More quality research from the inestimable Sarcs, emphasising the imperative. A clear need (Reason) for truly independent accident investigation..
Along with the disturbance of our Transport Safety Investigation Act (TSI), the diminishing chances of either the Senate or Forsyth recommendations being implemented with regard to the ATSB are pretty slim (skeletal); this demonstrated not only by the reappointment of Dolan, but by he being made the guiding light on the MH 370 event. Even with the great work being done by our 'troops' on the ground assisting the Dutch in the MH 17 event and the hard, coal face work on MH 370; anything mentioned by ATSB, no matter how vaguely related to underwater recovery of aircraft is going to be 'suspect', raise eyebrows and questions.
There is much evidence that neither the Senate nor industry fully trust the system, under it's current management, due to the close association and cooperation with both the regulator and the departmental administration. There is even a suspicion that Murky Machiavellian crew may even own and operate the system, through the swings and roundabouts, who would know?. However, no amount of stone god indifference, flipping the bird at the Senators or even an unlimited supply of self administered, deodorising spin can provide remedy for the burgeoning question. Is the Australian Transport Safety Board truly 'independent' of it's political masters?
The political influence has spread, like influenza; even the Canadians, who Vardy claims as the doyens of fair play and 'independence' have been besmirched, their motive brought into question. In the USA investigation, they must, forced by a powerful industry voice, be seen to be 'free'; Vardy claims top honours and brags of their response speed, willingness to assist, technical expertise and fearless independence.
Would we be able to come down to Virginia and conduct the investigation? Absolutely. The rest of the evening was spent building the team that would deploy for the field phase of the investigation. Western Regional Manager Jon Lee was appointed Investigator in Charge, accompanied by Randy Vitt, Senior Technical Investigator from the Central regional office in Winnipeg. They were to travel the next day, arriving in the evening.
then:-
That document was negotiated and signed by the Chairs of both organisations within two days. Under the Memorandum and the provisions in ICAO Annex 13, the authority and independence of the investigation was assured.
and despite the many 'challenges' the honourable TSBC team members soared to meet the needs of their cousins, as Vardy modestly states.
Along the way there have been many challenges, but the professionalism and dedication of all involved—at all levels, on both sides of the border—has turned this investigation into a shining example of international cooperation. It is a testament to the integrity of those who choose to serve in this way, those for whom advancing safety for the industry and the travelling public is in their DNA.
Furry muff, says the world, good job and thank you Canada.
Suitably buoyed, Vardy adds:-
We all wait for that next phone call, when the skills and expertise of our organization will again be called upon to reduce the number of times we ask: “What are the chances of that happening?”
Well, the next 'call' on the Bat phone came from Down-under; the Aussie's transport safety board - in the pooh. The blasted, interfering Senate have called foul and want the third umpire to adjudicate. So, the Canucks eventually saddle up and move out, after agreeing to carefully work within a very narrow set of benchmarks and promising faithfully not to go within a bulls roar of the topic which caused the imbroglio – to wit, the ditching off Norfolk Island of a West-wind medivac flight. "Only the paperwork system then? – yes Sir".
Now then, the good little injuns played nice, took their sweet time looking through the paperwork, then toddled off home to write the confidential 'first draft' and dutifully sent it back to those being audited for confidential technical and "factual" editing. Eventually, the second draft went back to the land of the Maple leaf, there to be further massaged (time passes) then to be translated, (time passes) then, the translation must be edited (time passes) and then, only under pressure, are we informed that the report will be released "some time in the late Autumn". Perhaps we could buy them a calendar to throw a dart at, just the months of the year mind you, nothing too demanding, then; maybe, we could get closer to a time line than just a season of the year. A current, popular opinion getting some oxygen, is that the Canucks are 'sitting' on the audit until their political masters are told by our political masters that it's 'safe' to release it. And that's just for a small, non fatal, no mystery, out of fuel in bad weather ditching; essentially, a very 'private' prang.
"Politically naive" - I'm told to expect true, transparent independence of investigation. Probably I am: but,
Is this then the system and people we must rely on to discover what happened when our own are injured, crippled or killed in accidents?
Is this then the system and people we must rely on to explain 'why' an accident has occurred and importantly, provide the tools to allow us to reduce the risk of a similar event occurring?
What - no answers ?; well, why I am not surprised.
According to ICAO, the state is responsible for ensuring the independence of 'the accident investigator'. Perhaps it's time to ask the question; what guarantee do we, as the people funding the system, have that it is, in fact, a 'truly' independent, closed loop system, free of all political 'interference?. Perhaps, one day, we shall know. But I'm not holding my breath.
Toot toot.