I agree with UITA's sentiments that the Govt response is typewritten bureaucratic spin authored by the Kingcrat i.e. the fix is well and truly in place..
The miniscule's complicity in the signing off of this spin and bulldust, is a typical Laborial soft c#cked approach to potentially politically embarrassing unknowns...
. I'd be interested to see if the Truss bandaid response was pretty much the same as the Albo draft response..??
However there is a number of positives in this reply as 77% of the recommendations were actually agreed to in principle and weren't white washed like the last inquiry by the
Great White Elephant Paper...
It's unfortunate that the two most critical recommendations (reopening the investigation & retrieving CVR/FDR) were dismissed, however we all knew that this miniscule would, from past form, always back the ATsBeaker opinion on this...
So to the Govt response..
To begin with here is a basic summary from
Australian Flying, with comments from DJ included:
Minister Responds to Senate Inquiry Recommendations 21 Mar 2014
The Federal Government has responded to the recommendations made by the
Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air Norfolk island ditching investigation.
In a statement released by Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Warren Truss yesterday, the government said it accepted 20 of the 26 recommendations made by the Senate.
“The Government has agreed to 20 of the 26 recommendations in the report, with a further four of the recommendations being matters for consideration by the independent safety agencies concerned,” Truss said.
“Key recommendations that the Government has agreed to include improvements to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau's (ATSB) investigative and reporting policies and procedures, and the establishment of better and more transparent information sharing and governance arrangements between the ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
“A number of initiatives have already been implemented to address many of the recommendations in the report."
However, the government has rejected calls to recover the flight data recorders and to re-open the ATSB investigation, two key aims of holding the Senate inquiry in the first place.
According to the response, recovering the data recorders would be costly and reveal no data that was not available through other sources, and whether or not the investigation should be re-opened was left up to the ATSB.
Dominic James, the pilot fingered by the ATSB report as being responsible for the November 2009 ditching, says the government's response falls short of what is required to make significant change.
"I am concerned this response doesn't go far enough," he told
Australian Flying. "My aim was that the truth behind how the ATSB report was compiled be found, and I believe the Senate inquiry did that. Questions over the conduct of CASA and the ATSB have been answered.
"But finding answers and making concrete changes aren't the same thing.
"There are some positives, but the fundamental recommendations have been let go, chiefly the one that called for the ATSB report to be rewritten.
"The government should have embraced all the recommendations. This was a landmark Senate inquiry in terms of its scope and the expertise, and I think the government should have listened more."
For James, who has long maintained the stance that the ATSB report overlooks the significance of deficiencies at Pel-Air, Truss' response yesterday is not the end of his campaign.
"I'm going to keep pushing until the ATSB report is rewritten. How can you have a reports that says Pel-Air was compliant when they were in fact responsible for regulatory breaches.
"You can't have one government document [the ATSB report] saying one thing and another [a CASA audit of Pel-Air] saying the opposite. How did Pel-Air escape any meaningful action being taken against them?"
Truss's statement and the
full government response to the RRAT recommendations are available from the Department of Infrastructre and Transport website.
Okay and the Govt response to recommendation 1:
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the ATSB retrieve VH-NGA flight data recorders without further delay.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
However advice from our independent aviation safety agencies, the ATSB and CASA, does not support retrieval of the recorders.
The ATSB has given detailed consideration to the Committee’s recommendation.
The ATSB has reached its position on the basis that:
- the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) covered communication between the crew for the last two hours of the flight which is after the critical instances and decision points of the flight i.e. receipt and assimilation of the various weather updates and decisions on flight planning and fuel management; and
- the flight data recorder (FDR) only recorded five basic parameters and would provide limited benefit to the understanding of the accident.
Therefore with respect to the ditching of aircraft VH-NGA, the ATSB advises that data to be obtained from the CVR and FDR would offer little information directly relevant to the key safety issues in the investigation not already available from other sources.
The ATSB has also advised that any information obtained would not likely lead to any commensurately significant safety learning or improvement to transport safety. Retrieval of the recorders would also not represent a proper use of limited public resources, consistent with the provisions of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Public Service Act 1999, with which the Chief Commissioner is obliged to comply. It is considered unlikely to lead to a better understanding of any significant lessons learned for the aviation industry.
The current international position, which is what applies to the Committee’s recommendation, is that the relevant International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annexe 13 provides that effective use shall be made of flight recorders in accident or incident investigations.
Determining effective use involves weighing up the likely safety benefits to be derived from the information obtained, alongside the cost of the recovery action and having regard to where a crash site is difficult to access.
The Government is however cognisant of the Committee’s concerns over the carrying out of the investigation and therefore supports the current Canadian Transportation Safety Board peer review of the ATSB investigation methodologies and processes having regard to Australia’s obligations under ICAO Annex 13. The peer review report is scheduled to be completed by May 2014
Given recent (and past) comments on here about the logistics of recovery of the CVR/FDR, make this response an absolute joke and a shocking slap in the face to the intellect of all IOS members plus '
the man at the back of the room!'
It is a pointless exercise (& vomitous in parts) to rehash all of the Govt response to the recommendations but one constant theme throughout the response is that the ATsB & FF are...
"independent statutory authorities".. That would certainly be true with FF (dictatorial, unaccountable, Judge Jury Executioner & trough dwellers might be more appropriate..
), however one thing the PelAir inquiry more than adequately highlighted is that the ATsB claim of independence, under Beaker, is a laughable myth..
. The ATsB is no more than a hand puppet for both the Dept & FF to play around with...
Senator X:..."
What is vitally important about the recommendations from this report is that they do not stand alone. They were made in the context of evidence that showed a serious and systemic lack of rigour from both the ATSB and CASA. Any responses from the government that claim that existing policy or procedure addresses the committee's concerns cannot be accepted, because this report clearly shows that existing policies and procedures do not work. Instead, the flight crew of VH-NGA were made scapegoats for regulatory failures...
...
This report also called into question the relationship between the ATSB and CASA, and whether the intention of the memorandum of understanding between them is being met. The purpose of CASA is to ensure Australia's aviation safety regulations are being met and are serving their purpose. Therefore, if an incident investigated by the ATSB reveals a gap in that oversight, it is the ATSB's duty to report it..."
And the TSBC review..well let us again refer to Senator Nick on that one..
"....I note that the government has already established its review into aviation safety, and that the ATSB has already invited the Canadian transport safety board to consider its investigative and reporting processes in relation to the Pel-Air incident and other matters. But I do have serious concerns about the Canadian process. Those concerns are not about the integrity of the Canadian transport safety board, but about the fact that it seems that their terms of reference are so circumscribed. They have yet to interview or obtain information from the Senate committee, from the pilot involved in that incident or from experts who gave evidence to that committee..."
So the battlelines are well and truly drawn, again best summed up by Senator Nick:
The government should take a similar approach to considering this report. Sadly, it has not. In what environment is the ATSB and CASA operating? What are their cultures like? Are they likely to enforce the systems and procedures already in place, or do changes need to happen? This report gives us the answer to many of those questions. The next question is whether the government will take them into account and act appropriately. I seek leave to complete my remarks later.
More to follow..
