Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

[Sarcs]

The MOU, Section 24 and other favourite fairy tales.

Story One: The tale of the Big Mack, the ‘Chamber Pot’ and ALIU (pronounced ‘a loo’).

The good Senators at last Friday’s public hearing focused very much on these sections of the ATSB-CASA MOU and for very good reason it would appear:

4.4.4 CASA agrees to assist the ATSB in relation to the provision of documents and other evidence or specialist participation concerning transport safety matters that the ATSB is investigating. Normally, the request will be made pursuant a Section 32 notice to ensure that information provided is protected as restricted information under Division 2 of Part 6 of the TSI Act. When a request for information is not directed to CASA by a Section 32 notice, CASA may request the issue of a notice to the Authority prior to the release of the requested information.

4.4.6 CASA agrees that if a CASA Officer is known to have information that could assist the ATSB in the performance of its investigative functions, CASA will undertake to advise the ATSB of the existence of the information.

4.4.10 CASA agrees that, whenever it conducts a parallel investigation into a transport safety matter the ATSB is also investigating, CASA will, subject to any legal or other applicable requirements, provide the ATSB with a copy of the CASA investigation report or other compilation of relevant details as soon as it is practicable to do so.

The DAS when questioned on whether he was aware of section 24 of the TSI Act said he wasn’t , which is quite risible when you consider that the title of the inquiry is “Aviation Accident Investigations” to which one would have thought has particular relevancy to the TSI Act and the MOU.
Section 24 (1) reads….
“24 Offence to hinder etc. an investigation

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will
adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an
immediately reportable matter; and
(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an
investigation (whether or not the investigation had
commenced at the time of the conduct); and
(d) the conduct is not authorised by the Chief Commissioner.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.”

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, at the hearing Beaker continued to argue that the SAR; and now the ‘Chamber review’; the FRMS Special Audit of Pel-Air; past audits; emails from ATSB officers etc…etc are still not or were ever relevant to the Bureau’s investigation into the Pel-Air ditching….I guess it is too late now for Beaker to start marching to a different drum!

Newsflash!
Ben's piece on Congress scrutiny of FAA further proof of 'Beaker's folly':

It is thus not encouraging to know that CASA here not only failed to do this with Transair (the Lockhart River disaster of 2005) or Pel-Air (the Norfolk Island ditching of 2009) but in the case of the latter improperly suppressed the ATSB from knowing that it had failed, leaving its chief commissioner Martin Dolan looking like a goose during a Senate committee hearing yesterday.

ps Worth a read because it highlights how the US political system keeps the FAA fully accountable and transparent:
FAA has a maybe worse problem than the 787 | Plane Talking

However the Senators now appear to be focusing on the legal implications in the conduct/misconduct of the Pel-Air accident investigation and the FF oversight/lack of oversight of the PA AOC.

So could there be trouble afoot for Big Mack his ‘Chamber Pot’ and/or his new ALOO? “Section 24 Offence to hinder etc. an investigation”…for starters








Reality Check! BM, CP, Mr Aliu here’s a recent comment from one of those deeply affected by this sordid tale:

• Karen Casey

Posted February 16, 2013 at 10:57 am | Permalink

CASA, ATSB, Pel-Air. Shame, shame, shame. How dare there be people in positions that knowingly put the public at risk.

When I hear that this crash could have been prevented if more pro-active safety follow ups were insitu, my stomach churns. The hell myself and others on board have experienced in many forms, is too difficult to adequately express. The ditching was positively preventable had our trusted systems had honest, thorough scaffolding, starting at the top.

CASA audited Pel-Air in April 2007, they found the operator was not adhering to numerous rules. Audited again March 08, safety alert issued. No further audit follow up until after the ditching.

Then a dodgy ATSB report, the Chambers report sitting south under McCormick. How dare all involved shake our lives to the core…their turn to shake now. Lies always unravel. I hope this is the start of real change.

Pel-Air Senate sensation CASA hid key safety audit from ATSB | Plane Talking

Reality Check over! Now hurry along and scurry back to Flyingfiend's office…oh to be a fly on the wall!!