Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

[Sarcs]

"Passing strange" volume two!

Kharon :

McCormick – Hansard – 25/02/11. "There could have been a view in the past that ATSB and CASA were perhaps not going in the same direction. We certainly are these days, but one of the direct outputs of that is that when the ATSB—bearing in mind the caveats as I have said are around their own transport safety and investigation act—becomes aware of an issue that is going to result in a recommendation to CASA to take action or to investigate something, they inform us of that and then we conduct a parallel investigation ourselves."

Yep there is sure some golden moments in that Hansard but there is even more irony, spin and obfuscation, given what we now know, in the QONs for the 25/02/11 public hearing.

Which begs so many questions that one really doesn’t know where to start …but I’ll give it a crack…

Firstly this statement from the DAS above… “becomes aware of an issue that is going to result in a recommendation to CASA to take action or to investigate something, they inform us of that and then we conduct a parallel investigation ourselves.”

And further backed up by the DAS here:

Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Committee
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE AND WRITTEN QUESTIONS
Pilot Training Inquiry 25 February 2011
1
Question No.: CASA 1
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: ATSB/CASA investigations
Hansard Page/s: Written Question
Senator Xenophon asked:
When conducting a compliance investigation of an aviation event that is also subject to an ATSB investigation, how does CASA avoid any perception that it could potentially compromise the ATSB’s independence and potentially affecting the free flow of safety information to them?

Answer:
CASA and the ATSB have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that expressly provides for both organisations to avoid any impediments to each other’s functions.

The MOU is published on the ATSB website.

Ok got that?? We can now probably all agree that in context the Pel-Air Norfolk ditching was the first official test of the new MOU 2010 (i.e. ‘test case’) and a new détente between FF and the bureau (which I might add they failed miserably!).

So the ‘passing strange’ questions in light of the above statement and several AQONs from the 25/02/11 hearing..

• Why, given the statement above and the fact that the MOU had been in force for over a year, did FF instigate a ‘parallel investigation’ and ‘Special Audit’ almost immediately upon being notified of the accident by the ATSB? Surely this indicates a hidden sinister agenda and lack of trust by FF for the ATSB to make a preliminary assessment of the accident in an unbiased and independent manner?

Coming back to the DAS statement and Kharon’s highlights…“becomes aware of an issue that is going to result in a recommendation to CASA to take action or to investigate something...” in light of which it would be fair to assume that even 15 months after the Norfolk ditching that FF were still expecting (as you would according to the TSI Act and past bureau practice) to receive a ‘SR’ for the bureau’s significantly researched and notified ‘Critical Safety Issue’.

• So was this the reason why the ATSB investigation ground to a halt (especially given that an investigation of this stature would normally take 12 to 15 months to complete)? And was the inquiry the reason why the ‘CSI’ remained a ‘CSI’ and subsequently unaddressed by a ‘SR’ for over two and half years before being downgraded to ‘Minor’?

All ‘passing strange’ indeed?? Oh well off doing a Kelpie…

Note: The Senate Inquiry was referred to the Senate on the 30th September 2010… http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-13/pilots_2010/info.htm … which was some 3 months after FF sent their CAIR 09/3 to the ATSB and nearly 2 months after the ‘Chamber Report’ was sent to the DAS…the timeline here is very interesting??