[ventus45]

ATSB debris analysis: 19 April 2016

A few points to consider.

 

1.
"The parts were packaged in Mozambique and South Africa respectively and delivered safe-hand to the ATSB in their original packaging, in the custody of the ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team members".

Were they indeed ?
Really ?
I seem to remember the "no step" went to Malaysia, was unpacked, photographed, and held for "some days", "waiting" for the other item to arrive, before being shipped to the ATSB.

2.
"The following is a brief summary of the outcomes from the debris examination."

Really ?
A core issue re "provinence" of the items concerns the bio-fouling.
No details of that examination are provided at all, brief or otherwise.
See below.

3.
"This debris examination summary is released with the concurrence of the Malaysian ICAO Annex 13 Safety Investigation Team for MH370."

Picture Gomer Pile - just hold that thought for a moment.
"Surprise !! Surprise !!

4.
"Quarantine and marine ecology

(a)   On arrival into Australia, both parts were quarantined at the Geoscience Australia facility in Canberra.

(b)    The parts were unwrapped and examined for the presence of marine ecology and remnants of biological material.

©    Visible marine ecology was present on both parts and these items were removed and preserved.

(d)    The parts were subsequently cleaned and released from quarantine."

Re 4a.     So they SUPPOSEDLY went direct to the Geoscience Australia facility in Canberra, not to the ATSB facility in Canberra.

Re 4b.     SUPPOSEDLY done by Geoscience Australia staff, not ATSB staff (no ATSB staff would be suitably qualified).
How examined ? 
Read on.

Now we get to the interesting bit, where the scientific forensic process went off the rails.

Re 4c-(i).      Note the emphasis on visible (presumably - only to the naked eye). 
You would expect, that any bio-scientist worth his salt, let alone a forensic bio-scientist, looking for "evidence", would want much more than just the cursory "visible" examination. 
What ever happened to the use of UV and IR techniques for starters, then there is GC, and a host of "other" more advanced technologies that should have been brought to  bear on the subject items.
[EG:   Gas chromatography (GC) is a common type of chromatography used in analytical chemistry for separating and analyzing compounds that can be vaporized without decomposition.]

Re 4c-(ii).      So, Visible marine ecology was present on both parts = established fact.
But, and a big BUT, no mention of ANY effort to establish if anything else was present.
My take, a suspicious, apparently deliberate, lack of scientific rigour.
[After all, the whole purpose of sending the items to Geoscience Australia in the first place, is to convince the public that everything is being done correctly, to the highest standards, and then they do a botched job of it. Yes, very convincing indeed M'lud.]

Re 4c-(iii).      Then we have, "these items were removed and preserved."
Really ? 
They have been "preserved" ?
How about "examined" ?
Oh no M'lud, the Malaysians specifically told us not to do that M'lud.

If they are "preserved", then "how preserved ? - In a bottle of ether perhaps ?
Presumably they are "stored" ? - OR "secured" ?
[Interesting word that - secured.]
If so:-
Where ?
By whom ?
In whose custoody ?
For what purpose, present, future, or otherwise ?
OR
Have these marine ecology samples been sent back to Malaysia ?
Where are they exactly ?
In which legal jurisdiction ?
In what condition ?

Re 4d-(i).      "The parts were subsequently cleaned".................
Pardon me M'lud ?
Cleaned "how" M'lud ?
Cleaned "why" M'lud ?
Are we to assume - M'lud - that these precious items of evidence - were so mis-handled, that they were apparently just "rinsed under the tap in the lab basin, with any further possible chemical or no-visible bio-evidence conviently disolved, and washed away into the drains, and then they simply left the items to air-dry on a rack on a lab bench - overnight - perhaps - M'lud" ?
Hardly professional M'lud.
One might even suggest the possibility, of deliberately destroying potential evidence M'lud, a very serious possibility, that perhaps we should consider - M'lud.

Re 4d-(i).      ".... and released from quarantine."
Are they trying to assure us, that since the items came from Africa, that there were no traces of the Ebola virus ?
No, they couldn't give that assurance.
The virus isn't visible to the naked eye, even the public know that - M'lud - and they didn't do any other tests - now did they M'lud.

5.
Identification
Part No. 1
"The part had been repainted, which was consistent with MAB maintenance records for 9M-MRO."

Re 5.    Now that is really novel !
I seem to remember that the "MAB maintenance records for 9M-MRO" were consumed in the Avionics Workshop fire.

6.
Identification
Part No. 2
"A single fastener was retained in the part. The fastener head markings identified it as being correct for use on the stabiliser panel assembly. The markings also identified the fastener manufacturer. That manufacturer’s fasteners were not used in current production, but did match the fasteners used in assembly of the aircraft next in the production line (405) to 9M-MRO (404)"

Re 6.
About the only thing that is believable (perhaps).



Sorry for the ramble folks, but it just don't all smell rite to me.