Geez OM bit sharp on the response there mate, it’s a pity that you didn’t spend the time to read the last half dozen pages of the thread might have made you realise how stupid your last post really was, or do I detect a certain animosity to Mr Aherne?? Oh well onwards and downwards and on to....
"Beyond all reason?"
From the written QONs for the 15/02/2013 hearing, Senator X asked:
12. Can you provide the committee with an outline of the 'beyond Reason' methodology the ATSB now applies to conduct its investigations and produce its reports?
ATSB response: The ATSB provided an outline of its analysis approach in its initial submission of 12 October 2012 (Sub03_ATSB, parts 2 and 3). It also provided additional information in response to question 32 of the questions on notice from 21 November 2012.
Okay so let’s jump on Lefty’s timewarp machine again…
Quote from my previous post:
Government response to recommendation 15…
Response
The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.
The ATSB already has a robust approach to the investigation and publication of human factor issues which was recognised in 2009 when the ATSB received an award from the International Society of Air Safety Investigators for its world-leading work in human factors.
An example of the ATSB’s continuing commitment and approach to investigations into human factors to help explain accidents and incidents is its research report: Evaluation of the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System as a Predictive Model released in December 2010.
Note: Here’s the link for that very valuable report, I believe once again, that the irony will not be lost on most reasonably intelligent people: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3536263/ar2008036.pdf
Besides the fact that the ISASI are now probably pondering whether they should be asking for that award to be returned…the chronology is interesting in terms of the mi..mi..mi Beaker’s repeated proclamations in this inquiry about how the bureau has gone ‘beyond Reason’. 
So questions…
When did this fundamental change in the bureau investigative methodology actually happen?
Why was the minister not informed about this fundamental change to bureau operational methodology? given that his ministry’s response and by extension, the Minister to the last inquiry was issued November 2011 and the AR2008036 report December 2010??
Why weren’t the authors of AR2008036 informed of this change?
From that report (my bold):
1.1 Overview of HFACS
The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System is based on a sequential or chain-of-events theory of accident causation and was derived from Reason’s (1990) accident causation model (Wiegmann & Shappell, 2003). It was originally developed for use within the United States military, both to guide investigations when determining why an accident or incident occurred, and to analyse accident data (Shappell & Wiegmann, 2000). Since its development, the classification system has been used in a variety of military and civilian transport and occupational settings, including aviation, road, and rail transport (e.g. Federal Railroad Administration, 2005; Gaur, 2005; Li & Harris, 2005; Pape et al., 2001; Shappell, 2005), and has also been used by the medical, oil, and mining industries (Shappell, 2005).
Further question: Given the Norfolk Ditching investigation was well under way and everyone (except for Beaker), including the minister, Beaker’s research boffins and the Norfolk investigation team was conducting business on the old bureau ‘Reason Model’, is it then acceptable for Beaker to apply his new (Beakerised beyond all reason)
methodology to the context of an active investigation?
Or maybe everyone just missed Beaker's memo?
Sorry about the slight diversion...let's go back to the Chamberpot stoning shall we!