The poiont I am trying to raise is that there is evidence found by the ATSB during its course of examination of the company's safety system found several reportable incidents that were not reported.
These were discovered in the last few weeks of November 2006, and I understand that whilst these actually occured prior to the accident flight in 2005, and hence the statue of limitations; However, the fact that these reports were not acted upon at the time reflects that unless discovered by the ATSB they
may never have been reported.
This make a mockery of the TSI Act - there appears to be no teeth in the system. The fact that they occured so long ago, however the lack of their reporting supports the claim that the safety ethos required by the company under
Civil Aviation Act 28 may not have been there at all.
If this is the case then what external audit was conducted of this airlines safety management system - or was it only to come to light after the ATSB had completed the Lockhart river report.
Perhaps CASA should be conducting an investigation to determine who or who was not doing their job within the company as 'approved' as key personnel and follow up with their regulatory actions.
How many more 'unreported' incidents occurred in the company's last 12 months of operations?
This may be never know as the company system was obviously not working? What happened to the 'pilot in command' esponsibility to report these incidents to the ATSB? Was this how the deficiency in the safety system was found? Should cross checks be done within the ATSB database to see who is reporting or what systems are working?
The closure of the company may be enough 'public shaming' for some however, the fact that the management of this company can 'get away' with such blatant breechs begs the question of the avoidability of the accident in the first place.
The systemic failings of the company in their approach to safety management was a contributing factor in this accident, therefore, I believe the the managers should be held accountable for their failings. The flow on in regulatory review from this accident will cost others hundreds perhaps thousands to ensure compliance, where the 'closed' company closes its doors.
I am not looking for 'another' royal commission into the fiasco - but it needs the responsible 'departments' to use their powers under their 'acts' to demonstrate to the public that aviation is weeding out the 'shonks'.
Sorry with the questions - I am interested in just how the rules and regulations that an airline is supposed to adhere to can be brushed aside so easily.
