You may call it theatre, I call it the democratic process and the professional public service taking responsibility for what they do.
I have always had a deep and abiding respect for Mr Dolan, I was not disappointed in the way he calmly and professionally handled the questions and commanded the respect of his inquisitors.
I was going to say "defended" the ATSB position, but he needn't have being probably the only agency to have done the job properly. Airservices are by definition service providers not regulators. CASA? the less said the better.
It is undeniable the process issues revealed are critical, but I do not get caught up in the angels dancing on the heads of pins in relation to what in this case Airways should or should not have passed on or what CASA should or should not have done post facto.
The AIP may not be perfect but IMHO it simply makes the core responsibilities of the PIC as they have always been, crystal clear.
The PIC is and always has been personally responsible for the safe conduct of the flight and assessing ALL of the matters extant. Otherwise what are the privileges of his license about. The ATPL syllabus used to spell it out, until it became a precious CAA/CASA inspired obstacle course in trying to find the oh so clever bull**** trick in the question rather than a straight out test of knowledge and command thinking.
You all complain about the proscriptive nature of the regs, yet now you want them changed to to be even more so. Why don't we even have a Naional flight planning service and save everybody the trouble.
What I took away from the ATSB this afternoon was that the crew had been deficient in their flight planning responsibilities.
Notwithstanding some confusion about the accuracy of the Metar, it appears they DID ultimately receive and ackinowledge the correct SPECI in a timely manner and for some time after its receipt had the fuel to make a safe diversion even to the point if necessary of declaring a fuel emergency at La Tonotouta. IMHO the paperwork being a more desirable alternative to swimming around YSNF in the middle of the night.
Further I have not seen any questions, answers or comment as to why a non RVSM aircraft with acknowledged Medevac priority in these levels, accepted an ATC request to change level for crossing traffic, without query. Were the crew and ATC aware they had this ability? Screw the crossing traffic.
So tell me why over the middle of the South Pacific at night yet with not many escapes around, you would not sit bolt upright and pay very close attention when Fiji (Airways is irrelevant in this context) says, "SPECI repeat SPECI" and acknowledged by the aircraft. To suggest that a more proscriptive Australian or even Martian AIP should provide the answer to what should happen next is a bad joke.
CDF is missing here in the rush for every one to plunge their respective knife into their particular target of choice and granted there are many.
IMHO the really simple issues in this case are being lost, and there is a faint flavour that it is not accidental, in the frenzy to knife "insert your favorite target" here.
The PIC is the PIC and carries the considerable responsibilities of the privileges of his/her license. Whether Private, Aerial Work, Charter, RPT notwithstanding regulation is not relevant. The passengers and the crew deserve the same duty of care.