Kharon - IT's NOT THE REPORT WHICH IS THE PROBLEM – IT's THE PRE DETERMINED OUTCOME, THE COLLUSION AND BLATENT PERVERSION OF THE AVIATION SAFETY SYSTEMS WHICH HAS LANDED BOTH ATSB AND CASA IN THE MIRE. REVIEW THAT: you supercilious, harebrained Muppet.
Gold star Ferryman, don't hold back old son...
The single most underlying issue to come out of the Senate AAI inquiry (& somewhat from the TSBC peer review report) is that the ATsB is not - in any present shape or form - a fully independent State AAI as defined in ICAO Annex 13 or the TSI Act.
On the bureau webpage
Overview of the ATSB under the heading - The ATSB and transport safety it states:
The independence of the ATSB is integral to the Bureau's safety role. Investigations that are independent of the parties involved in an accident, as well as transport regulators and government policy makers, are better positioned to avoid conflicts of interest and external interference. Being able to investigate without external direction provides an assurance that the findings will be determined and fully reported on without bias.
Much like the Malaysians should (but probably won't) now be seriously considering invoking the sub-clause included in Annex 13 para 5.1...
"..5.1 The State of Occurrence shall institute an investigation
into the circumstances of the accident and be responsible
for the conduct of the investigation, but it may delegate
the whole or any part of the conducting of such investigation
to another State by mutual arrangement and consent. In any
event the State of Occurrence shall use every means to
facilitate the investigation.."
...to delegate the whole investigation/search to a State AAI with absolutely zero skin in the contest; so to should the ATsB be handing the PelAir re-investigation to a similar ratified State AAI.
The sub-clause is primarily designed for less resourced ICAO signatory States to get assistance for the conduct of more complex investigations.
However the NTSB on the 28 May 2012 invoked the sub-clause when they saw the potential for conflict of interest issues with a fatal mid-air collision involving one of their own flying one aircraft and an FAA inspector flying the other. Who did they call?? Well the Canucks of course...
This story was relayed by Brad Vardy (who was incidentally the man tasked to oversee the ATsB peer review) in a blog-piece from the TSBC recorder -
What are the chances?:
..An accident involving both the regulator and the safety board was certainly unprecedented anywhere, and investigating an occurrence in which one of their own employees was involved put the NTSB in a potential conflict of interest. So they turned to their northern neighbour for help.
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations, created in 1944 to promote the safe and orderly development of international civil aviation. Through the Convention on International Civil Aviation (also known as Chicago Convention), it sets standards and regulations necessary for aviation safety, security, efficiency and regularity between the 191 member states. Annex 13 to this document stipulates how member states interact with respect to accident investigation, and it was under Section 5.1 of this annex that the investigation was delegated to Canada. -
Now although I am not questioning the integrity & professionalism of the designated IIC (mentioned in the Dom letter) and his team; I do however question both the credibility and integrity of the author (& the current executive team above him) as there is strong anecdotal evidence that this individual was heavily involved in collusion with the duck-up of the Pel-Air cover-up..
As
Anderson said:
...The words 'collusion' and 'deceit' come to mind.
ATSB independence, impartiality and integrity - None!
Now that McCormack has finally departed, its time the ATSB (and the transport sector generally) saw the back of Dolan. He actually seems like quite an affable fellow, but his reputation has been shattered and the Pel-Air fiasco.
It's time to go Mr Dolan.
Only then can the ATSB start to rebuild its fractured reputation and put the whole sorry affair to rest.
For that reason alone the para 5.1 sub-clause should be invoked and the re-investigation handed over to a grown-up State AAI with absolutely no hidden agendas or potential conflict of interest. Hmm...the NTSB would be a good candidate...
MTF...
