So many clangers to choose from in this lot but in reference to my post #497 here is Senator Nash's clanger:
Senator NASH: So at no stage did you ask them, 'Did the prescribed safety procedures work?' You are the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and at no stage did you ask the prescribed safety requirements work?
Mr Sangston: I do not know precisely what was asked in the interview.
CHAIR: Could we have a record of the interviews?
Mr Dolan: We can draw it to your attention. It should be amongst the material we have already supplied. We will find it for you.
Senator NASH: Wouldn't that be the first thing you would do? We all spend half our lives on planes and we are getting the safety procedure drilled into us every time we get on a plane. Surely, as the ATSB, the first thing you would ask would be: did the process work properly?
Senator EDWARDS: Was the lifejacket under your seat?
CHAIR: I always check?
Senator STERLE: I—
Senator NASH: Sorry, Senator Sterle, I just want an answer.
CHAIR: Here comes the 'no'.
Mr Dolan: It is an attempt to establish a matter of fact, Senator. The focus of the investigation, from a comparatively early stage, was on what led up to the accident. If there is a fair criticism here it is that we did not quite get the balance right. We were focused more on why it came to that event rather than what happened afterwards. That is what I am hearing and I think there is substance to it. With the wisdom of hindsight, it might not have been quite the right balance in terms of how we reviewed processes.
Which was closely followed by Senator Edwards who was basically adding the dressing to the Beaker's diced nuts:
Senator EDWARDS: Chair, since we have started, there has been mea culpa after mea culpa after mea culpa in this thing. Now you are hearing evidence for the first time of what is supposed to be a forensic investigation. I have heard that this report would be a joke in the international standing—if other reviewers were to have reviewed this. I think that the evidence that Senator Xenophon and Senator Fawcett are drawing out would suggest that. We haven't even got to the black box yet. Are you proud of this report?
Mr Dolan: I certainly would not hold this report as a benchmark. I am still satisfied that the key elements—
Senator EDWARDS: Three years in the making. Mea culpa after mea culpa. Are you proud of this report?
Mr Dolan: No, I am not proud of this report.
Senator EDWARDS: Senator Fawcett has questioned you about what the outcome is of it: forget the people, forget who you nailed, forget who was responsible—what did we learn, and where does it go from here? We have not heard that. He has asked you twice. Where do your recommendations go? In fact, you do not make many recommendations a year, do you? Two last year?
Mr Dolan: I think that would be right.
Senator EDWARDS: I am a fair bloke. I do not live in the airline world like many people on this committee. But this is not reasonable for you. I have one last thing to ask before I hand over to my more learned friends. I am holding up a folder and the yellow papers in there are confidential evidence received by this committee—there is a majority percentage of the information in this folder. We are trying to get that on the public record. But in the context of there being nearly a ream of confidential information that you have not seen—email trails and things like that from people who have been involved—did you or your officers have any formal or informal ongoing involvement with CASA officials in and about the formation of this report? Remember, I have all of this information I have indicated.
Mr Dolan: I recognise that and I do not think that would change my answer at all. In the broad, in terms both of our memorandum of understanding with CASA and of our operational relationships, given that we both have roles in the safety system, we have ongoing interactions with CASA. We have six-monthly meetings with CASA formally with an agenda to work through issues of common interest and how they are working—
Senator EDWARDS: Specifically about this inquiry.
Mr Dolan: All I am aware of in relation to this inquiry is the discussion that took place in relation to that initially identified critical safety issue, and how that was played through. There was some discussion from time to time about the progress of the investigation, as part of our normal contact with CASA—and update. And a directly—
Senator EDWARDS: Were they critical of you and the time you were taking?
Mr Dolan: And a directly interested party stage. They asked from time to time about progress. But Mr Sangston may be aware of other interactions that I am not aware of.
Mr Sangston: In addition to those, I at times have an administrative type interaction with a gentleman of the Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit in CASA. But that is on an formal administrative basis only, so it was not specific to the progress of this investigation—
Senator EDWARDS: At any time did any of those people direct you as to what your line of inquiry should be or who you should be targeting for interviews and outcomes.
Mr Sangston: No.
Senator EDWARDS: Suggest?
Mr Sangston: No.
Some of this could be directly sent to a script writer for some satirical stage play, they could call it..."Safe Skies for all!"
The trouble is this is for real and these numpties are supposedly keeping the skies safe for all the air travelling public, families, friends and loved ones...god help us!
As a side note there was over 30 MB of tabled documents in yesterday's hearing, may I suggest that could be a record for a one day hearing:
Additional Information Received
1Documents tabled at public hearing in Canberra, ACT on Monday, 22 October 2012;(PDF 27681KB)
Bet there's a couple of pencil pushers employed at Fort Fumble and the bureau who have had their feet nailed to the floor and one hand nailed to a desk to decipher that lot!! Here's the link:
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia