Thank you PAIN makes it so much easier to make quotes of interest...
Example: The now infamous gloss over by ALIU and his fellow investigators here:
0801 UTC NADI ATC provides the aircraft with the METAR for YSNF issued at 0630 ZULU. This was then updated with an Auto SPEC I for Norfolk issued at 0800 ZULU. Wind 290 at 08 Knots cloud overcast (OVC) at one thousand one hundred ft AGL, 21 oC and the dew point was 19oC and QNH Norfolk 1012.
...and here:
The Captain received an in-flight weather report at 0801 which indicated that the weather at Norfolk Island had deteriorated below the minimum conditions which required the holding of an alternate aerodrome. The weather report indicated only a very small difference of 2 degrees between the current temperature and the dew point (21/19).
...and again here:
Having commenced the flight from Samoa to Norfolk Island, the transcript of the Captain's communications with Air Traffic Control (ATC) in Fiji revealed that he received a weather report for Norfolk Island at 0801 UTC which showed that the weather conditions at Norfolk Island had deteriorated from those forecast during his flight planning at Apia.
Which we all now know ultimately led to the bureau totally missing the NADI error in the glossed over 0630 UTC METAR i.e. cloud base 600' instead of stated 6000'. The most embarrassing part being that it was the 4 Corners program that pointed out this error...
On the despicable SMH article (seem to be getting stuck into the MSM today...
) I find it more than passing strange that this affront to the senses suddenly appears 3 days after starting the TOE & MoP series...
Slight drift here..
I feel I need to clarify something to a certain STSI who had this to say in the 6 August 2012 internal email (linked in previous post):
There has been an alarming inconsistency in understanding about what is an 'organisational issue'. I have successfully argued for statements about the lack of organisational issues not to be included in the Norfolk Island and 'Tiger One' reports, and I was unhappy to see unflattering comments in Pprune about 'no organisational issues' in the analysis of the Darwin Brasilia report.
These facts lead me to believe there is little understanding of what an organisational issue actually is, and when it is, or is not important. I believe this lack of understanding is widespread.
'
Begging your pardon your Honour' but at no time was this little black duck (at least) personally critical of the lack of 'organisational issues' in the YPDN Braz report. In fact, on the contrary, I was critical of the fact that after all the good, factual organisational issues highlighted in that report, that the Safety Action section seemed to totally dismiss this evidence as irrelevant to the causal chain...
Drift over and back to the main game...err I do wonder however if the TSBC would have closely examined this email from an obvious Senior member of the bureau investigative team (that's if he/she is still there??) and had a quiet word or two. As the email IMO more than adequately highlights the dangers of Beaker's BASR approach...
