Sunny:
Do the Hansard corrections suggest that CASA is trying to prolong the process with a view to ensuring the report sinks in pre election fun and games?
How long should that take and what would be its effect on the report timeline?
Not entirely convinced that the FF shonky Hansard correction doc caused anymore than a minor hiccup for the diligent committee secretariat, otherwise why would they have published it?
Sunny:
Would the Minister, CASA and ATSB be given a draft copy of the report and asked for comment? That is the usual way of letting people know what is coming and allowing them time to act in advance to limit any damage.
What 4dogs said goes to the official process, however I am not in total agreement with 4dogs summation of what will happen after the report and recommendations are officially released/tabled on the 23rd:
As we saw with the Pilot Training Inquiry, the Government can just kiss it all off and do absolutely nothing. The one thing it cannot do is expunge the Report from the Parliamentary record. It will remain there forever as political ammunition and, in this case I'm sure, as the starting point for a lot of activity in Estimates.
This inquiry is a very different animal to the PTI as the agencies of DOIT have not been able to contain the levels of obfuscation that have been revealed and are now on the public record. Some of these cover ups have some very real implications to the administration of air safety and investigation of aviation accidents/incidents in Oz, that could ultimately affect our worldwide credibility in the aviation industry.
Unlike the PT inquiry which was all very political, this inquiry has been apolitical and driven selflessly by various committee members. I don’t think the likes of Senator X are going to accept another ‘white paper’ ‘white wash’ by the Minister and Mrdak (especially a further 2 years down the track from the publishing of the 'Great White Elephant act'), anyway we will see??
I also get the feeling the delay could have something to do with the FAA/ICAO element in this…let’s call it the Ziggy effect…too cool Ziggy!
Instead of “let’s get Ziggy with it”, maybe it should be “let’s get with Ziggy”! 
On the matter of ICAO?? A little birdy came a tw**t, tw**t, tweeting and pointed out a few interesting things happening in the shelfware chronicle continuum….
It would appear that until the end of last year FF had a copy of an ICAO draft document on their website (‘ICAO SMM 3rd. Edition’) then, like all unexplained shifts of voodoo magic, that draft disappeared into the shelfware vortex.
However the birdy tweeted a link of that draft, ‘click here’. This document almost rivals FF’s EM in quantity but falls way short of the SM. However there is a marked difference in overall intent and there is no hidden loopholes (get out of jail free cards).
Page 64-66 under the heading “STATE SAFETY POLICY AND OBJECTIVES” is definitely worth a read, however in relation to this thread I’ve quoted the following (my bold):
1-3 Accident and incident investigation
From an SSP perspective, the accident and incident investigation function is focussed on its administration at a State level. There is a fundamental rationale for the independence of this function from those of other organizations as accident causation could be linked to regulatory or SSP related factors.
Independence in this regard means that an investigation organization or entity be functionally independent from any organization, particularly the civil aviation authority of the State, whose interests could conflict with the tasks entrusted to the investigation authority. Such independence enhances the viability of the accident and incident investigation organization and avoids real or perceived conflicts of interest.
And paragraph 2 under “1-4 Enforcement policy”:
In order for such an enhancement to take place, the State will need to manifest such intent through its enforcement policy and procedures. At the same time, the State may need to formalize the need for its service providers to have internal disciplinary procedures that incorporate an equivalent enhancement. This would imply that service providers are expected to have an acceptable process in place to manage their own routine safety/ quality deviations through internal disciplinary policies and procedures. The State would indicate that regulatory intervention can be expected under certain conditions and circumstances through which the State (CAA) will take charge of the investigation process with regard to a particular violation or non conformance.
Then refer to ‘Appendix 3 to Chapter 3’ titled ‘Guidance on State Enforcement Policy’.
And keep in mind that this document is part of the lead up to the promulgation of Annex 19. Then ask yourself, in light of this inquiry, how on earth DOIT and its agencies will ever show conformity/compliance with ICAO Annex 19 if the current status quo remains in place??
Is it any wonder that this document disappeared into the FF shelfware vortex??
Hmm off doin a Kelpie!
ps Paul Phelan's latest article
"Preaching to the unconverted" is worth the time to read on the now infamous AMROBA meeting! Some of the AMROBA member quotes are very disturbing
.