Seems ICAO had similar concerns in regards to the bureau abrogating their responsibility for investigating certain fatal accidents:
APPENDIX 3-6-1
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY AUSTRALIA
RELATED TO AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION
AUDIT FINDING AIG/01
Funding for aviation accident investigations is provided by the Federal Government of Australia through the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
To make the most of the funding allocated to it, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has established guidelines to determine whether to investigate an occurrence with the level of response to a notification determined by resource availability and such factors as:
1. existence of fatalities;
2. anticipated safety value of an investigation;
3. extent of public, media or political interest;
4. timeliness of notification;
5. training benefit for ATSB investigators;
6. likely possibility of safety action arising from the investigation or the existence of supporting evidence or requirements to conduct a special investigation based on trends;
7. safety analysis or an identified targeted programme; and
8. scope or impact of any system failures.
Under the ATSB guidelines, occurrences that may fit the ICAO Annex 13’s definition of an aircraft accident or incident may not be investigated. Although the ATSB submits a notification of these occurrences to ICAO in accordance with ICAO Annex 13 provisions, the ATSB does not submit a preliminary report and/or an accident data report identifying contributing safety factors or probable
cause.
...so which of the above 'factors' precluded the Hempel accident from being investigated? Could it be the ATSB knew that if they investigated they would have to foot the bill to raise the Yak?
Interesting response from the ATSB:
STATE’S COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS*
Australia has considered this finding and the related recommendations from the audit team.
Australia meets its Article 26 obligations. However, Australia has also lodged a difference with ICAO in relation to standard 5.1 and recommended practice 5.1.1 of Annex 13 as Australia considers it impractical to investigate all accidents and serious incidents within resources available. In addition to targeting those accidents and incidents that are likely to yield the greatest safety value in accordance with the guidelines quoted above, Australia normally gives priority to investigations of accidents and serious incidents involving regular public transport aircraft (especially with fare-paying passengers) and accidents involving fatalities other than those involving ultralights and sport aviation.
Australia notes that the investigation of accidents and serious incidents has been included for discussion at the ICAO Accident Investigation and Prevention (AIG) Divisional meeting in October 2008. ATSB will participate in this discussion as it relates to upgrading recommendation 5.1.1 to a standard and allocating resources to those investigations that will yield the greatest safety value.
Australia may review its investigation policy following the AIG meeting.
So that's the ATSB defence...the aircraft fell into 'sport aviation'...but hang on a sec..what about the fare paying pax??
