Sarcs# 1786 –" So it is a good fit (miniscule) for the Beaker TSBC review charade conundrum, perhaps you’ve already considered it??
TSBC review, like the 2004 audit is a non starter; but it would be unfair to accuse the Canucks of being part of the charade though. The TSBC have been given a brief which, no doubt they will scrupulously adhere to. The Senate are onto the game and the narrow ToR are exposed to reveal, once again, the depths to which our safety agencies are prepared to sink, to ensure their pre determined outcomes. Two options; we could save the dollars and let Beaker write his own report, because if he or MM are writing the ToR the result is a foregone conclusion. Option two would be the honest approach and have an independent audit of the Pel Air fracas; no holds barred and no homemade ToR; that may get closer to a true picture. But I think the Senate know this, their job is to reveal the cunning plan. The only slightly pregnant question is of course; what will/can the Senators do, now they have the knowledge? Complicit, negligent or proactive, that is the question the Senate must publicly answer.
The answer is pure easiology, lets have a 2014 ICAO audit of ATSB done by the heavy mob; only this time, lets act on it – value for money etc.
Mr Dolan: The three commissioners determined that it was their responsibility to make that assessment and we did not see any need or possibility to defer that decision to someone else.
What we did do, quite deliberately, was ask a counterpart organisation, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, to benchmark our investigation methodology against their investigation methodology and to review three of our investigations in light of that, essentially against what the TSB would have done as against what we did, and to give us an independent report on the results.
It is entirely possible that as a result of that there will be new and significant information. If there is, the commission will reopen the investigation. (My bold)
Mr Mrdak: I think going back to my earlier answer about the integrity of the process, the terms of reference that have been given to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the way in which they are looking at that and the advice to government from the ATSB on that process will underpin the government's response when that is tabled in terms of the very questions you are asking. (My bold)
Senator XENOPHON: You would understand the disquiet in the aviation community that the ATSB was effectively Caesar judging Caesar. The commissioners had to make a determination as to whether they did a good job or not in terms of their previous report that was the subject of scathing criticism by a Senate inquiry. But you acknowledge that? (My bold)
Senator FAWCETT: One of the things Mr Dolan said to us earlier was that the TSB was going to give them a draft so that they could look at issues of fact. We have just had a prolonged discussion between Senator Xenophon and Mr Dolan around 'new and significant'. The facts, as came out on paper very clearly before the Senate committee was that there was new information—and I particularly refer to the Chambers report. It was significant, because the ATSB report said that the regulatory system that was in place did not need investigation and yet the new information highlighted that CASA itself knew that there were significant deficiencies in that which had not been highlighted. So, the evidence in black and white said that it was new and significant. Our concern is that if ATSB is given the role of deciding what is factual and if there are factual errors in the TSB report, if TSB say that this is new and significant and it should have been investigated. What we have just heard from Mr Dolan yet again is that the ATSB considers it completely within their remit to say, 'We are the ones legally charged with deciding if it is new and significant. We decide that is factually incorrect. Send it back to the TSB with an amendment.' That hardly inspires confidence in the aviation community in Australia. (My bold)
Mr Mrdak: I did read the way you have taken that from what Mr Dolan has said here today or previously in relation to the nature of the Canadian draft report. I would not lead you to the conclusion that you have reached, I do not think. Knowing the way in which these processes are undertaken and the integrity of the agency involved, I do not think you could lead to the conclusion you are reaching from the ATSB being asked to fact check a document. I do not think that is the way the Canadian authorities would ever see that taking place.
Senator XENOPHON: I understand that, but is that also the subject of review by the TSB?
Mr Dolan: The TSB is looking at the process by which the ATSB undertook this investigation, and that material is relevant to their consideration. I would not expect to be taken chapter and verse through the process that the TSB is using to meet their terms of reference. I am happy—and I am not sure whether it has been done previously—to supply the terms of reference to the committee to give some context as to what is actually being undertaken by the Canadians.(My bold)
You can fool some of the people, some of the time. To paraphrase WC Fields; Muppets are like elephants. I like to look at 'em, but I wouldn't want to own one.