[Peetwo]

MH370 10 YEARS ON: Popinjay continues the cover-up charade?? -

Reference (above):

Asking the 'right' questions.

The 'Sky News' latest production, looking into the MH 370 mystery - HERE - will not, in all probability, become be a 'useful' tool for changing official attitudes toward finding the aircraft. It should be. - However, it does serve quite well to touch on several essential questions which demand answers. Not questions about the 'how' or the 'why' of the aircraft's disappearance; that will only be answered when the wreckage is found. The 'real' questions, related to why the aircraft has not been located reside within the attitude of the respective governments. IMO, that is a deeper mystery than the actual event itself; many intriguing, disturbing questions in this area remain unanswered, almost lost in time and silence now. For example:-

Sky News - "Mr Waring also questioned why the Australian Transport Safety Bureau had been chosen to spearhead the operation."

That one item of interest has puzzled 'professional' interest since the appointment of 'Hood' to the ATSB and the inept Dolan to the mix. Wrong choices for 'investigation' yet the right choices for 'cooperation' with the status quo. To say there were better qualified folk available to conduct the orchestra would be no exaggeration.

"But the question really needs to be asked why the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, which is an aircraft investigation authority, not a search and rescue authority, not an organisation that has any experience of conducting a search, why they were put in charge of one of the largest and most expensive searches in human history," he said. - (Waring)..

P7 - "Exactly. But, can a humble NSW Coroner break through the veil? Despite the many 'theories', notions, investigations and continued 'external' research, the big questions have never been answered satisfactorily. For many of us, the moment AMSA was unceremoniously dumped from the search and Beaker (he of the Simply Marvellous Horse pooh) took over, the little red flags were raised. This was compounded by the Minsky 'briefing, pre departure and when Canary Hood threatened his crew with goal, for talking out of school concerns amplified; that alone rang all the bells. If only Foley could be 'un-muzzled' - there is a man we could all trust".

Aye well; no doubt the silence will continue; but it is 'passing strange' that we can throw the odd 20 and 30 millions at a project without a second though; but cannot release a few pennies to support a search or even allow Twiggy and his crew to take a look. I wonder why not?

Toot - toot.

And last night from the ABC (note the Waring and Popinjay segments):

Popinjay: "..The ATSB is an evidence based organisation, that evidence led us to where the search area was and that evidence is still valid today..."

I guess PJ is obliged to regurgitate the Can'tberra bureaucratic propaganda waffle...

However I could go to any number of ATSB AAI reports in recent years that would totally contradict the evidence based piffle in that PJ statement. The classic being the systemic Croco-shite investigation report, which totally ignored the lack of proper oversight of the operator by CASA. Plus the fact the CASA Board had a huge conflict of interest with that operator, when the DAS and (previous) Chair (some 8 months before the fatal R44 crash), went on a croc egg collecting observation flight and subsequently 2 months later the exemption was renewed. This was despite the fact the practice was about to become illegal under the new CASR Part 91 and Part 138 regulations (implemented 2 December 2021):  Croco-shite cover-up: Su_Spence surveillance and Board bias?? &  Su_Spence BIAS a BEER files: Croc Wrangler on more charges?? &  Su_Spence BIAS a BEER files: Wilson Widow freezes Croc Wrangler assets 

Fairly easy to fill in the blanks.

OBS:
Su_Spence was barely a month into her tenure as DAS/CEO
It would appear that neither the Scot Git or Craig Martin (Reg Oversight Exec Manager at the time), provided any background checks or safety risk assessments to the Board or the new DAS prior to the meeting with Crocodile Farms NT and the Helibrook CEO/CP.
The meeting was always about the incoming flight ops regs that would preclude Helibrook from conducting HEC croc egg collection in R44 helicopters.

However I digress, back to this part of PJ's statement: "..that evidence led us to where the search area was and that evidence is still valid today..."

 Referring retrospectively, via the following past AP thread posts on the subject, the evidence to which PJ refers appears to have never been the 'consensus' view, even within the body set up to develop the original MH370 underwater search strategy IE the SSWG:

  20/05/2017:  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.

26/10/2019:   The Mick Mack aviation shitlist continues to grow?

From Twitter:

OBVIOUS from ATSB THREATENING whistleblower staff that telling truth about #MH370 is not their piority. @cryfortruth so the next question is what are ATSB hiding?

And speaking of coverups... #MH370

"The Australian news asked for internal SSWG memos under the freedom of information act, and the ATSB got their heavy mob lawyers to put on the frighteners." (12.16.18 @ 2:19 pm)

Correct.



Ah yes the Chief Commissioner Greg Hood's threat of criminal prosecution (ie 2 years jail) if any ATSB employee even hinted at talking out of school ie blowing the whistle? (especially those involved in the SSWG &/OR the #MH370 Annex 13 AAI)

Finally back to Popinjay - 01/03/2022:  The ATSB Bearded Popinjay promises due diligence on MH370?? 

Ok now consider the following mapped tracking details of the UWA/Minderoo expedition and it's proximity to the original MH370 7th arc:


Then keep in mind this quote from Mike Chillit:

"..Keep in mind that the original 7th ping was calculated when everyone believed in “Zombie Pilot”, autopilot-to-the-end, etc. so the final ping has always been off by the distance the plane would fly during the final 9 minutes: 70 to 100 km.."

In the interest of 'due diligence' and considering the majority consensus (including former ATSB MH370 search director Peter Foley) is now firmly in the 'Pilot did it' camp, why wouldn't the Minderoo-UWA Deep-Sea Research Centre not allow Geoscience Australia/ATSB/AMSA/NTSB (former MH370 SSWG and/or some other totally independent body of experts) access to the scanning footage/data etc. obtained during their expedition to the Wallaby-Zenith Fracture Zone... 

Hmmm....MUCH, MUCH MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

MH370 10 years on: Bailey condemns Beaker and the ATSB?? -

Via SkyNews Oz... :

Bailey (from 04:00 min): "..to go a little bit further South and instead people, like that idiot Dolan who was running it at that time, with no Aviation experience said.."oh our evidence says it was unlikely a pilot was in control"..."

De Giorgio: "..this search will it ever happen do you think?"

Bailey: "Oh yes I think so..because Ocean Infinity was briefed by a colleague of mine, Captain Simon Hardy Boeing 777 like me and he thought they were very willing to search in this area but were blocked from doing so by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.."

Hmm...I guess BB was never much of a fan of Beaker -

Next from Channel 7 News:

At 2:08 minutes: Air Crash investigator Joe Hattley??

What was the point of including Hattley? Plus wasn't he the guy that signed of on the decision by the ATSB not to retrieve the ditched Westwind VH-NGA's blackbox?

Remember this (ironically again at 2:08)?

(Incidentally Hattley is sitting behind Beaker)

Given the ATSB was eventually forced (for a much greater cost) to retrieve the CVR/FDR in the MKII investigation, one wonders about the veracity of any evidence or opinion promoted by Hattley...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

MH370 10 years on: Beaker the discredited village idiot??

Reference:

Bailey (from 04:00 min): "..to go a little bit further South and instead people, like that idiot Dolan who was running it at that time, with no Aviation experience said.."oh our evidence says it was unlikely a pilot was in control"..."

De Giorgio: "..this search will it ever happen do you think?"

Bailey: "Oh yes I think so..because Ocean Infinity was briefed by a colleague of mine, Captain Simon Hardy Boeing 777 like me and he thought they were very willing to search in this area but were blocked from doing so by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.." 

Hmm...I guess BB was never much of a fan of Beaker - 

Going along with the theme of Beaker "the village idiot" and the strong connections with the PelAir cover-up investigation vs the MH370 cover-up search, I note the following Senate PelAir inquiry video pretty much totally discredits himself as reliable public servant witness by lying about a ICAO Annex 13 reference which he said he referred to in making a decision to not retrieve VH-NGA's CVR/FDR:

(Hansard PDF: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/dow...d9/0000%22)

Senator FAWCETT: At the end of a fairly long and convoluted process, the highest risk you would attribute to the safety outcome for the patient, their family, their nurse and their doctor on an EMS operation like this is fairly low because of the process. I, personally, have some concerns with that approach, but I hear that is the process you are working with.

I take you to annex 13 from ICAO. Are you familiar with their definition of standards versus recommended practices?

Mr Dolan : Yes, I am

Senator FAWCETT: So are you familiar with the use of the world 'shall' or 'should'?

Mr Dolan : Yes, I am familiar with italics as opposed to standard type, and various other things in the standard.

Senator FAWCETT: In paragraph 5.4 it says:

The accident investigation authority shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct … The investigation shall include:

a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident;

Mr Dolan : 'Shall normally include', yes.

Senator FAWCETT: No, it says:

The investigation shall include:

a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident;

There is no 'should', no 'normally'—it says 'shall'.

Mr Dolan : The version I have, which is the version promulgated on 18 October 2010, with additions that have been updated, says, 'The investigation shall'—and I agree with 'shall'—'normally include …'

Senator FAWCETT: It appears mine is not the current version, so I will stand corrected on that.

Mr Dolan : 'Shall' is the language.

Senator FAWCETT: So when we come to flight recorders, you can update me if that version is different.

Mr Dolan : If it assists, paragraph 5.4 goes on to say

Where feasible, the scene of the accident shall be visited, the wreckage examined and statements taken from witnesses.

The extent of the investigation and the procedure to be followed in carrying out such an investigation shall be determined by AAID, depending on the lessons it expects to draw from the investigation for the improvement of safety.

Senator FAWCETT: One of the attachments that follows on from flight recorders says:

The aftermath of a major accident is a demanding time for any State’s investigation authority. One of the immediate items requiring a decision is where to have the flight recorders read out and analysed. It is essential that the flight recorders be read out as early as possible after an accident.

It is an assumption throughout the document that where a flight data recorder exists that will be one of the top priorities for an accident investigation body. Are you comfortable that you have complied with the requirements of this annex in choosing not to recover the flight data recorder because of cost?

Mr Dolan : That was why I drew your attention to that paragraph that I just read. With the decision I made in relation to the value as opposed to the cost of recovering the recorders, I was viewing it in the framework of 'where feasible.' I consider cost as opposed to benefit to be relevant to the question of feasibility.

Senator FAWCETT: You can tell me, then, what your version says in paragraph 5.7, where it says:

Effective use shall be made of flight recorders in the investigation of an accident or an incident. The State conducting the investigation shall arrange for the read-out of the flight recorders without delay.

Mr Dolan : The words are exactly the same in the version I have. What I read that in the light of, in the structure of this document, is that 5.4 is a general paragraph setting the context with the others, and so we have the question of whether to retrieve them in the first place—had we retrieved them, we would agree: effective use shall be made, and we have to arrange for the read-out, without delay. As I say, the decision I made was in that general context of feasibility.

Unfortunately Sen Fawcett was not quick enough to realise that the version Beaker was referring to wasn't in force at the time of the ditching. However Fawcett follow up with a written QON:

 8 Answers to written questions taken on notice on 28 February 2013, in Canberra; (PDF 189KB)

1. Could the ATSB confirm which edition of the Annex 13 document was current at
the time Mr Dolan made his decision regarding not recovering the FDR.

ATSB response: The version of Annex 13 current at the time was the 9th Edition
as amended by Amendments 11, 12-A and 12-B.

2. Explain the discrepancy between the answer he provided today (explaining their
decision to not recover the FDR which inferred that the "reasonable" clause in
the current document was the basis) given the standard which was in force at
the time of the accident, which, if it did not provide that modification would have
mandated recovery of the FDR.

ATSB response: The ATSB considers that the general provisions of paragraph
5.4 of the Annex as it stood at the time provided the necessary discretion to the
ATSB in its conduct of the investigation.

(The 10th edition was the one Beaker was wrongly referring to: https://www.pilot18.com/wp-content/uploa...gation.pdf)

And from the PelAir report itself:

3.54 The committee understands that the ATSB has certain responsibilities, set out in ICAO Annex 13, when it comes to retrieval of aircraft involved in accidents. It is an assumption throughout Annex 13 that, where a FDR exists, the accident investigation body will prioritise its retrieval:

The aftermath of a major accident is a demanding time for any State’s investigation authority. One of the immediate items requiring a decision is where to have the flight recorders read out and analysed. It is essential that the flight recorders be read out as early as possible after an accident.[37]

3.55 The committee approached the ATSB on this particular point, asking Mr Dolan whether he was comfortable that the agency had complied with the requirements of the annex in choosing not to recover the VH-NGA FDR because of the associated cost. The committee received the following response:

That was why I drew your attention to that paragraph that I just read [paragraph 5.4 of ICAO Annex 13]. With the decision I made in relation to the value as opposed to the cost of recovering the recorders, I was viewing it in the framework of 'where feasible.' I consider cost as opposed to benefit to be relevant to the question of feasibility.[38]

3.56 During the course of the committee's hearing on 28 February 2013, an issue emerged relating to the wording of paragraph 5.4. Mr Dolan, explaining that he was reading from the current version of the paragraph in question, challenged the committee's reading of the annex, according to which an investigative body would be required to gather, record and analyse all available information on an accident or incident. This would include the flight data recorder.

3.57 Mr Dolan asserted that the copy of the annex in his possession, being more current and dated 18 October 2010, contained slightly different wording. This version does not say that investigations 'shall', but rather 'shall normally', gather, record and analyse all available information.[39]

3.58 However, although the version of the document Mr Dolan relied upon before the committee to support his decision not to retrieve the VH-NGA FDR may have been more current, it was not the version in force at the time of the accident or its immediate aftermath, when such decisions were being made.

3.59 Furthermore, the ATSB had no disagreement with the committee's reading of paragraph 5.7 of the annex, which clearly sets out a state investigation body's responsibilities in this regard:

Effective use shall be made of flight recorders in the investigation of an accident or an incident. The State conducting the investigation shall arrange for the read-out of the flight recorders without delay.[40]

3.60 Despite this, the Chief Commissioner maintained that, according to his reading of the paragraph, the ATSB was not required to retrieve VH-NGA's FDR:

What I read that [paragraph 5.7] in the light of, in the structure of this document [Annex 13], is that 5.4 is a general paragraph setting the context with the others, and so we have the question of whether to retrieve them in the first place—had we retrieved them, we would agree: effective use shall be made, and we have to arrange for the read-out, without delay. As I say, the decision I made was in that general context of feasibility.[41]

3.61 The ATSB position remained that the relevant paragraph of Annex 13 provided the agency 'the necessary discretion...in its conduct of the investigation.'[42]

3.62 The committee does not accept this argument. At the time the decision against retrieving the FDR was made the imperative existed for the ATSB to do so. To ignore this imperative by arguing that the benefit did not justify the cost appears disingenuous. To imply that the revised wording in the current version of Annex 13 was the basis for the ATSB's decision in 2009/2010, before this version was in force, is even more disingenuous.

3.63 This is not the only example of a FDR which has been under water for some time being retrieved and useful data being produced. Furthermore, the ATSB appears to be of the view that the data is not worth the cost of retrieval as information could be obtained from the flight crew, both of whom survived the accident.

Committee view
3.64 The committee finds the ATSB's refusal to retrieve the FDR incongruous and questionable. Furthermore, the committee takes a dim view of the ATSB's reliance on a version of ICAO Annex 13 that only came into force in late 2010, nearly a year after the accident, to justify this decision. Mr Dolan's evidence in this regard is questionable and has seriously eroded his standing as a witness before the committee. Flight data recorders are routinely recovered around the world despite the existence of surviving crew. They provide objective records of how events transpired, and allow speech specialists and psychologists to determine stress levels and what was going on in the cockpit at the time.[43] This could offer valuable lessons for the whole aviation industry, not just about why an accident occurred, but, in this case, how such a successful ditching was executed under extremely difficult circumstances.

3.65 The committee is of the view that the ATSB is taking a very loose interpretation of its obligations under ICAO Annex 13. Furthermore, the committee has evidence indicating that by early 2010 two lines had been attached to VH-NGA which were strong enough to raise the wreckage. This evidence calls into question whether the ATSB's argument concerning cost or associated occupational health and safety concerns was valid, and reflects the fact that the ATSB was not overly concerned to robustly examine options and costs.[44]

3.66 Having received in camera evidence on the likelihood of VH-NGA's flight data recorder yielding useful information about the accident despite more than three years passing since the event, the committee supports calls for the recorder to be retrieved.

3.67 The fact is, the primary consumer of ATSB investigation reports is the aviation industry. There is much to be learned about what led to this accident, and how injuries were minimised upon impact.

Recommendation 1

3.68 The committee recommends that the ATSB retrieve VH-NGA flight data recorders without further delay.

Beaker's credibility as a reliable public servant witness was again brought under serious scrutiny in the 2013 Budget Estimates:

Senator XENOPHON: Take it on notice, because I have a few other matters to raise. You are saying that, from a causation point of view, even retrofitting the helicopters with that protective bladder, it still would have been a fatal accident?

Mr Dolan : On the facts that were available to us. We are not aware of any previous to Cessnock. I do not think we are aware of any of the low-energy collisions leading to that sort of thing. There were, as you say, a number of high-energy collisions that would have led to a ruptured fuel tank in any helicopter and therefore a great likelihood of a post-crash fire. Those are the sorts of accidents that generally are not survivable.

Senator XENOPHON: If you would not mind taking that on notice, even if it is just referring us to what you consider relevant, that would be very helpful. To go back to what Senator Fawcett asked you about budget constraints: you have mentioned the Chicago convention and international obligations we have in ICAO annex 13 to appropriately investigate aircraft accidents. Do you think that these budgetary constraints would of necessity constrain either the number of investigations or the depth of those investigations in terms of the work of the ATSB?

Mr Dolan : Over time, the consequence of budget reduction is a reduction in the number of staff, and that means that some of those staff will be investigators. We will have fewer investigators available to us; therefore, we will be able to do less. We can improve productivity and efficiency in the organisation, but there is a limit.

Senator XENOPHON: Given our international obligations to properly and thoroughly investigate aircraft accidents, if the ATSB said, 'Look, we can't do our job properly' because, God forbid, there has been a spate of accidents or an increase in workload in accident investigations, would the government feel obliged to make sure there were the appropriate resources to fulfil our international obligations or would it say that is too bad?

Mr Mrdak : Certainly I think it would be very much as Mr Dolan has indicated. He and I discuss regularly his budget position. We are clear that, if there were pressure on the organisation, there is no doubt that Mr Dolan would go to the minister and outline the issues and that government would consider those matters. There are clearly financial and fiscal pressures on all agencies across the Commonwealth, but I think it would be a case that the government, as they have in the past, would look very carefully at resourcing reductions in key safety agencies.

Senator XENOPHON: All right. This goes to another resource issue and relates to the ditching of the Pel-Air flight in November 2009. Without rehashing the report, the basis of the ATSB refusal to retrieve the cockpit voice recorder is based on an interpretation of ICAO annex 13. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr Dolan : That is one element of it, as I tried to make clear at the time. Another consideration is in my role as chief executive of the ATSB, with responsibilities under a range of legislation, including the Financial Management and Accountability Act, as to the efficient, effective and ethical use of Commonwealth resources.

Senator XENOPHON: So what takes priority: the Financial Management and Accountability Act or ICAO annex 13 in terms of our international obligations with regard to aviation safety and accident investigation?

Mr Dolan : In my role I am required to balance my obligation under the Transport Safety Investigation Act to undertake the functions of the organisation consistent with a range of international instruments, including annex 13, but I am also equally required to have regard to the efficient and effective use of Commonwealth resources. They are the decisions that we have to make on a regular basis in terms of how we undertake our work.

Senator XENOPHON: So, if you are required to equally assess both, what wins out when it is finely balanced? Is it our international obligations to appropriately and thoroughly investigate aviation accidents or is it budgetary constraints?

Mr Dolan : The question we will always need to ask ourselves is how we meet our obligations and what the necessary level of investigation is, and we have to have regard to the availability of resources. For major investigations there will come a point where it is clearly not within our annual budget to deal with the consequences of it. That is certainly the position with any major accident. We already have arrangements in place that, were there a major accident that has an ongoing, above-the-ordinary call on our investigations, we can ask the government for additional funding, but we are always making calls about what we do within our existing resources and what constitutes a major investigation that would require an approach to the government for further funding.

Senator XENOPHON: So you have not reconsidered your interpretation of ICAO annex 13 in relation to the retrieval of the cockpit voice recorder in the Pel-Air ditching?

Mr Dolan : More broadly speaking and specifically to that question, the recommendations that came out of the committee's report as they referred to the ATSB as an independent agency will be reviewed by the commission of the ATSB—me and my fellow commissioners—so it is not just a decision for me but for the three of us acting collectively in accordance with our legal responsibility.

Senator XENOPHON: In the financial year that the Pel-Air ditching occurred, you were within budget, weren't you? You were not over budget at the end of that year.

Mr Dolan : We had a surplus at the end of that year, correct.

Senator XENOPHON: So you cannot say that the decision not to retrieve the cockpit voice recorder was due to budgetary constraints, because by the end of that financial year you still had a surplus.

Mr Dolan : I still had to have regard to the likely and projected costs of recovery, what my available resources were and what I needed to do with them.

Senator XENOPHON: It is another jurisdiction, but I think the ATSB is involved in Indonesia and does provide assistance. In the recent crash of a Lion Air 737 off Bali earlier this year, the cockpit voice recorder was retrieved at a great cost and difficulty even though the crew survived, because annex 13 requires it and the international community expects it. Is there any possibility that you will reconsider the decision not to retrieve the cockpit voice recorder in relation to the Pel-Air incident?

Mr Dolan : There is a possibility—in fact, there is the certainty—that the commissioners will reconsider it. That is part of our review of the recommendations of the committee. Once we have done that, we will report back on the results of our consideration.

Senator XENOPHON: And when do you think that will be reconsidered?

Mr Dolan : At this stage—and I need to have further discussions with my fellow commissioners—we have a scheduled formal commission meeting on 24 July. At this stage, that is when we would expect to consider all the recommendations of the committee.

Senator XENOPHON: I think Senator Edwards raised this during the inquiry. Is there a possibility that ATSB will consider reopening that investigation based on the findings of the Senate committee report?

Mr Dolan : We have a recommendation in front of us from the committee that says that we should do that and we will have due regard to that recommendation.

Senator XENOPHON: The committee has criticised the ATSB in relation to its report on the Pel-Air ditching. You are now in a position to reconsider whether you ought to reopen the investigation. Do you think it is appropriate that an independent person outsourced by the ATSB—an aviation expert—make recommendations as to whether it ought to be reopened given that there is a fundamental conflict? It is sort of like Caesar judging Caesar in the context of what ought to be done with respect to reopening the investigation.

Mr Dolan : I hear what you are saying, Senator. A matter obviously I would have to discuss with my fellow commissioners is what information and advice they may wish to rely on in reconsidering the decision that has been made.

Senator XENOPHON: Do you think it is appropriate that there be some independent assessment as to whether the investigation be reopened given that there would be, on the face of it, an apparent conflict with the board effectively having to make a call as to whether it should be critical of its previous report?

Mr Dolan : No, I do not. I see that our responsibilities as the commissioners of the ATSB in meeting the functions of the organisation are something that we are required to appropriately consider. What information we draw on to make those considerations I think is a matter for us.

Senator EDWARDS: Are you seriously considering judging yourselves on this information again?

Mr Dolan : We are seriously considering weighing all the information that has been available through the Senate committee and other material that might come to light in making our decision as we are required to do under our legislation.

Mr Mrdak : Clearly these are matters which the government will need to consider in the light of the Senate committee's report.

Senator EDWARDS: Sure, I am trying to give you some guidance.

Mr Mrdak : We do appreciate that. Mr Dolan is quite correctly putting the position of the commission regarding its legislation. The matters that have been raised in the report and the issues both Senator Xenophon and Senator Edwards have just raised are matters that we will put to the minister as part of the government's response.

 
Got all that? - Yet less than a year after this and despite a Senate Committee stating...

"..Mr Dolan's evidence in this regard is questionable and has seriously eroded his standing as a witness before the committee..."

...it was decided by the powers to be (IE The Mandarins) that Beaker and the ATSB would head up the underwater search in the Southern Indian Ocean for MH370 with the ultimate goal being to retrieve the CVR/FDR?? Plus, despite the serious findings and recommendations of the Senate Committee the ATSB has continued on a downward spiral of irrelevance and non-compliance with the ICAO Annex 13 -

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

MH370 10 years on: Albo responsible for neutering the ATSB? - 

Following on from the fact that Beaker, as a totally discredited Executive level public servant, ended up leading the expensive underwater search for MH370, when in most democratic 1st World nations he would have been fired for the lies, deceit and disrespect of the Senate within the Pelair inquiry and his obvious incompetence as Chief Commissioner of the ATSB.

Remember that the person who hired this seriously flawed public servant was none other than the current PM Albo: https://anthonyalbanese.com.au/casa-and-...intments-2

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)


The new ATSB Chief Commissioner will be Mr Martin Dolan. Mr Dolan will be joined by Mr Noel Hart in the position of part-time Commissioner, with the second part-time position to be filled in the near future.


All appointees will take up their positions from 1 July 2009.

At the same time, rather than being a true Minister of the Crown and providing proper oversight/governance of the ATSB as intended under the Westminster system, Albo also elected to designate the ATSB as an independent statutory body - reference the following dots-n-dashes thread for both Albo's appointment decisions and his obfuscation of the damning Senate PelAir Inquiry report...    

The beginning of the end for the ATSB -

Recently an associated PAIN member with considerable expertise in such matters as Human Factors in Aviation Accident Investigation (in particular FRMS) was tasked by the BRB with reviewing the bollocks PelAir MKII final report. Still a work in progress but the following quote from this associate's DRAFT summary report caught my attention   :  

   • Communication-misunderstandings: 

- The responsibilities of CASA and the ATSB were never resolved, even though the ATSB had become a separate statutory agency in July 2009. As a result the ATSB did not collect sufficient information from Pel Air.

 
Personally I had never even contemplated joining the dots on the real implications of the ATSB becoming a 'statutory agency' in July 2009...

Here is a link for the amendment changes to the TSI Act which came into force in July 2009: TRANSPORT SAFETY INVESTIGATION AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2009 (NO. 1) (SLI NO 149 OF 2009)  

However it wasn't till I stumbled across the former Minister for Non-aviation Albo's explanatory speech, for the introduction of the amendment, that the penny dropped that this was nothing more than Albo creating further 'degrees of separation' between himself, the government and anything remotely resembling responsibility and oversight of aviation safety - read it and weep...  

---

Feb 12, 2009

Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009

The second Bill I introduce to the Parliament is the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009. As I stated when I introduced the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill, the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill fulfils undertakings in the Government’s National Aviation Policy Green Paper. The Bill will amend the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and enhance the independence of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) by establishing it as a statutory agency within my portfolio. The ATSB will have a Commission structure and the new body will come into being on 1 July 2009.

Australia has an impressive safety record and the ATSB’s accident investigation role is a fundamental part of Australia’s transport safety framework. Under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, the Executive Director of the ATSB already conducts systemic ‘no-blame’ investigations into aviation, marine and rail accidents and incidents with the objective of identifying contributing safety factors. The lessons arising from those investigations are used to prevent future accidents and incidents through the implementation of safety action by the industry and the Government. By making the ATSB a separate statutory agency, public confidence can be strengthened in Australia’s commitment to advance transport safety.

While I am confident that the ATSB has operated successfully as a Division of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, I believe that the future safety of Australian transport will be enhanced by this measure. In 2007 Mr Russell Miller AM was tasked by the then Government to review the relationship between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the ATSB. In finding there was room for improvement in the way the agencies interact, Mr Miller addressed the ATSB’s governance structure and recommended that the Government move to clarify the ATSB’s independence as the national safety investigation agency. The Government accepted this key recommendation, which received strong support from industry.

Investigations that are independent of transport regulators, government policy makers, and the parties involved in an accident, are better positioned to avoid conflicts of interest and external interference. Consistent with international standards, this Bill leaves no doubt that investigations will be conducted without fear or favour and findings will be transparent and objective. Standard 5.4 of Annex 13 to the International Convention on Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention) states:

The accident investigation authority shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct.

Enhanced independence will result from a combination of factors. The ATSB will alone be responsible for administering the functions of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and exercising its investigation powers. There will be the capacity for the Minister to provide notice of his or her views on the strategic direction for the ATSB, to which the ATSB must have regard. However, other than the ability for the Minister to require the ATSB to investigate a particular matter, the ATSB will not be subject to a direction from anyone with respect to the exercise of its powers and functions.

The creation of a statutory agency will also give the ATSB discretion and responsibilities in its own right under the Public Service Act 1999 and Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 with respect to the management of its staff and resources. The ATSB will, therefore, have operational independence with respect to the exercise of its investigation powers and functional independence with respect to the administration of its resources.

The ATSB will consist of a full-time Chief Commissioner who will also be the Chief Executive Officer of the agency, and two part-time Commissioners. Commissioners will be appointed by the Minister and they will have an appropriate mix of skills and expertise. Additional Commissioners can be appointed as necessary for major investigations or where a particular skill or expertise is required. The powers in the Act will be vested in the ATSB for overarching responsibilities such as determining which transport safety matters to investigate and publishing reports. Powers relating to day to day investigation activities such as entry to an accident site premises will be vested in the Chief Commissioner. Both the Chief Commissioner and the ATSB will have the ability to delegate powers, as appropriate, for the purpose of carrying out investigations.

A new power that the ATSB will have to assist with its function of improving transport safety is the power to require responses within 90 days to any formal recommendations that it makes. This requirement will provide confidence that the ATSB’s safety recommendations are being properly considered and addressed.

In addition to the function of improving transport safety through investigations and communicating the results of those investigations, the ATSB will have a function involving cooperation. The ATSB will be required to cooperate with similar agencies around the world to ensure there is coordination when investigating a transport accident or incident in cases where another country is in some way connected. Domestically, the ATSB will be required to cooperate with Commonwealth and State and Territory agencies having functions concerning transport safety, or who are affected by the ATSB’s function of improving transport safety. Other agencies, such as the police or a transport safety regulator, are likely to have an interest in conducting investigations into some accidents or incidents that the ATSB is investigating. It is intended that those agencies should continue to be able to conduct their own separate investigations and that there be cooperation to allow this to occur. However, the ATSB will need to preserve the ‘no-blame’ nature of its investigations.

The Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 already states that it is not an object of the Act to apportion blame or provide the means to determine liability in relation to a transport accident or incident. With the translation of the objects of the current Act into the functions for the ATSB, the Act will state that apportioning blame and determining liability is not a function of the ATSB. Investigations that may result in punitive action will not necessarily have safety information freely flowing to them because there is an apprehension of a penalty by the persons subject to the investigation. This is recognised internationally by Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention and similar International Maritime Organisation instruments.

If the ATSB is to conduct systemic investigations, in the overriding interest of improving future safety, it must have access to all the available information. To preserve the free-flow of information to its investigations, the ATSB will need to maintain an appropriate degree of separation from processes that could result in a punitive outcome, an award of damages to one party against another or an adverse inference being made about a person subject to an investigation. The existing provisions in the Act for the protection of safety information, such as aviation cockpit voice recorders and witness statements, provide part of the framework for the ATSB to prevent itself being involved in the apportionment of blame or the determination of liability. Commissioners, ATSB staff members and consultants will be subject to the requirement to protect this type of information.

The Bill provides for transitional provisions so that investigations commenced under legislation existing before the new laws come into effect on 1 July 2009, can be continued by the ATSB. For investigations already completed, the ATSB or the Chief Commissioner, as required, will be able to exercise powers in relation to such things as the disclosure of information. The Bill also provides for the ATSB to perform the functions of the Executive Director under other legislation such as the Inspector of Transport Security Act 2006 and regulations made under the Navigation Act 1912 and the Air Navigation Act 1920 establishing confidential reporting schemes. With respect to the confidential reporting schemes, the Bill provides for a regulation making power to consolidate those schemes under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 in the future.

The introduction of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2009 will serve to maintain and improve the already excellent safety record of the Australian aviation, marine and rail transport industries by establishing the ATSB as a separate statutory agency. Strengthening the independence of the ATSB in this way will facilitate better interaction with the transport industry and other agencies and demonstrate the Government’s strong commitment to ongoing and important improvements in Australia’s transport safety framework.

---

Now contemplate that with those ministerial weasel words and then the 'inconvenient ditching' of VH-NGA, how the exact opposite has occurred with the establishment of the ATSB as a 'statutory agency' -  

Is it any wonder that Albo went scampering away from all responsibility for addressing the damning findings of the Senate PelAir inquiry prior to the 2013 Federal election.

Here is a reminder from the late Ben Sandilands of Albo's gutless obfuscation tactics in responding to the PelAir cover-up Senate report:

---

Aug 28, 2013

Pel-Air on prime time TV snares Minister’s false statement

Ben Sandilands — Editor of Plane Talking     

The Minister for Transport Anthony Albanese was caught out on 7 News tonight in a report by Chris Reason on the festering sore that is the proven hush up by CASA and the ATSB of all of the circumstances that were relevant to the crash of a Pel-Air operated air ambulance flight near Norfolk Island in 2009.

Albanese said he was unable to take action over a damning Senate committee report on lies and deceits of Australia’s two air safety authorities because parliament went into caretaker mode.

Minister, this is total unmitigated rubbish. Caretaker mode began on 5 August.

On 29 May after consultation with your department Plane Talking published this story as to the urgency with which you and your departmental head Mike Mrdak were claimed to be responding to the unanimous report of the Senate Committee inquiry into aviation safety investigations with particular reference to the performance of the ATSB (the safety investigator) and CASA (the safety regulator).

At that inquiry the Director of Safety at CASA, John McCormick, admitted to withholding an internal audit by CASA that found that the accident was preventable if CASA had actually carried out its duties and obligations in law in relation to the oversight of Pel-Air.

Mr McCormick also apologised for his actions, which the committee has referred to the Australian Federal Police to resolve whether or not it was action that constituted an offence under the Transport Safety Investigations Act of 2003.  (If the words in the act mean what they say, McCormick broke the law.)

The committee went on to devote an entire chapter of its report into its lack of confidence in the testimony given by the chief commissioner for the ATSB, Martin Dolan.  The committee’s findings, made by a panel drawn from Labor, the Coalition and the Greens, was unanimous in its findings.

It also recommended, among other things, that the ATSB reconsider its final accident report and in the process retrieve the data recorder from the wreckage of the jet, which lies at a recoverable depth on the sea floor near Norfolk Island where it came to rest after being ditched immediately before it ran out of fuel. (All six persons on board were subsequently rescued by a fishing boat in the middle of the night).

The ATSB has deliberately chosen not to recover the data, which carries the distinct possibility of proving that the pilot did not receive correct meteorological information before flying the jet to a position where it could no longer divert to an alternative airport in Noumea or Fiji should it be unable to land at Norfolk Island for a refueling stop.

The ATSB failed to honor its international obligations to make safety recommendations in relation to the failure on board the ditched jet of all of the safety equipment to perform as intended.  It regarded the eventual discovery that CASA had found Pel-Air to be in breach of dozens of safety requirements at the time of the crash as ‘immaterial’, and it framed its final report to visit the entire blame for the accident on the captain Dominic James, who was central to the 7 News report, which should be readily found by a search query on the internet later tonight.

As Mick Quinn, the former deputy chief executive officer of CASA told Chris Reason on 7 News tonight, this corrupted and untruthful circus performance by the safety bodies in relation to the Pel-Air investigation has destroyed Australia’s reputation as a first class nation when it comes to the administration of air safety.

Minister, you are personally responsible for this. You allowed commitments to be made on your behalf, which were not honoured, and you have demonstrated contempt for the Senate of Australia by not responding to the committee’s recommendations within 90 days.

This means you have not acted in a timely manner to correct or restore the integrity of the aviation safety authorities, and that means the safety of Australian air travellers, and those of foreign airlines and their passengers using our air space and airports, is no longer a given.

On 30 May Plane Talking reported on the intention of the department of Infrastructure and Transport to ‘ride out’ the controversy over the disgraceful report issed by the ATSB into this accident.

Minister, surely you are not a party to ‘riding out’ critically important air safety issues? The world is unlikely to let Australia get away with such a poor attitude, as explained in this more recent report.

If the Minister can say so during caretaker mode, what was he thinking when he gave his misleading answer about his inability to repond to these matters in the Chris Reason interview?

Was it amnesia? Or did he think no one would notice that what was broadcast tonight was in conflict with his position at the end of May? & Ref - CH7 Chis Reason link: https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/18694051/pilots-scathing-attack-on-air-safety-agencies/

---

Fast forwarding to today's incarnation of the ATSB and we can see why it is that Greg Hood feels so emboldened to threaten singing like a canary if anyone dares to threaten his 6D Chester gifted fiefdom -  

Hmmm...if only Albo grew a set and as Minister responded appropriately to the damning findings of the Senate PelAir Inquiry report by firing Beaker and putting the ATSB on a proper path to ICAO Annex 13 international compliance then maybe, the bizarre reasoning of using the ATSB as the top-cover agency to head up the MH370 search, may never of happened.

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Are HVH & Beaker soon to get MH370 comeuppance??

I ask that question because it would appear that the sensible and 'REAL' subject matter experts are MAYBE finally coming to the fore.

The following belated news.com.au (courtesy the Sun) and independent.co.uk UK articles were recently bought to my attention via X: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/new...13071.html & https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-up...8b3eec1a08

MH370 expert: ‘I know how ‘suicidal’ pilot perfectly entombed plane and passengers beneath the ocean’

A leading aviation expert believes MH370 is buried in the ‘perfect’ spot to make it impossible to find.

Rebecca Husselbee
March 10, 2024 - 11:09AM

Missing MH370 and all its passengers are entombed on the sea floor after its “suicidal” pilot executed a perfect ditching into the ocean, a Brit pilot has claimed.

Simon Hardy spoke exclusively to The Sun on the tenth anniversary of the jet’s disappearance and believes the plane was downed in a never-before-searched spot where it would be lost forever.

On March 8, 2014, the Malaysian Airlines flight with 239 passengers bound for Beijing disappeared from flight radar over the South China Sea – and has never been found.

The lost flight remains one of the world’s biggest aviation mysteries – with the official narrative suggesting it was ditched somewhere over the Southern Indian Ocean, with all onboard presumed dead.

It is feared the aircraft’s pilot – Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah – may have deliberately crashed the plane in a chilling mass murder-suicide.

Many theories about where the plane may have ended its journey have emerged since.

But it was Boeing 777 pilot Simon Hardy’s hypothesis that caught the attention of the official MH370 search team.


A computer re-enactment shows what MH370’s final moments could have looked like as it plunged into the Southern Indian Ocean. Picture: National Geographic

He calculated the most likely position of the remains of the doomed flight.

The pilot was invited to join the search with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in 2015, where a team of experts were leading the hunt.

He was able to give his expert opinion and test out theories using the world’s best flight simulators until the search was wrapped up in 2017.

His calculations put the resting place for the plane just outside the official search area – and despite consulting on the operation, he never had the chance to prove his theory. Simon believes that the “suicidal” pilot carried out his meticulous plan to kill everyone onboard, entombing them inside the jet before neatly ditching the aircraft in a deep trench on the sea floor.

He said key clues such as extra fuel and oxygen added to the flight, bizarre satellite handshakes that tracked the doomed flight’s course, and the lack of debris all point to the same conclusion.

Speaking to The Sun, Simon explained how a “technique, not a theory” that led to his “eureka moment” – finding what he believes to be MH370’s final resting place.

Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah, 53, was heading for the Geelvinck Fracture Zone, Simon claimed.

The trench is hundreds of miles long meaning the pilot would have had some manoeuvre room when deciding where to ditch the plane.


Since 2014 only a few pieces of confirmed debris from the jet have ever been found. Picture: Yannick Pitou / AFP

The area is also plagued by earthquakes meaning the vanished jet could be buried beneath rocks under the Southern Indian Ocean.

Simon told The Sun: “If you did manage to get it[MH370] in there you might find you get it buried after a few years by rocks, so it might even be at the bottom of the sea covered.

Talking about the pilot, he said: “As a meticulous planner, would that add another level of satisfaction? It makes a nice destination rather than randomly ditching it in the sea miles from anywhere.”

Brit Simon suggests the pilot may have taken some sick pleasure in carrying out his plan – and it may have been enjoyable attempting to make a passenger plane disappear forever.

He also explained that Captain Shah’s homemade flight simulator showed the pilot recreating flights that ended in the middle of the Southern Indian Ocean with the aircraft running out of fuel.

The expert pilot has been flying Boeing 777 passenger flights around the world for more than 20 years and a flight instructor, training in the world’s best simulators.

Simon said he first became interested in the missing plane six months after it vanished when the first ATSB report on MH370 was published.

His “mathematical mind” took over when he noticed some intriguing details about the plane’s potential flight paths.

He told The Sun: “One particular graph showed 100 of a possible 5,000 routes and said no route is any more likely than any other.

“Well I knew that wasn’t right, and I knew I could use my mathematical-type mind to try and work out where it went.

“I spent a few months drawing lines until I found a unique line.”

Simon said he measured a constant speed line – and this gave him his “eureka moment”.

It showed that if the plane had taken this exact route, it would have been flying at 488 knots – the exact cruising speed of a Boeing 777 used by pilots every day to fly commercial planes.

Working backwards, his suggested flight path meets within half a degree of where the plane makes its final turn towards the Southern Indian Ocean.

He said: “That’s when I started thinking, ‘oh god I’ve got something’. They were two monumental things.”

Simon’s groundbreaking technique was published online by aviation journalists and a call from the Canberra ATSB HQ followed.

The pilot believes extra fuel and oxygen added to flight allowed the “suicidal” captain to fly nearly completely under the radar for another seven hours into the middle of nowhere.

It would have left the passengers and crew to fall unconscious and die in the cabin as he neatly ditched the jet so it could never be found.

Final journey

The official narrative suggests the plane made a bizarre U-turn, flying across Malaysia, turning northwest at Penang Island, and across the Andaman Sea after being tracked by military radar.

Before data from the Inmarsat satellite communications network revealed that the plane flew till at least 8.19am flying south into the Southern Indian Ocean.

On March 24, the Malaysian Government concluded that “flight MH370 ended in the Southern Indian Ocean” but several searches have been unsuccessful in recovering the wreckage.

Only a few pieces of debris were ever found one being the plane’s flaperon after it washed up on Reunion Island.

After it was studied by experts in France it was determined that the flaperon was in a downward position when it plunged into the ocean, Simon explains.

Simon said: “If you want the flaps down, there has to be someone there putting the flaps down.

“If you want to put flaps down you also have to have liquid fuel on the aircraft.

“So if the flaps were down, there is a liquid fuel, then someone is moving a lever and it’s someone who knows what they are doing. It all points to the same scenario.”

Needing a small amount of fuel for the engines to be running, and a perfect wave, the ditching would need exact precision, Simon said.

Too much leftover fuel would leave an oil slick on the surface and reveal the plane’s final resting place.


It’s been ten years since the plane vanished with 239 passengers onboard. Picture: Arif Kartono / AFP

And with not enough fuel, the pilot would not be able to carry out a perfect ditching, causing the jet to smash to pieces and leave debris to be discovered.

Simon said: “You don’t want to bring a lot of fuel and then not use it, because it’s gonna be creating an oil slick even many years later.

“Even if you have tones and tones of fuel and it’s at the bottom of the Geelvinck Fracture Zone it still will be leaving a plume of oily rainbow residue on the surface for years.

“He wants to preserve the aircraft but he doesn’t want to save the passengers.

“It’s all part of it being planned meticulously for, ‘how can I make it disappear, I don’t want tonnes of fuel but I do wanna go as far as possible’.

“If you’re of a motive to make it disappear then only one solution is to ditch it as neatly as possible, so it sinks to the bottom with all the people inside, with all the flotation devices indie, with no baggage.

“That’s what you want, if you want to make it disappear, you don’t crash it you ditch it.”

When asked if he thought the plane could be entombed at the bottom of the ocean if it was successfully ditched he added: “Yes, I think that’s exactly how it is.

“Imagine Miracle on the Hudson but everyone is already dead … nobody gets out and it sinks to the bottom of the Southern Indian Ocean. Nobody opens a door.

“Where does all the wreckage go? Well, there isn’t any, that’s why we’ve been deprived of wreckage.”

Boeing pilot Simon, who has flown the same journey MH370 should have taken that night, also spoke in depth about bizarre additions to the flight before it “headed to oblivion”.

The MH370’s operational flight plan shows that an extra 3,000kg of fuel was added to the plan, the maximum amount of extra fuel that can be added to a Boeing 777 passenger flight.

The added fuel would have given the pilot an additional 30 minutes of flying time or as Simon explains more time to ditch the plane in the ocean in daylight.


The small unsearched area (in black) of the Southern Indian Ocean, Captain Simon Hardy considers to be the most likely resting place of MH370. Supplied

The passenger pilot told The Sun: “If you want to do a good ditching you do it in daylight or at least half daylight.

“In the case of MH370, if the pilot has another half an hour of fuel it will be daylight.

“Another half an hour of flying would be another 244 nautical miles and the most important thing is that it will be daylight.”

The plane’s technical log also shows how the crew’s oxygen levels were topped up – despite them not being low.

Simon explained that oxygen levels would have been enough for a short flight to Beijing and didn’t meet the official requirements for a top-up.

But a bizarre scribble is added to the log – showing that the oxygen solely for the cockpit was topped last minute, but not for the cabin crew or the passengers.

Simon said: “It’s an incredible coincidence that just before this aircraft disappears forever, one of the last things that was done as the engineer says nil noted[no oxygen added], then someone else gets on onboard and says it’s a bit low.

“Well it’s not really low at all … it’s a strange coincidence that the last engineering task that was done before it headed off to oblivion was topping up crew oxygen which is only for the cockpit, not for the cabin crew.”

Satellite clues

For the first hour of MH370’s flight, the plane’s satellite system is successfully turned off but still traceable.

However, over the Southern Indian Ocean at a point which was later labelled by British satellite comms company Immasat as the first arc, the Boeing 777 satellite system comes back on.

The system is then on for around five hours sending a series of “handshakes” or signs to the Immasat satellite to give away its location.

The final time MH370’s satellite system comes to life is in a spot later dubbed the 7th Arc, the very last Arc and last trace of the doomed flight.

The bizarre signals picked up by Immasat are key clues for what happened in the plane’s last moments.

Boeing pilot Simon has been able to unravel the meaning behind the handshakes and why at the 7th Arc the plane’s satellite system is turned off, back on, and finally off again.

He explains that to turn off the satellite unit completely the pilot would have to disable the jet’s electrical systems that power it.

In doing so this would have caused an error message warning that the plane’s equipment would overheat in just 30 minutes.

Therefore the pilot would have been forced to turn everything back on rather than rick ditching too early – creating the First Arc.

It also explains why the satellite system remained on for the next five hours, but the jet sends five off “handshakes” each later labelled as Arc two to six.

When the pilot finally makes his descent, he knows that the plane will be in the water before it overheats so he turns the electrical systems off.

He then starts up the plane’s auxiliary power unit (AUP) to drop the plane’s landing gear, Simon explains.

The landing gear is designed to take impact, so as the plane rapidly descends for around 45 minutes to the sea floor it helps cushion the final blow.

Having unintentionally turned the satellite system back on with the AUP, the pilot turns it off for the final time as the plane plummets to its final resting place – with all the passengers dead and entombed inside.

Simon says: “It goes down in a massive spiral for half an hour or 45 minutes, it doesn’t get to the bottom[sea floor] very quickly.

“When it eventually gets there, the landing gear protects it[MH370] from rupturing and the stuff we don’t have which is bodies and baggage all stays inside.”

Simon also works as a flying instructor and has access to the best Boeing 777 flight simulators in the world.

He tested his theory in the cockpit and said he was meant with the same error message when he reancted the plane’s doomed flight path.

Several searches and a series of blunders for the missing jet have found nothing but loved ones and experts pushing for a new investigation have been given a glimmer of hope.

Next yesterday (again via X), courtesy GBNews:

MH370: Bombshell new data exposes two MAJOR revelations as mystery of missing Malaysian Airlines plane begins to become clear

By Georgina Cutler
Published: 11/04/2024 - 11:51

New data has unveiled two important revelations in the case of a missing Malaysian Airlines flight which vanished in 2014.

Investigators are one step closer to piecing together what happened to the doomed plane as new radar analysis supports two major conclusions.

Aerospace expert Jean-Luc Marchand and pilot Captain Patrick Blelly have concluded that the missing flight - carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew members - was piloted manually by an "experienced qualified person".

Data analysed by the retired Programme Manager on Air Traffic Management and former A330/A340 Captain also found that the flight likely climbed to 30,000 or 32,000ft before an "emergency descent" was performed after the aircraft was depressurised.



The latest data comes a month after US marine robotics company Ocean Infinity announced a proposal for a new search in the south Indian Ocean where the plane is believed to have crashed 10 years ago.

Marchand and Blelly's latest MH370 study complies both aeronautical, technical and operational perspectives and concludes that the plane’s transponder was turned off and the aircraft made a U-turn away from the flight path.

The team believes it is likely the aircraft was then intentionally ditched.

The new, original data based on Malaysian military radars and published by Geoscience Australia has been analysed for the first time and now confirms important aspects of the flight between the diversion at IGARI (the final checkpoint within Malaysian airspace) and the end of the radar coverage at 18.22.

The two latest revelations supports Marchand and Blelly hypothesis.

In their report, the investigators said: "From take-off to IGARI, the aircraft demonstrated an excellent capability to fly a geometrically perfect trajectory controlled by the Auto Pilot function.

"The precision is remarkable. After IGARI, no such precision is visible. Even considering radar measurement errors, the trajectory presents the characteristics of a manually piloted flight.

"In particular, the reconstructed U-Turn simulated a year before recovering this new data matches the data perfectly.

"Thanks to this data, the U-Turn radius is now known numerically. It demonstrates that the U-turn could not be performed other than manually."

The duo's latest trajectory of the plane suggests the flight rerouted at IGARI - located one-third of the way from the Malaysian coast to Vietnam - as it manually flew over Malaysia until Penang Island where the copilot’s mobile phone was detected.

While still manually piloted, it headed to the north of Sumatra, when it disappeared from the radar surveillance before turning southwest between Sumatra and the Andaman Islands.

As the flight reached between 30,000 or 32,000ft, Marchand and Blelly believe the plane then made an "emergency descent" likely simulated after depressurising the aircraft.


Jean-Luc Marchand and Captain Patrick Blelly have investigated the trajectory of the MH370 using the radars from Kuala Lumpur until the exit from the radar coverage at 18.22Digital data behind ATSB 'MH370 path' from take-off from Kuala Lumpur until exiting radar coverage at 18h22 UTC Version 1.0 – 10th April 2024 Jean-Luc Marchand, MSc, trise5631 & Captain Patrick Blelly

The investigators said: "After the flame-out of the right engine, the left engine was voluntarily, manually shut down leading to a controlled glide and a controlled ditching.

"The aircraft has been always piloted by an experienced qualified person.

The report concludes: "The first major hypothesis made in this study is to consider that the person in command went for a fatal journey of no return. The hypothesis of a technical failure has been proven to be unlikely."

Marchand told GB News: “The aircraft followed the path of a sad journey with an experimented pilot who took over the aircraft and had a well thought plan to stay as much invisible as possible and ending finally in the southeast of the Indian Ocean.

“And the indications, it's most probably with the final ditching, leaving very few debris again not to be found after the hijacking and the re-routing.

“So basically, the study of all the details and the evidences left by the aircraft showed that it followed a very well thought in advanced plan and clearly with a lot of success.”

 

MTF...P2 

[ventus45]

Simon is on the money, always was, from the earliest days. So was Nik Huzlan.

[P7_TOM]

The ultimate answer to MH 370. (By P7).

I've just wasted two beers and a 3/4 hour of my life I'll never get back listening to the 'new' theories of 'what happened'. It is incredibly wearisome to listen to the endless theories and hapless 'make-a-buck' (or a name) mouthpieces postulating and spinning themselves into the 'media' and/or some kind of minor celebrity status on the back of of this 'mystery' - alleged. - when Holmes, Miss Marple or Poirot would have it nutted out by tea time.

Fact check - if 'they' wanted the aircraft found; and, if there was enough 'public' pressure to do so; or, even some genuine political will, then the search would never have been called off. For the record, neither would the likes of Hood and Dolan ever been let loose to manage the search and media circus. A man like Foley in charge; aided and abetted by AMSA - well, that would be a different ball game. But no, Foley and his 'mates' benched; Hood in charge - I ask you; seriously - FDS - & Why????

The old adage of "piss or get off the pot' has real relevance here; and, money is not an objective reason for denying offers of search. Go Lloyd's open -'no cure no pay' would attract the more adventurous and privately funded entrepreneurs. Hell; what's his name - him what runs that 'Twitter' thing, could fund it just for bragging rights from his petty cash.  It's BOLLOCKS.

Find it or forget about it - the Indian ocean is no mans regime - who'd want it? Why are 'governments' so set against any and all new search offers? So, why do we get these 'theorists' endlessly banging out pointless, no conclusion arguments, apart from craving the money and the attention (in no particular order) as long as there is a buck or a sound grab in it for them. Bull-shit....

Want to know what happened?

Great - go and find the blessed thing; or, for pities sake; STFU.

Waste of good drinking time the whole thing -

Bring Ale my son; and tobacco, I have a great need of quiet, sanity and the peace they bring to this mad world. Let us sit outside, with the dogs in the calm of the evening, smoke and talk quietly, as thinking men do, the world over...

(Anyway - the ET's have it)..CLICK..........