The TSBC total focus was on the bureau actions/inactions throughout the entire PelAir investigation, however we (the WWIOS) are not so restricted...
In the TSBC report - especially in
3.3 Data collection (November 2009 to September 2010) - there are many clues to how FF very cleverly distracted, manipulated and obfuscated their true intentions for their pre-determined outcome.
First on the CVR/FDR recovery assessment:
Considerable research was conducted into the options and associated costs for recovering the flight recorders from the wreckage. By policy, military support was not available unless commercial options did not exist. It was determined that a portable decompression chamber would be required on site for any diving operation because of the depth of the water, which would have driven the cost of recovering the recorders to more than AUD$200 000. On 25 January 2010, the ATSB Chief Commissioner decided that this would not be an efficient or effective use of ATSB resources, given what was known about the circumstances of the ditching and the availability of other sources of data and information.
A copy of this review (incamera) I assume was what Senator X was brandishing around here:
What should not be forgotten was that CAsA had earlier been approached to chip in for the recovery of the CVR/FDR, to which they declined on the grounds of lack of funds:
5Correspondence from CASA to committee clarifying statements made at 22 October 2012 hearing, received 1 November 2012;(PDF 163KB)
Then there was the wedge placed into the mix by CAsA which led to a blurring of the lines of responsibility when it came to reviewing the area of regulatory oversight -
3.3.6 Information on regulatory oversight:
Throughout the investigation, ATSB staff and management consulted or briefed CASA staff and management. Attachment A of the Memorandum of Understanding between the ATSB and CASA (October 2004) indicated that, upon agreement by both CASA and ATSB, a CASA officer might participate in the ATSB investigation. In this instance, no CASA officer was designated.
This is interesting because if CAsA did designate an officer to participate then that officer would be bound to confidentiality by the restrictions in the TSI Act. Probably not a desired outcome by CAsA and may have had an effect on the proposed enforcement actions on the pilot at the time.
CASA had conducted a special audit of Pel-Air from 26 November to 16 December 2009, after the ditching. The IIC was concerned that reviewing the special audit report might bias the ATSB investigation, and so did not request a copy. The ATSB received a copy of the CASA special audit report in July 2012, during the DIP process.
The IIC may have saved us all a lot of grief if he had requested a copy of that report but the intense pressure applied by CAsA conducting a parallel investigation was already evident, this was IMO a critical point in the investigation to which the ATsB were never to recover from...
12Internal ATSB email regarding the ATSB and CASA's approach to the Pel-Air investigation (dated 9 February 2010), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 1093KB)
Then there was the matters of the CAIR 09/3 report and the infamous Chambers Report:
On 28 July 2010, CASA briefed the ATSB on the findings of its regulatory investigation into the ditching, which it had done in parallel with the ATSB investigation.
Footnote 12 The team leader obtained a copy of the CASA investigation report in March 2011.
An internal CASA audit report dated 01 August 2010
Footnote 13 critically analyzed CASA's oversight of Pel-Air and its ability to oversee the wider industry. The ATSB had not known about this report during the investigation, and so it was not taken into account during decisions as to the scope of the investigation.
Both of which we now know CAsA deliberately sat on to further obfuscate and blur the lines of responsibility supposedly outlined in the newly minted MoU for the conduct of parallel investigations...
Remember this from Tezza...
:
From: FARQUHARSON, TERENCE
Sent: Thursday, 22 July 2010 12:36
To: McCormick, John
Cc:
Subject: FW: Pel air Accident VH-NGA Final Report [SEC=UNCLASSIAED]
The attached PelAir report has been finalised. Subject to one final confirmation of the fuel calculations by (blank) (being conducted this week), (blank) 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 has confirmed the fuel calculations, would like to discuss in general the report with ATSB. In any discussions 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.
Regards
MTF...
