MH 777 missing - MH370 media statement

[whatmeworry]

Ex B773 Emirates pilot Byron Bailey has again contributed a media piece, this time on page 19 of the 'Inquirer' section of the Saturday 14 - Sunday 15 May 2016 'The Weekend Australian.'

It is likely to be fairly similar to what he has previously written; one AFF pilot contributor has previously said that he does not agree with Mr Bailey's assertions.

Because the article is protected by a paywall, bear with me as I repeat and paraphrase small parts of the article:

'..the search appears to have been conducted in the wrong area..if...(pilot) Shah was trying to hide his aircraft...he would endeavour to fly as far as possible before the fuel ran out...this is how I would manage this...'

Mr Bailey then goes on to say that he would fly at mach 0.83 as high as possible; as the first engine 'flamed out' he would start a slow speed 220 knots indicated airspeed descent - second engine at idle. Then select flap just before second engine flamed out, ensuring that he still had hydraulic pressure to minimise debris in the sea. At 5000 feet, fly into the wind and ditch at as low a speed as possible, which would still be above 250 kilometres an hour.'

That is a precis; I have omitted a bit of other technical detail.

Mr Bailey concludes that he cannot answer why the ATSB did not listen to experts (as opposed to what he terms armchair 'aviation consultants') who would have placed the search area at least 400 kilometres further south and west (compared with the area that was expensively searched.) He says that this is why MH370 has not been found.

The article is because the search is to be terminated next month. If I recall, hundreds of millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' funds have been expended - Mr Bailey would assert that this has been to little effect.

These questions are highly technical and those of us like me who are laymen cannot have an opinion as to which area ought to have been prioritised for the airborne and seaborne searches, except to note that at this stage the results have been unsatisfactory for investigators and especially for relatives of the deceased who presumably want answers so that (to use that awful USA word) 'closure' can occur.

Notably, Mr Bailey allegedly has many thousands of flying hours on B777s.

I don't know about how many hundred of millions of dollars but at least 100 million has been spent.

All I know is we need to find that bloody black box so all this speculation can end.

 

[straitman]

I have been told that Byron Bailey completed RAAF pilots course under a different name in about 1967/68. He has apparently had a lot to to say in the MH370 matter but it appears that he is not who and what he says he is. There is a quite a behind the scenes discussion about his credentials and credibility. As it is quite a while since I was asked about him I've forgotten some details but will make enquiries and report back when I have some answers.

I would personally back the credibility of Sir Angus Houston, who is a friend, against his.

I don't know about how many hundred of millions of dollars but at least 100 million has been spent.

All I know is we need to find that bloody black box so all this speculation can end.

Remember that a lot of the quoted cost is for P3 flying that would still have happened with or without MH370. I'd also suggest that the black box will now be well and truely asleep.

 

[medhead]

Because the article is protected by a paywall, bear with me as I repeat and paraphrase small parts of the article:

Can you provide the title of the story. A google search for the title is pretty good at defeating the paywall. Also at least provide a link even just to the pay wall, that allows us to do our own searching.

I don't know about how many hundred of millions of dollars but at least 100 million has been spent.

All I know is we need to find that bloody black box so all this speculation can end.

Why so down on the black box? Surely you mean Bl.... speculation?

 

[Melburnian1]

medhead, title was 'Debris confirms MH370 crash zone' with sub heading of 'The search for the missing aircraft enters its final weeks.' As stated above, page 19 of 'The Weekend Australian', 14-15 May 2016.

Next time a 'please' would be appreciated.

If you visit a newsagent this morning some may still have copies of the 'Weekend Oz' which as always is an enjoyable read.

 

[Melburnian1]

I have been told that Byron Bailey completed RAAF pilots course under a different name in about 1967/68. He has apparently had a lot to to say in the MH370 matter but it appears that he is not who and what he says he is. There is a quite a behind the scenes discussion about his credentials and credibility. As it is quite a while since I was asked about him I've forgotten some details but will make enquiries and report back when I have some answers.

straitman, fine - but the Internet contains all manner of scuttlebutt. The more important issue is whether his arguments are credible. Many authors throughout the history of the written word have adopted nom de plumes.

The ATSB has a motive to discredit 'Mr Bailey' as it must be extremely embarrassing for it to have to front the Minister (and Prime Minister) and try to explain why so much expenditure of public funds has seemingly had almost a nil result, even if the Malaysians have the primary responsibility. The pieces of the aircraft that have been recovered were all not from anything the searchers undertook if I recall, but rather such evidence washing up on beaches.

Government funding in any area is not infinite. There is always an opportunity cost to using monies in one area. Of course, Australia has responsibilities under international maritime law in such searches.

 

[medhead]

medhead, title was 'Debris confirms MH370 crash zone' with sub heading of 'The search for the missing aircraft enters its final weeks.' As stated above, page 19 of 'The Weekend Australian', 14-15 May 2016.

Next time a 'please' would be appreciated.

If you visit a newsagent this morning some may still have copies of the 'Weekend Oz' which as always is an enjoyable read.

That got past the paywall fine. Thanks.

As for please, just asking you to provide the basic level of information. Perhaps I'll just provide a link to the media story posting guideline. Can you follow it in future, pretty please with sugar on top?

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....el-news/how-post-travel-news-items-17862.html

 

[straitman]

straitman, fine - but the Internet contains all manner of scuttlebutt. The more important issue is whether his arguments are credible. Many authors throughout the history of the written word have adopted nom de plumes.

The ATSB has a motive to discredit 'Mr Bailey' as it must be extremely embarrassing for it to have to front the Minister (and Prime Minister) and try to explain why so much expenditure of public funds has seemingly had almost a nil result, even if the Malaysians have the primary responsibility. The pieces of the aircraft that have been recovered were all not from anything the searchers undertook if I recall, but rather such evidence washing up on beaches.

Government funding in any area is not infinite. There is always an opportunity cost to using monies in one area. Of course, Australia has responsibilities under international maritime law in such searches.

Seems that you have missed my point because it doesn't suit your agenda.

I was trying to subtly suggest that his credibility has been questioned by quite a few knowledgable people who have no vested interest in anything other than solving the puzzle. If you don't want to take this at face value then nothing I say will dissuade you. (Or you simply could wait and see if the extra info is worthwhile or not)

 

[Melburnian1]

straitman, no, I didn't miss your point and happy to wait for any evidence about the said Mr Bailey, but in the end it is more important to concentrate upon the various discussions about what the facts of MH370 may be, rather than personalities.

'Mr Bailey' and the ATSB may have separate, conflicting 'agendas' about the MH370 search. Perhaps 'Mr Bailey' and the ATSB or other government aviation authorities such as CASA have had run-ins previously, a la Mr Dick Smith? Mr Smith, for instance, is a polarising figure who has also had many articles published critical of aviation regulation in relation to separation standards or similar matters. Aviation journalist Ben Sandilands (not a pilot as far as I know) is also critical of ATSB, in his case about Pel-Air, and like Mr Smith can be quite assertive (or aggressive) in articles. However it is of more import to consider their arguments - again, a technical question.

My interest is merely in observing that public funds are finite and so it is incumbent upon governments to try to spend wisely, while noting that as a sovereign nation we have signed up to many international responsibilities. For relatives of the deceased, the amount of spending may never be sufficient until the facts are determined and everything recovered, but governments as always have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Awesom Andy]

My interest is merely in observing that public funds are finite and so it is incumbent upon governments to try to spend wisely, while noting that as a sovereign nation we have signed up to many international responsibilities. For relatives of the deceased, the amount of spending may never be sufficient until the facts are determined and everything recovered, but governments as always have to draw the line somewhere.

This is probably why the search was conducted in the current zone, as the authorities would (or at least, should) follow the advice from trusted experts rather than someone with questionable credibility. Of course, nobody really knows who is right (until the wreckage is found), and there are quite a few valid technical questions which there are currently no answers to. But when you don't have anything to go with, you would start with the most trusted sources.

 

[docjames]

straitman the extra info would be useful. Thanks in advance.

Are you imply, character or background doesn't mean total (in)validation of opinion, but can provide context to said opinions.....

 

[medhead]

Not sure about this concern for the use of public funds. The government has paid a mineral/oil exploration company to run their exploration tools over vast sections of the indian ocean. No doubt there is a high potential for that investment to be returned in the form of royalties

 

[RooFlyer]

Not sure about this concern for the use of public funds. The government has paid a mineral/oil exploration company to run their exploration tools over vast sections of the indian ocean. No doubt there is a high potential for that investment to be returned in the form of royalties

Mining manganese nodules ?

 

[greenfish]

Not sure about this concern for the use of public funds. The government has paid a mineral/oil exploration company to run their exploration tools over vast sections of the indian ocean. No doubt there is a high potential for that investment to be returned in the form of royalties

That's a long way off-shore. Would Australia automatically have rights to any finds?

 

[RAM]

Having seen multiple instances where both large companies and Govt bodies have 'smeared' people who have pointed out short comings or even fraud/corruption over the years - also agree that the focus should be on the issues not the person.

Playing the man not the ball does not engender much confidence in the invalidity of what is said.

I personally have been shown irrefutable evidence of a number of 'events' involving either the Fed (mostly) or a State Govt (a couple of times) where the truth was deliberately suppressed and a smear campaign launched against the whistle-blowers or community involved in shining a light on serious 'errors'. In a couple of cases I uncovered deliberate forgery by very top level public servants. One instance led to a Senate Inquiry, the other just disappeared from public view with no change in position or responsibility for those involved despite my having been sent the forged documents (as part of a contract I was awarded much to the chagrin of a certain dept) and providing copies to numerous bodies.

Unfortunately we have not had the luxury of an experienced B777 pilot (member of AFF) comment on the possible validity or otherwise of what has been claimed. Perhaps a cut & paste into "ask the pilot" suitably edited may be a lower-order solution?

 

[Melburnian1]

Excellent points RAM. We have corruption present in Australia, and part of that is the expert - as you say - smearing by governments of individuals who have excellent subject knowledge and who challenge governments, to the latter's chagrin.

We have had a QF pilot who flies A388s proffer a comment(s) on this MH370 matter (and state that he disagrees with 'Mr Bailey') but given that it's not like the railways or trucking industries where drivers are concurrently trained and able to operate many multiple types of locomotives, railcars, B Doubles/ articulated or rigid trucks, commentary from a B777 trained and currently serving pilot would be ideal.

One only has to look at the incredibly long media release that the ATSB issued previously about 'Mr Bailey' to realise how sensitive this government organisation must be when it is accused of failing to search in what Mr Bailey claims is the logical area:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/correcting-the-record.aspx

Notably, in multiple places, the ATSB had to admit that Mr Bailey was factually correct in what he had said. Government agencies hate doing this, because many of them collectively as a group of employed individuals, sometimes on high salaries and allowances, perceive that they are always correct and that individual community members (such as 'Mr Bailey') are always either dead wrong, misinformed, not equipped with the complete background information that is supposedly hidden in documents (with sensitive parts redacted should a 'Mr Bailey' dare to submit a Freedom of Information application and be granted access to some documents) or just plain 'loony.'

Non-technically qualified individuals such as myself cannot know exactly what went on and rely upon qualified experts, but if 'Mr Bailey' is what he repeatedly says he is (a long qualified B777 pilot with thousands of flying hours with Emirates), then some of those in organisations such as ATSB who try to argue differently from Mr Bailey's contentions may lack the operating experience that 'Mr Bailey' seems to have.

We have seen in recent times through the efforts of 'The Australian' and its excellent legal journalist Mr Chris Merritt that some whose ethics and honesty have been questioned repeatedly by the NSW anti corruption commission have now been exonerated. While that may be in a different area to what 'Mr Bailey' is arguing, it serves as a reminder how some government authorities will stop at nothing to smear or challenge the reputation of others. They can be experts at using the media to achieve such an end, and individuals have to spend $100,000 plus to defend themselves. Not everyone has a spare $100,000 or the ability or willingness to borrow such a sum.

A focus on the issues, not the man or woman, is important as you say RAM.

 

[RAM]

We have seen in recent times through the efforts of 'The Australian' and its excellent legal journalist Mr Chris Merritt that some whose ethics and honesty have been questioned repeatedly by the NSW anti corruption commission have now been exonerated. While that may be in a different area to what 'Mr Bailey' is arguing, it serves as a reminder how some government authorities will stop at nothing to smear or challenge the reputation of others. They can be experts at using the media to achieve such an end, and individuals have to spend $100,000 plus to defend themselves. Not everyone has a spare $100,000 or the ability or willingness to borrow such a sum.

A focus on the issues, not the man or woman, is important as you say RAM.

It is not just the amount of money (or ability to access such an amount) alone.

It is the 3 to 5 years of time in the courts with the Govt QCs constantly postponing/calling for adjournments to bleed the person dry in the meantime. In most cases the person fighting the Govt/Corporate has to give up their employment to focus full time on the case.

A VERY effective mechanism for ensuring most times that the truth WILL NOT out.

 

[Mal]

It is very easy to say the investigation is looking in the wrong location when the plane hasn't been found... And even easier to make up theories that include a landing outside of the area already searched.

I do hope they find the plane, or at least the back boxes and something can be recovered. The mystery has gone on for too long and with too much money spent.

 

[drron]

There have been many B777 pilots commenting on this flight on many sites on the net.Most of them don't share Mr.Bailey's opinion.
But how many of them have had any hours trying to fly a B777 as far as they could before ditching into an ocean as far from land as possible?
How many of them have had the experiences of the Captain of the B777 or know what was in his head during that time?
Unfortunately apart from the evidence of the parts washed up confirming MH370 did end up somewhere west of WA will we ever know where it is.

 

[medhead]

How many of them have had the experiences of the Captain of the B777 or know what was in his head during that time?

Regardless of the technical abilities and knowledge, the big problem is Mr Bailey's position is based on a massive assumption about the thoughts of the pilot/person in charge.

 

[straitman]

straitman the extra info would be useful. Thanks in advance.

Are you imply, character or background doesn't mean total (in)validation of opinion, but can provide context to said opinions.....

It is very easy to say the investigation is looking in the wrong location when the plane hasn't been found... And even easier to make up theories that include a landing outside of the area already searched.

I do hope they find the plane, or at least the back boxes and something can be recovered. The mystery has gone on for too long and with too much money spent.

Regardless of the technical abilities and knowledge, the big problem is Mr Bailey's position is based on a massive assumption about the thoughts of the pilot/person in charge.

In the military and civil aviation worlds people are normally well known if they are particularly good or particularly bad. Byron (formally Ian) Bailey is not particularly well known by anyone as far as I can find out. A group of former fighter pilots queried his claim to being a fighter pilot and did eventually find that he had flown mirages for a short period. After that he became a virtual unknown which in itself is unusual as it really is not such a large industry. That doesn't mean I don't accept his qualifications but that I believe they are no more relevant than that of many others.

I have also sought opinion from a couple of several current B777 (Cathay & Qatar) pilots and suffice to say that they accept that what he is saying is plausible it is extremely unlikely due to the very narrow string of possibilities. (read Swiss Cheese Model. James Reason 1990) Almost everyone believes there are numerous other scenarios that are just as plausible but equally improbable.

For those talking about people having agendas. It was put to me by the former head of training for the RAAF that everyone has agendas. Mr Bailey, the ATSB, The Malaysian government, MAS, the families of the missing, the families of each of the pilots etc.....

The ATSB and the investigators are not perfect but they do have the aircraft accident investigation training required to do the job. Are they specifically B777 pilots? No but I also ask if that is really necessary if they use the training and use appropriate B777 trained/qualified people when technical input is required.

Once again as I stated previously I believe in the integrity of Sir Angus Houston ahead of many of these qualified or unqualified people with other opinions.