I’m confused?? Like Dr Pape initially I thought we were watching a rerun of the ‘Empire Strikes Back’. Then (much like the Star Wars series) with the introduction of the WLR I thought we had fast forwarded (or was it back??) to a ‘New Hope’. However now I think we may be watching a rerun of the ‘Phantom Menace’?? Hmm…still confused…maybe we are all under some sort of Hoodoo Voodoo??
Kharon:
I find it hard to believe that the Canadian TSB would commence any form of analysis without an 'in depth' examination of the Australian registered difference to Annexe 13 and take note of how the spirit and intent of the ICAO tenet has been divorced and a new mistress, the MoU been installed. Of course the new regime has forced a difference to Annex 19 to be registered. It's all legal of course, tricky, but....legal.
A New Hope: In 2010 Senator X introduced a proposed amendment to the TSI Act:
TRANSPORT SAFETY INVESTIGATION AMENDMENT (INCIDENT REPORTS) BILL 2010
“…On 21 July 2007, a Jetstar Airbus A320 was being flown from Christchurch to Melbourne.
However, upon its approach into a foggy Melbourne, the pilot in command did not perform the go-around procedure correctly and, in the process, the crew were unaware that the aircraft was continuing to descend. The aircraft came within 38 feet of the ground before anyone realised.
After re-climbing, the pilot then attempted to land a second time but this had to be diverted again due to the fog. The plane eventually landed safely at Avalon airport.
Upon their return to New Zealand, the crew reported the incident to the airline operator, who took five days before reporting the incident to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
It was later revealed, however, that the internal report given to the ATSB by the operator excluded key information which led to the authority determining that a formal investigation was not required.
It was only after media reports some months later that the ATSB made further inquiries into the incident and determined that an investigation was required. Its report was highly critical.
Jetstar subsequently adopted Airbus’s standard procedures for go-arounds, and instigated a review of its third party training procedures.
Indeed, the 21st July incident may not have seen the light of day, had it not been for third parties coming forward with information.
Under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, 'responsible persons' (such as pilots and airline operators) are required to report all reportable matters to a 'nominated official' (such as the Australian Transport Safety Board) as soon as is reasonably practicable.
It provides that if a person improperly influences a 'responsible person' making a report, or penalises them for their report, that they face a penalty of 24 months imprisonment.
This Bill aims to ensure that all incidents are accurately reported and properly investigated so that safety measures can be reviewed, training processes addressed, protocols reviewed both for that airline in particular but also across the industry.
Indeed, without incidents being accurately reported, passenger safety has the potential to be compromised. This Bill is about maintaining the highest standards of aviation safety in Australia…”
History will show that Senator X’s proposed amendment and the subsequent Senate inquiry report was eventually white-washed by the Govt GWEP and this undertaking…
From Govt response to PT Senate Inquiry report:
Parallel Universe: Meanwhile in a galaxy..far..far..away…
On the 18 Nov 2010 ICAO, in the course of aligning the various Annexes with the principles (‘spirit and intent’) of their DRAFT version of Annex 19, amended the Annex 13 CH8 para 8.2 from a recommendation to a standard (from 2010 version of Annex 13)…
“…8.2 A State shall establish a voluntary incident reporting system to facilitate collection of information on actual or potential safety deficiencies that may not be captured by the mandatory incident reporting system.
Note.— States are encouraged to establish other safety data collection and processing systems to collect safety information that may not be captured by the incident reporting systems mentioned in 8.1 and 8.2 above…”
The Empire strikes back: Inevitably the hub bub of bigger domestic political issues, bureaucratic obfuscation, a listless MSM competing in a 24/7 news cycle and further political spin led to the Senator X intiative being all but forgotten.
Meanwhile in the halls and offices of the Dept (& its minion aviation safety agencies) it would appear the ‘powers to be’ were hatching a plan to (hopefully) avoid future public scrutiny & embarrassment from Senator X and his IOS cronies. Statement from the ATsB 2011-12 Annual report:
“Response to Senate Inquiry
On 23 June 2011, the Senate Rural and Transport References Committee handed down its report from its inquiry into ‘Pilot training and airline safety; and consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010’.
On 22 November 2011 the Government tabled its response in the Senate.
Copies of the Inquiry’s report and the Government’s response are available at: www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rat_ctte/pilots_2010/index.htm
The non–government Bill, the ‘Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010’, was directed at making amendments to the ATSB’s accident and incident notifications scheme. The Bill was not supported by the Inquiry or the Government.
The ATSB has been consulting separately on reforms to its notifications scheme. A draft set of regulations was released in July 2012.”
Under the smokescreen of the PelAir inquiry these regulations were introduced to the Parliament (22 Nov 2012) with the title of Transport Safety Investigation (Voluntary and Confidential Reporting Scheme) Regulation 2012 and replaced the Air Navigation (Confidential Reporting) Regulations 2006.
This initiative, in principle, was supposed to protect the principles/concept of REPCON incident reports and reinforce the importance that ICAO now places on protecting both the source and the safety information derived from such reports (i.e. as outlined in Annex 13 CH8 ACCIDENT PREVENTION MEASURES paragraph 8.2).
The significance that ICAO holds on the ‘spirit & intent’ of para 8.2 was further highlighted in a first meeting of the ICAO APRAST (Investigation Ad hoc Working Group), held in Bangkok 6-8 June 2012. Somewhat ironically, agenda
Item 7: Voluntary and Non-Punitive Incident Reporting discussed the ATSB REPCON programme, see HERE.
The Phantom menace: IMO replacing the Air Navigation (Confidential Reporting) Regulations 2006 with Transport Safety Investigation (Voluntary and Confidential Reporting Scheme) Regulation 2012 represents an extreme low point in the life & times of the ATsB & TSI Act 2003.Reading the reg, between the weasel words, you will see that all references to the ANA 1920 (the head of power for the 2006 regs), ICAO annex 13 (spirit & intent) have been omitted and it is dubious whether the assumed protections, meant to be provided, cannot be circumvented.
Finally (& to put the above Kharon quote in context) if we fast forward to the H18/14, released 3 April 2014. And then refer to the weasel worded difference to Annex 13 para 8.2 (pg 76); and the differences listed for the newly (November ’13) promulgated ICAO Annex 19 (pg 96-97), you begin to get a picture of the level of deceit our esteemed aviation safety authorities are prepared to go to in order to cover up our deficiencies as a signatory state to ICAO & Annex 19.
Dear miniscule,
ICAO Annex 19 Attachment A-2 sub para 1.3 states (my bold)…
“…1.3 Accident and incident investigation
The State has established an independent accident and incident investigation process, the sole objective of which is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and not the apportioning of blame or liability. Such investigations are in support of the management of safety in the State. In the operation of the SSP, the State maintains the independence of the accident and incident investigation organization from other State aviation organizations…”
TICK TOCK miniscule…