There is no doubt that the QPS Forensic Crash Unit did an exemplary job (under controversial and testing circumstances) of investigating and producing a final report for the Coroner.
However there are still a number of questions surrounding the matter that the Coroner still deserves answers for. Some of these questions test the veracity and what would appear to be ulterior motives of Fort Fumble and to a lesser extent the ATSB.
So lets start the ball rolling with the QPS report pg 43-44 which deals with the bureau’s decision not to investigate:
Terminology, investigation procedures and deciding whether to investigate
NB It is interesting to note that the QPS interpreted this accident as falling into a level 3 or ‘commercial fare paying operations’ and the bureau’s ADG lists fatalities at number 2.
Some questions then: Q1) Was this decision by the ATSB in contravention to their (largely abrogated by notified differences) obligations to ICAO Annex 13 Chapter 5 para 5.1….“5.1 The State of Occurrence shall institute an investigation into the circumstances of the accident and be responsible for the conduct of the investigation, but it may delegate the whole or any part of the conducting of such investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent. In any
event the State of Occurrence shall use every means to facilitate the investigation.”
Ok clear as mud?? So let’s add in the notified difference that (I believe?) was current at the time (not the 2011 version which would have allowed them total lack of accountability to para 5.1)… “ 5.1 In respect of ultralights and sport aviation, for example, microlights, gyrocopters, gliders and hang gliders, investigations will be conducted only if benefits to future safety are evident and resources allow for such investigation.
Remarks: Australia has limited resources for accident and incident investigation and safety studies including database analysis. It is often the case that investigation of incidents or safety deficiencies involving regular public transport aircraft yield greater future safety benefit than investigation of sport aviation occurrences. Priority is given to the safety of the fare-paying public.”
The QPS report would also appear to show that the QPS FCU officers were under the impression that this was a ‘discontinued investigation’ by the ATSB as per section 21 of the TSI Act, which reads:
21 Investigations
(1) Subject to section 22:
(a) the ATSB may investigate any transport safety matter; and
(b) the ATSB must investigate a transport safety matter if
directed in writing by the Minister to do so.
Note: See also section 11, which puts constitutional limits on the exercise of
powers and functions under this Act.
(2) The ATSB may discontinue an investigation at any time.
(3) The ATSB must, within 28 days of discontinuing an investigation,
make publicly available, by electronic or other means, a statement
setting out the reasons for discontinuing the investigation.
So..Q2) Where is the ‘publicly available’ statement that sets out the ‘reasons for discontinuing the investigation’?
NB You will also remember that Senator Fawcett pointed out to Beaker (in the first public hearing of the Senate inquiry AAI Pel-Air) that although Beaker was pleading bureau overload of investigations and limited resources in 2008 there was in fact an under spend on the ATSB budget!
Ok so there’s two questions for the Coroner…and I’m off doing a ‘Kelpie’!
Ps next I think will be the FF bail out of the parallel investigation??