It would have been better for the TSBC to have redone the investigation.
Totally agree Lefty, throughout the PelAir debacle the independence of the ATsBeaker has been sorely tested so why would it be any different now?? Well at least while Beaker continues to hold the reins...
Kharon - But something has to be done and Be-a-Cur must go, for he cannot stay.
Hmm...while we are waiting for the Murky Machiavellian & crew to manipulate, spin & bulldust and delay the inevitable Beaker bombshell beheading, it is worth reflecting on a passage of Hansard extracted from -
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - 24/02/2014 - Estimates - ATSB - just in case M&M was having second thoughts...
Senator XENOPHON: Mr Dolan, during the Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air aviation accident investigations there was some consideration given as follows. I understood the ATSB was going to revisit the issue of whether the flight data recorder could in fact be retrieved. Is that something that was considered by the ATSB in relation to the FTR at Norfolk Island?
Mr Dolan: In light of the references committee's report the ATSB did reconsider the question of the flight data recorders. Based on an assessment of the safety benefits and the likely cost, it was decided not to proceed with a retrieval.
Senator XENOPHON: The safety benefits and the likely costs were matters that were previously considered.
Mr Dolan: That is true, but we reconsidered it in light of the committee's report and its recommendation.
Senator XENOPHON: So no other factors were considered
in the context of retrieving the flight data recorder?
Mr Dolan: We considered it in the context of the parallel recommendation about reopening the investigation. Those two played against each other in the commission's consideration of those two recommendations.
Senator XENOPHON: In response to question 142, which I placed on notice at the last estimates, regarding the Pel-Air investigation the ATSB stated that it had no power to withdraw its report, no plans to conduct a further investigation and that it stands by the finding of the report. Is that the position of the ATSB?
Mr Dolan: That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: During the committee inquiry into the aviation accident report—and I think it was in relation to a line of questioning from Senator Edwards—you stated that you were not proud of the report and that you certainly would not hold it as a benchmark.
Mr Dolan: That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: Why is the ATSB standing by it given your previous comments?
Mr Dolan: There is a difference between us not wishing to hold up the report as an exemplar of our best work and whether we consider, in terms of the act, that the investigation is complete and, therefore, the report as published will stand.
Senator XENOPHON: But under the act you do have the power to reopen an investigation, do you not?
Mr Dolan: Yes, and we will when new and significant information comes to light that may be relevant to the previous investigation.
Senator XENOPHON: So, you do not think anything that was uncovered
in the context of the Senate inquiry was in any way new or significant?
Mr Dolan: I and my fellow commissioners very carefully went through the contents of the committee's report and tested it against the information we had available to us in the course of our investigation. There was nothing, in
our view, that constituted new and significant information that would lead to a need to reopen the investigation.
CHAIR: How did it go from a critical incident to a 'don't worry about it' incident?
Mr Dolan: That is a matter we did rehearse with the references committee. In short, our initial assessment of the issue of guidance as to dealing with the situation, weather deterioration and what was planned, we overassessed it as critical at an early stage and by applying our methodologies we concluded by the end of the process that it constituted a minor safety issue.
CHAIR: Can I commend you. You look really well. You look less stressed than you used to for some reason.
Mr Dolan: It is probably the lack of the beard.
CHAIR: With that particular incident of which I just spoke no thinking person would believe that bureaucratic answer. You cannot go from a critical incident to a minor one or whatever it was without something happening on the journey. Anyway, we will not go back there. To any sensible person it sounds like either a cover-up or a balls-up.
Senator XENOPHON: Mr Dolan, given in your view, and the view of the ATSB, there was no new or significant information arising out of the Senate inquiry—
Mr Dolan: New and significant.
Senator XENOPHON: So it has to be both new and significant.
Mr Dolan: Yes.
Senator XENOPHON: I understand the threshold that the ATSB had said in respect of that. Is this something that was considered by the board of the ATSB?
Mr Dolan: Yes, by the three commissioners who legally constitute the ATSB.
Senator XENOPHON: How much time was given to consider that at its meeting?
Mr Dolan: We set aside the bulk of our one-day formal meeting as a commission to work through the range of recommendations of the committee's report, both to inform our input to a government response and to look at what steps we needed to take to learn from the Pel-Air investigation and the investigations of the committee.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you indicate whether you provided advice to the government as to why you thought there was nothing new and significant arising out of the Senate inquiry report, with a view to reopening the investigation or reconsidering your findings?
Mr Dolan: The advice that we provided through the department to the government is decision-making advice for the government, and I am not sure I am in a position to comment on that.
Senator XENOPHON: I am not asking you for the content of that advice. I am asking whether, in fact, you provided advice as to whether you ought to reconsider reopening in any way the ATSB's report into the Pel-Air incident.
Senator Johnston: I do not think you can discuss the content or the inference.
Senator XENOPHON: I am not asking for the content.
Senator Johnston: Well, the inference to be drawn as to what the advice was about. If there was advice, there was advice.
Senator XENOPHON: I am just trying to establish whether there was
advice on this particular issue. I am not asking for an inference as to whether there was advice one way or the other. It is as to whether there was any.
Senator Johnston: I think departments provide advice on all manner of issues. I think you can assume that they did.
Senator XENOPHON: I was just trying to establish that from Mr Dolan.
Mr Dolan: As I indicated, the commission considered for its own purposes the question of whether to reopen the investigation, and our consideration also informed the nature of our advice to government about what we would see as an appropriate response to the report.
Senator XENOPHON: Now that the Canadian TSB is looking at the ATSB, and in particular given the terms of reference, the Pel-Air incident and the way the ATSB conducted itself, is the ATSB still open to either a withdrawal of its report or conducting a further investigation or reconsidering its report as a result of any findings by the Canadian TSB?
Mr Dolan: There are two points. As I tried to make clear in response to the question on notice, legally speaking we cannot withdraw a report. We can amend a report but we are not in a position to withdraw it.
Senator XENOPHON: Would you consider amending the report? You have not considered it on the basis of the Senate inquiry and its report, but is that something that will be considered in the context of the Canadian TSB report?
Mr Dolan: The threshold test remains. If there is new and significant information that is relevant to the investigation we have not just a power but a responsibility to reopen the investigation. If anything comes out of the Canadian review that points in that direction we will have to review it and make an appropriate decision.
Senator XENOPHON: Do you think it is appropriate? Is it a case of Caesar judging Caesar, because you need to determine whether it is new, which usually can be fairly objectively determined, but whether there is both new and significant material? Do you agree that that is something that can be the subject of a judgment call by the very essence of determining whether something is significant or minor?
Mr Dolan: I would totally agree that this is a matter of judgment. This is a matter of judgment, which under the Transport Safety Investigation Act is given to the ATSB as constituted by its three commissioners.
Senator XENOPHON: Given the matters that arose out of the Senate inquiry, the evidence that was given and that whole process and issues with respect to the MOU between CASA and the ATSB, for instance, and other matters about the downgrading of the nature of the report from critical to a minor safety incident, do you think in those circumstances it would be preferable for public confidence in the ATSB for there to have been an impartial arbiter or impartial advice sought from an expert to give advice to the ATSB in respect of that, rather than the commissioners basically just making a judgment call as to whether it ought to be amended or reopened based on your previous judgments? You can understand why there might be some concern about that.
Mr Dolan: I understand the concerns. All I can reiterate is that the
responsibility for making those judgments by law rests with the ATSB and we will continue to exercise our responsibilities under the act.
Senator XENOPHON: I understand your responsibilities under the act, but do you consider it preferable in terms of the public confidence in the ATSB, given the highly critical nature of the Senate committee's report with respect to the Pel-Air incident and criticisms from others who gave evidence to the inquiry, that it would not be unreasonable for the ATSB to have sought an independent entity to provide advice before you considered whether there was something new and significant in the context of reopening any investigation into the Pel-Air incident?
Mr Dolan: The three commissioners determined that it was their responsibility to make that assessment and we did not see any need or possibility to defer that decision to someone else. What we did do, quite deliberately, was ask a counterpart organisation, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, to benchmark our investigation methodology against their investigation methodology and to review three of our investigations in light of that, essentially against what the TSB would have done as against what we did, and to give us an independent report on the results. It is entirely possible that as a result of that there will be new and significant information. If there is, the commission will reopen the investigation.
Senator XENOPHON: It goes beyond methodology, does it not, because looking at the methodology of the ATSB is a little different from the reality of how the ATSB may or may not have implemented that methodology.
Mr Dolan: Yes, the methodology and how it was applied.
Senator XENOPHON: So, it does go beyond the methodology?
Mr Dolan: Very much beyond the methodology and into how it was applied.
Mr Mrdak: I think going back to my earlier answer about the integrity of the process, the terms of reference that have been given to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the way in which they are looking at that and the advice to government from the ATSB on that process will underpin the government's response when that is tabled in terms of the very questions you are asking.
Senator XENOPHON: You would understand the disquiet in the aviation community that the ATSB was effectively Caesar judging Caesar. The commissioners had to make a determination as to whether they did a good job or not in terms of their previous report that was the subject of scathing criticism by a Senate inquiry. But you acknowledge that?
Mr Mrdak: I understand that and I have certainly closely reviewed the Senate inquiry report, but I think Mr Dolan has set out for you that seeking the advice from the Canadian authorities is the way in which the ATSB has sought to deal with a number of the issues raised in the Senate committee report.
MTF...with Part 2 of course...