PS - Check Creamies last post on the Reg reform page. I'm still smiling, between Sunny and Creamie, it's a great start to the LWE.
Gold Creamy..pure gold take no prisoners!
Coming back (briefly
) to the written QONs and the Beaker answers for the 28/02/2013 public hearing, Senator Fawcett QON 2:
2. Explain the discrepancy between the answer he provided today (explaining their decision to not recover the FDR which inferred that the "reasonable" clause in the current document was the basis) given the standard which was in force at the time of the accident, which, if it did not provide that modification would have mandated recovery of the FDR.
ATSB response: The ATSB considers that the general provisions of paragraph 5.4 of the Annex as it stood at the time provided the necessary discretion to the ATSB in its conduct of the investigation.
So now we have established which version and amendment of Annex 13 was current at the time (9th Edition as amended by Amendments 11, 12-A and 12-B) we can safely say that this was what paragraph 5.4 read (my bold)…
“5.4 The accident investigation authority shall have
independence in the conduct of the investigation and have
unrestricted authority over its conduct, consistent with the
provisions of this Annex. The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available
information on that accident or incident;
b) if appropriate, the issuance of safety recommendations;
c) if possible, the determination of the causes; and
d) the completion of the final report.
When possible, the scene of the accident shall be visited, the
wreckage examined and statements taken from witnesses.”
We now know that it (a) was possible and; (b) that Beaker’s final decision was based on purely fiscal reasons
. Whether this decision was justified, in compliance and in the ‘spirit’ of paragraph 5.4 is very much open to debate??
There is however another ‘open issue’ at the time, the following is a quote from the ‘Preliminary Report January 2010’:
The ATSB has interviewed a number of witnesses and people who were associated with the occurrence, and is assessing the feasibility of recovering the aircraft Cockpit Voice and Flight Data recorders from the seabed.
Sort of open-ended statement made by the author, whom would I assume be the ‘Investigator In Charge’ (IIC)? So…
Q/ I wonder if the IIC would personally have considered ‘feasibility’ to also include the fiscal concerns of Chief Commissioner Beaker, especially given the high profile media coverage this occurrence had generated and the unique circumstances of a night ditching where everyone survived?
Given that the issue of recovering the CVR/FDR was under discussion well before the IIC voiced his concerns via email to Beaker (09/02/2010, reference 02 ATSB_Doc5_Web.pdf) about the stance that FF was taking… “I suspect that CASA is entrenching itself into a position that would be hard to support”;
Therefore futher questions:
(1) What was the IIC stance on the CVR/FDR issue?
(2) Was the IIC, aware at the time, that Beaker (according to the answer to the QON above) had justified his decision pursuant to paragraph 5.4 of Annex 13?
(3) If not when did the IIC become aware and was the IIC in agreement with this Beaker decision?
Because according to paragraph 5.5 and 5.6 of Annex 13…
“Investigator-in-charge — Designation
5.5 The State conducting the investigation shall designate
the investigator-in-charge of the investigation and shall initiate
the investigation immediately.
Investigator-in-charge — Access and control
5.6 The investigator-in-charge shall have unhampered
access to the wreckage and all relevant material, including
flight recorders and ATS records, and shall have unrestricted
control over it to ensure that a detailed examination can be
made without delay by authorized personnel participating in
the investigation.”
….the IIC has ‘supreme control’ over the conduct of the investigation, wreckage recovery etc..etc…so was the IIC’s ‘head of power’ as per Annex 13 and the TSI Act compromised by both internal/external subjectively interested parties?
Anyway moving on down the written QONs (28/02/2013) we find a question (QON 4) from Senator X that must have been asked almost ‘tongue in cheek’
(my bold):
4. If, as proposed in your changes to Mandatory Reporting, the ATSB merely acts as a conduit to provide CASA with unrestricted access, why not merely reverse the roles to have the industry report to CASA and CASA pass on what they think should be investigated?
ATSB response: Under the proposed reforms the ATSB will maintain its full independence with respect to determining what to investigate. It will also maintain the accident and incident database which is used to conduct research and trend analysis. Adopting the above proposal would compromise the ATSB’s independence.
Although the concept of what Senator X suggests is in itself most disturbing, it would appear from the evidence presented thus far that this is effectively what is already happening and the bureau is no longer a fully independent transport investigator. Perhaps this is the underlying point that Senator X is making in asking this question??
Oh well off doing a Kelpie..enjoy your Easter LW/E!