Typical tactics from FF legal services, surely there will come a time when there will be someone in the Judiciary who will call it for what it is obfuscation, attempting to alter the course of justice or seeking to prejudice a legal process..etc..etc
Kharon said:Furry muff BE, Mea culpa.
It's amazing how often people have been uttering the term 'mea culpa' lately in relation to the bureau and regulator, here's Senator Edwards having a fair old crack at it in the Senate Inquiry:
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.
At least the 'Beaker' didn't deny 'mea culpa' whereas the FF motley crew deny everything in respect of fault, mistakes or blame...must be all that invaluable, taxpayer funded legal training they received from that 'learned gentleman' Mr Harvey QC.
Perhaps on behalf of Samantha someone could ask at the Senate Inquiry how it is the ATSB justified a) not conducting this investigation; and b) not footing the bill for salvaging the aircraft (other than it saved them money)....I'd think even Coroner Hutton might be interested in those answers!
It would also be worth the Coroner's time to download that PAIN report which more than adequately displays what he is up against when it comes to the relevant aviation safety authorities, here's an example:
Limited release report. Coronial Analysis. Fatal accidents.
One of the twenty five categories in a research project undertaken by the PAIN_Net, a group of qualified, experienced aviation professionals focused on Coronial recommendations made in response to fatal accidents involving aircraft.
The purpose was, without bias, prejudice, fear or hidden agenda to achieve a clearly defined goal; the improvement of safety for the travelling public and the people who work within the aviation industry.
The approach to the construct has been simple, and asked only two questions.
a) Was the accident preventable ?.
b) What steps have been taken to prevent repetition in similar circumstances ?.
Research was conducted over a wide area including:-
c) Extensive operational background analysis, private anecdotal and publicly available data; and, considered expert opinion.
The intent was to present alternative or revised assessment of the accidents examined were, in the opinion of the group, the most probable and ranked contributing causes related to the incidents were not clearly defined or presented for Coronial considerations.
It became apparent during research into some thirty accidents that three powerful elements were effectively preventing satisfactory conclusions or clearly defining the contributing causes and pro active prevention made towards repeating the event.
We noted the following items:-
d) The frustration expressed by various Coroners through transcript trying to establish a clear picture through regulatory obfuscation, clouded evidence, a lack of clear technical knowledge and sound, independent operational advice.
e) The frustration expressed by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) in almost every report examined, where sound advice and research has been belittled or waved aside as insubstantial.
f) The seemingly deeply entrenched culture of constant brinkmanship and
abrogation of responsibility existing between the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the ATSB.
These issues appear to often place the Coroner in the invidious position of having to make a choice between two, often different 'expert' opinions being presented.
The following incident reports are from a wide range available for consideration; they, we believe encompass the issues noted.
We believe that non of the promised legislation, against which many Coroners based their recommendations, is available for practical use.
We believe none of the Coroners recommendations have been adopted to produce, in any practical, meaningful way improved safety outcomes.
We believe that, in real terms, there has been no pro active approach to reduce the self evident risks or causal factors related to the provided reports.
We firmly believe that all the presented incidents still have the potential to be repeated.
The report editors.
