Kharon:
To me, it's not the finding as much as how the interpretation is framed. Compare the Pel Air and Whyalla "investigations" and three points shriek at you.
Had it not been for industry voluntary donations of expertise, logic and analysis, the results would be still standing today. Industry exposed the truth – not the 'experts'.
The industry would be placed at an increased risk level by accepting and following the 'expert' results.
The 'experts' who attempted to foist this flummery, then went to extraordinary lengths to make sure 'their' risible versions (facts and circumstances) were accepted, those folk 'expert' are still out there. Posturing as 'leaders-in-the-field', preening at international events, spoon feeding hapless politicians an ever increasing load of carefully spun mystique and drawing their salaries from the toil of honest folk.
It's beyond disgusting – and old Truss thinks the milk sop review, sponsored and stage managed by those who created the unholy mess is going to make this all go away.
Whyalla may or may not have been the catalyst for where we find ourselves today but it is now somewhat academic. A couple of recently released bureau reports, plus Kharon's succinct post above, IMO perfectly highlight the current status quo within aviation safety regulation & accident/incident investigation in this country and add further evidence that we are fast approaching critical mass (the holes are aligning)!
First cab off the rank is the prelim report for the wx related
'Serious Incident' involving two 737s diverting into Mildura due fog at YPAD. Link to my post on the subject (incident) on ANZ&P forum:
"From the sublime to the ridiculous???"
In that post I put my thoughts & disgust
in fairly plain language on the ATSB downplayed prelim report...IMO truly disgusting for an incident that has enormous implications to the whole industry not just the airline sky gods!
Perhaps the more understated comment by
wildsky (Ben's article) points to the true potential knock-on effects of the ATSB (dis)missive, prelim report and their future investigation activities into the incident.
...."
I guess this “safety forum in respect of the provision of operational information to the flight crews in this occurrence, and more generally” and the “research study into the unreliability of aviation meteorological forecasts” will be rolled out eventually as the Government response to:
“Recommendation 24
9.106 The committee recommends that the relevant agencies investigate appropriate methods to ensure that information about the incidence of, and variable weather conditions at, Norfolk Island is available to assist flight crews and operators managing risk that may result from unforseen weather events.”
Despite the Chief Commissioner selectively quoting the Bureau of Met’s Norfolk forecasting reliability data to disguise the real and identified risk levels, the reality was that all of the clues were presented to the ATSB and CASA that we had, and still have, a significant operational problem. Mildura, or many other mainland aerodromes, do have lower risks of forecasting errors than remote islands – but the risk still exists and the Mildura event showed just how quickly things can change from risk to actual danger to life and limb.
Safety forums and research studies are what you do when you don’t really want to do anything – they are nice shows of interest but have no weight in achieving change.
Makes me so glad every time I hear “safety is our number one priority”…
The next report was also covered by Ben, see here:
Virgin 737 cleared to fly through paratrooper drop: ATSB
On the surface this report was fairly reasonable and it would appear that all DIPs have taken on-board the Bureau's concerns and are progressively addressing the significant safety issues. But again the devil is always in the detail which, as we all know, in bureau reports is (usually) contained in the
Safety Issues/Actions section. This particular report has led to the bureau (surprise..surprise..
) actually promulgating two safety issues on their
Aviation safety issues and actions database, see here:
AO-2012-142-SI-01 &
AO-2012-142-SI-02
Now my beef is that this bureau initiative is all well and good but why weren't these latent safety issues made transparent and publicly available back then?? I know..I know it is all about Beaker's touchy, touchy feely, feely, beyond all sensible reason methodology... But it just leaves the man at the back of the room asking.."
what else are the hiding??"
Note: Ironically, in the case of the YMIA incident, even certain DIPs (in this case ASA) are still waiting for the ATSB to follow normal accepted practice and submit safety recommendations to frame a ASA MAP (Management Action Plan).
Reference QON 161 AA 02 CHAIR Maintenance of AWIS (Sen Estimates 18/11/13)....
"....Mr Hood: There are over four million aircraft movements in Australia a year, very few of which cause us significant concern. I think it is fair to say this is a concerning incident. We are cooperating fully with the ATSB. It is our hope that the ATSB will establish all of the facts and make appropriate recommendations, on which we will act...."
Unless the Beaker suggestion of having a
'love in'is to be regarded as a serious SR from the bureau, it would appear that Hoody could be waiting a while...
FFS the bureau in it's present form is a disgrace!
More to follow...
