No, I haven’t been able to track down the precise date of effect of the change. That’s why, as an act of purest optimism, I asked the question. As is often the case, my optimism was unfounded.
I think it’s far from mere semantics. I understood the whole point of the exchange between Mr Dolan and Senator Fawcett about this issue was that the ATSB was
obliged to recover the OBR devices because of the terms of para 5.4 of Annex 13. The word ‘normally’ neuters the obligation and therefore the point.
It would be unfortunate and embarrassing, for some, if the addition of ‘normally’ took effect before the decision not to recover the OBR devices. The fact that a version was ‘promulgated on 18 October 2010’ does necessarily mean that the changes in that version took effect on that date.
This nonsense really makes me sick:
Plus as Beaker repeatedly states most of the relevant radio transmission information could be replicated from ATC recordings/transcripts…
Aside from the fact that there are patent errors in the transcript, it does not follow that something transmitted was received and understood.
I thought the most telling point of the 28 Feb hearing was when Senator Fawcett asked, completely seriously, whether common sense was a factor in the ATSB’s decision making.