Sarcs, interesting thought provoking post, and an interesting Phelan article.
I am a bit of a fan of the old bureau days and particularly Alan Stray and Kym Bills, so out of my own general interest I might look around the chook shed to see if any light can be shed on the 'poor investigation'. There could be some valid reason (or non valid reason), a root cause even, for why an investigation pissed off the Coroner so much? As an example, although I have great respect for the NTSB, I have seen surprising reports, some quite crappy in fact, come out of investigations which one could classify as being 'sensitive', or 'political hot potatoes'
I am not alluding to anything untoward by the ATSB, but most certainly 'every action has a reaction', and if the Whyalla report was not of a standard commensurate with the bureau's normal and regular capabilities, quality and high standards then there
must be a reason. Perhaps the answers are out there and a little spade work and digging from a different angle and depth is required??
Incidentally, from another thread relating to the Tiger Moth crash off beautiful Straddie, it appears mi mi mi Beaker has opened his ATSB jam jar just a fraction and is providing a few cents more than he normally would for the investigation process to be a little more 'robust'. Perhaps the well manicured bureaucrat is trying to avoid the tendentious commentary he received after the Hempel and PelAir fiasco's? Or maybe the Canucks are out here still and have been advising Beaker on
how to conduct a mi mi mi investigation?