[Peetwo]

So, that’s it then.

“The information in the ATSB report, however, does not give a specific location of the missing aircraft.

“As agreed at the Tripartite Ministers meeting in Malaysia in July we will be suspending the search unless credible evidence is available that identifies the specific location of the aircraft.

Done and dusted. No search unless ‘a specific’ location is provided. I’m intrigued to know exactly how a ‘specific’ location can be provided when there is no search activity, or continuing research; and, what precisely defines a ‘specific’ location. ‘X’ marks the spot within what size area, the debris field could cover many square kilometres.

I don’t put much store in this ‘no money’ gambit; funds could be found.  There is a growing, persuasive argument that taken North, there is a good chance that a search may find something of value.  I don’t claim expertise in analysing the data, indeed some of the theory and calculation is well beyond my comprehension, but the latest data seems to indicate, very clearly, that the first search area is barren.

There is enough brain power and revised data available to ‘re-think’ the search area. I guess I just fail to see why a second round is being ruled out.  A half year, in the ‘good‘ season, looking in the revised area seems to be ‘do-able’. I for one, would like to know why that’s not being discussed at the tripartite meetings? Seems to be the very least ‘they’ could do; unless there is something to hide.

Toot toot

All good OBS you make "K" but the problem for DDDD_MNFI & the Turnbull government, is the perception of ineptitude and/or cover-up that headlines like this convey when deciding to back the conclusions of the latest CSIRO/ATSB efforts:

CNN - MH370: Searchers almost certainly looking in the wrong place, report says

---

USA Today - MH370 search teams may be looking in wrong area

---

New likely location of MH370
12:00amEAN HIGGINS

A panel has identified a new 25,000 sq km area of the Indian Ocean as the likely resting place of Flight MH370.

The latest report findings also again raises the questions on why it was the original search box was so narrowly defined. When perhaps it would have been more prudent & Reasoned to have asked for a slightly bigger pot of money that could have covered a much larger search box?

The problem was Australia put in charge bean counter Beaker, who had a history of being so tight in the past that he wouldn't even spend an ATSB budgetary excess to pay to recover the VH-NGA black boxes (Reference PG 1 - Research/ATSB/NLK/Reporting.).

Subsequently due to the damning findings of a Senate Inquiry and the independent Canadian TSBC peer review report, Beaker was forced to put out to tender the recovery of the VH-NGA BBs at an extra cost to taxpayers of over half a million dollars.

It should therefore be no surprise that the ATSB is now desperately trying to save face by trying to head north on the 7th Arc.

Perhaps the ATSB should have had a testable hypothesis before they stepped away from Reason and put themselves in that narrow (coffin corner) box... : MC & the MH370 'testable hypothesis'

The first thing we need for a Testable Hypothesis is a hypothesis with limits. ATSB did some of that when it proposed that MH370 came down at -38S, 88.5E. But it did not take the next step, which is: “How will we know it is NOT at -38S, 88.5E? Consequently, the agency has been wallowing in a quagmire it has no idea how to get out of except to say, “we came, we looked, and we didn’t find anything”. A testable hypothesis has to be able to measure success AND failure. It can’t be open ended...

...So, obviously, there are some very clear advantages to having a “Testable Hypothesis” that includes an unambiguous “Exit Plan”. For example, it would have taken a month or two to determine there was nothing at all related to MH370 in the far Southern Indian Ocean if ATSB and others had simply followed Duncan Steel’s suggestion and adopted a testable hypothesis before heading off to a remote part of the planet where the plane certainly never flew...

 Not being an expert on such things but as a former SAR pilot, one personal OBS from the CSIRO report that I find quite disconcerting is this statement:

..Now that we know (from the number and size of items found) that there definitely was a surface debris field, the fact that the sea surface search detected no wreckage argues quite strongly that the site was not between 32°S2 and 25°S. Those latitudes are also contra-indicated by an absence of aircraft parts being found off Africa earlier than December 2015. Latitudes south of 39°S are quite strongly contra-indicated by the arrival times of the flaperon and other debris reaching Africa, and the fact that those items were many while findings anywhere on the Australian coastline were nil. Latitudes north of 25°S are strongly contra-indicated by the absence of findings on African shores in 2014...

For oceanography and scientific research boffins, that statement seems way to generalised and based on unsafe, almost naïve, non-evidence based assumptions.

Firstly how do they know there hasn't been debris that landed earlier on the East African coast and/or local islands?

Secondly how do they know, with high probability that there was no debris field within and beyond (North) of 32°S to 25°S? After all it was nearly 2 weeks before the AMSA surface search began in that area. Plus anyone who has been involved in ocean SAR Ops knows that despite thorough coverage of a search area, when you are largely reliant on mark one eyeball, sometimes smaller pieces of debris or even survivors get missed, only to be picked up the next day or two later in the same area by a fresh set of eyes - just saying...


MTF...P2