Part three – Late entrants to the MoP Stakes
Fair call “K”…
Indeed it is all passing strange but, in the current Sociopathic world of FF, IMO fairly predictable behaviour…
After all they’ve got away with embuggerance of industry minority groups/individuals and obfuscating Senate Inquiries for years, so why wouldn’t it work again??
They say the sign of a true Sociopath is they will never entertain the thought that they may actually be wrong...
Even when someone has, quite rightly, locked them up and thrown away the key, a true Sociopath will still argue the toss…
But I diverge back to Part three…
Kharon:
One thing (amongst the many) which intrigue me is the apparent breach of TSI 24, seems to me it's writ large but gets pushed aside with focus on 25 and 26, even the inimitable Aherne side steps the issues.
To be fair to the inimitable Mr Aherne he didn’t have the ability of hindsight; nor a DRAFT copy of the AAI report; so he could not possibly predict that the Senate Committee would devote part of Chapter seven to asking whether there had been a… Breach of the Transport Safety Investigation Act:
7.9 The committee remains very concerned by CASA's actions in this regard, and has cause to ask whether the agency is in fact also in breach of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act). Section 24 of the Act clearly states that it is an offence to hinder an investigation:
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and
(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct); and
(d) the conduct is not authorised by the Chief Commissioner.[9]
At para 7.10 - 7.12 it would seem that the primary concern for the committee was the fact that FF had withheld the Chambers Report from the ATsB. Such was their concern that they submitted a referral to the AFP:
7.12 This leads the committee to conclude that CASA may have breached section 24 of the TSI Act by withholding the document. To ensure that any appropriate action is taken, the committee will write to the Australian Federal Police, providing a copy of this report and supporting evidence for review.
Without actually being privy to the official referral for investigation by the RRAT committee, we are left in the dark to whether the referral was actually much broader in scope than merely the Chambers Report and Cook’s FRMS Special Audit report.
Bryan Aherne:
It appears that at least two documents which had cause to significantly affect a safety investigation, was deliberately withheld by CASA from the ATSB, in contravention of the provisions of the TSI Act 2003, the MOU and International Convention.
The provisions of s24 would seem to give the AFP a great more latitude to investigate the full gambit of the AAI report and supporting evidence. Indeed it would be unprofessional, unwise and extremely remiss for the AFP to do other than a full top down investigation, especially as this was a totally non-partisan referral effectively submitted under the authority of the Parliament.
Therefore it is more than safe to assume that (much like the TSBC) the AFP, once accepting the referral, would have examined all of the available documentation collated by the AAI inquiry. But unlike the TSBC the AFP would not be limited by a ToR and in the course of compiling a chronology of events/ chain of evidence, would be making further inquiries.
Above in Mr Bryan Aherne’s Supplementary Submission (PDF 856KB),under the heading Prejudice and Outcome Bias, Mr Aherne quotes from part of a CAsA officer’s email:
Email: Wednesday 18 August 2010 From CASA Officer to Director of Aviation Safety and Deputy Director of Aviation Safety
Re: ALIU Accident report Norfolk Island ditching VH-NGA
The above referenced report is now complete………….I have discussed the report with the ATSB and there are no differences in the key areas which will eventually be published by them in their report. I have aligned the report with the submission made by …our Westwind FOI Subject matter expert in yesterday’s AAT meeting.
The full email read something like this (reference - Internal CASA email regarding the discussion with the ATSB over the content of the ATSB report;(PDF 1193KB) )…
…(redacted)………the above referenced report is now complete and I have signed this and placed a copy on trim….You indicated that the report should not be made available outside CASA until you had accepted the report and authorised it for release should it be asked for by third parties . I have discussed the Report with the ATSB and there are no differences in the key areas which will eventually be published by them in their report. I have also aligned the report with the submission made by (redacted)..our Westwind FOI subject matter expert, in yesterday’s AAT meeting.
Finally the flight plan information supplied by Jeppesen indicates that there was insufficient fuel on board to cater for the worst case depressurisation scenario. Can you please review the final report and advise me that you approve its wider distribution should that be necessary. A coordinated enforcement meeting will take place tomorrow and the report will be discussed in that forum. I will print a copy of the report and leave it with (redacted) for your perusal. Please advise me if you accept the report…
In the eyes of the AFP this email would certainly have piqued their interest but IMO it is the subsequent replies (email chain) that would have red flagged an area of interest (possible breach of s24) and automatically necessitated further inquiries.
Eight minutes after this email was sent…
Thank you. There is no need to print the report. I am awaiting the outcome of the Coordinated enforcement meeting and its subsequent recommendation to EMOPS. I will then consider the 'thing' as a whole with DDAS/ADAS et al. Good work; please do not release the report until we have completed a formal consideration. I am not (redacted) suggesting, by the way, that the report will necessarily need more work, it is merely a case of not wanting a great deal of trepidation in the industry if the report was available for all to read, but the actions/recommendations themselves (if indeed there are any recommendations to come out of the next meeting etc) remain unrevealed and open to massive industry conjecture and 'decision making'. Those sorts of pastimes are not to CASA's long term benefit.
The report being talked about is of course the infamously hidden CAIR 09/3, but back to the email chain where finally we get this Dear John (my bold)…
Date: Thursday, 22 July 2010 12:36
The attached Pel Air report has been finalised. Subject to one final confirmation of the fuel calculations by (being conducted this week) (redacted), is comfortable with the report's content, to the extent that it correlates with the AAT material to be submitted shortly and that there are no differences that can be highlighted by the opposing legal team.
The release of this report will provide Ops with the material to begin consideration of any further action that may be necessary against the any of those involved in the accident.
When (redacted) has confirmed the fuel calculations, would like to discuss in general the report with ATSB. In any discussions (redacted) would not provide the ATSB with a copy of the report but would talk about the salient points. This is in keeping with the spirit of the MOU.
Your approval to release the report is requested.
Q/ Did FF ever give the bureau a full, unadulterated version of CAIR 09/3; or (like many other FF withheld docs) was the report never officially requested by the bureau (s32). Therefore FF simply didn’t send them a copy and merely discussed the more salient points of their own report??
Either way this email chain is very much within the bailiwick of the AFP in their investigation of possible breaches of TSI s24…
Which brings me to Part four - late entrant(s) of the ‘MoP stakes’ & another possible reason for the TSBC hold up on the release of their review report – all theory of course..
MTF…
Last edited by Sarcs; 19th Aug 2014 at 08:05.