Creamy:
What information did DJ provide to the ATSB that was then passed on to CASA and used in the administrative action against him?
Okay Creamy I’ll bite just a little bit…not so you can pooh bah, from a legal perspective, my naïve layman assumptions but perhaps to expose some more bizarre actions/reactions by FF in the embuggerance saga of DJ…
To begin with I said that I
question whether the Doc’s comment was in fact true in the DJ case i.e. I have my suspicions. I know, from a legal perspective, that FF are the masters of intimidation in all matters pertaining to impending or ongoing enforcement action, no matter whether such actions appear to be insanely absurd
or over the top for what would normally be minor contraventions/non-compliances of the CAA/CASR...
Therefore Creamy I
question??
The veracity of FF’s parallel investigation, especially when it would appear that their interview of DJ (16 December 2009) was given under the false pretext of helping with the accident investigation {CAIR 09/3 reference: 1.5.5 Interview}….
…. “As part of the accident investigation, the Captain was interviewed and questioned on aspects of the flight…”
Note: I also have information, on good authority, that the three individuals who conducted the DJ interview were not (as per FF enforcement manual for the conduct of investigative interviews) recognised Part IIIA investigators and although there was a written ROI, there was no audio recording and DJ was informed that it was informal and could not be used for future legal enforcement action….and yet it would appear that they did??
The fact that the MALIU was operating under the, yet to be signed off on, 2010 MoU (section 4.1 ‘Parallel Investigations’) when it would appear that he should have been still operating under the guidance of the 2004 MoU, is somewhat irrelevant as the MoUs are not essentially legally binding.
Probably what is more important is the FF executive policy in regards to ATSB accident investigations and CAsA involvement with those investigations. The following encapsulates that policy…
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
This year CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) are working on a revised memorandum of understanding (MoU) that sets out safety objectives and underlying values to guide the ongoing relationship between the two organisations. The MoU will maximise aviation safety outcomes and enhance public confidence in aviation safety.
As part of the MoU, CASA reviews and comments on ATSB reports into aspects of aviation safety, including investigations into aircraft accident or incidents. CASA is considered a ‘directly involved party’ who may be either directly involved in the occurrences or their immediate aftermath or who may be affected by the findings. In 2007–08, CASA responded to 204 such reports.
CASA also responded to 41 requests for information, as required under section 32 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. Section 32 requests can require the appearance of people or the provision of documents by a specified date to assist in an investigation.
Under the Air Navigation (Confidential Reporting) Regulations 2006, administered by the ATSB, CASA is required to respond to safety concerns reported through the Aviation Confidential Reporting Scheme (REPCON). REPCON is a voluntary scheme, which enables any person who has an aviation safety concern to report it to the ATSB confidentially. In the event that the concerns are relevant to CASA’s business, these reports are forwarded for comment back to the ATSB. In 2007–08, CASA responded to 23 such reports.
Complementing activities under the MoU is CASA’s Accident Investigation Report Review Board (AIRRB—the Review Board), established in November 2007. The Review Board is a monthly forum, designed to review material released by the ATSB, using CASA’s aviation expertise to provide commentary on draft reports. Advice provided by the Review Board assists the ATSB in developing practical recommendations that can be implemented by industry, ensuring the continuous improvement of aviation safety standards. The Review Board meets monthly and is chaired by the Deputy CEO, Operations.
There was also an exec protocol (which I’m yet to find), which laid down the essential rules of engagement with the ATSB. Basically this stated that on all accident investigations the ATSB had primacy and if in the course of their investigations they noted possible serious and imminent risks to safety through regulatory non-compliance then they were duty bound to pass on this intel to CAsA (something that the bureau never did with the Norfolk ditching investigation), from above post...
Comment: Which begs the question on why (especially with a Special Audit instigated) the, not legally sanctioned, parallel investigation was instigated on the very same day as the ATSB investigation?? Also note the irony & almost psychic IIC comment... "tried to prosecute the probably indefensible and hardly relevant..."
But I diverge…so questions;
Q/ Was the FF interview of DJ part of the bureau investigation and FF were actually part of the hired help (as per attachment A of the 2004 & 2010 MoU)??
Q/ If so wouldn’t that mean that the Fijian ATC transcript was also essentially unavailable for FF use & abuse ( as per attachment C 2004 MoU or D 2010 MoU) till the bureau called in the FF storm troopers to investigate serious concerns about the pilot??
I know, I know, Creamy that from a legal perspective the point is moot but it does make for a fascinating tale (gap filler)…pity there is a fellow pilot’s livelihood and professional reputation hanging on the end of it…
..maybe more to follow??
Addendum: The following extract is from the DJ reply letter to Hoody's Xmas eve '09 NOS...
"Procedural fairness" & "natural justice"...yeah right!
Wodger would be laughing over his carrot daiquiri over that one...
