View Single Post
Old 31st Dec 2014, 09:50
  #2584 (permalink)  
Sarcs
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Danger 2015 a year of renewal, regaining trust & credibility or oblivion??

I find it hard to believe that the ATSB is even going to be allowed to investigate the ATSB, let alone under the Sangston ToR, it's outrageous.
IMO - if the self-serving, self-preserving Bea-cur & the sanctimonious Sanga & Jules are left in place and to their own devices (reference the disgusting Sanga ToR) 2015 could well be the last year of existence for the ATsB as we now know it...

Oh and how different it could have been if on receiving the Miniscule directive the above mentioned trio decided to come clean, clear the slate & delegate (as is allowable under Annex 13) the PelAir re-investigation to a credible signatory to the Chicago Convention - such as a TSBC, a NTSB or even the Singapore AAIB.

But we can't have that as there is now too much to lose, too many skeletons in the closet and too much evidence of embuggerance & obfuscation that a grown-up, competent State AAI could not possibly fail to uncover. Not to mention how embarrassing it would be if the lead Aussie agency that is currently heading up the search for possibly the greatest aviation mystery of all time - i.e. the disappearance of MH370 - were found to have been complicit and helped facilitate the PelAir cover-up...

However for the final time - in 2014 at least - let us once again revisit the 'timeline of embuggerance' (TOE) in reference to the Ferryman post (above):
There are subtle differences (see appendix A); which exclude such things as the AILU (CASA White) becoming 'actively' involved. Then we have the small matter of the parallel investigation which got off the mark remarkably quickly, compared to the usual pace at which these events have, historically, taken place. CASA could have requested and been granted a 'representative' to be taken in as part of the 'team', but the AILU swinging into top gear, jumping the gun and getting embroiled begs some interesting questions.
This is indeed both intriguing and confusing... Here are the referenced passages from the two MoUs - 1st 2004 Appendix A:
ATTACHMENT A- Participation in Investigations

The Parties may agree that a CASA Officer will participate in an ATSB investigation. The CASA Officer will be required to sign an agreement acknowledging their rights and duties, appropriate to the level of their involvement in a transport safety investigation.

Where a CASA Officer is participating in an ATSB investigation they will be under the direction of the Investigator-In-Charge (IIC). The CASA Officer will be given access to evidence to the extent necessary to enable the IIC to effectively complete the investigation.

The ATSB will not normally seek to participate in CASA regulatory investigations, but may request participation in, or information from, any defect investigation undertaken by CASA. ATSB Officers who participate in a CASA investigation must comply with any lawful direction given to them by the CASA Officer-in-Charge of the investigation.
2010 MoU:
ATTACHMENT A- Participation in investigations

1. Participation in investigations will be co-ordinated through the Manager ALIU, CASA and the Director Aviation Safety Investigations, ATSB.
2. The Organisations may agree that a CASA officer may act as an observer or an external investigator for the purposes of an ATSB safety investigation under the direction of the Investigator In Charge (IIC). The CASA Officer will be required to sign an agreement acknowledging his or her obligations and duties, appropriate to the level of their involvement in a transport safety investigation.
3. The CASA Officer will be given access to evidence to the extent necessary to enable the IIC to effectively complete the investigation.
4. The ATSB will not normally seek to participate in CASA regulatory investigations, but may request participation in, or information from, any investigation undertaken by CASA. ATSB Officers who participate in a CASA investigation must comply with any lawful direction given to them by the CASA Officer-in-charge of the investigation.
Okay so there are subtle differences mainly in the lines of reporting but the question is which version were they operating under in the case of the PelAir investigation??

Well according to what the TSBC were led to believe it was the 2004 MoU that was being adhered to (from TSBC peer review report):
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.
{NB: IMO the last line in bold is also significant because prior to PelAir this was a normalised process in cases where AOC holder compliance & regulatory oversight may have been contributory to an accident/incident}

But then two paragraphs down we again get the confusion...:
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.
Footnote 12 quote...

"...Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit, Accident Investigation Report 09/3: Israeli Aircraft Industry Westwind: VH-NGA: Operated by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Limited: Norfolk Island, 18 November 2009 (Canberra: 21 July 2010)..."

See what I mean?? Hmm...but apparently ALIU Whitey was never confused - from the infamous, once hidden CAIR 09/3:
Synopsis

The Accident was notified to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau {ATSB) who in turn notified the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on Wednesday 18 November. The ATSB decided to conduct an investigation. The CASA Manager Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU) was tasked with conducting a parallel investigation for CASA purposes. An investigation into the circumstances of the accident was commenced the
next day. CASA informed the ATSB of the investigation in accordance with sub section 4.1.2 of the joint MOU.
Okay so then let us refer to the two MoUs in regards to parallel investigations - 1st 2010 MoU:
4.1 Parallel investigations:
4.1.1 The ATSB may undertake 'no-blame' safety investigations in accordance with the TSI Act and CASA may separately undertake investigations with a view to possible safety-related action pursuant to its functions under Section 9 and/or Part IIIA of the Civil Aviation Act.
4.1.2 As soon as reasonably practicable after either the ATSB decides to conduct an investigation, or CASA decides to conduct an investigation in relation to a matter that would be a reportable matter to the ATSB, each organisation will notify the other organisation.
4.1.3 If either organisation considers an investigation conducted by the other organisation is creating an unreasonable impediment to the performance of their functions, they will raise the matter with the other organisation.
4.1.4 With respect to its own investigation, each organisation will seek to gather evidence from original sources in the first instance and then, where
practicable, on the basis of information provided by the other organisation.
2004 MoU:
5.1 The parties may undertake separate parallel investigations into an aviation occurrence. In this circumstance the parties agree that the purpose of the ATSB and CASA investigations will be promoted and structured so that there is a clear publicly perceived difference between them, so that the ATSB maintains its prime role as an independent, no-blame investigation agency and CASA's role as
the safety regulator is not compromised.
5.2 Both patties will cooperate to ensure, to the extent practicable, that an
investigation conducted by one party does not impede on an investigation orfunction of the other party.
5.3 If either party considers an investigation is creating an unreasonable impediment to the performance of their functions, they will raise the matter with the other party.
5.4 The ATSB acknowledges that it is not an auditor of CASA's management or operational practices, procedures or decisions. If the ATSB considers that an investigation is likely to extend to involve consideration of CASA's management or operational practices, procedures or decisions (beyond consideration of CASA's regulatory framework), the ATSB will immediately raise the matter with CASA's Deputy Chief Executive Officer before proceeding to investigate that part of the investigation.
With the possible exception of the Lockhart River investigation, it would appear that historically it was very rare for CAsA to instigate a parallel investigation on initial receipt of an ATsB notification of an occurrence. Normally CAsA would only become involved in an accident/incident investigation once the ATSB preliminary report had been published and that report indicated areas of regulatory concern. Even then CAsA would be more inclined to instigate a Special Audit and possibly ask to include one of its own in the ATsB investigation of a non-fatal GA (Airwork) incident.

Yes indeed all 'curiously intriguing' but with the Sanga missive not much will be revealed unless of course a certain Senator - who now potentially holds the balance of power - has anything to say about the farce that will be the PelAir re-investigation...

Catch you next year cheers & beers...
Sarcs is offline