From Hitch today -
ATSB to review Ditching Investigation - with comments from Dom:
For Dominic James, the pilot who had to ditch Westwind VH-NGA off Norfolk Island due to low fuel and poor visibility, the news comes as a huge relief.
The original report pointed towards pilot planning as the cause, and James has been fighting to have the report withdrawn since the day it was issued.
"I am hugely relieved to see the ATSB finally withdraw this plainly dishonest report," he told
Australian Flying, "but only after years of informed criticism from all fronts.
"The next important step will be the renewal of the Federal Police investigation so as to bring those responsible to account and to prevent this from happening again in the future."
The ATSB is expected to issue a response to the Canadian TSB report in the coming months.
But back to Beaker & his fellow commissioner's previous decision not to reopen the PelAir investigation...
Senator FAWCETT: One of the things Mr Dolan said to us earlier was that the TSB was going to give them a draft so that they could look at issues of fact. We have just had a prolonged discussion between Senator Xenophon and Mr Dolan around 'new and significant'. The facts, as came out on paper very clearly before the Senate committee was that there was new information—and I particularly refer to the Chambers report. It was significant, because the ATSB report said that the regulatory system that was in place did not need investigation and yet the new information highlighted that CASA itself knew that there were significant deficiencies in that which had not been highlighted. So, the evidence in black and white said that it was new and significant.
Our concern is that if ATSB is given the role of deciding what is factual and if there are factual errors in the TSB report, if TSB say that this is new and significant and it should have been investigated. What we have just heard from Mr Dolan yet again is that the ATSB considers it completely within their remit to say, 'We are the ones legally charged with deciding if it is new and significant. We decide that is factually incorrect. Send it back to the TSB with an amendment.' That hardly inspires confidence in the aviation community in Australia.
Mr Mrdak: I did read the way you have taken that from what Mr Dolan has said here today or previously in relation to the nature of the Canadian draft report. I would not lead you to the conclusion that you have reached, I do not think. Knowing the way in which these processes are undertaken and the integrity of the agency involved, I do not think you could lead to the conclusion you are reaching from the ATSB being asked to fact check a document. I do not think that is the way the Canadian authorities would ever see that taking place.
Senator FAWCETT: Was the Chambers report new information?
Mr Mrdak: I was not involved in the process at the time. From reading the Senate report, I can certainly accept the view that it provided additional and new information. As to whether that was germane to the issue of the circumstances which the ATSB reported on, that is a matter of judgment.
Senator FAWCETT: Which comes down to the issue at hand. I think the concern of the committee is very clear that, given ATSB's response to date, to completely deny the black and white facts that were laid before the Senate inquiry—upon threat we had to require the documents be delivered to us and they then exposed in black and white this new and significant information. For the agencies to say that it is not new and it is not significant or not a combination of both just flies in the face of logic.
Mr Mrdak: Again, I can only take you to what I anticipate being a very rigorous review by the Canadian peer review. We will have to look at that document at that time.
Well M&M what do you think now??
The next passage of Hansard is very relevant in light of Kharon's recent posts on here...
:
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Dolan, can you clarify that there were three investigations that had been referred? Clearly, Norfolk Island was one, but what are the other two?
Mr Dolan: The other two were the Canley Vale crash, an aeromedical flight where a pilot and a nurse died, and the winching accident at Bridal Veil Falls, which was again an aeromedical procedure, and so we were looking at three that were in broadly similar territory. They are the three that the TSB, after some suggestions from us, agreed were appropriate to look at.
Senator FAWCETT: With the Canley Vale accident, were they also given access to CASA documents, given what we found in the Norfolk Island incident where significant issues like CASA's own recognition that their oversight of the company was deficient, which was never reported nor disclosed to ATSB? Does the TSB have the option to or did they have the option and access to CASA personnel and information about the Canley Vale incident?
Mr Dolan: The question never arose. Their initial review was based on the material that was available to the TSB and interviews with the investigator in charge and others in the organisation. I am assuming since there has been no request from the Canadians that they were not looking further than material that was already available to the ATSB.
Senator FAWCETT: I have one final question for the record. The fact that CASA had determined that their own regulatory oversight of the company in question was deficient and materially impacted on the safety with things like fuel planning and so on, can I take from your comments that you think that was insignificant?
Mr Dolan: No. It was significant, but in the assessment of the ATSB it was not new. We were aware of the territory that was covered and I gave a formal response to the references committee in relation to our views on the Chambers report and its relevant to the Pel-Air investigation.
Senator FAWCETT: Just confirming, though, in that response you did say that you were not aware of the Chambers report? You were aware they had done a special audit, but you were not aware of the Chambers report?
Mr Dolan: That is correct.
Senator FAWCETT: So, you have just said it is significant and you have just confirmed that it is new. To my mind, that very clearly brings about the two criteria for reviewing the efficacy of the report.
Mr Dolan: I do not think I said it was significant. I did say it was new.
Hmm...no comment needed I reckon...
MTF...
