNSTON: A rough estimate?

Mr Foley : That is a hard one. We do not know what our bottom line is in terms of funding as yet because it is reliant not just on the Australian government but the Malaysian government as well. So, in essence, the value of the contract varies depending on how much funding is provided by—

CHAIR: Do you have an open chequebook?

Mr Foley : Not at all. We have been given $60 million.

CHAIR: It sounds like you have.

Mr Foley : We were given $60 million by the Australian government at the start of the search. We have not spent that money yet. Other moneys which have been contributed by Malaysia we are using in tandem with the Australian government money.

Senator JOHNSTON: What is the percentage breakup between Australia and Malaysia?
Mr Foley : At this point it is around about fifty-fifty and it increases proportionately in terms of Malaysia's funding as time goes on.

Senator JOHNSTON: The aileron or whatever it was that was found on Reunion Island—I have been reading that it is from MH370, a Boeing 777.

Mr Foley : Correct.

Senator JOHNSTON: Are we certain that the serial numbers on the component parts of that piece of equipment indisputably match that of the aircraft?

Mr Foley : The French judicial authorities are actually doing the investigation. They are certain that there are unique identifying numbers within the flaperon which related to 9M-MRO, which is the accident aircraft.

Senator JOHNSTON: And Boeing have confirmed that?

Mr Foley : As far as we know, yes, but the French—

Senator JOHNSTON: Do we have anything in writing?

Mr Foley : The French have announced publicly that it is definitely from the accident aircraft.

Senator JOHNSTON: Thank you.

Senator GALLACHER: You have contracted a vessel. I presume it is a vessel to tow this equipment.

Mr Dolan : Two vessels.

Mr Foley : The contract currently allows that.

Senator GALLACHER: Are they the best suited vessels for this work? We have received representations that you have picked the wrong vessels, or at least the wrong equipment.

Mr Dolan : We went to the international market with a very clearly specified tender for the services for the search for the missing aircraft. We did a very serious technical assessment of bids that came forward from that. There were three bids that technically complied with our required specified tender conditions and we selected the one that was the best value for money. The vessels that we had available to us are fit for purpose, as is the equipment and the crews that they are using.

Senator GALLACHER: So, whilst it might have been the best value for money was it the one with the best proven success record of finding and utilising this equipment?

Mr Dolan : There has not been any exercise on this scale of this capability so we have no benchmark for it. The closest we have—

Senator GALLACHER: What about the Air France aircraft?

Mr Dolan : The Air France aircraft was talking about a much more constrained area with a much more specified last location of the aircraft. We are talking about a somewhat different ocean bottom as well. There is a whole range of different circumstances. There was nothing that we could directly compare our current exercise to and we are confident that we have the best value for money for the Commonwealth for the exercise.

Senator GALLACHER: The best value for money but we do not know how much we are going to spend or how long we are going to be active for, so is it the best piece of equipment to be doing the job?

Mr Dolan : The equipment is doing the job that we require of it.

CHAIR: That was not the question.

Senator GALLACHER: Is there a piece of equipment that will give you a wider span either side?

CHAIR: There is. You do not ask the question unless you know the answer and I am sure you know the answer.

Mr Foley : Yes, of course. We considered a number of options when we put together the statement of requirements for the tender. We got the best technical advice that we could, which is expertise that exists within the United States, and we specified, very carefully, the technical requirements for the systems that we would use in the search.

Senator XENOPHON: May we get a copy of that technical advice and all the other material that you relied on before you made your decision as to which search company that you went to and the equipment used?

Mr Foley : We can certainly provide that documentation. We have it in existence, of course. It is part of the tender assessment process. The normal, if you like, commercial-in-confidence rules apply, which do not apply here.

Senator XENOPHON: I am not interested so much as to what each of them were going to charge for it. I am interested in the technical assessment of those.

Mr Foley : In assessing the tender we firstly did not consider price at all. The panel was blind to the price of the bids until such time as we had actually assessed their technical merit. Once we had assessed their technical merit, taken advice on the technical merit of the various bids from an expert, we then—

Senator XENOPHON: Who was that expert?

Mr Foley : He is currently contracted to us as our sonar expert. His name is Andrew Sherrell who worked, amongst other things, on finding Air France 447...

...Senator GALLACHER: Just on MH370, could you supply on notice what you can about the tender process, the technical advice and the cost, because you may or may not be aware that there are people giving a lot of different senators—coalition, opposition and cross-bench senators—a very different view of what you are actually doing there. It is not a complimentary view, and it does not appear to be sour grapes. It appears to be a very different technical assessment, so you are going to need to justify your contract, your decisions, or at least publicly make them available to us, because we are getting an information source which is contrary to what you are saying. Are you aware of that?

Mr Dolan : We are aware that there is some fairly public commentary about an alternative approach to this. We have paid attention to that. Every time the question that has been asked of us as to whether our techniques are up to the necessary standards, we have provided the information. I am very happy to provide that information to the committee. I am very happy to provide a separate briefing to committee members if they wish it.

Senator GALLACHER: Thank you....

ATSBeaker under siege on MH370? 

Breaking story today from the MSM, which IMO is very much related to the Senate Committee line of questioning, 1st from the Oz:

Seabed images could show MH370, says US firm  

• by: BRENDAN NICHOLSON
  
• From: The Australian
  
• October 21, 2015 12:00AM
  

Defence Editor
Canberra



Sonar images of the Air France crash. Source: Supplied




Sonar images of debris that could indicate the site of the missing Flight MH370. Source: Supplied
American deep water search specialists say the team hunting for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 in the ocean off Western Australia may have missed its wreckage 4km below on the sea floor.  

Williamson and Associates has examined images collected by scanning equipment aboard the search ship Fugro Discovery in September and believes items spotted and dismissed as rocks are likely to be man-made metal parts with circular surfaces.

It also noted strong similarities, albeit at a great distance, between what it believes is a ­“debris field” off Western Australia and the wreckage of Air France Flight 447 that crashed in the South Atlantic.

Specialists on the search vessel and others engaged by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau concluded that the objects were part of a geological formation and said they confirmed that in a further sweep over the site. Last night the bureau said it remained satisfied the objects were not man-made.

So far $90 million has been ­allocated for the search for the airliner that vanished with 239 passengers and crew aboard in March last year.

Williamson is a respected company and played a big role in the successful search for the cruiser HMAS Sydney, which was lost off Western Australia in a battle with a German raider in World War II.

The company made a bid to search for MH370 but missed out when the multi-million-dollar contract was awarded a year ago.

Williamson based its conclusions on images released by the ATSB on October 1.

Staff told The Australian the objects resembled a debris trail similar to other wrecks they had found. They said it was a “probable aircraft debris field” and should be investigated closely with a remote-controlled unmanned search vehicle.

The debris field was 700m by 250m, similar to the 600m by 250m debris field left by the Air France crash in the South Atlantic in June 2009.

“These targets have the characteristics of man-made metal parts with circular surfaces and with greater hardness than scattered rocks,” they said, saying there was cause for further investigation.

An ATSB spokesman said the images on the bureau’s website were a very small sample of extensive data collected on several passes at lower altitude, varying range scales and sonar frequencies with Fugro Discovery’s deep tow system. The data was assessed by Fugro’s expert geophysicists and sonar specialists and independently by the ATSB’s sonar data quality assurance team, and took account of the characteristics of comparable aircraft debris fields.

“All of the experts are satisfied that the structures in the sonar records are consistent with the surrounding geological formations and with the geology found in the search area. Based on analysis of all of the data, there are no indications that there is anything possessing the characteristics of an aircraft debris field,” he said.

Next from Ben..

Does this image show the MH370 debris trail on the sea floor?

Ben Sandilands | Oct 21, 2015 8:43AM |

Surely there is a need to see this possible debris field in sharper detail than shown in this ATSB image?

The Australian managed search for the wreckage of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has no option but to take a very close third look at part of the floor of the southern Indian Ocean where previous sonar scanning detected objects it later dismissed as natural features.

This follows the overnight Reuters report drawing renewed attention to an image which bears an at least superficial resemblance to an aircraft debris field at a depth of 4000 metres.

That image, and other reasonable doubts about the effectiveness of the ATSB search, have been the subject of repeated posts on Plane Talking.

Resolving the doubts as to what two previous sonar scans picked up will require the reactivation of an advanced Norwegian automated underwater vehicle resembling a large fat torpedo that the ATSB hired earlier this year but had to store in Fremantle during the winter sea states that could have prevented its safe deployment and retrieval from its support ship.

Those wild conditions have only gradually started to subside.

The ATSB’s own doubts as to the effectiveness of its side sonar scanning towfish used in the sea floor search led to its hiring of the Hugin 4500 AUV to look into particularly deep, complex or challenging locations where sections of the original priority search zone may not have been fully checked for debris from the missing Malaysia Airlines 777-200ER which disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board.

However when the ATSB began a second look at 30 objects of possible further interest that had been previously logged in the priority search area last month it did so with more cable towed sonar scanners that lacked the definition to pick up objects the size of window frames, or the 777′s two ‘black box’ data recorders.

Whether the ATSB and the claimed unanimous panel of experts were right or wrong in dismissing the synthetic image as showing natural features which do indeed bear a resemblance to an aircraft debris field they are now under pressure to check them out close up.

The inability of the ATSB to investigate the ditching of the Pel-Air medical charter near Norfolk Island in 2009 with integrity and competency, even  in shallow waters in a known location, has severely damaged its reputation.  A stuff up involving the MH370 search would be an intolerable embarrassment.

 
And finally from this evening's ABC radio PM program:

MH370 search descends into experts rowing over possible discovery site

Peter Lloyd reported this story on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 18:20:00
About JW Player 6.11.4923 (Ads edition) 

TIM PALMER: Is it the wreckage of missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 or merely the rocks and natural contours of the Indian Ocean sea floor?


An international dispute has broken out between a respected American deep water search company and the official Australian-led search team over a series of recently released sonar images of the sea floor off Western Australia.

The US firm believes they show what could be the debris field of an aircraft. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau says that's wrong and the Turnbull Government says the American firm can't be taken seriously because it lost the bid for the search contract.

Peter Lloyd reports.

PETER LLOYD: In the complex business of searching and finding objects in deep water, Williamson and Associates have had some impressive finds. From rockets engines off Apollo 11 to the discovery of the wreck of the Australian Hospital ship Centaur off Brisbane and more famously, discovering the wreckage of HMAS Sydney.

The Sydney's whereabouts had been Australia's most enduring maritime mystery.

Williamson and Associates didn't get the contract to search for MH370 and they've been highly critical of the skills of the company that did, but when the firm sea search experts cast their eye over images uploaded on the Transport Safety Board Website on the first of October, they were in stunned.

To them, objects scattered on the floor weren't natural. Art Wright from Williamson and Associates explains how he came to that conclusion.

ART WRIGHT: The way they're situated does not match the debris in the area there. Number two, they haven't been there very long because they're sitting on semi soft mud, soft sand, muddy sand.

PETER LLOYD: Art Wright is fairly certain what the two images show: a debris field of plane wreckage.

ART WRIGHT: I would guess it's about 700 metres by 300.

PETER LLOYD: And how does that compare to aircraft crashes in the ocean?

ART WRIGHT: Air France was about 650 by 250.

PETER LLOYD: So almost the same?

ART WRIGHT: Yes. We'd call it a category one target according to the ATSB system, so it should be looked at immediately.

PETER LLOYD: The ATSB won't say if it will take another pass over that location. Last weekend Williamson and Associates sent an email to the agency outlining their suspicions. The company claims they didn't get a courtesy reply.

Instead the agency released a media statement that left no doubt that it doesn't share their view.

ATSB STATEMENT: The data was assessed by expert geophysicists and sonar data specialists and indecently by the ATSB sonar data quality assurance team. All of the experts are satisfied, there are no indications that there is anything possessing the characteristics of an aircraft debris field.

PETER LLOYD: The Deputy Prime Minister's spokesman had a simpler response: "you may recall Williamson and Associates were unsuccessful tenders". The company expected to cop flack like that, says one of its bosses, Rob McCallum.

ROB MCCALLUM: So there's nothing in this for us at all other than we understand the value of the closure that has bought to families of whoever is left behind, and so you have to ask the question the other way, why wouldn't you go and investigate this target?

PETER LLOYD: I put that to both the Deputy Prime Minister's office and that of ATSB chief Martin Dolan. Neither responded. Nor has there a reply to this question: if the Australian side is so certain of its analysis, why not release all the data?

By its own admission, the ATSB has, quote "extensive data" on several passes in the area. Rob McCallum, from Williamson and Associates, can hardly be called objective, but his company argues the families of MH370 passengers, and Australian taxpayers footing the search bill, are not getting the services of the world's best at finding objects in deep water.

The company that has the contract is Fugro - a Dutch multinational. Even it has admitted that the sea bed was more complex and irregular than anticipated.

ROB MCCALLUM: At the time that the contract was issued, the comment was made that the only company that did not have a deep water search record, had not done a lot of deep water operations and did not actually own a sonar was the one that got the job.

We think if you're going to be a professional member of this very small industry, you have to do your job thoroughly and when you see a target of that clarity left un-investigated, that's a poor job and it needs to be investigated.

PETER LLOYD: It's a conviction, claims McCallum, that's widely held in the sea search industry. Now it's come to the surface.

TIM PALMER: Peter Lloyd reporting. 

Hmm..the bit in bold?? Troubling very troubling - but unfortunately not surprising...  
MTF..P2