Bryan Aherne’s comments/analysis of the ATSB AQONs in reply to QONs and written QONs from the Friday 15th February hearing absolutely destroy the ATSBeaker’s credibility in this sorry affair and call into question the veracity of all aviation accident/incident reports in at least the last 5 years or in Beaker’s reign and the onset of the 2010 MOU (Oh and don’t think FF gets off lightly either!) .
Here’s an extract from Sub_10_Aherne_Supplementary5.pdf:
Written Questions on Notice- Senator Xenophon
Questions in relation to previously in-camera documents
1. An email on 9 Feb 2010 appears to show that you were looking for a way to assist CASA with their early intervention with Mr James. Can you explain that please?
ATSB response: The email exchange was in the context of a discussion about the
complementary but distinct roles of CASA and the ATSB in maintaining aviation safety. The
interest of the ATSB officer involved was in CASA’s concentrating on improvements to the
regulatory and other guidance for the future safety of such flights as the Norfolk Island one. He was of the view that this would be the most effective way for CASA to address the issues arising from the investigation. My response was to advise him that CASA’s assessment of what was required was now focussing on compliance-related interventions, rather than changes to the regulatory framework.
Comment:
The ATSB as a key component of Australia’s State Aviation Safety program (SASP) must consider systemic issues when examining aviation safety. However the email below written on the 10thof February 2010 indicates the ATSB attempted to align itself to some degree with the approach CASA had advised it was going to take-which was not one examining systemic issues but more one examining whether there had been regulatory breaches.
Refer to the email shown below, it shows that:
The Chief Commissioner originally had ‘confidence’ that CASA would be taking a systemic
approach, but on the 9th of February he had a conversation with CASA where CASA advised it
would be hardening its view that a regulatory breach had been committed and needed to be
addressed. The word ‘confidence’ suggests that the ATSB and CASA originally had a common view that the accident should be investigated focussing on systemic issues. One such systemic issue was the need for CASA to clarify/ improve on its guidance regarding in- flight decision making following changes to weather forecasts used at the planning stage of the flight. After The Chief Commissioner’s conversation with CASA he advised the ATSB Investigating Officer that CASA stated that what was now required was a focus on compliance related interventions rather than changes to the regulatory framework.
However CASA and ATSB assert that influence was not exerted on ATSB by CASA, there was less focus on systemic issues however, and it would appear from the content of the final report that this is the message that was understood by the ATSB. The ATSB appeared to neglect its responsibilities as part of the State Aviation Safety Program to investigate focussing on systemic issues.
BA’s comprehensive rebuttal of the ATSB’s answer for Senator X QON 4, coupled with the systematic research and analysis of FRMS is well worth the read (pg 7 of pdf).
4. Did the ATSB think to obtain some independent analysis of fatigue levels from another investigation bureau/aviation authority? Were you aware that CASA asked the UK Civil Aviation Authority to analyse the fatigue levels of the crew?
And BA does not stop there in exposing the fragility of what surely has to be ‘Beakers last stand’! They’ve thrown him a lifeline several times but he arrogantly continues to keep duckpaddling in the putrid waters of Fort Fumble’s dungeon!
Creampuff said: I don’t know which would worry me more: That the expertise of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible; Or that the integrity of these organisations has been allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they truly believe they can defend the patently indefensible through smear, innuendo and obfuscation.
Top post Creamy!
Oh and dogcharlietree I don’t think the ferryman meant we should go quite that far back..off doing a Kelpie!
ps dct point taken and it is a good comparison, although I don't believe the ATSB/BASI back then was quite so beholden to the regulator and there were some very good investigation reports that came out of the bureau at that time (Seaview and Monarch come to mind)!