ATSB reports

[Sarcs]

ATsBeaker wet letter response vs TSBC 'name & shame'!

ATSBeaker:

ATSB action in response:The ATSB recognises the acceptance of the recommendation by CASA. The ATSB will continue to monitor the ongoing work by CASA until the issue has been satisfactorily addressed.

The wet lettuce response from mi..mi..mi Beaker got me thinking how do our Canuck counterparts admin and follow up SRs and is it more effective and possibly more transparent???

To begin with let's compare the two versions of the respective Acts on the subject of SRs.

TSI Act:

25A Responses to reports of, or containing, safety recommendations

(1) This section applies if:

(a) the ATSB publishes a report under section 25 in relation to
an investigation; and
(b) the report is, or contains, a recommendation that a person,
unincorporated association, or an agency of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, take safety action.

(2) The person, association or agency to whom the recommendation is made must give a written response to the ATSB,within 90 days of
the report being published, that sets out:

(a) whether the person, association or agency accepts the
recommendation (in whole or in part); and
(b) if the person, association or agency accepts the
recommendation (in whole or in part)—details of any action
that the person, association or agency proposes to take to
give effect to the recommendation; and
(c) if the person, association or agency does not accept the
recommendation (in whole or in part)—the reasons why the
person, association or agency does not accept the
recommendation (in whole or in part).

Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation
and Safety Board Act Section 24:

(5) The Board shall
(

a) during its investigation of a transportation occurrence, notify forthwith in writing any minister or person who, in the opinion of the Board, has a direct interest in the findings of the Board of any of its findings and recommendations, whether interim or final, that, in the opinion of the Board, require urgent action; and

(

b) on completion of its investigation of a transportation occurrence, notify forthwith in writing any minister or person who, in the opinion of the Board, has a direct interest in the findings of the Board of its findings as to the causes and contributing factors of the transportation occurrence, any safety deficiencies it has identified and any recommendations

resulting from its findings.

Minister to reply
to Board
(6) A Minister who is notified of the findings and recommendations of the Board under paragraph (5)(a) or (b) shall, within ninety days after being so notified, (a) advise the Board in writing of any action taken or proposed to be taken in response to those findings and recommendations, or (b) provide written reasons to the Board if no action will be taken or if the action to be taken differs from the action that was recommended, and, in either case, the Minister shall make that reply available to the public.

&

Extension of
time

(8) Where the Board is satisfied that a Minister is unable to reply to the Board within the period referred to in subsection (6), the period

may be extended as the Board deems necessary.

Well on first assessment there appear to be a number of similarities but to my mind the big difference is that the Canucks cut out the middle man and address SRs direct to the Minister...hmm worth noting that?

Next do the Canucks just accept the responses as given i.e. the wet lettuce approach (above). Well trolling through the TSBC website I came across a news release, although dealing with rail SRs, would seem to indicate that the TSBC is not afraid to name and shame when they're "not happy Jan"! :

Transport Canada falls short in response to Board recommendations issued from VIA Rail Burlington accident investigation

Gatineau, Quebec, 15 November 2013 — Citing a lack of firm action, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) is concerned there is no clear strategy in place to address the rail safety issues identified by the Board.

Today, the TSB released its assessment of Transport Canada's response to the three recommendations it made following its investigation into the February 2012 VIA Rail Burlington accident (investigation report R12T0038). In that accident, three locomotive engineers died and dozens of passengers were injured when VIA No. 92 derailed at a crossover en route from Niagara Falls to Toronto.

“We think the TSB has made a compelling case for these recommendations. They are definitely aimed at improving safety,” said Wendy Tadros, Chair of the TSB. “Two of these recommendations are on our Watchlist (Following signal indications and On-board voice and video recorders) and their implementation will bring down the risk of another accident like Burlington.”

The first recommendation called upon Transport Canada to require physical fail-safe train controls, beginning with Canada's high-speed rail corridors (R13-01). Transport Canada is taking some action to study the issue, but the TSB cautions that this study needs to result in a clear and definitive action plan to ensure trains will automatically slow down and stop when they are supposed to.

While Transport Canada accepted the second recommendation on in-cab video cameras in locomotives (R13-02), it stopped short of requiring them, and instead as with voice recordings, is encouraging voluntary installation.

The TSB believes a voluntary approach does not go far enough and will not ensure that the vast majority of locomotives in Canada will be equipped with essential recorders.

On the other hand, the TSB is optimistic with the proposed action on its third recommendation. Transport Canada plans to start the regulatory process by March 2014, requiring that crashworthiness standards for new locomotives also apply to rebuilt passenger and freight locomotives (R13-03).

“While it is positive that Transport Canada accepts the recommendations,” added Tadros, “Canadians deserve a clear strategy and timely action plan to implement these recommendations.”

The TSB will continue to monitor progress on these recommendations and will reassess them on a regular basis.

So like chalk and cheese I reckon ...hmm Minister perhaps a slight adjustment to the TSI Act could be warranted here??