Creamy:
You seriously believe the AFP is going to do anything more than spend 5 minutes pretending to care about this, then get back to something important?
Actually Creamy I couldn’t agree more, in fact I was somewhat surprised that the Feds accepted the Senate’s referral at all but apparently they did?? So even if they were to only spend 5 minutes on a cursory look/see, once accepted they would still be bound by protocol and (unlike CAsA apparently) the HOCOLEA principles to at least appear to do a thorough job…
“K” - I doubt anyone takes the AFP investigation, any of this charade, my fairy story or even Australian aviation 'seriously'. If they did the body count at the bottom of tall buildings would be much higher. But if you treat it as pure entertainment, realising it's true value is in that, then sanity and a few laughs along the way will be yours.
Exactly “K”, so while we while away the time…
…the AFP have a little less (or much more) work to do now methinks. Reading through the story above, as seen through the investigators eyes, rather than the lay perspective, raises some very interesting questions. The most intriguing is why go to such extraordinary lengths and risk so much? what was the motive?...
Interesting questions you ask “K”, but for the moment put motive aside because in the eyes of the AFP the primary objective is gathering evidence, tracking down leads, interviewing possible witnesses/suspects and slowly but surely mounting a case that eventually they hope (or not) to present as a brief of evidence to the CDPP. Motive is the job of the prosecutor to establish and not the investigator.
Though I do love the Fairy Story so far and cannot wait for the next instalment…
But back to the timeline of embuggerance…
Previously: We were left with a very interesting email chain that had the DAS, in his usual arrogant way, saying this…
“…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…”
Which says to me that the DAS (at least) was expecting the bureau (as is normal procedure) to soon publish an interim report on at least the CSI. It was just a matter of whether that would be in the form of a SR or an SI. This assumption by the DAS was also reinforced by the fact that a month before his ‘white hats’ had drafted NPRM 1003 OS and he had personally endorsed the proposed amendment to CAO 82.0 (Annex A).
To that point in time the situation, although not SOP, was still recoverable and could have seen the various parties (except for DJ) climbing out of a potentially embarrassing situation that had the potential to highlight serious flaws in their newly minted détente MoU.
However the next email reply (4 days later) from the (obfuscating) DDAS seems to be where everything went South for the next two years??
“…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…”
People can fill in the blanks but basically the report (CAIR 09/3) matched the evidence (ducks in a row) intended to be presented at the AAT, except the opposing legal team did fervently contest this evidence. Hmm…wonder if the opposing legal team were privy to CAIR 09/3 in its entirety?
Quote from Wodger:
“…When: Thursday, 12. August 2010 11:00-12:00 (GMT+10:00) Brisbane.
Where: Vidcon
Folks,
We need to discuss the current actions in relation to Dominic James in light of the ALIU Report and Len Vegar Statement…”
Anyway back to the last part of the DDAS reply email…
“…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…”
Besides another possible breach of TSI s24, & the rather bizarre interpretation by the Deputy Dog that all this skulduggery was in keeping with the new MoU, what I find passing strange was all this high level micro-managing of a matter that should have been more than capably handled by middle management identities. Still we all know that Deputy Dog was in deep virtually right from the get go.Here is a reminder from Senator X at the 15/02/13 hearing:
Senator XENOPHON: Mr Farquharson and Mr McCormick, let's go to the email of 20 March 2010 about whether it is a critical safety issue. The whole issue was downgraded from a critical safety issue to a minor safety issue. I query the role CASA had with respect to that. I will remind you that the email says that there is one group of pilots that has one view which leads to a mandatory diversion, and another group has the opposite view. Putting aside the practicalities, both groups believe they are legally correct. If we find ourselves in an AAT or a court, we once again look a bit foolish if we, the regulator, find ourselves in the position where we have to say there are two conflicting views, one of which has to be wrong, and we have done nothing to rectify it over the years. It is very untidy.
You wanted this downgraded to a minor safety issue because it would have covered you in terms of any potential litigation.
We also know that beyond the above email chain the DDAS was still actively involved in the matter, even acting as the DJ decision maker, on request from Wodger, in the absence of Hoody…
Quote from email sent 07:04 am, 13 January 2011:
In Greg's absence l am referring to you the amended CAR 5.38 notice for Dominic James for consideration and approval.
The amendment is to ensure the objectives of the flight test requirements specified in the original notice can be achieved using simpler aircraft types requested by James due to his financial situation. The attached correspondence provides detailed explanation for the amendment. ·
The draft notice was prepared by Adam and reviewed by Bankstown FOIs and myself. I recommend signing the notice…
Moving along through the publically available information, that surely the AFP would have at least reviewed, we find that the timeline of embuggerance from the email chain goes into a time vacuum for virtually two years until we get to the DRAFT report stage of the ATsB investigation. We then get these three internal emails…
16 - Internal ATSB email- reviewer wanting to look more closely at FRMS and re-interview pilots (dated 24 May 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 535KB)
17 - Internal ATSB email- reviewer indicating they can't deviate at this point and they have to work with what they have (dated 24 May 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 360KB)
18 - Internal ATSB email regarding the inconsistency in safety knowledge of ATSB staff (dated 6 August 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 1597KB)
Which to be honest are probably more of interest to the TSBC and would largely lose any good AFP investigator. Who would probably assess them as largely irrelevant to their inquiries, except maybe for the last part of the 3rd email…
Many of my arguments that have been rejected have been ones where I have applied safety management methods and tools, and those arguments have been rejected by a reviewer who looks from a regulatory viewpoint instead of a safety management viewpoint. Yes, regulatory arguments are the easiest to defend, but the maintenance of high reliability, complex systems must rely on so much more than only regulatory compliance. To make useful comments on these matters relies on our belief in, and use of, contemporary safety management theories and methods. To me, this was particularly evident when CASA's Norfolk island audit report came into our hands, and some of the arguments I had tried unsuccessfully to include in the report were subsequently included on the basis of CASA's findings, not mine! When I have to rely on CASA's opinion to persuade the ATSB, How can I claim that the ATSB is independent when it investigates CASA?
And so ends the trail of evidence (TOE) that we are aware of 
(i.e. publicly available), of course the AFP would be privy too so much more and they have the powers to interview etc. if they indeed cared to?? 
MTF with Part Four & the MoP Stakes…