Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 1.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Australia, ATSB and MH 370
The CSIRO ‘rubber ducky’ experiment is rightly criticised by the IG. Don’t know how many ‘Typhoons’ they get in the test area, but I’d bet my socks it is not so many as the SIO gets. Now, not being a ‘drift model’ specialist, but having slightly more than a nodding acquaintance with the wind, oceans and aerodynamics I have to wonder why the effect of the hurricanes which rip through the SIO has not been at least acknowledged.

"This report focusses on field testing of a genuine Boeing 777 flaperon. This testing confirmed predictions by Pengam (2016) that the flaperon's motion with respect to the water is about 20 degrees left of the wind."


Winds between 60 and 80 knots do unbelievable things to the surface of the ocean, the dynamics within the ‘quadrants’ are variable; much depends on which part of the storm anything ‘floating’ is in. No mention of this from CSIRO. Down in the trough of a 10 meter wave the wind vector and velocity is a different animal to the forces at the crest; and ‘loose’ objects are affected by forces external to the prevailing current; and they can ‘surf’ anyone who sails can tell this.

It is no wonder IG are critical of CSIRO and ATSB; this latest smacks of arse covering. “Oh, well, we did refine our data and, had we been allowed to continue we would have found 370”. All bollocks of course, typical of the mind set prevailing in the offset the blame game Australian government departments play – at great expense, not to mention embarrassment to the country paying for it.

Toot toot.

P2 edit - Reference pg 10 Godfrey review paper:

[Image: Godfrey-pg-10.jpg]
Reply
(04-27-2017, 07:37 AM)kharon Wrote: The CSIRO ‘rubber ducky’ experiment is rightly criticised by the IG. Don’t know how many ‘Typhoons’ they get in the test area, but I’d bet my socks it is not so many as the SIO gets. Now, not being a ‘drift model’ specialist, but having slightly more than a nodding acquaintance with the wind, oceans and aerodynamics I have to wonder why the effect of the hurricanes which rip through the SIO has not been at least acknowledged.

"This report focusses on field testing of a genuine Boeing 777 flaperon. This testing confirmed predictions by Pengam (2016) that the flaperon's motion with respect to the water is about 20 degrees left of the wind."


Winds between 60 and 80 knots do unbelievable things to the surface of the ocean, the dynamics within the ‘quadrants’ are variable; much depends on which part of the storm anything ‘floating’ is in. No mention of this from CSIRO. Down in the trough of a 10 meter wave the wind vector and velocity is a different animal to the forces at the crest; and ‘loose’ objects are affected by forces external to the prevailing current; and they can ‘surf’ anyone who sails can tell this.

It is no wonder IG are critical of CSIRO and ATSB; this latest smacks of arse covering. “Oh, well, we did refine our data and, had we been allowed to continue we would have found 370”. All bollocks of course, typical of the mind set prevailing in the offset the blame game Australian government departments play – at great expense, not to mention embarrassment to the country paying for it.

Toot toot.

P2 edit - Reference pg 10 Godfrey review paper:

[Image: Godfrey-pg-10.jpg]

Update: David Griffin on ABC PM

Quote:Search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight should resume says Australian scientist
Matt Wordsworth reported this story on Thursday, April 27, 2017 17:45:00        
       
 
MP3 DOWNLOAD

The Australian scientist who narrowed down the location of the crash of missing Malaysia Airlines flight 370 believes the search should resume.

New research suggests the wreck lies in a region near 35 degrees' south latitude.

That's just north of the zone where Australia spent $60 million on a failed effort to find MH370.

CSIRO oceanographer Doctor David Griffin believes the decision to suspend the hunt was 'a political one'.

And he says it came just when scientists were providing the governments of Australia, China, and Malaysia the compelling new evidence they said was needed to continue the search.

Dr Griffin has just re-done experiments that confirm again the likely crash site.


Featured:

Dr David Griffin, CSIRO oceanographe
Reply
Captain's Log 30.04.17: HSSS Archive entry - Hoody v 'Iggins Dodgy

Via the ATSB correcting the bollocks webpage:
Quote:Correcting the Record

MH370 reporting by The Australian

28 April 2017
Letter to the Editor of The Australian

I am writing to express my concern regarding the manner in which The Australian journalist Ean Higgins continues to inaccurately report on the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 – in particular I am concerned at the negative impact this inaccurate reporting is having on the knowledge of the search by the families of those on board the aircraft.

To reiterate, under the International Civil Aviation (ICAO) Annex 13 provisions, the government of Malaysia is responsible for investigating, determining and reporting the causal factors behind the loss of MH370. It is my understanding that their investigation team is well progressed in the development of a draft report. The role of the ATSB, at the request of the government of Malaysia, is to coordinate the conduct of the underwater search.

Many of Mr Higgins’ recent articles have been centred on the ATSB’s decision not to provide him with a series of emails between members of the group of experts advising the ATSB on the search strategy in 2016. The emails pertain to an analysis of the final series of satellite communications between the aircraft and the ground earth station which indicate that the aircraft was, at that time, in a high and increasing rate of decent. The analysis was performed by one of Australia’s leading scientists in the field, is based on solid evidence and it has been extensively peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal.

The implication of this analysis for the search is that the aircraft probably impacted the surface of the ocean reasonably close to where the transmissions were made (what is known as the 7th arc). This is contrary to the views expressed by Mr Higgins and Mr Byron Bailey from The Australian, who have been vocal critics of the search and have long contended thatthe aircraft was being actively controlled at the end of flight and was glided to a location well away from the area which has been searched. The analysis of the transmission data, when complemented by the recently published CSIRO drift-modelling analysis, provides the best possible definition of an area in which the aircraft is likely to be located between the search strategy experts and members of the ATSB’s search team where none exists. He has suggested in his articles that some ATSB officers have had second thoughts about the ATSB’s position in relation to the end of flight scenario and further;

“(the) Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material about its search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, warning that any bureau employee who provides such information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.” 
       
I find the use of this journalistic tactic particularly objectionable. No such warning has ever been issued, every member of the search strategy group and the ATSB’s search team understands, and is in agreement with, the science associated with the search and the implications on the search area of the analysis of the satellite communication data. Members of the ATSB’s search team are operating under the standard legislation that ATSB employees normally operate under, governing the disclosure and use of information.

Similarly Mr Higgins suggests in his most recent article that the work currently being performed by the ATSB was prompted by negative public opinion about the search. To quote;

“But he (Mr Hood) and his ATSB colleagues are no doubt thinking the best way out of this continuing world of pain is to find MH370, and behind the scenes that’s exactly what they are trying to help make happen.”

This is also incorrect - the CSIRO drift study work we have recently published was commenced in April 2016. It is the most comprehensive and accurate study of the point of origin of MH370 debris performed to date. It forms a part of the ATSB’s ongoing work to bring the best possible science to bear to find the aircraft.

It is particularly regrettable that Mr Higgin’s articles have now led to some of the MH370 next of kin expressing doubts about the ATSB’s conduct of the search, and by implication, our commitment to finding the aircraft. The ATSB’s search team, and the experts from many organisations both in Australia and overseas supporting the search, have worked with absolute commitment, dedication and a single minded focus on finding the aircraft to provide the answers for the families of those on board and to improve transport safety. It is extraordinarily difficult and challenging work.

Leaving aside his harassing and intimidating approach in dealing with my staff when requesting information, you can perhaps now understand why I find Mr Higgins’ approach to attacking the credibility of the search unwarranted. The ATSB reserves its rights not to interact with Mr Higgins.
 

[Image: share.png][Image: feedback.png]

Last update 28 April 2017
Hmmm...no comment - Dodgy
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Hood v ‘Iggins.

Some would call it a point of view; others would call it spin; many would call bollocks on both versions, the majority would simply be mildly amused. ‘Iggins went fishing and got a bite. Both sides each as bad – or as good as the other in casting a line. The question, to me at least, is this the behaviour we should expect from the head of a national safety agency.

‘Iggins earns his living writing stories that sell newspapers. Take any story in the media you like, but with a grain of salt, and you will find ‘journalistic licence’ (for wont of better) hard at work. Hells bells, if folk believed every word in any given story; or, even if ‘just the facts’ were reported – flat – then either the media; or the government, would be out of business.

Hood has lost round 1, by simply responding and is getting a hiding in round 2. There is world wide scepticism, suspicion and disbelief in the ‘official’ version of the 370 story. ‘Facts’ not withstanding, it has been poorly managed. Any self respecting ‘conspiracy’ buff would have a field day. The lunatic fringe aside, sensible folk reading the ‘Hood Sook’ response would finish with a ‘pot-kettle-black’ reaction to the missive. The official spin every bit as good as the unofficial tale. The difference is ‘Iggins has to earn a living from it; Hood does not. The fact that the ATSB head even bothered to respond feeds the flames, plays into ‘Iggins hands, the now public combat attracting more attention than the core story. No matter, but the Hood spin is worth a quick look at; lets see…

Hood – “in particular I am concerned at the negative impact this inaccurate reporting is having on the knowledge of the search by the families of those on board the aircraft.”

Can Hood prove ‘inaccurate’ reporting? Does he go on to do so? A resounding NO. He does run the inaccurate reporting accusation into ‘concern’ for the families in the opening stanza.  This is a low blow which leads us directly to the Malaysians, Annexe 13 and the ‘accurate’ escape line:-

Hood – “The role of the ATSB, at the request of the government of Malaysia, is to coordinate the conduct of the underwater search.”

That one statement is all that needs to be said, it is Malaysia's indaba.  But no: Hood then has to guild the Lilly and takes us directly back to a very ugly time. The blather reminds serious students of the 370 event to the ‘slippery’ change over between Annexe 12 and the dumping of expert ocean search to Annexe 13 the fumbling, discredited Dolan and the ATSB assuming control. In one fell swoop, any suspicion of a ‘criminal act’ is removed. ATSB cannot continue investigation (by law) if a criminal act is suspected. No matter how you dress it up, someone committed a serious offence; whether it was the flight crew or outside agencies is academic. In trying to deflect attention away from ATSB, Hood has pointed the light into the darkest corner of this mystery. Good thing that light is non too bright; he must now hope his Nemesis ‘Iggins does not spot the dirt piled up in that dim corner. 


Hood – “Many of Mr Higgins’ recent articles have been centred on the ATSB’s decision not to provide him with a series of emails between members of the group of experts advising the ATSB on the search strategy in 2016”. Etc.

It is the ‘etc.’ which is interesting. Clumsy deflection: everyone knows what the information requested ‘is’ and who ‘dunnit’; what is not explained is why this data cannot be provided. This only feeds suspicion: why is everyone so sensitive about releasing ‘the facts’ and the data. Straight back to the Annexe 12 – 13 change over question.

The rest of the Hood Sook is similar drivel; innuendo, aspersions, veiled threat and misdirection finishing up with a subjective opinion of ‘harassment’, a CASA stock standard, not even original. Bollocks Hoody, man up and for pities sake shut up; you are becoming an embarrassment. It’s a rough, tough, hurly-burly world we live in; not a perfumed garden for sensitive little flowers.

Toot – no further comment – toot.
Reply
Someone please give Hoody a box of Kleenex and a set of balls, otherwise just send him packing

What a joke, who the hell hired this ridiculous femme fatale? Hoody's response to 'that man Iggins' is lamentable. What a fool. This narcissistic Prima Donna who earns $600k per year needs to grow a set and accept that their will absolutely be scepticism, mistrust and scrutiny of the ATsB when one reviews the past 6 years of questionable management and activities under Beaker, and now Hood. There has been embarrassing accident reports, coverups, questionable decisions over MH370, an abhorrent standard of investigation skills regarding Pel Air, a lack of transparency and autonomy within the agency, and a host of other issues.

In regards to 'Iggins' requesting that specific MH370 email trail and Hoody more or less making out that there is nothing sinister or anything being buried, then why won't he release the emails to Iggins under FOI? It is either a) the ATsB does have something to hide, or b) Hoody is behaving like a sook and not releasing the request because he is acting like a spoilt princess. On an international stage this is yet another downright embarrassing reaction from the emotional Hood. Our industry is a lot more skilled and stable than an individual like Hoody and we are aghast at his persistent defence of ATsB stupidity, including his 'defending the record' page. His husband needs to slap some sense into him.

Again, one has to question the overall veracity and maturity of the ATsB as an organisation and whether it is 'match fit' to carry out its duties under Annexe 13 and subsequent legislation when one views the amount of time it spends defending itself rather than knocking out investigations in less than 3 years. Iggins research along with the work of people like Bailey are attempting to do what the ATsB hasn't been able to do - provide truth and facts pertaining to this tragedy and help bring closure to those who lost friends and loved ones. For Hoody to think otherwise is just plain arrogant and stupid. The ATsB protecting the Malaysians and obeying its USA puppet masters is what is causing pain for those affected by the aircraft disappearance.  

Tick Tock goes Hoody's infantile clock
Reply
Choc frog to good GD; I may not have phrased the post with the GD diplomatic delicacy but between “K” and yourself, I reckon enough has been said to make the point. That ‘correcting the bollocks’ page needs to go. Hood could have the ABC panting in the waiting room about 30 seconds after asking them to turn up. You can take the boy out of CASA; but you can’t take CASA out of the boy - that shit sticks.
Reply
Captain's Log 05/05/17: MH370 bounty on the high (SIO) seas -  Huh

Quote:Darren Chester: ?It is a tragic and sad reality that we may not find MH370?2:52
[Image: external?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent6.video...z9c5xuj3mc]
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester says the search for missing plane MH370 being called off is tragic, but says in years - or maybe months - to come there may be breakthroughs in technology that could find more 'credible' evidence. Courtesy: Sunrise
  • January 18th 2017
  • 4 months ago
  • /video/video.news.com.au/News/
[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/news/content/v2/origin:video_integrator.k3dG15ODE6x_jp3dZz8sZp_jqO-EGadS?t_product=video&t_template=../video/player[/img]Darren Chester: ‘It is a tragic and sad reality that we may not find MH370’

Economist’s solution to stalled MH370 search

Robyn Ironside, National Aviation Writer, News Corp Australia Network
May 4, 2017 4:07pm

A UNIVERSITY economics expert concerned by the suspension of the search for MH370 has come up with an innovative suggestion to help restart the campaign.

Professor Luke Connelly from the University of Queensland said a reward “upwards of $100 million” would be needed to act as an incentive for large companies to invest in a search.

He wrote in Aviation Week that one option for funding such a large sum would be getting the reward underwritten by an insurance company — to be paid out in the event the aircraft or black boxes were found.

“Prize insurance is not as uncommon as may be thought,” he said.

“It’s routinely used for ‘hole-in-one’ and other unlikely sports prizes.”

RELATED: Boeing tipped to take over MH370 search
RELATED: Data withheld as official MH370 search ends
[Image: beef4693cd0388d5d37929ac4278048c?width=650]media_cameraATSB diagram showing the area already searched in the Southern Indian Ocean and the zone where MH370 is now considered most likely to be. Picture: ATSB

The search for MH370 ended in January after contractor Fugro finished scouring a 120,000 square kilometre area of the Southern Indian Ocean, a process that took more than two years.

The zone was considered the most likely final resting place of the Malaysia Airlines’ flight, based on a series of satellite ‘handshakes’ with the Boeing 777.

But since then further analysis and drift modelling has identified another area to the north of the original search zone, as the most probable site of the missing plane.

Despite reports by the CSIRO and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau pointing to the new site, the governments of Malaysia, Australia and China have refused to fund another search.

Prof Connelly said another option was to provide a “menu of rewards” depending on the value of the discovery from MH370.

“If you had a menu of bounties people who found lower value parts of the aircraft would have more incentive to hand them over, and it would create more competition among people searching for the fuselage and the blackboxes,” he said.

[Image: d784fbb24c63cb4b01855b2f42ebc136?width=650]media_cameraMH370 search ship Fugro Equator was unable to find the missing plane in the Southern Indian Ocean. Picture: News Corp Australia

Another advantage of a reward for the discovery of MH370, was inspiring a higher level of innovation and investment in search technologies.

“Some companies may be enticed to invest in equipment that enables them to conduct incidental searches, perhaps in joint ventures with specialist firms that supply underwater scanning equipment,” Prof Connelly said.

“For instance, new seagoing vessels may be fitted with more advanced underwater scanning and detection equipment than is generally required for navigation.

“Third-party suppliers of such technologies — which are highly specialised and have a limited market — may, for instance, engage with ship builders to extend their market … perhaps with profit-sharing arrangements.”

The disappearance of the Boeing 777 remains one of aviation’s greatest mysteries with no official explanation provided for its sudden change of course and apparent “ghost flight” towards the Southern Indian Ocean.

There were 239 people on board the flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, including six Australians.

Federal Transport Minister Darren Chester has indicated the search would only be resumed if credible new evidence about the plane’s whereabouts becomes available.

Originally published as Bright idea for finding MH370

Quote:Rewarding idea for MH370 search
[Image: cb7ee04384c888bceb02d27350b7cce9]12:00amEAN HIGGINS
The southern Indian Ocean could see a rush of maritime bounty hunters probing the depths for the wreckage of MH370.


Rewarding idea to restart MH370 search
[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
The southern Indian Ocean could see a rush of maritime bounty hunters probing the depths for the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Luke Connelly, an economist from the University of Queensland, has put forward the idea of a reward to encourage companies or even private adventurers to restart the hunt for the Boeing 777 which disappeared three years ago.

Writing in Aviation Week & Space Technology, Professor Connelly said it was understandable that the three governments involved in the underwater search had decided to suspend it after covering 120,000sq km without finding a trace of the aircraft.

“The MH370 search has cost Australia, China and Malaysia approximately $US150 million combined,” Professor Connelly wrote in the magazine. “The problem here arises because no entity is likely to benefit sufficiently from finding the aircraft to justify paying the entire cost of a renewed search, however there could be creative solutions.”

Professor Connelly said a large reward could encourage a higher level of innovation and investment in search technologies, and fishing vessels or cargo ships might be encouraged to search for MH370 on the side as they went about their normal business.

“Some companies may be enticed to invest in equipment that enables them to conduct incidental searches, perhaps in joint ventures with specialist firms that supply underwater scanning equipment,” he said.

“New vessels may be fitted with more advanced underwater scanning and detection equipment than is generally required for navigation.”

Professor Connelly said possible solutions included offering a range of bounties.

“An advantage to offering a menu of bounties, rather than a single bounty, is that it may encourage the production of information by finders of lower-value debris that encourages competition to find high-value components, such as the flight data recorder or fuselage,” Professor Connelly said.

MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014, on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, with 239 people on board. Automatic satellite tracking data showed the aircraft came down in the southern Indian Ocean.

The idea of a bounty for a private exploration to find MH370 was first raised by Malaysia’s Deputy Transport Minister Abdul Aziz Kaprawi.

“There will be cash rewards in the millions (of ringgit) for those who are able to find substantial information or evidence like the fuselage,” he said. One million ringgit is about $300,000.

But the more senior Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai quickly scotched the idea, telling reporters in Perth “it was the deputy minister’s personal view, not the government’s, we are not having any such decision”.

Here is the original article by Luke Connelly, via Aviation Week:
Quote:Opinion: How To Revive Search For MH370: Offer A Bounty
Apr 21, 2017 Luke Connelly | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Comments 63

How To Revive the Search for MH370

[/url]The search for [url=http://awin.aviationweek.com/OrganizationProfiles.aspx?orgId=18117]Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (MH370) has been abandoned, and three years after the Boeing 777-200ER disappeared, it remains one of aviation’s biggest mysteries. So, what next?

I believe there are free-market incentives that might spur entrepreneurs to mount private searches. A market-based solution would entail a bounty to anyone who locates remains of the aircraft.

Locating the wreckage would undoubtedly help the world determine what happened to the Boeing 777. And that would produce benefits to society, globally. The problem is that no one entity may perceive sufficient benefits to finding the aircraft to fund a continued search.

[Image: VWPT16-RoyalAustralianAirForce.jpg]Credit: Royal Australian Air Force

Over the course of almost three years, the MH370 search has cost Australia, China and Malaysia combined approximately $150 million. Understandably, after three fruitless years, they have reluctantly decided to stop searching.

We economists call this a “public-good” problem. Investments in public goods tend to be suboptimal because there is a tendency of those who are not paying for them to “free-ride” on the efforts. The free-rider problem here arises because no entity is likely to benefit sufficiently from finding the aircraft to justify paying the entire cost of a renewed search.

However, there may be a creative solution. A consortium—governments, aerospace companies, airlines and other organizations—could pool funds and offer a bounty to anyone who finds MH370 wreckage. A “menu” of bounties could be offered. Discovering the flight data recorder or fuselage would be of high value, obviously.

An advantage to offering a menu of bounties rather than a single bounty is that it may encourage the production of information by finders of lower-value debris that encourages competition to find high-value components. The risk of offering a single bounty is that locators of low-value parts may be inclined to treat their findings as high-value private information, since such discoveries (if kept private) may enhance their probability of claiming higher-value targets and bounties. Conversely, private information of this kind may enhance investment in finding high-value targets, and the trade-offs between the values of private and public information, and their effects on incentives and behaviour (e.g., investment) would need to be weighed carefully.

Suppose for argument’s sake that a single bounty, perhaps $100 million, were offered for the location of the aircraft’s fuselage or flight data recorder. One possibility is that dedicated bounty hunters would respond by investing to find the debris. Another is that some companies would be enticed to invest in equipment that enables them to conduct “incidental” searches, perhaps in joint ventures with specialist firms that supply underwater scanning equipment.

For instance, new seagoing vessels may be fitted with more advanced underwater scanning and detection equipment than is generally required for navigation. Third-party suppliers of such technologies—which are highly specialized and have a limited market—may, for instance, engage with ship builders to extend their market, perhaps with joint-venture and profit-sharing arrangements in the event of a discovery that gives rise to a bounty claim.

Whatever bounty options are optimal, at least two options exist for raising the bounty via public or private sources, or both. The capital for the bounty could be raised directly and invested until it becomes due. Another option may be to announce the bounty terms and conditions, with an insurance policy to cover its payment. In the latter instance, the consortium would need to raise the premium, which would be calculated based on the “risk” that someone is able to collect on the policy. 

Luke Connelly is a professor at the University of Queensland, Australia, and the acting director of its Center for The Business and Economics of Health.
 

The views expressed are not necessarily shared by Aviation Week.


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
Captain's Log 11.05.17: DOI archive entry 170511.

(05-10-2017, 09:21 PM)kharon Wrote: Pragmatic- as always.

As a professional and ‘interested’ party, I have empathy, sympathy and interest in discovering what happened to MH 370. But, that said, not nearly as much interest in, and discovery of ‘what really happened’. One need go no further than a cursory examination of ‘events’ to realise that this aircraft is not meant to be found. The abrupt disconnection of AMSA and the insidious disregard of the expert agencies AMSA relied on, to total dependency the one pony show of the government’s tame agency CSIRO is enough, standing alone, to raise eyebrows. This needs investigation, of the serious sort...

Drift modelling QON & ATSB fairy tales - Huh  

ATSB MH370 historical reference quotes: 26 November 2014 via CCTV news:
Quote:[Image: download.jpg]

Foley also confirmed the reports that debris of the MH370 might have been washed ashore to the Sumatra.

"Essentially, we ran drift modeling that estimated where debris might wash up, when they wash up. And those models indicated that the first point at which debris might come ashore is on the west coast of Sumatra," said Peter Foley.

Based on a drift model, the debris of MH370 might possibly be first washed ashore to the west coast of Sumatra 123 days after the crash, said Foley.

4 August 2015 - MH370: Aircraft Debris and Drift Modelling
Quote:Following the release of the MH370 - Definition of Underwater Search Areas report on 26 June 2014, a drift model was applied by one organisation to the wide search area defined in the report. The drift modelling was run to provide an indication of when and where the first possible debris would make landfall. This modelling indicated that the first possible landfall was on the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia and would have occurred in the first few weeks of July 2014. Indonesian search and rescue authorities were subsequently advised of the possibility of debris washing up on their shoreline.

Q/ Recently a fellow MH370 tweeper asked me if I had a copy of a debris modelling map, picture, or perhaps a graphical video (mentioned by Foley above) that showed how it was that the ATSB believed that debris would wash up on the west coast of Sumatra. To this date I am yet to find even a mud map drawn on the back of a beer coaster. Therefore this is just a general plea to any MH370 followers that may have a copy, of what at this stage remains a fictitious model - Huh Sad .

Q/ "..a drift model was applied by one organisation to the wide search area defined in the report..."  - Who was that 'one' organisation??

One of the members of the DMWG perhaps?? Reference quotes cont/-
Quote:A drift modelling working group was set up, comprising a number of organisations including: the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Asia-Pacific Applied Science Associates (APASA), the US Coastguard, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and Global Environmental Modelling Systems (GEMS) to ensure that best practice modelling was put in place for the subsequent search. A number of search and rescue datum buoys were also deployed which were used to measure actual surface drift in the search area and to validate the drift models being used. Similarly, real-time wind and wave data from the search area was used to continuously update the drift model. The surface search for debris ended on 28 April 2014.

And from the ICAO paper: MH370 SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE – JRCC AUSTRALIA (4-8 August 2014):

Quote:JRCC Drift Planning

2.18 JRCC Australia uses its own custom designed drift modelling program called Net Water Movement (NWM). For conventional searches, this program has proved a valuable asset to search planning. Results from NWM are validated and compared against another proprietary drift modelling program and also validated as soon as possible through the deployment of Self Locating Datum Marker Buoys (SLDMBs). The SLDMBs are floating devices fitted with a GPS receiver and Iridium satellite transmitter which provide water current and sea temperature information and may be deployed by aircraft or vessels. The buoys transmit their position and sea temperature regularly directly to JRCC Australia. 33 SLDMBs were deployed in this search.

2.19 Due to the magnitude of the MH370 search areas, and taking into account the lessons learned during the previous search for Air France AF447 of 2009, a drift planning working group was established to supplement standard JRCC Australia drift planning methods. Its purpose was to ensure that international best methodology and consensus drift modelling techniques were applied to the MH370 search areas with the primary aims of:

a) Providing the best possible area to locate floating debris
b) Provide the ability to conduct “Reverse” drift backwards to provide an estimated splash point, should debris from the aircraft be located.

P2 comment - Passing strange that there was no mention of the ATSB hypothesis, based on one organisation's drift modelling application, that debris should be washing up on the west coast of Sumatra?? 

Q/ I wonder what happened to the AMSA initiated drift modelling working group? Was it officially disbanded at the end of the AMSA controlled surface search? If so why?

 Reference quote: via - Australia working on new drift modelling for MH370 wreckage - See more at: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/worl...EoJTs.dpuf

Quote:...Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan on Tuesday dismissed suggestions there was disagreement among the five groups that make up the international team - America's Boeing Co, France's Thales , US investigator the National Transportation Safety Board and the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation - on where to search.
 
The teams initially agreed an area about 600 kilometres long by 90 km wide west of Perth was most likely. A new report released last month specified two high-priority areas further to the south.
 
"There is no disagreement, just the deliberate application of differing analysis models," Dolan said.
 
All five groups agree that MH370's final resting place is near the "7th arc" a curve that stretches from about 1,000 km off Exmouth, Western Australia, to a point about 2,000 km southwest of Perth, Dolan said...

Ahh yes of course, the top-cover specialist and master of word weasel confections - the Grand Muppet Beaker..mimimimimimi...

[Image: I-_a23388a2c4e465f19a2d4afe674fe7e3.jpg]

"There is no disagreement, just the deliberate application of differing analysis models,"

Q/ Okay so this was the first indication that there maybe dissention amongst the ranks of the SSWG - but what about the DMWG? 

References : Operational Drift Forecast Modelling in Support of the AMSA Search for Malaysia Airlines MH370 

Quote:[Image: AMSA-1.jpg]


& AMSA RAAA MH370 presentation: The Search for Malaysia Airlines MH370
Australian Search and Rescue (SAR) Experience

Quote:[Image: AMSA-2.jpg]

Note: Neither presentation mentions a model that predicts debris will wash up on the west coast of Sumatra. Also note the date of CSIRO's David Griffin presentation was July 2015.

Spot the disconnections & contradictions... Confused

Reference: 4 August 2015 - MH370: Aircraft Debris and Drift Modelling
Quote:...In November 2014, the ATSB asked CSIRO to perform drift modelling based on the revised search area defined in the MH370 - Flight Path Analysis Update report released on 8 October 2014. This modelling indicated that there was an extremely low probability that any debris from MH370 would have made landfall at that time. As the CSIRO modelling was not consistent with the previous modelling performed by a different organisation, the question was asked as to why the two models were yielding different results and an error was found in the way in which BOM wind data was being transferred into the first model. While this error in that model had no impact on the way the surface search was conducted, it was important in order to understand over the course of time where debris might wash up and help verify or discount the various items found on beaches, particularly on the west coast of Australia.
"...the ATSB asked CSIRO to perform drift modelling based on the revised search area.."  - Q/ Why did Beaker only ask the CSIRO, why not the combined collective expertise of the DMWG?  

"..While this error in that model had no impact on the way the surface search was conducted, it was important in order to understand over the course of time where debris might wash up..."  - Keep the above statement in mind when you read the latest CSIRO debris modelling paper: CSIRO Report 2  - just saying... Rolleyes

Still working on more QON so definitely MTF...P2 Tongue  
Reply
Update: Hood (ATSB) v Higgins (The Oz)  Rolleyes  Shy  Big Grin

Via the Oz today:

Quote:ATSB boss Greg Hood firm on refusal to release full MH370 data

[Image: 5645acbd72bda004ff6c6adc05215e2b?width=650]ATSB staff examine a piece of debris from Malaysian Airlines MH370. Picture: ATSB
Australian Transport Safety ­Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood has declined to accede to pleas from families of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 victims to release key documents about the bureau’s fruitless search for the aircraft.

Danica Weeks, who was left a single mother looking after two young boys when her husband Paul disappeared with MH370 three years ago, has claimed “Mr Hood has simply denied families throughout the world the information we so desperately need about what happened to our loved ones.”

The call came as a second relative of the six Australians lost on MH370, Teresa Liddle, and the association representing the families of the 153 Chinese victims, joined Ms Weeks in urging journalists to continue to probe for answers in the face of Mr Hood’s public attacks on The Australian for reporting critiques of the ATSB’s failed search by independent scientists and aviation experts.

After The Australian reported scientists in Europe and the University of Western Australia had long ago warned that drift modelling of MH370 debris showed early on in the two-year underwater search that the ATSB was looking too far south, Mr Hood, who took up his role in July after a career at Airservices Australia and the RAAF, criticised the reports in a letter to this newspaper and on the ATSB website.

Flight MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014 on a scheduled trip from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, with its radar transponder turned off and radio contact cut 40 minutes into the flight.

Primary radar and automatic electronic satellite tracking data showed the aircraft double backed over Malaysia to the Andaman Sea, then took a long track south to the southern Indian Ocean.

Ms Weeks and the group known as MH370 China Families called on Mr Hood to reverse his rejection of a freedom of information request from The Australian for international assessments of satellite tracking data.

An ATSB spokesman said this week that the data “has been painstakingly analysed by leading experts in their fields, who form the MH370 Search Strategy Working Group, to determine the aircraft’s most likely flight path”.

But Colin McNamara, the ATSB’s general manager, strategic capability, refused The Australian’s initial FOI request for the SSWG analyses, saying its public release “would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth”.

In reviewing and rejecting the FOI request, Mr Hood invoked the Transport Safety Investigation Act, which makes it a crime for current or former ATSB staff to release material deemed restricted, punishable by two years in prison.

While independent experts generally agree that the satellite data gives a good indication of the track of the Boeing 777, they differ on whether it can accurately say how the aircraft finally came down.

The ATSB maintains that the satellite data shows MH370 went down in what’s become known as a “death dive”, or unpiloted crash.

Top US air crash investigator John Cox has said he does not believe the satellite data is good enough to conclusively support the ATSB’s rapid descent theory. Several senior airline pilots and air crash investigators maintain the evidence suggests Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end and outside the ATSB’s 120,000 square kilometre target search area, which it had defined based on the “death dive” theory.

In a letter to the The Australian published this week, Ms Weeks wrote that if Mr Hood continued to put “diplomatic niceties” ahead of “the sensitivities of the families and friends of 239 people”, he should stand down so a replacement could be appointed who would “release the FOI immediately”.

Speaking of the ATSB’s definition of the search area based on its interpretation of the satellite data, the Chinese families association noted that “the search based on this data has failed”.

“We would welcome the ­release of any additional information which highlights inconsistencies in the official ex­planation,” the association told The Australian.

“We are disappointed in (the ATSB’s) explicit and implicit endorsement and their acting as proxy communicators for the ­Malaysian authorities,” the Chinese families said.

The Chinese families spoke of their difficulties in campaigning in authoritarian China.

“There are more than 350 of us, who communicate by social media aliases,” the association said.

“We meet informally in small groups, or in larger approved groups attended by police.”

Mr Hood did not respond to questions from The Australian about whether he would seek permission from members of the SSWG to grant the FOI request, and whether Malaysian authorities had asked for this and other material to be suppressed.

An ATSB spokesman said the bureau was “very conscious of, and deeply saddened by, the prolonged and profound grief suffered by the families of those on board MH370” and remained willing to brief family members “on all aspects of the search”.

Interesting comment from Byron Bailey in reply to this article: http://fyre.it/mWTvN6ZQ.4

Quote:Byron

Kudos to Ean Higgins and The Australian for refusing to let the highly suspect matter of what happened to MH370 fade into obscurity. The truth always has a way of eventually surfacing. I shortly have a meeting in USA with parties interested in privately funding a resumption of the search. The proposed search area is a deep trench to the north of the ATSB searched area, based on the excellent calculations of Captain Simon Hardy and agrees with the drift modelling. Captain Byron Bailey.

Hmm...wonder how long it'll be before Hoody has another hissy fit and comes out with yet another sook on the ATSB (ATP funded) 'correcting the bollocks' webpage... Huh


MTF...P2 Cool

Ps For those interested I see that Hoody, & the ATCB, is slated for a 'tea & biccys' session with the Senators, next Tuesday between 1630 till 1800:

[Image: RRAT-Estimates-23-May.jpg]
Reply
Well aided and nicely abetted.

Higgins “Mr Hood did not respond to questions from The Australian about whether he would seek permission from members of the SSWG to grant the FOI request, and whether Malaysian authorities had asked for this and other material to be suppressed.”

That man ‘Iggins asks one of the top ten most important questions which should be asked of the ATSB.  The fully justified deep suspicion which arose when the Dolan and the ATSB took over the search/rescue/recovery operation from AMSA has never been satisfactorily allayed and remains a large part of the ‘cover-up’ and collusion support argument. Although there was no direct evidence of ‘criminal activity’ (or any other activity for that matter) I believe its safe to say there was – in one form or another – a criminal act committed. The preponderance of available ‘evidence’ supports the argument.

It matters not ‘who’ committed 'the act'; at least not in the first instance. The law is quite clear, the ATSB cannot assume control of an  investigation when criminal activity is ‘suspected’. I say we are well past the point of even questioning whether this was a ‘criminal act’. Dolan and the ATSB had been proven, through a Senate committee hearing to be party to a gross manipulation of an accident investigation; (see Pel-Air). The very idea of pulling the AMSA out of controlling the search and passing the same along into the care of the discredited Dolan was outlandish. Clearly, the move from an ICAO annexe 12 to annex 13 based operation precluded ‘deep and meaningful’ investigation of criminal acts. In short, the move declared that no criminal activity had occurred. This single stroke of the pen, very effectively, precluded any chance of a wide investigation and narrowed the search to that for the ‘aircraft’ alone. To add insult to injury, the AMSA ‘team’ of experts analysts was side lined (dumped) and only the CSIRO opinion of drift modelling was considered. In short the ‘search’ was manipulated and reduced from a multi point focus effort to one single, very narrow, tightly controlled channel.  I digress.

Byron - Kudos to Ean Higgins and The Australian for refusing to let the highly suspect matter of what happened to MH370 fade into obscurity. The truth always has a way of eventually surfacing. I shortly have a meeting in USA with parties interested in privately funding a resumption of the search. The proposed search area is a deep trench to the north of the ATSB searched area, based on the excellent calculations of Captain Simon Hardy and agrees with the drift modelling. Captain Byron Bailey.

If the data Australia refuses to release belongs to Malaysia; then why does Hood simply just say so. “Sorry folks, if it were our data, we would release it without hesitation; but, it ain’t”. “If you want it, petition the Malaysian government, it all belongs to them”.  But Hood does not say this – clearly, that’s not case. So, like Higgins and Byron,  I’m left wondering just who is running this country?

Although I mildly disagree with ‘the Captain’ being guilty argument – purely for lack of evidence (benefit of the doubt) I hasten to add. I can lend my full support to Byron’s opinion and Higgins dogged determination to get to the bottom of this pit of deceit, half truths and misdirection. Well done both, efforts on behalf of those left behind much appreciated. This aircraft must be found, it is the only way the truth can ever be determined. Shame on Malaysia and Australia both.


Toot toot.
Reply
Captain's Log 27.05.17: HSSS entry 170527 - That man again.. Rolleyes


(05-20-2017, 07:25 AM)kharon Wrote: Well aided and nicely abetted.

Higgins “Mr Hood did not respond to questions from The Australian about whether he would seek permission from members of the SSWG to grant the FOI request, and whether Malaysian authorities had asked for this and other material to be suppressed.”

That man ‘Iggins asks one of the top ten most important questions which should be asked of the ATSB.  The fully justified deep suspicion which arose when the Dolan and the ATSB took over the search/rescue/recovery operation from AMSA has never been satisfactorily allayed and remains a large part of the ‘cover-up’ and collusion support argument. Although there was no direct evidence of ‘criminal activity’ (or any other activity for that matter) I believe its safe to say there was – in one form or another – a criminal act committed. The preponderance of available ‘evidence’ supports the argument.

It matters not ‘who’ committed 'the act'; at least not in the first instance. The law is quite clear, the ATSB cannot assume control of an  investigation when criminal activity is ‘suspected’. I say we are well past the point of even questioning whether this was a ‘criminal act’. Dolan and the ATSB had been proven, through a Senate committee hearing to be party to a gross manipulation of an accident investigation; (see Pel-Air). The very idea of pulling the AMSA out of controlling the search and passing the same along into the care of the discredited Dolan was outlandish. Clearly, the move from an ICAO annexe 12 to annex 13 based operation precluded ‘deep and meaningful’ investigation of criminal acts. In short, the move declared that no criminal activity had occurred. This single stroke of the pen, very effectively, precluded any chance of a wide investigation and narrowed the search to that for the ‘aircraft’ alone. To add insult to injury, the AMSA ‘team’ of experts analysts was side lined (dumped) and only the CSIRO opinion of drift modelling was considered. In short the ‘search’ was manipulated and reduced from a multi point focus effort to one single, very narrow, tightly controlled channel.  I digress.

Byron - Kudos to Ean Higgins and The Australian for refusing to let the highly suspect matter of what happened to MH370 fade into obscurity. The truth always has a way of eventually surfacing. I shortly have a meeting in USA with parties interested in privately funding a resumption of the search. The proposed search area is a deep trench to the north of the ATSB searched area, based on the excellent calculations of Captain Simon Hardy and agrees with the drift modelling. Captain Byron Bailey.

If the data Australia refuses to release belongs to Malaysia; then why does Hood simply just say so. “Sorry folks, if it were our data, we would release it without hesitation; but, it ain’t”. “If you want it, petition the Malaysian government, it all belongs to them”.  But Hood does not say this – clearly, that’s not case. So, like Higgins and Byron,  I’m left wondering just who is running this country?

Although I mildly disagree with ‘the Captain’ being guilty argument – purely for lack of evidence (benefit of the doubt) I hasten to add. I can lend my full support to Byron’s opinion and Higgins dogged determination to get to the bottom of this pit of deceit, half truths and misdirection. Well done both, efforts on behalf of those left behind much appreciated. This aircraft must be found, it is the only way the truth can ever be determined. Shame on Malaysia and Australia both.


Toot toot.

Yesterday via the Oz and that man 'Iggins... Wink :

Quote:Limits to data in hunt for MH370

[Image: a7279d157bc6f958c4c7f5805398671b]12:00amEAN HIGGINS

The mathematician who led the analysis of satellite data in the hunt for MH370 has spoken of its limitations.
Quote:The mathematician who led the complex analysis of satellite data in the hunt for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 has told a select audience of its limitations, saying it only provides “some vague hints about the speed and direction that the aircraft was doing”.

Neil Gordon, who leads the Data and Information Fusion Group in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, also said in an unreported address last week: “You’re never going to end up with an ‘X marks the spot’.”

Dr Gordon’s remarks to a small gathering of the Institute of Public Administration in Canberra are likely to fuel the international debate over whether the satellite data is good enough to support the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s theory that MH370 went down in a rapid, unpiloted crash.

The IPA seminar also heard some revealing disclosures from the senior federal public servant in charge of co-ordinating the government agencies involved in the search effort, in which she spoke of “a few bumps along the way” in dealing with representatives of the other two governments involved, China and Malaysia. Judith Zielke, the head of the Joint Agency Coordination Centre, told the seminar: “The biggest thing that I have learnt from being involved in the search is actually the huge cultural differences between all the countries involved.”

The ATSB’s head of the underwater search, Peter Foley, also addressed the event, telling of the fears he had that someone on the search vessels would be seriously injured or killed in the treacherous seas of the southern Indian Ocean where the agency had defined a 120,000sq km search area.

MH370 disappeared with 239 people on board on March 8, 2014 on a scheduled trip from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, with its radar transponder turned off 40 minutes into the flight and radio contact cut.

Analysis of hourly automatic electronic “handshakes” from the aircraft to ground stations via an Inmarsat satellite indicated the Boeing 777 came down somewhere along a band in the southern Indian Ocean.

That assessment, Dr Gordon said, came from one type of data measuring the time the signals took to get to and from the aircraft to the satellite and the ground station.

“There’s no data attached to those communications, there is no ‘I am here’ type information, but there is some metadata attached to those which you can use in a way it’s not, in a sense, intended for, to produce some predictions,” Dr Gordon said.

In addition to that, Dr Gordon said, “It turns out there’s another piece of metadata attached to this which you can use to give some vague hints about the speed and direction that the aircraft was doing.”

That data measuring a Doppler effect was used by the ATSB to conclude MH370 went down in what’s become known as a “death dive”, the theory the bureau relied on to define its search area.

In its public statements, the ATSB, under pressure over the failure of the search to find the aircraft, has expressed confidence in this conclusion.

In a recent statement criticising The Australian for reporting critiques of the search strategy by international pilots, aviation experts, air crash investigators and scientists and the counter view of many of them that a rogue pilot hijacked MH370 and flew it outside the search area, ATSB communications manager Carl Fellows wrote:

“The metadata from the aircraft’s satellite communications system has been painstakingly analysed by leading experts … this analysis concludes that the aircraft was in a high and increasing rate of descent at the end of flight.”

ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood has refused, despite calls from families of the MH370 victims in Australia and around the world, to grant a freedom of information request from The Australian seeking what the bureau claims to be those supporting analyses.

Many international experts disagree with the ATSB’s conclusions, with former airline pilot and top air crash investigator John Cox telling The Australian: “I do not believe there is sufficient data in the Inmarsat data to draw any conclusion on the rate of descent.”

Against the ATSB’s bold statements for public consumption, Dr Gordon’s remarks to the IPA audience were more cautious.

“You have got these things which in a sense have never been used for this purpose before, so you put a big effort into checking that you understand them correctly,” he said.

“The key thing you have to remember is there’s lots of uncertainty that’s feeding into this.”

ATSB spokesman Dan O’Malley denied the bureau exaggerated, saying: “There are a range of possible rates of descent, all of which are high and increasing.””


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
PM Malcolm ready to help & Hood under fire for FOI rejection - Confused

From that man in the Oz today:

Quote:Turnbull offers Malaysia help in new search for MH370

[Image: 47f40f945a58201ec4baffbc93e38360?width=650]Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Picture: Kym Smith
Malcolm Turnbull has discussed with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak the circumstances in which the hunt for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 could be ­resumed, and said Australia stands ready to do “everything it can” to see it happen.

The move comes as the Aust­ralian Transport Safety Bureau is preparing to release a report on its unsuccessful search for the aircraft, which may also present new ­evidence for its claim that it is “highly likely” the Boeing 777 lies in a proposed new search zone to the north.

The Prime Minister’s revelation that he has repeatedly raised the issue with his Malaysian counterpart also follows renewed activism among relatives of the Australian, Chinese and other victims­ who disappeared with the plane when it went down more than three years ago.

Mr Turnbull saidhe had ­made representations in the interest of the families of the six Australians on board, with his spokesman saying “the Prime Minister raises this issue with his Malaysian counterpart every time they speak”.

“Malaysia is the lead nation in the investigation into the dis­appearance of MH370, but Australia stands ready to assist in any way it can,” the spokesman said.

“At present, the search for MH370 has been suspended, but if any credible evidence emerges, the Australian government will do everything it can in partnership with Malaysia to ensure the search is resumed.”

A government source said Mr Turnbull was not pressuring the Malaysian government to restart the search, describing it more as a means of “keeping MH370 as a frontline issue”.

On March 8, 2014, with 239 passengers and crew, MH370 ­doubled back on a scheduled route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing 40 minutes into the flight, with its radar transponder turned off and radio contact terminated.

Satellite tracking data showed that it ended up somewhere along a band in the southern Indian Ocean.

About the same time the ATSB’s underwater search of a 120,000sq km zone ended in Jan­uary, it held a conference of international experts, which identified a new potential search area of 25,000sq km.

The three governments involved in the subsea search which cost $200 million — Malaysia, China and Australia — have taken the joint position that no new search will be undertaken without new evidence indicating the specific location of the plane.

But it is thought that Malaysia is the least enthusiastic to resume the hunt, while ATSB officials are known to be keen to do so and ­believe they have a strong case.

The ATSB recently said a new “drift modelling” study by the CSIRO charting the discovery of debris from the plane found on and off the coast of Africa further supported the evidence that the aircraft lies in the proposed new target zone.

Most of the passengers on MH370 were Chinese nationals. Yesterday the association repres­enting their families issued a statement saying a letter of appeal signed by 1000 members had been sent to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reading, in part:

“Concerning the parties respons­ible for the unknown fate of MH370, Malaysian government, Malaysia Airlines, aircraft manufacturer Boeing, the parties must honour and fulfil the promise of finding the plane, passengers and crew, without interruption, ceasing or abandonment.”

&..

Malcolm Turnbull in tune with MH370 relatives’ requests to do more

[Image: 7e1e02ea309aa1bffecc224369ae056c?width=650]Danica Weeks’ husband Paul was on MH370. Danica with children Jack and Lincoln.
Malcolm Turnbull has revealed he has taken up the cause of the Australian families of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 victims with his Malaysian counterpart, making the disclosure following his receipt of a letter this week from a Queensland woman whose husband disappeared with the aircraft three years ago.

Danica Weeks, who was left a single mother looking after two young boys when her husband Paul was lost, wrote to the Prime Minister on Wednesday calling on him to press Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak to restart the search.

Mr Turnbull told The Australian he had already made representations in the interest of the families of the six Australians on board MH370, with his spokesman saying “the Prime Minister raises this issue with his Malaysian counterpart every time they speak”.

“Malaysia is the lead nation in the investigation into the disappearance of MH370, but Australia stands ready to assist in any way it can,” the spokesman said. “At present, the search for MH370 has been suspended, but if any credible evidence emerges, the Australian government will do everything it can in partnership with Malaysia to ensure the search is resumed.”

MH370 doubled back on a scheduled route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing 40 minutes into the flight, with its radar transponder turned off and radio contact terminated. Satellite tracking data showed it ended up somewhere along a band in the southern Indian Ocean.

At the request of Malaysia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau ran what proved to be a fruitless $200m underwater search for the aircraft which ended in January.

While the ATSB has identified a new potential search area to the north of the last one, which it says is “highly likely” to contain the aircraft, the three governments involved — Malaysia, China and Australia — have insisted no new hunt will be undertaken without evidence indicating the specific location of the aircraft.

ATSB officials are known to be keen to resume the search.

In her letter to Mr Turnbull, Ms Weeks wrote of what she called “the daily torment Malaysia Airlines and ultimately the Malaysian government have imposed upon the families … in its dealing with this situation”.

“Time is no healer for us, that is a luxury only afforded to those who get a proper goodbye and who know what happened to their loved ones,” she wrote.

“I find it extremely distressing the Malaysian government’s inclination to cease searching and the perception they wish to ‘brush MH370 under the carpet’.”

Ms Weeks also expressed her dismay at the refusal of ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood to release key material regarding the search for the aircraft.

Mr Hood has supported ATSB general manager for strategic capability Colin McNamara’s decision to knock back a freedom of information request from The Australian for assessments of the satellite data by experts, which the bureau claims supports what has become known as its “death dive” theory that the Boeing 777 went down in a rapid, unpiloted crash with 239 passengers and crew on board.

Mr McNamara said in his rejection of the FOI request that to release the material could “cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth.”

In her letter to Mr Turnbull, Ms Weeks claimed the ATSB “is unwilling to be open about the basis of its findings.” Mr Turnbull’s spokesman said the FOI request was a matter for the ATSB.

The developments come as a Queensland barrister acting pro bono for some of the MH370 families, Greg Williams, is preparing an online survey to gauge their “satisfaction or dissatisfaction” with the performance of the ATSB, the Australian government, and Malaysian authorities.

Really have to admire Danica Weeks and her efforts to extract some decency, truth and transparency from the Australian and Malaysian governments. Most people in her situation would be battling to remain upright and sane in the convoluted web of deceit and disinformation surrounding the tragic disappearance and post search efforts of MH370 -  shame on Najib, Liow, Turnbull and Chester... Angry


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
(06-02-2017, 07:15 AM)Peetwo Wrote: PM Malcolm ready to help & Hood under fire for FOI rejection - Confused

From that man in the Oz today:

Quote:Turnbull offers Malaysia help in new search for MH370

[Image: 47f40f945a58201ec4baffbc93e38360?width=650]Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Picture: Kym Smith
Malcolm Turnbull has discussed with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak the circumstances in which the hunt for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 could be ­resumed, and said Australia stands ready to do “everything it can” to see it happen.

The move comes as the Aust­ralian Transport Safety Bureau is preparing to release a report on its unsuccessful search for the aircraft, which may also present new ­evidence for its claim that it is “highly likely” the Boeing 777 lies in a proposed new search zone to the north.

The Prime Minister’s revelation that he has repeatedly raised the issue with his Malaysian counterpart also follows renewed activism among relatives of the Australian, Chinese and other victims­ who disappeared with the plane when it went down more than three years ago.

Mr Turnbull saidhe had ­made representations in the interest of the families of the six Australians on board, with his spokesman saying “the Prime Minister raises this issue with his Malaysian counterpart every time they speak”.

“Malaysia is the lead nation in the investigation into the dis­appearance of MH370, but Australia stands ready to assist in any way it can,” the spokesman said.

“At present, the search for MH370 has been suspended, but if any credible evidence emerges, the Australian government will do everything it can in partnership with Malaysia to ensure the search is resumed.”

A government source said Mr Turnbull was not pressuring the Malaysian government to restart the search, describing it more as a means of “keeping MH370 as a frontline issue”.

On March 8, 2014, with 239 passengers and crew, MH370 ­doubled back on a scheduled route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing 40 minutes into the flight, with its radar transponder turned off and radio contact terminated.

Satellite tracking data showed that it ended up somewhere along a band in the southern Indian Ocean.

About the same time the ATSB’s underwater search of a 120,000sq km zone ended in Jan­uary, it held a conference of international experts, which identified a new potential search area of 25,000sq km.

The three governments involved in the subsea search which cost $200 million — Malaysia, China and Australia — have taken the joint position that no new search will be undertaken without new evidence indicating the specific location of the plane.

But it is thought that Malaysia is the least enthusiastic to resume the hunt, while ATSB officials are known to be keen to do so and ­believe they have a strong case.

The ATSB recently said a new “drift modelling” study by the CSIRO charting the discovery of debris from the plane found on and off the coast of Africa further supported the evidence that the aircraft lies in the proposed new target zone.

Most of the passengers on MH370 were Chinese nationals. Yesterday the association repres­enting their families issued a statement saying a letter of appeal signed by 1000 members had been sent to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reading, in part:

“Concerning the parties respons­ible for the unknown fate of MH370, Malaysian government, Malaysia Airlines, aircraft manufacturer Boeing, the parties must honour and fulfil the promise of finding the plane, passengers and crew, without interruption, ceasing or abandonment.”

&..

Malcolm Turnbull in tune with MH370 relatives’ requests to do more

[Image: 7e1e02ea309aa1bffecc224369ae056c?width=650]Danica Weeks’ husband Paul was on MH370. Danica with children Jack and Lincoln.
Malcolm Turnbull has revealed he has taken up the cause of the Australian families of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 victims with his Malaysian counterpart, making the disclosure following his receipt of a letter this week from a Queensland woman whose husband disappeared with the aircraft three years ago.

Danica Weeks, who was left a single mother looking after two young boys when her husband Paul was lost, wrote to the Prime Minister on Wednesday calling on him to press Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak to restart the search.

Mr Turnbull told The Australian he had already made representations in the interest of the families of the six Australians on board MH370, with his spokesman saying “the Prime Minister raises this issue with his Malaysian counterpart every time they speak”.

“Malaysia is the lead nation in the investigation into the disappearance of MH370, but Australia stands ready to assist in any way it can,” the spokesman said. “At present, the search for MH370 has been suspended, but if any credible evidence emerges, the Australian government will do everything it can in partnership with Malaysia to ensure the search is resumed.”

MH370 doubled back on a scheduled route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing 40 minutes into the flight, with its radar transponder turned off and radio contact terminated. Satellite tracking data showed it ended up somewhere along a band in the southern Indian Ocean.

At the request of Malaysia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau ran what proved to be a fruitless $200m underwater search for the aircraft which ended in January.

While the ATSB has identified a new potential search area to the north of the last one, which it says is “highly likely” to contain the aircraft, the three governments involved — Malaysia, China and Australia — have insisted no new hunt will be undertaken without evidence indicating the specific location of the aircraft.

ATSB officials are known to be keen to resume the search.

In her letter to Mr Turnbull, Ms Weeks wrote of what she called “the daily torment Malaysia Airlines and ultimately the Malaysian government have imposed upon the families … in its dealing with this situation”.

“Time is no healer for us, that is a luxury only afforded to those who get a proper goodbye and who know what happened to their loved ones,” she wrote.

“I find it extremely distressing the Malaysian government’s inclination to cease searching and the perception they wish to ‘brush MH370 under the carpet’.”

Ms Weeks also expressed her dismay at the refusal of ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood to release key material regarding the search for the aircraft.

Mr Hood has supported ATSB general manager for strategic capability Colin McNamara’s decision to knock back a freedom of information request from The Australian for assessments of the satellite data by experts, which the bureau claims supports what has become known as its “death dive” theory that the Boeing 777 went down in a rapid, unpiloted crash with 239 passengers and crew on board.

Mr McNamara said in his rejection of the FOI request that to release the material could “cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth.”

In her letter to Mr Turnbull, Ms Weeks claimed the ATSB “is unwilling to be open about the basis of its findings.” Mr Turnbull’s spokesman said the FOI request was a matter for the ATSB.

The developments come as a Queensland barrister acting pro bono for some of the MH370 families, Greg Williams, is preparing an online survey to gauge their “satisfaction or dissatisfaction” with the performance of the ATSB, the Australian government, and Malaysian authorities.

Really have to admire Danica Weeks and her efforts to extract some decency, truth and transparency from the Australian and Malaysian governments. Most people in her situation would be battling to remain upright and sane in the convoluted web of deceit and disinformation surrounding the tragic disappearance and post search efforts of MH370 -  shame on Najib, Liow, Turnbull and Chester... Angry

Update: By Ironsider via news.com.au - 

Quote:Malaysia Airlines ordered to reveal “third party” involvement in MH370

Robyn Ironside, National Aviation Writer, News Corp Australia Network
May 25, 2017 12:30am
Subscriber only

MALAYSIA Airlines has been ordered by a US Court to reveal what it knows about MH370 after the carrier claimed a “third party” was to blame for the flight’s disappearance.

A motion to compel, granted in part by US District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ordered Malaysia Airlines to disclose any evidence it had of third party involvement in MH370, including the identity.

It followed Malaysia Airlines’ own claim in its response to the next of kin suing the carrier, that a “third party tortfeasor (wrongdoer) was responsible for Flight MH370”.

[Image: c79594d0209421e033319ce5dada3c45?width=650]A Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777, like the one that disappeared in the Southern Indian Ocean. Picture: Supplied

Lawyers for the families questioned if Malaysia Airlines was referring to Boeing — as the manufacturer of the 777-200ER.

“If that third-party is Boeing, then Boeing’s liability would be the critical and perhaps the only issue in this case,” said the motion to compel.

The flight on March 8, 2014, disappeared less than an hour after leaving Kuala Lumpur to fly to Beijing, with 239 people on board.

Although debris from the 777 have been recovered, the fuselage and black box recorders have not been found and there has been no official explanation for the aircraft’s disappearance.

Australian Danica Weeks is among the next of kin involved in the complex court case against the airline and its insurer Allianz — as well as aircraft manufacturer Boeing.

Her New Zealand-born husband Paul, was among those on the flight thought to have crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean.

US lawyer Floyd Wisner welcomed the order by Judge Brown Jackson, but said he was not hopeful of Malaysia Airlines complying.

The airline, Allianz and Boeing were trying to get the case thrown out of the US court, because of jurisdictional issues — and they were likely to succeed, Mr Wisner said.

[Image: dcfddb248cbe641ac4d7d6f0e02b7118?width=650]Danica Weeks' is among those battling for compensation for the loss of loved ones on MH370. Picture: Matthew Poon/News Corp Australia
Under the Montreal Convention, next of kin are restricted to suing the carrier in five places — the airline’s home country, the country of departure, the destination country, where the airline ticket was purchased or where the passenger lived.

Mr Wisner said that meant a lot of families could only sue the airline in Malaysia or China — neither of which provided much prospect of success.

“I’d like to see Malaysia Airlines hauled into court in the US,” he said.

“If we had jurisdiction we’d have no problem proving liability. A Malaysian Court is only going to give (next of kin) a very low level of damages.”

In its “motion to dismiss” filed in the District of Columbia court, Boeing’s attorneys argued Malaysia was the right country in which to hear the claims.

“Malaysia is leading the civil investigation and the Royal Malaysian Police are conducting an independent investigation,” said Boeing’s motion.

“Malaysia’s government has expressed its strong interest in resolving claims and the Malaysian courts are already handling litigation.”

The matter is continuing in the District of Columbia.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)