[Peetwo]

MH370 final report wash-up - 

From off the MH370 Criminal Act thread - 'MH370 findings inconclusive?' - Well no shit Shirlock - the following extract perked my interest: 

...He also appeared to handball responsibility for the final answer to the mystery of MH370 to the Australian government, which took responsibility for the search and rescue operations:

“The answer can only be conclusive if the wreckage is found ... as far as our team is concerned, we have done our job ... We do not deal with search. Search is not our area. You have to ask the people responsible for the search. I can only answer your question relating to the investigation,” he said...

Why do I get the impression that Chief investigator Kok is trying to duck shove liability for the failure of the Malaysian led investigation back onto their Australian counterparts. Although it is all academic now, it would still be worth reminding the Malaysian spin-doctor CI Kok that the MH370 SAR ( AMSA & Annex 12) phase was inexplicably and deliberately transferred to a search & recovery phase under the auspices of Annex 13 (Beaker & the ATSB) just over a month after MH370 disappeared: References -  What now for the JIT Annex13 MH370 investigation? & #237  

...In an effort to explain it is worth referring again to the abruptly ended, interactive, AMSA MH370 timeline where it stated...

"...As the search for MH370 transitions from a search and rescue operation to an investigation phase the Joint Agency Coordination Centre takes over the day to day communications..."

The JACC became operational on the 31st of March 2014 and the transition from a SAR phase (Annex 12) to an investigation phase (Annex 13) was already occurring?? This was despite the fact that the surface SAR would not cease operations for yet another month.

IMO the reason the Malaysians wanted to go to the investigation phase is that they desperately needed to wrest back control of the search & more importantly the narrative of the search, Annex 13 enabled the Malaysians to do that by being the State of registry for MH370.

However the transition from Annex 12 to 13 is dependent on (balance of probabilities) there being no survivors - hence going from SAR to 'search & recovery'.

How this decision could be justified, in the case of an aircraft disappearing without a trace, is beyond me but quite obviously legally this was somehow established?? 

It is interesting to note that in the AMSA/JRCC presentation to ICAO - MH370 SEARCH AND RESCUE RESPONSE – JRCC AUSTRALIA - under heading Search Challenges (para 2.2) at subpara q)) it states..

q) Clearly defined division of responsibilities between the search and rescue function (Annex 12) and the air accident investigation search and recovery function (Annex 13).

...which signifies that the JRCC found this 'transition' from Annex 12 to 13 as an impediment to their effective control & management of the SAR phase.

The irony of all this is that it is the Malaysians who were responsible for putting Beaker in charge of the greatest aviation mystery of all time. The question is did they do this by design or was there political/bureaucratic influence from our end??...

Talking of spin-n-bollocks the following is what our aviation safety bureaucracy scripted for our miniscule 4G McNorman-Ram to regurgitate after the release of yesterday's bollocks (not-)final report...  

 @M_McCormackMPo


STATEMENT | Malaysia releases investigation report into #MH370

---

 

Notice the presser is really..really short, a sure sign that HVH & co really..really want to stay below the radar on this one...  

Next it is interesting to note, one of the primary members of the IG, Victor Ianello's take on the (not-)final report...  

[/url]
As expected, the Safety Investigation Report on MH370 offered no explanation on the cause of the disappearance. “The answer can only be conclusive if the wreckage is found,” Kok Soo Chon, head of the MH370 safety investigation team, told reporters. However, Malaysian investigators did surmise the plane was intentionally diverted, likely due to unlawful interference by a third party.

The Malaysia investigators also believe the disappearance could not have been a deliberate act by the pilots based on their background, training, and mental health.

As all the passengers and crew were cleared,  who was this third party that diverted the plane?

How can Malaysian investigators ignore that the captain had the best opportunity and capability to divert the plane? How does the compressed timeline of the diversion fit any other possibility if the diversion was intentional? It is understandable that the Safety Report did not apportion blame to the captain. However, it is not understandable that the report deflected blame to an unnamed third party.

The report, including the appendices, is 1,423 pages, and it will take some number of days for independent investigators to thoroughly pore over the entire contents and provide thoughtful comments and analysis. However, based on an initial review, there are some technical questions and inconsistencies that are apparent:

Radar data
The report provides more details about the radar data, but Malaysia fails to provide the raw military data that would allow an independent review. (The civilian radar data was previously made available through an unsanctioned release, and published in a [url=http://mh370.radiantphysics.com/2018/04/11/the-civilian-radar-data-for-mh370/]previous blog post.) The military radar includes speed and altitude data, in addition to latitude and longitude at each capture.

However,  some of the variations in speed and altitude are beyond the capabilities of the plane.

For instance, the measured speed and altitude at 18:01:59 UTC are 589 knots and 58,200 ft. One minute later, the speed and altitude are  recorded as 492 knots and 4,800 ft. The investigative team was warned that the altitude and speed extracted from the data are subjected to inherent error. The only useful information obtained from the Military radar was the latitude and longitude position of the aircraft as this data is reasonably accurate. How the military radar data can be so far out of calibration is unexplained.

After all this time, we still can’t be sure what radar data is available as MH370 passed over the Malacca Strait. According to the main body of this report, the radar target disappeared at 18:01:59 near Pulau Perak, and re-appeared at 18:15:25 along airway N571 between waypoints VAMPI and MEKAR, disappearing at 18:22:12 about 10 NM past MEKAR. However, in an Appendix 1.6E, Boeing reports that after 18:01:59, there was only one capture at 18:22:12. It appears that the radar data provided to Boeing is consistent with the data provided to the ATSB, but Malaysia claims there were additional captures along airway N571 between 18:15:25 and 18:22:12.

We also can’t be sure when the unidentified radar targets captured over the Malay peninsula were first recognized as MH370. According the Safety Report, On the day of the disappearance of MH370, the Military radar system recognised the ‘blip’ that appeared west after the left turn over IGARI was that of MH370. Even with the loss of SSR data, the Military long range air defence radar with Primary Surveillance Radar (PSR) capabilities affirmed that it was MH370 based on its track behaviour, characteristics and constant/continuous track pattern/trend. Therefore, the Military did not pursue to intercept the aircraft since it was ‘friendly’ and did not pose any threat to national airspace security, integrity and sovereignty. In light of the claim that the military was fully aware of the path of MH370, it is not explained why the initial Search and Rescue operations were coordinated in the South China Sea to the east of Malaysia, and proceeded for some number of days before they were moved west of Malaysia to the Indian Ocean.

Pilot Simulator Data
Citing the Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) report from May 2014, the Safety Report says It was also discovered that there were seven ‘manually programmed’ waypoint4 coordinates … that when connected together, will create a flight path from KLIA to an area south of the Indian Ocean through the Andaman Sea. These coordinates were stored in the Volume Shadow Information (VSI) file dated 03 February 2014. The function of this file was to save information when a computer is left idle for more than 15 minutes. Hence, the RMP Forensic Report could not determine if the waypoints came from one or more files.

What is not mentioned is that certain values that were common to the data sets indicate that these files were likely from the same simulation. This was first documented in a technical paper I co-authored with Yves Guillaume, and summarized in a previous blog post. Also included in the previous blog post were statements from the ATSB indicating that the chronological order of the data sets matches a flight departing KLIA, flying over the Malacca Strait, continuing past the Andaman Islands, turning to the south, and exhausting fuel in the SIO, in the same order that the progressively depleting fuel levels suggest. The time values also indicate that the flight session lasted for about one hour, suggesting the position of the aircraft in the simulation was manually advanced and the fuel levels manually depleted.

There are other strange facts surrounding the simulator data. For instance, Malaysia does not explain why only fragments of the data files were recovered, as the reconstruction of the entire contents of the data files should have been possible using the data in the Shadow Volume. The missing portions of the data files include important information that would be stored in the flight management computers (FMCs), including flight plans. Also, the time stamp data that was included in the data files that were made available to the ATSB by the Australian Federal Police was not included in the RMP report.

The RMP conclusion that there were no unusual activities other than game-related flight simulations is odd considering the extraordinary coincidence that a simulated flight including a departure from KLIA and ending in fuel exhaustion in the SIO was recovered after the disappearance.

Investigation of the Flaperon
After the flaperon was recovered from Reunion Island, which is sovereign territory of France, French scientists performed tests to determine the flaperon’s provenance, to analyze the attached marine biology, to determine its buoyancy and other hydrodynamic characteristics, and to investigate the damage to determine how the flaperon separated from the aircraft. To the French team, it appeared that the flaperon impacted the water while still attached to the aeroplane and that at the time of the impact it was deflected. The implication is that water forces from an attempted ditching caused the flaperon to separate rather than in-flight during a high speed descent. The French were careful to advise that this is only an hypothesis because of the limited data made available to them by Boeing, and because of the complicated dynamics of the impact mechanics.

Nonetheless, if it can be proven that the aircraft was in a controlled descent at the time it impacted the ocean, the distance from the 7th arc could be greater than 120 NM, as there could have been a long glide after fuel exhaustion. A controlled descent after fuel exhaustion would also leave open the possibility of pilot navigational inputs after 19:41, and possible paths would include crossing the 7th arc over a large range of latitudes. These unknowns would make it very difficult to define a new search area of a manageable size. For this reason, it is critical that mechanism that led to separation of the flaperon be determined with a higher level of certainty.

First Officer’s Cell Phone Connect
The First Officer’s cell phone registered on a cell tower as MH370 passed to the south of Penang Island. Although it would be unlikely that a cell phone connection would persist long enough to complete a call, a cell phone registration of short duration and at cruise altitude is not that uncommon.

Considering the large number of Malaysian passengers and crew that were likely carrying cell phones compatible with the Malaysian cell network, and with some fraction of those phones likely in an operational configuration during the flight, it is odd that other cell phone registrations did not occur. It is unexplained whether or not a systematic review of the cell phone numbers of all passengers and crew was ever performed.

Final Comments
It is unlikely that another search for MH370 will occur unless a case can be made that there is a reasonable probability of success. Unfortunately, the Safety Report raises more questions than it answers, and it will be difficult to use the information in the report to define a search area of a manageable size. The answers to some questions will not be known until the flight data recorder is recovered. However, the answers to other questions are known to Malaysian authorities today. Any remaining chance to find MH370 squarely rests on the willingness of the new Malaysian administration to cooperatively work with official and independent investigators.

 
"..However, it is not understandable that the report deflected blame to an unnamed third party..." - In that one line Victor nails why the veracity and credibility of both the Malaysian (not-)final report and the initial ATSB led Southern Indian ocean undersea search are totally shot down in flames...  

Finally, amongst all the to-ing & fro-ing and diplomatic duck shoving, there is at least one positive example of proper Annex 13 AAI procedure and investigatory analysis that is truly independent of the shifty manipulations of CI Kok and the Malaysians. This is of course the French DGA's examination report on the MH370 flaperon, which IMO is definitely worth the read: Reference - Appendix-1.12A-2-Item1Flaperon(Main).pdf   

MTF? - No doubt...P2   

Ps Yes "K" I believe I've found a Muppet that fits the bill for our NFI DPM & miniscule 4G...