Sunny..004..HMHB.."K" all good posts!
While we go around in circles on the politics of the PelAir report…"he said she said".."it’ll never happen" etc..etc eventually the report has to be responded to regardless of whether the man in the seat wears a blue tie or a red tie, so how about the professionals on here start discussing the report recommendations and giving an opinion.
Mick Quinn love him or hate him, bag him or applaud him, regardless he is not afraid to front up and put his name on the dotted line
......from ‘Phelan’s’ article
“It’s as good a report as you can get and I think it’s going to be a catalyst for a lot of improvement. It’s so good that it should be used in universities to teach how not to do air safety investigation in the future. The technical experience that Sen David Fawcett brought to the committee, and the acuity of Sen Nick Xenophon and all the others, was remarkable. It’s a credit to all of the senators and the Secretariat has also done an amazing job. I’ve gone through the whole thing and I can’t find a mistake in it, and with such solid evidence and 26 recommendations, it’s going to be very hard for the government to ignore it. I believe that David Fawcett, if what we expect happens in September, could be a huge asset to the incoming government in sorting out the mess.
“No enquiry of this kind has ever presented such a finely-tuned, responsive and dynamic report.”
Even AMROBA isn’t afraid to tell it as they see it:
Senate Aviation Accident Report — 5/2013
Available at: Senate Reports—Aviation
It is a sad indictment on our industry when this report has to make the following statement:
“Finally, the committee notes that many submitters and witnesses provided evidence in camera due to fear of retribution, particularly from CASA, were they to go public with their concerns. Many who chose to give in camera evidence did so in the knowledge of protections provided by parliamentary privilege. The committee also notes that this reticence to speak in public has been apparent for each inquiry this committee has conducted in this area over several years, and finds this deeply worrying.
Given the positive statements made about the inquiry by CASA Director of Aviation Safety, Mr John McCormick, the committee trusts that concerns about retribution are unwarranted.
There is an obligation on CASA to allay these concerns that retribution could follow speaking out, which appear to be widespread within the aviation industry.
The committee stresses that it takes the protection of witnesses under parliamentary privilege very seriously. Witnesses—whether public or in camera— should suffer no adverse consequences from providing evidence to the committee. Given the numerous concerns expressed, the committee will be monitoring this situation carefully.
If Australia is to remain at the forefront of open, transparent and effective aviation safety systems, then the goal of this committee is to help our organizations to work transparently, effectively and cooperatively. Ensuring that a systemic approach to aviation safety is in place is the best way to maximize outcomes.”
There are a number of recommendations contained within this report. Many are associated with ATSB and their methods and findings relating to the accident at Norfolk Island. Some relate to CASA and their involvement and what should be changed. Read the full report.
“Recommendation 7
4.87 The committee recommends that the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 be amended torequire that the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB be able to demonstrate extensive aviation safety expertise and experience as a prerequisite for the selection process.
Recommendation 11
6.52 The committee recommends that CASA processes in relation to matters highlighted by this investigation be reviewed. This could involve an evaluation benchmarked against a credible peer (such as FAA or CAA) of regulation and audits with respect to: non-RPT passenger carrying operations; approach to audits; and training and standardisation
of FOI across regional offices”.
Recommendation 12
6.55 The committee recommends that CASA, in consultation with an Emergency Medical Services industry representative group (eg. Royal Flying Doctor Service, air ambulance operators, rotary wing rescue providers) consider the merit, form and standards of a new category of operations for Emergency Medical Services. The minister should require CASA to approve the industry plan unless there is a clear safety case not to. Scope for industry to assist as part of an audit team should also be investigated where standardisation is an issue.
This should be completed within 12 months and the outcome reported publicly.
Recommendation 13
6.58 The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.
Recommendation 26
10.35 The committee recommends that in relation to mandatory and confidential reporting, the default position should be that no identifying details should be provided or disclosed. However, if thereis a clear risk to safety then the ATSB, CASA and industry representatives should develop a process that contains appropriate checks and balances.
http://amroba.org.au/newsletter
So let’s offer a pprune critique to the mix, starting with Recommendation 1 which is a bit of a no-brainer really and I think most on here are in agreement. From Phelan’s article:
1.The committee recommends that the ATSB retrieves VH-NGA flight data recorders without further delay.
Throughout the enquiry, the ATSB ‘s decision not to recover the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder had been denounced by air safety practitioners. The fitment of CVRs and FDRs is mandatory in this category of aircraft, and the International safety community relies heavily on those systems as a readily available tool for enhancing air safety even while investigations are still in progress.
The report comments: “the committee understands that retrieval of the recorders would be particularly useful in this instance [and] that the ATSB has certain responsibilities, set out in ICAO Annex 13, when it comes to retrieval of aircraft involved in accidents. It is an assumption throughout Annex 13 that, where a FDR exists, the accident investigation body will prioritise its retrieval.”
The vital role of these investigative aids was highlighted by Air France’s Airbus A330 accident over the Atlantic in June 2009. Although in their absence the investigation reached sound provisional conclusions, the full resolution of the disaster was not achieved until two years later when the recorders were recovered from the ocean floor.
The committee was visibly unsatisfied about the non-retrieval of the recorders, and even about the international legality of the decision not to recover them. ICAO Annex 13 specifies: “the State conducting the investigation shall arrange for the read-out of the flight recorders without delay.”
Just kickin it off and doing a Kelpie...
Beaker blog
update:
Robert said...
Well, after reading this my suspicions of the ATSB have grown. What are you trying so hard to cover up? After the Senate inquiry I had concerns, now I am alarmed. I will certainly think twice before reporting minor occurrences. What is the ATSB hiding? It's a shame the survey has closed, I would have voiced my concerns there.
June 12, 2013 07:31
Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner (author) said...
I’m very keen to make the overall notifications process as transparent as possible so everyone understands why it’s important to report occurrences to the ATSB. As I mentioned in the blog post, we’ve been consulting widely on our reporting regulations with the aviation industry. In response to that feedback, the ATSB produced an information sharing arrangement document with CASA that gives industry greater clarity on what happens with occurrence notifications. We always welcome suggestions and feedback. You can provide comments by completing the feedback form on the ATSB website, emailing [email protected] or calling 1800 020 616.
June 13, 2013 04:07
Geoff Chatfield said...
Dear Sir As a person not activly involved in aviation as my employment but as an avid aviation enthusiast I am using all relevant information for research and for historical sake but I find your wording in the final paragraph of you Blog can I say interesting. It was not that long ago that both organizations were at log a heads with each other now we find that for reasons known only to the powers that be in CASA they (CASA) with held important and relavant information. From a laymans point of veiw I would not call this sort of thing as being a healthy and mature system.
June 13, 2013 08:21
