[Peetwo]

Fascinating stuff "V", good unpicking..   You weren't a copper in a past life??

Here is Ben's take on the ATSB debris review report, that according to "V" has more holes than a Reason model Swiss cheese...

Mozambique finds linked to MH370 by part number stencils


The Australian managed search for MH370 is now examining what looks like part of its cabin as well as an engine cowl.


Ben Sandilands
Editor of Plane Talking

One of the striking things about today’s ATSB Update No 1 on its examination of what are almost certainly pieces of wreckage from missing flight MH370 is that two of them may have been side by side on the right hand wing of the Boeing 777-200ER.

One of the fragments studied by the ATSB has been identified as a flap track fairing from the right wing of the Malaysia Airlines jet, and its report shows it as being located adjacent to the same wing’s flaperon which was retrieved from the shores of La Réunion Island last July.

The ATSB update doesn’t compare the obvious damage suffered by this fairing to that visible on the trailing edge of the flaperon, but it is likely that such comparisons might be made with a view to casting more light on force of an impact that might have smashed both adjacent components from the airframe at the same moment.

Today’s update deals only with the two parts of MH370 found 220 kilometers apart on Mozambique beaches, which had been handed over to the ATSB for examination in Canberra. The report explains how stencil part numbers used by Malaysia Airlines make it overwhelmingly likely both came from the missing jet.

The identifying stencils on Blaine Gibson’s part

The first object, now identified as consistent with being a flap tracking fairing on the right hand wing of the Boeing 777-200ER was discovered by a South African tourist, Liam Lotter on 27 December, while the second was found by self funded American MH370 sleuth, Blaine Gibson, on 27 February.

Gibson’s object appears to have been torn from a part of the jet’s horizontal stabilizers, in this case, the right hand stubby wing near the base of its tail.

The Australian safety investigator, which is managing the sea floor search for the sunk wreckage of MH370, says it also received two more recent discoveries, of fragments found in South Africa and Rodrigues Island in Mauritius, on 13 April.

It says officers from the ATSB and the Malaysian authorities are currently examining those two pieces in Canberra for details which would serve to identify them as coming from a Boeing 777, and in particular for any details which might serve to link the debris as coming from MH370.

The South African object appears to be from the engine cowling of one of the engines, as bears part of a prominent Rolls-Royce logo.

The part found on Rodrigues Island appears to be the first piece internal wreckage from MH370’s cabin, as it matches part of an internal bulkhead panel.

MH370 was on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on 8 March 2014 with 239 people on board when it disappeared as a transponder identified flight from air traffic control screens while over the Gulf of Thailand.The focus of the seafloor search is in a priority zone in the south Indian Ocean SW of Western Australia.

 
In the Ventus probing of the ATSB debris providence review report, it is worth noting a couple of relevant points in reference to Annex 13 & the State investigator's responsibility regarding the preservation of evidence.
Courtesy of aviation blog  'Wings of a Dove' .. :

Protecting evidences under Annex 13 of ICAO

by Brian DOVE • August 10, 2013 • Accident Investigation

Chapter 3 of ICAO Annex 13 relates to the “Protection of evidence, custody and removal of aircraft”. The State of Occurrence is ultimately responsible for taking all reasonable steps to protect evidence and maintain the aircraft and its contents in safe custody. If the State of Occurrence delegates part or whole of the investigation to a foreign agency, it remains that the State of Occurrence and Investigating State are bound to protect such evidence as necessary for the purposes of the investigation through mutual agreement. If the States of Registry, Operator, Design and Manufacture request that particular evidence stay undisturbed for inspection by their accredited representative, the State of Occurrence and Investigative State shall take all reasonable steps to do so, as long as it doesn’t hamper the current investigation. The aircraft and its contents should only be released from custody at the end of the investigation.

To comply with those obligations, the Investigator-In-Charge bares the responsibility of taking all reasonable measures for protecting evidence. These measures should take into account the legislation applicable in the State of Occurrence. If local legislation confers legislative powers to the Investigator-In-Charge such as protection orders, the Investigator should use such powers judiciously for the protection of evidence. Debriefing with emergency services is yet another fundamental step that the Investigator-In-Charge should take to protect evidence. The risks of displacing or destroying important evidences during the extrication of persons, removal of fatalities and the clearance of the site of any OH&S danger for the investigative team can be reduced. Records of the evidences shall be taken with all available means including photographs, videos, notes, drawings and kept in a reliable and powerful database. Securing the accident site is probably the most imperative mean of protecting evidence. The Investigator-In-Charge should ensure the security of the site until the end of the investigation with the assistance of local authorities and police officers.

References:
Protection of evidence, custody and removal of aircraft, “Chapter 3 of Annex 13, Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation”, ICAO, Ninth Edition, July 2011.

  
Q/ In regards to the above do we now define the whole of the IO region as a potential accident site, therefore the State of Occurrence and/or Investigative State is obliged to protect all possible debris and/or evidence (witness sightings/satellite phots etc) found within the IO region?- just asking -
Given the Oz aviation safety bureaucracy penchant for notifying differences (all 3000+ of them) to ICAO  - see HERE - also relevant in regards to local laws for the ATSB has to be the TSI Act 2003
Although the applicable (parallel to A13) section appears to have even more holes than the average Reason Swiss cheese model :

Division 6—Securing accident sites


44  Securing accident sites

             (1)  The Chief Commissioner may secure the perimeter of an accident site by whatever means the Chief Commissioner considers appropriate.
             (2)  A person is guilty of an offence if:
                     (a)  while the perimeter is secured, a person enters the accident site, or remains on the accident site; and
                     (b)  the person does not have the permission of the Chief Commissioner to do so.
Penalty:  10 penalty units.

             (3)  Subsection (2) does not apply if the person entered the accident site, or remained on the accident site:

                     (a)  to ensure the safety of persons, animals or property; or
                     (b)  to remove deceased persons or animals from the accident site; or
                     ©  to move a transport vehicle, or the wreckage of a transport vehicle, to a safe place; or
                     (d)  to protect the environment from significant damage or pollution.
Note:          A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.
             (4)  The Chief Commissioner must not unreasonably withhold a permission under paragraph (2)(b).

     
However Division 7 does seem to be a little clearer when it comes to the 'chain of evidence' and the preservation of evidence:

Division 7—Miscellaneous

45  Retention, testing etc. of evidential material

             (1)  This section applies to evidential material that:
                     (a)  is produced to the ATSB under section 32; or
                     (b)  is removed from premises under paragraph 36(1)(g); or
                     ©  is seized by the Chief Commissioner under this Part.
             (2)  The Chief Commissioner must provide a receipt for the material.
             (3)  The Chief Commissioner may make copies of the material.
             (4)  The Chief Commissioner may examine or test the material, even though that might result in damage or destruction of the material or a reduction in its value.
             (5)  Subject to subsection (6), the Chief Commissioner must return the material when it is no longer needed for the purposes of an investigation. However, if there is no owner or the Chief Commissioner cannot, despite making reasonable efforts, locate the owner, the Chief Commissioner may dispose of the material in such manner as the Chief Commissioner thinks appropriate.
             (6)  If a relevant body requests in writing particular evidential material for the purposes of:
                     (a)  an investigation under another law of the Commonwealth or under a law of a State or Territory; or
                     (b)  a coronial inquiry;
then the Chief Commissioner must make that material available to that body unless, in the opinion of the Chief Commissioner, making that material available would be likely to interfere with any investigation to which the material relates.
             (7)  However, the Chief Commissioner must not make evidential material available under subsection (6) to the extent that the material is, or contains, OBR information or restricted information.
Note:          Part 6 deals with the protection of OBR information and restricted information.
             (8)  In this section:

owner includes an agent of the owner.
relevant body means:
                     (a)  another Department; or
                     (b)  an agency of the Commonwealth; or
                     ©  a State or Territory Government; or
                     (d)  an agency of a State or Territory; or
                     (e)  a coroner.

46  Compensation for damage to electronic equipment

             (1)  This section applies if:
                     (a)  as a result of electronic equipment being operated as mentioned in section 36:
                              (i)  damage is caused to the equipment; or
                             (ii)  the data recorded on the equipment is damaged; or
                            (iii)  programs associated with the use of the equipment, or with the use of the data, are damaged or corrupted; and
                     (b)  the damage or corruption occurs because:
                              (i)  insufficient care was exercised in selecting the person who was to operate the equipment; or
                             (ii)  insufficient care was exercised by the person operating the equipment.
             (2)  The Commonwealth must pay the owner of the equipment, or the user of the data or programs, such reasonable compensation for the damage or corruption as the Commonwealth and the owner or user agree on.
             (3)  However, if the owner or user and the Commonwealth fail to agree, the owner or user may institute proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia for such reasonable amount of compensation as the Court determines.
             (4)  In determining the amount of compensation payable, regard is to be had to whether the occupier of the premises, or the occupier’s employees and agents, if they were available at the time, provided any appropriate warning or guidance on the operation of the equipment.
             (5)  Compensation is payable out of money appropriated by the Parliament.
             (6)  For the purposes of subsection (1):
damage, in relation to data, includes damage by erasure of data or addition of other data.

47  Self‑incrimination not an excuse

             (1)  A person is not excused from answering a question or producing evidential material in response to a requirement under this Part on the ground that the answer, or the production of the material, might tend to incriminate the person or make the person liable to a penalty.
             (2)  However, if the person is an individual, then:
                     (a)  the answer or the production of the material; and
                     (b)  any information or thing (including any document) obtained as a direct or indirect result of the answer or the production of the material;
are not admissible in evidence against the person in any civil or criminal proceedings.
             (3)  Subsection (2) does not prevent an answer being admitted in evidence in criminal proceedings in respect of the falsity of the answer.
             (4)  Subsections (2) and (3) have effect despite anything else in this Act.

The trouble is, that from the PelAir cover-up debacle, it would appear that CC Dolan and some of his executive muppets have repeatedly breached parts of their Act, eg. from Ziggy on VH-NGA lifejackets: I'd be Very Interested in the Forensic Examination Report of All the possible MH370 Pieces Found.
 

..Trouble is...as we know. Me, personally. 


Asked the ATSB to Forensically test Life-Vests (3) that showed up in plastic red bag after being "discovered" five years later at the Norfolk,Island Police Storage. Date stamps from clearly removable ink. Looked in fine condition. Considering the duration in the water and stored in a Police Room. Not even asked for by the ATSB.


Can't trust any person within this crooked "business".


Money and Power to some, are worth more than any human life.


Rid them of Leadership...

Or the classic example of the ATSBeaker leaving the VH-NGA CVR/FDR in 40 odd metres of water off Norfolk Island for nearly six years, before being forced to finally recover them...
However the difference this time is that there is much international interest from many very credible & intelligent individuals quietly watching, listening and probing
Minister Chester & DPM Barnaby please take note - reference to a Brock McEwan PT comment ANZAC Day 2015..   

41

Brock McEwen
Posted April 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
Hi Ben: we are talking about massive obfuscation in the search for evidence of a potential mass-murder, here. I think we should take our cues not from scientists OR journalists, but from DETECTIVES.



The ATSB has misled us, and misdirected the search. Repeatedly. It is time for the general public to whom they are accountable (you and your compatriots) to bring them in for further questioning. Even if they’re a patsy, intense questioning will prove very useful.

Don’t think of it as damning Eisenhower for Kennedy’s sins – think of it as grilling Dean to get to Nixon.

Well said that man..


PelAir & MH370 - "Lest we forget!" 

Update - Courtesy Dazzling Dazza

Technical Report Released and Towfish Found

Media Release

DC053/2016

20 April 2016



The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has released the Technical Examination Report on the two items of debris found in Mozambique.


The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester said the report pointed to both pieces being from the wing of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.


“I welcome the Technical Examination Report released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau confirming the debris almost certainly originated from MH370,” Mr Chester said.


“Stencilling on both parts of debris provided investigators with evidence of the link. The font and colour of a number stencilled on the first part conforms to that developed and used by Malaysian Airlines.


“The second part contained the words ‘No Step’ with stencilling consistent with that used by Malaysian Airlines and a fastener attached to the part provided evidence linking the part to the aircraft's production line.


“I thank the team from ATSB, Geoscience Australia, Boeing and the Australian National University for their work.”


The search for the missing aircraft continues in the final 20,000 square kilometres.


The Chinese vessel Dong Hai Jiu 101involved in the search is set to be re-deployed to the area after the recovery of sonar equipment lost during the search.


“On 21 March the failure of a tow cable connector resulted in the loss of the ProSAS towfish from Dong Hai Jiu 101,” Mr Chester said.


“I am pleased to advise that both the towfish and its accompanying depressor have been successfully recovered from the floor of the ocean.


“The equipment will be examined and tested and then the vessel will return to the search area.”


The report is available at www.atsb.gov.au/mh370-pages/updates/reports/.

MTF...P2