MAS B772 9M-MRO Flight MH370 KUL-PEK Missing with All 239 POB Presumed Killed

[Cire 0]

 

If they don't investigate, I'm sure some people will say 'why are they not investigating this? Are they trying to hide something?'

 

Besides the people who would ask why the team is not investigating this claim/s, there are also people who would ask the question about the affirmation of the mathematically worked out satellite pings and sonar detections on the South Indian Ocean.

 

If the Malaysian and experts investigators are "for sure" that MH370 ended its flight over the South Indian Ocean, then this investigation over the Bengal bay is purely done to put a closure to some of the earlier assumptions.

Its hard to being "led" around with 'very promising' leads on the pings and sonar detection that put a conclusion that MH370 did ditch in the South Indian Ocean only to be once again diverted to another site/s where the plane could have landed.

This "entertaining" claims will raise the questions of how much actually the team knows, really. Or do they really know? Aren't they sure of what they were doing? It raises some "hope" for the concerns, but only to be dashed later on with actions. It's like a wild goose chase. A moment it is here, a moment later it is there.

 

So, if the whole search is merely based on some possibilities only, then there is no closure for it.

[hafiziza 0]

ANALYSIS: The theories and fantasies about MH370

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-the-theories-and-fantasies-about-mh370-398704/

[hafiziza 0]

Search for Flight 370 reveals limits of China's global leadership

 

http://www.scmp.com/comment/article/1500580/search-flight-370-reveals-limits-chinas-global-leadership

[H Azmal 0]

Navy scouring Bay of Bengal again for MH370 after GeoResonance claim

 

Bangladesh Navy has mounted a renewed search for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in the Bay of Bengal after an Australian exploration company claimed to have traced its debris.

Two ships – BNS Bangabandhu and BNS Anusandhan – began scouring the sea from Tuesday night, Navy Director (Intelligence) Commodore Rashid Ali told bdnews24.com on Wednesday.

 

Geophysical survey company GeoResonance on Monday said it had spotted pieces of wreckage in the Bay of Bengal and that it should be investigated as potential debris from the Malaysian plane.

 

http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2014/04/30/navy-scouring-bay-of-bengal-again-for-mh370-after-georesonance-claim

[Naim 6]

The Georesonance claim sounds like sorcery. Apparently using 3rd party satellite images, they claim to be able to detect radio emissions of individual atoms to determine the materials! From an object hundreds of metres underwater?

[Waiping 12]

Well maybe they have better luck than our Bomoh sorcery.

[Lim Kar Yong 0]

Satelite images are better than some binoculars and coconuts.

[xtemujin 0]

AIN Blog: Torqued: Malaysia Air Flight 370 Shows Refresher Needed in ICAO Protocols

By John Goglia | 1 May 2014 Thursday | 1:56am

 

 

As I write, the whereabouts of the missing Boeing 777 operating as Malaysia Air Flight 370 en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing remains unknown. The Prime Minister of Malaysia has announced that analysis of satellite data suggests the airplane crashed in the south Indian Ocean but no debris linked to the aircraft has been found.

 

Almost from the beginning of what became a world drama (and an unimaginable ordeal for the families of passengers and crew), the disappearance of Flight 370 highlighted the problems that can arise when a small country inexperienced in accident investigations tackles the mammoth task of hunting for an airliner missing in a vast expanse of land and ocean–all in the 24/7 glare of nonstop global media attention. While clues were scant, those that did emerge were not pursued promptly in the delay, confusion and misinformation that marked the early days of the investigation.

 

From the very beginning and continuing for days into the disappearance of Flight 370, Malaysian officials were not forthcoming with information, and what little they did release was frequently contradictory. Precious time was lost early on when officials did not share with investigators (including those from the NTSB) Malaysian military radar data showing the aircraft turning off its route toward Beijing. As a result, multi-national searchers spent days looking for the aircraft in the South China Sea between Malaysia and Vietnam, squandering untold resources and introducing a delay that surely added to the difficulties of locating the aircraft–a delay that could conceivably make it impossible ever to find the aircraft without the expenditure of extraordinary time and resources.

 

At a minimum, Malaysian officials were required to share all information promptly with U.S. investigators, who under ICAO had the right to all the data as the country of design and manufacture of the missing Boeing 777. In this case the investigation was hampered by the lack of an independent accident investigation board whose sole mission, in accordance with ICAO requirements, is to conduct an investigation to determine the probable cause and contributing factors of what occurred so as to prevent a future accident and to issue safety recommendations. Unfortunately, the Malaysian investigation was headed by the Acting Minister of Transportation, who also happened to be the Minister of Defense. Neither position was likely to bring an independent point of view to the investigation, and combined, of course, the dual position was even less likely to pursue the investigation with the focus required by Malaysia’s obligations to the ICAO treaty.

 

International Cooperative Effort Needed

 

Watching the delays in sharing information was frustrating to me as a former NTSB Member. My experience working on several air disasters crossing international borders is that no matter what the political positions of the various countries, when it came to accident investigations the experts worked together as though there were no borders. I can only imagine how frustrating it has been for current NTSB investigators, knowing they were being kept at bay and prevented from really helping despite their expertise and experience. It has been particularly dismaying because the protocols for accident investigations that affect multiple countries are clearly spelled out in Annex 13 of ICAO, the chapter that deals with accident investigations involving member states. There was nothing that I could see that arose during the course of the MH370 investigation that wasn’t spelled out or addressed in Annex 13.

 

It seems to me that the framers of Annex 13 carefully considered all possible scenarios that could arise when an aircraft crashes or goes missing, and they addressed them to make it clear which country should be in charge of the investigation; which countries are expected to assist in any search; and which countries have rights to participate and receive information. Annex 13 even addresses how to treat a missing aircraft when you don’t know what has happened to it. (The definition of accident covers missing aircraft.) So, the requirements of Annex 13 apply to the missing Malaysia Air flight just as surely as they would if the airplane had crashed and its wreckage had been located.

 

Usually the state in which a crash happens is the country responsible for the accident investigation, regardless of the nationality of the owner or operator of the aircraft. This is why the NTSB was responsible for investigating the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 at San Francisco International Airport in July last year.

In the case of a missing aircraft, Annex 13 provides that the state where the aircraft is registered is responsible, in this case Malaysia. Annex 13 also provides that the state of the aircraft’s design and the state of the aircraft’s manufacture (in both cases here the U.S.) are entitled to participate in the investigation and to have access to all information as soon as possible.

 

Annex 13 even considers the possibility that a state might not be able to fulfill its obligations under ICAO or might not want to conduct an accident investigation, for whatever reason. Annex 13 takes care of that situation, too, by specifically allowing a state to delegate responsibility for an accident investigation to another state, by mutual agreement. If any situation cried out for use of that delegation authority, it seems to me it was the disappearance of the Boeing 777 operating as Malaysia Air Flight 370.

 

Unfortunately, the one factor that ICAO perhaps did not consider in drafting Annex 13 was a nation’s pride in seeking help from other countries. I believe that Malaysia’s reluctance in not immediately asking the U.S. and other countries with more expertise and experience in accident investigations for assistance had as much to do with misplaced pride as with lack of familiarity with such a massive investigation. So, while I see this accident as pointing out the need for ICAO to remind its member countries of their obligations in accident investigation, I also see an opportunity for ICAO to emphasize to smaller nations with less aviation accident expertise that asking for expert help from other countries is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength.

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/blogs/ain-blog-torqued-malaysia-air-flight-370-shows-refresher-needed-icao-protocols?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[hafiziza 0]

Investigators to Re-Examine Clues in Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

 

http://stream.wsj.com/story/malaysia-airlines-flight-370/SS-2-475558/SS-2-521217/

[Paul Saccani 0]

The Georesonance claim sounds like sorcery. Apparently using 3rd party satellite images, they claim to be able to detect radio emissions of individual atoms to determine the materials! From an object hundreds of metres underwater?

Having had a good look at their material, it certainly does sound like hokum. I mean, they are claiming to get nuclear resonance signatures from optical satellite imagery, which is a pure nonsense.

[hafiziza 0]

MH370 preliminary report:

 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152221402889355.1073741995.72613804354&type=1&l=96dcd9ced0

 

Cargo manifest for MH370:

 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152221436514355.1073741997.72613804354&type=1

 

Map showing MH370's flight path:

 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152221414824355.1073741996.72613804354&type=1

 

 

MH370 - Why Search Teams Ignored Georesonance

 

http://www.science20.com/the_chatter_box/mh370_why_search_teams_ignored_georesonance-135363

Edited May 1, 2014 by hafiziza

[hafiziza 0]

Seating plan for MH370:

 

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152221464674355.1073741999.72613804354&type=1

 

Actions taken between the hours of 01:38 and 06:14 on Saturday 8 March

 

https://www.facebook.com/HishammuddinH2O/photos/a.10152221443729355.1073741998.72613804354/10152221443854355/?type=1&permPage=1

 

 

Full text of Hishammuddin's press statement on MH370 on May 1, 2014 (plus the audio recordings of conversations between the cockpit of MH370 and Kuala Lumpur air traffic control)

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/asia/south-east-asia/story/full-text-hishammuddins-press-statement-mh370-may-1-2014-20140501

Edited May 1, 2014 by hafiziza

[hafiziza 0]

UK Inmarsat remains confident on flight MH370's wreckage positioning

http://english.cntv.cn/2014/05/01/VIDE1398897000245291.shtml

[Naim 6]

UK Inmarsat remains confident on flight MH370's wreckage positioning

http://english.cntv.cn/2014/05/01/VIDE1398897000245291.shtml

 

 

Of course, it is based on good science, unlike Georesonance's.

Having had a good look at their material, it certainly does sound like hokum. I mean, they are claiming to get nuclear resonance signatures from optical satellite imagery, which is a pure nonsense.

 

Even if they had mounted multi-spectral sensors on planes and had scanned the area, it's farfetched to think that electromagnetic waves from the atoms' nuclei would have been detected. Bad science.

[Mushrif A 3]

The report doesn't make it clear when the playback of the military primary radar recording was done. Also, it was silent if there was any real-time observation of what the military primary radar showed when MH370 allegedly crossed the peninsula.

 

It also didn't state if KL-ATCC attempted to check with their military counterparts if the latter had observed anything on their radar screens.

 

It's funny how the M'sian report proposes a big-picture solution that the ICAO introduce a standard for real-time tracking of commercial aircraft - when a simpler hotline between KL-ATCC and the RMAF, enhanced communication & co-operation (if there wasn't one in the first place - and so far, it is pointing at that direction), could be relatively easier to implement and that too, within the controls of Malaysia.

[BC Tam 2]

It's funny how the M'sian report proposes a big-picture solution that the ICAO introduce a standard for real-time tracking of commercial aircraft - when a simpler hotline between KL-ATCC and the RMAF, enhanced communication & co-operation (if there wasn't one in the first place - and so far, it is pointing at that direction), could be relatively easier to implement and that too, within the controls of Malaysia.

Better glamour value ?

Face it, 'ICAO sanctioned real-time tracking' sounds so much sexier than 'picking up the phone'

[Cire 0]

The report doesn't make it clear when the playback of the military primary radar recording was done. Also, it was silent if there was any real-time observation of what the military primary radar showed when MH370 allegedly crossed the peninsula.

 

It also didn't state if KL-ATCC attempted to check with their military counterparts if the latter had observed anything on their radar screens.

 

It's funny how the M'sian report proposes a big-picture solution that the ICAO introduce a standard for real-time tracking of commercial aircraft - when a simpler hotline between KL-ATCC and the RMAF, enhanced communication & co-operation (if there wasn't one in the first place - and so far, it is pointing at that direction), could be relatively easier to implement and that too, within the controls of Malaysia.

 

Typical of Malaysians politicians. When at fault, they point their fingers the other way instead of self diagnosing and make amendments.

Besides, its much easier that way to lead the attention away from the home ground.

 

The relevations did indeed raises much more questions than answers, and indeed showed a lack of competency in handling such situation, whether precedented or not.

It also reviewed serious flaws in the communication between civilian and military agencies in relations to air traffic monitoring. More critical was, the team led by the DCA did not convene in an organised manner, and it appears that no one is leading or willing to put their neck out to take responsibilty of the incident (during that time).

Obvious reason is the unexplainable time taken to activate SAR.

 

Typical too in the Malaysian scenario, none of this responsibled team members are volunteering to resign from their respective post for the farce that they have made so far.

Like the good old premier, it was never Malaysia's culture where leaders who have failed to perform will resign in honor.

 

Its everyone's hope that a more comprehensive SOP is in place after this incident.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Cire

[flee 5]

Typical too in the Malaysian scenario, none of this responsibled team members are volunteering to resign from their respective post for the farce that they have made so far.

Like the good old premier, it was never Malaysia's culture where leaders who have failed to perform will resign in honor.

Cire, you should know - integrity is quite a foreign word to these people.

[BC Tam 2]

..... - integrity is quite a foreign word to these people.

Not exactly true, does the local lingo have an equivalent to 'integrity' ?

[Cire 0]

Not exactly true, does the local lingo have an equivalent to 'integrity' ?

 

Integrity is just another word hung on the walls of governmental offices everywhere. Sooner or later, it will just become another wall piece that no one will take a second look at it.

 

On a different note, anyone have any suspicion at all on the conversation between the tower and MH370?

Gone thru several live ATC chats online to compare, and the MH370's conversation recording seems to be just another routine conversation.

 

Now all fault finding is focused on the prolonged time between loosing contact and activation of SAR.

In addition, why there is a slack in time communicating with the military radar , and vice versa.

[kandiah k 0]

Not exactly true, does the local lingo have an equivalent to 'integrity' ?

Strangely enough, there is a word in the Malay language.

 

Integriti sebenarnya berasal dari istilah bahasa Inggeris yang membawa erti keutuhan dari semua segi yang baik. Dalam bahasa Melayu, ia biasanya menjurus kearah perwatakan seseorang. Maksud integriti mengikut Kamus Dwibahasa DBP, 1985, ialah kejujuran dan ketulusan; kesempurnaan; keutuhan.

[BC Tam 2]

Strangely enough, there is a word in the Malay language.

Shouldn't be anything strange about it then !

Thanks for the DBP input, but sadly we don't see those Malay terms being applied often, certainly much less frequent than the term borrowed from bahasa england

(sorry, OT)

[S V Choong 4]

"Integriti" is not Malay in origin, therefore a loan word takes a fair amount of time to digest and sink into the culture.

 

The East Asians will resign over their failure, like the SK minister had. However, in Malaysia, the norm is to blame other people. It has been so since Dr. M's tenure. He blames everyone for all the failure, the colonialists, the
"pendatangs" (the new comers), the western countries (specifically the "white" men) and lately, the plane manufacturer, Boeing. If you can blame someone and get away with it, like they have in the past, why would you blame it on yourself?

[KK Lee 5]

As if/provided real-time tracking can't be turn off by pilot.

[flee 5]

As if/provided real-time tracking can't be turn off by pilot.

Yes, unless it is an independent system that automatically turns itself on and off upon take off and landing. And it has to be a satellite based system since ADS-B needs ground equipment for it to function.