Attachment to White’s letter: “Draft Transport Safety Report AO-2009-072.
Anyone else read this; it seems, cobbled together, disjointed and feels like the work of more than one man. The chronology is to say the least interesting, why would it take White a month to respond to the Feb 26 correspondence from ATSB? (which is another mystery). What did White do?, did every department have a whack at it? There are parts which are inarticulate to the point of making it appear as a joint effort to refute the Critical Safety issue. Were CASA surprised?; - surprised! ATSB nearly knocked their socks off. Oh!, what to do?, oh me, oh my.
Did they breach TSI 26; which applies to all those mere mortals who do not proclaim themselves as above the trivialities of law.
I wonder if White was persuaded to adopt the "Draft" defence; or if that he, being so qualified and all, actually believed it. A whiff of CASA legal wiggling creeps out from the behind the "Green door" about now. But the poor chap just couldn't (or wouldn't) sell the bill of goods to the ATSB and so a spin master was brought in to hold his hand. I mean the poor little bugger was hunting pilots under 20 A, then almost out of blue the back-flip is ordered; by whom and why for? is what I'd like know. But, perhaps you can get a glimmer of why the OBR was not recovered; that witness would have really spoilt all the spinning games.
Aye, 'tis all passing strange, even stranger that the ATSB swallowed the guff and downgraded the safety recommendation. But then, I find it passing strange when I fall over correspondence with QBE in strange places (redaction needs to carefully done, lest Freud raise a slippery eyebrow), where 'phantom' witnesses pop out to assist with diving jobs in Qld, then vanish 'poof'; where NCN for the AAT are kept in one file, and for the court in another and the truth is an optional extra. Yep, they surely have got things sorted over at Sleepy Hollow. No wonder my poor ol' wooden head hurts and I get cranky.
