Kharon at post #1021 of the Truss thread…
…said this (#1021):
Minuscule – in very real terms, the ATSB is an essential part of air safety much more so than the 'regulator'; but don't rely on the BRB, ask the Americans, the Brits or the Canadians how they would feel about a toothless, irrelevant Transport Safety Board. Make the ATSB independent, free of obligation and funding wrangles: Oh, and please, lend me a cannon from the lawns on parliament hill, for a short ceremony; you can watch.
And on the CVD petition sticky “K” linked to a 2010 Ben Sandilands PT article titled - Independent push for better air safety standards in Australia
Perhaps the key word in the PT article title and the “K” post is independent. Under Beaker the ATsB has brought us the Hempel non-investigation; the PelAir debacle; the ATsB arranged YMIA incident love-in event; and recently the strange tabloid style prelim report on a certain grounded ATR..aaand the list goes on and on..
Which is all evidence that the ATsB, in its current form, is disturbingly & severely lacking in any form of being a transparent & fully independent State run AAI.
004 sums up best the current conundrum of the bureau…
“…Although most attention is on CAsA and its misuse of power for decades, we cannot forget Beaker. He has managed in less than 5 years to take the once well respected and well reputed ATsB and turn it into a spineless limp wristed penny pinching accountancy firm. The quality, content and effectiveness of its investigative reports and processes are laughable and lamentable, with Bangladesh and Zimbabwe providing a higher quality and higher standard than our ATsB. Dolans experimentation with 'beyond Reason' methodology is a failure and a complete joke. Placing budget ahead of the Pel Air aircraft retrieval is outright lunacy and incompetency at the highest level, not to mention having 3 commissioners of whom none have an aviation investigative background…”
Throughout the 5 year tenure of Beaker, & his systematic dismantling of the once proud ATSB/BASI reputation, Senator Xenophon has been the one consistent, nagging voice highlighting the deficiencies of CAsA, ASA and the bureau in the administration/oversight of air safety in this country.
NX has also had a strong ally and confidante in AIPA, who undoubtedly have provided many behind closed door briefings to NX, while always contributing and appearing at all of the aviation related Senate inquiries initiated by the good Senator. AIPA’s message on the importance of maintaining a fully independent ATsB is also consistent.
Unlike many of the ASRR submissions, which largely focused their attentions on the big R regulator, AIPA‘s submission highlighted their very real concerns with the continuing demise of the ATsB.
Excerpts from the AIPA submission -197 AIPA:
The ATSB
In October 2012, AIPA made a submission to the Australian Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations (the “Pel-Air Inquiry”). The Committee’s final Report is a vital document for the Review.
However, we believe that our submission for the most part addressed a range of issues that remain directly relevant to the Review’s Terms of Reference and we strongly recommend that you read it separately from the Senate’s final report. It can be found at:
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=31a52199-58c6-4cd8-ad9e-646f2356b23a
For the present purpose, we do not believe that we need to quote large slabs of our Pel-Air Inquiry submission. However, the following brief synopsis will not do justice to the detail of the argument in our submission nor will it establish the full context. Subject to that caveat, what we said was:
• the ATSB report on the ditching was too little, too late to improve aviation safety as a result of that event;
• the standard of the report was the antithesis of that expected from the ATSB by the broader aviation community;
• the report appeared to have been rendered of little use by the dead hand of bureaucracy, which then raised questions about why that might have been the case;
• we questioned whether an over-emphasis on the ”no blame” philosophy has overshadowed, if not obscured, the importance of the ATSB’s primary role to improve transport safety;
• we then examined the seismic shift in the relationship between ATSB and CASA from the Lockhart River Coronial Inquiry and the publication of the Pel-Air report;
• the Miller Review was commissioned to redress the “serious, ongoing animosity between” CASA and the ATSB;
• Miller came from the law, which is all about allocation of blame and
punishment, to review the relationship with an organisation that eschews those very tenets;
• Miller’s recommendations were adopted by Government and the ATSB was pushed into the background;
• Miller, undoubtedly for all of the right reasons, stated:
“…Ultimately, the ATSB's contribution will be judged, not by the quality of its analysis, conclusions and safety recommendations per se, but by the influence those recommendations have on improving the aviation safety system.”
• we didn’t think it appropriate to judge ATSB against the inaction of those to whom the safety recommendations are addressed; and
• the ATSB became “institutionally timid” and essentially stopped making safety recommendation of any note, but enjoyed a vastly “improved” relationship with CASA.
While clearly AIPA’s submission straddles the first and second objective of this Review, the reality is that the Senate Inquiry largely underlined that the effectiveness of the ATSB had largely been sacrificed in the interests of not upsetting CASA. Had the same Senate Committee inquired into the Lockhart River accident investigation, it is highly likely that it
would not have been the ATSB that was side-lined in the aftermath.
AIPA maintains the view that the large scale adoption of the Miller recommendations has had the effect of negatively influencing the true intentions of paragraphs 12AA(1)(b) and (c) of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSIA) by repressing the independence of
the ATSB and suppressing holistic examination of the aviation safety system.
AIPA’s submission specifically questioned whether CASA’s role in the aviation system was being adequately scrutinised, but the harsh reality is that the same question could be asked in relation to any of the agencies directly or indirectly influencing aviation safety. Current
knowledge, post the Senate Inquiry, suggests not.
AIPA believes that the ATSB has a very clear duty under the TSIA to independently and holistically examine the aviation safety system. Pandering to the ego or behaviour of any stakeholder is anathema to the principles under which the ATSB was established and AIPA strongly believes that the safety message should never be lost in the telling. We strongly support the notion of the ATSB as the watchdog of agency influence on aviation safety.
Nonetheless, AIPA recognises two important factors: first, the current generation of senior ATSB managers may find it difficult to step out of Miller’s shadow;and second, the ATSB is not and never should be a routine auditor of the aviation safety system. AIPA believes that the latter function requires a Machinery of Government change to redress a number of aviation safety governance issues. We will elaborate on that proposal later in this submission.
In regard to the appointment of the ATSB Executive, AIPA is very conscious that ‘profiling’ has its limitations and that the key to success is very much about ‘the right stuff’’ and less about career paths. We will always have a preference for operational experience in executive positions of entities that have a profound influence on aviation safety, regardless of what type of entity is involved. ‘Operational experience’ includes experience as a safety
specialist or as a regulator that can be shown to be appropriately proximate to the actual conduct of flight operations. AIPA recognises that there may be a need for appointments within the ATSB Executive for career public servants, but, subject to our ‘right stuff’ caveat, we have deep reservations about such appointments at any level above Deputy CEO (however designated).
Recommendation 3
AIPA recommends that the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development issue a directive to the ATSB clarifying that paragraphs 12AA(1)(b) and (c) of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 require holistic examination of the aviation safety system, including the regulatory framework, and that cooperation and consultation with stakeholders must
not be permitted to compromise the independence of the ATSB or the making of safety recommendations.
& from page 14 of the AIPA submission:
The widespread industry view is that ATSB has largely lost its way post-Lockhart River and post-Miller and is now subservient to CASA.As usual, the truth has now become irrelevant under the weight of perception. The reality is that someone needs to watch the watchdog and, not withstanding the narrowly focused legal review mechanisms, that role currently can fall only on the shoulders of the ATSB.
AIPA views the unseemly public battle between CASA and the ATSB over Lockhart River to be predominantly a behavioural failure of CASA senior management but, most importantly, it was a major failure on the part of the Department in supervising two critical portfolio agencies on behalf of the Minister. To be fair to the Secretary, for whom we have the greatest respect, the outcome and the perceptions generated by the Pel-Air Inquiry were undoubtedly unexpected. Nonetheless, AIPA is of the strong view that the Secretary should advise the Minister that it is proper and appropriate for the ATSB to critically examine the role of the regulator and the regulatory framework as part of its functions under the TSIA and, furthermore, advise the Minister that it is proper and appropriate for CASA to expect and accept such scrutiny.
Well Red (M&M) are you up for the challenge on briefing the miniscule on the AIPA (& some IOS) strong view(s) on the ATSB; or will you continue to deny the findings of the myriad of industry & Senate findings/recommendations. Recommendations that more than adequately prove that you have in fact a very big, out of control problem that can only end in tears, a decimated industry and a series of big smoking holes in the ground with a baying public calling for the miniscule & your (pumpkin) head???
TICK..TOCK RED!
Addendum for Jinglie benefit:
Last edited by Sarcs; 15th Jul 2014 at 12:07.