Merged: Senate Inquiry [Archive] - Page 11

Kharon

28th Nov 2014, 21:18

Well, we did warn them; (we did) that is an angry, insulted, well informed committee and they intend to see things put to rights. One thing for certain, they are better briefed than the hapless Staib and obviously have access to good 'intelligence', a commodity Staib seems to be lacking. This demonstrated from minute one, as she stumbled, mumbled and fluffed her way through the highly inflammatory opening statement. The statement was not only inflammatory, it was insulting to the intelligence of both Senators and observers, clearly designed to head off what ASA believed were the issues. Wrong: underestimating the will, intelligence, competence and fury of this committee, hoping that bluff and praying that pony-pooh will save the day, is an arrogant assumption. Attempting to deliver that message, into that atmosphere, in such a condescending manner simply added fuel to the flames. Some of the later rhetoric and heroic platitudes dragged out by a sinking Staib, were ill considered waffle, which only deepened to opening chasm. I'm going to wait for Hansard, there were some classic moments mixed with the pregnant, poignant and electrical ones, the detail is worth the wait.

It was a long session, while cringing with embarrassment during the 'reading' of the opening statement (Staib should spend some of her ill gotten gains on a public speaking course, after the reading lessons of course) I was watching the Senators, you could see the finely tuned, high power BS detectors at work, body language spoke of a hostile frustration, a larded with indignation, tempered only by good manners; the Senate Haka. Then it was game on. If public whippings, or humiliation is your thing, watch the video. – HERE (http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=244933&operation_mode=parlview) –

The Senate team systematically took the ASA apart, smacked their plush, plump bottoms, then sent them around again, to come back for more. The ASA were out played, out guessed, out gunned and had nowhere to hide; every dark corner and bolt hole was either lit or covered. Make no error, this was an orchestrated team effort which sent a clear, unambiguous message to Mrdak, CASA and the ATSB. The Senate crew are trusted by industry, they don't leak and they demonstrated that they can and will wisely use any information provided, to achieve sane, sensible governance of all matters aeronautical. Top marks Senators. Bravo...:D..(Choc frogs in the mail).

I really only used the Sarcs' bucket twice; the first was a big one (huge) – "Courage" badges, worn on the wrist. Ducking bright blue wrist straps with "Courage" inscribed. Did you ever, in all your days, ever hear of such a mealy mouthed, merchant bankers, multi handed stropathon. Once I'd stopped puking and Hoody has stopped waving his about, like a talisman to ward off the evil eye, I managed a smile. (I'll have to do a fairy story twiddle, it's priceless). Whoever dreamed up that piece of artificial feel good, psycho- babble, arse about logic for three year olds, crock of pony-pooh, deserves to be put in the public stocks and pelted with filth, on the hour, every hour for as long as they live. Ye gods, I though it was joke, until I realised, Hoody was a true believer; unless, he was just taking the Mickey and bringing the tomfoolery to the public attention. Anyway, I tracked down the manufacturer and ordered two gross, Red, with "Bollocks" inscribed for wrist wearing and two dozen small - with BOHICA inscribed, for Willy decoration, as IOS Christmas presents.

Speaking of the hooded one; did you ever see such a display of plain and fancy foot change dancing. Talk about chopped up for bait, even with NX playing nice and telegraphing his punches, Hoody still kept walking into them, left foot in mouth, no, no, quickly – right foot in mouth, no-no; Bugger says Hoody, clutching his courage badge as he walks into a straight right. No contest really, he did manage to salvage some dignity and struggled through to round three, but Xenophon was just patting him about for sparring practice in the end. My fault; for buying a ticket to watch a Bantam weight v Cruiser weight bout. Don't think ASA have grasped it yet, the LAHSO thing; I'll give them a clue : it's not really ALL about 'safety' (or courage..:yuk:..) think of where it's leading to.

Then, Staib fell into a beautifully preset, off-side trap; it was elegant in it's simplicity : "IF you don't call in PC Plod for fraud; why is he called when you suspect an internal 'leak' of the truth? " Well, out came the courage badges...:yuk:, then the puzzled looks..:confused:.. and memory loss ploys...., no defence though against a concerted panzer attack by the forward pack. ASA lost the ball, Staib is left laying in the mud, drowning, confused, by not initially seeing the inconsistency or contradiction. Then a dim bulb flickers into light and the denial starts, "Oh – but, but that's totally different". Bollocks: converted try: team Senate.

Well, much to study and ponder; must thank brother Sarcs for talking me into using part of a RDO to watch the one sided show. The senate team played brilliantly, it's hard to pick the man of the match when a well oiled team sets to business, the props Heff, Sterle played a solid 90 minutes with moments of dour defence and aggressive running, the hooker well supported, scrum half feeding the ball to the backs, who had some flashes of inspiration and moments of sparkling brilliance. The opposition, well, perhaps it's time they had a new coach, one who's plays are not so well known and; maybe, a captain who can actually tell whether a tossed coin has landed on it's head or it's tail: could be a help.

MTF?, I'd say so.

Toot toot.

Sarcs

28th Nov 2014, 21:30

Gold Ferryman pure gold!:}
Kharon -Then, Staib fell into a beautifully preset, off-side trap; it was elegant in it's simplicity : "IF you don't call in PC Plod for fraud; why is he called when you suspect an internal 'leak' of the truth? " Well, out came the courage badges.. ., then the puzzled looks.. .. and memory loss ploys...., no defence though against a concerted panzer attack by the forward pack. ASA lost the ball, Staib is left laying in the mud, confused, by not initially seeing the inconsistency or contradiction. Then a dim bulb flickers into light and the denial starts, "Oh – but, but that's totally different". Bollocks: converted try: team Senate. For those who are not prepared to wade through the over three hour strapathon..:E..here is the parts of interest in two segments (with a slight overlap):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaQYWQGfucg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PedLVRhf8Q0

Excellent theatre…Bravo Senators!! :D:D:D

MTF…:ok:

ps...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkKjWH3u1k8

Yep Nick the IOS(MaMs)/WIOS/WWIOS are still here mate!;)

dubbleyew eight

29th Nov 2014, 00:16

it is all nonsense.
useless political bollocks.
none of it has any direct influence on the world of aviation.

australia must be the dumbest, most poorly organised and managed nation on the face of the earth.

:mad:

Creampuff

29th Nov 2014, 00:59

As ridiculous as these question may sound, gotta put it out there...

Who owns the airspace above Norfolk where NGA circled?
Australia or New Zealand?Australia.

Norfolk Island is part of Australia.

The airspace above Norfolk Island, and out to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline, is part of Australia.

I may be completely wrong, but I think that in the course of the AAI there was discussion of an arrangement between Australia and NZ for NZ to administer that airspace on behalf of Australia. But whatever the case, the airspace is owned by Australia.

Again, I may be completely wrong, but my fuzzy recollection is that during the AAI, forecasts for YSNF magically re-appeared on Australian Area forecasts. After all, the 'Y" in YSNF = Australia and the "S" = the erstwhile Sydney FIR.

Judging by news reports, the government of Norfolk Island is a bit of a basket case. They want to be self-governing like the Northern Territory, but don't have the revenue to discharge those responsibilities properly. I imagine - again, I could be completely wrong - that the whole schemozzle became 'too hard' for Airservices Australia, but the AAI 'encouraged' Airservices Australia to try harder...

halfmanhalfbiscuit

29th Nov 2014, 09:28

If you have not already watch the you tube clips!

How many times they used the 'I don't recall' line. this may turn up on mainstream news.

Creampuff

29th Nov 2014, 20:44

I did ask myself: Where was the safety regulator while all these apparent systemic LAHSO breaches were occurring over such a long period at Tulla?

But then I realised the safety regulator was necessarily dealing with the higher risk and therefore higher priority issues: CVD, community service flights and Jabiru engines. (It's probably just coincidence that these involve taking on the 'little guys' ...)

Soteria

29th Nov 2014, 21:24

I did ask myself: Where was the safety regulator while all these apparent systemic LAHSO breaches were occurring over such a long period at Tulla? Not to forget the other important issues such as the chasing of mischievous chopper pilots and arranging of pot plant decorations in ergonomically compliant buildings. Plus the earning of A380 endorsements and bull****ting the Senate soaks up a bit of time.

As I stated earlier, it's interesting how it takes a Senator to expose a safety issue and get it rectified. That's no disrespect to Nick as he is an intelligent man, but why does it take a SA politician to identify something the Regulator should've known? And the fix was introduced so quickly. If one was a sceptic one could say it was done so quickly so as to bury the issue quickly??? The best bit is that even with a head cold, Xenophon and his companions Sterle and Heff pissed all over the ASA in a articulate and succinct manner. It was poetry in motion.

Just a Sunday pondering, but;
- I do wonder though how such a robust 'latent' condition as the now identified LAHSO issue could supposedly go undetected for 2 years? Where was CASA's third party oversight?
- How is it that CASA didn't pick this up during a third party audit? (Assuming CASA has been meeting its responsibilities and has been auditing such a safety critical component of air operations).
- Does CASA not have a robust audit program in place for auditing ASA? Can CASA produce said audit program including a list of audits undertaken over the past few years, including a summary of all findings to the point that mitigation was implemented, and a review of any mitigation strategies undertaken post implementation so the 'loop' is closed?
- Should CASA have issued a NCN, or indeed a safety alert?
- Will the scalps of Cromarty (finally) and Hoody be sought?

Ho hum, just another day in the lives of CASA and ASA, with the ATSB not to be forgotten. C'mon FAA and ICAO, you know you want to......

Kharon

29th Nov 2014, 21:56

How many times they used the 'I don't recall' line. this may turn up on mainstream news.

Makes you wonder, don't it. That session exposed a little more than the 'general' ignorance disconnect, and is more akin to general denial and not being 'responsible' more than a simple "Dunno". There are I expect, many questions which an individual, running an operation cannot answer, that's reasonable – BUT – that individual should, without hesitation be able to identify the person who can provide a lucid, concise answer to a reasonable question and be responsible for that answer. It's delightful to watch the consternation as a question, to which a 'work-shopped' answer cannot provided is asked. Funny as. The word disingenuous is used far to often to define this troop of arrogant clods by their claim to 'general ignorance' and 'confusion' (the new buzz word). "We wuz confused M'lud"....Bollocks.

When you watch the video for the second time, it becomes apparent that the Senate crew have a very clear picture of the disconnect between a smooth talking creature like Clark, aided and abetted by a Doctor (who needs to count, on his fingers, in ones, to work out who was at the meetings he chairs) and the coal face. Watch the video, "Well, that's Umm one (thumb), then there was Um, that's two (index finger), etc. all the way up to the really big numbers between four and seven. Redefines the old joke, Grow your own dope – plant a Pom.

You see, LAHSO ain't the radical, root cause, if you like; of a deep, systemic failure based in greed and cover your arse. Pilot command discretion is slowly being diluted, the responsibilities and onus increased to protect the middle layer of parasitic management. ATCO face the same problem, only it's more obvious and without the pitifully few 'escape' clauses pilots may rely on. If a pilot and controller 'negotiate' a contract for a LAHSO operation, that should be the end of the matter; provided it's within boundaries set by common sense, sound operational practice and arbitrary recommended limitations. Cast in stone limitations are an anathema – legal at five knots of breeze, in jail at six knots, is rubbish.

The ATCO is chained to a treadmill; they know how to manage the traffic, know where and when 'discretion' may used and how much to use; but the ass covering 'rules' prevent this. They also know precisely where the red flags are and what they mean. They also, in all probability know exactly what's wrong with the system and how to fix it. Enter the dragon.

A suggested fix must be passed 'up the line', if it's any good, it will be hi-jacked for kudos but the responsibility for the idea will remain hidden, until something goes pear shaped and it lands on the head of the original 'sugestee'. Same with deficiencies and flaws within the system: ATCO puts in an alert, taking their own lives into their hands, for woe betide anyone who dares rock the Staib boat, the courage badge will not protect from AFP investigation. Anything like a complaint hits management filter 1 and much of the 'guts' of it are sucked out there. The complaint has entered the first disconnect, between the original intent and what filter 1 want (or need) it to mean. No matter, the now crippled complaint is kicked up the line to the next management filter.

Now filter two is interesting – for here the cast and crew are specialists in emasculation, intimidation and earn points for smoothing the waters; for here overseas trips like a month long, all expenses (credit card supported) holiday in Paris; or a nice little week in a Texas casino (using the card) are the rewards for massaging any form of 'alert' into a minor irritation, fit for 'little' board consumption. Filter 2 extracts reality and sells the finished product to the elite market of filter 3. "No sir, there are no problems, we are on track to make another 100 millions this year". This activates filter 3.

Filter 3 is located in a rarefied, other word sort of atmosphere and it's where the god like power, so desired by the lower order resides. The 'little' board reports to the big grown up board (filter 4) : "Morning all" says Angus, "anything of interest this month?" "Oh no Sir" gasps the gushing, wing wearing minion: "just some minor, technical issues which the little board has, smoothly and efficiently dealt with". "Oh, goodee" says Angus, "lets sign off and then we can all get back to the great works, philosophical contemplation and, perhaps 18 holes before beer-o-clock".

And so the humble suggestion, made at the coal face is filtered, the reasonable complaint is neutered and those with the temerity to actually speak up are intimidated into silence; if not by having one's 'courage' badge shoved into a fundamental orifice, then by the boots of the AFP metadata spooks.

Mind you, even if all this ever gets past filters 1 to 4 and anywhere near the surface; there is the CASA oversight circuit breaker to pop, which protects and fosters the government goose, laying it's golden, trouble free eggs, ever fattening those privileged to gorge on the product.

Like Nick X – I have a great respect, admiration and affection for our ATCO coal face boys and girls. That they manage so well, in such a toxic unholy atmosphere is a testament to their skill, dedication and commitment to efficient, safe aircraft movements. It's a tragedy that they are forced to live and work under the management of filter 3. Don't believe me; watch the video, carefully, for it tells it's own story, far more eloquently than I ever could. Let's all hope NX can open the filter by-pass and let some fresh air and light into the dark, subterranean caves of the ATCO underworld.

Now then, who's for Paris or perhaps Texas?. The only requirement is to wear your 'courage' badge and use your card, but only to the maximum limit to which you are entitled. Wings? – well perhaps not, some may see a pair of decorative wings pinned to your right tit as an insult to those who earned them, the hard way. But hells teeth, if what you are doing now don't offend, a pair of faux wings just don't signify. Anyway, symbolism is not an exact science and not really proven to work. Believe it if you like.

Toot toot.. Badges? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdZKCh6RsU)

Sarcs

29th Nov 2014, 22:44

Ferryman nails it down...:D:DYou see, LAHSO ain't the radical, root cause, if you like; of a deep, systemic failure based in greed and cover your arse. Systemic failure you bet, the clues (blips) are all there...:ugh:

Meanwhile the ASA trough feeders are fondling their Courage Badges...:yuk:

RRAT 28/11/2014 - ASA Performance - Courage badges - YouTube

But is the Margie Mantra working?? Well judging from the REPCON cluster - highlighted in Nick's QONs (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-125.html#post8759191) - from the bureau REPCON webpage (which are strangely out of sequence...:rolleyes:)...
ATSB REPCONs from page 2 (http://atsb.gov.au/repcon_reports.aspx?startIndex=20&mode=Aviation): AR201300081 (http://atsb.gov.au/repcon/2013/ar201300081.aspx) AR201300089 (http://atsb.gov.au/repcon/2013/ar201300090.aspx) AR201300090 (http://atsb.gov.au/repcon/2013/ar201300090.aspx)
...it would appear that their are at least some coalface ATCOs not happy with the mantra...:=:=

"Houston we have a problem!":E

MTF...:ok:

techcerted

30th Nov 2014, 05:48

An ATC mate and I were comparing notes on the state of our groups and he suggested I come have a look at this site. You guys certainly don’t hold back but it was nice to see the videos and in some strange way to know we’re all suffering together. Over the last year the fights over our senior leadership roles has made Lord of the Flies look like a teddy bears picnic. I doubt the CEO even knows its happening with fear and suppression the orders of the day. It seems you guys are in the same boat with the top jobs being given to the most inexperienced, mealiest mouthed, shallowest, emptiest, corporate wankword spouting, issue suppressing, ladder climbing yes men available. We both wondered why staff who are professional, dedicated, have the best interests of Airservices and industry in mind and above all are ethical continually get the ass, choose not to apply or are overlooked. Of course the penny dropped and we figured out we’d answered our own questions. What a sad state of affairs. Yours in disbelief and fear. Off to wait for the AFP. TC.

Sarcs

30th Nov 2014, 10:42

Australian ATC didn’t know Melbourne flights were at risk for two years (http://www.pprune.org/Australian ATC didn’t know Melbourne flights were at risk for two years)

A disturbing dossier of evidence as to the unsatisfactory and abjectly incompetent state of public administration of air safety in Australia is being assembled by the hard core membership of the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport.

On Friday afternoon one of its key members, Senator Nick Xenophon (Independent SA) took a longer running exposure of dangerous practices by AirServices Australia at Melbourne Airport to a new level.

Plane Talking was unable to cover that hearing, but ABC journalist Melissa Clarke filed an outstandingly good report at to what happened here (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-28/planes-at-melbourne-airport-face-higher-risk/5927094), and cut through the baffling complexities of the issue to render it understandable to lay readers.

It concerns the willful and/or incompetent exposure of the travelling public to unacceptable risks of collision of aircraft using a procedure called land and hold short operations or LAHSO at Australia’s second busiest large airliner airport.

Willful? Incompetent? Either AirServices Australia’s general manager for air traffic control Greg Hood knew what was going on, or he is a complete waste of oxygen being paid to be in a state of utter ignorance on such an important and vital part of his responsibilities.

If Mr Hood was that clueless at that level of responsibility, including as to how LAHSO became so corrupted at Melbourne in the first place, he needs to resign or be removed from that position forthwith.

What does he actually do to pull the money he does without being aware of such a dangerous failure of standards at Melbourne Airport? What does this tell us about the capacity of AirServices to even begin to understand its responsibilities, and why doesn’t it have any procedures in place to catch such operational failings. In short, what-the-hell-is-going on?

Does Mr Hood get off his backside and look in detail at the everyday running of AirServices Australia? If he does, how could he be so freeking hopeless at detecting what was going on at Melbourne Airport?

Could he produce timesheets that tell us exactly what he does and for how long each day so that the public at least knows how the money is spent? The focus of the Abbott Government is on public instrumentality efficiency. If it is as serious as its rhetoric, administrative timesheets are a must.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2014/11/screenshot_01-610x329.jpg (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/11/30/australian-atc-didnt-know-melbourne-flights-were-at-risk-for-two-years/screenshot_01-16/)

At Friday’s hearing the Senate committee queried AirServices Australia’s CEO Margaret Staib (above) over her alleged threat to call in the Australian Federal Police over whistle blowers or informers in AirServices Australia concerning safety or administrative issues.

A YouTube of part of her discussions with the Senators on this particular issue can been seen here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PedLVRhf8Q0), and Plane Talking thanks whomever it was who made and posted that and other related video clips on Pprune.org.
The essential element in Ms Staib’s responses to considerable questioning on said claimed threats was that she was referring to the improper public disclosure of commercially confidential material.

This is, Ms Staib, an absurd claim. AirServices Australia is a monopoly. There is no commercial alternative to what you are selling, so you have no commercial confidentiality to protect, and what you are really trying to say with your insulting contempt for the intelligence of the general public and even your customer airlines is that you want to call in the cops to punish the disclosure of a persistently inept and potentially dangerous management. For which you have been responsible for two years.

It would be good to see your threat carried through, assuming the Federal Attorney General didn’t intervene to prevent the excoriating process of a public court hearing, because this would be the pursuit of honorable people who have genuine concerns about the competency and culture of AirServices Australia, and such matters would benefit from exposure and testing.

It should be noted that the core membership of this Senate Committee in relation to aviation safety comprises Senators Bill Heffernan, Glenn Sterle, David Fawcett, Alex Gallacher and Nick Xenophon.

They are divided politically, but very united and determined when it comes to the public administration and accountability of CASA, the ATSB and AirServices, and have already uncovered some very disturbing truths about the two former bodies in relation to the Pel-Air crash embarrassment and the discreditable performance of the chief commissioner of the supposedly independent safety authority Martin Dolan.

They made a fool of the previous Minister supposedly responsible for aviation, Anthony Albanese, while the current Minister, Warren Truss, needs no help in coming across as hopeless, or hapless, in a portfolio that successive Labor and Coalition Governments just couldn’t give a toss about.

With reports as lucid and prominent as the ABC account of the latest Senate committee session on AirServices Australia’s performance, perhaps Cabinet will pay a bit more attention to safety implications that cannot be ignored or patronized away for much longer.:D:D

Reminder that tomorrow is D-day for the TSBC peer review report...:{

MTF...:ok:

halfmanhalfbiscuit

30th Nov 2014, 11:23

Kharon, in addition to choccy frogs how about those badges?

Pony pooh

B**l**ks

I don't recall.....Senator....

Or days of the week for people with short memories?

Kharon

30th Nov 2014, 19:34

TC welcome to the wild wood, pull up a stump, take your boots off, sit a while and have a cuppa.
TC. - "I doubt the CEO even knows its happening with fear and suppression the orders of the day".

That is abundantly clear; Heff was all over the 'tension' issues and even the famous 'man at the back of the room' could see, even without the assistance of Heff the rift, tension, and dismissive arrogance of the three clearly divided parties. The disconnect between 'them' and the forgotten coal face reality is easily discernable; ignored during the escalating squabbles over power and money. Why in the seven hells, Stabbed in the Dark (SID) was ever entered into the Holiday Cup stakes is no longer a mystery. It's apparent the SID stable is too busy with badge wearing tomfoolery and touchy-feely, American style self hypnosis (deception, if you like), feel good clap trap to realise how the snake oil salesmen and bookies have been 'at it'.

IF SID, metaphorically speaking, had any 'balls' a sit down with the inestimable Houston would be requested, to seek his assistance and wisdom in a quest to clean out the rats nest. Rats?, easily identified; SID should watch, (not just look) at the video, without the rose tinted aviator sunglasses and wings. Even to 'not the sharpest sausage in the packet' that which needs to be seen, is clear. Then clean them out, all of them, Monday – before they end up with a hastily slaughtered scapegoat, thus allowing the OS holidays to continue, unabated. Or, simply resign, with an exit statement; which could be a much better option, for clearly the 'whole' job is beyond SIDs' oft displayed limited capabilities. (Chuckle) Maybe Bea-Cur has a job for SID; salary cut of course, but he's so short of talent at the moment SID could be another administrative star, within a fortnight...:D
TC – "It seems you guys are in the same boat with the top jobs being given to the most inexperienced, mealiest mouthed, shallowest, emptiest, corporate bankword spouting, issue suppressing, ladder climbing yes men available."

The 'system' and those who run it needs to be examined, in depth. I believe the same murky influence, that which has been manipulating the system for two decades has a hand in the 'selection of the most suitable candidate' game of rort the system.

Perhaps there's hope. I don't believe any more than the Senate committee that the LAHSO operation at Melbourne is 'high risk'; it is however 'simple'. That's to say it is easily understood by the public, even the ABC got a fix on it and could boil it down to the sort of simple, easily digested breakfast food the punters like. But, never the less, LAHSO has all the earmarks of the thin end of a large wedge, driven with determination.

I know there are some very bright ATCO and that there is a strong 'bond' of association. Have ATCO's considered building their very own by-pass. Heffernan shows the way, there is a very good, highly qualified board, led by Houston who are, according to Heff, being kept in the dark and under utilised. Heffernan and Sterle lead a committee which is begging for a concise, warts and all report. This becomes a trigger for a meeting to discuss that report and involve the 'big' board at Senate level. Discussion between the Senate committee and Houston could just turn this around. At worst the board could no longer claim 'ignorance', those who treated them like mushrooms would fall directly in the line of fire, as to continue to deny there is a 'problem' risks the 'big' board personal reputations and credibility. Claim parliamentary privilege through the Senate committee (Cheer); they have a proven track record of preventing backlash, acting on solid evidence and Houston (bless) a proven reputation for fair play, honesty and rock solid common sense.

It may not be the answer to a pagans prayer; but it's an avenue worth exploring. Get some top cover, generate a report, take it to the grown up's and wait. This committee is on a roll and there will never be a better time, than now while even the useless media have a passing interest; even if it is only to find another stick to beat Abbott with.

Toot toot..:ok:

Sunfish

30th Nov 2014, 20:15

Kharon:

I know there are some very bright ATCO and that there is a strong 'bond' of association. Have ATCO's considered building their very own by-pass. Heffernan shows the way, there is a very good, highly qualified board, led by Houston who are, according to Heff, is being kept in the dark and under utilised. Heffernan and Sterle lead a committee which is begging for a concise, warts and all report.

My Father taught me that it is axiomatic in institutions that you can bypass One level of incompetence and bad management, but not Two.

To put that another way; If your bosses boss is also an arsehole you have no recourse.

In the case of Airservices, CASA and the ATSB the "bosses boss" is Mr Mrdak and his Department, not the various Boards, they are mere window dressing. It is also clear that Mr. Mrdak does not want trouble from any of the above organisations and that the Federal Government views aviation issues as requiring the same level of attention as prisons - there are no votes in Aviation at present.

I say " at present" because I have reached the conclusion that the only possibility of reform will require the creation of a minor party - the aviation enthusiasts party, that has a mission of affecting the Senate numbers, most probably by standing candidates and doing cross party deals.

To put that another way, unless Aviators can threaten the major parties with the potential loss of a marginal Senate seat, you are wasting your time.

Boycott the lot of them. Talking to them only gives them an excuse to say they "consulted".

Kharon

1st Dec 2014, 20:44

Sunny, I would ordinarily agree with the bulk of your construct; I can agree without a seconds hesitation that Mrdak has a lot to answer for, none of which will never be 'publicly' sheeted home to him. The acquisition of wriggle room, flack jackets, bomb proof shelters, escape hatches and golden parachutes are second nature; as is gathering in 'the wood' as useful leverage.

There is, in this iteration one small difference; that is this Senate committee. Fawcett has written some peerless articles which are worth reading, they provide an insight. That he is fully aware of CASA machinations and 'modus operandi' is a given; study the Night Vision (NVG) case for a further insight. There is more, a lot more, but you get my drift.

You do not need to delve deeply into the past to pick out a trend; start with the pilot training inquiry, work forward to the last little brouhaha with the ASA – (a.k.a. the Slicks and Ficks club). I'd say that since the pilot training thing; there has been a steadily increasing flow of data, facts, evidence and complaint onto the desks of the Senate committee members. Happily, and for all the right reasons, the heavy weight forward pack, Heffernan and Sterle have found a way to express their long standing frustration with the 'governance' of aviation. They may have suspected, but were beaten back by tricky technical details, bluff, spin and fairy stories; swamped in 'the mystique'. Their finely tuned BS meters running on high alert but unable to scratch the itch. Until a Pel Air medivac ran out of noise and options over Norfolk, one dark and stormy. Even then the issue was not on their primary radar, but when it did appear they set work, with the gloves on, until it became apparent someone was taking the Mickey. Gloves off, game on, industry supporting and fetching the drinks.

None of the progress made through the inquiries, leading up to the recommendations made by the committee and the resultant Forsyth review (even the ATSB motherhood review, if it ever gets published) would have been gained without (a) United industry stepping up to the marks and (b) a committee who read, understood, knew how to use the information provided, had the wit and faith to use it; and, the courage to see the job done.

Now I read here a lot of negative comment, stating that the Senate is variously a side show; essentially ineffectual window dressing, neutered and simply wasting time. Time will tell, but IMO that is an incorrect assessment. They have identified the road block to airport issues, pilot training, ATSB reporting (or lack thereof), CASA perfidious bastardry and have a very clear picture of where the skeletons are buried. Industry provided information, the Senate acted. QED.

Why should the administratively crippled ASA be overlooked. Blind Freddy can see it's a basket case above the coal face layers. Bloated, smug, self satisfied, disingenuous, confused and seriously rorted. Without facts, 'evidence' and a briefing it is impossible for the Senate committee to do much more than the sterling job we have so far witnessed. They provide real value and a stellar service to industry for money we invest in them. They have ASA management down, but not quite out. Want things changed, get off your arses, draft a confidential report, claim privilege and watch the result. Remember, it may be possible to isolate and punish one ATCO, it would be a hell of a job to nail the whole crew. It is difficult, but not impossible to eliminate one senior public servant who manages the circus we call aviation in Australia. But it's not a hydra, kill the head the rest dies, or is shrivelled up in the bright light of exposure. The money saved would just about feed the third world.

Question - who hired the Three Stooges comedy act: McComic, Dolan and Staib, and why??

There now, AUD $00.20 spent as best pleased me...:ok:..

Sarcs

1st Dec 2014, 21:11

News release

TSB completes its independent review of the ATSB’s investigation methodologies and processes

Gatineau, Quebec, 1 December 2014 – Today, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) released its independent peer review (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/coll/2014/ATSB/revue-review-20141201.asp) of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s (ATSB) air investigation methodologies and processes.

The ATSB requested a review after its investigation report (AO-2009-072) into the November 2009 ditching of a Westwind 1124A aircraft near Norfolk Island, Australia, received public and political criticism. The review did not include an actual reinvestigation of the Norfolk Island occurrence, but rather examined how that investigation, along with two other investigations similar in scope, was conducted.

“We saw the potential for mutual learning when we accepted the review request,” said Kathy Fox, Chair of the TSB. “We will now examine if any ATSB investigation best practices should be adopted here in Canada.”

The TSB review compared the two organizations' methodologies against the standards and recommended practices outlined in Annex 13 to the International Civil Aviation Organization and found they met or exceeded the intent and spirit of those prescribed.

However, while there were some ATSB best practices identified in the review, the TSB also found that there was some room for improvement, and has made 14 recommendations (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/coll/2014/ATSB/revue-review-20141201.asp#rec) in the following four areas:

Ensuring the consistent application of existing methodologies and processes
Improving investigation methodologies and processes where they were found to have deficiencies
Improving the oversight and governance of investigations
More effectively managing communications challenges
“We have communicated our findings and recommendations to the ATSB for their consideration and action as appropriate,” added Ms. Fox. “Sharing our experiences and expertise is part of our commitment to advancing transportation safety, and when called upon by international partners, the TSB is prepared to assist when feasible.”

The TSB is an independent agency that investigates marine, pipeline, railway and aviation transportation occurrences. Its sole aim is the advancement of transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.
For more information, contact:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Media Relations
819-994-8053
The Norfolk Island investigation

The TSB Review of the Norfolk Island investigation revealed lapses in the application of the ATSB methodology with respect to the collection of factual information, and a lack of an iterative approach to analysis. The review also identified potential shortcomings in ATSB processes, whereby errors and flawed analysis stemming from the poor application of existing processes were not mitigated.

First of all, an early misunderstanding about the responsibilities of the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the ATSB in the investigation was never resolved. This led to the ATSB collecting insufficient information from Pel-Air to determine the extent to which the flight planning and monitoring deficiencies observed in the occurrence existed in the company in general.

Poor data collection also hampered the analysis of specific safety issues, particularly fuel management, company and regulatory oversight, and fatigue (the ATSB does not use a specific tool to guide investigation of human fatigue).

Weaknesses in the application of the ATSB analysis framework resulted in those data insufficiencies not being addressed and potential systemic oversight issues not being analyzed. Ineffective investigation oversight resulted in issues with data collection and analysis not being identified or resolved in a timely way.

All three peer reviews conducted on the Norfolk Island draft report identified issues with respect to factual information, analysis, and conclusions. Many of these concerns were never followed up after the review process was complete. The ATSB process does not include a second-level review to ensure that feedback from peer reviews is adequately addressed.

After investigation reports have gone through peer and management review, they are sent to directly involved parties (DIPs) for comments. In the Norfolk Island investigation, the DIP process was run twice: once when the report was in its initial draft, and the second time after it had been revised. However, there is no process to ensure that the ATSB communicates its response to DIPs' comments. Formal responses to DIPs increase their understanding of the action taken in response to their submissions, and may make them more amenable to accepting the final report.

In the Norfolk Island investigation, the Commission's review of the report took place immediately after the first DIP process was completed, 31 months after the occurrence. At this stage in an investigation, it is difficult to address issues of insufficient factual information since perishable information will not be available and the collection of other information could incur substantial delays. At the ATSB, the Commission does not formally review some reports until after the DIP process is complete, and in any event, there is no robustly documented process after the Commission review to ensure that its comments are addressed before the report is finalized. Both of these aspects of the ATSB review process increase the risk that deficiencies in the scope of the investigation and the quality of the report will not be addressed.

A safety issue was identified in this investigation concerning insufficient guidance being given to flight crews on obtaining timely weather forecasts en route to help them make decisions when weather conditions at destination were deteriorating. When the safety issue was presented to CASA, it was categorized as “critical”, but in the final report it was described as “minor”, which caused significant concern among stakeholders. The TSB Review observed that this shifted the focus of the discussion to the label and away from the issue itself—and the potential for its mitigation.

In the final stages of the investigation, senior managers were aware of the possibility that the report would generate some controversy, but communications staff were not consulted and no communications plan was developed. Once the investigation became the subject of an external inquiry, the ATSB could no longer comment publicly on the report, which hampered the Bureau's ability to defend its reputation.

The response to the Norfolk Island investigation report clearly demonstrated that it did not address key issues in the way the Australian aviation industry and members of the public expected.Comment::mad: BOLLOCKS! :yuk::yuk: But then we all expected that didn't we...:ugh:

But after this triple load of bollocks I'm definitely taking the TSBC off my Xmas card list...:=
The Kangaroo Valley and Canley Vale investigations

The review of the Kangaroo Valley and Canley Vale investigations showed that when the ATSB methodology is adhered to, and the component tools and processes to challenge and strengthen analysis are applied, the result is more defensible.

In contrast to Norfolk Island, the Kangaroo Valley and Canley Vale investigations underwent regular critical reviews and used the ATSB analysis tools effectively, which gave rise to well-documented decisions, and revised data collection plans and analyses. In the Canley Vale investigation, additional information collected as a direct result of a critical review guided informed decisions with respect to the investigation of regulatory oversight.

In the Kangaroo Valley investigation, the target timeline outlined in the ATSB Safety Investigation Quality System (SIQS) for a Level 3 investigation was exceeded, despite significant effort by the team to expedite the investigation. This may indicate that these targets are unrealistic, the investigation was incorrectly classified, or that other work had influenced the published investigation schedules. Significant delays in completing an investigation increase the risk that stakeholders' expectations with respect to timeliness will not be met.

Nevertheless, because of the teams' active engagement with stakeholders in the Kangaroo Valley and Canley Vale investigations, expectations with respect to schedules were well managed and timely action was taken on safety issues.

In the Canley Vale investigation, events prior to the occurrence raised questions with respect to regulatory non-compliance and oversight. The report states that issues of regulatory non-compliance did not contribute to the occurrence, and the analysis tools were indeed effectively used to support this. However, the report could have benefitted from a more thorough discussion to clarify the underlying rationale for this conclusion.

Unlike Norfolk Island and Kangaroo Valley, the Canley Vale investigation included a closure briefing, which provided an opportunity to discuss lessons learned. Absolutely undeniable clap trap...:ugh:

MTF...:ok:

slats11

1st Dec 2014, 22:40

Maybe time for a letter to the PM requesting he instruct the ATSB to immediately implement the Senate recommendations. I am sure many here would sign such a letter.

Difficult to be on the world stage over MH370 is the Canadian TSB has identified serious errors in the ATSB report - a report that Dolan himself acknowledges he is not proud of.

This whole issue has been unsuccessfully swept under the mat. Better for the Aust Government to pull it out and deal with it transparently than have someone else (FAA) pull it out for them.

Slats11

Sarcs

2nd Dec 2014, 01:37

Damning review of ATSB Pel-Air investigation released (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/02/damning-review-of-atsb-pel-air-investigation-released/)

The independent peer review (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/coll/2014/ATSB/revue-review-20141201.asp) of the ATSB by its Canadian counterpart the TSBC finds serious issues with the methodologies and processes it followed before publishing its much criticised final report into the Pel-Air crash near Norfolk Island in 2009.

This might not of course, be what the ATSB or the minister responsible for aviation, Warren Truss, might say, but the closely argued Canadian report, if read in its detail, makes it clear that the Australian safety body failed at many levels to collect and process the necessary information.
The report also casts light on internal frustrations and divisions within the ATSB investigation.:D:D
If the ATSB or the Minister thinks this supports a decision to leave this second rate, and severely flawed and grossly unfair and compromised reportup, as Australia’s contribution to the safety lessons arising from the world’s first ever ditching of a Westwind corporate jet, then the more fool them.

This is a national embarrassment, and not good optics when we are managing at Kuala Lumpur’s behest, the ocean floor search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

The government has previously ignored a highly critical Senate Committee report into these matters, including its adverse findings as to the credibility of the ATSB’s chief commissioner Martin Dolan, and the discovery of the questionable suppression of a CASA audit of the Pel-Air operation, a matter the Canadian TSB says was felt throughout the ATSB investigation......:{
The Canadian review, no matter how much the government tries to massage it, exists in a detail which is damning as to the conduct and processes followed by the ATSB.

Second rate isn’t good enough for Australia.Hear..hear..Ben; & TICK TOCK miniscule and M&M...:E

MTF...:ok:

slats11

2nd Dec 2014, 02:14

So we have a report:
1. Which Dan concedes he is not proud of
2. Which an independent Senate committee was very highly critical of
3. Where Dolan had to rely on regulations not in force at the relevant time in order to defend his decision not to get the recorders
4. Which is condemned by the independent (sort of) Canadian TSB review
5. Which is not respected by the industry, and which falls short of the expectations of the Aust public

How can this aberaton be allowed to stand?

At high school this would get "Resubmit" in big red letters.

Slats11

Soteria

2nd Dec 2014, 02:22

The wheels are falling off Team Abbotts undercarriage!
Incompetent Government agencies, MrDak's veneer wearing thin, budget blowouts, a Deputy Prime Minister who sits drooling in a rocking chair, a Prime Minister that is more untrustworthy than Lucifer himself, a dysfunctional PMC and and PMO (Peta Credlin) and so the ticking time bomb goes!

Abbott may have had his mea culpa but the entire stinking bunch of them are having their pony poo'ulpa. Lies, deceit, dysfunction, obsfucation, cover ups, bugger ups and fu#k ups and so it goes. Indeed tick tock goes
the play school clock. I am looking forward to reading through the TSBC report in detail, however a cursory look revealed numerous donkey pellets laying about the floor of which the Government has been trying to avoid stepping in. However too late, they have finally stood in a big steaming one :=
Now although the report is politically cautious and doesn't go for the jugular in a manner that the IOS would approve, it says enough in the sense that it highlights that 'Houston there is a problem'. Now how MrDak, Crudlin, Slugger and the loose bowels Truss handle it is an entirely different story. I agree that the Canuck report is probably softer than Dr Aleck's handshake, however Ben does do a good job on Plane Talking at sifting through the chaff.

Tick tock, it's time for the Australian Aviation Party to be formed...

Frank Arouet

2nd Dec 2014, 04:24

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/scud_2008/b5815b1e-3e9f-4283-8b93-d6f2df519257.jpg

Frank Arouet

2nd Dec 2014, 04:35

QUOTE Poor data collection also hampered the analysis of specific safety issues, particularly fuel management, company and regulatory oversight, and fatigue QUOTE

So who was it that considered little or no information relevant to the investigation?

Who said it was not likely that any information obtained would not lead to any commensurately significant safety or learning improvement?

Truss does not have my confidence and I object to being mislead.

Both he and his predecessor Albanese need "disappearing".

Sarcs

2nd Dec 2014, 08:42

I must apologise forthwith to the Canucks..:( Still reading through the report but the extreme effort of adhering to the restrictive ToR...

"The terms of reference and the scope of the TSB Review excluded re-investigating the Norfolk Island ditching; rather, the Review was to focus on how the investigation was conducted."

...has not diluted any of the professionalism of which the reviewers have displayed in taking to the task.

There are some deep messages that need to be learnt from if the ATsB is to recover any of their once respected reputation on the world stage of AAI and once again be an effective air safety watchdog.

What is truly evident is that the involvement of CAsA in a parallel investigation - for what would have to be said as being for devious reasons - has had a profound impact in the conduct and performance from the investigative team up to middle and executive management at the bureau...:=:=

This conflict of interest was very carefully crafted & outlined in sub-paragraph 3.7.3.13.7.3.1 Misunderstanding of the roles of ATSB and CASA

Independence is critical to the work of an accident investigation body whose sole mandate is to improve safety. Parallel investigations by other agencies to fulfill their respective mandates should have no bearing on the actions of an independent safety investigation. In the Norfolk Island investigation, there was no real barrier to prevent any avenue of investigation or examination of the regulatory process itself. However, there was a misunderstanding that affected the quantity and quality of the data available for analysis.

The Norfolk Island ditching occurred four months after structural changes made the ATSB fully independent: on 01 July 2009, the ATSB had ceased being a division within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, and became a separate statutory agency. These changes should have had the effect of reducing the likelihood of any influence by CASA on an ATSB investigation.

However, at a December 2009 progress briefing to ATSB management, one of the risks to the investigation discussed was the CASA parallel accident investigation. Afterward, perceptions of how this issue had been resolved differed. The IIC believed he had been instructed not to cover the same areas as CASA, since the regulator was conducting a parallel investigation.

Meanwhile, the Commission and ATSB managers believed it was well understood that the investigations were fully independent and that there were no barriers to the ATSB investigation.

In addition, there were several communications between the IIC and the Chief Commissioner on the issue of regulatory action planned by CASA against the pilot. These communications did not clarify the independence of the ATSB investigation, and the IIC continued to believe that he had been instructed to avoid duplicating CASA's efforts.

The IIC's misunderstanding of the roles of CASA and the ATSB was never resolved. It resulted in information not being collected from Pel-Air to determine the extent to which the flight planning and monitoring deficiencies observed in the occurrence prevailed in the company in general. To be fair to the bureau they were only trying to adhere to the spirit and intent of the newly minted MoU, unfortunately the other side was not playing by the Queensberry rules and systematically set about undermining and unsettling the IIC into distraction...:( And the rest as they say would have been history but for a 4 Corners program a nosey independent Senator and the non-partisan Senate Committee...:D:D

So again apologies TSBC..:{ Just a pity about the time delay and the fact you were hamstrung by the ToR - as I fear your excellent report (so far) may well be lost in the 'Bankstown Chronicles'...:ugh:

MTF...much more..:ok:

Ps Well done Ben...;)

{Comment: Dear TSBC I will not - at this stage - retract my 'BOLLOCKS' for the Canleyvale review as I believe you have been severely misled...:=}

Addendum: AA online - Canada’s TSB publishes critical review of ATSB (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/canadas-tsb-publishes-critical-review-of-atsb/)

Soteria

2nd Dec 2014, 10:32

3.7.3.1 Misunderstanding of the roles of ATSB and CASA
Hmmm. This 'cosy MOU' between both foul smelling organisations was the brainchild of the Witchdoctor. The Doc wouldn't have tried such a trick had one Allan Stray or Kym Bills been running the ATSB show still. However with the not so intelligent Beaker and his sidekick the very weak Jules Verne, the Doc saw his chance, and hey presto, the ATSB becomes the CASA's bitch. Sign here please!
One doesn't really need to hypothesise as to why such a cosy relationship was crafted and promulgated by Fort Fumble's elite :=

Addendum: I was 'chipped' by somebody who didn't like my reference to the Doc's weak handshake, even if true. Well to balance things out I might add that T. Abbotts Chief of Staff, Peta Credlin, not only has a giant body, giant head and giant hair, she has a very strong vicelike handshake! 10/10 in fact.

Sarcs

2nd Dec 2014, 20:41

The TSBC total focus was on the bureau actions/inactions throughout the entire PelAir investigation, however we (the WWIOS) are not so restricted...:E 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:

Non-retrieval of CVR/FDR - Dolan obfuscation 22/10/12 hearing - YouTube

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) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=77cfd155-ecc3-48a7-bf00-2bfadec357a1)
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) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=e2ae91cd-8a14-4f9c-ab41-b9370c2b1a69) 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 (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/coll/2014/ATSB/revue-review-20141201.asp#fnb12) The team leader obtained a copy of the CASA investigation report in March 2011.

An internal CASA audit report dated 01 August 2010Footnote 13 (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/coll/2014/ATSB/revue-review-20141201.asp#fnb13) 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...:ugh:

Remember this from Tezza...:E: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.

RegardsMTF...:ok:

Sarcs

3rd Dec 2014, 01:35

At 09:01 am in the HoR the Miniscule made a statement...:E

Here is part of that statement under the heading - ATSB Governance (http://www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/wt/speeches/2014/wts031_2014.aspx) :D:D:
ATSB Governance

The Government fully supports the vital role of the ATSB.
Independent investigation of accidents or incidents remains a critical element of the safety system, helping us understand the causes and hence the sources of risks to safety. This helps to avoid future accidents.
If the system is to work well, industry must cooperate in providing information during accident and incident investigations and in reporting incidents generally.

The Government will take a number of actions to give effect to this commitment including:

the appointment of an additional ATSB Commissioner with aviation experience; and
issuing a new Statement of Expectations to the ATSB once the Commission and the Government has had the opportunity to review the findings of the Canadian Transportation Safety Board review of the ATSB publicly released earlier this week.
Madam Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Transport Safety Bureau (TSB) released its independent report into the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

The ATSB tasked the Canadian TSB to undertake an independent review of their investigation methodologies and processes, how they were applied in specific cases and how this compared to international best-practice standards.

The TSB review looked in detail at three separate investigations, one of which was the Pel-Air inquiry which as Members may recall was the subject of a Report by the Senate Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.
While the Canadian TSB found that ATSB investigation methodology and analysis tools represent best practice and have been shown to produce very good results, they found that in the case of the Pel-Air investigation, there were errors made.

I am concerned that the TSB report raises some concerns about the application of ATSB methodologies in the investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air off Norfolk Island in 2009.

As a consequence, I have asked the ATSB Commission to give serious consideration to reopening the investigation.

On a related point, as I have just announced I will shortly be appointing a new Commissioner to the ATSB with a specific background in aviation. This will fulfil an undertaking made by the Coalition prior to the election.

I have asked that the fresh review of the Pel-Air accident should take into account the findings of the TSB's report. Also covered briefly by AA online...:D: Truss calls for fresh look at Pel-Air ditching (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/12/truss-calls-for-fresh-look-at-pel-air-ditching/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7r-cju20Ko

Well I'll be buggered...:rolleyes:

Reckon it is only a matter of time before we hear that Beaker has gone on an extended leave of absence...:E

MTF...:ok:

slats11

3rd Dec 2014, 01:45

Always amusing when a Minister finally stops trying to defend the indefensible.

Frank Arouet

3rd Dec 2014, 03:35

The bloody evidence has been compromised. Most probably on purpose and just in case of such an eventuality.

Is the new commissioner in addition to, or in replacement of the present. Oh, I see an overlap. Two snouts in the trough now.

Truss is finished.

thorn bird

3rd Dec 2014, 06:03

"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) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=e2ae91cd-8a14-4f9c-ab41-b9370c2b1a69) "

The latter part of this document clearly shows that CAsA under the skulls direction, stitched up the crew of the westwind, ably assisted by his sociopathic attack dog wodger wabbit.

CAsA today is still pursuing DJ in a vendetta of maleficence that beggars belief.

Sorry Mr. Truss we have all heard you have a bad dose of the ****s.... unfortunately the Aviation industry has had the ****s for a lot longer than you have, may be a different virus, but ours is more debilitating.

Your authority, CAsA, for which YOU have oversight, are on an orchestrated process of destroying the general Aviation industry in this country.

If this is not your governments policy you are being severely lied to.

I suggest you do some research into Polair, Airtex, Barrier, John Qadrio, Hardies, Jabiru and Your mates, Pel Air & Dominic James & Karen Casey.

Ask your Minder pumpkin head if he wiped a severely disabled flight nurse, looking for some sort of resolution, as if she was a splash of cow **** stuck to his trousers. A really nice bloke.

Then there are a lot of rumors surrounding him and the sale of the secondary airports , something about destroying floodplains with uncertified asbestos contaminated fill, sourced from a Lebanese company??? does the name obede ring a bell?

The corruption by CAsA has consequences for a lot of innocent people Mr. Truss, broken people, broken marriages, broken bodies and broken lives. These are the detritus left behind by your out of control regulator

It will take a lot more than appointing another ex RAAF type to dip his snout into the trough of public funds to convince me that the whole system isn't completely corrupt.

The ATSB is a CAsA bitch, only a very brave or very naïve person would have any communication with either without a lawyer present.

The rule of the regulator is upon us people, the rule of law is redundant.

Note to the FAA: would you please get down here and downgrade Australia, Your nationals are at risk.

Nothing will happen in the way of reform in Australia until the government is severely embarrassed and it becomes a political issue.

You were severely lied to last time.

Since then the industry here has tried, but simply doesn't have the resources.

Sarcs

3rd Dec 2014, 07:38

Steve 'don't have an opinion' Creedy got reasonably fired up today...well sort of...:rolleyes::DEPUTY Prime Minister Warren Truss has asked the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to re-open its controversial inquiry into the Pel-Air crash off Norfolk island in 2009.

The ATSB was forced to defend its handling of the investigation before a Senate Committee after irregularities emerged in its handling of the Westwind jet crash in November 2009.

All six occupants of the jet survived the night-time ditching of a CareFlight medical evacuation from Noumea but CASA suspended the licence of pilot-in-command Dominic James and the airline grounded its Westwind operations. http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2014/12/03/1227143/094927-062f05a4-7a7f-11e4-b271-7fd40b462eed.jpg
Captain Dominic James, a former Cleo Bachelor on the year nominee Source: News Limited

The ATSB took almost three years to produce a report that identified mistakes by the flight crew relating to fuel planning and weather checks as contributing safety factors and to a lesser extent criticised the available guidance on these issues from the company.

The Senate committee was formed after an ABC Four Corners investigation revealed a CASA audit after the crash, and not mentioned in the ATSB report, uncovered 57 breaches and “serious deficiencies’’ at Pel-Air.
Mr Truss announced today as part of the government’s response to a report in aviation safety chaired by industry veteran David Forsyth that a review by the Canada Transportation Safety Board had found the ATSB made mistakes in its investigation.

“While the Canadian TSB found that ATSB investigation methodology and analysis tools represent best practice and have been shown to produce very good results, they found that in the case of the Pel-Air investigation, there were errors made,’’ Mr Truss said.

“I am concerned that the TSB report raises some concerns about the application of ATSB methodologies in the investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air off Norfolk Island in 2009.

“As a consequence, I have asked the ATSB Commission to give serious consideration to reopening the investigation.’’

Mr Truss said he had appointed an additional ATSB commissioner with aviation experience and would be issuing a new Statement of Expectations to the bureau once the government had the opportunity to review the findings of the Canadian review... Not sure if Dom would appreciate the resurfacing of that pic...:(

Come on Steve you can do better than that mate...:ugh:

MTF...:ok:

Sarcs

3rd Dec 2014, 08:13

TBA - Tendentious Bloggers Association...:E

Beaker...

"...At the simplest level, the answers to the Senator's questions are straightforward - and a fair amount of the information is publicly available.

We are prepared to answer them in whatever forum they arise (with the exception of anonymous rumour sites and some tendentious bloggers)..."

First from Proaviation (Phearless Phelan)...:D:D:Canadian study identifies flawed processes and policies (http://proaviation.com.au/2014/12/03/canadian-study-identifies-flawed-processes-and-policies/)

An independent review of the ATSB’s investigation processes and methodologies delivered its report on schedule this week. But it won’t bring much comfort to industry, nor to a travelling public already uneasy over the revelations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review; and last week’s grilling of Airservices Australia executives in Senate Estimates over top-level management conflict, concerns over possible whistle-blower abuses and the non-resolution of long-standing operational safety issues.

ATSB had commissioned a “peer review” by its Canadian counterpart, the Transportation Safety Bureau of Canada, in the wake of a series of adverse findings by a Senate committee and widespread media coverage centred on the ATSB’s investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air Aeromedical Westwind jet at Norfolk Island in November 2009.

The TSB’s terms of reference were to conduct a new and independent objective review of ATSB’s investigation methodologies and processes, working independently of any other person or organisation.. The reviewers were not asked to revisit the Norfolk Island findings, but to review the way the investigation was conducted, and also to review two other investigations – an Augusta helicopter winching accident in December 2011 at Kangaroo Valley, and a Piper Chieftain crash at Canley Vale near Bankstown airport in June 2010.

That meant that at least for now, the deeply flawed Norfolk Island investigation report would remain on the public record indefinitely, presumably as a standing reminder of how not to go about meeting the ATSB’s and CASA’s obligations.

The other two accidents were added to the assignment “in order to provide a useful comparison” of ATSB’s procedures over a wider spread of events.
Perhaps also to identify whether the Norfolk investigation was a random aberration, or par for the course. ProAviation is in contact with several parties who have been equally injured by the arrogance and overconfidence of both organisations.

On the Norfolk Island investigation, the TSBC commented:
The TSB Review of the Norfolk Island investigation revealed lapses in the application of the ATSB methodology with respect to the collection of factual information, and a lack of an iterative approach to analysis. The review also identified potential shortcomings in ATSB processes, whereby errors and flawed analysis stemming from the poor application of existing processes were not mitigated.
Problems identified by the Canadians included “misunderstandings” about the respective responsibilities of CASA and the ATSB, leading to the ATSB collecting insufficient information from the operator, which in turn also hampered the analysis of specific safety issues; weaknesses in the application of the ATSB analysis framework, lapses from normal accident investigation procedure; and the re-categorisation of a ‘critical’ safety issue to ‘minor’, which shifted the focus away from the issue itself – and the potential for its mitigation.

In contrast, the TSB was less critical of the Kangaroo Valley and Canley Vale investigations, despite considerable industry disquiet with their findings.

The TSB Review made 14 recommendations to the ATSB in four main areas:

“Ensuring the consistent application of existing methodologies and processes;
“Improving investigation methodologies and processes where they were found to have deficiencies,’
“Improving the oversight and governance of investigations , and
“Managing communications challenges more effectively.”
Findings from the TSB review of the Norfolk Island investigation were:
1. The response to the Norfolk Island investigation report clearly demonstrated that the investigation report published by the ATSB did not address key issues in the way that the Australian aviation industry and members of the public expected.
2. In the Norfolk Island investigation, the analysis of specific safety issues including fatigue, fuel management, and company and regulatory oversight was not effective because insufficient data were collected.
3. The ATSB does not use a specific tool to guide data collection and analysis in the area of human fatigue.
4. Weaknesses in the application of the ATSB analysis framework resulted in data insufficiencies not being addressed and potential systemic oversight issues not being analysed.
5. The use of level-of-risk labels when communicating safety issues did not contribute to advancing safety, and focused discussion on the label rather than on the identified issue and the potential means of its mitigation.
6. A misunderstanding early in the investigation regarding the responsibilities of CASA and the ATSB was never resolved. As a result, the ATSB did not collect sufficient information from Pel-Air to determine the extent to which the flight planning and monitoring deficiencies observed in the occurrence existed in the company in general.
7. Ineffective oversight of the investigation resulted in issues with data collection and analysis not being identified or resolved in a timely way.
8. The lack of a second-level peer review in the Norfolk Island investigation meant that improvements to the analysis and conclusions stemming from the peer review were not incorporated into the report.
9. At the ATSB, the Commission does not formally review some reports until after the DIP [directly interested parties] process is complete. This increases the risk that issues with the scope of the investigation and the quality of the report will be identified too late in the process to be resolved.
10. The lack of a robustly documented feedback process after the Commission review increases the risk that issues with the scope of the investigation and the quality of the report will not be addressed.
11. Ultimately, the lack of a process for the Commission to review the DIP responses, ensure the DIP comments were addressed, and provide DIPs feedback reduced the effectiveness of the DIP process in improving the quality of the Norfolk Island report.
12. Although senior managers were aware of the possibility that the report would generate some controversy, communications staff were not consulted and no communications plan was developed.
13. Once the investigation became the subject of an external inquiry, the ATSB could no longer comment publicly on the report, which hampered the Bureau’s ability to defend its reputation.

The report’s recommendations offer comprehensive fixes to identified problem areas as well as throwing further light on the deliberations of the Canadian team.

The review reported on, but did not criticise the ATSB’s controversial decision not to spend $200,000 on recovering the cockpit voice and flight data recorders, notwithstanding that there were several unique lessons to be learned from a successful night ditching of a light jet in a remote area which was survived by all six occupants.

To be fair to PP that review of the TSBC report was before this mornings revelation that the Miniscule wants Beaker and his fellow commissioners to consider (i.e. DO) re-opening the PelAir investigation.

However if he were to know I don't believe he would have quite put it the way Ben did in this evening's contribution from Planetalking...:E:D:D:
Call for ATSB chief’s removal over Pel-Air report fiasco (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/03/atsb-told-second-rate-not-good-enough-in-pel-air-inquiry/)

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/) | Dec 03, 2014 6:40PM | EMAIL (?subject=Check%20out%20%22Call%20for%20ATSB%20chief%E2%80%9 9s%20removal%20over%20Pel-Air%20report%20fiasco%22%20on%20Crikey&body=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.crikey.com.au%2Fplanetalking%2F2014% 2F12%2F03%2Fatsb-told-second-rate-not-good-enough-in-pel-air-inquiry%2F) | PRINT (javascript:window.print();)

Senior mandarins in aviation tried to lock their Minister, Warren Truss, into a position he no longer wants to be in. A very bad career move

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2014/12/XenophonSack-Dolan--610x395.jpg (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/03/atsb-told-second-rate-not-good-enough-in-pel-air-inquiry/xenophonsack-dolan/)Senator Nick Xenophon calling for Dolan's removal from ATSB

The scope for major changes in Australia’s air safety investigator, the ATSB, its aviation regulator, CASA, and their administrator the department of Infrastructure and Regional Development looms large following the Minister’s abrupt call for a fresh look (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/03/atsb-asked-to-consider-re-opening-pel-air-crash-inquiry/) at the Pel-Air crash inquiry report.

A great deal of political and administrative capital was invested in producing and defending the vindictive, unfair and inadequate final report that the ATSB issued, and subsequently defended, concerning the Pel-Air crash of a Westwind corporate jet doing a medical charter into the sea near Norfolk Island on 18 November, 2009.

In what might prove a critical development in the public administration of air safety in this country, that report, released after many delays on 30 August 2012, seems set to be undone, or redone.

As might prove to be the case for Martin Dolan, the discredited ATSB chief commissioner whose testimony before a Senate hearing into the investigator’s botched processes over its Pel-Air findings was rejected by an all party committee.

Independent SA Senator, Nick Xenophon, lost no time in calling for Dolan’s removal “and the establishment of an Inspector-General of Aviation to provide much-needed oversight of the ATSB and CASA.”

The human suffering aspect of what at first glance seems like a minor hull loss in the middle of the night is difficult to discuss for legal reasons at present. However it was anything but minor for the six people onboard when it was ditched in the sea because it had reached its intended refueling stop at Norfolk Island, on its way from Apia to Melbourne, when it discovered the weather advice it had received was wrong, it was unable to land, and it no reserves to reach an alternate.

Pel-Air, the operator was a mess. It grounded its surviving Westwinds voluntarily after the crash. Its deputy chairman and former coalition aviation minister John Sharp, even gave a media interview in which he admitted there ‘was no plan B’. The operator didn’t even have a written oceanic fueling policy. It was an appalling state of affairs, all seemingly brushed under the carpet by two safety authorities and a federal department.

One of those people on the flight was quite seriously injured, yet more than five years later, she is being appallingly treated, even gloated over by some parties on the basis that Australia’s air regulations in respect of such accidents were so lax/ or non-existent, that anyone using them had no legal protection whatsoever. (Which may not prove to be the case, of course.)

That regulatory vacuum persists to this day, despite lies from CASA under previous management as to how promptly it was going to fix the situation, and an apparent paralysis of that organization under a recently departed head of safety when it came to actually reforming or performing any of its obligations to aviation stakeholders and the public.

However the testimony of Dolan to the Senate, and the tale of administrative incompetence and lack of clear management on his watch during the bungled Pel-Air inquiry that is set out by the TSBC peer review ought to have him out of the door on skates.

The identification of the secretary for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mike Mrdak with the Dolan, ATSB and CASA positions on the Pel-Air inquiry places him in a difficult position. Mr Mrdak took his Minister, Mr Truss, to a place where the Minister no longer wants to be, which is always in hindsight, a bad, bad move.

It was Mrdak’s department that told Truss to reject earlier calls, including from the Senate committee inquiring into the ATSB, to recover the flight data recorder from the Pel-Air wreckage and redo the findings, which were essentially a lazy and incomplete scapegoating of the pilot in charge of the Westwind.

The privileged Hansard records of the testimony of Dolan, the then director of air safety for CASA, John McCormick, and Mrdak are substantially incompatible with the findings of the TSBC.

It was Mrdak’s department that wrote the original position taken by Minister Truss that there was no point in retrieving the flight data recorder or correcting the accident report. It will be interesting to see if Mrdak can perform the necessary U-turn, and repudiate his previous words, while remaining on top in Infrastructure.

When Minister Truss’s Air Safety Regulation Review panel, chaired by David Forsyth, reported at the end of May this year it anticipated that the TSBC report would be both critical and released in the near future.

It was however, repeatedly delayed, to the point where some feared it mightn’t even see the light of day, given reported resistance to its contents within the ATSB.

The report released on Monday was written in a manner likely to put a casual reader into a coma. But for those who read the full document, it proved highly critical of the ATSB, setting out comprehensive failings in terms of collecting and assessing information.

There was dissent within the investigating team, to the point where a ‘coach’ appointed to assist in the inquiry, sought, eventually successfully, to be relieved of his role.

The TSBC dealt deeply with the disruption caused in the investigation by uncertainty over the appropriate relationship with CASA, which conducted parallel inquiries, including an audit that was withheld from the ATSB, into the Pel-Air Westwind operation subsequent to the crash.

As reported earlier in Plane Talking and examined by a Senate committee into the ATSB’s procedures in relation to Pel-Air, CASA suppressed an audit that found that the crash could have been prevented had the regulator carried out its own duties of oversight over the Westwind operation.

The stench from the ATSB and CASA over the investigative shambles led to a damning Senate committee report, in which the committee took that rare if not unprecedented step of giving a section of their findings to their lack of confidence in the testimony and conduct of the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan.

Today’s decision to have ‘another look’, which to be clear, is a direction not a suggestion, reflects poorly on Truss’s Labor predecessor Anthony Albanese.

Mr Albanese broke several commitments to deal with the adverse Senate findings into the ATSB, and was ineffectual or unwilling in relation to the Pel-Air issues, which first arose on his watch with ample opportunity for ministerial direction or intervention.

Mr Truss has not escaped criticism in this portfolio either, and not just from Plane Talking. But something has changed, this damaging and disgraceful report will be ‘fixed’ in its procedural or methodological shortcomings, there is already a new Director of Air Safety at CASA, and there may well be further changes for the better in the administration of air safety. Priceless...:ok: I think it is fair to say that Ben fair and squarely hit the nail on the head of probably close to the last nail in Beaker's coffin...:{

Come on Miniscule you know you want to...:rolleyes:

MTF...:E

slats11

3rd Dec 2014, 08:35

SIUYA

3rd Dec 2014, 09:04

The identification of the secretary for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mike Mrdak with the Dolan, ATSB and CASA positions on the Pel-Air inquiry places him in a difficult position. Mr Mrdak took his Minister, Mr Truss, to a place where the Minister no longer wants to be, which is always in hindsight, a bad, bad move.

Well, lets all hope that Truss does something about that then, and doesn't waste time doing it as he has so far.

:ok:

slats11

3rd Dec 2014, 09:21

Not sure that Truss is finished Frank. I suspect he will outlast a few others.

Many a senior department figure has enjoyed Ministerial support until things reach a critical point. Then they quickly and unhappily discover their function is to be a fuse - that is, to self-destruct and thereby protect a more valuable piece of equipment.

halfmanhalfbiscuit

3rd Dec 2014, 16:02

The best thing now would be to let the Canadian TSB do the repeat investigation into the Norfolk Island crash.

After all, justice not only has to be done. It has to be seen to be done.

There are precedents for this. The Canadians have previously investigated a crash in USA that involved an FAA employee.

Some assistance from HF experts maybe Mr Ben Cook (now in the ADF ) would be justified.

2. In the Norfolk Island investigation, the analysis of specific safety issues including fatigue, fuel management, and company and regulatory oversight was not effective because insufficient data were collected.

Soteria

3rd Dec 2014, 18:42

Some assistance from HF experts maybe Mr Ben Cook (now in the ADF ) would be justified.Sorry Biscuit, Ben has moved on again and is now at Vic rail, but I am sure that like most good ex CASA people he will be watching the circus with great amusement.

At least the TSBC has nailed Beaker for what he truly is - a total liability. However Truss is the bigger fool for allowing the beardless one to be reappointed for two years. Tsk tsk tsk Warren the IOS warned you :=
And what about Pumpkin Head? Seems his little empire has a few splinters in it that are turning into giant sinkholes. But yet again the IOS have been warning Herr Truss. And did he listen? Of course not, he reappointed the man with no neck. :=
What about the ridiculous MOU between CASA and the ATSB that the Witchdoctor put together? Another piece of ideology formed for sinister reasons. It is yet another failure. But don't worry Minister, the IOS have been warning the big wigs in Can'tberra for eons that this 'removal of ATSB independence' (and that is all it is) was flawed and dangerous. It's an embarrassment and you can imagine the CASA and ATSB meetings in the past where the Skull would bark across the board table at Beaker and say 'get me another coffee, and some biccies, and get it now', and of course Beaker would softly comply. Add that to the CVD debacle, the recent ASA LAHSO shenanigans, credit card misuse at both organisations, Jabiru, Barrier and the list goes on forever!! Yep, a real clusterf#ck of abhorrent proportions :=

Sarcs, may I? TICK TOCK goes the FAA clock.

Frank Arouet

3rd Dec 2014, 21:03

Truss looked "peculiar" in the HOR yesterday and didn't stay long having "personal business". I doubt he has the stamina to continue although the politicians ego may hold sway. Young Barnaby has a mean and hungry look and the only thing stopping him is numbers loyal to the National Party as opposed to the LNP. Having said this they will be having meetings in a telephone box after the next elections if they continue as they are. Which is a pity because we may then have to look forward to city orientated political party's for future plans for the industry which include aircraft noise over airports and not much more. GA in particular needs regional political representation.

Having read the Albanese transcript of yesterday, he gives me more reason for concern, and to politicize the situation that he presided over with the relevant appointments, nothing is safe in the hands of either.

The IOS would be wise to consider doing a job on MrDak as he seems to be the woodpile in the river Niger.

Kharon

3rd Dec 2014, 21:16

Sarcs - {Comment: Dear TSBC I will not - at this stage - retract my 'BOLLOCKS' for the Canleyvale review as I believe you have been severely mislead}".

Sarcs – I'm not sure that the Pprune management would tolerate the publication of the Canely Vale chapter from the Bankstown Chronicles; so after much 'consultation' with the BRB and P7, I hope a potted twiddle will suffice.

There exists a document which, for wont of better, we shall call the "Cheese" document, it has quite a history. The final draft was quite short, five pages in all, the initial draft, shorter again, three pages. Draft 1 was provided to the CEO, GM, three Chief Pilots, two CASA FOI, their 'acting team leader', and to two independent 'safety experts'. Although Draft 1 was short, it was pretty much to the point and designed to have an immediate effect on what was identified as a rapidly developing, operationally 'unhealthy' situation; there was no doubt in the authors mind that inevitably, there would be a major accident if the matters mentioned were not addressed quickly and correctly. This was stated in Draft 1 and supported by anecdotal, peer reviewed evidence. The conclusions of that review were supported by no less than four, independent, active chief pilots and two independent safety analysts. Fully aware that the potential for a fatal accident was at an elevated level; the matter was entered into the company Safety Management System (SMS) and 'flagged' urgent for a full SMS meeting.

It was the following day that two CASA FOI arrived 'on site', their manner was noted as angry, impatient, dismissive, one being particularly aggressive. I will not labour the point – in short, the CPO and HOTAC were 'told'. Told to remove the matter from the SMS, not to interfere outside of their own remit and, for their own good, it was better to let CASA sort out the issues, in house and informally. No further action was ever taken by CASA regarding the matter.

Over the next two month period, it was observed and noted by senior pilots that 'things' were deteriorating, rapidly. Another report was prepared. Draft 2 was blunt – it warned that a fatal accident was probable, a time bomb. If immediate changes to training, supervision and operational practices were not made; as a matter of urgency it was no longer no longer a matter of if, simply when.. It was agreed, by all that after the last caning from CASA that the matter should simply be referred to and dealt with by the CEO and SMS management.

To the credit of management a company wide SMS accord was initiated and a review of all 'operating' protocols and policy was commissioned, to define the 'problem' areas and identify changes required. All company divisions and the CEO embraced the concept and wholeheartedly became involved; all except one. The division which employed Andy Wilson and had created the urgent need for 'control'.

After the fatal crash the aforementioned CASA FOI conducted an 'audit' and found that the 'paperwork' was all in order, and that there were no 'operational' aberrations. Which is hardly surprising as they weren't looking for them, tick and flick worked just fine, when it suited their masters purpose.

ATSB were informed of the company concerns, they even subpoenaed the 'Cheese' report which had forecast the accident almost 12 months (to the day) previously. And did nothing. Not even interview the eight senior, qualified individuals, to determine if any of the itemised topics could have contributed. For example, from 'Cheese':- (abridged and slightly edited to protect the innocent).

a) Senior pilots report being personally informed, on several occasions of pilots being 'instructed' to perform operations in a manner which defies most of the sensible and legitimate tenets of sound practice, Wilson repeatedly being the recipient of several of these 'tirades'. The most recent was a serious dressing down, delivered post flight to one of the most sensible, intelligent pilots on staff. The pilot requested a private meeting to explain the event and to seek guidance.

b) In short; the pilot was tasked to Lismore NSW, after a second attempt at the approach, the aircraft was visual at the minima, but, on top of a very low deck of Stratus (lifting fog) which obscured the aerodrome and prevented a landing. The aircraft was diverted to Ballina.

c) This individual later responded to a general question related to the days operation with a sketch of the days events. He was then taken aside and 'briefed' (instructed) on how it should be done and berated for not doing the job in the 'approved' manner. Not to labour the issue the essential points where:-

(i) Slow the aircraft (PA 31-350) to less than 120 knots,
(ii) Stooge about until you identify a roadway which leads toward the aerodrome,
(iii) Get below the cloud and follow the road through the hills until the runway is sighted.

An independent analysis of the Canley Vale accident, from a holistic perspective was provided, in confidence, to both the Pel-Air and Forsyth inquiries. Clearly the Canadian TSB were never provided the information, even the analysis of the flight path was grossly flawed and that fell squarely with the TSBC remit..

If the Pel-Air investigation is to be reopened; then both the Botany Bay and Canely Vale accidents need to be examined in depth. If there is any doubt remaining that Pel Air was a 'reverse' fit up, then an open, impartial, honest inquiry into the death of young Andy Wilson and Cathy Shepard will confirm, beyond a shadow of doubt any lingering notion that CASA and the ATSB have acted less than honourably, in another hidden display of routine normalised deviance.

This is not the time to take your foot off the gas pedal.

Selah.

Sarcs

4th Dec 2014, 05:10

A most disturbing commentary Mr Ferryman and one that I gather that is held under parliamentary privilege and therefore can be freshly referred to by those that matter.

It is also yet another example of how the ATsB is in non-compliance with its charter to be fully independent: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. This is also in contravention to its obligations under ICAO Annex 13
5.4 The accident investigation authority shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct, consistent with the provisions of this Annex.
It should also be noted that now under Annex 19 it is the responsibility of the State to ensure the independence of the State AAI.

If there is one fundamental lesson that should have been learnt from the Senate inquiry into the PelAir cover-up this is it. From all recent evidence - in bureau investigations/prelim & final reports - this is not a lesson that either the department or it's aviation agencies has learnt.

Now we finally get the TSBC peer review report where again the credibility of the ATSB being independent is questioned and made the subject of a TSBC recommendation:Recommendation #13: The ATSB should provide clear guidance to all investigators that emphasizes both the independence of ATSB investigations, regardless of any regulatory investigations or audits being conducted at the same time, and the importance of collecting data related to regulatory oversight as a matter of course.Kharon - "...beyond a shadow of doubt any lingering notion that CASA and the ATSB have acted less than honourably, in another hidden display of routine normalised deviance...":D:D

From a recently released REPCON it would appear that Kharon is not on his own in his concerns about the now proven to be incestual relationship between the bureau and CAsA:
Reporter's concern

The reporter expressed a safety concern regarding the number of Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigations which have indicated in their report that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) have detected issues during their audits but have not taken the appropriate action to fix the issues. However, these reports have then not indicated that this was a contributing safety factor in the accident.
The investigations include but are not limited to AO-2011-102 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-102.aspx), AO-2011-033 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-033.aspx) and AO-2009-072 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-072.aspx).

Operator's response (Operator 1)

In order to respond to this REPCON, it is of benefit to understand the different outcomes likely when comparing a regulatory surveillance activity with the conduct of a safety investigation:

Regulatory oversight. Routine regulatory surveillance cannot examine all aspects of an operator on a frequent basis, and it cannot identify all the issues with an operator (or similar organisation) or their operation. More specifically, unless other intelligence or specific concerns have been identified previously to indicate otherwise, such activities generally examine a relatively broad range of aspects of an operation or operator at limited depth.
The frequency and depth of this ‘routine’ surveillance could be expected to be based on factors such as the type or classification of operation and size of the operator or operation.

In general, less surveillance might be expected for smaller operators, for non-passenger-carrying activities and for operators using smaller aircraft.

Safety investigations. Safety investigations conducted after an accident or serious incident are often able to identify problems or safety issues that may not be easily detected during a regulator’s routine surveillance activities. More specifically, a safety investigation conducted after an accident/serious incident usually has a more targeted scope as a result of the evidence already gained from other sources, and generally has more time to identify potential safety issues than in the case of a routine audit. Finally, whereas surveillance activities traditionally focus on regulatory compliance, safety issues identified as a result of safety investigations are not restricted to compliance with regulatory requirements.

Safety investigation and ‘contribution’. Given their limited resources and many potential occurrences to investigate, safety investigation agencies carefully scope their work to maximise the efficiency of their investigations and the potential for safety enhancement.
Before the ATSB includes a detailed examination of the effectiveness of a regulator’s surveillance activities as part of an investigation’s scope, it would generally need to establish that:

There are significant problems (in terms of number and/or level of risk) with the relevant operator’s risk controls and/or safety management processes, which are related to the investigated occurrence.
Given factors such as the severity of these safety issues, the length of time they existed, the size of the operator and the nature of its operations, it is reasonable to expect that a regulator’s oversight activities probably should or could have identified these safety issues.
Ultimately, to conclude that any potential problems with regulatory oversight processes were a contributing factor to an accident/serious incident would require the investigation to have, in the first instance, concluded that problems with the operator’s occurrence-specific risk controls and/or safety management processes contributed to the accident/serious incident. In addition, a problem with the design, implementation or other aspect of the regulator’s surveillance processes would need to have been shown (‘existence’) and the conclusion reached that the surveillance problem(s) could have realistically prevented or significantly reduced the likelihood or magnitude of one or more of the operator’s safety issues (‘influence’).

Given this understanding, the following discussion explains why no safety issues associated with regulatory surveillance were identified as contributing factors in the ATSB investigations highlighted by the REPCON reporter:

AO-2011-033. This investigation involved a small operator conducting primarily freight charter operations in light, twin-engine aircraft. In terms of the scope of the investigation, the ATSB did not consider a detailed review of the regulator’s oversight activities was warranted. The ATSB report noted that CASA found several problems with the operator after the accident, but these problems were not directly related to the circumstances of the accident and safety issue relating to the operator identified by the investigation.

AO-2011-102. This occurrence involved a small operator conducting primarily aerial work and some charter operations with film crew as passengers and, as part of the scope of the investigation, the ATSB obtained CASA regulatory surveillance documentation. The ATSB did not consider that the nature of the safety issue it identified with the operator would reasonably have been identified by CASA during its routine surveillance activities. However, the ATSB did conclude in its report that there were problems with relevant regulatory requirements and a safety recommendation was issued to CASA in that regard. The ATSB continues to monitor CASA’s action in response to this safety issue.

AO-2009-072. This investigation involved an aerial work operation and, as part of the scope of the investigation, regulatory surveillance documentation was obtained from CASA and examined. In respect of the safety issue that was identified with the operator, the ATSB considered that it was not an issue that would or should necessarily have been identified as a result of routine surveillance activities. However, problems were found with the general nature of the available regulatory guidance on fuel planning and on seeking and applying en route weather updates, which increased the risk of inconsistent in-flight fuel management and decisions to divert. As indicated in the investigation report, safety action was taken by the operator and CASA in response to these safety issues in an effort to prevent a recurrence of the accident.
Regulator's response (Regulator 1)

CASA has reviewed the REPCON and concurs with the response provided by the ATSB. Anyone care to add to the list of investigations that question the veracity of the claim that the ATsB is fully independent...:E

I strongly suspect the Mildura fog incident and the Albury ATR birdstrike incident are candidates for external embuggerance of the ATsB ongoing investigations, but as the reporter (above) indicates there are probably many more...:ugh:This is not the time to take your foot off the gas pedal.
Totally agree Ferryman this is by no means over...:cool:

Addendum - Performance of ASA 28/11/14 Hansard (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F 06e9fd42-6075-4521-bcb2-cda07a6ed010%2F0001;orderBy=date-eFirst;page=0;query=Dataset%3AcomSen,estimate;rec=14;resCoun t=Default)is finally out not sure what the delay was but maybe this bit had something to do with it...:E: Senator XENOPHON: I think it would be good if we could see any minutes in respect of that. Isn't it in the context of Senator Gallacher raising concerns about compliance or noncompliance—I am not saying there was any noncompliance—in respect of certain public works? And then, as a result of a line of questioning from Senator Gallacher, you raise the issue of the AFP being brought in in respect of leaks. It is not an unreasonable proposition, as Senator Gallacher put forward, that there appears to be a correlation between some legitimate concerns being raised in the context of this parliamentary process and calling in the AFP. Indeed, I wonder—and I will seek advice from the Clerk of the Senate—whether it raises issues of privilege.

MTF...:ok:

Creampuff

4th Dec 2014, 05:35

In short: The regulator's interactions with the operators were pointless.

Couldn't agree more. :D

Sunfish

4th Dec 2014, 10:00

So basically, CASA stinks and nothing it says can be relied upon? Furthermore, there will be no change as a result of the review?

dubbleyew eight

4th Dec 2014, 10:36

haven't you seen enough of real world aviation to realise that in the minds of the Clueless Aerosols screwing Aviation the reality never matters.
merely the paperwork.

In short: The regulator's interactions with the operators were pointless.

in a world where you have people incompetent of the engineering running the place it is the thickness of the report that matters, the amount of money you were paid while generating it is crucial, never ever the reality.

we have in australia a truly corrupt system.

Kharon

4th Dec 2014, 20:30

Sarcs – HERE (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-127.html#post8768918) -has just dramatically altered the betting in the MoP stakes; with 'Stabbed in the Dark' shortening to equal favourite. (Late entry, Filly by 'Sick Joker' out of 'Thick as two', lacklustre performance in previous outings, the punters initially supported as an each way or trifecta bet, to pad out the ticket, believing improvement would be seen with more familiarity to the track. Word from the stable is that the Filly is simply more suited to agricultural pursuits than big race games; the connections entering the filly in an attempt to boost the chances of selling it on. Entered with SP odds at a one in three chance of success.

The spectre of parliamentary privileged information being used to persecute an individual has finally arrived at the table. Lots of scope in that department with CASA running equal favourite. Hansard takes you along a cleverly mapped out pathway to the steel trap, cunningly disguised. The senate crew 'confused' and 'bamboozled' the Slicks (self admitted), then turned the 'Ficks' inside out and got as close to a confession as possible. Not bad; not too shabby at all....:D

Time permitting the extracts from Hansard will be cobbled together, for without the sidebars, distractions and the clever coaxing the intended victim along the 'right' path, the script is very clear: very clear indeed; as it always is with 20/20 HS.

Toot toot

Lookleft

4th Dec 2014, 20:33

Recommendation 13 I think is the real black-eye from the Canadians to the ATSB. It is basically saying, as Sen X has been, that Australia is not fulfilling the basic premise of Annex 13 in that investigations must be conducted completely independent from outside influence. On this recommendation alone Dolan's position is no longer tenable and actually confirms the Senate report critique of his performance at the Inquiry. If he is not removed then that will be an indication of how the Government intends to treat the TSBC report.

Sarcs

4th Dec 2014, 21:55

...On this recommendation alone Dolan's position is no longer tenable and actually confirms the Senate report critique of his performance at the Inquiry. If he is not removed then that will be an indication of how the Government intends to treat the TSBC report.
Lefty where have you been?? Two short sharp posts that cut to the chase...:D :D

With the last one (above) I will help you out with this from NX:
Aviation safety failure

3rd December 2014

Independent Senator for South Australia, Nick Xenophon, has called for a major shake-up of Australia’s air accident investigation system after an independent review found systemic problems with the botched investigation of the Pel-Air ditching off Norfolk Island in 2009.

Senator Xenophon called for the removal of head of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), Martin Dolan, and the establishment of an Inspector-General of Aviation to provide much-needed oversight of the ATSB and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

The Transport Safety Board of Canada (TSB) conducted an independent review of the ATSB’s investigation of three serious incidents and its report was released yesterday. It found that the ATSB’s investigation of the Pel-Air crash “did not address key issues in the way that the Australian aviation industry and members of the public expected”.

Today Transport Minister Warren Truss called on the ATSB to re-open the Pel-Air investigation because of the serious flaws identified by the TSB.
“The Canadian report and the Minister’s statements are further testament to the ATSB’s incompetence. The Minister is right to call for a re-opening of the investigation, but he’s wrong to ask the ATSB to do it. It needs to be done independently,” said Nick.

The TSB report found:

The ATSB was unaware of Pel-Air’s systemic fuel and fatigue management problems that contributed to the crash because “insufficient data were collected”
The ATSB investigation led to an organisational focus on “risk level labels” rather than factors that “contribute to advancing safety”
Evidence of insufficient oversight by CASA of Pel-Air flight planning and monitoring practices

The TSB report says: “A misunderstanding early in the investigation regarding the responsibilities of CASA and the ATSB was never resolved”.

The TSB report supported the findings of the Senate inquiry instigated by Senator Xenophon by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. The Committee, in its 176-page report last year, found that CASA had withheld from the ATSB evidence of its failure to oversee Pel-Air. The Committee found that evidence from the Martin Dolan, head of the ATSB, was “questionable”.

Senator Xenophon said the Government was yet to act on the findings of the Senate report, and criticised the Aviation Safety Regulation Review report, launched last November and completed in June, as “a missed opportunity for reform”.
Now from that I don't get the impression that Nick is going to take his foot off the gas anytime soon...:D:D The IOS should continue to throw their support behind Nick - with his now increased power in the Parliament - not only on his muppet head hunting mission but in his mission to rectify everything that is currently toxic & wrong about the executive & middle management teams at the ATsB, CAsA and ASA...:ugh:

MTF...:ok:

Lookleft

4th Dec 2014, 22:06

Lefty where have you been?? Two short sharp posts that cut to the chase

Its a long story Sarcs but it has now been sorted (Thanks TW):ok:

The Canadians have just revealed that the Emperor has no clothes albeit at the same time saying that his tailor is of world standard.

thorn bird

5th Dec 2014, 05:08

"The Canadians have just revealed that the Emperor has no clothes albeit at the same time saying that his tailor is of world standard".????

Are they saying he's really well Hung??

Kharon

5th Dec 2014, 19:25

Interesting, sober piece - HERE (http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/08/industry-forum-says-imminent-announcement-of-new-casa-boss-a-chance-for-fresh-start/) – from AA, featuring Chris Manning. There was rumour that Manning was in the DAS race; but that was discounted. Manning has far too much sense, probably no need of and precious little interest in 'that job', considering the Tiger experience and all. But, the AA August article does merrily dance around the proposition and flirts with the notion, just fails to convince.

There are however two remaining top aviation positions which, if the pundits have nailed it down, will need to be filled before forward progress can be made. ASA can wait, for a little while; but, the ATSB must be taken away from the stench of Pel-Air, which is a constant cause for concern to those seeking MH 370. The ATSB leadership is an international embarrassment; to the troops, the industry and given the way 'covert' MH 370 investigations are heading, to the government.

The Canucks finally (eventually) managed to publish a genteel, cleverly structured report on the ATSB which delivered a fairly thorough wet lettuce flogging, even allowing, as Lefty mentions, it managed to black an eye or two. This is all being seen as PC window dressing, framed in 'diplomatic' language. Not being expert on diplomatic double speak, at first read the WFT is this message flashes; however the grown ups assure me that, for exponents of double speak the report was as close to a public humiliation as it is possible to get; without declaring the bleeding obvious.

So, bottom line; Be-a-Cur must go, he has in the past been 'reassigned' within the secret, protected world of the professional public servant. It's not the first job he made a complete dogs breakfast of and had to leave, under a cloud. So new desk and office will not cause any angst and with conscience and humiliation not in his lexicon, life will continue, unabated, within in the shadowy, protected world, unchanged. A good riddance.

That leaves behind his partners in crime, those who willingly and happily raped the TSI act and dropped their daks to cavort about the CASA altar. Which leaves a nasty little situation for whoever is appointed to take over from Be-a-Cur. It must be an outsider, no one in their right minds would try to push the remnants and oddments left behind from the Norfolk imbroglio forward; which leads us to the 'who then' question.

Just a feeling really, but if they could persuade a first rate fellah, like Manning to take the job, even short term and give him a large axe, I reckon things could be improved, in fairly short order over at ATSB. There certainly is no shortage of good material to work with, just sort out the mess at the top, get a few more accident investigators in, get rid of the excess admin to pay for it; and, off you go. I wonder, if Chris Manning is bored with golf and would welcome a diversion from the common round.

No doubt we shall see. But something has to be done and Be-a-Cur must go, for he cannot stay.

Toot toot.

Sarcs

5th Dec 2014, 20:50

Be-a-cur...

"...At the simplest level, the answers to the Senator's questions are straightforward - and a fair amount of the information is publicly available.

We are prepared to answer them in whatever forum they arise (with the exception of anonymous rumour sites and some tendentious bloggers)..." Just a feeling really, but if they could persuade a first rate fellah, like Manning to take the job, even short term and give him a large axe, I reckon things could be improved, in fairly short order over at ATSB. There certainly is no shortage of good material to work with, just sort out the mess at the top, get a few more accident investigators in, get rid of the excess admin to pay for it; and, off you go. I wonder, if Chris Manning is bored with golf and would welcome a diversion from the common round.
Kharon now there is a rumour that the IOS/MaM/WIOS/WWIOS/TBA should strongly support & spread around...;)

Oh but wait there is one resident member of the TBA that already has...:E:ATSB to gain in credibility and competency no later than Monday (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/06/atsb-to-gain-in-credibility-and-competency-no-later-than-monday/)

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/) | Dec 06, 2014 7:44AM | EMAIL | PRINT (http://javascript<b></b>:window.print();)

A replacement for the ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan is expected to be announced by the deputy PM and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Devleopment, Warrer Truss, no later than Monday.

At the moment the prime, but unconfirmed person being mentioned for the role in industry circles is Chris Manning, a former Qantas chief pilot also noted for being a safety consultant who guided Tiger Airways toward to the required compliance with Australia’s safety regulations after its grounding by CASA in 2011.

Captain Manning has been a high profile critic of defence handling of air traffic control procedures at shared civil military airports such as Williamtown (Newcastle) and Darwin. He was, at the behest of Qantas, a voice of caution and concern over the use of common radio frequency self separation procedures at busy airports when AirServices Australia had insufficient staff to meet its ATC obligations.

However in his response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review to parliament last week, the Minister, in accepting almost all of the recommendations, also said an additional commissioner with aviation technical experience would be appointed to the ATSB or Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Captain Manning’s career would make him a strong contender for either appointment, but nothing has been officially confirmed.

The only thing that is certain at this stage is that Mr Dolan is being replaced. In the aftermath of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada’s peer review of the ATSB’s procedures and methodologies in arriving at its controversial and much criticised findings concerning the 2009 Pel-Air ditching near Norfolk Island it is clear that Mr Dolan’s position as chief commissioner is untenable.

While the anodyne version of that quite detailed peer review is that it found that errors had been made by the ATSB the actual document details a shambles in the management of the investigation, and failures to properly collect and assess information.

The ATSB’s accident report was however defended by the current secretary of the department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mike Mrdak, and Mr Dolan. A Senate committee that inquired into the conduct of the ATSB (and CASA) in relation to the production of the report unanimously expressed dissatisfaction with Mr Dolan’s testimony.
The committee included coalition senators Bill Heffernan, its chair, and David Fawcett, as well as independent Senator Nick Xenophon, who not only pursued a range of issues in the two aviation authorities, but helped bring to light previously undisclosed documents related to a confidential Pel-Air audit in CASA and associated matters.

Those disclosures reflected adversely on CASA and the ATSB.
The inability of the ATSB under Dolan to adequately and convincingly deal with a relatively minor accident set off a festering controversy that brought the safety investigator and CASA, the regulator, into disrepute. That episode may be coming to an end, but the task of rebuilding respect and ensuring the best safety outcomes in both bodies remains. If true one of the first port of calls that CM should make - besides those outstanding Military ATC SRs - is to get an update on where Be-a-cur's Mildura Fog incident (love-in) investigation is at...:rolleyes: Judging from Ben's previous article - Damning review of ATSB Pel-Air investigation released - in comments from about here (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/02/damning-review-of-atsb-pel-air-investigation-released/#comment-29853) it would seem that incident is still causing much consternation and is very closely related to the infamous 'critical' to 'minor' safety issue with the PelAir cover-up: Confirmed Sceptic - Weather forecasting is very good, but not perfect. When you quantify the various elements and do a simple statistical analysis of how often you should expect an accident or serious incident from our “she’ll be right, mate” fuel policies, you get Mildura. And Pel-Air. Care to bet how many people will perish the next time the dice roll the wrong way? NX/RRAT Committee head-hunting mission - next stop ASA I reckon...:E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT-6j5g0xuw

MTF...:ok:

Addendum - Ode to Be-a-cur

Simply Marvellous Horse-pooh (SMH). (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-123.html#post8752880)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpcUxwpOQ_A

ampclamp

5th Dec 2014, 21:59

Dolan to be replaced by Chris Manning?

ATSB to get new leadership no later than Monday | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/06/atsb-to-gain-in-credibility-and-competency-no-later-than-monday/)

slats11

5th Dec 2014, 22:27

Dolan gone. See planetalking.

(http://http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/06/atsb-to-gain-in-credibility-and-competency-no-later-than-monday/?wpmp_switcher=mobile)

Soteria

6th Dec 2014, 00:47

Truss should also be rolled, and MrDak. Truss and MrDak both green lighted Beakers reappointment a few months ago. Fools. 5 years of mismanagement in which 30 years of good work, people and reputation was decimated. From this tendentious blogger I bid you a robust farewell Marty, and don't bang the door on the way out!
I hope next stop for the Senate Express is ASA, there are some passengers there that need picking up. But please make it an ontime arrival and subsequent departure as CASA also has a few more passengers awaiting pick up. Time to ship them all out.

Kharon

6th Dec 2014, 02:04

I believe that before Be-a-Cur is allowed to slither off, clutching his golden parachute, fur lined jock strap and hand crafted golf ball warmers; there are some serious questions which must be answered. Should the answers to those questions be found 'disingenuous', then the civil and criminal matters raised within those questions must be addressed; in the national interest, further, those that were associated with those acts should be included in the investigation.

We need to step back in time, just a short way, to identify where and when the whole Pel-Air saga began. The 'potted' version starts with the Chief pilot, as was in 2008, in the short version the CASA supported 'usurper' was, willy nilly, to have the job. In order to achieve this the audit weapon was used, selectively to erode the incumbent – 'things must change' – and the short term AOC ploy was dusted off and played. The incumbent demurred, got off the pot and the new bottom was plonked down on the still warm rim. Problem – the 'new-bottom' had NFI about how to set about doing an international, long range, jet operation, let alone developing policy and procedure to 'fix' the audit reported problems. No matter, as the problems were mostly artificially 'enhanced' they could be let slide and the 'fleet manager' (or some-such) was left to sort them out. Everyone forgot that the now FM, was, last week, the CP and smart enough to know that if little was done, the same 'audit' problems would, or could be aimed at the CASA glove puppet. Office politics, a nasty game, but no real harm done. Then DJ decided to give his West-wind a swimming lesson.

Suddenly, office politics took on whole new, sinister meaning; someone's arse was in a sling and the company reputation was heading down the pan at a hell of a rate. Oh oh. What's to be done? Which brings us to the point of the ramble – what was done, who did it and why?.

I feel it's a reasonable assumption that Sharp would want the whole thing hosed down, strapped, fed and back in it's box with the minimum of fuss. This, of it's self is an acceptable, honest request for a CEO to make of the regulator. What Sharp probably wasn't aware of and didn't realise was the unholy, artificial, fully supported mess the operation was in, to start with. It is, IMO also fair to say that had he realised it; something would have been done to fix the mess, properly, and sooner rather than later. A CEO playing for high stakes cannot afford to have the type of snake pit Pel Air was at the time; it's counterproductive and, as demonstrated, ultimately detrimental and expensive. Not the Sharp style at all.

So the games began, CASA audit, parallel investigations, reports, more reports and enough NCN to choke a horse. ATSB same-same; miles of paperwork. All for naught, the fix was in. But only certain, select Bankstown FOI knew where the real issues lay; their pet, hand reared CP had fluffed it, caught out by the 'enhanced', unattended audit 'gotchya's, raised by CASA used to nobble the previous CP. Followers of the Pel-Air 'ducked up cover up' will be aware of what happened next. Sharp only wanted expediency and closure; but, if the rest were horribly exposed to allegations of 'skulduggery', then every single method of CYA would be employed. There has to be some motivation for the terrible risks McComic, Chambers and his merry bunch took; CYA is as good a reason as any, and better than most.

This is however only where the questions start; just for fun, lets work backwards starting with what Dolan and Mrdak would have allowed the TSBC to see related to Pel Air. Would the TSBC have seen the original honest ATSB and CASA reports; those which were denigrated and shuffled off to one side, the HF, operational and fatigue reports?. Would the TSBC have even been given the sanitised versions?. Were the TSBC given the opportunity to compare those with the original, honest reports?

Then there are questions of the 'grape' (Ayup, there was a bunch of 'em) of the spirit, intent and rules of the MoU, which beg to be answered.

Then there are questions about the pillage and rapine of the TSI Act, section 24 and those who willingly participated in the event which beg for answers; even if just to 'eliminate' the suspicion from our ongoing enquiry', as they say..

Then the hiring by CASA of a protected species specimen, to further protect it from the cold winds of hard truth and responsibilities, was it just that which needed shuffled paperwork and a scapegoat to enact? This stand alone raises more question than have been answered.

I, for one would like to see Anastasi, Campbell, Chambers, Farquharson, Grima, McCormick, White and Whickham from CASA, followed by ATSB Dolan, Walsh and Sangston, in front of a fully briefed Senate committee armed with the evidence of Watson, Hattley and several others.

Was Dolan simply a dumb Muppet? Removing him and allowing the rest to escape unscathed seems pointless; particularly as the notion that the TSBC was short changed and the Senate was lied to has not been fully eliminated. While those questions linger, no one, not with any certainty anyway, can assume that a repeat performance will not be given, the next time valuable safety information is; ostensibly used to protect individuals, deceive management and enhance two careers at the detriment of others.

I'd bet the TSBC would be interested, maybe even the ICAO. Has independence has been curtailed, probity lost in the mists of obfuscation and the Senate a victim of sleight of hand? Then, just to put a hat on the ensemble, the same crew will all be ringing the changes and laughing with relief, that Beaker; poor, mislead, misguided, willing Be-a-Cur, the used and abused Muppet, has taken a big one, for the team, that brought you Pel Air.

Simply Marvellous Horse-pooh was clearly not the answer, was it children. 'Less he peaches, someone asks. Well, that would warm the pot up a bit; but no chance. New horizons on offer from the Murky Machiavellian job search team, maybe even with Customs – then he can have tea and pasta with Lubby Loo, before she goes on holiday – perhaps in the Canadian spring. That aught to make SMH page three, at least.

What a mess Mr. Dolan; what an absolutely disgraceful bloody mess you leave behind for others to clean up. But, be assured, the truth will out, one day. Where then will you hide and who will CYA, not the Murky Machiavellian, definitely not the Wabbits' crew: that is for absolute certain sure. Bet the house on it – Oh, you have.

Aye, it's a puzzle alright. But, as there is ice-cream and Brandy Snaps on offer, I may just take them to a shady part of the garden, sit a while watching the river flow by; and, maybe share the spoils of an illicit kitchen raid with the Gobbledocks' mighty elephant, who, as it happens, shares my particular fondness for stolen ice cream....:D

Toot toot...;)

slats11

6th Dec 2014, 04:50

Seems very strange the outgoing CP (WM) was made fleet manager for international Westwind ops, and the new CP had no input into this area of PelAir's operations. But that was the conclusion of the 2009 CASA special audit.

Westwind international (air medical) operations were found to be in a very poor state, and a bucket was tipped on WM. Fortunately for the new CP, he was found not to have input into that area however. Lucky for him. Strange for a CP to not be across such a significant part of the operation however.

He then went across to CASA. That move has attracted a degree of controversy.

PelAir closed its air medical arm down after Norfolk. No choice really. The special audit showed that part of the organisation was in a mess. Plus their only TCAS equipped Westwind able to operate into Noumea was 45m deep off Norfolk. So that game was up. Best to close it down and hope for business as usual for Rex and the rest of PelAir.

A few questions for the new director of CASA to answer. What really went on 6 years ago? I hope the Senators chose to ask.

Kharon

6th Dec 2014, 19:47

Slats –"What really went on 6 years ago? I hope the Senators chose to ask."

Before the Senate may ask those questions Skidmore needs to do his homework, then find the bottle to provide the evidence which will answer those questions. It does not have to be a 'dirty washing' expose; in house, in camera would do the trick. But he must report; and the 'government' must be seen to take action; if any sort of international credibility for Australian aviation is to be accorded the Abbott government, that is.

Skidmore is very neatly perched between the devil and the deep blue sea; for the Senate Committee (SC) and most of the grown up aviation world know that he has entered the snake pit. Not finding a way of 'sorting it' condemns him to becoming part of the problem which cannot, not with impunity be ignored. For to simply ignore or soft soap the issues away will incur the wrath not only of the SC and Oz industry, but that of other national authorities; the FAA for example. The Canucks are probably queuing up for a whack right now, righteously miffed, having played Patsy in the Murky Machiavellian production of "Peer Review".

Passenger safety is not the issue. It's industry prosperity and investment safety which has suffered, particularly in the light/medium weight class. VLJ and corporate jet operators are a classic example; putting a new aircraft type on an AOC is another. The outrageous amounts of time and money, while an annoying speed bump is not the core issue. The disparity between 'officers' and offices causes heartburn; plenty of very good, clear examples. But these, although significant are not the core issues. It's uncertainty and fear.

The McComic system of predetermined outcome took root and was wholeheartedly embraced by his acolytes. McComic edict – "Fix that, make it go away, I'll back you". In go the Golden West Mafia (GWM) 'Black hats, who revelling in the top cover not only get to weave their evil as directed but get a free slap at the despised 'White hats'. The added bonus is that the 'White hats' are not only humiliated and made to look bad, but they are 'controlled', by fear, bullied into submissive positions. It was, is, and remains a very sick system, the exponents promoted and protected, building their very own little putsches of mischief and malfeasance.

Then there is the lobotomised fringe, those who write 'law' for helicopter operations, without having the faintest notion of 'operational' reality. Those who use every ounce of aero club experience to draft licensing laws and operational tenets; those who inflict their personal methods for operating aircraft onto the poor sod of a CP who must not only live with a flawed system, but be legally liable for it – and so on and so forth; you all know that tune.

We need to turn the heat down on regulatory reform. McComic only pushed that agenda hard because of bonus and, of course an eye on a plumb ICAO job. Although I doubt even ICAO is that 'Fick'. FCOL, If ICAO ever deigned to look at Part 61 and it's MoS; they would see exactly why the disgraced McComic should be consigned to the pencil sharpening cupboard; for all time.

So, if Skidmore can, as the IOS have done, identify the 'wrong un's' and with SC assistance weed them out of the system, he will have put the icing on the industry cake. With the 'White hats' support, the rest will fall into place – easy as pie. But if the 'Black hats' gain the ascendancy; it will be open warfare and believe me; they will trying to protect their rice bowls and will not 'play nice'

Pel Air is not a bad place to start; but there are others who were mauled by the 'Black Hat' brigade. Sorting out the GWM first will just make life so much easier as changes will not be undermined, perverted or used to covertly attack the man who made the industry demanded changes.

Sending Beaker to the naughty corner only punishes a cripple. Isolate the bullies and punish them; lest their mates decide it's easier to join in. Kicker or Kickee, that is the question Skidmore must ask himself and provide an answer to.

Skidmore is much like a priest conducting an exorcism; one small lapse of faith, a seconds hesitation or moments weakness and, Whammo, the daemon has you by the nuts; never to let go.

Aye, Grim thoughts indeed, for Sunday morning, I know. I do have happier. But if we are forced to dance with the devil; it's better we call the tune, early; just so there is no misunderstanding. The bones of Beaker are a welcome offering, but they have precious little meat on them. Meat, spuds and veggies please Mr. Truss: or, Wabbit pie with all the trimmings. We know you have both in the kitchen. Now then, will you serve them up, as promised, or renege??

Toot toot..

Sarcs

6th Dec 2014, 22:35

We need to turn the heat down on regulatory reform. McComic only pushed that agenda hard because of bonus and, of course an eye on a plumb ICAO job. Although I doubt even ICAO is that 'Fick'. Hmm...maybe, maybe not...:{ If ICAO is run anything like the UN or (god forbid) FIFA then there is probably more graft than reviewing of CVs going on...:ugh: How much was it again - that we the tax payers - forked out for those two campaigns (one successful one not)??

ICAO is celebrating 70 years (today) since inception...:D:D However like so many other proud institutions there is much recent evidence (e.g. involvement in MH17/MH370) that ICAO is fast becoming a 70 year old toothless tiger - so maybe the signatory states would vote in favour of a dictatorial, big 'R' type like McComic.

I know it doesn't bare contemplating but imagine if you will that this chamber were to become McComic's personal star chamber:
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/B4ITvwCIUAA3pj__120714_103219_AM.jpg

And if the duck-up of the cover-ups is required for both MH370 or MH17 who better to deflect the suspect millions of WWIOS members...

"Nothing to see here it was a psychotic pilot that did it!"

or..

"Nothing to see here it was that mad bloody Vlad that did it!"

For those signatory states that are currently being wooed by the smooth, Hoodoo Voodoo, Murky Machiavellian contingent from Downunda here are 269 reasons (besides the TSBC peer review of the PelAir cover-up - read Kharon post) why you should seriously consider the other bloke...:E: Public Submissions to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/submissions/index.aspx)

Add the Forsyth Report to your reading matter: Report of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review PDF: 1598 KB (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/files/ASRR_Report_May_2014.pdf)

And a couple of recent Senate Inquiry reports: Aviation Accident Investigations (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2012-13/pelair2012/index) & Pilot training and airline safety; and Consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010 (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Completed%20inquiries/2010-12/pilots2010/index)

It is also worth running a critical eye over the recently expanded - signed off by McComic/Stabbed in the Dark/M&M - list of Oz notified differences to ICAO SARPs (all 97 pages of it): H18/14 (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s14-h18.pdf)

On a lighter note - but still with relevance to the McComic years - I came across an interesting article where another toothless tiger regulator is seriously considering adopting some of the big "R" CAsA terms of embuggerance...:=:ASIC to crack down on financial planners exam (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/financial-services/asic-to-crack-down-on-financial-planners-exam/story-fn91wd6x-1227140193225)

THE corporate watchdog has said it will ensure a national exam for financial planners can not be “gamed” as it called for a test to be structured in a similar way to exams sat by aspiring aircraft pilots.

Australian Securities & Investments Commission chairman Greg Medcraft has called on a national exam to be set by the financial planning industry, with ASIC to oversee exams to prevent cheating.

“We want a system not unlike the one the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) uses to test pilots,” Mr Medcraft told a Senate committee on Friday.
“I understand that pilots sit an exam set by CASA to test their skills and knowledge acquired from both training and experience.”

Regarding a national exam, concerns have been raised about its format and difficulty level.

In the US, aviation education for prospective pilots involves providing prospective students with a manual containing several hundred questions and corresponding answers, from which all exam questions are directly drawn.

CASA was immediately unclear whether the same system operated here.

The ASIC spokesman said the regulator would “ensure that the (national exam) system could not be ‘gamed’.”

Before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on Friday, Mr Medcraft made no mention of ASIC’s previous calls for all financial planners to hold university degrees in “relevant fields”.

The failure to do so, and instead focus only on a national exam, suggests ASIC has been unable to gain support for mandatory university education from the financial planning sector.

ASIC has been dealing closely with the sector in recent months and a week ago filed with Finance Minister Mathias Cormann a joint ASIC/industry report making recommendations for improvements in financial planning education standards.

An ASIC spokesman said the regulator had “not abandoned its support for a uni-level degree” in favour of an exam. Love this bit..;)

"...CASA was immediately unclear whether the same system operated here..."

Perhaps Anthony Klan should have contacted Adam at CAsA LSD as they seem to have an excellent understanding of the exam system and are very..very determined that it cannot be gamed: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Marsh [2014] FCA 1253 (http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2014/2014fca1253)
Conclusion

60 In my view the learned Tribunal member adopted an incorrect approach in his interpretation of reg 298A(1)(c)(iii). Further, the Tribunal ought to have made the findings identified by the applicant in grounds 2, 3 and 4 of the notice of appeal. Although the Tribunal made a finding on the facts that Mr Marsh was a fit and proper person within the meaning of reg 269(1)(d), I consider it necessary that this decision be revisited in light of this judgment. As the underlying facts were fully explored by the Tribunal it may be that the decision of the Tribunal remains the same concerning Mr Marsh’s fitness and propriety, however that is an issue for the Tribunal. The appropriate order is to remit the matter to the Tribunal for determination according to law.

61 CASA seeks costs of the appeal. Although as a general proposition costs follow the event, in this case Mr Marsh has made no appearance and has not opposed the appeal. It was for the applicant to substantiate its case, and while it has done so in part, it was in the face of a Tribunal decision in Mr Marsh’s favour and without opposition in this Court from Mr Marsh. The better order in the circumstances is that there be no order
as to costs. Ahh..the sheer embuggerance of it all..wonder how much that little case has cost us so far?? :ugh:

Sundy ramble over...MTF...:ok:

Frank Arouet

7th Dec 2014, 00:31

This co-incidentally by way of reinforcing the rage.

ICAC is refusing to accept it was wrong | Daily Telegraph Miranda Devine Blog (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/icac_is_refusing_to_accept_it_was_wrong/)

greylocks

7th Dec 2014, 03:38

So basically, CASA stinks and nothing it says can be relied upon? Furthermore, there will be no change as a result of the review?

Well, it seems MedusaCasa has had some of his snakelike appendages severed!

BEWARE! We now need a new name: CrocodileCasa - especally for our Queensland friends.
Just remember the words of the song in "PeterPan"

Never smile at a crocodile
No you can't get friendly with a crocodile
Don't be taken in
By his welcome grin
He's imagining how well you fit into his skin.

Remember how crocodiles grab their prey and sink through the murky waters until it stops kicking? NEVER stop kicking lest you become a clone.

slats11

7th Dec 2014, 15:20

CAO 82.0 Appendix 1

2 Responsibilities of Chief Pilot
2.1 The Chief Pilot for an operator is to have control of all flight crew training and operational matters affecting the safety of the flying operations of the operator.
2.2 The responsibilities of a Chief Pilot must, unless CASA otherwise specifies in writing, include the following responsibilities:
(a) ensuring that the operator’s air operations are conducted in compliance with the Act, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 and the Civil Aviation Orders;
(b) arranging flight crew rosters;
(c) maintaining a record of licences, ratings, and route qualifications held by each flight crew member, including:
(i) validity; and
(ii) recency; and
(iii) type endorsements and any applicable licence restrictions;
(d) maintaining a system to record flight crew duty and flight times to ensure compliance with duty and flight time limitations, in accordance with Part 48 of the Orders;
(e) ensuring compliance with loading procedures specified for each aircraft type used by the operator and proper compilation of loading documents, including passenger and cargo manifests;
(f) monitoring operational standards, maintaining training records and supervising the training and checking of flight crew of the operator;
(g) conducting proficiency tests in the execution of emergency procedures and issuing certificates of proficiency as required by section 20.11;
(h) training flight crew in the acceptance and handling of dangerous goods as required by the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 or the Orders;
(i) maintaining a complete and up-to-date reference library of operational documents as required by CASA for the class of operations conducted;
(j) allocating appropriate aircraft.

3 Delegation by Chief Pilot
3.1 A Chief Pilot, in exercising any responsibility, may delegate duties to other members of the operator’s staff, but may not delegate training and checking duties without the written approval of CASA.

CASA 2009 Special Audit

Page 36. The aeromedical operation was also managed in isolation from other PelAir AOC activities...... The current Chief Pilot appears to have no direct control into technical Westwind matters, relying on the expertise and experience of the Standards Manager. This situation dilutes the authority of the AOC by putting a non-accountable person at the head of this complex operation.

Page 42. The special audit identified significant deficiencies with the Westwind operation......Up until 2008, the Westwind operation was managed by Mr Ian Meyer as the Chief Pilot and from 2009 onwards as the Westwind Standards Manager. Mr Meyer is relied upon heavily to oversee the training and technical practices for the jet fleet.

For Westwind operations, one presumes the responsibilities of the Chief Pilot were delegated to the Westwind Standards Manager as per CAO 82.0 Appendix 3.1

Given the special audit clearly established the standards manager had the responsibly to "oversee the training", one further presumes this delegation was with the written approval of CASA.

So when CASA approved the new chief pilot, they must have also approved (in writing) the delegation of training and checking duties to the outgoing chief pilot (i.e. the new standards manager).

The special audit doesn't explicitly state that CASA had approved this delegation of training and checking at the time. However they surely must have given such approval, and this would be kept on file

thorn bird

7th Dec 2014, 21:55

An Interesting scenario Kharon alluded to on the Truss thread.

Surely not!!,...hmm... then again??

Regarding the Mcomical skulls appointement or not to ICAO.

Siuya said

"The appointment seems to demonstrate beyond any doubt whatsoever the contempt held by the leadership of the Department of the Australian aviation industry in general if it's prepared to make that nomination, particularly after all that's transpired with regard to the disgraceful events surrounding the PEL AIR investigation 'debacle', and especially after the concerns expressed by the Senate Inquiry regarding the involvement of the former DAS."

And robsrich informed us

"Mr John McCormick, recent past Director of Aviation Safety, CASA, has been nominated by the Australian Government for the position of ICAO Secretary General. This was announced during the ICAO International Aviation and Environment Seminar held 28 to 30 October 2014 held at the Concorde Hotel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The announcement was made by the Director, International Standards, Australian Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development, at the conclusion of his presentation titled “Australia and CAEP”.

Then on another thread someone else mentioned the Lobbying effort going on in support of McComic by the voodoo Dr. and Murky Macavellian (Any Guvmint money being spent on that effort??. Hey legitimate question, they spent tens of millions lobbying for the world cup).

Could it be the ferryman is correct??

Could it be that the Murky Macavellian deliberately delayed the response to the "Forsyth Report",and the release of the Canadian "TSBC report"??

That would have kept any mud from spattering good old John boy while he and the hoodoo voodoo silver tongued ICAO into giving an angry man the head of table at future ICAO feasts including a vastly increased trough to feed from?

No, surely not, I mean, would that be strictly Kosher??..hmm as Ripley said.....

Kharon

7th Dec 2014, 23:20

Slats (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-128.html#post8773264) –"The special audit doesn't explicitly state that CASA had approved this delegation of training and checking at the time. However they surely must have given such approval, and this would be kept on file"

Nice to see Slats has 'nutted' it out; (Choc frog)...:ok:.. The quote above clearly defining the highly 'selective' nature of the audit managers approach to gathering what may loosely be described as 'evidence'.

When the 'black box' from NGA is recovered (Yes, they are) and the Pel-Air investigation is re-opened there will be some very serious questions raised about the CASA management handling of the matter and Nuremburg notions just won't cut it.

There are, as we know two sides to a coin, ours has a Pel Air side and an Airtex side and, although crafted by the same hand they are vastly different. You can see, from the Slats quote where a matter of some importance has been skimmed over. The tenets of the Operations Manual (OM) being conveniently overlooked in the covert defence of one of the anointed. Turn that coin over and you will see one of the most bizarre uses of a document suite ever encountered by some fairly experienced, street wise legal counsel. Where not only were the tenets of the existing (accepted) OM interpreted at the very 'extreme' limits of sanity, but when that would not suffice, the very existence of the OM was denied and an old version was quoted and used, as best suited. Any comparison between the 'handling' of the two cases, by the same manager would simply beggar the belief of any balanced, rational inquiry.

Now it appears the Senate committee may demand further inquiry, in one form or another, into Pel-Air. A simple CASA board inquiry, reporting to the RATT committee; or even a repeat of the Reverent Forsyth's sterling effort would suffice. But if the effort is to be truly useful, a parallel investigation into the same management 'team' handling the Airtex matter, must be included. IMO any fair comparison, made by reasonable, honest folk would reveal the precise nature of why the industry calls for 'regulatory reform' are just a catch-cry, covering the desperate, urgent, essential need for investigation into and reform of the 'regulator'.

It is my understanding that Skidmore has been provided a briefing which should, in a sane world, provide enough facts to provoke a board (or ethics committee) inquiry, making the comparison of both Pel Air and Airtex, at the very least a feature. Any honest person comparing the two cases will see, very clearly, the absolute bastardry of which industry despairs and hopes Skidmore will eradicate; (or exterminate; for there are pleasures to be found in both).

Mark my words, if these matters, starting with Pel Air and the actions of those involved are not dealt with honourably, honestly and quickly, the reputation of the Australian regulator will be denigrated, forever, to be held in open contempt. Not to know about a thing and failing to act is, perhaps forgivable. But failure to act with full or even partial knowledge is, shall we say, frowned upon in certain circles.

When you toss a coin, there can only be one of two possible outcomes; unless you have been gifted one of the departmentally minted two headed jobs that is..

Selah.

Sarcs

8th Dec 2014, 04:14

Media Release (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2014/atsb-begins-action-on-canadian-review.aspx)

Date: 08 December 2014

ATSB begins action on Canadian review

The ATSB has today begun action in responding to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) review into the ATSB’s methodologies and processes.

Released last week, the review found that the ATSB’s investigation methodologies and practices generally met or exceeded international best-practice standards.

The review also highlighted potential improvements, particularly about the way in which ATSB methodologies were applied in the investigation into the ditching of the Pel-Air Westwind Aircraft off Norfolk Island in November 2009.

In response to the TSB review, the ATSB Commission has decided to reopen its investigation into the Pel-Air accident. A new investigation team will review the original investigation and associated report in the light of any fresh evidence and relevant points raised in the TSB review and other recent aviation reviews.

At the same time, the ATSB Commission will continue to methodically and carefully work its way through the broader findings and recommendations of the TSB review, with the aim of ongoing improvements to the future work of the ATSB.

The ATSB will provide regular public updates on the progress with the re-opened Pel-Air review and with its broader consideration of, and response to, the TSB review.

TICK..TOCK Beaker any minute now...:E

MTF...:ok:

Soteria

8th Dec 2014, 12:00

'K'
When the 'black box' from NGA is recovered (Yes, they are) and the Pel-Air investigation is re-opened there will be some very serious questions raised about the CASA management handling of the matter and Nuremburg notions just won't cut it. Don't you mean the 'barnacle box'? It would be interesting to see if it is still readable after 5 years of peace and solitude off the coast of Norfolk? Don't be surprised if some unfortunate occurrence takes place and the barnacle box disappears or becomes damaged prior to retrieval, if a retrieval is approved. Dear oh dear, where will the ever budget conscious Beaker get the coin from to fund such an exercise?? I can hear the ever diligent beancounter belting away at the abacus as we speak!

Sarcs
In response to the TSB review, the ATSB Commission has decided to reopen its investigation into the Pel-Air accident. A new investigation team will review the original investigation and associated report in the light of any fresh evidence and relevant points raised in the TSB review and other recent aviation reviews. Oh my, poor Beaker, that is one giant pooh sandwich he has been fed! That should keep him full in the belly for a good month!!

thorn bird

8th Dec 2014, 19:49

"A new investigation team will review the original investigation and associated report in the light of any fresh evidence and relevant points raised in the TSB review and other recent aviation reviews."

Oh dear, I'm becoming a cynical old fart.

But does that sentence sound like its taken directly from one of the pages out of the "Sir Humphry book of Flim Flam"??

Expect a report on that in about?? Oh... five years or so.

Lookleft

9th Dec 2014, 06:03

It would have been better for the TSBC to have redone the investigation. Given their criticism of the way the original report was put together and the ATSB defence of that report I'm not sure Dolan is now going to say "Ah yes in fact we will recover the CVR/FDR and start again because the report we produced was sub-standard."

Expect a report on that in about?? Oh... five years or so.

Good to see you have some optimism about the time frame!

Eddie Dean

9th Dec 2014, 07:29

Having educated myself on this whole sorry saga, with some input from PAIN reference Lockhart incident, thanks K, I feel there is too much optimism that anything different will eventuate. Reading the ATSB media release doesn't increase my confidence that an actual re-investigation will take place.

slats11

9th Dec 2014, 07:41

I'm a bit more confident than that Eddie. Cover ups are vigorously defended until they become indefensible. Then they often collapse spectacularly as no one wants to be caught in the fallout.

I suspect that may be the case here. New Director at CASA. A new Commissioner at ATSB (although I have not seen any confirmation that the new commissioner will actually replace Dolan and become the Chief Commissioner).

So people in senior roles with nothing to gain and lots to lose by trying to sweep anything under the mat.

Remember also the IACO / FAA elephant in the room.

Sarcs

9th Dec 2014, 08:06

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...:ugh: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 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2Ff3681c2 b-ec9a-4fe5-9b53-730b8f34fcff%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2Ff3 681c2b-ec9a-4fe5-9b53-730b8f34fcff%2F0000%22) - just in case M&M was having second thoughts...:E
Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)So it has to be both new and significant.

Mr Dolan: Yes.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F00AON%22;query type=;rec=0)I do not think you can discuss the content or the inference.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I am not asking for the content.

Senator Johnston: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F00AON%22;query type=;rec=0)Well, the inference to be drawn as to what the advice was about. If there was advice, there was advice.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F00AON%22;query type=;rec=0)I think departments provide advice on all manner of issues. I think you can assume that they did.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwtsV2YZr08

MTF...with Part 2 of course...:E

Sarcs

9th Dec 2014, 08:39

From Hitch today - ATSB to review Ditching Investigation (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/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 (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/atsb-blames-planning-for-norfolk-ditching), 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...:ooh:
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05zGwj4dsqE

Hmm...no comment needed I reckon...:rolleyes:

MTF...:ok:

Man the lifejackets

9th Dec 2014, 10:47

with thanks to SARCS

Mr Dolan: No. It was significant, but in the assessment of the ATSB it was not new.
....................................

Mr Dolan: I do not think I said it was significant. I did say it was new.

This, to my simple mind sums up the raison d'etre of the senate inquiry;

When you cannot rely upon what you are being told.....and yet these sentences were about the same subject (CHambers report) and related within seconds of each other?

But why was it all necessary - what was the aim - what did it achieve?
If lies follow lies? Was the Chambers report significant or new or neither?

with thanx also to NX - if he ever needs a vote?

Kharon

9th Dec 2014, 19:29

Lefty –"It would have been better for the TSBC to have redone the investigation."

Nicely phrased and asking all the right questions: the simple truths leaps off the page.

For example; had Dolan been in a position to defend the Pel-Air report then the Hansard statement would read differently; "No Senator, we stand firmly in complete support of our report, I can understand your concerns and suggest that you appoint an independent TSB, such as the Canadian TSBC to review our report". That sort of statement would throw down a challenge and if the review came back 'good', the Senators would have a slice of humble pie for morning tea. Neither Dolan, McComic or Mrdak would ever dare allow an independent review of Pel Air, the Senators were as safe as houses, and they knew it.

ED – "Reading the ATSB media release doesn't increase my confidence that an actual re-investigation will take place.

Slats –"Cover ups are vigorously defended until they become indefensible. Then they often collapse spectacularly as no one wants to be caught in the fallout."

ATSB, CASA and Mrdak will each have their 'own' translation of what the Canucks said, as will the SC ; they all will all read into it what they want to read; and, draw what little comfort and support they may from it. The stark reality is that they will have little option but to stand while an investigation and review of Pel Air is done, by honest men.

I have read the PAIN analysis of Pel Air and contributed in a small way to final draft. When Pel Air and other matters are dealt with impartially, openly and honestly then measured against the prescriptions in the MoU, the TSI Act, ICAO annexe 13 and the CASA protocols it becomes almost impossible to avoid drawing any conclusion other than that of the Australian system being totally perverted and manipulated to suit a predetermined outcome.

If we cannot trust our agencies to act honestly and responsibly in a comparatively 'insignificant' event; then how, in all the seven hells are they to be relied on when the stakes are much higher? This will be of no great comfort to those who have had loved ones killed or hurt in a domestic accident, even less to those praying for MH 370 to be found and a 'just' outcome.

DJ –"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."

Speed and resolution should now be the public and industry demand. Between the hapless Minuscule and the departments an incredible amount of time, money and public patience has been squandered. The sums wasted would have paid for several new investigators for the undermanned ATSB. I have no idea what the Senate inquiry cost, no notion of what it cost to provide the final report; even less idea of what the Reverent Forsyth's tea party and our Canadian Autumn love in cost: but I expect it was 'significant'.

It's disgusting that this class of money must be spent to expose the deviations and manipulations of a government 'safety' body; which is required to act honourably. But to have those responsible for the behaviour of those agencies prepared to go to extraordinary lengths in defence of that corruption is an absolute international disgrace. It is a repugnant, calculated insult to those who rely government in times of their greatest anxiety, when their loved ones are involved in an accident or incident.

Name 'em, shame 'em and run 'em out of town on a rail; or be forever condemned as part of untrammelled, overt conspiracy to defraud the tax paying, air fare buying public. Have Dolan, McComic and Chambers provided value for money; or increased the safety of Australian travelling public? You know damn well; they have not, they have humiliated and shamed a once proud industry; yet there are those who would defend 'the system' and those who thrive on it. Shame, shame for Australia.

Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides,
Who covers faults at last with shame derides.
Well may you prosper. (Lear).

Selah.

Kharon

10th Dec 2014, 19:01

Don'tcha just love the way the lobotomy machinery swings into action at the time of year when sugar plums, Reindeer and school holidays are on the top the agenda, after a long hard year.

Rucking freemarkable, the way it works out, ain't it....:ugh:

dubbleyew eight

10th Dec 2014, 21:03

since my carer tasks don't start until mid morning I normally sleep in.
today for the first time in my long involvement in aviation I woke at 3am and lay there laughing for an hour.

it seems that the voluminous new rules bought in under the watch of fearful minister Truss cause some problems.
when you receive a ramp check you have to show your licence.
for an organisation that earns its very keep from flying the need to have the licences to show is quite pressing.

seems that one of the spirit of australia (non alcoholic as befits pilots) organised all its 3000 or so pilots to submit their applications for the new licences on the same day.
no doubt to ensure they were all ready for the next ramp check.

quite uncoordinated and independently the pilots who have never had sex got similarly organised. as it happens they were to apply 2 days later.

seems someone among the Clueless and Seriously Arseh@le has a drawer full of pre decimal money because the penny dropped.
a plaintive letter was sent to those who have never enjoyed sex to please delay putting in their applications since there was some difficulty being experienced in the processing.

seems that under minister truss's watch the key performance indicators are seriously sliding in one of his organisations.

you have to wonder why the organisation in question didn't predict the need?

so folks CAsA need all the help they can get.
get your "next licensing interaction with CAsA" in as quick as you can. it all helps.

W8 gives the pilot initiative a 5 star thumbs up. :ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

Minister Truss if the key performance indicators slip any further there will be sure to be questions asked in parliament.
Honestly its enough to worry an incompetent into a medical condition.

...I feel another fit of laughter coming on...

Sarcs

11th Dec 2014, 06:03

{Note: In reference to the Bar Room Barrister's hypothesis as put fwd in Kharon's post - Two more for the miniscule pot (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-82.html#post8777411).}

IMO there is much merit in the BRB hypothesis especially in light of some recent events & non-events...:cool:

So going along with the hypothesis it is first worth going back in time - to around October 2011 - where with the inspired appointments of McComic and muppet Beaker it appeared the Grand Plan was going along swimmingly...:rolleyes:

The combined M&M committed team had just successfully obfuscated - with the aid of aviation hater Albo - one lone & independent Senator's *1 attempt to shine the spotlight on the MOAS and the GWM trough...:=

*1{NB: With the aid of one old grumpy Laborial but dis-credited Senator..:E}

M&M would have also thought he had the measure of a certain group of disgruntled IOS members - who were persistently banging on about Archerfield's proposed 2011-31 Master Plan - especially when he had already pencilled in on the dotted line Albo's signature.

Little was he to know that the Archerfield Chamber of Commerce (ACC) Inc. group would continue to persist and that a certain well informed, aviation savvy Senator was about to enter the fray...:ooh:

So back to the Sup Estimates 2011 which started with Senator Fawcett questioning the Aviation & Airports mob - post #1638 (http://www.pprune.org/8777746-post1638.html).

Next was ASA with DF opening up with this...:D :
Senator FAWCETT: Gentlemen, I take it Airservices Australia is still responsible for producing aeronautical publications.

Mr Russell: Yes, indeed.

Senator FAWCETT: In the WikiLeaks revelation that the FAA audit highlighted, one of their concerns was that navigation charts produced in Australia were not compliant with international standards. Do you have any comment on that revelation?

Mr Russell: I in particular do not, but my colleagues may. Mr Harfield, do you?

Mr Harfield: There were a number of issues raised in the audit where ICAO came in and had a look. The issue was that the standards that were portrayed were recommended practices. Our order was that we met all the requirements that we had to under the ICAO auspices, and therefore the issues that were brought up were just differences. We have worked through those and we have come to what I would say is a common understanding in ensuring that our practices do meet the ICAO regulations.

Senator FAWCETT: I will ask the same question of CASA later, but it strikes me that a number of things have come to the surface as a result of this ICAO/FAA audit. Do we not have an internal process within Australia where somebody who is knowledgeable but independent audits on a regular basis the product of Airservices?

Mr Harfield: There is an audit function that is carried out by CASA. One of the deficiencies that was found in the ICAO audit was that we do not currently have regulations in place for aeronautical information services and the regulation thereof, but there is a process already underway to establish those regulations.

Senator FAWCETT: What is the timeline for that?

Mr Harfield: You will have to take that up with CASA.

Senator FAWCETT: Even though you are doing it?

Mr Harfield: We are the service provider of the publications. We have input into it but, for the regulatory time frame for the regulations to come into effect, you would have to ask CASA. I am unaware of what the actual time frame is.

Senator FAWCETT: On a slightly different topic, do you still act on behalf of CASA to develop departure approach plates as part of the AIP publications for aircrew?

Mr Harfield: We are certified under CASA regulation part 173 to actually design and produce instrument approaches.

Senator FAWCETT: If there were a building development in a capital city that pushed the floor of the PANS-OPS criteria higher, you would be then required to modify approach plates?

Mr Harfield: If that was an approved variation and the PANS-OPS was varied then we would have to go back and revalidate the instrument approach. The instrument approach would have to then be authorised by not only our chief designer but also CASA. It has to be flight tested and approved but still has to stay within the approved design criteria.

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy for you to take this on notice if you need to, but could you come back to the committee with any situations where you have had to revise your PANS-OPS criteria as a result of urban development or city development in either the Brisbane or Sydney areas in particular, or anywhere in Australia, but particularly those two?

Mr Russell: We will take that on notice. There have been some issues that I would like to make sure we get right.

Senator FAWCETT: Could you expand on that, please, Mr Russell, and tell the committee what those issues have been.

Mr Russell: It is urban encroachment on major airports. I think you are probably pointing this way. In Sydney, for instance, there are a number of high-rises around the airport that fall into this category. There are a number of infrastructure developments close to the airport, again, that fall into this category. If we could have some time to research this properly, we will come back to you on notice if we may.

Mr Harfield: I just want to provide some clarity. What we will do is provide information where there has been a redesign or a variation as a result of a change being put in. We do not have the authority to change PANS-OPS criteria. I just wanted to make that clear.

Senator FAWCETT: Yes, I understand that. With the issues you are working through, Mr Russell, do you feel as though there are appropriate checks and balances in place such that, if a developer does actually put forward a proposal, the operator, CASA and Air Services Australia have opportunity in a transparent way to register their opposition to something which is going to adversely affect the operational capacity of an airport and the requirements of airlines to actually fly steeper gradients during departures or approaches? Which is where for some strange reason M&M chimed in:
Mr Mrdak: This is an area of growing concern for us, as the department acknowledged before the dinner break. Mr Russell, Mr McCormick and I, as the aviation policy group, which is the CEOs of the aviation agencies, have discussed this issue at length. We have recognised the need to improve the processes involved in judging and advising. Also in relation to the point you raised, to some degree the aviation industry has worked hard to accommodate in the past some of these breaches of services. I think we have reached the point where we believe we can no longer do that. Hence there is some work happening at the moment where we have established a group of officers from our respective departments and agencies which is now working on a much more robust approach to, firstly, identifying potential breaches. As you know there are regulations under the Airports Act which provide for protection of prescribed airspace. How do we better identify those, how do we ensure that local and state governments are aware of it and how do we as the agencies get together much more effectively to make sure that those breaches of the services are no longer accommodated in the way that they have been?

Senator FAWCETT: Do you have a time frame for that work?

Mr Mrdak: Our officers have started talking about this in some detail. I expect that the next couple of months is when we will try and provide a much better approach to how we have handled this to date.

Senator FAWCETT: Do you have any plans for industry involvement so that they can have some input as to how their perspective can be incorporated?

Mr Mrdak: We certainly will. We have not got to that stage as yet. I think the first stage is for our officers to identify exactly what the current processes are and where the weaknesses are. That will then enable us to design a better way to handle this. As Mr Doherty and Mr Stone indicated in the evidence from the department a little earlier, this is an area which we are taking up with a great deal of strength with the states and their planning agencies.

Senator FAWCETT: I am very pleased to hear that. Could you take on notice to provide to the committee how industry will be involved, particularly how feedback around an application is transparent so that, rather than just being told consultation has occurred but not knowing whether all the submissions were positive or negative, industry know whether they are a lone voice or everyone else supported their position but, for some reason, the decision has gone the other way? That would be very useful.

Mr Mrdak: Certainly.
Then back to the subject of airports with CAsA which garnered a rather predictable response from Cromarty (in bold):
Senator FAWCETT: I do not believe that they were necessarily seeking compensation for it but I am happy to take that offline with you. Moving to some separate issues, we have had a number of operators from both Bankstown and Archerfield in particular talk to us about concerns around commercial development on airfields. The secretary and I have had some discussions in previous sessions around the different agencies that are involved in this, and CASA is clearly a key player in this space. The concerns that industry are coming back to us with are that either CASA is not being listened to or CASA is not concerned about some of the developments. Would you care to comment on how you see CASA's role in the current construct and whether you feel that CASA is empowered so that if you do see a safety concern, be it something in the OLS that is affecting operations at an airport or the PANS-OPS criteria more broadly, you have the remit and the authority to say no or if at the moment all you can do is make a recommendation.

Mr McCormick: I appreciate there has been quite a bit of discussion about this already and I will allow the secretary to speak if he wishes. We have heads of power for safety issues. If there is something that affects safety, we do have some ability to do things. We do not have any role to play in the planning environment or the infrastructure environment. Perhaps Mr Mrdak will say a few words on that.

Mr Mrdak: It comes back to my earlier comments. We recognise this is an area where there is a renewed focus by the agencies. The white paper certainly set out the need to safeguard and protect aviation activity. There is a very heightened focus by the government. We are undertaking the master planning process for the leased airports in this area, and we are looking to work much more closely with CASA than we have in the past.

Senator FAWCETT: With respect, Secretary, I am comfortable with your position. I am greatly heartened by it. I am keen to hear from CASA's perspective where they would like to see their position in all of this, because in the safety role you have a key part to play in preserving the efficacy, the efficiency and the safety of particularly our secondary airports.

Mr McCormick: We do take that very seriously. I will ask Peter Cromarty, Executive Manager of Airspace and Aerodrome Regulation, to give you a few more technical points on where we are.

Mr Cromarty: I think the issue boils down to the point that the aerodrome is a piece of infrastructure which is owned by somebody, quite often the local council, and the council has to take a commercial decision between what they consider to be, in relative terms, the benefit of whatever the development is that they want to put on the aerodrome and the benefit of the aviation infrastructure. As far as CASA are concerned, we have very few powers to restrict developments of the nature you are talking about.

Senator FAWCETT: I accept that from a development perspective, but MOS 139 and other regulations point to the fact that the primary concern is the safety and the ongoing utility of the airport as an air operating environment, both the airspace and the surface, to make sure there is continuing access. And the lease that the Commonwealth has signed with airports such as Bankstown and Archerfield, as the two that are in question at the moment, go to the fact that we need to preserve that safe operating environment. What people come back to us with frequently is: 'If CASA has not objected then we are good to go.' What we do not see in the public space is a transparent record of what CASA's position has been. For example, with runway 28R at Archerfield, when people have had concerns about the new corporate hangars and the Warbird hangars, what has CASA's position been? Do you have concerns about the IFR take-offs, the restricted runway length and the potential impact of someone doing an overshoot off the 28 RNAV?

Mr Cromarty: As I understand it, the situation at Archerfield was that the hangar was in a position where it was at the precise point where there was an anomaly between the obstacle limitation surfaces and the PANS-OPS surfaces. Now, when I was watching the committee broadcast earlier, I heard there was some question about the diligence we had put into this. I can assure you we spent a huge amount of time trying to come to a compromise position which would allow the airport to continue to operate as it had done and comply with the regulations that we could comply with. In the end, Airservices and CASA came to a compromise position, a conservative position, which facilitated the airport's operations yet also enabled us to comply as we could with the contradictory requirements of the ICAO standards.

As far as Bankstown is concerned, the withdrawal of a runway, as I said before, is a commercial decision for the airport; and, provided the airport in all considerations complies with MOS part 139, then CASA is satisfied.

Senator FAWCETT: So you are satisfied that there are suitable options for a student pilot flying a Cessna with a 10 knot cross-wind limit to land in adverse wind conditions, in a north-southerly or a northerly wind in the Sydney Basin?

Mr Cromarty: I would say flying ops is not my area. However, having been a flying instructor I would say that it is the instructor's responsibility to make sure that the student can fly in the conditions they are flying in.

Senator FAWCETT: Conditions do vary, so that is not necessarily a fail-safe. Coming back to runway 28 at Archerfield, you talked about that overlap between the two points. It does not take away from the fact, though, that the information that is provided, for example into the en-route sub—because it is only a registered airfield as opposed to a certified airfield—comes from the operator and the description of 150 used in that equation, as opposed to the 180 from my readings of the MOS and the tables in there, particularly 7.1-2, appears to be an error. Yet that appears to be the basis of the take-off requirement. Is there any other circumstance in Australia where the compromise you have referred to of having to keep that obstacle visual during an IFR take-off has been applied, or is that unique to Archerfield?

Mr Cromarty: Not that I am aware of, no.

Senator FAWCETT: So it is unique, it is unusual, but it maybe accounts for the take-off. But what about the overshoot case, where somebody has come off the 28 RNAV, is forced to do an overshoot because of heavy rain and so does not have visual contact with what is now quite a large obstacle that intrudes into the airspace?

Mr Cromarty: May I take that on notice and get the definitive answer for you?

Senator FAWCETT: Please do, but it just highlights the fact that the system of oversight—putting safety ahead of the commercial interest—has broken down and there are operators who are at risk because of that breakdown in the system.

Mr McCormick: I do not think that is correct. I am not sure that that is the case and that we necessarily agree with that.

Senator FAWCETT: I will be happy to see your answer on notice because, as I read the various publications, that is the situation I am led to understand to be the case. That is certainly also the contention of the operating fraternity at Archerfield.

Mr McCormick: If the question on notice has some specificity about what you want addressed, we will certainly get you the answer.

Senator FAWCETT: I will also be placing some questions on notice about the runway and safety area on 28 right about the culvert and the development of the auction site within the public safety area as defined by the Queensland government and the fact that that is not as advertised originally. There are significant obstacles, large plant, in that area.
Finally we have Beaker who also essentially obfuscates responsibility for safety risk mitigation at secondary airports...:ugh::
Senator FAWCETT: Undoubtedly, you have been following the proceedings for the last couple of hours—

Mr Dolan: I have.

Senator FAWCETT: so you probably know exactly where I am heading. Your name has been taken in vain around Archerfield and the concern around runway 28 right there. With your report 38 of 2008 you did great work in identifying discrepancies in needing to move forward. I have a few questions to try to get some details on the table. Your report has been used to essentially say there was a discrepancy and that is being addressed but there is no safety issue. NOTAM C250/07, which was mentioned in your report, requires a reduction in the TORA and TODA for runway 28 right for IFR departures from 1,400 to 1,095 metres. If there was only a discrepancy and there was no issue, why was a NOTAM necessary?

Mr Dolan: There was a potential safety issue in terms of the location of the hangar which led to the intervention in terms of the shortening of the usable runway. Perhaps it is worth taking a step back. You have clearly read the report. The terms of reference that were set were limited. The questions we were trying to address were: first of all, was there a problem with the obstacle limitation surface as it was in place following adjustments in the light of the construction of the hangar? Secondly, there was the problem of the actual design of the departure. We still take the view that at the time we were looking at it, the obstacle limitations surfaces and how they operated for the airport were safe. If one were doing this from zero, one would probably not have constructed the hangar where it is, but we were satisfied that the steps that had been taken to ensure safety operated well and that the instrument departure design was sound in itself but did very much highlight a problem with the ICAO standards and a need for clarification.

The reason we limited it to that was that we have received through our confidential reporting system some quite specific concerns about those issues. I want to make clear, the limits were placed for good reasons on what was available to us at the time. I understand that other issues have been raised since, but they had not been raised with us.

Senator FAWCETT: So noting the limited terms of reference and constraints put on you and just coming to the actual report then, one of the mitigating circumstances was obviously a reduction in the length of the runway. That NOTAM has subsequently been rescinded and the notes that were on the airfield charts have been removed. Other than the ERSA supplement which still identifies that restriction, a lot of the other things that would normally be required under the MOS, such as 'distance to run available' type signage, are not present at Archerfield. Do you consider that is still a safety issue?

Mr Dolan: I would have to say that since the completion of that report we have not done any further review. This sort of investigation is at the margins of what we would normally do. The issues in play here are essentially regulatory. We have not had any occurrences reported to us that I am aware of—and Mr Walsh may correct me on that. We have got no basis in terms of our normal system of getting information about safety occurrences in the system to say that something needs another look.

Senator FAWCETT: I understand and accept that. The problem that we are facing is that it is a case of following the bouncing ball, and the bouncing ball tends to rest with the ATSB report, and people say that there is no problem because ATSB said so. I guess I am just trying to extract all the information I can about the basis of your report limitations if you report perceptions of people who may have contributed to the report, because that informs us where we perhaps need to look elsewhere.

The mitigation that was put in place in terms of CASA's compromise, as they called it, to say that as long as the hangar was visible during the first part of a takeoff that was acceptable, clearly does not apply to somebody who is on approach to land and has a bolt landing perhaps due to a heavy rain shower such that the pilot is low-level. If you actually look at the IFR flyover clearance requirements, we are talking very flat, clear requirements in that scenario and the hangar is clearly in the space where that is going to become an issue. From the ATSB's perspective, did you consider that as part of your report?

Mr Dolan: No, we did not, Senator. As I say, the information available to us at the time was focused on departure not on approach. There is nothing in our report that would cast light on that issue you have raised.

Senator FAWCETT: My last question before the chair moves me on is talking around departures. I notice on page 3 of your report, where you talk about the turn initiation area, you describe in the PANS-OPS terms things like the obstacle identification surface and 150 metres which is normally the inner edge running along. Under the old MOS 139 it was table 7-1 and under the new one it is table 10-1. Table 10-2 applies to take-offs whereas table 10-1 applies to landings. The figure of 150 is relevant for approach runway considerations for a code 3 runway. For a code 3 runway for departures it is actually 180 metres. Would you care to comment on that discrepancy, given that, as you said, your investigation focused on departures as opposed to arrivals?

Mr Dolan: On the basis of what I have in front of me, I do not think I am in a position to comment.

Senator FAWCETT: Please take that on notice and whether whoever worked on that area of the report could explain the different numbers between the various versions of MOS. He could explain whichever one he wishes to use.

Mr Dolan: I would be very happy to take that on notice. There are two things to come back to this committee based on the view we come to on that consideration. It is always open to us, if additional information comes to light, to reopen one of our investigations if that is necessary. I am not undertaking to do that, but I am certainly undertaking to consider it if necessary.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. Hmm..and with Beaker's former association with the Department's Airports Division in the drawing up of secondary airport lease agreements - in particular Hoxton Park - you begin to see that there is definitely a lot to like about the BRB hypothesis...:D

And therefore much..much MTF...:ok:

thorn bird

11th Dec 2014, 07:49

Aww c'mon Sarcie,

looks like corruption, sounds like corruption, smells like corruption????

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...etc, etc.

Corruption happens when public infrastructure is offered for sale, where the actual value far exceeds the intrinsic value as a public asset.

I believe the biggest disaster for aviation in Australia, and by aviation I mean all aviation, RPT and GA was the supposed "privatization of Australia's airports. Nothing really changed hands, no transfer of Title, no ownership. The airports were already owned, by the public.

All that happened was a massive debt, against what was already owned, was artificially created, attracting massive interest payments that result in the probability that the operators of these ex public assets could never make a profit. The Government in essence used the airports to borrow money off books.

Kharon

11th Dec 2014, 20:04

Brother Sarcs (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-82.html#post8777746) is quite correct, the airports imbroglio was started by the Bill Heffernan in estimates and had it nor been for the efforts of one Fawcett Esq. the smoke and mirrors show may just have evaded the wily 'Heff', not for wont of trying, for he could smell something, but for lack of a 'technical' expertise, he was unaware of needing. The secondary airport skeleton needs flesh on it's bones, if we are to understand what, precisely it is. Start by downloading - s379 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/commttee/s379.ashx)- from the parliament website. It's free and an easy down load, takes about 20 seconds. In the index find 'Turn 110'; this opens at P127 and runs into 128. If you start @:-

Senator FAWCETT: Gentlemen, a number of individuals and aviation associations have criticised—in fact, some have condemned in quite strong words—both the minister and the department for their handling of the issues around commercial development on Bankstown and Archerfield airports. I would like to know if you would make an opening statement about how you see the department's role in interacting with airport operators, the minister and CASA in terms of that process.

and finish @:

Senator FAWCETT: If I can continue, all I am doing is highlighting an example. We have had the secretary tell us that everything is rosy. I have three or four examples where quite clearly the process of checking, verification and independent audit of the advice, whether it is given by the airport operator, by a consultant or by CASA in some cases has not been taken up and acted on appropriately by the department. That is the issue at hand, so all that detail was merely an example where due diligence has not been applied to a process and the end result is operational restrictions on people at the airport, which flies directly in the face of the stated intention of providing paths for growth for the airport.

It gives you an inkling of 'what's afoot'. I got very curious about just who was managing Archerfield airport, slipping in the 'restrictions' and issuing the no-go Notams etc; and wondered if there was some covert 'assistance' being provided from that office to make full use of the airfield 'difficult'. To my great surprise, the manager at the time finished up carrying McComics handbag and forgetting to put fuel in the Comcar – who'da thunk it...Well, fancy that, as Mama would say.

The following couple of pages are interesting, if you want to join the public service. The grasshopper technique in all it's hoary glory. ATSB for this, CASA for that, ASA for the other; no one responsible for anything – a merry-go-round which ejects the dizzy rider into the hall of smoke and mirrors. Where facts, like those who run the departments are firmly tied to the apron strings of the Murky Machiavellian.

P 130 - Senator FAWCETT: My point is that this is not just around Archerfield. It is also around the Sydney Basin, and this is a clear indication that what has been put in place in terms of a process is not being applied, monitored or audited. My question is: what checks and balances are in place from the department to make sure that the processes that are laid down are actually being followed and adhered to? What independent body audits or checks the application of these processes?

It's also interesting to note the difference in the 'tone' the Chair takes during this passage of play and the tone taken during more recent events. Between Fawcett and Xenophon they have forged a truly bi-partisan committee, by simply being able to explain to the committee exactly what they are hearing. Once converted, the committee joined forces and have become a force that Mrdak cannot easily deny. No doubt the mandarins club will circle the wagons and protect their own, they'd better get a wriggle on though, their boy is drowning in a sea of facts, which just keeps getting deeper.

Skip through to page 136 and read through to 142: even in 2011 the committee was unimpressed with both Russell and ASA services. Looking back at the last little go-around ASA had at estimates, I'd say the three intervening years of research and examination have infuriated this committee, as well it should.

I'm still not certain I can completely accept that a department of the government would, with malice and aforethought, deliberately set out to cripple an industry simply to assist property development on our secondary airports. But I would like to be on the jury hearing the case; betchya the 'facts' and evidence would make a fine story, it's all just a bit too 'coincidental' for fiction; which has to make sense, if it is to be believed by the reader. Good fiction is developed from research of facts.

Aye well, time will tell and we sure seem to have a lot that to kill, waiting for something, anything concrete to happen. Three years since this Hansard was released and the same issues, names and places just keep appearing, the same lines of waffle, obfuscation, smoke and mirrors, the same old nothing changed. It's clear where the problem lays; equally clear is the way to fix it; all it takes is someone with the balls to shift the blockage at the junction where three paths meet and merge into one. Perhaps then, the patience of 'man at the back of the room' will be rewarded; next year ?, maybe...

Toot toot.

Soteria

12th Dec 2014, 00:46

I'm still not certain I can completely accept that a department of the government would, with malice and aforethought, deliberately set out to cripple an industry simply to assist property development on our secondary airports. But I would like to be on the jury hearing the case
It might be interesting to see who is related to who, or who has family and friends or who are linked to companies who may stand to gain lots of money from such developments, or who may be setting themselves up for future employment in a construction enterprise of sorts?? :=:=

Up-into-the-air

12th Dec 2014, 00:54

Yep Thorny, found the person.

Downloaded pdf file on talk and announcement. (http://vocasupport.com/who-is-the-director-international-standards-australian-department-of-infrastructure-and-regional-development/)

Jamie Thomson

A/g Assistant Director, Maritime Security Strategic Policy

Current (https://www.linkedin.com/pub/jamie-thomson/21/a70/291#background-experience)

Department of Infrastructure and Transport (https://www.linkedin.com/company/709313?trk=prof-0-ovw-curr_pos)

ExperienceA/g Assistant Director, Maritime Security Strategic Policy (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=A%2Fg+Assistant+Director%2C+Maritime+Security+Strate gic+Policy&trk=prof-exp-title)

Department of Infrastructure and Transport (https://www.linkedin.com/company/709313?trk=prof-exp-company-name)

December 2010 – Present (4 years 1 month)Canberra, Australia

Owner (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?title=Owner&trk=prof-exp-title)

Milk and Honey (https://www.linkedin.com/vsearch/p?company=Milk+and+Honey&trk=prof-exp-company-name)

November 2003 – December 2010 (7 years 2 months)Canberra, Australia

Education

https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrink_60_60/p/5/005/03b/306/221d71c.png

(https://www.linkedin.com/edu/school?id=10237&trk=prof-edu-school-logo)The Australian National University (https://www.linkedin.com/edu/school?id=10237&trk=prof-edu-school-name)

Bachelor of Arts, English (https://www.linkedin.com/edu/fos?id=100582&trk=prof-edu-field_of_study), History (https://www.linkedin.com/edu/fos?id=101511&trk=prof-edu-field_of_study), Philosophy (https://www.linkedin.com/edu/fos?id=100838&trk=prof-edu-field_of_study)

1990 – 1999

Sarcs

12th Dec 2014, 04:43

Good catch UITA but I would suggest that Thommo maybe the Director of International Standards in name only and is merely another Murky glove muppet...:E What no longer surprises me is the sheer audacity; of a) M&M placing a person with a marine background as the chief international conduit to ICAO...:rolleyes: and; b) M&Ms current cunning scheme to gain control of ICAO - by nominating McComic to the ICAO top job (fully supported by Albo)..;)

While on the subject of ICAO - & M&Ms current report card on all things aviation - there was several mentions by Senator Fawcett on the Willyleaks ICAO/FAA audit in the s379 Hansard. The one that caught my eye was the following to McComic where you'll see that Murky again chimes in..:ooh::
Senator FAWCETT: Mr McCormick, you are obviously aware of WikiLeaks and their discussion around the FAA and ICAO audit that took place recently. Some of the comments that came out of that—undertrained, underfunded, incapable of understanding the obligations to airline safety oversight—were fairly damning. I have two questions that come out of that. Firstly, has CASA been underfunded in your opinion?

Mr Mrdak: I will jump in early to put on the record that the Australian government has a clear position of not commenting in relation to WikiLeaks matters and matters pertaining to cables. I ran through this a little earlier, Senator, in relation to a question that was asked about a maritime issue. We do not comment on what representatives of other governments may wish to comment on, and certainly not in relation to the material that has been published on WikiLeaks. Having said that—

Senator FAWCETT: That is fine. Can I rephrase the question.

Mr Mrdak: Perhaps if you rephrase it outside that issue.

Senator FAWCETT: Do CASA believe that they have had adequate resources to perform the functions that they know they are supposed to perform to the level that they wish to perform them?

Mr McCormick: At this stage, yes.

Senator FAWCETT: Without commenting on a foreign government's proposal, what it showed to a certain extent was that, with an audit from an independent body, things were highlighted. Some of the comments that have come out from the government and CASA have shown that things have been addressed, so clearly some areas were identified. Is there an internal process of auditing or is there an external auditing body that looks at CASA's operations on a regular basis, rather than having to rely on an overseas body to come through and highlight issues?

Mr McCormick: If I can take the last part of that first, I took over in March 2009 and you will find in Hansard that I stated in, I think, May 2009 that the issues I saw in CASA revolved around four areas. They were: refocusing on our core activity, which is the regulation of aviation safety; increasing the governance of the organisation, which of course includes audit; making sure our staff are properly trained and deployed; and, lastly, completing the regulatory reform program in the most expeditious manner. Those comments and those plans that we put in place predate the FAA audit visit to Australia. Without commenting on the source of some of that information, we work very closely with the FAA. Of course the FAA, like everyone, is entitled to their own opinion, and in some of these areas we would differ...
From that we get the impression that the Angry Man barely holds his contempt in check for the ICAO/FAA audit process . However he does claim ownership of the damning FAA audit report and suggests that he is well on the way to addressing these problematic FAA findings.

The trouble here for Murky is he is party to a State ICAO tripartite agreement and has the ultimate responsibility for reporting to ICAO/FAA on the progress of the response to the 2008 audit findings. And for the average person at the back of the room it would appear that not much has changed since...:{

There is also the small matter that while under M&Ms control the list of notified differences to ICAO has not reduced one iota, in fact it has grown by more than 10 pages - H18/14 (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s14-h18.pdf) Making Australia by far and away the leader of the pack in non-compliance to ICAO SARPs - no one comes close...:ugh:

Drift over and back to the BRB hypothesis where "K" was referring to s379...:D For those interested may I suggest it is also worth referring to the QONs/AQONs for 2011 Estimates, especially Aviation & Airports see here (http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Senate_Estimates/rratctte/estimates/sup1112/infra/index) .

Next we will fast forward some 2 years to the Additional Estimates where again Senator Fawcett takes up the cause on behalf of Secondary Airport users/operators, in particular Jandakot & Bankstown - go to Aviation & Airports bookmark here (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1213/hansard_infra_regional.ashx).

Hmm...some light reading in that lot...:E

MTF...:ok:

Kharon

12th Dec 2014, 19:35

Sots –"It might be interesting to see who is related to who, or who has family and friends or who are linked to companies who may stand to gain lots of money. etc"

Interesting point, that of 'family and friends' being given a helping hand into trough paradise. I thought, hmm probably another investigative job for the AFP – if ever the question was raised by the SC. Then I remembered an almost forgotten brief conversation with a bloke I hardly know, he's 'connected' though; through other interests. Bumped him at a coffee shop, you know; "G'day" – "G'day" type of chat while waiting about, now he mentioned, in passing, a Heff initiative, ICAC and airports, as an aside almost, to the main topic which was the possibility of asbestos contamination of the land filled flood plain at Bankstown. As I don't know the bloke very well, I just let it slide past. But now I wonder – given the recent AFP keen interest in matters aeronautical, if the blow torch is at least lit; if not yet applied, in earnest. One for the watchers, methinks.

Sarcs –"For those interested may I suggest it is also worth referring to the QONs/AQONs for 2011 Estimates, especially Aviation & Airports. etc"

The battle of the QoN's makes a fascinating tale. Have you noticed the changes in weaponry. The SC have, for many years relied on the traditional 'blunt instrument' and a wild swing. The opposition on carefully 'work shopped' answers. Over the last couple of years the QoN have morphed into a surgical tool, used with clinical precision to cut through to the chase. The game of eventually providing fluffy, work-shopped, delayed, non answers to awkward questions is being slowly, but inevitably terminated. Time lines are being enforced, the answers being weighed against the certain knowledge the Senators have, that used to frame the original questions. A lawyer and aviation specialist writing those questions. You'll also notice, (the Staib debacle being classic demonstration), that now the SC want a statement 'for the record'. Staib was, from memory, asked several times 'for the record'; gods help her if it's ever proven that a fairy story was deliberately fractured, under oath and told to the SC.

Despite the negligible support from the minuscule and the passive resistance of the various 'organisations' the SC seem to be beating the MM puppets and Word Weasels at their own, 'confused' game. It's all a bit like watching a chess match; if you have no interest then it's boring and pointless, but the devotees can spot the finesse, appreciate the subtleties and applaud the moves which score the points. Bravo the Senate Committee, sappers undermining the mighty edifice which houses the great myth; that of aviation safety and the bloated trough dwellers it nurtures. Lay on, MacDuff.

Toot toot....;)..

Sarcs

12th Dec 2014, 21:30

Kharon - ...a Heff initiative, ICAC and airports, as an aside almost, to the main topic which was the possibility of asbestos contamination of the land filled flood plain at Bankstown. As I don't know the bloke very well, I just let it slide past. But now I wonder – given the recent AFP keen interest in matters aeronautical, if the blow torch is at least lit; if not yet applied, in earnest. Hmm...very interesting...:confused: Kind of puts the link I provided (above) to the Additional Estimates of 2013 (http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/rrat_ctte/estimates/add_1213/hansard_infra_regional.ashx) (from page 64) into the frame...:rolleyes:

Or for those that are less enamoured with the written record of Hansard...;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2HWYwWOQeY

With that and the Kharon quote all ties in quite nicely with this from Heff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9nCbA0NZn0

As an aside with the mention of ICAC I found the following SMH article quite topical...:p: National ICAC needed to probe federal politicians, says NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption counsel Geoffrey Watson, SC, (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/national-icac-needed-to-probe-federal-politicians-says-nsw-independent-commission-against-corruption-counsel-geoffrey-watson-sc-20141204-12093d.html)

Wonder if they shouldn't extend that to include Federal Mandarins...:E

MTF...:ok:

Kharon

13th Dec 2014, 18:52

Two sidebars of interest there Sarcs – the Heffernan throw away line – about 'sleepers' indicates that the committee has just about got the story, but are (were) shy in the evidence department.

Then, one of the BRB is prepared to swear on a Stat Dec that there were several at a Bankstown meeting where all were informed that ripping out the 18/36 runway was an essential part of the purchase deal. Seems the aerodrome could not be sold off, not at any price while that runway remained. Anyone else heard a similar story??.

One final, unsubstantiated 'rumour': that on field rents were 'jacked' up to well above the rates for surrounding off field sites, to make 'leases' undesirable. This in an effort to present a solid case for demolishing the whole place and bringing in the 'developers'. Before a major bank copped a really short, embarrassing haircut. Seems it may yet be a really close shave.

It's quite a tale ain't it, if it's all true. I'm still not convinced, but it all makes for interesting reading. Depends how you read it of course, but, the next couple of weeks could be interesting as the realisation dawns that someone, somewhere is going to be short of a few pennies in the tin when the piper must be paid. I wonder, who'll be left – Holding the Baby (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubgH_gIBCNI).

Toot toot.

Up-into-the-air

13th Dec 2014, 19:04

and will Heff be the one??

I need a hero
(http://youtu.be/EasWdq7Njgo)

Kharon

13th Dec 2014, 21:58

Passing strange indeed that this vomitus – 'article' (http://atsb.gov.au/infocus/posts/2014/it%E2%80%99s-a-small-world,-after-all.aspx) should appear right now.
Dolan: - "I was reminded of the term ‘global village’ this week, when I attended the ATSB’s course in human factors."....
I was immediately reminded of the words used by the Senate inquiry to define the ATSB actions in the report on the Pel Air ditching – words such as deceit, collusion, corruption, obfuscation; and, the actions taken to decimate and discredit the honest, honourable Human Factors elements reported honestly, as provided by those who could probably re-write the 20 year old course Dolan attended, for a photo opportunity. Probably the one and only 'safety' course the untenable Dolan has ever attended.

I find it even stranger that Dolan after obliquely bagging Sir Tim; chooses to use the very 'discreet', selectively read Bloomberg publication to promote the notion that perhaps, he, Dolan has decided to increase the search area as suggested by simulator trials, probably funded by Sir Tim. The problems those relying on 'media' releases face to follow the search for MH 370 are those of credibility and probity. Had anyone else, such as Angus Houston made the statements – HERE (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-11/malaysia-air-search-zone-spreads-on-analysis-of-final-nosedive.html) – the public could be forgiven for thinking 'well done' and wishing the searchers well. But when statements, such as these are dribbled into the Bloomberg ear, from the Bea-Cur lips, the immediate IOS response is; "He's setting up for the exit strategy". Bets will be taken on what day in May Bea-Cur will roll off the top, as and when directed. "Oh, It's all too hard and we have not got enough data to justify endlessly continuing to widen the search area; anyway, we don't believe that any information of 'safety' value will be found; which precludes finding the 'black-box'.

So, we the IOS, are left to wonder, has the commissioner (for he do seem to like personal, intimate chats with journalists, don't he?) taken his very own personal views to Bloomberg, rather than publishing them through official media channels or, even on his normal one man show "Blog"; or even through 'ATSB Info', which he seems to neglect, or use, as best suits his own, whimsical, devious agenda for personal survival?. Has he now self promoted himself to being the 'expert' on the search patterns?

Aye, 'tis all passing strange; indeed. Bollocks sticker impending.

Toot toot...:E

Sarcs

14th Dec 2014, 20:37

Aye, 'tis all passing strange; indeed. Bollocks sticker impending. Indeed Kharon still trying to track whether the Beaker quotes from Bloomberg have been made official theory or summation from the JACC webpage - Operational Search Update (http://www.jacc.gov.au/families/operational_reports/index.aspx). From this you can see the last official update was on 10 December 2014 (note the Bloomberg article mentions telephone interviewed Bea-cur the day before 12/12) and there has been no official MR given since 17 November 2014 (http://www.jacc.gov.au/media/releases/2014/november/mr058.aspx)....:rolleyes:

One of the MSM international outlets that keeps their finger on the pulse -with the official updates from the JACC - is the Daily Mail here is an article link which recognises the 10 December update: First images of the search for MH370 are released (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2870680/First-images-search-MH370-released-Vessel-hunting-missing-plane-shows-underwater-footage-Indian-Ocean-floor-continue-scour-priority-area.html#ixzz3LuF2ZbVT)

And this was the article the Daily Mail put out yesterday:
Main search for MH370 could end in May as hunt fails to show any sign of missing plane (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873263/Plans-end-priority-search-area-MH370-mission-fails-sign-missing-plane.html#ixzz3LuFsg62u)

Investigators say the search for MH370 may finish in May
Decisions regarding the search will be made in collaboration between Malaysia, China and Australia
Last week, family members of the 239 passengers on-board provided DNa samples to assist in identifying any bodies that may be found
Lead search agency released an images showing what they have recorded as they scour the Indian Ocean floor
The image was captured by the GO Phoenix vessel, which returned the search area on Tuesday to continue underwater operations
More than 9,000 square kilometres of ocean floor has been searched to date with no sign of the missing plane
Neither of which acknowledges the Bea-cur contribution as he relayed to Bloomberg but the Daily Mail in the 2nd article does get an official statement from the JACC that all going well the designated search area could be completed by May 2015:Investigators searching for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 say they could finish scouring the priority zone by May, more than a year after it vanished, if there are no delays with vessels, equipment and weather.
Which does give a higher than normal probability of the Kharon hypothesis coming into play...:(:"He's setting up for the exit strategy". Bets will be taken on what day in May Bea-Cur will roll off the top, as and when directed. "Oh, It's all too hard and we have not got enough data to justify endlessly continuing to widen the search area; anyway, we don't believe that any information of 'safety' value will be found; which precludes finding the 'black-box'. Either way it does leave the question of whether Bea-cur is on-script or off script (official/unofficial) open-ended...:rolleyes:

Given the current black cloud that he is under - with the PelAir cover-up to be reviewed by the ATsB - I do wonder why the powers to be have not put a muzzle on Bea-cur until such time as it is all sorted or again obfuscated...:ugh:

Here is what Bea-cur had to say less than a month ago in that vomitus lunch time interview to the SMH- The world's biggest mystery is in Martin Dolan's sights (http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-worlds-biggest-mystery-is-in-martin-dolans-sights-20141121-11f336.html):
He also oversaw the investigation into the ditching of a Pel-Air ambulance plane off Norfolk Island in 2009. Amazingly, all six people on board survived the crash.

A senate committee slammed the bureau's handling of the inquiry, criticising its report for focusing on the pilot's actions and lacking analysis or details of factors that assist the wider industry.

Dolan says the government accepted the bureau's advice that no safety purpose would be served by reopening the investigation as was urged by the committee.

At the bureau's request, he adds, Canadian transport safety regulators are currently conducting a peer-review of the the body's policies and how they were implemented in several investigations, including Pel-Air.

"We learnt that there are different views of our work and how we do it and that aviation safety is an area where people have different views and they don't always agree with you," Dolan says. Isn't it amazing how certain statements can sometimes come back to haunt...:E

But to be fair Bea-cur wasn't to know that the Miniscule would also apparently go "off-script" and pronounce in Parliament less than 2 weeks later...

"...I am concerned that the TSB report raises some concerns about the application of ATSB methodologies in the investigation of the ditching of the Pel-Air aircraft off Norfolk Island in 2009. As a consequence I have asked the ATSB Commission to give serious consideration to re-opening the investigation..."

Followed by...

"...On a related point, I have just announced that I will shortly be appointing a new commissioner for the ATSB with a specific background in aviation. This will fulfil an undertaking made by the coalition prior to the election and also one of the recommendations of the report. I have asked that a fresh review of the Pel-Air accident take into account the findings of the ATSB report..." (Miniscule speech (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fb1d2e0ad-97f9-41e8-b5ac-42a061730951%2F0003;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Fb1d2e 0ad-97f9-41e8-b5ac-42a061730951%2F0000%22))

Yes indeed "K" 'tis all 'passing strange'...:=

One thing is for sure Bea-cur must go and that will be yet another "F" mark for the 800k+ Chief Mandarin in the "Aviation" section of his 2014 report card!:E

MTF...:ok:

Addendum - Anderson?? - nails it! :D:D "A very dark day in ATSB history was when that farcical report was released." — Anderson (http://disq.us/8lcgvv)

ATSB credibility in the aviation sector (and undoubtedly the others as well) - Gone!.

Martin Dolan must now be removed from his post as head of the ATSB - the report and the circumstances surrounding it left no doubt the ATSB was happy to have CASA dictate the content of reports and direct inquiries.
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

Sunfish

15th Dec 2014, 02:01

Betting starts for a new head for the ATSB. My guess is another doddering, superannuated, complaisant Canberra based RAAF creep like Skidmore.

It will be just like old times in the squadron shower room.

Eddie Dean

15th Dec 2014, 07:13

I'm a cynic, the re - inquiry into the PelAir investigation will probably find minor issues to be resolved. remember the old axiom " don't hold an inquiry uness you know the answer."

Kharon

15th Dec 2014, 08:01

Sarcs - "But to be fair Bea-cur wasn't to know that the Miniscule would also apparently go "off-script" and pronounce in Parliament less than 2 weeks later."..etc..

It just beats me; the AFP should be all over Pel-Air and Truss should be putting more than a polite request for "serious consideration" as distance between himself and Be-a-Cur; a good country mile and three bodies aught to do the trick. Particularly now as the 'Crikey Inside (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/15/mh370-it-was-a-deliberate-act-and-it-is-being-lied-about/)r' and the 'Daily Mail' have got wind that there is great potential for yet another ducked up-cover up. The MH 370 situation is ugly and it can, realistically only end in tears: unless of course, there is a Christmas miracle and they actually find the wretched thing. (Send it back ET, the games up).

Allowing the publicly discredited, disingenuous Bea-Cur anywhere near the investigation is simply a red-rag to the conspiracy bull. Abbott needs his bumps felt; and, relying on the Murky Machiavellian crew for 'unbiased' guidance is just asking for trouble, particularly with regard to airports. Even the infamous Chem-Miln-ical Trails (plays for the Tassie Haridans) has been offered a free kick; as if the government had not got enough on it's plate. But no, Bea-Cur, unleashed, is free to lunch with panting, gushing, halfwit, neophyte wanabee journalists and even free to gossip with the likes of Bloomfield; it's nearly as disgusting as Wodger Wabbit popping up at the RAeS, as guest speaker FCS. Houston must be spitting chips. The PR guru's probably have some proper name for 'what it is' but for mine, it's plain old, ordinary, everyday pony-pooh. Pel-Air clearly discredited both, yet they attempt to crudely and clumsily resurrect reputations which were well tarnished, even before the Pel-Air 'aberration'. It's GMD.

Now I do realise that for the AFP it's a big ask; and, it's probably very difficult to even separate potential 'State' from 'Commonwealth' crimes; even tougher again, considering they must start from scratch to get a firm grip on what these monkeys have been up to. But if they would be guided by the Senators and more importantly, by the Senators 'aides' (who really are in a class of their own..:D..) it would all, with a little patience, research and time prove to be a worthwhile effort. Perhaps no charges could ever be laid; but it would send a message, in clear; as in crystal.

I wonder, did the Murky Machiavellian crew have some inkling that the Minuscule was going to make the Pel-Air re-match 'happen'; 'cos if they did; it's Wabbit pie and Bea-Cur pudding for Christmas lunch, for as Shirley would say; they have both just been cut loose from the protected species club. Jolly good, say's I...

Toot toot.

4dogs

15th Dec 2014, 12:49

For a moment there I was beginning to give some credence to your posts, but thank goodness you saved me from that complete misapprehension of your knowledge base with:

...another doddering, superannuated, complaisant Canberra based RAAF creep like Skidmore...

Serves me right really, far too trusting of pseudonyms... :O

Stay Alive,

aroa

16th Dec 2014, 02:44

The only way to have CAsA raked over the coals...and let all the victims and industry particpants say it like it really is, is to have one of the above.

Yes, I know they cost mega dollars, but CAsA has splurged mega billions over the years and for what national safety benefits.?
Extremely poor value for money.
So many of their money wasting brain snaps have withered on the vine with no outcome.
And most of the stuff that does get thru is causing GA to wither on the vine.

Read Tezza's last spruik in the monthly enews?. :mad: Bucket required.

Even the AFP mentioned a Royal Commission because there was so much bad stuff being done by CAsA..so its the only way to let it all hang out.

Keep banging the drum and support Sen X and crew.

Boom! boom! What do we want? :ok:. Boom boom Royal Commission now!

Sunfish

16th Dec 2014, 04:17

4Dogs, yes:

another doddering, superannuated, complaisant Canberra based RAAF creep like Skidmore...

As you may know, the Russell offices are known as "The Gray Sponge" and many a fine and active officer has gone in and come out Two years later completely lobotomised - zombie like with an unrecognisable personality as a result of consorting with the devils that reside there.

I don't believe that it is possible these days to arrive at the rank of Air Vice Marshal without having to play politics at the Russell Offices and thus get the lobotomy or the bite on the neck, whatever. The days of "action man" soldiers holding high rank are long gone, I think one General was lost in Afghanistan and none in Iraq, leading from the front is not in vogue any more. From what I’ve heard considerable numbers gain promotion by saying "yes" to al sorts of things. Conversely, no one gets promoted for saying "no".

So I'm sorry to say I think the chances of Skidmore being a new broom in CASA are zero. At best he may be the smiling avuncular face, good to have a drink with, an all round nice guy.. And after all is said and done, the senior management of CASA will still be there.

Mrdak appointed the Board and Skidmore. Do you think they will ever criticise each other?

As for ATSB, I wonder if Mrdak is brazen enough to choose another RAAF clone who knows their way around Canberra? My guess is yes. Then we will have a mutual admiration society, they can form a magic circle and engage in all sorts of RAAF rituals.

Seriously, I don't give much credit to todays general officers at all.

To put it another way, if reform is required, and it is, we need some highly skilled, intelligent, ethical and ruthless attack dogs running CASA, not some friendly Golden Retriever. An acquaintance of mine terms such good people "hard hearted empaths".

Frank Arouet

16th Dec 2014, 04:36

All General Officer and Senior Officer Ranks are political appointments. ie. Anyone above Field Grade Rank.

Having said that, the new DAS is on a hiding to nowhere, which ever way the plebs' take him. Damn him now, or later, he's bound to cop it. I have noted of late he is taking calls, is communicative and seems an obliging cove. To my way of thinking, it would be better to see how he goes in the early stages and judge him on performance than to pre-empt any long and expected standards associated with incoming people of this caliber.

I'm guessing any leeway given shouldn't exceed by Easter at least. I'd be keeping a keen eye on his "handlers" however. Lets hope he represents an illumination at the end of the tunnel.

slats11

16th Dec 2014, 08:32

Given the special audit clearly established the standards manager had the responsibly to "oversee the training", one further presumes this delegation was with the written approval of CASA.

So when CASA approved the new chief pilot, they must have also approved (in writing) the delegation of training and checking duties to the outgoing chief pilot (i.e. the new standards manager).

The special audit doesn't explicitly state that CASA had approved this delegation of training and checking at the time. However they surely must have given such approval, and this would be kept on file

I'm still intrigued by all of the above.

So CASA allegedly wanted to see a change of chief pilot at PelAir. This change was duly effected. Then either:
1. CASA did approve the delegation of westward international check & training to the outgoing chief pilot. Which is unfortunate for CASA given the scathing criticism heaped on this individual shortly after in the 2009 special audit
or
2. CASA did not approve this delegation, and CASA was presumably surprised to discover these duties had been so delegated during the 2009 special audit.

So which one was it? Mr Skidmore? Senators?

Sarcs

16th Dec 2014, 09:05

I don't believe that it is possible these days to arrive at the rank of Air Vice Marshal without having to play politics at the Russell Offices and thus get the lobotomy or the bite on the neck, whatever...

...From what I’ve heard considerable numbers gain promotion by saying "yes" to all sorts of things. Conversely, no one gets promoted for saying "no".
All General Officer and Senior Officer Ranks are political appointments. ie. Anyone above Field Grade Rank.
Sunny & Frank two enlightening posts...:D:D

Not that I want to weigh into the pros & cons on (AVM ret) Skidmore but the following from this month's Fort Fumble missive..:yuk::yuk:..does not imbue one with a whole lot of confidence...:rolleyes::
From Director of Aviation Safety designee Mark Skidmore

While I have not yet stepped into the role of Director of Aviation Safety, I just wanted to take this opportunity to start the important job of communicating with everyone. Communication and consultation are high priorities for me and I have already begun to meet people and organisations from the aviation community. You may notice that I am deliberately describing the aviation sector as a community rather than an industry. This may be a subtle difference but it recognises there is more to aviation than just the commercial operations which are embraced by the term ‘industry’. As an active general aviation pilot I appreciate the commitment to aviation of the many people who are not in any way earning revenue from flying. In fact, as any private aircraft owner knows, being a part of aviation can cost quite a bit of money. We stay involved because we love aviation and love flying. It is that commitment to aviation that drove me to seek the position of Director of Aviation Safety and it will guide my thinking during my five year term. When I take the reins on 1 January 2015 I will keep listening to everyone who is part of the aviation community, as well as people in the broader Australian community who have an interest in aviation safety. I look forward to meeting and hearing from as many people as possible in the months and years ahead.

Have a safe and merry Christmas

Mark Skidmore
Couple that with the Hoodoo Voodoo spellbinding (bollocks..:ugh:) oratory to the AAA conference (http://www.casa.gov.au/SCRIPTS/NC.DLL?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_102327) you begin to get the picture that the Mrdak (BRB hypothesis) grand plan is alive and well.

However there are indications in the Doc's speech of a concerted effort to circle the wagons around M&M's weakest link i.e. Airport Lease agreements: Safeguarding of airports-Protection of airspace

Let me say a word or two about airspace protection. CASA is alive to the concerns that have been expressed with increasing frequency about the-

encroachment of tall residential and commercial buildings in the vicinity of airports;
extent to which such encroachments compromise the safety of air operations at those airports; and
suggestion that CASA should play a more determinative role in the approval processes for potentially encroaching construction projects.
While community vigilance plays an important part in any democratic society, CASA believes the existing regime, whereby the protection of airspace is governed within a framework agreed by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, is adequate and appropriate.

The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development is responsible for managing the protection of airspace around Leased Federal Airports (LFAs), and it does so informed by advice provided by CASA and Airservices Australia. CASA strives to provide responsive and timely advice to the Department on all applications involving infringement of prescribed airspace around federal airports, and we remain confident that the Department properly takes that advice in to account in forming its views.

At non-Federal airports, CASA will continue to provide advice to proponents and land use planning authorities in relation to proposals involving the infringement of airspace. Pursuant to guidelines of the National Airport Safeguarding Advisory Framework, we believe planning authorities should act in the light of CASA’s advice. In the end, however, we recognise that our authority is limited to the provision of such advice. Matters related to land use planning are best dealt with by elected policy makers and other planning authorities, and it would be inappropriate for the aviation safety regulator to have decision-making powers in connection with matters calling for a sometimes delicate balance to be struck between the safety and efficiency of airport operations and other broader policy-based considerations.
Yep the Doc conveniently sidesteps that one - FF all care but no responsibility when it comes to Airports...:ugh: However it still leaves M&M firmly in the gun sights...:E

On the apparent fact that AVM's are politically appointed (in our case M&M appointed):As for ATSB, I wonder if Mrdak is brazen enough to choose another RAAF clone who knows their way around Canberra? My guess is yes. If that be the case Sunny then the next ATsB CC will come from this list (minus the deceased) - List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_Australian_Air_Force_air_marshals)

One of the names on that list who would be a potential candidate would be this guy - Warren Ludwig (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Ludwig&action=edit&redlink=1)*1960—
Commander Integrated Area Defence System, Malaysia (2010–14).

If so there would yet again be another fascinating connection to MH370, for it seems that the RAAF has been dancing the tango with Malaysia under the Five Power Defence Arrangements for 43 years and the IADS has always been under the command of a RAAF AVM.

Reference from page 84 - The Five Power Defence Arrangements:The Quiet Achiever (http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/ArticlePDFs/vol3no1Thayer.pdf):
The Commander of IADS has always been an Australian Air Vice Marshal
assisted by a deputy who rotates between Malaysia and Singapore.
Reference from the Strategist article - FPDA—not fade away (http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/fpda-not-fade-away/):Unlike the echidna, the FPDA has at least adjusted its gait to move with the times, re-badging IADS from integrated air defence to area defence as far back as 2001. Exercise and interoperability themes have since been broadened from conventional defence to HADR and maritime security. FPDA was not publicly invoked during the search for MH 370, but the disaster has focused an operational spotlight on the need for integrated air surveillance and SAR coordination across Southeast Asia and beyond. The apparent failure to track the airliner as it passed north of Butterworth was not IADS’ finest hour. But the continuing multinational search operation has unquestionably benefited from the institutionalised trust built up between Malaysia and its fellow FPDA members.This apparent anomaly - although totally missed by most Oz MSM - was not missed by the international MSM nor the TBA.

Example from IBT - MH370: Australia Seems Conspiring to Hide Something, Random Letter Sparks Questions on Au’s Security Radar (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/553339/20140522/mh370-australia-search-update-missing.htm#.VJAAF0j9mP9) :
...With this, he explained that JORN can search most of the way to India (http://au.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/420/india/).
"Given this, the only way for the radar not to have detected something like MH370 is for it to be switched off at the time, which raises its own questions."

The most interesting detail the Mr La Franchi pointed out is that Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and the United Kingdom (http://au.ibtimes.com/topics/detail/346/united-kingdom/) jointly operate the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) integrated air defence centre based in Malaysia.

He said that Australia had even funded the modernisation of the centre back in 1990. The modernisation entailed for the centre to be able to "recognised air picture" of all of Southeast Asian airspace using feeds from both civil and military radars.

"That centre has a live feed into the Australian Air Defence Ground Environment (ADGE) which underwent extensive modernisation across the 2000s. The FPDA integrated air defence data is fused with data from JORN in the ADGE, with this data available in real time at centres in Adelaide, Canberra and Newcastle," he explained.

With this information at hand, Mr La Franchi could not understand why MH370 was never detected by Australian system.So could it be AVM Ludwig will soon be retired AVM Ludwig?? Hmm...make a perfect fit for replacing Bea-Cur and would certainly slot in quite nicely with the M&M master plan team (MMMPT) - especially when it comes to the inevitable (unless miraculously found) duck-up of the cover-up of MH370...:{

MTF...:ok:

LeadSled

16th Dec 2014, 11:52

Then, one of the BRB is prepared to swear on a Stat Dec that there were several at a Bankstown meeting where all were informed that ripping out the 18/36 runway was an essential part of the purchase deal. Seems the aerodrome could not be sold off, not at any price while that runway remained. Anyone else heard a similar story??.Folks,
I can personally vouch for this as a fact, I was at the meeting, called by BAL. The speaker who let the cat out of the bag was the then GM of the airport company.

The words were clear, several members of the audience questioned the speaker, to make certain that they were "hearing right". They were!!

Of course, this means that the "consultation" (which seems to have largely been with Airservices and CASA, not aviation businesses on the airport) was, in my opinion, a sham.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I love the "Department's" advice to the RRAT Committee, that for a student pilot, Goulburn, Mittagong and Warnervale are suitable alternates for a student pilot -- who has done no navigation training --- even if the average C-152 has the fuel endurance, and that is presuming that the weather that creates the excessive X-wind at YSBK is not also precluding VFR in and out of the Sydney basin.

In my opinion, this is as silly as the original advice, which was that a pilot could just declare an emergency and divert to Kingsford-Smith.

Up-into-the-air

16th Dec 2014, 19:26

Not my work, but the Illustration - The Murky-Machevellian Digs!! : Sturt Krygsman Source: News Corp Australia:

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/12/15/1227157/223121-55208644-8432-11e4-928c-190892af96aa.jpg

Kharon

16th Dec 2014, 19:30

Tim Tam quality research Sarcs, cracking good job..:ok:. Bravo that man..:D.

It's all starting to get a little untidy on board the Murky Machiavellian flag ship, it's beginning to look more like a 'boat people' transport, with dirty washing draped over the rigging, rust and those embarrassing 'brown' steaks along the hull, rather than a ship of state. His glove puppets and puppettes have not performed well, not at all.

McComic shuffled off to Canada without a –fare-thee-well; no one (except Terry) even mentioned his passing. The Senate just let him go and the minuscule has put a fairly large, silent distance between his government and the outgoing. Why Mrdak and only Mrdak (Albo cheering from the sidelines) is supporting a bid for a plumb ICAO job remains a mystery. Not one single 'official' word on the ICAO issue has been uttered, despite public funding of the bid (oh it will be, in one form or another, be 'public') – I wonder why...

Bea-Cur remains in charge of the MH 370 debacle; I think we may safely call it that now. The "Australian' end is under suspicion. Mark you that's only because any time you want to invade, start at 1500 hours on any Friday you like; you'll have the whole weekend to finish the task, before the return to work 0930 Monday. We don't do weekends here in the land of the long weekend. That, of it's self is not a good look, but to send the crown prince of collusion in to manage 'the search', while under a dense cloud of suspicion and Senate condemnation is just nuts and asking for more trouble.

Then, there's the token 'female' trampling about, blindfold in the ASA china shop, goaded and tormented by the 'Slicks'. What a superlative performance; courage badges and faux wings the result of our AUD$600,000 investment, while the Slicks continue to steal the cream from the cash cow and boff the milk maids, at will.

No doubt about it, the Murky Machiavellian crew have head hunted the very best to manage matters aeronautical. Only two of the original set of three monkeys remain, but, thanks to providence, a full set remains on the mantle piece. Which only leaves the question of where will they be placed by the MM job search team?, when the stench becomes unbearable, unanswered. If they can all be placed within ICAO (never mind the expense) the clandestine take over will be complete, then it won't matter how many 'differences' we file; all will be well.

Aye - One man has much to answer for, although I doubt I'll hear the explanations; not in this lifetime anyway.

Toot ...:mad:...toot..

Kharon

17th Dec 2014, 00:19

Dear Senators:

In a glib, quasi friendly, condescending 'email', which begins with the salutation "G'day Mr James" and ends with "All the best" (of luck one assumes), the slippery Snagsome of Pel-Air fame has informed Dom James that indeed, the ditching of his medivac aircraft off Norfolk is to be 're-examined'.

A new investigation team will review the original investigation and associated report in the light of any fresh evidence and other relevant points raised in this and separate reviews by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee and through the Deputy Prime Minister’s Aviation Safety Regulation Review. The main focus will be ensuring that the specific findings of the TSB review are taken fully into account before issuing a final report of the reopened investigation.

Does Snagsome imagine, for one minute that a simple 'review' will make it all better?; if he does, then he's barking.

Does the purblind, non technical administrator believe that it's only about the 'report' and that is the only 'aberration'?; if he does then clearly it's time for the men in white coats.

The Senate inquiry publicly exposed a picture of the top of a very ugly ice berg. It was not the 'investigation'; the likes of Watson, Hattley, Cook and the rest of troops did not do too bad a job. It was what was done with their work and the predetermined outcome which held everyone in a thrall of stunned disbelief. The CASA actions, in particular the actions of Chambers, White, Grima, Farquharson, McCormick, and ATSB Sangsome, Walsh and Dolan deserve much more attention than a simple cut and polish job; this is damage that will not simply 'buff out'.

The Snagsome olive leaf, much like the Canadian maple leaf will be used to cover the more sensitive areas, lest some blushing virgin happen to espy a forbidden part of the anatomy. Well the princess crowd had better toughen up; we want the full Monty – all of it in public, with music, lights and a camera. The actions of this crowd have wantonly denied the victims basic human rights and destroyed a mans career, though administrative persecution, a whispering campaign and inventing a set of impediments, which effectively prevent that man obtaining the ratings needed, to even apply for work, let alone expect to receive any.

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.

No, no; not cranky, not yet; but getting there a bloody site faster than I normally would. I just can't believe 'these people' actually exist and are 'in charge' of aeronautical matters, but, alas, it seems they are and they do.

A fig leaf, is it really enough to cover all the sins; or just the bits that may embarrass?

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjOTog3pWHc1TG3WbD7rtl0m4sNFgbOkT266upw79 Jkz_r96N8

Up-into-the-air

17th Dec 2014, 03:23

This bears some thought that people in aviation do not forget things. We certainly don't want the PelAir debacle to take 53 years to continue to seek answers and we will not allow that to happen [IOS]

New Inquiry Is Sought in 1961 Death of the U.N. Leader Dag Hammarskjold (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/world/africa/dag-hammarskjold-death-inquiry.html?_r=0)

By ALAN COWELL (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/c/alan_cowell/index.html)DEC. 16, 2014

LONDON — It has been one of Africa’s enduring mysteries, redolent of days when mercenaries roamed the bushlands and outsiders scrambled to exploit a continent’s riches as it struggled for independence: How and why did Dag Hammarskjold, the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) secretary general, die?

The DC-6 airplane carrying Mr. Hammarskjold (pronounced HAH-mahr-shuhld), a Swedish diplomat, crashed in September 1961 as it approached Ndola, a mining town in Zambia (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/zambia/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), which at the time was called Northern Rhodesia. Official inquiries failed to explain what happened.

But last year, a United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) panel concluded that there was “persuasive evidence that the aircraft was subjected to some form of attack or threat as it circled to land at Ndola.”

On Monday, Sweden formally asked (http://www.swedenabroad.com/en-GB/Embassies/UN-New-York/Current-affairs/Statements/Statement-by-Sweden-introducing-draft-resolution-on-investigation-into-the-conditions-and-circumstances-resulting-in-the-tragic-death-of-Dag-Hammarskjold-and-those-onboard-his-flight--sys/) the United Nations General Assembly (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/general_assembly/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to reopen the investigation. Significantly, the request included an appeal for all member states to release any hitherto unpublished records — a reference aimed largely at securing the declassification of American and British files, particularly intercepts thought to have been made at the time by the National Security Agency of the United States.

The issue is not simply a matter of historical loose ends. “This has been an open wound in Sweden for more than 50 years,” the Swedish envoy to the United Nations, Per Thoresson, told Agence France-Presse. “We are anxious to try to make closure.”

A definitive explanation of the crash would throw light on a critical moment in Africa’s history during the Cold War. It coincided with a time of secession in the neighboring Congolese province of Katanga, where Belgian and other Western mining concerns held lucrative concessions producing uranium and cobalt.

Mr. Hammarskjold was on his way to meet a Katangese separatist leader, Moise Tshombe, in Ndola when his plane came down in wooded terrain a few miles from the airport. Delays in locating the wreckage magnified the question of whether pilot error was to blame, as one early inquiry suggested, or whether there had been foul play.

Conspiracy theories flourished: Had the United Nations official died in the crash, or was he killed afterward by mercenaries? Had South Africa sabotaged the plane? Was it deliberately shot down to thwart Mr. Hammarskjold’s mission?

In a report issued in September 2013 (http://www.hammarskjoldcommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/REPORT.pdf), a United Nations panel, led by Stephen Sedley, a retired British judge, referred to evidence of a second airplane flying close to or alongside the DC-6 carrying Mr. Hammarskjold, named the Albertina.

A Belgian former pilot was quoted as saying that he had been under orders to force the plane to divert to Kolwezi, a mining center in Katanga, and had fired warning shots that accidentally clipped the DC-6 and brought it down.

“The aerial attack claim,” the report said, “is in our judgment capable of proof or disproof.”

It concluded, moreover, that the United States had access to crucial evidence that could prove to be a so-called golden thread in a maze of uncertainty.

“It is highly likely that the entirety of the local and regional Ndola radio traffic on the night of 17-18 September 1961 was tracked and recorded by the N.S.A., and possibly also by the C.I.A.,” the report said.
Indeed, the report continued, a Freedom of Information Act request to the N.S.A. drew a response that two of three documents it sought “appeared to be exempt from disclosure by reason of ‘top secret’ classification on national security grounds.”

In his request for a new inquiry at the United Nations on Monday, Mr. Thoresson, the Swedish diplomat, repeated the call for secret documents to be released. The aim, he said, is “to help shed new light on the circumstances surrounding the death of Dag Hammarskjold and those on board his flight, not only by bringing existing documents forward, but also by providing the conditions necessary to finally hear witnesses whose testimony has so far not been given due attention.”
A version of this article appears in print on December 17, 2014, on page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: New Inquiry Is Sought in 1961 Death of U.N. Leader.

Sarcs

17th Dec 2014, 05:17

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...:E

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 (http://atsb.gov.au/about_atsb/overview.aspx) 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...:D

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? (http://www.bloguebst-tsbblog.com/2013/03/07/what-are-the-chances/#.VJERQEj9mP8): ..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 (http://disq.us/8ldk51):
...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...:D

MTF...:ok:

thorn bird

17th Dec 2014, 05:57

Oh my Gawd,

can't be serious!!! the smarmy supercilious clown!!

Don't you just love the sign off "All the best"???...... best of what??

My old pappy said after he'd sent me solo, "when you think you know everything about aviation, its time you find something else to do"

When I saw the first media interviews over the NGA event with the angry man McComic, I thought there is personified, what may old Dad was talking about, and railed against, and believe me it took considerable railing to get him to rail against anything much, but he could spot an egotistical buffoon from half a mile away.

Listening to McComic rail against the pilot of NGA, before an investigation had even started, let alone been concluded, spelt it out for me.

This will be a stitch up, and sure enough....

Lets consider some facts:

Domenic James breached no regulation.

Yet when that question was posed to ten different FOI's it was a fifty fifty split.

The old opinion of the FOI of the day syndrome.

Domenic James breached no company SOP's, in fact he followed them to the letter.

Domenic James planned the mission consistent with the information available to him AT THE TIME and in accordance with "COMPANY PRACTICE"

When it became apparent those conditions had changed Domenic James made a Command decision that his safest course of action was to proceed to his destination because his calculations told him he would arrive at his alternate with insufficient fuel.

CAsA's expert fuel calculations that he had enough fuel to divert, was completely discredited at the senate inquiry.

Yet McComic's ego would not allow him to be wrong so his acolyte Chambers was primed to decide what sanctions were to be applied to Domenic James to see that he never flew again.

Same as the Airtex stitch up, allegedly McComic screamed "I don't care what you do, or how you do it, just SHUT THEM DOWN"

So in the same manner as Airtex, Wodger defined a whole list of requirements that he was sure would ensure Domenic James would never fly again.

This from a man with no operational experience other than throwing a few bags about for the military.

He appointed himself the Prosecutor, Jury, Judge and finally executioner.

When James confounded the Wabbit by achieving the onerous requirements in short order, he was forced to return Domenic James Licence to him, but with a string attached.

Further draconian requirements were dreamt up, a whispering campaign begun, with threats of CAsA attention against anyone who provided Domenic James with employment.

Wherever he travelled in Australia the campaign followed on his heels.

YET HE BROKE NO Australian LAW.

But he broke McComics law, was tried by Chambers, was found guilty by Chambers, in Chambers court, and was sentenced to aviation purgatory by Chambers.

Domenic James is just one of many who have felt the attention of the Bankstown ex RAAF baggage handler.

I fear this sociopathic lunatic will will continue unimpeded on his rampage through Bankstown industry. Ably assisted by his black widow handmaiden he's pretty much wiped out whats left of Bankstown aviation businesses.

To what end? Just a warped misfit encouraged by an egotistical comic?

Or as is generally the case when things make little logical sense, follow the money!! .......Ah the murky manipulator....

Still a few dots to join, but we are getting closer and closer to the real picture of just what and why strange things happen at Bankstown Airport.
'
Most of us know CAsA is corrupt, just how corrupt remains to be seen.

Can anyone imagine that the "Reopened" inquiry will be anything else but a reiteration of Mc Comic edict that "the pilot dun it".

Cant be anything else after the Wabbit was let loose on Mr. James.

Money will do the talking, and after the rabbits effort, any honest report could make Mr. James a rather wealthy individual, not to mention the other people who were involved and so shabbily treated by the machiavellian manipulator and his co-conspirators.

Soteria

17th Dec 2014, 10:26

Chambers is a wet lettuce leaf. All tough when amongst mates and behind protected gates. CASA should do themselves a favour and send the baggage handler up to the top end for a while to oversight us Chopper operators. I can assure you that after his first act of malfeasance and after we have dealt with him (pub rules my friends) Chambers would either run back to Sydney with his winky tucked between his legs or he would become 'permanently' lost somewhere in the Kimberley's!!!

Kharon

17th Dec 2014, 20:06

Sarcs - "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".

Amen.

The reasonable man, at the back of the room could be forgiven simultaneous howls of outrage and peels of laughter. It's that or heading down to the nearest bar and drinking the place dry. Allowing Dolan, Walsh or Sangston within a country mile of any 'investigation' into Pel-Air is like trapping a fox then throwing it back into the chook shed, to finish the job.

Sorry Sarcs – but Annexe 13 is an alien, malleable, moving feast to these doyens of 'professional' air safety administrators (date and issue irrelevant); rumour has it they use a soft white version of the Annexe, specially printed in long rolls in the executive 'rest rooms'.

It's a risible position to take, untenable and immoral. When (if) I recover some sang-froid, I'll do a twiddle based on a conversation between White, Sangston and perhaps throw Chambers into the mix; should provide the odd wry smile, if not outright chuckle. Right now, I remain concerned that the whole motley crew will escape censure, that the disgraceful deceit of all involved will be swept under that big, dusty old carpet and things will go along in the same old way; untroubled by concepts of justice, being responsible under law, retribution in law and any concept of honesty.

I wonder, can our erstwhile Senate committee be persuaded to find the time, energy and enthusiasm, to take the final step and put this anathema down; once and for all. They did half the job, in grand style. Another, short inquiry into the way the original was twisted and perverted, by whom, why and to who's benefit would restore Australian credibility and provide an instant change, for the better, throughout the industry.

To allow ATSB to investigate ATSB will destroy what small faith the public has in an accident report being fair, impartial, independent and honest. Further, CASA will know, with absolute certainty that they can get away with anything they choose; if they are allowed to escape, unscathed from one of the most abominable, disgusting perversions of an investigation into an air accident ever witnessed by the aviation world.

The industry cannot possibly function correctly and profitably with the spectre of Pel-Air putting fear in every cockpit, and disquiet in the minds of company investors. We need to be able to believe the facts, rely on evidence and most importantly, we need to be able to use the reports to develop strategy which will reduce the percentage chance of reoccurrence.

But, we cannot and dare not do that at the moment, can we Senators?

Selah.

Sarcs

17th Dec 2014, 20:51

A passionate post there Thorny...:D:D
When I saw the first media interviews over the NGA event with the angry man McComic, I thought there is personified, what may old Dad was talking about, and railed against, and believe me it took considerable railing to get him to rail against anything much, but he could spot an egotistical buffoon from half a mile away.

Listening to McComic rail against the pilot of NGA, before an investigation had even started, let alone been concluded, spelt it out for me.
Not to mention the angry man's interview to 4 corners which can still be viewed (if you can stand it) off the 4C website here - Video: Interview with John McCormick, Director Aviation Safety, CASA (Four Corners)

Fortunately most of that McComic rant was edited out of the 4C program - Crash Landing (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/08/30/3579404.htm) - however certain arrogant statements were captured to be a record forever stencilled into the minds of those that have been wronged by this man and his toxic regime...:{:
GEOFF THOMPSON: Almost three years after the ditching the Australian Transport Safety Bureau finally released its report last week.
The ATSB prides itself on being a 'no blame' investigator.

But its findings make it very clear that responsibility for the ditching rests primarily with the flight crew.

But there's a document which the Australian public was never meant to see.

It's CASA's special audit of Pel-Air, completed just after the ditching in 2009

It identifies significant deficiencies within the company's Westwind operations in Pel-Air.

What it describes sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
It lists numerous breaches of aviation regulations and legislation covering fuel policy, flight planning and pilot training.

JOHN MCCORMICK: None of those, 31 I think it is, requests for corrective action that we found when we did the in-depth audit of Pel-Air would've affected that accident or prevented that accident.

GEOFF THOMPSON: But given that the operator was failing in areas of fuel planning, fatigue, check and training, lack of support for pilots, and these were regulatory breaches, isn't that something the Australian public has the right to know about, given that that's what the operator was doing when this ditching occurred?

JOHN MCCORMICK: Well as I say, none of those particular incidents or events that we looked at within that audit would've prevented that accident. The accident was caused by poor fuel planning, poor decision making. JOHN MCCORMICK: In the end it's only the pilot who can decide whether he is fatigued or he or she is fatigued and unable to conduct a flight. JOHN MCCORMICK: The pilot shows an appalling lack of knowledge of what he thinks that flight plan is going to do. He did not know the route on which he was going to fly, he did not know what times he was going to leave one, what's called flight information region, and enter another. He was unsure of the flight times, he guessed three-and-a-half hours, and that's actually on the transcript. Well you can't guess these things.JOHN MCCORMICK: Software is only a thing of today. You know, you can do this manually. When I started flying 40 years ago of course software didn't exist. Examinations tested theoretical knowledge of how you conduct those calculations or you make those calculations. And they can be done by longhand as well as by computerised software. Ben Sandilands also watched the 4 Corners program that fateful night and was so outraged by the McComic performance that he immediately went to his keyboard and wrote this article - CASA caught playing the man not the company in ABC TV exposé on Pel-Air ditching (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/09/03/casa-caught-playing-the-man-not-the-company-in-abc-tv-expose-on-pel-air-ditching/) :D:D:
The ABC TV 4 Corners report into the Norfolk Island Pel-Air ditching has this evening shown CASA’s director of safety, John McCormick, making an attack on the flight’s captain, Dominic James and excusing every single deficiency the regulator uncovered in the company during a safety audit as not being a cause of the accident.

However the program is also posting online the safety audit that CASA tried to keep secret and which materially contradicts McCormick in that the safety regulator he heads found among many things that Pel-Air was in breach of the safety rules and was inadequate in its management of fatigue.

The interview and the audit read side by side support the program’s opening premise that CASA scapegoated James in preference to carrying out its obligations under law to pursue the company.

McCormick would well know, and has insisted before the Senate Inquiry into pilot training and airline safety, that it is the airlines or operators that are responsible for safety outcomes.

As pilot James said near the end of the program, he was the pilot of a company that was being overseen by a regulator. Last night, on national television, the head of CASA unloaded all the blame for the accident on a pilot who had not even slept properly for two nights, and was employed by an operator that was so poorly overseen by CASA that it uncovered massive safety deficiencies, while benefiting from a defective CASA rule that excused it from operating as an air ambulance without sufficient fuel to fly to an alternate airport if for any reason a remote refueling airport in the middle of the ocean was rendered unavailable by bad weather.

McCormick’s performance and statements on air are not only inconsistent with the body of law on airline or operator responsibility for pilot training and standards, but were manifestly unfair to the pilot, even though the pilot undoubtedly made serious mistakes in the preparation of the flight, its fueling, and in dealing with the available weather information as the Westwind jet approached Norfolk Island from Apia.

(The 4 Corners report by Geoff Thompson also uncovered evidence that critical weather information had not been passed on to James at a point where had he known of the real situation at Norfolk Island he would have diverted to Nadi in Fiji rather than passing the point of no return where he had to continue to the intended tech stop.)

A fair question arising from McCormick’s performance is whether or not he is capable of taking direct public action against a high profile airline or operator other than Singapore owned Tiger Airways, given the severity of a series of safety failures at Jetstar that were also declared to be unworthy of investigation by the ‘independent’ safety regulator the ATSB.

Regulatory matters aside, the human suffering caused by the unsafe operation of the air ambulance flight by Pel-Air was movingly documented by the program, as was the vigilance and determination of their rescuers on Norfolk Island that brought all six souls to safety from the wild and dark sea in which they had to tread water for close to 90 minutes.

It is utterly shameful to hear that Pel-Air has not once been in touch with Bernie Currall or her husband Gary since the accident, and to see the ruin and despair that the operator’s unsafe and negligent conduct brought to their lives, as well as to Karen Casey the nurse who has lost her livelihood and suffers continued pain from her injuries.

McCormick heads a safety regulator that approved the removal of special life rafts (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2011/11/08/why-should-lord-howe-air-travellers-be-at-greater-risk-drowning-in-a-ditching/) from Qantaslink turbo-props serving Lord Howe Island, and has been unable to release any safety case or statement as to why it allowed this to happen other than the downwards harmonization of Australian standards to the depths of world’s best practice.

It is also an organization that has never explained the safety case that saw it determine that the sort of aerial work performed by the Pel-Air flight didn’t need to carry enough fuel to make a diversion from an oceanic airstrip in bad weather, although it has only recently expressed an ‘intention’ to change a rule it should never have tolerated in the first instance.

The 4 Corners program is an indictment of shamefully deficient standards and oversight by our safety regulator, as well as its disposition to crucify a pilot rather than the company responsible for the flight and safety standards of its operations.

The program, and the supporting documentation, will be readily found on the ABC site in the near future. What is quite remarkable is that Ben's article has stood the test of time and this was despite not being privy to the huge volumes of information uncovered in the Senate Inquiry - which included a certain Wodger Wabbit's weport...:E

MTF...especially the part in bold above which IMO holds the key to a proper re-investigation by an independent State AAI - not Sanga & his tainted trough feeding mates...:=

I'll be back! :ok:

Sunfish

17th Dec 2014, 21:59

Thorn Bird:

Same as the Airtex stitch up, allegedly McComic screamed "I don't care what you do, or how you do it, just SHUT THEM DOWN"

So in the same manner as Airtex, Wodger defined a whole list of requirements that he was sure would ensure Domenic James would never fly again.

This from a man with no operational experience other than throwing a few bags about for the military.

He appointed himself the Prosecutor, Jury, Judge and finally executioner.

When James confounded the Wabbit by achieving the onerous requirements in short order, he was forced to return Domenic James Licence to him, but with a string attached.

Further draconian requirements were dreamt up, a whispering campaign begun, with threats of CAsA attention against anyone who provided Domenic James with employment.

Wherever he travelled in Australia the campaign followed on his heels.

YET HE BROKE NO Australian LAW.

But he broke McComics law, was tried by Chambers, was found guilty by Chambers, in Chambers court, and was sentenced to aviation purgatory by Chambers.

Domenic James is just one of many who have felt the attention of the Bankstown ex RAAF baggage handler.

I fear this sociopathic lunatic will will continue unimpeded on his rampage through Bankstown industry. Ably assisted by his black widow handmaiden he's pretty much wiped out whats left of Bankstown aviation businesses.

To what end? Just a warped misfit encouraged by an egotistical comic?

Or as is generally the case when things make little logical sense, follow the money!! .......Ah the murky manipulator....

Still a few dots to join, but we are getting closer and closer to the real picture of just what and why strange things happen at Bankstown Airport.
'
Most of us know CAsA is corrupt, just how corrupt remains to be seen.

Can anyone imagine that the "Reopened" inquiry will be anything else but a reiteration of Mc Comic edict that "the pilot dun it".

Cant be anything else after the Wabbit was let loose on Mr. James.

Money will do the talking, and after the rabbits effort, any honest report could make Mr. James a rather wealthy individual, not to mention the other people who were involved and so shabbily treated by the machiavellian manipulator and his co-conspirators.

Mr. Thorn Bird, what you have said about Mr. Rodger Chambers - Manager, Operations, Sydney Region, is defamatory. Since Truth is now a complete defence in NSW, I presume the reason he hasn't sued you is that he knows every word you have written is true?

Frank Arouet

17th Dec 2014, 22:35

To take action in a case as this, and this may be alien to anyone at CAsA, that person must prove that he has been defamed and has suffered financial harm. This may open up things best left in the locked box that may put more names in the frame and that could make others unhappy. There is a certain protection provided to the CAsA employee for actions against them.

In effect, and for once, the burden of proof is reversed.

slats11

17th Dec 2014, 23:49

I've been told Dr Michael Walker is in charge of the reopened ATSB investigation. Presumably he will be interested in receiving any new or significant information.

Kharon

18th Dec 2014, 09:44

Slats me 'old. A boffin ! - in a snake pit?. Nah. There is little doubt Walker is a fine specimen, adept, qualified and very, very able. But to do what ? – decide whether he is reviewing the original evidence table; or, the one Sangmore changed to meet Dolan's demands? It's a reasonable question: given the e-mail communications between White and Sangmore. There is even a little 'wriggle' room for both as Chambers was 'in-charge' of the "feed" White was getting and 'communicating' to his new best mate, Sangmore.

Aye, it's all passing strange; but, unless Walker is a specialist 'investigator', he will find that the 'original' was awful close to the 'dux nutz'; what happened to that information after it was presented?– well, that's anyone's guess. But that children, is certainly not of concern for the honest Walker, who's wages are paid by the ATSB, to wade through. Will the 'three amico's' stitch him up, quick as wink? No es brainer; non es problemo..

Selah.

Lester Burnham

18th Dec 2014, 10:04

Sorry Thorn Bird...while DJ wore the blame for a lot of Pel-Air's issues it is not correct to say he followed the OM and all rules and regs.

DJ got shafted, but he shouldn't be held as the sixth victim. PA should cop blame, CASA should cop blame, ATSB should cop blame and DJ should cop blame.

Kharon

18th Dec 2014, 20:50

True enough Lester – but only James out of the four has had the integrity to admit he made mistakes and the courage to wear them. The rest, well you know the tale. Maybe we will find out why responsible, well paid agents of the government went to such extraordinary lengths to avoid owning, as James has publicly done, 'their' rightful portion of involvement in the causal chain. There must be a reason for their reprehensible, collective actions. FFS, they even tried to mislead the inquiry – why?, well that is the question, ain't it.

The James crucifixion was just icing on the cake for a scalp-hunter and an excuse to plagiarise the work of qualified, better men; used to assist climbing the slippery pole. Getting to the truth of it is a job for the AFP and the Senators, not Mike Walker, who, if he had any sense would obtain, written permission, parliamentary privilege and full support to use all the toys, or walk away from the microscope. As it stands, revisiting the original report just plays into the Murky Machiavellian hands; polite notes will be exchanged, some window dressing rearranged and normal 'service' will be resumed, with scarcely a ripple. Those who perpetrated this atrocity believe they will skip away to do it all over again: as and when it best pleases.

We know Dom dropped the ball, it's preventing a reoccurrence of both that and the ensuing aftermath which we must prevent. Never again can the opinion of one man be supported by a gross perversion of our national air safety systems. Those systems must be impeccable and as good as we can possibly make them. They are not some child's toy, to be picked up, used and abused, only to be dropped in the mud, on a whim.

Mike Walker will need a lot more juice than he presently has to get this crock home. All he can do is pedal like crazy and dutifully take his results back to the same trio who 'stage managed' the last little episode. They'll yawn, fart and sit on it for another couple or three years, before eventually allowing a carefully 'Sangsitised' version to be seen by those who matter. What a joke, what a mockery of the Senate and a good long Mickey Bliss on the travelling public. Yup, they got style.

Toot toot.

PS : Thorny – I want an invite to 'that' party, but, be advised; I won't be holding the jackets...:E

Sarcs

19th Dec 2014, 03:04

My 2 bobs worth...:E

Dom should be asking for assurances that:

1) Given that both the Senate inquiry and TSBC report highlighted that the current MoU between CASA & ATSB is hugely flawed and weighted against the principles of Annex 13 (& now Annex 19); (also because of the Senate findings) the MoU is currently under review; can Sanga provide assurances that the re-investigation will not be operating under the auspices of the MoU.

2) Given that both the Senate inquiry; and, in particular the TSBC report highlighted that the ATSB DIP/review process is flawed and highly vulnerable to 3rd party interference (conflict of interest) - can Dom get any written assurances that any of the original reviewers etc. (including the Commissioners) from the ATSB will not, in anyway be involved with the re-investigation.

3) Given the Senate inquiry and the TSBC report (in particular) highlighted that the autonomy of the IIC control (as per Annex 13) over the original investigation was severely eroded - can Dom get assurances that this will not happen again. This is a matter of trust; would it not be advisable that the Chief Commissioner appoint an independant special investigator (AFP officer or Parliamentary delegate), as per s63E of the TSI Act to oversee the integrity of this re investigation.

(a) This appointment would be highly desirable given the original investigation when examined by the Senate Committee highlighted many instances of suspect interference that could possibly be construed as breaches of s24 of the TSI Act.

(b) This appointment would also be advisable given the current outstanding MoP before the Senate Privileges Committee and also suspect interference/manipulation with Senate Inquiry Documents held under Parliamentary Privilege.

4) As the Senate Committee and now the TSBC are, by definition, Directly Interested Parties (DIP) to this re-investigation will they be involved in the DIP process?? If not why not?? And if not would Dom (or any other DIP) in the interests of transparency be allowed to appoint or suggest an accredited representative to the re-investigation as per Annex 13 5.23 and subject to the conditions outlined in 5.24 to 5.26. Also if the FDR/CVR is miraculously recovered consideration should be given to the recordings being examined by an independent ICAO signatory state (as per 5.1 & 5.23) - with the necessary expertise of course...:E

I could go on...& on but..

I'll be back!:ok:

Eddie Dean

19th Dec 2014, 18:59

..a whispering campaign begun, with threats of CAsA attention against anyone who provided Domenic James with employment.
Wherever he travelled in Australia the campaign followed on his heels.It does look like someone is poisening his well, so to speak. I wonder as an employer would he be my first choice out of the pile of CVs, with or without external influence.

Sarcs

20th Dec 2014, 07:18

Reopened Pel-Air inquiry could be on slippery slope to ruin (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/20/reopened-pel-air-inquiry-could-be-on-slippery-slope-to-ruin/)

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/20/reopened-pel-air-inquiry-could-be-on-slippery-slope-to-ruin/) | Dec 20, 2014 4:23PM | EMAIL (?subject=Check%20out%20%22Reopened%20Pel-Air%20inquiry%20could%20be%20on%20slippery%20slope%20to%20ru in%22%20on%20Crikey&body=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.crikey.com.au%2Fplanetalking%2F2014% 2F12%2F20%2Freopened-pel-air-inquiry-could-be-on-slippery-slope-to-ruin%2F) | PRINT (javascript:window.print();)

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/files/2014/12/Norfolk-AO-2009-072-610x3701.jpg (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/20/reopened-pel-air-inquiry-could-be-on-slippery-slope-to-ruin/norfolk-ao-2009-072-610x370/)Now, where exactly is that flight data recorder (and why)?

There is rising concern in the aviation sector that the Pel-Air accident re-opening may, like some other recent reforms, be on a slippery slope leading to Australia losing its status, as well as its reputation, in matters of air safety administration.

The immediate concern is that the air safety investigator, the ATSB, has been too vague in its statements, including this one (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2014/atsb-begins-action-on-canadian-review.aspx%20http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2014/atsb-begins-action-on-canadian-review.aspx), about looking at possible errors in its investigation of the Pel-Air crash near Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009.

That was a small crash with big consequences, which are on-going, and have been reported at great length in Plane Talking and elsewhere, and led to a group of all party Australian Senators, discovering that the safety regulator, CASA, and the supposedly independent ATSB, had shown more concern for framing all of the blame for the crash on the pilot, rather than pursuing matters that cast grave doubts over the operator, Pel-Air, and the regulator, who had failed to carry out their obligations to standards and oversights, according to various definitions and regulations.

The reason for the Pel-Air inquiry being re-opened is that an independent peer review by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSBC) of the ATSB’s procedures and methodologies in arriving at its final accident report identified failings serious enough for Warren Truss, the deputy Prime Minister and Minister responsible for aviation among other things, to call for such action.

The release of the TSBC peer review was delayed because of resistance to the original draft copies within the Minister’s department and the ATSB, and the ultimate version, which sets out to make all of the appropriate soothing noises, left its extraordinary disclosures of internal turmoil, and dubious conduct of the inquiry, for the second part of the final version, perhaps on the assumption that anyone who carefully and attentively read the early parts would have lapsed into a coma before getting that far.

Nevertheless, the Minister acted, and on 6 December, based on very, very good advice, Plane Talking reported (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/06/atsb-to-gain-in-credibility-and-competency-no-later-than-monday/) that a replacement for the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, would be announced, and some serious work on the matters identified in the TSBC report would occur.
That appointment hasn’t yet occurred, and the report in Plane Talking is either wrong or premature. Since then Plane Talking has seen correspondence which would suggest to a reasonable reader that a determined effort to frustrate what might be the Minister’s best intentions (or not) is underway.

It seems like the iron clad rule of life in public administration in Australia, that it takes precedence over the elected executive branch, and will run right over the top of injured or damaged parties without any concern other than keeping Ministers compliant, and administrative decisions untouched, is being pursued with determination.

But not necessarily success. The Pel-Air genie is out of the bottle, and Australia is in the humiliating position of attempting to maintain the validity of a nasty second rate accident report that by world’s best practice is a joke.

Mr Truss could emulate his Labor predecessor, Anthony Albanese, and run away from accountability for the quality of the report, and the woeful lack of progress in reforming and administering the air safety regulations of this country. It might however be very wrong to assume he is that weak, and no such assumption is being entertained here for the immediate future.

The problem for Mr Truss, and the ATSB and CASA is that the work done by his own coalition colleagues, Senators Bill Heffernan and David Fawcett, Labor’s Glenn Sterle, and independent Nick Xenophon, is notably and in copious detail, damning of the conduct of Martin Dolan, and the former director of air safety for CASA, John McCormick, and uncovered matters relating to the conduct of CASA and the ATSB that are in Hansard for everyone to find and digest.

Make no mistake, that conduct in relation specifically to the Pel-Air matters, as well as some necessarily broader issues, was second rate, prejudicial to damaged or injured parties, sub-standard by world’s best practice and inherently contrary to the safety interests of airlines and their passengers flying within or to and from this country.

Pel-Air, in the TSBC, and in the Senate committees that have probed those matters, is a small plane crash indicating much bigger questions need to be asked about the conduct of both authorities, as well as the now discredited position taken by the secretary of the department of Infrastructure, Mike Mrdak, that there was no safety benefit to be had in re-opening the crash inquiry.

The senators named above have no intention of letting this matter go through to the keeper. They will keep hammering away at this until the matters are cleared up, and Mr Dolan removed from his role at the ATSB, in the process of dealing with more serious safety administration issues.

The current public stance taken by the ATSB is highly unsatisfactory.
Who could possibly trust this body to inquire into itself, which is what it would be doing by reopening the crash investigation?

Pel-Air needs to be re-investigated, as best as can now be done, by an independent body. The TSBC was specifically precluded from looking into the actual events and causes of the Pel-Air medical evacuation flight being ditched in the sea near near Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009.

It might well be time to lift that silly prohibition made by a desperate ATSB when it hit upon the idea of a peer review, and have the TSBC do the job.
No-one associated with the culture of the ATSB in recent times, or in any way associated with the previous deeply flawed Pel-Air inquiry, should be allowed to run any part of this new inquiry. Australia’s air safety status and reputation is on the line.

Although it may seem cosmetic to some, and possible futile because of salt water contamination, the flight data recorder on the crashed jet should be recovered and examined.

If the FDR isn’t there, a criminal investigation needs to be conducted as to who paid whom what amount of money and for what purpose to move it, or, what other circumstances led to its disappearance, or even its return to the site.

Which is another way of saying the investigation needs to be very, very thorough. We don’t need lying any more than incompetency in the administration of air safety in this country, and if the government is serious about ending this controversy it will insist the new inquiry puts all of these matters to rest, impartially and as forensically, and as fairly in terms of procedure, as may be needed.

I'll be back! :ok:

Ex Douglas Driver

20th Dec 2014, 08:16

If the FDR isn’t there, a criminal investigation needs to be conducted as to who paid whom what amount of money and for what purpose to move it, or, what other circumstances led to its disappearance, or even its return to the site.

What info has led to this statement?

slats11

20th Dec 2014, 09:15

There have been speculation for some time that the wreckage has been disturbed. It has been rumoured this was done in getting the recorders.

I have no knowledge if this is true or not, but these rumours have been going around for a while.

Ben is either walking out onto a long thin branch, or he is in possession of some information regarding this.

If (if) the recorders have been accessed, that would raise many disturbing questions.

Frank Arouet

20th Dec 2014, 09:16

The aircraft was raised and then, before surfacing, dropped back to where it was. This simple interference is tantamount to breaking the evidence chain. Some may argue that this was done to achieve such a legal aim. I have read assurances from Truss that no benefit would be served by the recovery. However one benefit would be to preserve the evidence chain and prevent anyone from having any lingering doubts.

slats11

20th Dec 2014, 10:57

Hard to think why anyone would bother doing that Frank.

On the other hand, raising the aircraft would put the recorders within reach of recreational divers and not require specialised equipment. This being the reason Australia couldn't justify the financial cost of recovering the recorders from a depth of 40 metres

It does make you wonder doesn't it?

Kharon

20th Dec 2014, 20:04

A who-dunnit,

Ben – "Pel-Air needs to be re-investigated, as best as can now be done, by an independent body. The TSBC was specifically precluded from looking into the actual events and causes of the Pel-Air medical evacuation flight being ditched in the sea near Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009."

But Ben, consider this: there was little wrong with the original ATSB investigation and reporting of the incident. There are very clear indications that the causal chain and peripheral issues had been identified as 'significant' and contributory. The ATSB investigators were all set up to issue some fairly 'serious' safety alerts and recommendations. I believe we need to know why the original intent and report turned out and was published reading very much like the CASA report CAIR 09. Somewhere, 'twixt crouch and stirrup' something changed, that change is clearly evident through Hansard; the reason why it changed is not. Which, of itself is passing strange, as the ATSB IIC and team had no skin in the game: just another day in the office to them, there was no motivation to do anything other than their usual, routine work using 'their' system. There was no motive for the ATSB investigators to do anything other than a 'routine', bog standard report.

I've said this a hundred time before: WHY did CASA not simply put their hand up and acknowledge that ATSB had identified some 'systematic' problems and a lack of oversight. There was a gold star waiting – "Yes Senator, the ATSB did identify some areas where we have been able to improve our auditing and oversight procedures; we have initiated those recommendations, and thank the ATSB for bringing them to our attention". Piece of cake, no skin off, a gold star and a rock solid defence. To act in any other manner would require a powerful motive; I for one, would very much like to know what that motivation was. To persist with, and attempt to justify the 'executive' actions and stance, post incident, placed those people in a very high risk area, even before the Senate called for answers, let alone during an inquiry. It is this element which needs investigation, not the ATSB 'investigation and report'.

Ben – "The senators named above have no intention of letting this matter go through to the keeper. They will keep hammering away at this until the matters are cleared up, and Mr Dolan removed from his role at the ATSB, in the process of dealing with more serious safety administration issues."

Ben, I agree, however I must return to my original question – WHY persist, what possible motivation could there be. CASA must have known that the Senate committee would be well briefed, hold solid evidence; and, that to continue attempting to bluff and bully the committee could only, ever end one way. Shirley (and CASA) knew that Fawcett has forgotten more about 'aviation' than most of them would ever know, that Xenophon is an astute man and clever counsel. The opposition, an aviation specialist and legal mind combined to lead a team of hard nosed, streetwise, savvy politicians. Glen Sterle and Bill Heffernan have survived in a sea of connivance, obfuscation and departmental 'sleight of hand' for many years and can smell a fairy story at a 1000 yards, upwind of it. The best way was to admit and minimise the errors, take a wet lettuce leaf flogging and depart the fix. But no, for some reason the manipulation of our national aviation system was defended; at great risk. Why take the heat?, what was so important that made it easier to be publicly 'outed'?, meekly accept the recommendations of the committee, the humiliation and damage? What needs to be hidden so deeply that made it essential to continue the story line? It is this element which needs investigation, not the ATSB 'investigation and report'.

Ben - Which is another way of saying the investigation needs to be very, very thorough. We don’t need lying any more than incompetency in the administration of air safety in this country, and if the government is serious about ending this controversy it will insist the new inquiry puts all of these matters to rest, impartially and as forensically, and as fairly in terms of procedure, as may be needed.

Spot on Ben, the only way to get it 'done right' would be to ask the Senate committee to open an inquiry, supported by a 'Mike Walker' type to do the ATSB 'bit', a 'Mike Smith' type to 'look' at the CASA end, a 'Jack Langmead' type of independent aviation 'legal' expert' and an AFP 'investigator' or two; to do the heavy lifting and digging. Have them report directly to the committee which clearly understands 'the game'.

That's not too expensive; not in the grand scheme of things. Not when you consider the amount of money leeched away providing all expenses paid holidays to Paris to attend a 'course' which cost AUD$ 48,000; gods alone know how much is 'fritted' away supporting this grandiose edifice we call our 'safety system'. I believe Australia has paid dearly for a superior system of aviation safety management and oversight, not only has the public been ripped off, but have been well and truly gulled. In the vernacular, we need to know who rodgered whom, why, when, how much it cost and who paid for the party?

Pel-Air is and remains the tip of a very ugly, expensive, potentially dangerous iceberg, with a history of leaving mayhem in it's wake. The solution is as easily identified as the problem; the Senate committee identified it, the Rev Forsyth identified it, the Canadians went as close as toucher to identifying it, so what's the hold up, where's the road block? Every fool in the market place knows the answer. How to get it done?, well that is the minuscule's problem. I just hope Barnaby has the brains to protect his back and quick enough swing the axe.

Selah.

thorn bird

20th Dec 2014, 21:07

Doncha just hate it when the keyboard gets all sticky from spilled coffee ferryman!!

A very good post my friend, astute, to the point and aggravates that nagging tickle in the spine when you just know something aint right.

Some one asked in a previous post would anyone employ DJ even without CAsA's witch hunt.

To my mind, "Why the hell wouldn't you?" He's displayed fortitude, courage and courage of his convictions, owned up to his errors, taken his punishment, and very much learned from his mistakes.

There is no doubt he has displayed more integrity than any one of his accusers, and to top it off he's a very competent pilot.

What has our so called safety watchdog learned from Pelair??
As some of the few people who have actually survived such a ditching one would have thought our "Safety" people would have been eager to debrief the crew with a focus on what worked, what didn't, what lessons could be learned, why life jackets didn't work? what the hell happened to the raft?

What was the regulators attitude?, "Your Nicked mate!! anything you say, can and will be used..etc and if we can't find anything to prosecute you with, you'll be handed over to that warm fluffy wabbit's tender mercies for "Administrative embuggerance".

That is perhaps the most infuriating thing about this whole debacle, there were and is valuable SAFETY lessons to be learnt and passed around the industry, all lost because the ego of one man with a long history of anger management issues determined to bully a weak unqualified bureaucrat into accepting his view.

I Agree Kharon, there is something not quite right. Hopefully the truth will prevail.

Couldn't have been the angry man was terrified a negative ATSB report on CAsA might have influenced chances at ICAO???...NA, course not, but as conspiracy theories go???

Sarcs

20th Dec 2014, 22:55

EXDD:"If the FDR isn’t there, a criminal investigation needs to be conducted as to who paid whom what amount of money and for what purpose to move it, or, what other circumstances led to its disappearance, or even its return to the site."

What info has led to this statement?

Slats:There have been speculation for some time that the wreckage has been disturbed. It has been rumoured this was done in getting the recorders.

I have no knowledge if this is true or not, but these rumours have been going around for a while.
For those interested this was referenced several times in the infamous closed Senate thread and on here earlier on in the year...

Yakkity Yak shades of Hempel - Part one (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-92.html#post8412547) {Fascinating rumour: Talk around the Norfolk Island traps (BRB ;)) is that there is a photo floating around of an open access panel to the black box??..:E} Yakkity Yak shades of Hempel - Part two (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-92.html#post8414667) From the PBRP (Pirates Bar Room Plunderers..;)) the story goes that the rover had roped the tail and the locals were all geared up to retrieve the black box. However then mi..mi..mi beancounter Beaker got the trembles and put the khybosh on it citing OHS issues, decompression chambers and of course limited funds...

...then the locals offered (for next to nothing) to drag the wreck towards the shore where the ocean bed rises up to a depth of 30m, thus allowing recovery of the box through a normal freedive. They again were all set to go and had lined up the local freighter to snag the mooring rope with it's anchor, but again Beaker got all squeamish and refused to give the green light...so..so close but no cigar!:ugh::ugh:

..rumour amongst the PBRP is that the box is now proudly sitting on someone's mantelpiece in yonder Norfolk Isle..:E

Now you can see why this tale has shades of Hempel, in both cases the necessary crew was ready and eager but the powers to be got cold feet right on the vinegar stroke..:{

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2DkLXuyzoA

I'll be back! :ok:

slats11

21st Dec 2014, 03:55

The regulations in force at the time required the recovery of the recorders if possible. For some reason the ATSB sought to play with words and rely on an interpretation of regulations not in force at the time. This was a key reason the Senate committee was dissatisfied with Dolan's evidence ay the inquiry.

At this point the best thing would be for the ATSB to ask an independent body to recover the recorders. Either the RAN or a Police agency. That way we could at least be confident if they were there or had been removed.

If they are present an independent agency (? Canadian TSB) should attempt to recover the data. If there is no data able to be recovered, we need to be confident that this really is the case.

If they are gone there needs to be an investigation into the circumstances of the disappearance.

Kharon

21st Dec 2014, 20:00

Last of year for BRB, good turn out, with a couple of notable exceptions (those catching mud crabs, Whiting and laying about swimming pools whilst nubile cheffettes in bikini's toil over the wine cooler and BBQ – scandalous). But, the working stiffs made it.

Part 61 got it's usual workout. The more you try to work with it, the worse it gets was the consensus. Big complaint is actually downloading the thing – CAA NZ go to web site – search rules, part 61 – download and done about 90 seconds all up. Australian CASA – go to web site – search – and go back – search to identify the Volume you need – download; search for the MoS volume supporting – down load; discover that you need another reference volume; repeat process. When you eventually have all eight volumes and try to use it to identify a contentious issue, say a ruling on a check element; it's a long, slow, complex procedure, often involving two 'volumes'; and even then, you are not really sure you've nailed it all down. But the big ticket item for BRB crew is the 'subjective' nature of the beast. It is wide open to helping a fail, as so much depends on the latitude given for the 'opinion' of the check pilot. That it has go - all of it, was, once again unanimous.

The Pel Air investigation being re opened had the lions share of 'air time'. Two items were worth reporting back, RVSM issues, and a possible solution as to why such extraordinary actions were taken by both CASA and ATSB.

The RVSM issue has been a quality 'sleeper', quietly snoozing away in the backroom. If ATSB are to get 'fair-dinkum' then the complaints and warnings, particularly those of James must be taken into the matrix. The BRB were curious to know why the matter was not considered as part of the causal chain. It was critical to fuel uplift decisions and a 'peripheral' consideration which could affect the basic 'planning' logic for the pilot. Be interesting to see what is made of this issue. Why it never made it, in any meaningful way into the report, is one of the many questions unanswered the first time around. Unanimous – RVSM (lack thereof) must be considered in the next iteration.

The why's and wherefores of the post incident handling of the Pel-Air ditching by the 'authorities' has long been of interest to the BRB; and, is never far beneath the surface of any discussion, simply because it ran so breathtakingly close to an outright, blatant disturbance of so many tenets. We were presented a well reasoned argument with enough legs to be worth reporting. The potted version:-there was a plan to subsume ATSB into CASA. From a simple financial premise it makes some sense; it also removes the 'independent' ATSB thorn from the CASA rump. It explains why CAIR 09 was drafted, why the incoming MoU was used rather than the 'existing'; why ATSB was hugg-mugga with CASA and the 'spirit' of cooperation was embraced. There would be bonuses, applause and total control of 'investigation' resulting. This would need some 'political' support, but as we all know Albo was a great fan of McComic and would support any notion presented, provided it took 30 seconds or less to pass over his desk. Food for thought?, ain't it though. MTF on this, methinks.

The BRB was absolutely, completely unanimous ATSB must not be allowed to 'control' and limit the scope of the Pel_air investigation; the simple fact that Bea-Cur was prepared to confound Fawcett by using a 'later' version of the ICAO annexe 13 to support leaving the recording unit on the ocean floor is enough to cast doubt over any future ATSB efforts. As long as he remains in charge – every word uttered must be suspect, especially when he speaks with 'his masters voice'.

The infamous MoU and changes required to Acts once again drew some fire; but that discussion was deferred as the opposition darts team turned up and the real purpose of the evening became apparent. Laser sights concealed in lampshades were allowed, in the spirit of Christmas, but as we soon discovered, putting a green dot on double top, don't mean you can hit it. Safe home you guys, a most enjoyable evening..:ok:.. Later, walking home with P7, not much said until his front gate, "Much to ponder" say's he. "Aye, there is" says I.

Toot toot.

slats11

21st Dec 2014, 21:50

Yes indeed the lack of RVSM was one of many holes that lined up that night. This has been overshadowed by other issues, but the lack of RVSM played a critical role. The need to be able to climb above RVSM airspace was presumably the reason full fuel was not uplifted at Apia. Full fuel would at least have allowed a few more approaches at Norfolk, and maybe they would have got a break. More importantly, full fuel may have made diversion to Noumea an easy decision when DJ first became aware of deteriorating weather at Norfolk (by the time he became aware, it was not clear he could reach Noumea).

With no RVSM, the only way they could have flown Apia - Melbourne and carried an alternate would have been to go via Noumea, or Nadi & Norfolk (shorter than Noumea, but two stops).

Its difficult to escape the conclusion there were a lot of corners cut, and they were very exposed to any bad luck (unexpected headwinds, deteriorating conditions). The CASA special audit reviewed PelAir's records, and determined there were three instances over the previous couple of years when PelAir landed at Norfolk without alternate fuel (well, two landings and one ditching). Sooner or later the holes were going to line up.

That statistic itself is striking. Three flights to Norfolk without alternate fuel, and only 2 successful landings.

The real question is on whose watch were all these corners allowed to be cut. Most people here feel DJ should carry some responsibility, but only some.

slats11

22nd Dec 2014, 02:20

These are some recent questions on Ben's blog concerning the depth of the wreckage.

Footage obtained by a remote vehicle shortly after the crash showed the wreck lying on relatively flat seabed at a depth of 47-48 metres.

However locals were apparently willing to use a boat to tow it into shallower water (approximately 30 metres). For some reason the ATSB believed this tow to be too hazardous and too costly.

shadowoneau

22nd Dec 2014, 07:11

Kharon,

I think the CASA subsuming ATSB would be a symptom of CASAs pathology.

The real issue is that CASA believes that it is the master and one true source of aviation saftey knowledge in the universe. All the problems the IOS (and certain Senators) have with CASA stem from this belief - CVD, Part61, PelAir, the general paternalistic condescension for the IOS, the contempt they hold when impertinent senators make inquiries.

Any report that questions this belief must be amended or hidden so there is no hint of a duck-up.

Until CASA sheds this belief we will not see an improvement in relations.

Concepts like SSP, SMS, Risk Management systems, and "outcome based" regulation are steps that make everyone (including us IOS) knowledgeable in matters of safety.

Kharon

22nd Dec 2014, 08:55

Shadow-on-Water; (like the handle) we are temporarily out of Choc frogs; here, have a lump of Christmas pud for a 'nice' point, well made. The problem those who need to denigrate the IOS have is that most of them cannot answer a simple question in response to the braggadocio; it goes like this " I have a wide range of experience, and 5999 hours". - "Oh aye – doing what, in what?" says I.

You won't know; at our humble, but great fun BRB last night the opposition darts team, had almost 50, 000 hours, current flight experience, across a fairly wide range of aircraft and 'operations'; but wait, there's more. Among the crew there were no less than three 'major' air safety oriented 'academic' publications, many years of negotiating both policy and procedure as check, test and chief pilot at local NAA and company level. One IRE/ TRE/ TRI, one senior check and two training captains. Not that they would ever say a word, no need to; you just know they are the real McCoy. (Can't shoot for shinola though, I never bought a beer all night). Yuk, yuk, yak....:D..

I have bumped a couple of CASA 'airline' level fellahin who can hold their own in a discussion with this calibre of crew and they were worth listening to as they 'understood' what was required and 'understand the operational game. But; ye gods down in the weeds at GA and regional level; very few "FOI" have ever been 'chief pilot', not of a real outfit. Even less have ever written a policy, procedure or FCOM; not one from scratch, and most certainly not all of their own work. Not one which may have needed 'negotiating' through an acceptance procedure. It's a part of the problem, compliance with minimum standard only, nothing innovative or efficient will be countenanced; why?. Well simply a lack of 'real world' operational reality and experience. Have a look at the NFI doing Hoods old job; look at what's running 'international' then, turn your mind to South Australia and investigate the great international AOC rip off, or even Part 61. It is good Sirs, truly disgraceful.

Back in the day we respected and grudgingly admired our twice a year interlocutors, who pushed and shoved us into adopting a 'professional' outlook and learning 'grown up thinking'. These buggers nowadays can barely fly an aircraft; not without extensive 'how to do it' checklists and an FCOM to choke a horse. Many do not hold a professional level licence, not one that would get them hired anyway.

To get any change at ground level is difficult. Hell it's tough enough to get the Senate, Forsyth and the TSBC major recommendations even onto the front burner, let alone get an examination of the impact the dross and leavings of industry have on 'operational excellence'. I could go on; but those who know, require no explanation and those who do not are quite happy with the status quo. Why waste wind.. The IOS, PAIN, the BRB are all very aware; getting the 'top level' message through, even with the inestimable Fawcett helping has been 'difficult'. Until there is a forum where the dishonest, dysfunctional, dyslexic and the inutile are forced to answer, confess, resign and repent; GA and regional are stuck with what is left standing; such as it is.

It's got nothing to with money Minister, there are those willing and able to 'assist', if only for national pride. But if the bridge has issues, it is unreasonable to expect the engine room to fix her up. Bring in Mike Smith; Mick Quinn or Greg Vaughan to help 'young' Skidmore:– I'll take LOA and work for any of them, so will my mates. It's fact you would have never before or will ever be likely to witness again, just how stellar and brilliant Australian aviation could become. Cheap, cheerful and most importantly – QUICK. Hopefully, mostly done, before the Yanks, on ICAO credit cards lob up. It is, your shout Minuscule; and it is - yours alone..

Selah....;)

Up-into-the-air

22nd Dec 2014, 21:03

The following judgement was released yesterday in the NSW Supreme Court. Makes for some interesting reading (http://vocasupport.com/pelair-responsibility-and-the-law/).

The full pdf file is here (http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Ingrid-Margaret-Stephenson-v-Parkes-Shire-Council-South-West-Helicopters-Pty-Limited.pdf) and the finding was published yesterday (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/1758.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=civil%20aviation%20safety%20authority).

In part:

327. then pointed out (at 485):

"From a contractual perspective, the non-passenger is ordinarily in a very different position from that of a passenger.

The non-passenger does not receive a ticket and thus does not receive direct notice of the limitations on the carrier's liability imposed by the Warsaw Convention. The non-passenger does not ordinarily have the same opportunity as the passenger to insure against the relevant risk.

In Sidhu, Lord Hope stressed the importance of the restrictions on the "great principle" of freedom of contract as an element in the reasoning supporting the conclusion that the Warsaw Convention is, in effect, a code governing the carrier's liability to a passenger injured or killed in the course of aircraft operations. That consideration does not apply in the case of non-derivative claims by non-passengers.

It is of course true, from a carrier's perspective that any exposure to unlimited liability increases the unpredictable risks associated with the conduct of an airline. Yet, on any view, some risks are outside the scope of the Warsaw Convention... the question is where the line should be drawn. In my opinion is not necessary to resolve that question in the present case, which ultimately turns on the construction of Part IV of the CA Act."

The authorities to which counsel for South West referred all involved factual scenarios which were quite different from the circumstances of the present case. A number of them involved claims by passengers as opposed to non-passengers. None of them involved any consideration at all of the decision in Magnus.

Sarcs

23rd Dec 2014, 01:42

Kharon - The potted version:-there was a plan to subsume ATSB into CASA. From a simple financial premise it makes some sense; it also removes the 'independent' ATSB thorn from the CASA rump. It explains why CAIR 09 was drafted, why the incoming MoU was used rather than the 'existing'; why ATSB was hugg-mugga with CASA and the 'spirit' of cooperation was embraced. There would be bonuses, applause and total control of 'investigation' resulting. This would need some 'political' support, but as we all know Albo was a great fan of McComic and would support any notion presented, provided it took 30 seconds or less to pass over his desk. Food for thought?, ain't it though. MTF on this, methinks.A wise old knuckledragger once said: A good mate of mine who has been a CP a couple of times over and then a white hat FOI; over a few beers one day mentioned that after the Lockhart River tragedy & the subsequent fall-out (embarrassingly revealed in both the ATsB report and the Coroner’s inquest) - the edict from above was that a grand master plan -GMP(2) - had been hatched to subsume the ATsB/BASI.

At the time I did question how such a GMP(2) would be allowed under the auspices of ICAO Annex 13 & the relatively freshly minted TSI Act. My FOI mate said that it is possible because the Kiwis had been doing it for years very successfully and without ICAO - it seems - passing one comment over the arrangement.

He finished by making the prediction that if this GMP(2) were to succeed it would be the beginning of the end for a once thriving GA industry in Oz.

Fast forward to the PelAir inquiry hearing 15 February 2013 and on the subject of the 2010 MoU provisions & reports we get this contribution to the debate from Dr Aleck:Dr Aleck : …I was very closely involved in the development of the MOU and the situation that preceded it. If I could just say something that might put some context for both Senator Fawcett's question and Mr McCormick's answer, it might help a bit. Firstly, the rationale for the new MOU was to create an environment in which, if I may put it this way, as much information as appropriate could be exchanged between the agencies. The motivating factor at the time had far less to do with any concerns on the part of the ATSB with information CASA was not providing to them but rather information that the ATSB in the past had not provided to CASA.
The fact that the provisions read the way they do reflects a very appropriate form of reciprocity, in which the ATSB under its new leadership said, 'Yes, we will provide you with more information, and we expect you to provide us with the same.' In the spirit of that arrangement, and I agree it probably should be read largely, the question should that a default position should be: 'We'll give you as much as you possibly can and then you decide when we've given you too much.' By the same token, there comes a point where the question has to be asked: 'Is this relevant?' I do not have it in front of me at the moment, but I think the provision talks about reports. To be sure, there was a report there because it took the form of a report, and that is what Mr McCormick asked for. It is quite conceivable that this information could have been developed within CASA in a form that did not take the form of a report, and that would be playing smart: 'We'll put it in this form so it doesn't go there…Here is the full (un-potted) version in pictures…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPbgV6z-Ytw

Now if we then go back to the Ferryman quote…

“..This would need some 'political' support, but as we all know Albo was a great fan of McComic and would support any notion presented, provided it took 30 seconds or less to pass over his desk…”

The McComic appointment by the Murky Machiavellian team was indeed a masterstroke - in M&M’s other GMP(1) to decimate the GA (IOS) industry - but so too was the appointment of Beaker as CC to the bureau. A position that Beaker was vastly under-qualified for, especially considering that over 90% of all ATsB investigations are generated from aviation accidents/ incidents and neither one of the two other (part time) commissioners had come from an aviation background (i.e. boats/trains) – but he did have a head for figures and a history of spitting out weasel words if & when required...:ugh:

Examples (ref: Hansard ATSB 22/10/12 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommsen%2F98f7b3fb-d58d-4773-88bc-1abd63ed7d6a%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Fcommsen%2F98f 7b3fb-d58d-4773-88bc-1abd63ed7d6a%2F0000%22)):

Bean-counting Bea-Cur:
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Did you have an underspend in your budget this year, last year or the year before?

Mr Dolan : There have only been three complete financial years now. In the first year—in the first of my years of stewardship of the organisation—we had a slight underspend. In the last two years we have had slight overspends, but always within less than one per cent of our allocated budget.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)You have not considered outsourcing any of the work or insourcing extra capacity to expedite the production of reports?

Mr Dolan : Our resources are largely tied up in maintaining our existing investigative capability, who are permanent staff of the organisation. We have a longstanding view that in almost all circumstances it is better to have, if possible, the range of expertise available to us on a permanent basis and therefore immediately available than to rely on potentially risky external outsourcers.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I am not talking about normal operations. I am talking about a situation where you have a budget underspend and a clear excess of work. Was it even considered? That is all I am asking.
Mr Dolan : In that small underspend, no, we did not consider it.Bea-Cur on – ‘Beyond all sensible Reason’ (i.e. non-transparent love-in approach):
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)…Even if it is only for one in 1,000 flights and your probability of occurrence is very low, given the cost of action is also very low, why does your process exclude consideration of something that to the common man in the street seems like common sense? Why are we not seeing logical, reasonable recommendations coming out of ATSB reports to an address in this case two things, either of which probably would have prevented the accident?

Mr Dolan : There are two things there and I will go to the question of recommendations before I get to the specifics of your question. The ATSB at the point where it became independent of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport also got a shift in its powers in relation to the making of recommendations which raised the ante with recommendations and their significance. There is a legal requirement to respond to each of the recommendations we make. In recognition of that we set up the system of identifying safety issues that said there needs to be a critical or a significant safety issue before we will explicitly use that power to make a recommendation and require a response, and we would generally limits recommendations to those sorts of things. What you are talking about we would in our normal framework, given what you said about likelihood and consequence, deal with as a safety issue without going to recommendation. That is the context: it is still there but your question remains.

The answer is we assessed the facts of the information made available in the course of the flight, the number of opportunities to receive information and to absorb it. We said that that did not seem to indicate that there needed to be any change to the system. That is a matter that others based on those facts could form different views on, but the view we formed was we did not see anything that needed to be done to enhance that system.There was also the Bea-Cur ego/confidence that his own waffle would be more than enough to put down any potential Senate (IOS) up-rising…

"...At the simplest level, the answers to the Senator's questions are straightforward - and a fair amount of the information is publicly available.

We are prepared to answer them in whatever forum they arise (with the exception of anonymous rumour sites and some tendentious bloggers)..."

No IMHO there is much to like about the BRB Xmas hypothesis…:D

MTF with Part two including the originally hidden CAIR 09/3, the cunningly crafted 2010 MoU & the attempt to obfuscate the Pel-Air duck-up…:E

I’ll be back…:ok:

Soteria

23rd Dec 2014, 02:29

The Witchdoctor has been silently playing the CASA game for over 20 years. He should be best described as one of the 'faceless men'. He has played a big part in what our industry has become today. No large decision bypasses him. Whether it be dodgy, convoluted ridiculous regulations, MOU's with supposedly independent authorities, promotion of executive bullies, or clusterf#cks such as the CVD issues, his DNA is all over it. No claim of 'it wasn't me, I was in Montreal working for ICAO' will fool some of us. Smart guy who knows how to keep his beard beneath the radar, but those who know and understand the real mechanics of CASA and have walked miles around the corridors of the big 'R'' regulator know who the real puppet masters are :=
I've said it before, "there will be no change to how CASA operates when you have people like Chairman Hawke, Dr Voodoo, the A380 assistant DAS and Pumpkin Head from the department steering the ship. You show me a clean sweep of the deck and I will promise you that someone is listening and honest change is imminent'. But I am betting all that you want that nothing is going to change. Please prove me wrong, please.

In the meantime fellow aviators, enjoy the festive season and for some, a well warned break. Be on the watch for CASA Inspector Plod and his merry DAMP men!
To CASA management - we look forward to playing the same tautological and tendentious game in 2015.
To CASA FOI's - I look forward to flying to and from my property, maintaining my own aircraft and applying my own interpretation of the rules. Catch me if you can, wankers.
To Senators X, Sterle, Heff, Forsythe, and others - thankyou for your time, effort and dedication in trying to right the wrongs of a rooted industry. Although in vain we appreciate your tenacity and dedication.

Tick tock

Sarcs

23rd Dec 2014, 08:14

Addendum to Part 1: Before we move onto part 2 it is worth noting that just prior to the Doc's insightful spiel on the 2010 MoU etc. - Senator Fawcett had this to say in regards to the 'passing strange' dichotomy that was facing the Senate Committee...:ugh::
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I accept the fact that the detail, if you like, of some of the issues that were found with the operator ended up in the reports.
The issue here, as you correctly point out in most of your written and oral evidence, is that the pilot is the last line of defence and is a key part. The operator is another one. As you correctly point out, many of those things made their way into the report. But the oversight by the regulator is a third tier and that is what is missing from the ATSB report.
It is clear that CASA had in its possession, through these reports—and this is where the Chambers report differs from the special audit. The Chambers report is CASA's own assessment of how it performed its oversight role, which is why, to use your term, it appears 'passing strange' to the committee that there should be such strong rebuttal against witnesses who say we do not think the surveillance was adequate. There was very strong rebuttal, in a public space, saying 'CASA rejects that', when you know your own internal investigations by senior managers are saying that your oversight was inadequate.
We are happy that you are taking steps to correct it. Surely it is in the public interest, rather than us having to drag it out through a committee process like this. There were inadequate processes. The ATSB should be provided with that information so the public have confidence that you recognise there are problems internal that contributed to our culture, environment and practices by pilots that led to an error and an accident. The public should have confidence that, regarding the organisational characteristics and culture as such, (a) you are learning—and yes, that is good and (b) that you are also transparent and will say 'ATSB: yes, we were making mistakes in the past and we are addressing it, but here is a report of our own assessment.' For you to say in things like this rebuttal, in quite strong language and with absolutely no hint of compromise, that you reject any assertion that your oversight may have been inadequate when your own internal reports are damning in that area, is surely not in the public interest, nor does it inspire public confidence.
Then there was this in response to Dr Aleck's statement:Senator FAWCETT: I have a comment as opposed to a question. Dr Aleck, you made the point about internal reports not being made public. I just wish to make the comment that if CASA had made this report available to ATSB in an open and transparent manner, as required by the MOU, the report would not have been made public. ATSB probably would have included some facts that CASA had recognised that they were deficient in some areas—and the report does, despite your comments, recognise that areas of the oversight were in fact deficient, not just undesirable. That would not necessarily have been made public, but it would have informed the report in terms of an approach to aviation safety that would give us a good basis going forward.

The second point, Mr McCormick, is that you pleaded the case that CASA cannot do everything; you cannot police every corner. I accept that. I understand that departments are resource constrained. But there are two issues. First, part of the purpose of a safety investigation is to ask, 'Is the resourcing adequate?'—and, if it is not, for the government to then be required to respond to a recommendation out of an ATSB report that perhaps more resources are required in an area. So, to just not disclose that is not actually an adequate answer. Second, in terms of things like FRMS, the work had already been done by CASA—two officers of CASA had done the work. My understanding from the documents is that you had peer review and comment from organisations such as the CAA, which gave a very clear indication that in using a more advanced fatigue management system the flight that was undertaken would not have been approved under an FAA-endorsed fatigue management system.

Now, that requires no additional effort, minimal additional resources on behalf of CASA—except perhaps an email to advise the ATSB that fatigue was probably a causal factor in why the error was made by the pilot. Yet that was not disclosed, as the MOU clearly indicates it should have been. :D:D Which IMO gives further weight to the BRB Xmas hypothesis i.e. GMP(2).

For now though let us move on to the once hidden, infamous CAIR 09/3 and the established connection with the 2010 MoU.

Perhaps this relationship was best described in a post I made back in July of this year - Third MoP sponsor: The case of the shrinking Attachment B?? (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-103.html#post8580199):http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/1-1.jpg
http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/2-1.jpg
It can be seen that besides the addition of para 9.3 the two MoUs basically remain in effect for the same period of time, with the same conditions for varying, extending or terminating. From that one has to question how it was possible for the PelAir parallel investigation to have been conducted under the guidance of the 2010 MoU, when it was yet to be officially executed. Maybe there had been an ‘exchange of letters’ between Beaker & McComic which had terminated the ’04 MoU. However that would have meant that such agreement between parties would have necessitated bringing forward the official execution of the ’10 MoU and we know that didn’t happen. We also now know that FF were at least operating to the DRAFT version of the ’10 MoU in conducting their PelAir parallel investigation...

From the infamous (previously hidden) CAIR 09/3 report:

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...
And then further down:...Now I know that there is ample political/legal wriggle room in all this and that the MoUs are not in fact legally binding, but it does bring me to my déjà vu moment i.e. the mysterious 3rd MoP.

Here is the original FF PelAir submission attachment (B, C & D): Original (http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/MOU.pdf)
Which you can see had 102 pages & contained the 1996, 2001, 2004, 2010 MoUs & the infamous CAIR 09/3 report.

Now here is what is supposed to be the same document that continues to be readily available off the Senate PelAir inquiry webpage: Current (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=413251f8-d4e2-4cb1-a4c0-3d61087ba291) (B, C & D i.e. Attachment 5). Except the attachment has shrunk and is now only 82 pages?? Some may think that this is merely the RRAT committee Secretariat cleaning up the files (i.e. getting rid of blank pages or double ups). However I seriously don’t think that any officer of the Secretariat, no matter how OCD they may be, would even contemplate altering a published & protected under Parliamentary privilege document, it would be akin to career suicide.

So what pages are now missing??

Ok page one still lists the contents of attachment B – CHECK
Then we have the 1996 MoU till page 20 – CHECK
However then the ‘current’ doc jumps to attachment C, completely omitting the 2001 & 2004 MoU...

So there you go, has a person or persons unknown (& for reasons unknown) deliberately altered a Parliamentary document ?(i.e. a possible third MoP??)...

Q/ The next question is why?? After all the MoU is not a legally binding document.

Q/ Does it matter?? Probably not but considering the timeframe for this deliberate act (between the dates 15 February ‘13 to 01 March ‘13) and some of the references contained within the FF sup submission, I have some strong suspicions on motive… Now if the average person at the back of the room put those questions I posed back then to the BRB Xmas hypothesis well I'd say the fat lady is now singing the chorus...:E
However if your still unsure take a look at the following references from the 2010 MoU, keeping in mind that apparently (according to the TSBC records) there never was a CASA observer delegated to the ATsB investigation:
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 IliA 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.

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.
So join your own bloody dots but the BRB Xmas hypothesis gets my tick of approval...;)

I'll be back...:ok:

Kharon

23rd Dec 2014, 21:00

Good work Sarcs, first class. The joining of all the dots leaves a very ugly picture. Like the airports scam, once you get past the hall of smoke and mirrors it's easy enough to see the hideous machinery driving the show. It is a daring plan and the 'explaining away coincidence' work shop must be going at it hammer and tong to shuffle enough waffle between the layers attempting to achieve some 'credible deniability'.

It all becomes passing strange when you run the chronology of events in parallel; starting from the great airport sell off. The embuggerance of GA operators commencing with some new 'appointees', the beginning of some truly dreadful accident reports, the 'under-spend' on budget, the reduction in the number of investigations; the shedding of two centuries 'talent', the spirit of cooperation blooming large; joint this, team that, CAIR 09/03 carefully tucked away behind a hedge of deadly boring 'paperwork'; the McComic stance and the actions of his minions. All working together to foster and promote safety, the national interest and all matters aeronautical.

Such a fine effort, we should all be applauding. Those purblind Senators should be run out of town by the Murky Mach crowd and subjugated to the will of the hoodoo of Voodoo tribe. By Jove, I love a 'lucky country', don't you??

Enough; the sled needs a wash, the reindeer need a feed and the Northern lights are whispering their seductive message, time to fly. Later.

Oh, nearly forgot – as requested, your Christmas twiddle is hidden – HERE (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/552393-ga-private-ramp-check-questions-3.html#post8795001) – lest the tidy bin shredder strikes. (NSOH at all).

Toot – jingle – toot.

Kharon

29th Dec 2014, 00:29

Big question was asked recently, I must confess the answer required very little head-scratching and muttering. Are "we" going to tolerate an internal ATSB 'peer' review of the ATSB reporting of Pel-Air ditching?

The short answer is no way. When you get right down into it the questions raised by Sarcs (above) which barely scratch the surface, it becomes clear, we cannot. For starters, the 'terms of reference' have been prescribed by one of the three ATSB 'executive' who have the most skin in the game; that, standing alone, is enough reason for doubt. Given the exposure of both CASA and ATSB 'disingenuous obfuscation' during the AAI inquiry, supported by the narrow ToR which restricted the TSBC review; even working toward a 'balance of probability' outcome, it becomes apparent that the 'fix', if not overtly in, may be reasonably expected to be finessed into play.

Karen Casey v Pel Air is due for a hearing in February: if for no reason other than ensuring the deck is not stacked before this aberration gets to the court steps; any inquiry which impinges or is even remotely connected with Pel-Air MUST be seen as being completely free of any possible outside influence or 'clever' manipulation. It is a national disgrace that even someone in rude health must face such an ordeal in court for simply being an innocent, working aircrew member; let alone someone who has lived through five hellish full years of mental anguish and physical pain. If there must be a court hearing, it is up to the aviation community and the parliamentary 'friends of aviation' to ensure, at very least, that the playing field is a level one.

The Senate AAI team should be begged, (coerced, bribed, bullied or pleaded with) to oversight the 'new' investigation into the incident. It is imperative that the ATSB and CASA actions, subsequent to the event are examined to define as clearly as possible what transpired between the incident occurring and the now penultimate report being published.

The following definitions are from ICAO and NTSB:

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) definitions are included below for reference.

Accident

ICAO defines an “accident” as follows:

Accident. An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which, in the case of a manned aircraft, takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, or in the case of an unmanned aircraft, takes place between the time the aircraft is ready to move with the purpose of flight until such time as it comes to rest at the end of the flight and the primary propulsion system is shut down, in which:

A) A person is fatally or seriously injured as a result of:
■ Being in the aircraft, or
■ Direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts which have become detached from the aircraft, or
■ Direct exposure to jet blast,
except when the injuries are from natural causes, self-inflicted or inflicted by other persons, or when the injuries are to stowaways hiding outside the areas normally available to the passengers and crew, or

B) The aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:
■ Adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
■ Would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component, except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to a single engine, (including its cowlings or accessories), to propellers, wingtips, antennas, probes, vanes, tires, brakes, wheels, fairings, panels, landing gear doors, windscreens, the aircraft skin (such as small dents or puncture holes), or for minor damages to main rotor blades, tail rotor blades, landing gear, and those resulting from hail or bird strike (including holes in the radome).

C) The aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

NTSB defines an “aircraft accident” as follows:
Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined in 49 C.F.R. 830.2.

Serious Injury
ICAO defines “serious injury” as follows:
Serious Injury. An injury that is sustained by a person in an accident and which:

A) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within seven days from the date the injury was received; or

B) Results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes or nose); or

C) Involves lacerations that cause severe hemorrhage, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage; or

D) Involves injury to any internal organ; or

E) Involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface; or

F) Involves verified exposure to infectious substances or injurious radiation.

NTSB defines “serious injury” as follows:
Serious injury means any injury that

1) Requires hospitalization for more than 48 hours, commencing within 7 days from the date the injury was received;
2) Results in a fracture of any bone (except simple fractures of fingers, toes, or nose);
3) Causes severe hemorrhages, nerve, muscle, or tendon damage;
4) Involves any internal organ; or
5) Involves second- or third-degree burns, or any burns affecting more than 5 percent of the body surface.

Substantial Damage
NTSB defines “substantial damage” as follows:
Substantial damage means damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small puncture holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.

ICAO does not define the term “substantial damage.”

I have 'borrowed' the PAIN Zippy account to provide a download link for the latest offering from Boeing, it provides a world class example of 'how to' set about the task of safety analysis; compare it to CAIR 09/03, the "Chambers' report and the Pel Air report. Then ask yourself – what type of report are we, the industry, going to allow one of our own to go into a court hearing with.

Boeing- HERE (http://www3.zippyshare.com/v/4003789/file.html)– from Zippy only click the

http://www3.zippyshare.com/images/download.png

to avoid spam.

If you cared enough to draft and provide submission to both the Senate inquiry and Forsyth review' or, are concerned about the quality and integrity of the Australian national aviation safety systems, to send a short email, to the Senator of choice, requesting that 'they' continue the task which began with Pel-Air and finish the job. You know it needs doing, and doing right.

Selah..

Sarcs

29th Dec 2014, 21:16

Pre-New Year cogitation on PelAir (duck-up) cover-up re-investigation:

Okay so the Miniscule has essentially forced the ATsBeaker hand in doing what they - Bea-Cur & by association the 2 other commissioners, Julian, Sanga & M&M - have been strenuously avoiding doing for over 2 years. Wouldn't you think that now would be an appropriate time for all the above mentioned associated parties (DIPs) to step aside and let a real independent AAI - totally devoid of all self-interest/ self-preservation etc. - transparently conduct the re-opened investigation (as is possible under certain provisions of Annex 13)??:ugh:

Well according to the 'to & fro' missive(s) from ATsBeaker it is simply not going to happen and the TOR of the re-investigation is laced with the usual get out of jail, forked tongued, weasel words. Example..

...A new investigation team will review the original investigation and associated report in the light of any fresh evidence and other relevant points raised in this and separate reviews by the...
...The main focus will be ensuring that the specific findings of the TSB review are taken fully into account before issuing a final report of the reopened investigation...Kharon - The Senate AAI team should be begged, (coerced, bribed, bullied or pleaded with) to oversight the 'new' investigation into the incident. It is imperative that the ATSB and CASA actions, subsequent to the event are examined to define as clearly as possible what transpired between the incident occurring and the now penultimate report being published. Pretty sure there is at least one Senator that won't need much coercion if any...:D:D

From Additional Estimates Feb 2014: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? Bea-Cur subsequent replies to the NX line of questioning had him steadfastly hiding behind the TSI Act...:ugh:

NX did get a very significant admission from Bea-Cur which unsurprisingly M&M belatedly tried to counter:

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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)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.
Oh how sometimes recorded words will come back to haunt...:E

Definitely MTF...re I'll be back!:ok:

Sunfish

29th Dec 2014, 23:59

Unless an axe is taken to the Department Of Infrastructure And Regional Development then CASA, AsA and ATSB will go on their merry way until there is a major accident.

Aviation needs its own Minister.

The only way to get that is through political action that actually threatens marginal seats, nothing else is going to do it in my opinion.

SIUYA

30th Dec 2014, 08:03

The only way to get that is through political action that actually threatens marginal seats...

OR...political action in the seats of the poorest performing cabinet ministers in this lame government, eg., Truss (in particular), Hockey, Pyne etc.

The fact that the depth of dysfunctionality in both CASA and the ATSB has been allowed to reach the levels it has by both Albanese then Truss is a total disgrace, but no matter how much effort's expended here on PPRuNE, no-one in Cantberra seems to be listening - or actually DOES give a ****. :mad:

Abbott's indicated that he's totally unprepared to listen to, or do anything about, anything that he doesn't agree with ..... unless there are a significant number of dissenting voices that convince him he's dead in the water unless he DOES take meaningful action to address the concerns being expressed.

From what I can see, the Abbott government is now acting in response to obvious 'pressure points', so maybe it's time for the aviation industry to now really start applying some pressure - through, as Sunfish says, marginal seats.

The $64K question is how do we start to do this as a cohesive group??

Answers anyone?

Creampuff

30th Dec 2014, 19:34

Unless Dick Smith is prepared to use his influence in the Howard/Credlin government or support a popular candidate against Barnaby Joyce in his electorate, the only tiny glimmer of hope is the non-major party aligned Senators.

At least people are finally realising that the Laborials really don't care two stuffs. As far as they are concerned, CASA, ATSB and Airservices are doing their real jobs really well.

SIUYA

30th Dec 2014, 20:20

...the Howard/Credlin government

Sums it up nicely Creampuff! :D

Kharon

31st Dec 2014, 03:37

Playing around with a 'parallel' chronology is an interesting pastime while digesting Christmas plum pudding; many curious little anomalies fall out. For instance, the White –Sangston email chain from the AAI evidence squeezes the 2004 MoU into the frame as being the 'active' MoU for the Pel-Air ditching event investigation, rather than the unsigned (at the time) 2010 version. 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.

There's the small matter of the IIC getting all bent out of shape and going postal; not mention Cook and Christie' s high dudgeon departures. The Canadians 'mention', in veiled terms these and other 'aberrations'. It leaves you wondering, was TSBC given "all" the information; or, just left to make the best they could off of a very narrow window (keyhole?).

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. The whole thing smells off, leaves a bitter aftertaste and a lingering smoky finish. One thing for certain sure, there is no way that we can ever trust or rely on any future ATSB report while the same crew (on both sides) are running the show, just dare not trust 'em. But then, what else could you expect from anyone who starts an email, to the man who's been most affected by the botched Pel-Air report with the derogatory salutation "G'day Mr James" and continues in a similar, condescending fashion right through to the end of missive.

"Nick Xenophon, come on down and bring your mates with you". Start with a resolution to not accept anymore perverted, fractured or slightly disingenuous reports on accidents. The Darwin Braz and Canely Vale both could stand an official brush down and a tune up, if they are to accepted by a Coroner. They cannot possibly be relied on for a legally safe decision as they stand, considering the large black cloud over the tarnished ATSB track record, under the auspices of the 2010 MoU.

Hogmanay is the last day of the old year; what a great time to clean out the dross. Have a good one, stay safe and Plan B like crazy. You just never know when it's your turn, had a mate booked DUI one late-ish night a couple of years back, heading home on a jinker trail in a Qld State forest; half asleep aback a horse, which knew it's way home from the pub perfectly well. Toot toot:...:D......:D.....

Sarcs

31st Dec 2014, 09:50

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...:rolleyes: 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...:rolleyes::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 (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/coll/2014/ATSB/revue-review-20141201.asp#fnb12) 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...:E

Catch you next year cheers & beers...:ok:

Kharon

31st Dec 2014, 20:07

2004 MoU - 5.4 The ATSB acknowledges that it is not an auditor of CASA's management or operational practices, procedures or decisions.

It the ATSB cannot 'audit' the CASA part of an accident or incident, then who can?

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.

Surreal; It's all a bit like the head Bobby at the local nick ringing up the boss of an armed hold up gang and saying that it is believed that the operation he has planned for Tuesday 'may' be illegal and apologising for 'investigating', in advance.

Boss Plod - "You get in and out by 1000, we'll be there at 1130". "Just letting you know that there will be an investigation, but make sure your villains have cleaned up afterwards and, perhaps, ask them to hang about to 'assist' with the investigation.

Boss Villain – "Certainly, once the get-away car is safely on it's way, I'll have the boys bring in coffee and doughnuts; we'll have a nice little chat and tut-tut about the terrible state the world is in". "I can even get my Word Weasel to draft a report, save you a bit of time, how's that?"

Boss Plod – "That would be nice, all good, see you Tuesday then, Ta-ta".

Now, that's not corrupt, no Sir, it's just the spirit of cooperation shining through to ensure that business as usual is not disturbed. Smooth as silk.

CP (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/527815-truss-aviation-safety-regulation-review-84.html#post8800165) -Prepare for a masterclass in using the infinite flexibility of language to choose any approach you like from time-to-time to justify anything you like from time-to-time time:::::D

Toot - groan - toot...:suspect:

Sarcs

31st Dec 2014, 22:04

And a happy New Year to you Mr Ferryman would you like a dollop of cream on your donuts?? :E

Love it "K" first choccy frog for '15 perhaps...

Now, that's not corrupt, no Sir, it's just the spirit of cooperation shining through to ensure that business as usual is not disturbed. Smooth as silk.

& the quote from Creamy is top shelf...:D
CP -Prepare for a masterclass in using the infinite flexibility of language to choose any approach you like from time-to-time to justify anything you like from time-to-time time:::: :D:D Just re-winding a couple of weeks before we move on and down the new page...remember this from Ben - Reopened Pel-Air inquiry could be on slippery slope to ruin (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/20/reopened-pel-air-inquiry-could-be-on-slippery-slope-to-ruin/)?? Nevertheless, the Minister acted, and on 6 December, based on very, very good advice, Plane Talking reported (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/12/06/atsb-to-gain-in-credibility-and-competency-no-later-than-monday/) that a replacement for the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan, would be announced, and some serious work on the matters identified in the TSBC report would occur.

That appointment hasn’t yet occurred, and the report in Plane Talking is either wrong or premature. Since then Plane Talking has seen correspondence which would suggest to a reasonable reader that a determined effort to frustrate what might be the Minister’s best intentions (or not) is underway.

It seems like the iron clad rule of life in public administration in Australia, that it takes precedence over the elected executive branch, and will run right over the top of injured or damaged parties without any concern other than keeping Ministers compliant, and administrative decisions untouched, is being pursued with determination.

But not necessarily success. The Pel-Air genie is out of the bottle, and Australia is in the humiliating position of attempting to maintain the validity of a nasty second rate accident report that by world’s best practice is a joke.

Mr Truss could emulate his Labor predecessor, Anthony Albanese, and run away from accountability for the quality of the report, and the woeful lack of progress in reforming and administering the air safety regulations of this country. It might however be very wrong to assume he is that weak, and no such assumption is being entertained here for the immediate future.

The problem for Mr Truss, and the ATSB and CASA is that the work done by his own coalition colleagues, Senators Bill Heffernan and David Fawcett, Labor’s Glenn Sterle, and independent Nick Xenophon, is notably and in copious detail, damning of the conduct of Martin Dolan, and the former director of air safety for CASA, John McCormick, and uncovered matters relating to the conduct of CASA and the ATSB that are in Hansard for everyone to find and digest.

Make no mistake, that conduct in relation specifically to the Pel-Air matters, as well as some necessarily broader issues, was second rate, prejudicial to damaged or injured parties, sub-standard by world’s best practice and inherently contrary to the safety interests of airlines and their passengers flying within or to and from this country.

Pel-Air, in the TSBC, and in the Senate committees that have probed those matters, is a small plane crash indicating much bigger questions need to be asked about the conduct of both authorities, as well as the now discredited position taken by the secretary of the department of Infrastructure, Mike Mrdak, that there was no safety benefit to be had in re-opening the crash inquiry.

The senators named above have no intention of letting this matter go through to the keeper. They will keep hammering away at this until the matters are cleared up, and Mr Dolan removed from his role at the ATSB, in the process of dealing with more serious safety administration issues.
Which IMO deserves a bucket of choccy frogs but there you go.

Well since the Miniscule's fateful speech to the Parliament & apparently one passing strange, brief MH370 telephone interview with Bloomfield (Dolan on MH370 - "Ad libitum"?? (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-130.html#post8782990) ) it would appear that Beaker has gone MIA which I suppose is normal practice for most Public Servants over the Xmas hols:Christmas closure

The ATSB’s offices will be closed for normal business from Thursday 25 December 2014 to Friday 2 January 2015, with only priority services available.

Immediately reportable Incidents and accidents can be reported to the notifications line on 1800 011 034.
Written aviation notifications can be reported online (http://www.atsb.gov.au/mandatory.aspx).
Confidential safety concerns (REPCON) can be reported either online (http://www.atsb.gov.au/voluntary.aspx) or a phone message left on 1800 020 505. These will be processed from 5 January 2015.
General enquiries can be made on 1800 020 616.
Requests for flight crew licence checks during this period will be processed from 5 January 2015.
The Commissioners and staff of the ATSB would like to wish everyone a safe and happy Christmas and New Year. Please take care if you are travelling during the holidays. & this from the JACC in charge of the MH370 search in the SIO - MH370 Operational Search Update—
23 December 2014 (http://www.jacc.gov.au/families/operational_reports/opsearch-update-20141223.aspx):The Australian Government remains committed to the MH370 search. While search operations will continue uninterrupted over the Christmas period, there will be no MH370 Operational Search Update on Wednesday, 31 December 2014. However Beaker seems to have this infatuation (if it is Beaker..:rolleyes:) with talking to the international media, here he was again talking to the New York Times on Monday our time - In Shadow of New Search, a Long Aviation Mystery Remains Unsolved (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/29/world/asia/aviation-mystery-of-malaysia-airlines-flight-370-remains-unsolved.html?_r=1):“We remain confident that we will find the missing aircraft in that search area, but obviously because it is about probability, we can’t give an absolute guarantee,” Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (http://www.atsb.gov.au/), said Monday morning in a telephone interview. Hmm...think someone needs to get a muzzle on the Beaker...:ugh:

Addendum last post for 2014:

From the Sanga missive which refers to the TSBC peer review report it would seem that the new fall guy (other than DJ of course) will be the IIC, example: 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. Which is partly true for indeed the IIC did drop the ball, cave in to pressure and subsequently going all insular with the carriage of the PelAir investigation:
3.7.2.1.3 Company and regulatory oversight

In this investigation, very little of the data collected documented the actions taken by the regulator to oversee Pel-Air's operations or the actions taken by Pel-Air itself. Data collection at Pel-Air consisted of interviews with the occurrence crew and the Westwind fleet manager and a review of documents Pel-Air had provided. Investigators had not interviewed additional Pel-Air crews to determine the extent to which the flight planning and fuel monitoring deficiencies observed in the occurrence existed throughout the company, and only one management interview had been conducted over the course of the investigation.

Similarly, no interviews were held with CASA operations inspectors who were familiar with the operation and oversight of Pel-Air, and several key documents, including the CASA special audit of Pel-Air, were not obtained until very late in the investigation.

The lack of data in these areas was felt throughout the investigation. Two examples of this are the removal of a finding with respect to Pel-Air's oversight of its aeromedical operations,Footnote 20 (http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/coll/2014/ATSB/revue-review-20141201.asp#fnb20) and the lack of any analysis of CASA's oversight of Pel-Air.

The reasons for inadequate data collection in these areas will be discussed below in the section on governance of the investigation. But that doesn't mean that the Team Leader(s), GM Sanga, Chief Commissioner Beaker & co get off Scott free...:= Let us take a look at the section mentioned above and ID where the above mentioned cop some flak (in red):
3.7.3 Management and governance of the investigation

3.7.3.1 Misunderstanding of the roles of ATSB and CASA

Independence is critical to the work of an accident investigation body whose sole mandate is to improve safety. Parallel investigations by other agencies to fulfill their respective mandates should have no bearing on the actions of an independent safety investigation. In the Norfolk Island investigation, there was no real barrier to prevent any avenue of investigation or examination of the regulatory process itself. However, there was a misunderstanding that affected the quantity and quality of the data available for analysis.

The Norfolk Island ditching occurred four months after structural changes made the ATSB fully independent: on 01 July 2009, the ATSB had ceased being a division within the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, and became a separate statutory agency. These changes should have had the effect of reducing the likelihood of any influence by CASA on an ATSB investigation.

However, at a December 2009 progress briefing to ATSB management, one of the risks to the investigation discussed was the CASA parallel accident
investigation. Afterward, perceptions of how this issue had been resolved differed. The IIC believed he had been instructed not to cover the same areas as CASA, since the regulator was conducting a parallel investigation. Meanwhile, the Commission and ATSB managers (1) believed it was well understood that the investigations were fully independent and that there were no barriers to the ATSB investigation. {(1) After the Senate AAI report you gotta laugh at that one..:E}

In addition, there were several communications between the IIC and the Chief Commissioner on the issue of regulatory action planned by CASA against the pilot. These communications did not clarify the independence of the ATSB investigation, and the IIC continued to believe that he had been instructed to avoid duplicating CASA's efforts.

The IIC's misunderstanding of the roles of CASA and the ATSB was never resolved. It resulted in information not being collected from Pel-Air to determine the extent to which the flight planning and monitoring deficiencies observed in the occurrence prevailed in the company in general.
Oversight of investigation

Accident investigation bodies are entrusted with conducting comprehensive, impartial investigations into transportation occurrences in order to improve safety; staff complete the investigation work on behalf of the agency. There should be several layers of oversight and multiple processes to ensure that the output of the investigation is rigorous and defensible.

At the ATSB, the levels of oversight above the IIC are the team leader, the GM and the Commission. Quality-control processes, in addition to regular supervision by the team leader, included analysis coaching, critical investigation reviews, and peer reviews.

Although the processes in place provided multiple opportunities to address problems with the data quality and analysis, as described above, the lack of effective communication and weaknesses in the follow-up meant that certain issues remained unaddressed throughout the investigation:

Critical reviews were conducted periodically during the investigation but did not identify specific shortcomings in the data collection or analysis. The TSB Review team repeatedly heard that the critical review process was a valuable opportunity to discuss how to manage investigation risks, but that it was high level and unlikely to identify shortcomings related to data sufficiency or analytical rigour.
The GM and the team leader relied upon the expertise and judgment of the IIC when communicating the “critical” safety issue to CASA, and did not review the underlying analysis.
The breakdown in the analysis coaching did not prompt any action on the part of the team leader to explore the reasons for it, or to address weakness in the quality of data or analysis.
Multiple peer reviews were commissioned over the course of the investigation. The IIC appears to have been unaware of the latter two peer reviews until they were complete, indicating ineffective communication between the IIC, the team leader and the GM. Although the IIC responded to each peer review, he was working in isolation, and it was left to him to accept or reject the peer reviewers' input. In the end, a number of critical points raised by the reviewers were not addressed and did not result in additional data collection or analysis.
The report passed the team leader's review, but the GM found it to be analytically weak. Rather than returning it to the team leader or IIC, the GM personally edited the report so that the analysis was supported by the available information. WTF??:rolleyes:

Attempts to address problems with the quality of the analysis relied on peer-centred processes rather than on direct intervention by the team leader. In addition, few steps were taken to ensure that these attempts resulted in adequate analytical support for the report findings. This approach was evident at all levels, as indicated by the GM's decision to revise the report himself. Ultimately, ineffective oversight of the investigation resulted in issues with data collection and analysis not being identified or resolved in a timely way.

A number of factors underlying this indirect approach were identified to the TSB Review team.

There was a change of team leader, and some of the critical events, such as the breakdown of the analysis coaching, took place in the transition period.
During the Norfolk Island investigation, the ATSB was undertaking an atypical number of high-profile level-2 investigations that were consuming significant resources and attention. For example, the second team leader was deployed to a major investigation outside the country as the IIC was completing the initial draft of the Norfolk Island investigation.
There was a backlog of investigation reports, and the GM was trying to deal with it by editing reports himself, while at the same time as addressing the issues of analysis and team oversight.
Yep no doubt about it t'was very, very ugly...:=:=

I'll be back! :ok:

Kharon

1st Jan 2015, 00:09

From Katoomba of all places. Good catch Sarcs...:ok:....

Hah! – it's quite a long march from Katoomba in the NSW Blue mountains to New York; and why the NYT would be interested in anything Be-a-Cur has to utter, off the official JACC script is passing strange. The Muppet is on holiday – Sangsome confirmed this in his off hand response to some very serious questions raised by James. "G'day Mr. James, sorry be we are closed for the holidays, dontcha know??; buzz off and come back next week". So how was Be-a-Cur so easily contacted during his well earned time away from the mill?. Magic, private line, personal mobile, tin cans on strings? - It is, for certain sure, that even if there had been another ET event and one of our own gone missing in 'mysterious' circumstances, the Muppet would not disturb his repose or Christmas pudding gulping to investigate, using his very own 'beyond-all-reason' model. Nope, some minion would be sent out, with a tin foil hat, a candle and a stack of paperwork, to scratch about for clues.

So has the beardless one, the spaghetti loving Muppet gone rouge and started Skype-ing any and all journalists on line to pass along his priceless one line words of wisdom, hope and cheer. Whatever happened to a terse 'no-comment' and passing out the JACC media centre telephone numbers?, I wonder.

Beyond passing strange me thinks; it's too bloody weird for words.

Toot toot (Which in ET language means "beam me up Scotty").

The last couple of CP posts have earned a key to Tim Tam cupboard, make me smile each time I read them. Bravo CP..:D..

Sarcs

4th Jan 2015, 00:52

Have been monitoring much of the MSM press coming out of the AirAsia disaster - most is simply indifferent regurgitation after regurgitation; some is really bad and irresponsible; while a very small % is good factual & enlightening journalism.

The following are two good examples that also have - obvious & not so obvious - Australian connections for which we should be very proud...:D:D

1) How Would You Rate Malaysia's Air Disaster Preparedness? (http://www.malaysiandigest.com/frontpage/282-main-tile/535570-how-would-you-rate-malaysia-s-air-disaster-preparedness.html)

2) AirAsia flight QZ8501: faces from a lost flight (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/asia/64627914/AirAsia-flight-QZ8501-faces-from-a-lost-flight)

Quote from number 1):
Fact: Malaysia does not have an official air crash investigation agency.

The lack of an independent government investigative agency responsible for civil transportation (aviation) accident investigation is a complete surprise, after what we’ve been through. Malaysia has too many so called national disaster management councils but their responsibilities overlap or are limited in scope to tackle the MH17, MH370 or even the QZ8510 flight in a year full of aviation disasters. Indonesia has BASARNAS (National Search And Rescue Agency), their national disaster management agency leading the investigation and is the first point of contact for information and for other nations who wish to assist.

From all reports in recent days - on the AirAsia SAR mission - the Indonesian's BASARNAS has coordinated and performed exceptionally well in extremely difficult circumstances. This is in direct contrast to the way the Malaysians oversaw the first critical days of the MH370 SAR effort:..Everyone remembers the information chaos that ensued right after Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 went missing, and again when MH17 was shot down by a missile. It was disarray with Malaysia Airlines (MAS) and the acting Transport Minister scrambling to get the facts out to the media and the public... It should be noted that at one time most of the problems that beset the Malaysians SAR effort for MH370 would have been almost perfectly duplicated by the Indonesians. Many would say that BASARNAS has become a hell of lot more of an effective agency - in co-ordinating SAR missions - since their association with Australia's AMSA under the Indonesia Transport Safety Assistance Package (http://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/about-amsa/publications/Annual-Reports/2013-2014/page.asp?num=33) (ITSAP).

Included in the ITSAP program is a relationship between the ATSB and the Indonesian's AAI the NTSC:The main elements of the ATSB's contribution to ITSAP are to deliver training and support for investigators from the ASTB's Indonesian counterpart agency, the National Transportation Safety Committee (NTSC). This includes the ATSB providing staff dedicated to various capacity building projects, funding ATSB training courses in Indonesia and Australia, and opportunities for aviation, marine, and rail investigators to work with their ATSB counterparts for extended periods. It should also not be forgotten that for a long time the person responsible for overseeing this mentoring program was none other than Alan Stray, who for his exemplary efforts was awarded a Public Service Medal by the former GG Dame Quentin Bryce (reference: Sunday cogitation - A Stray thought or two. (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-113.html#post8665487)).

Therefore much like the current efficient, full & frank, transparent activities of BASARNAS I expect that the NTSC will conduct the AirAsia flight QZ8501 investigation in much the same manner...:cool: And given the apparent similarities/parallels (so far) to the AF447 disaster there will be much to be learnt from the NTSC final report that ironically could possibly cause political reverberations internationally & back here in Oz...:ugh:

Which brings me to the 2nd article - Quote 1:The might of human ingenuity and technology has focused on reducing aviation's dangers to virtually nothing. But still, according to industry consultant Gerry Soejatman, risks exist.
"As comfortable as we are, and as safe as the statistics are, flying is inherently risky," Soejatman says.

"We rely on the training and the safety systems that have been developed over the years; that's what makes it safe ... and it is safe. But if we are careless, we have to remind ourselves that it is dangerous to fly." Parts of that sound very familiar to the ToR in a certain Senate inquiry that was titled "Pilot training...blah..blah..:ooh:

Quote 2 - the PelAir irony:
The immediate task for Indonesian investigators will be to retrieve the vital flight-data recorders from what remains on the sea floor of the Karimata Strait. The "black box" – which is actually brightly coloured for visibility – will play a key role.

The plane lies in relatively shallow water of about 50 metres, a far less onerous recovery task than the one confronting authorities searching deep water for Malaysian Airlines Flight 370.

The AirAsia A320's cockpit voice recorder will contain up to two hours of recordings, which will allow investigators to listen to QZ8501's 53-year-old Captain Iriyanto and first officer, Frenchman Remi Emmanuel Plesel.

But it is the flight data recorder that holds a larger wealth of information, with up to 72 hours of flight time information about the plane's engine settings, air speed, positions of flight control and altitude.

Investigators already have information from air-traffic control such as voice and radar recordings – particularly from the Mode S transponder system – as well as the weather on the day of the crash from meteorologists.

"The key will be to find those recorders, download them and then see what they tell you. They effectively guide the investigation," Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman Joe Hattley says.

"You don't know where you are going until you get good data." What's this..:ooh:..another official ATSB spokesman - other than Bea-Cur - who dares to state the bleeding obvious on the subject of the importance of recovering the CVR/FDR...;)

But then it happens again...:ooh:.. someone from the ATSB (other than Bea-Cur :yuk::yuk:) who dares to speak and possibly have an opinion...;):"You have to be a very big airline to survive an accident," ATSB spokesman Stuart Godley says. "Any significant accident has bankrupted most airlines, and it is really only the big airlines that have survived." All very passing strange & definitely MTF...:E

I'll be back...:ok:

Ps Choccy frogs and a goldstar to the Fairfax crew...:D

Kharon

4th Jan 2015, 04:11

A very 'enigmatic' post from an inscrutable Sarcs; a challenge (must be a choc frog in it). Hmm, lets see what the research wizard has winnowed from the chaff. Well there's two better (as in journalistic improvement), if 'fluffy' (Marosszeky quotes) articles from the mainstream media, which do go beyond the usual dribble, both being researched and very well written. Perhaps someone could send them to that GT fool, as an exemplar....

There is well deserved praise for Alan Stray's Indonesian AAI protégés, who really have excelled so far in all departments, including an impeccable demonstration of the spirit, intent and execution of ICAO Annexe 13 obligations. As 13 is the unimpeachable 'code' of all sensible, responsible, honest accident investigators, it's laudable, although not surprising that the teachings of Alan Stray have found root and flourished. Well done Indonesia, well done Mr. Stray..Bravo :D...

And well done – BASARNAS – another first class, collaborative Australian/Indonesian training effort; resulting in first class SAR services done nicely in the finest traditions of the excellent AMSAR; which does not allow Muppets on deck; or, to speak on their behalf. Bravo...:D.

I believe the subtle Sarcs message is twofold. Firstly the disgraced Australian ATSB is shown to still be lacking in essentials by comparison with the impeccable actions of an investigative body, trained by the same man who greatly assisted the ATSB to be, once upon a time, a first class outfit. As opposed to the shambles it has become under the current 'leadership'. Nuff said...Secondly, perhaps this is the start of a campaign to have the Senate insist, not request, but insist that Alan Stray, or his nominee revisit the wreck of Pel-Air, in an attempt to remove the very large CASA induced blot on the ATSB copy book. First rate notion, provided the Senate committee calls for a hand in the game. (After all, they did trigger the review).

Sarcs has been particularly cunning with the rest of his puzzle, in order to draw any inferences, first we must ask questions. Why is Be-a-Cur having little 'snippets' published off-shore?; why is it that for the last five years the only 'quotes' we get are from the unspeakable Uriah Heep of aviation? and who is 'pushing his barrow' in an attempt to regain his long lost reputation?. That's all fairly self evident; but, crafty Sarcs brings in three doyens of the Alan Stray school of investigation and their own quotes; in the published articles. Quotes which beg the biggies – has the ATSB worm finaly turned?, and, who 'green-lighted' them to speak?

Looking back at the not-so-happy snap of that trio, pre departure Mascot for the Ukraine, you could, from the body language get the idea that there was a restrained fury, lurking not too far from the ATSB sub-surface. Now people the calibre of Godley, Hattley or Soejatman are 'professionals' in every sense and not given to discussing the lunch menu with the press, or talking out of school. So we are, once again left to wonder, which are the winning numbers for next weeks lottery? Perhaps the psychic, voice mail analyst Walker can tell us at the next BRB séance...:yuk:...

Sarcs – Handing over.

Scratch wooden head, amble off to feed the elephants, cussing in a good natured manner.

Sarcs

5th Jan 2015, 04:50

Wow Ferryman there is no doubt about you..while I'm trying to make sense of some new dot arrivals you’re off making more dots - your either psychic or you've already got the script in your back pocket...:{

For mine there are some 'passing strange' goings on at the bureau which are definitely not SOP - well at least since Beaker (with M&Ms hand up his backside) took over with his muppetshow pantomine - & IMO deserve closer examination...:cool:

First there was that spin & wonder reply to REPCON AR201400079 (http://atsb.gov.au/repcon/2014/ar201400079.aspx) - that the more discerning could interpret as a signed confession that the bureau no longer investigates regulatory oversight as possibly being part of the causal chain (risk mitigation) to an accident. But the most intriguing thing with that bizarre reply was it just so happened to be published on the very day the miniscule delivered his PelAir directive...:mad:WTF??

After the miniscule directive we then have the rumoured sin-binning of Beaker...:D But he either can't help himself and has gone rogue; or he is under some Mandarin's directive to begin muddying the waters in regards to the MH370 search effort; & subsequently starts leaking to the international press...:oh:

Then early in the new year ’15 we get expert opinion & comments from some senior TSI team members in regards to the AirAsia disaster…:D:D When before all such commentary - well for the last 6 years at least - was carefully sanitized, PC’d & re-re-regurgitated by the resident spokes-muppet Beaker (ps he has even got his own bureau sanctioned blog)...:ugh:

"...Quotes which beg the biggies – has the ATSB worm finally turned?, and, who 'green-lighted' them to speak?.."

Hmm…perhaps we have an announcement pending in reply to this part of the Miniscule directive {& ASRR (Forsyth) recommendation 5}...

From the Miniscule speech:...On a related point, I have just announced that I will shortly be appointing a new commissioner for the ATSB with a specific background in aviation. This will fulfil an undertaking made by the coalition prior to the election and also one of the recommendations of the report… From the Rev Forsyth’s report:…To improve the ATSB’s governance, the Panel recommends that an additional Commissioner be appointed, with extensive aviation experience… IM(humble)O you could not go past an exemplary individual like Alan(PSM)Stray for that extra commissioner’s position...:D

However I also believe you could ‘kill 2 birds with one Stray’ & go one better and make him the chief commissioner. If that were to happen then it would be possible to finally turn the page on the PelAir debacle - & the Beaker BASR regime - which has inflicted serious damage to the reputation & integrity of our air safety watchdog the ATSB.

When the Indonesian BASARNAS finally find & recover the flight QZ8501 CVR/FDR it is a reasonable bet that the Stray mentored NTSC will ask the ATSB (Annex 13 CH5.1) to analyse the recordings in their Canberra laboratory. Maybe in a quid-pro-quo it could be suggested by - AS or his nominee - that the NTSC delegate (as per A13 CH5.23) an investigator to oversee the PelAir re-investigation; or better still - in the continued interest of détente - hand the whole lot over to the Indons for review would be the really decent & honourable thing to do…:suspect:

Certainly beats the alternative i.e. the Sanga missive & Dr Walker delegation:Kharon - Perhaps the psychic, voice mail analyst Walker can tell us at the next BRB séance... In case you were wondering here is a link for that Doc Walker co-authored research piece: AVIATION RESEARCH REPORT B2005/0108 (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36209/conversation_analysis_recorded_voice_data.pdf) ...:E

Hmm…I’ll be back…:ok:

Lookleft

5th Jan 2015, 06:24

You have lost me Sarcs with your reference to the Dr Walker paper. Are you saying that its symptomatic of the current state of the ATSB or that it will be relevant to the Air Asia investigation?

Kharon

5th Jan 2015, 18:47

Sarcs – "or you've already got the script in your back pocket.

Oh, how I wish; anyway, all your fault, you know full well I cannot resist a puzzle. As usual, your 'dots' just add to the growing picture which the international audience seem to have glimpsed of the once feted, now denigrated Australian safety 'watchdogs'. Humiliated and publicly exposed for just one of the many not quite accurate accident reports; castigated by their Canadian peers, condemned by government sponsored report and still denying all responsibility for their behaviour. ATSB should be an international pariah just for failing to publish a report on the Pel-Air life vest issues, let alone the rest of it. Important safety equipment failed when it was most needed, the last line of defence for those alone, in darkness in a hostile sea, far from help. The powers that be may not think that an important function of an AAI or a NAA, but you can bet the rest of the world does. It is completely beyond all sensible reason. (Rant over – feel better now)...:O..Where was I:

One thing is certain, the Indonesian AAI want the tapes and will retrieve them. The politely invited, expert and properly equipped Russian crew (thank you Vlad) will recover them; won't be talking about it either. But then neither will the sent home, surplus to requirement Australian crews. Perhaps GT would like to speculate on why for the first time, in a very long time an ATSB team has nor been invited to the party; now that would make a fine story for an intrepid aviation commentator. Although it will probably take a political analyst to tease out the real reasons, I just wonder if Australia is not a little on the international nose. We know CASA, the department and ATSB show open contempt for the findings of the Senate committee, Forsyth and the TSBC, but they seem to have forgotten that those findings and recommendation have all been made 'public'. It's reasonable to assume that other NAA bodies in the region have read those results and have decided to avoid being tainted, by association with the mess. The ATSB have demonstrated, very publicly that they are not a 'sound' organisation and given the political sensitivity of the current accidents in the region, no one is willing to risk the slightest whiff of anything not strictly legitimate. I expect Australia is a practical choice to analyse the tapes; but will they be asked to do it, without strict supervision?

I agree that the NTSC could simply ask to use the facility but will bring their own trained specialists to take care of business. It would be a fine thing to have Stray (or the like) called in to oversight Pel-Air Mk II. It remains however a crying shame that there is a need to re-open an investigation. It's bad enough that Dolan and McComic created the unsightly aberration, worse that they attempted to deny ownership of it; but to allow Dolan control of the investigation for a second time beggars belief. The absence of an Indonesian invitation says it all really.

Yes Minister, the red face in the mirror is, most certainly your own...

Toot toot.

Sarcs

6th Jan 2015, 08:48

Theorists vs realists:
Sorry Lefty nearly missed this - You have lost me Sarcs with your reference to the Dr Walker paper. Are you saying that its symptomatic of the current state of the ATSB or that it will be relevant to the Air Asia investigation? Not sure I'll be personally voicing an opinion on the Doc on here anytime soon but the first indications are not entirely promising - apparently the following image was attributable to Doc Johnny:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/page58image1432.jpg

(my brain hurts just looking at that theoretical Doc masterpiece...:bored:) -

Please...please Miniscule bring back 'Reason' & Alan Stray (or his look-a-like)...:D And Miniscule while we are at it please pay attention to the excellent advice/response freely provided by AIPA in regards to ASRR recommendation 5...:D:
Recommendation 5
5. The Australian Government appoints an additional Australian Transport Safety Bureau Commissioner with aviation operational and safety management experience.

AIPA strongly agrees with this recommendation. However, despite the Government and the ASRR Panel rejecting the Senate Inquiry recommendation that the Chief Commissioner should have that experience and noting the multimodal role of the ATSB, our full support remains with the Senate recommendation.

AIPA rejects the Panel’s view that aviation expertise provided by a part-time Commissioner is sufficient. Our view is that aviation is by far the most complex of the transport modes and the related operational expertise is more easily applied across the other modes.

AIPA also notes the Panel’s view that the Pel-Air investigation and report were an aberration in terms of how the ATSB should be viewed. In light of the material presented to the Senate Inquiry, such a conclusion appears charitable at best. {Spot on AIPA...love it..:E}
Kharon:- "...It's bad enough that Dolan and McComic created the unsightly aberration, worse that they attempted to deny ownership of it; but to allow Dolan control of the investigation for a second time beggars belief. The absence of an Indonesian invitation says it all really..."

Totally agree "K" but after reading the following from the Canuck press it maybe a Godsent that we're not invited to the slugfest...:ooh:: AirAsia Flight QZ8501: Indonesia's aviation safety practices under fire (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/airasia-flight-qz8501-indonesia-s-aviation-safety-practices-under-fire-1.2889620?cmp=rss)
Highlighting the depth of Indonesia's air safety problems, the transportation ministry announced harsh measures Monday against everyone who allowed AirAsia Flight 8501 to take off without proper permits — including the suspension of the airport's operator and officials in the control tower.

The routing permits of all airlines flying in the country also will be examined to see if they are violating the rules, said Djoko Murjatmodjo, acting director general of air transportation.

"Who knows if other airlines are also doing the same thing," he said.

The crackdown comes as searchers continue to fight bad weather while combing the Java Sea for bodies and wreckage of the Airbus A320 that crashed Dec. 28, killing all 162 passengers and crew on board.

The plane was travelling between Surabaya, Indonesia's second-largest city, and Singapore on a Sunday. Officials have since said its permit for the popular route was only for Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, and that AirAsia quietly switched three of those days. Officials in Singapore, however, have said the plane was authorized to fly on Sundays from its end.

Applications for specific routes take into account issues including air traffic rights and airport takeoff and landing slots.

While the airline is being investigated, Indonesia has banned all AirAsia flights between Surabaya and Singapore.

AirAsia Indonesia President Director Sunu Widyatmoko said by text Monday that the airline will co-operate with the government during the evaluation, but would not comment on the permit allegations until the process is complete.

Violation of the regulations would boost legal arguments for passengers' family members seeking compensation, said Alvin Lie, a former lawmaker and aviation analyst. But he added AirAsia would not be the only one to blame.

"The Surabaya-Singapore flights have been operating since October ... and the government didn't know," he said. "Where was the government's supervision?"

Murjatmodjo said key individuals who allowed the plane to fly without permits would be suspended while the investigation is pending.

The ministry also issued a directive Dec. 31 ordering all airlines to provide pilots with up-to-date weather reports before they take off, he said. Currently, it's up to the captain and co-pilot to research and evaluate flying conditions before departing. In other countries, carriers' flight operations departments perform that task for them.

He also planned to meet Monday with the Corruption Eradication Commission to discuss whether to investigate AirAsia's operations. Business in the country is commonly conducted using bribery, with payoffs often seen as the most efficient way to get things done.

After Indonesia deregulated its aviation industry in the 1990s, dozens of airlines emerged making air travel affordable for the first time for many in the world's fourth most populous nation. But accidents in recent years have raised urgent questions about the safety of Indonesia's booming airline sector, with experts saying poor maintenance, rule-bending, and a shortage of trained professionals are partly to blame.

AirAsia, which began operations in 2001 and quickly became one of the region's leaders in low-cost air travel, has not experienced any other crashes and is widely considered a benchmark for safety and professionalism.

It is not known what caused Flight 8501 to crash into the Java Sea 42 minutes into what was supposed to be a two-hour flight, though Indonesia's Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency says bad weather appears to have been a factor. Just before losing contact, the pilot told air traffic control that he was approaching threatening clouds, but was denied permission to climb to a higher altitude because of heavy air traffic. No distress signal was issued.There is certainly no love lost between the political elite and the bureaucrats in the Indonesian archipelago...:ooh:

I'll be back...:ok:

Kharon

6th Jan 2015, 19:47

[after reading the following from the Canuck press it maybe a Godsent that we're not invited. etc].

Given up on the 'press', can't be shagged; too much waffle, dribble and wild speculation for my digestion. I'll just wait and see what facts are offered.

"There is certainly no love lost between the political elite and the bureaucrats in the Indonesian archipelago."

Now that's fact; just can't see the Indonesian government poncing about with three years to report and having a Senate inquiry into that report or; hanging about waiting a half year for the response; or, waiting for an election (spell check): or ordering a mild review of where the regulator failed and colluded with the AAI to 'slant' a report away from embarrassment; then asking for an external peer review; then sitting on that for a half year; then releasing it at holiday time. No Sir, they'll just line the buggers up and send them off to bed; no supper.

On the plus side, Be-a-Cur seems to have been awful quiet on the Indonesian accident. Thought - maybe I'm reading the wrong part of the news; perhaps I'll try the 'fine dining on the cheap section'. Maybe there I'll find detailed explanation of the 'mind reading map' system intended for Pel-Air MkII...:E...

Toot toot.....

Sunfish

6th Jan 2015, 21:02

Sarcs, I've seen one of those diagrams before, it was produced by my raving narcissist boss. I was so amazed at the convoluted nature of the scrawl that I took a copy.

Such diagrams reveal that the writer has no practical idea about what the actual "linkages" - the lines joining the subjects really are and lacking that knowledge, cannot turn such an incoherent mess into anything even slightly useful, let alone into a coherent, ordered, prioritised operating plan.

If this is what the ATSB or CASA call "strategy" then God help us.

Frank Arouet

6th Jan 2015, 23:20

The "Doc Johnny diagram", if it purports to represent links in a chain of events, shows at balloon #3 CAsA AOC approval process. It should have headed the diagram #1 with all subsequent time line balloons radiating from it.

At great risk of opposition, I say;

The flight was an Aero Tropics flight, flown in an aircraft with Aero Tropics written down the fuselage, using Aero Tropics tickets, issued by a subsidiary travel agent of Aero Tropics, on an Aero Tropics RPT route, but flown by Transair pilots in a Transair aircraft.

The AOC was faulty.

This is the first link in the causal chain of the accident and had it been addressed by a competent regulatory authority, the accident would have been prevented. It also shows where the culpability lies.

The diagram supports this theory but is in error in the first line of balloons in so much as balloon #3 should have headed line 1 with the other six balloons on line 2.

Someone may be able to photostrop (sic) /edit this diagram to show what I'm trying to portray. That concept is beyond me.

Lookleft

7th Jan 2015, 02:39

Thanks Sarcs for the clarification. I actually thought that the premise of the report that you linked to was QI as it suggested that a straightforward transcript of a CVR didn't provide a complete picture. Much the same way that an email(or a posting on pprune) can be misinterpreted as tone and intent can get lost in the mere placing of words on paper. Either way it didn't seem to get any traction.

The first time that style of diagram appeared was in the QF1 report. It is an attempt to put the Reason model in a box and as you have highlighted it may be theoretically impressive but doesn't give a real time indication of what contributes to an accident. Like a lot of HF specialists from a cognitive psychology background they lack the practical knowledge of what happens in a flight deck. To academics or bureaucrats (you know who they are),they are all wise and all knowledgeable.

Sarcs

7th Jan 2015, 09:30

LL - The first time that style of diagram appeared was in the QF1 report. It is an attempt to put the Reason model in a box and as you have highlighted it may be theoretically impressive but doesn't give a real time indication of what contributes to an accident. Like a lot of HF specialists from a cognitive psychology background they lack the practical knowledge of what happens in a flight deck. Absolutely spot on Lefty and I believe you will find that the Doc was also responsible for the QF1 causal chain diagram (Boeing 747-438, VH-OJH Bangkok,Thailand (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24447/aair199904538_001.pdf))...;)

However let us go back to the PelAir debacle and take the top two headings of the Doc's causal chain diagram - for the Lockhart disaster - to point out why it is simply unacceptable for the re-investigation to be conducted by the ATsB i.e. 'bureau judging bureau'...:ugh:

From 3.5 Report preparation (November 2010 to March 2012) of TSBC report:
At this time, the IIC prepared and sent to CASA briefing sheets outlining two safety issues raised in the draft report: 1) fuel-management practices for long flights, and 2) Pel-Air crew training and oversight of flight planning for abnormal operations.

In preparation for a follow-up meeting with CASA, the draft report and supporting analysis were reviewed by an acting team leader who raised concerns to the GM about the adequacy of the data and analysis used to support the draft safety issues.

In response, the GM directed a third peer review by two operations (pilot) investigators who had not previously been involved in the investigation.

They completed it on 11 August 2011, and provided six pages of comments, suggesting that the organizational issues identified in CASA's investigation report were significant and needed to be developed further in the ATSB report. The IIC reviewed the comments and provided a response to the GM on 05 September 2011. But remember that by then the IIC had essentially distanced himself from any aspect or association with the CAsA parallel investigation and that as consequence Terry & co - in the interest of the 'spirit & intent of the 2010 MoU - saw no need to release CAIR09/3 till mid 2011...:ugh:

However it is now worth revisiting what these two impartial pilot investigators straight away saw when they finally got to see the infamous CAIR09/3 (IMO it stood out like dogs balls):
1.17 Organisational and management information
The flight was conducted by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Limited. At the time of the accident PelAir held Air Operator Certificate number 1-1VAV2-03. This was issued on the 05 June 2009 and was valid to 30 June 2012. The AOC authorised the holder to conduct Regular Public Transport, Charter and Aerial Work operations. The Company was headed by the CEO as Director and nominated senior person. The company employed a chief pilot and a number of pilots. The company is overseen by the Bankstown office as part of CASA Operations and was last audited by the Bankstown office staff during February 2009.

Following the accident the Bankstown office conducted a special audit of the Pei-Air Air Operator Certificate coincident with the aircraft accident investigation and a number of issues relevant to the accident were identified. These are as follows:-

1.17 .1 Fuel Policy and Practice
• Inadequate fuel policy for Westwind operations.
• Pilots use their own planning tools and there is no control exercised by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Limited to ensure the fuel figures entered are valid.
• No policy exists to ensure that flight and fuel planning is cross-checked to detect errors.
• No alternate requirements specified for remote area and Remote Island operations.
• The Operations Manual specifies 30 minute fuel checks- this appears to be largely ignored by operating crew.
• Criteria to obtain weather updates not specified in Operations Manual.
• Practice of obtaining weather varies among pilots and does not appear to be conducted at appropriate times to support decision making.
• No consideration of loss of pressurisation and an engine failure.

1.17 .2 Operational Control
• No operational decision-making tools provided to support crew in balancing aviation versus medical risks.
• Once !asked, the pilots operate autonomously and make all decisions on behalf of the AOC. The AOC exercises little, if any, control over the operation once a task commences.
• The company does not provide domestic charts or publications to pilots and does not ensure that the pilots maintain a complete and current set.
• In many cases inadequate flight preparation time is provided. (Normally pilots are notified two hours prior to departure regardless of when the company becomes aware of the task).e Failure to maintain required flight records ·and no apparent checking by the company.
• Pilots use their own planning tools and there is no control exercised by Pei-Air Aviation Ply Limited to ensure the data entered is valid.

1.17.3 Training
• Inadequate CAO 20.11 training (life raft refresher and emergency exit training deficient).
• Inadequate documentation of training programs.
• No formal training for international operations.
• Inadequate training records for pilot endorsement and progression.
• Inadequate records of remedial training.
• Endorsement training is the minimum required (five hours) and relies on regular operations to consolidate training.
• No mentoring program for First Officer to Command.
• Deficiencies in training records identified.

1.17 .4 Fatigue Management
• Over-reliance on FAID as the primary fatigue decision making tool.
• Inadequate adherence to FRMS policy and procedures.
• Excessive periods of 24/7 stand by.
• Lack of FRMS policy regarding fatigue management for multiple time zone changes.
• Fatigue hazard identification, risk analysis, risk controls and mitigation strategies not up- to-date and documented. (Advice provided during the FRMS review indicates that Pel-Air Aviation Ply Limited considers the ad hoc aero-medical operations to be its highest fatigue risk and yet there is no recent documented evidence to confirm these risks are being actively managed).

1.17 .5 Drug and Alcohol Management
• Failure to ensure that drug and alcohol testing is conducted after an accident or serious incident.

These issues have resulted in requests for corrective action being directed to the company and management plans to address, these have been implemented.
Although obviously a basic summary of the organisational/management influences; when read as a whole it does paint a very disturbing picture...:{ Is it any wonder that Terry & co a) withheld CAIR09/3 from the IIC as long as possible; and b) tried to hide the document from the Senators within the body of - Attachment 5(PDF 6032KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=413251f8-d4e2-4cb1-a4c0-3d61087ba291)...:ugh:

The observations of the pilot investigators also brings into sharp context this email from quite obviously a very Senior Transport Safety Investigator..

18Internal ATSB email regarding the inconsistency in safety knowledge of ATSB staff (dated 6 August 2012), received 10 October 2012;(PDF 1597KB) (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=fb3d92b0-762f-45bd-9456-ab3f9e064f25)
Many of my arguments that have been rejected have been ones where I have applied safety management methods and tools, and those arguments have been rejected by a reviewer who looks from a regulatory viewpoint instead of a safety management viewpoint. Yes, regulatory arguments are the easiest to defend, but the maintenance of high reliability, complex systems must rely on so much more than only regulatory compliance. To make useful comment on these matters relies on our belief in, and use of, contemporary safety management theories and methods. To me, this was particularly evident when CASA's Norfolk island audit report came into our hands, and some of the arguments I had tried unsuccessfully to include in the report were subsequently included on the basis of CASA's findings, not mine! When I have to rely on CASA's opinion to persuade the ATSB, how can I claim that the ATSB is independent when it investigates CASA?
How indeed??:{

I'll be back...:ok:

Kharon

7th Jan 2015, 20:25

Sarcs - "[to] point out why it is simply unacceptable for the re-investigation to be conducted by the ATs

Nice dot joining Sarcs, clearly spelling out the issues which involve CASA and the ATSB 'top management' in a truly disgraceful event. Big response though, crumbs, we get the Dr. John, dog, pony and mind reading show, why am I so undewhelmed? Does anyone realise what the Pel-Air scandal truly was; ye gods, what does it take to get anyone off their arse in this country. You can get fired and prosecuted for calling a female work colleague 'Sweetheart', you can be tossed into the street for breast feeding a child in the movies, but play at silly buggers with an investigation into an air accident and it's off to lunch with the SMH, or all expenses paid to Montréal.

I can't believe 'they' even have the nuts to try it on, let alone have Dolan running it. Hells bells, they may even get away with it – then what? Why is it you can never find a Senator when you need one. Makes me wonder if all the estimates rhetoric and inquiry recommendation are just so much egocentric hot air, feeding public image and keeping the flaccid balloon of government aloft.

It is no where near good enough, not by a bloody long shot.

Put it another way - Johnson was fired from the ministry for denigrating the boat building fraternity. Hawke gets a government issue chocolate frog, (rum flavoured).

Time to wake up.

Sidebar

7th Jan 2015, 20:53

Kharon - Why is it you can never find a Senator when you need one. Makes me wonder if all the estimates rhetoric and inquiry recommendation are just so much egocentric hot air, feeding public image and keeping the flaccid balloon of government aloft.

Well said.

Lookleft - The first time that style of diagram appeared was in the QF1 report. It is an attempt to put the Reason model in a box and as you have highlighted it may be theoretically impressive but doesn't give a real time indication of what contributes to an accident. Like a lot of HF specialists from a cognitive psychology background they lack the practical knowledge of what happens in a flight deck.

Others have used that style of diagram effectively. See Friendly Fire: The Accidental Shootdown of U.S. Black Hawks over Northern Iraq (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6847.html) by Scott Snook, published in 2002. Snook used a very similar diagram to illustrate linkages between the various organizational factors contributing to the shootdown.

Lookleft

8th Jan 2015, 04:24

Thanks Sidebar. Just reading the review however sort of backs up what is wrong with HF, its all good theory but doesn't really provide solutions.

His conclusion is disturbing. This accident happened because, or perhaps in spite of everyone behaving just the way we would expect them to behave, just the way theory would predict. The shootdown was a normal accident in a highly reliable organization.

and then this from a reviewer at MIT:

The book is a model of organizational analysis and application of theory at multiple levels, including an ability to reveal the gaps in theory without undermining the theoretical analysis."

The ATSB HF experts are all very clever and can show you what led to the end result but it doesn't offer a practical solution. As an example QF1 went into all sort of details about flap25 and carbon brakes etc but overlooked the simple fact that if the go-around was conducted according to the manual (pressing the TOGA buttons) then it probably would not have happened.

Unfortunately accident investigation is being driven by organisational theory and bureaucrats with the end result being sub-standard reports like Pel-Air.

Soteria

8th Jan 2015, 05:29

Put it another way - Johnson was fired from the ministry for denigrating the boat building fraternity. Hawke gets a government issue chocolate frog, (rum flavoured). Kharon, Minister Johnston received his major pineapple because he made a very public spray which embarrassed poor Tony, plus Minister Johnston, although well connected, has had only a relatively short political career and not enough time to entrench himself in the system and collect enough aces up his sleeve to pull out for an occasion such as the one recently :=
Chairman Hawke on the other hand has hand a long and robust political career dating back at least 35 years in which he has learned and practised his bureaucratic skills, and we all know what they are. He has many notches (and scalps) under his 'wide' belt, and he would have enough dirt on every living and breathing politician, and beyond, to ensure he retains a robust, long and profitable political career until such time that he chooses to retire with his nice taxpayer funded career superannuation mega-nest egg.
These guys in Can'tberra play a spectacular game of survival. You don't last as long as Mr Hawke by having an I.Q of 80. People like Craig Thompson as an example aren't patient, they want it all now, today, in one giant hit, and they screw up and become short term trough dwellers. People like Mr Hawke are much to smart for the average consumer to understand :=

On a side point, I also heard this week, rumour of course, that Terry is close to leaving the S.S CASA come the end of January, once Skates has settled in to Sleepy Hollow. It has been suggest that one P.Boyd may take up the Far'Q'hard'son mantle and become assistant DAS :ugh:
God help us if that rumour is true........tick tock

Up-into-the-air

8th Jan 2015, 10:31

The Bankstown master plan (http://vocasupport.com/what-is-hidden-in-the-bankstown-master-plan/) recieves miniscule support this week.

A lot of questions to be asked as Master sarcs points out.

Also work to be done here.

IOS more information and pressure for the Honorable Senators:

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/554258-airport-aviation-security-senate-inquiry.html

scrubba

8th Jan 2015, 11:37

Hey Lefty,

If a modicum of organisational theory had been applied to the Pel-Air investigation, we may well have got a decent flight safety outcome :E :E :E

Eddie Dean

8th Jan 2015, 19:17

Look Left but overlooked the simple fact that if the go-around was conducted according to the manual (pressing the TOGA buttons) then it probably would not have happened. I agree Look Left, the simple fact that an error occured in the cockpit in spite of correct organisational checks and balances(SMS), is overlooked.
The blind adherence to the James Reason model can lead to interesting results when there is either an accidental or wilful violation.

Kharon

8th Jan 2015, 19:29

L.Left –"Unfortunately accident investigation is being driven by organisational theory and bureaucrats with the end result being sub-standard reports like Pel-Air."

Good point Lefty and in a normal world, it would be a legitimate topic for civilised peer discussion. But for Pel-Air at least I reckon it could stand a little expansion. For sake of argument lets 'assume' (we may, safely take a small risk) that the ATSB investigators were competent and they followed the well trodden path a 'bog-standard' accident investigation should take. The report even allowing for the 'theoretical' should have got us to within a bulls roar of the why, how and wherefore; it may have even provided some peripheral causal reasons which assisted in defining the desired end result – risk mitigation. There were several valid, not overly theoretical issues which did make it into the final report; RVSM, flight and fuel planning, lack of operational support, fatigue, lack of 20.11 training, etc, (don't ever forget, CP responsible for all) from which a reasonable operator could make adjustments to SOP, in an effort to mitigate the risk of reoccurrence. I don't have too many problems with the notion of 'theoretical', provided it can be translated, by the operator into practical fixes. So far the ATSB investigators are free and clear, reputation intact.

It's what happened next that got me cranky (just a bit): Sarcs at # 2653 (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/429828-merged-senate-inquiry-133.html#post8814216) has gone to some trouble to point out the direction a perfectly serviceable accident 'report' was being driven and IMO, in deference to the law, he has treated the 'aftermath' with kid gloves. For the thinking man, joining up the remaining dots to form the final picture is a piece of cake. The Senate inquiry got there and so did Pprune (bless).

It has been a long, slow difficult process since then: the Senators didn't waste too much time, their report was out in a timely manner; but since then, purgatory. Forsyth, then TSBC, then miniscule response, at the end we get (headline) "Pel-Air to be reinvestigated".

The academics and theory of 'how' to investigate an incident which happened, what ? five years and a bit ago have not changed and have had precious little to do with what transpired after the IIC report was 'edited' and produced. It's not Dr. John we need, but a judicial inquiry supported by the AFP, I'd even settle for the Senate committee as a DIP to manage yet 'another' inquiry (how many do we need). But FCOL someone with some juice do something – anything. Anything bar giving the true villains more time to clean up and hide the evidence which should rightfully hang the lot of them. The IOS has been very, very patient: thus far.

The comment below followed an article published by Australian Flying (http://www.australianflying.com.au/) re the re Pel-Air MKII.

Sceptical (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/atsb-to-review-ditching-investigation#comment-1762441931) • 10 days ago

Head of Aviation Investigations at the time of the report? Ian Sangston.

Told of factual errors prior to release of the report? Ian Sangston.

Head of Aviation Investigations for the new report? Ian Sangston.

Conflict of interest?

Just about says it all. The background noise? Oh, that's the playroom clock; tick, tock, tick, tock.

Sarcs

9th Jan 2015, 01:08

The spot on Sceptical (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/atsb-to-review-ditching-investigation#comment-1762441931) comment followed the Anderson (http://disq.us/8lnoda) comment;......A very dark day in ATSB history was when that farcical report was released.
ATSB credibility in the aviation sector (and undoubtedly the others as well) - Gone!.

Martin Dolan must now be removed from his post as head of the ATSB - the report and the circumstances surrounding it left no doubt the ATSB was happy to have CASA dictate the content of reports and direct inquiries.
The words 'collusion' and 'deceit' come to mind

ATSB independence, impartiality and integrity - None!......both comments perfectly highlight what should have happened once the Pel-Air MKII was formally announced but due to the morally bankrupt individuals involved didn't...:ugh: It's not Dr. John we need, but a judicial inquiry supported by the AFP, I'd even settle for the Senate committee as a DIP to manage yet 'another' inquiry (how many do we need). But FCOL someone with some juice do something – anything. Anything bar giving the true villains more time to clean up and hide the evidence which should rightfully hang the lot of them. The IOS has been very, very patient: thus far. Totally and utterly agree...:D:D But to support the Sceptical & Anderson opinionated commentary let us take perhaps one final look at the now recorded evidence (some hearsay, some factual) presented in the TSBC peer review report and the Senate AAI inquiry.

Quotes from TSBC report supporting Sanga COI:The GM was making these revisions himself, and he did the same for the draft Norfolk Island report. It was in the course of this work that the GM concluded that the available data did not substantiate classifying the safety issue on guidance for en-route weather-related decision making as significant, and modified the report to recast it as a minor safety issue. From under the section 3.7.3 Management and governance of the investigation:

Although the processes in place provided multiple opportunities to address problems with the data quality and analysis, as described above, the lack of effective communication and weaknesses in the follow-up meant that certain issues remained unaddressed throughout the investigation:

...The IIC appears to have been unaware of the latter two peer reviews until they were complete, indicating ineffective communication between the IIC, the team leader and the GM...
...The report passed the team leader's review, but the GM found it to be analytically weak. Rather than returning it to the team leader or IIC, the GM personally edited the report so that the analysis was supported by the available information...
...This approach was evident at all levels, as indicated by the GM's decision to revise the report himself. Ultimately, ineffective oversight of the investigation resulted in issues with data collection and analysis not being identified or resolved in a timely way...

A number of factors underlying this indirect approach were identified to the TSB Review team...

..There was a backlog of investigation reports, and the GM was trying to deal with it by editing reports himself, while at the same time as addressing the issues of analysis and team oversight...
All of which IMO proves beyond doubt why the current GM of aviation investigations should not be anywhere near the Pel-Air MKII re-investigation; which includes sending vomitus missives to the DIPs...:ugh:
Next - quotes from TSBC report in regards to Beaker:When the Commission reviewed the report in June and July 2012, the commissioners expressed concern that there was insufficient factual information and analysis in the report to support a finding related to oversight of aeromedical operations by Pel-Air. The Commission was also concerned that the CASA special audit of Pel-Air was not relied upon more extensively. Communications among commissioners indicated that there was concern with the lack of analysis of the adequacy of company and regulatory oversight, especially in light of the CASA special audit report. However, this concern did not result in changes to the report. Passing strange that both those quotes would appear to be in direct conflict with Dolan's evidence given in the AAI public hearings...:ooh:

1st Hansard quote 22/10/12:
Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)How do you reconcile the ideals set out in your submission with the fact that the CASA special audit does not make it into your report? There is no mention of it. Serious organisational issues with respect to Pel-Air do not make it into your report—how can that be?

Mr Dolan : We do not explicitly refer to the CASA audit report in our investigation report. We provided the committee, which probably has not had a chance to consider it yet, with our assessment —

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Sorry, have you not had a chance to consider the CASA special audit?

Mr Dolan : No, we have reviewed it carefully, and we have reviewed it carefully in the light of our report.
There were a range of factors that were highlighted in the CASA special audit that we believed we had already addressed, particularly in the factual basis of our report.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)But why didn't you mention the CASA special audit in your report? It goes to systemic issues, it goes to organisational issues, it identified a number of deficiencies in relation to Pel-Air's operations, yet not one mention of it is made in the ATSB report about an incident involving a Pel-Air aircraft. 2nd Hansard quote 15/02/13:
Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)When did you ask for the CASA special audit conducted on Pel-Air?

CHAIR: It was a short while before you concluded your report, as I recall.

Mr Dolan : It was at a late stage in the process, yes. We can get you the exact date.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)It was at a late stage in the process. Can I suggest to you the only reason you asked for that CASA special audit, which was not provided to you by CASA, was that Mr James's lawyers had contacted you, Mr Sangston, saying, 'We understand there's a special audit and we'd like to get a copy of it.'

Mr Sangston : Sorry, Senator; I was just looking up that date.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)My understanding is that it took Mr James's lawyers until as late as 3 July 2012 to write to you saying, 'We understand there's a special audit; we'd like to get a copy of that special audit,' and that until that time you had no awareness of the existence of that special audit.

Mr Dolan : No, I do not think that is true. Mr Sangston may wish to disagree with me.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Or was it that you thought it was not relevant to provide to Mr James as a directly interested party?

CHAIR: As I understand it, there was a press release in 2009 from CASA saying that they were going to have the audit, so the world knew about it.

Mr Dolan : We were aware that CASA was undertaking a special audit.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)When did you get a copy of that?

Mr Dolan : As I say, Senator, it was very late in the process.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)After 3 July 2012?

Mr Dolan : Yes, Senator, I believe it was in late July or early August.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)You are aware that CASA had conducted a special audit, but you did not think it was relevant to your investigations to get a copy of that special audit into Pel-Air?

Mr Dolan : We were happy that our investigations were covering the territory we needed to cover in understanding the facts.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Sorry, could you say that again, I could not hear you?

Mr Dolan : We were happy that our investigation was covering the relevant territory. On analysing the special audit report—and I believe we supplied a table reflecting this to the committee—we satisfied ourselves that the major lines of inquiry that had been undertaken through the special audit were ones that we had also turned our minds to.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)But how do you know without seeing the document? How would you know that? How would you know that you are satisfied with a particular line of inquiry when you have not even seen the report? You were aware of the report but you did not bother to ask for it?

Mr Dolan : We do not as a matter of routine seek special audits. Special audits are for the purpose of CASA's regulatory activities. We try and keep our investigations, as much as we can, separate from what CASA has to do. It is not as a matter of default that we would see and try to rely on CASA regulatory investigations as a basis for our work.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)But in the context of the memorandum of understanding about the exchange of information between the two agencies, in the context of this investigation, in the context of Mr McCormick expressing his views that they were changing their rhetoric and hardening their view and concerns within your organisation about egg on ATSB's face and CASA's face, you did not think it relevant at all to obtain a copy of a CASA special audit into Pel-Air, the very airline that was involved in this incident? I just do not get it. How can you explain it to—to use Senator Heffernan's terminology—the reasonable man, the reasonable person at the back of the room? What has gone wrong here that you did not get the CASA special audit?

Mr Dolan : As I said, Senator, we do not as a matter of routine seek special audits. CASA undertakes special audits for their purposes; we undertake investigations for our purposes. There are times when it may be helpful to us to take a look at what CASA has been doing but it is not something we would consider as a matter of default.

Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)What a terribly glib answer, Mr Dolan. You are investigating an accident where six people could have died. You did not see the relevance of getting the special audit? This is not a routine matter. You are actually in the midst of an investigation and you deliver a report nearly three years after the event that cannot, on any reasonable standard, comply with ICAO annex 13. There are reports from Nigeria and Lebanon, from countries that could be seen as developing countries, that comply with ICAO annex 13. Do you consider you have complied with ICAO annex 13 with this report?

Mr Dolan : Yes, Senator.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Bearing in mind time, I note that we have just come to that issue of annex 13. I note in your submission you highlight that you have requested a number of exemptions or notified departures from that in a number of areas. My comment would be that I think, if those departures have resulted in this report, then they should be re-examined because they are clearly, in terms of the information flow from CASA to yourselves around the role of the regulator and operator as well as the individual, and all the other issues like fatigue that roll into that, there were clearly a number of contributing factors that were not considered in any thorough way in the report. I think those exemptions should, perhaps, be revisited because they do not meet the test, as Senator Heffernan would say, of the reasonable man at the back of the room.

Mr Dolan : I hear what you are saying and the only comment I feel I should make in that case is that I would disagree with you that there were significant contributing factors that existed and we did not detect and include in our report. But we have different opinions on that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ql-GEpLX_I

On a final note and on the subject of significant organisational issues - that should have been included in the PelAir final report under at least contributory factors but wasn't...:= Here is a section of Hansard of particular relevance taken from the 28/02/2013 public hearing:
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Do you happen to have looked at the Indonesian report from 6 November 2008 into a Dornier aircraft that had its undercarriage collapse after a heavy landing?

Mr Dolan : No, that is not one that I can recall having looked at.
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I merely raise that to highlight the point that my understanding is that the ATSB actually spent some time instructing, supporting and helping the Indonesian government in terms of their ability to conduct aviation accident investigations?

Mr Dolan : That is correct.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)As I look at the scope of the report, whilst it was fairly clear from their examination that in this case it was pilot error—a fast approach, inappropriate crew interaction and other things—they were very brief but quite good in highlighting that things like the runway and safety area airport facilities oversight and the level of compliance were not up to speed. They were quite blunt about making those observations around other government agencies and around the recommendations that then flowed in the report to those other agencies and the operator, which can then clearly be tracked.

Noting the Air France report looking at the A330 that had the icing problem, and EMS accidents in the USA, all of them appear to take the same basic analysis model you have started with but put quite clear emphasis on organisational factors that you are saying, even having looked at the Chambers report, are not applicable. Does it concern you at all that we seem to be out of step with our near neighbours as well as probably the world leaders in aviation?

Mr Dolan : Important though it is, the Norfolk Island investigation report is only one of a considerable number of reports we produce on an annual basis. Each investigation results in those reports. We have an assessment as to scope, taking account of a range of factors, and in a number of cases, because we think it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation to go all the way to organisational factors both at the operator level and the regulator level, we will quite often go there and make quite clear statements and findings in relation to it.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)When did you say that starts? At the start of your investigation process?

Mr Dolan : It is in the course of the investigation. We have critical reviews as necessary, which sometimes result in a variation of scope. While in a practical sense availability of both our expert investigators and the broader resources to support investigations are in play there, it is also about whether it appears that organisational factors have had an influence in this area, and, if the evidence is sitting there in the course of the investigation, we will go there. And there is a whole range of reports I could draw your attention to where we clearly have done that. I think our reports, taken as a whole, are up there and quite comparable to those other countries.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)In this report in particular, looking at the information you have provided to us—and some of those emails are now in the public domain—clearly the accident investigation officer, the officer in charge, proceeded initially on a whole-of-systems basis. If I recall correctly you had a discussion with Mr McCormick or an officer of CASA around the fact that it was a systems approach, but then made a comment back to the investigating officer that CASA now appear to have changed their view on having it as a systems approach. Not long after that the ATSB approach seemed to have scoped out all of the organisational factors. Can you offer an explanation to the committee for why that changed and the scope was reduced, if you had that original review and you started off as ATSB saying that this was best practice and you were going to look at all the organisational factors?

Mr Dolan : We do not appear to have a common understanding. From my point of view and the conversation reflected in that email exchange that went not to the general set of organisational factors but to the point that we had sitting with CASA at that point a critical safety issue. We were saying, based on where we were then, here is this particular issue in relation to guidance as to what happens en route, the receipt of weather information and so on and that we think it is important. We though this important issue was systemic and in initial conversations that seemed to be where CASA as a regulator were focussing—that is, there is a possibility we will need to change our guidance and other materials. When they reviewed that they formed a view that that was not where their attention as the regulator should be and turned their attention to compliance with the existing system. That exchange of emails is trying to relay—apparently not with clarity—to others now reading it how I recall the conversation about what was going on.
IMO it is simply unacceptable & reprehensible that both these senior executive figures (at least) still have jobs; let alone that they now think it is acceptable for them to oversee & set the ToR for Pel-Air MKII...call for a Judicial Inquiry?? Yeah bring it on...:E

I'll be back...:ok:

Soteria

9th Jan 2015, 04:31

It would seem that Sangston is following the CASA ICC model and making sure he is judge, jury and executioner. Unfortunately Sangston once had great potential until becoming Beakerised.
So what we have left in the post Stray/Bills era is 3 x non aviation Commissioners (unbelievable, I know), a lapdog called Sangston, the loss of 200 years worth of investigation skill and a Murky Machiavellian who continues to leave the government of the day frightfully exposed should ever a serious occurrence occur and be attributed in part or whole to issues identified publicly yet covered over!

Message to the world - Why in the name of all things sacred are you allowing the ATSB to be involved in any international matter? These dodgy muppets couldn't find one of Kharons Choccy frogs in a 3 centimetre hole!
Dear world, continue at your own peril. You've been warned.

TICK TOCK

Sunfish

9th Jan 2015, 04:58

Why would a sane person NOT suspect official corruption?

Kharon

9th Jan 2015, 19:53

If the Sarcs post above does not shake the foundations and get some minuscule response, it's time to throw the wings in the third drawer, hang up the RM's and learn to knit properly. In the face of such stark, compelling evidence any form of wet lettuce treatment simply indicates that we have no aviation regulatory oversight, risk management or accident investigation system at all, at least none that we may rely on.

Heard it told better last evening at the BRB, one of the more whimsical souls kicked off with a cracking good story which kept us amused for some 20 minutes, it had the lot. Too much to relay verbatim on Pprune, I shall attempt a humble potted version, just so as you can make sense of the voting.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The scene was set in a room which was very like those brilliant prints, the ones you see of dogs playing poker and snooker, card table, eyeshades, cigars, a drink at every elbow. Deepening shadows form away from the low hanging light which throws a yellow light directly onto the piles of chips, ashtrays and the cards.

The table has a couple of vacant seats, but the players have obviously been sitting a while, engrossed in conversation during the game, comfortable with sleeves rolled up, ties loosened. The dealer, Pearly White was just collecting the used cards and getting set to deal another hand. Now Pearly was known for not wasting a lot of time shuffling as he pretty much new where every card in the deck was; and, being as this was a game where cheating was expected none of the other players was too concerned as up to seven cards were allowed up each sleeve. The door of the room slowly opened a few inches about then and a pale, bearded face slid around the edge and peered in; like lightning, the thought 'fresh meat' flashed around the table.

Pearly glanced nervously at his boss, who nodded; his boss Furky was not to trifled with, not in a money game. But there was no help for it, they needed a sixth to make the game work properly. With five professional card sharps at the table, a mug; or, in the parlance of that group, a Muppet was needed. "Sorry" says Muppet "just locking up, saw the light on, got to watch the pennies". "Come in, come in" says Pearly, "just having a few hands of cards to pass the time waiting for the first draft of that bloody report; won't you join us?"

As Pearly was saying his piece, the Choirmaster (so called because he sang more songs than any other known human being) found a clean glass and poured a generous dollop of hooch into the same and offered it to Muppet, "Here mate" he crooned, "take a dram and sit a while; been a long day". Well, Muppet knew his Mum would be worried if he stayed out late and his dinner would be in the dog; but on the other hand, he was under pressure, his new blow up doll had developed a slow leak and what with no TV at home, he thought, perhaps just this once, he may sit a while with the 'lads'. Thought to action, he stepped into the room and into history. "Thanks mate, don't mind if I do" were the last honest words he uttered.

Well, the drinks kept coming, Muppet kept winning (just enough), the jokes were hilarious and the cigars were, he admitted first class. "Got a mate at Dunhill" says the Joker (famous for comic antics and risqué shirts). Long story short, one of the players Wodger, a.k.a. Passion fingers made a silly mistake – a card sharp's gaff – the ace he had in his right cuff fell out when he hastily stretched across the table to mop up Jokers spilled drink (he always mopped up for those above him on the slippery ladder).

"Hey, what's this now" cries Muppet, wisely he refrained from saying the 'cheating' word as even he knew that this was fighting talk and he only had his Swiss Army pocket knife about him (present from his Uncle Alec) he also knew the rest were all 'packing'. "Shan't play any more" he huffed, petulant like, as he started to get up. "Sit" barked the Choirmaster, "let me explain how our little game works" (no option you see, for if Muppet blabbed, well, the jig was up and that was a hanging matter in card sharp circles). "You see" purred the choirmaster in his most luxurious voice; "it's a rigged game, we all know that so it's fair you see; but, we do need fresh money in and to do that we need a 'Pasty'". "Patsy" Muppet automatically corrected; "No, we like Pasties" crooned the Choirmaster, "the crust can be tossed away after use". "Anyway we have a big game coming up and if you play along, we'll cut you into the pot".

The long and the short of it is that Muppet turned up for the next event, ponied up his ante and took his share of his winnings, and with a light heart and heavier pockets toddled off, not a care in the world. His Mum was cross, but a flash of cash into the biscuit tin soothed her troubled brow. Being made aware of a criminal conspiracy troubled him not a whit and he'd developed a fondness for playing with a stacked deck and for a while, life was just peachy.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>>>><<<<<<<<< - - - - - - - -

It was a bloody good yarn and underpinned the short debate.

Q1: was Dolan brought into the fiasco before or after the decision to weld two sides of a story into one convenient, easy to carry package? Split vote – 50/50. There can be no doubt he knew of it. But, whether he elected to become part of it, having discovered what was occurring; or, part of the team which engineered the whole thing to accommodate the easy transition from 'independent' to CASA catamite, could not be decided.

Q2: Based purely on Hansard evidence, is it reasonable to question whether fairy stories were told and to whom; Senate or TSBC? Funny result this one. Dead even 25% split for one of the two choices; the rest went for both. Unanimous was that the industry, government, press and public had been subject to a taking the Mickey Bliss master class.

Q3: Based purely on Hansard evidence, is it reasonable to question if there was a serious breach of TSI S24? Unanimous, unequivocal - Yes.

Q4: Is it acceptable that the Senate committee sit on it's collective rump and allow the ATSB to investigate ATSB. No brainer the cry – Unanimous resounding - No.

Q5: Should the whole matter be referred to the AFP to determine, once and for all, if there was a criminal conspiracy to mislead parliament, defraud the public and pervert a critical accident investigation?. Unanimous resounding - Yes.

Well that's how the voting went, it was quick, argument free and for once, not interrupted by shouts of Bollocks. Darts?, well some of the guests were from the sub-continent and not as familiar with the subtleties of the game as they were of those at cricket. Good showing though; A+ for effort and definitely top marks for sportsmanship.. Phir milengae...:ok:...

Toot-toot...

Creampuff

9th Jan 2015, 21:55

I keeps tellin' ya: Successive governments continue to be very happy with CASA and ATSB, because CASA and ASTB continue to do their real jobs, really well. People like Mssrs Mrdak, Dolan, Aleck and Hawke know the real job of agencies like CASA and ATSB - they've been playing the government game for a loooooong time.

CASA and ATSB continue to be perceived as doing a really good job, by the people who matter.

CASA and ATSB continue to be perceived as saving punters from the 30,000' death plunge. That's why the response to almost every event that results in a perceived risk to aviation safety in Australia almost always results in more regulation and more power and resources for regulators.

Almost nobody in governments care that there may be little-to-no causal link between anything CASA or ATSB does, or thousands of pages of regulations, and changes in safety risks in reality. Not enough, at least, to put their vote in parliament where their mouth is. If the presumptive response to issues like CVD is to destroy some careers, who cares? It's 'safer' that way.

The people who make and break governments perceive Australia's "enviable aviation safety record" to be the product of brave regulators and competent accident investigators. Australian aviation would degenerate into dangerous criminality, and it would be raining VH-tailed aluminium, but for the thousands of pages of rules, a wise regulator to fearlessly and consistently enforce them, and a wise accident investigator to learn from and improve aviation safety as a consequence of in-depth, expert, independent accident investigations. Punters imagine that the adults in organisations like Qantas watch and listen, with bated breath, as experts from the regulator conduct fine-tooth comb audits and carry out frank and fearless regulatory action to keep the airline on the safe, straight and narrow path of compliance.

The accidents that do occur are, of course, nothing to do with the thousands of pages of regulations (unless there are too few of them) or the way in which the regulator or accident investigator were doing their jobs (unless there was an unfortunate, one-off, out-of-character, 'lapse', immediately corrected by working out an MoU).

The punters don't know - and, more importantly, don't want to know - that CASA and ATSB don't really make much positive difference to aviation safety.

The punters don't want to know the implications of the travesty and sick joke that was CASA's and ATSB's response to the ditching of NGA.

The punters don't want to know that the Frankenstein that is the regulatory reform program has burnt and will continue to burn hundreds of millions of dollars to continue to produce the regulatory equivalent of the Spruce Goose: An expensive, complex and useless waste of space like the Australianised Seasprite. If something's useless, what harm can it possibly do?

The punters don't care that those blocks of land from which those dangerous and noisy little aircraft operate are being turned into warehouses and high rise by rich property developers with 'friends' in governments.

The punters just want to feel that governments are protecting them from the 30,000' death plunge.

People in the GA community don't matter. They don't make or break governments. That's why there's bi-partisan apathy towards the plight of GA.

The Laborials know that the chances of a major hull loss in Australia are infinitesimally small and it's a coin toss as to which 'side' will be in power if it happens. They also know that there's almost no measurable causal link between anything CASA and ATSB does on the one hand and the objective (versus perceived) risks to aviation safety on the other. There's therefore no political advantage in one 'side' taking the risk of making the aviation sector a differentiator between them and the other 'side', by actively intervening in the aviation sector. If one 'side' were to, for example, implement a policy of 'promoting' aviation, the other 'side' could attribute subsequent accidents to that policy. That 'side' would be perceived as increasing the risk of the 30,000' death plunge and that could affect that 'side's' electoral chances.

Best instead for both 'sides' to maintain a 'hands off' approach to the 'independent' safety regulator and 'independent' accident investigator, so that there continues to be plausible deniability of responsibility. The occasional parliamentary inquiry and rhetorical fist waving provides the facade of accountability. As I said at the time, if you'd deleted the names, you wouldn't have known from reading Hansard that there'd been a change of government: The people who'd been roundly criticising the regulator pre-election were strenuously defending the regulator post-election.

(However, it must be said that the facade is becoming increasingly shabby and obvious even to the unskilled in the dark arts of politics. That's why there's increasing realisation in the electorate that there's little difference between what the major parties do when in government - hence the name "Laborials".)

Frank Arouet

9th Jan 2015, 22:19

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". (To support the BRB consensus).

Sarcs

10th Jan 2015, 23:54

Reality of current status quo...So what we have left in the post Stray/Bills era is 3 x non aviation Commissioners (unbelievable, I know), a lapdog called Sangston, the loss of 200 years worth of investigation skill and a Murky Machiavellian who continues to leave the government of the day frightfully exposed should ever a serious occurrence occur and be attributed in part or whole to issues identified publicly yet covered over!...then from Sunny...Why would a sane person NOT suspect official corruption? Why indeed? A question that no doubt has passed through the mind of any of a number Senators involved in or having a passing interest in the PelAir debacle. Example from 24/02/14 Estimates (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2Ff3681c2 b-ec9a-4fe5-9b53-730b8f34fcff%2F0004;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2Ff3 681c2b-ec9a-4fe5-9b53-730b8f34fcff%2F0000%22):
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.:D:D However for my 1st of the year Sundy Cogitation I'd like to further reflect on some passages of Hansard from the 28/02/13 AAI public hearing that focussed on 'Contributory Factors' - & the lack there of in the PelAir final report:Mr Dolan : As I tried to state—and perhaps I am not making myself clear—the principal purpose of an accident investigation, or an occurrence investigation, is to understand 'cause', which in our case we do by way of identification of safety factors and safety issues. Our attention, quite reasonably, remains on that. Our mandate is really to look at, and to understand to the extent necessary, the context and the relevance of the context within which the occurrence happened. There is still nothing in our assessment that we could see, acknowledging that there were deficiencies in CASA's surveillance and activities, and acknowledging that there were problems with the way Pel-Air operated its safety management system, that was going to lead us to the question of contributing safety factors and, more particularly, to the identification of areas for safety improvement. We were conscious that CASA, for it is regulatory purposes, was undertaking steps in relation to the pilot, in relation to Pel-Air as the operator and, indeed, in relation to itself in terms of those improvements, so the question was: if there is an intervention from CASA in terms of rectifying some problems of noncompliance, what is the extent to which we have to retrace that territory in the interests of safety improvement? They are the balances we are undertaking in the course of scoping and re-scoping our investigations.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)I understand your talk about balancing and not going over the same ground, but where another agency has already done the work, and that report is now presented to you, and that agency has identified—again I go back to paragraph 4.1:

It is likely that many of the deficiencies identified after the accident would have been detectable through interviews with line pilots and through the conduct of operational surveillance of line crews in addition to the surveillance of management and check and training personnel.

It says here:

If a systems audit is conducted with inadequate product checking—
that is, the line pilots—
CASA is unable to genuinely confirm that the operator is managing their risks effectively.

Are you still maintaining the position that that is not an organisational influence or a risk control that was a contributing safety factor, in terms of not only the incident pilot but also the fact that the rest of the line pilots indicated similar lack of compliance and lack of understanding, to this incident and potential like incidents?

Mr Dolan : That is our position, Senator Fawcett, and clearly you disagree with it. It is the influence of those factors on the accident flight in particular which always has to be the principal but not the only focus of our investigation. It is the influence of those known factors in the events of this flight that we always have to come back to, because of the task that we have been given as the accident investigator.

Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)You have used the term 'known factors'. I put it to you that, had you received this report before the issuing of your final accident report, they would have been known factors because they are spelt out in black and white. I take you again to the diagram you have on page 13, where you look at risk controls and you ask question: what could have been in place to reduce the likelihood or severity of problems at the operational level?

Again, I go to the Chambers report, where it talks about inspector capability and performance. It talks about the fact that an inspector needs to have a level of investigative skill to drill down to find the deficiencies that are genuinely serious and often complex. Not all inspectors have this capability and it seems that this characteristic is assumed to exist in an inspector. It then goes on to talk about the scratching-the-surface approach and the fact that the inspectors, in Pel-Air's operation, were not even aware of the routes that they flew, or the fact that the majority of their operation was EMS as opposed to cargo. Coming back to your table, surely what could have been in place were inspectors who were competent and informed, as well as an appropriate oversight program. Does that not fit the definition of your risk control?

Mr Dolan : Those sorts of circumstances certainly fit in to the picture of what would constitute organisational issues. Where we appear to be at odds is in the question of the level of contribution of those factors in the particular occurrence that we were investigating. That is why we have the position that we have taken. We carefully reviewed the chamber's report, and the basis on which we responded as we did was the issue of influence, contribution, cause. For the benefit of those interested these were the contributory factors in the PA final report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3972692/AO-2009-072_Final.pdf):
Contributing safety factors
• The pilot in command did not plan the flight in accordance with the existing regulatory and operator requirements, precluding a full understanding and management of the potential hazards affecting the flight.
• The flight crew did not source the most recent Norfolk Island Airport forecast, or seek and apply other relevant weather and other information at the most relevant stage of the flight to fully inform their decision of whether to continue the flight to the island, or to divert to another destination.
• The flight crew’s delayed awareness of the deteriorating weather at Norfolk Island combined with incomplete flight planning to influence the decision to continue to the island, rather than divert to a suitable alternate.
From my previous post I quoted from the same 28/02/13 Hansard where DF mentioned an Indonesian NTSC investigation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RTCKweglzU

Here is a link for that investigation report - DORNIER 328-100 PK–TXL; EXPRESS AIR FAK-FAK, PAPUA REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA 6 NOVEMBER 2008 (http://asndata.aviation-safety.net/reports/2008/20081106-0_D328_PK-TXL.pdf)

This is part of the section of that report to which Senator Fawcett refers:
1.17.4 Airport Emergency Planning

Based on the lack of emergency personnel and equipment at Torea Airport, Fak Fak, Papua, to respond to an aircraft accident, it was clear that emergency planning and exercising did not meet the ICAO Annex 14 Standards.6

ICAO Annex 14 contains Standards and Recommended Practices with
respect to Airport Emergency Planning.

Paragraph 9.1.12;
The plan shall contain procedures for periodic testing of the adequacy of
the plan and for reviewing the results in order to improve its
effectiveness.
Note.— The plan includes all participating agencies and associated
equipment.

Paragraph 9.1.13
The plan shall be tested by conducting:
a) a full-scale aerodrome emergency exercise at intervals not
exceeding two years; and
b) partial emergency exercises in the intervening year to ensure that
any deficiencies found during the full-scale aerodrome emergency
exercise have been corrected; and reviewed thereafter, or after an
actual emergency, so as to correct any deficiency found during such
exercises or actual emergency.

ICAO Annex 14, paragraph 9.1.14 states that:

The airport rescue and fire fighting services shall have a plan that
shall include ready availability of coordination with appropriate
specialist rescue services to be able to respond to emergencies where
an aerodrome is located close to water/or swampy areas and where a
significant portion of approach or departure operations takes place
over these areas.

Paragraph 9.2.2 states that:

Where an aerodrome is located close to water/or swampy areas and
where a significant portion of approach or departure operations takes
place over these areas, specialist rescue services and fire fighting
equipment appropriate to the hazards and risks shall be available.
And this is from the conclusions section (findings):
3.1.10 The airport did not meet the ICAO Annex 14 Standard with respect to the requirement to have runway end safety areas.
3.1.11 The DGCA had not filed a difference with ICAO with respect to its inability to comply with the Annex 14 Standard for runway end safety areas at Torea Airport, Fak-Fak, Papua.
3.1.12 The airport did not meet the ICAO Annex 14 Standard with respect to the airport emergency personnel, equipment and exercising of an airport emergency plan.
Finally these are the relevant recommendations to the DGCA that the contributory factors helped generate...:D:D:
5.5 Recommendation to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation
(DGCA)
The National Transportation Safety Committee recommends that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) review the Torea Airport, Fak-Fak, Papua runway complex to ensure that runway end safety areas (RESA) are established that meet the dimension Standards prescribed in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14.
Particular attention should be given to:

• ICAO Annex 14 Paragraph 3.5.2 (Standard) that a runway end safety area (RESA) shall extend from the end of a runway strip to a distance of at least 90 meters.

If the DGCA is unable to meet the RESA Standard in accordance with ICAO
Annex 14, it should file a difference with ICAO as soon as possible.

5.6 Recommendation to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation
(DGCA)

The National Transportation Safety Committee recommends that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) ensure that the operator of Torea Airport, Fak-Fak, Papua surveys the Torea Airport runway complex and ensure that the runway dimensions promulgated on aerodrome charts are accurate.

5.7 Recommendation to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation
(DGCA)

The National Transportation Safety Committee recommends that the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) review the procedures and equipment used by the Toera Airport, Fak Fak, Papua, Rescue and Fire Fighting Services to ensure that they:

• meet the minimum requirements specified in the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Annex 14.
Now compare that to the organisational/ regulatory oversight issues that were highlighted both in the CAIR09/3 report (ref: post #2653 (http://www.pprune.org/8814216-post2653.html)), in the FRMS (Cook) SAR (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=85c80709-44ed-4551-a236-c1e55326f5ce)and in the Chambers report (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=b2509175-b1eb-4ae1-b9c3-b3897323df48) - oh that's right that was all classified as irrelevant & simply scoped out of the Final Report...:ugh::ugh:

I'll be back...:E

Frank Arouet

12th Jan 2015, 01:09

I believe the existence of regulation should be based solely on natural reason and personal experience without reference to revelations brought about by precedence or opinion or interpretation of reports written by so called authoritative sources with scant regard to science, engineering or economy. Nor of human self preservation in an alien environment, by agenda driven personal or political crusades using testimony of cherry picked witnesses.

I may be a Deist, but CAsA and ATSB are not the Deity.

Kharon

12th Jan 2015, 07:55

Whoever he is and whatever does, Mr. Jim McDowell has earned his Choc frogs (yes Sot – plural). His response to the review conducted by the inestimable Rev. Forsyth and Co is not salted with bias or larded with self interest. I would commend it to anyone who seeks a sane, balanced approach to any problem. The submission does not presume or attempt to influence. It is a plain spoken attempt by a honest man to see both sides of the coin and find a solution to a small problem made into a molehill by vested interests.

Jim McDowell. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Jim_McDowell.pdf) Quotes in no particular order: have a read, five short pages: they are of little importance in the big world; but Golly, for good, solid, common or garden sense, stand unbeaten. I say Bravo and well done Sir; the missive may not move mountains, but I'd bet you sleep with a clear mind and wake the next day ready to calmly face whatever the cards may hold....:D...:D.....

"An association, as a sports aviation advocate, is representing the risks of its members whereas the statement above seems to propose that the association is subject to the risk – clearly not so. The association is merely a mechanism for aggregating the risk for the benefit of the regulator (CASA)".

"It is ironic that a government that stands steadfast against compulsory unionism is prepared to implement systems that require compulsory membership of an organisation in order to fly aircraft that CASA does not want to regulate directly, quite often in situations that result in perverse and draconian outcomes."

"It is usually regarded that a person or body to whom parliament delegates its rule making powers cannot delegate those powers unless it is within the terms of that delegation. Further, it is considered that such rulemaking powers should not be delegated to a private body for the reason that such powers may be used in an oppressive or discriminatory manner."

Extra frog for the C.S. Lewis.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Toot a toot, toot...:ok:..

dubbleyew eight

12th Jan 2015, 11:58

Australia was one of the drafting nations and signed on to the document in 1948.

The document is the "Universal declaration of Human rights".

section 20a
quote" No person shall be forced to join an association" unquote.

You would think that the legal brilliance (I am being derisive here) behind CAsA would have known this.

Soteria

12th Jan 2015, 12:41

D8;

section 20a
quote" No person shall be forced to join an association" unquote.
You would think that the legal brilliance (I am being derisive here) behind CAsA would have known this.
The problem is that there are people at CASA who are so full of themselves that they believe they are reside upon a plain that is above the entire human species. And give them a PHD and they think the entire universe rests in their palm!

I kinda like Mr McNamara, interesting character, and this quote of his sums up CASA really;
“All the evidence of history suggests that man is indeed a rational animal, but with a near infinite capacity for folly. . . . He draws blueprints for Utopia, but never quite gets it built. In the end he plugs away obstinately with the only building material really ever at hand--his own part comic, part tragic, part cussed, but part glorious nature.”
― Robert S. McNamara
If he was still alive I would gladly share a chocy frog with him and Kharon :ok:

Creampuff

12th Jan 2015, 19:31

When I read this, I immediately thought of CASA Avmed:Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Frank Arouet

12th Jan 2015, 22:38

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

Soteria

12th Jan 2015, 22:42

Creampuff, agreed.
Unfortunately due to much good work being undertaken by the IOS there are no more Choccy frogs available this week. However your post does not go unrewarded and two packets of snakes and a roll of Mentos has been dispatched immediately to a former airport near you.

Frank, Pot Plant Pete lives on and said to say hello .

Regards
IOS affiliate

Stasi Hunter

13th Jan 2015, 09:17

Jim McDowell
"It is usually regarded that a person or body to whom parliament delegates its rule making powers cannot delegate those powers unless it is within the terms of that delegation. Further, it is considered that such rulemaking powers should not be delegated to a private body for the reason that such powers may be used in an oppressive or discriminatory manner."

Great submission Jim, but apparently you haven't had any dealings with our esteemed [public] body so far.:ugh:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/asrr/public_comments/files/Jim_McDowell.pdf .

Kharon

13th Jan 2015, 20:09

For my sins (trying to puzzle out a Sarcs question on the TSI Act) I strayed into section 25A of that Act; David Fawcett and his 'closing the loop' questions and remarks must have triggered some kind of subconscious thinking pattern which has been demanding answers for a while now. Anyway - 25A Responses to reports of, or containing, safety recommendations.

First glance at 25 A you may be forgiven for thinking well, here's horsepower, for when a safety recommendation is issued there are rules which must be followed. The natural question which jumps out is with the requirement to respond cast in stone, why then are there so many open loops? and there are a lot. There is a PAIN report (thanks P7) which examined in some detail Coronial recommendations from fatal accidents over a ten year period, contained within and examined by that report were those issued by the ATSB related to the case.

Now CASA may with impunity politely ignore the coroner and they do; the record of actually 'closing the loop' on coronial recommendations is 'slim' – possibly anorexic. But the ATSB have, through the Act, actually got some real clout. Why is this not used? I wondered.

Being a legal dunderhead it took me a while grasp the Oh so subtle escape paths; but even those may be effectively blocked by a determined "Commissioner"; one not so determined could cooperate, for within the work of the Word Weasels, for there is a mile of wriggle room. For example:-

25A Responses to reports of, or containing, safety recommendations
(1) This section applies if:

(a) the ATSB publishes a report under section 25 in relation to an investigation; and

(b) the report is, or contains, a recommendation that a person, unincorporated association, or an agency of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, take safety action.

(2) The person, association or agency to whom the recommendation is made [must give a written response to the ATSB, within 90 days of the report being published], that sets out:

(a) whether the person, association or agency accepts the recommendation (in whole or in part); and

(b) if the person, association or agency accepts the recommendation (in whole or in part)—details of any action that the person, association or agency proposes to take to give effect to the recommendation; and

(c) if the person, association or agency does not accept the recommendation (in whole or in part)—the reasons why the person, association or agency does not accept the recommendation (in whole or in part).

(3) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is someone to whom a recommendation is made in a report published under section 25; and

(b) the person fails to give a written response to the ATSB within 90 days setting out the things required by paragraphs (2)(a), (b) and (c) (as applicable).

Penalty: 30 penalty units.

Intriguing, the part highlighted [in brackets] despite all the sound and fury and penalty unit threats simply requires that 'a response' be given.

E.g. ATSB recommendation - "Pilots will wear one green and one red sock".

To which CASA respond "this is silly, we reject your recommendation". (Shades of Python).

Which leaves the ATSB up a pole; CASA have 'responded' which is all that the 'law' requires. Now it may be that the result of an expensive, properly conducted, expert investigation has identified a string of valid reasons for making the recommendation, explained the detailed reasoning, examined the evidence, exposed the holes in the cheese and clearly demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that socks cause accidents. To whom and where do ATSB go next to appeal their case and get a reasonable ruling. The short answer is nowhere; they're stuck with it. Which of itself is passing strange.

Part of the answer (IMO) may lay within the very Acts which govern such matters and gave rise to the risible MoU. BUT the 'law' is there and it becomes very much a matter of the 'will' of the Commissioner how much 'law' will apply. It is interesting to (a) study the amount of SR which have not been issued during the Dolan regime of beyond all reason; and, (b) the amount of recommendations which are not 'fully' addressed (in limbo); (c) the changes to MoU; (d) the changes in Commissioners independent 'powers' and; last but not least (e) the volumes of un-addressed recommendations which, if we were not playing at silly buggers may, conceivably, have prevented repeat accidents similar in nature.

My own favourites are the ones from 10 or so years ago which were to be 'addressed' through the "new" legislation, coming soon. Bollocks, plain, pure, unmitigated, undiluted Bollocks.

Fawcett nearly got there you know; so close but, alas, no cigar...:O...

It's deep, but there you go Brother Sarcs; it is, I believe my turn to set the puzzle and ask the questions (of which there are many)....

Toot...:E...toot....

SIUYA "If recent NSW ICAC 'results' are anything to go by TB, hopefully an invitation to a giant arse-kicking party, a very public DCM, and perhaps some time in the 'big house'."....:D......

Sarcs

14th Jan 2015, 06:26

Kharon - For my sins...I strayed into section 25A of that Act; David Fawcett and his 'closing the loop' questions and remarks must have triggered some kind of subconscious thinking pattern which has been demanding answers for a while now. Good catch Ferryman..:D.. always was missing some dots with the Beaker SR disconnection (i.e. BASR) - which is so contrary to recognised world's best practice with addressing identified safety issues...:ugh:

First your reference to Senator Fawcett and his 'closing the loop' QONs I believe initially was mentioned in budget & sup Estimates, & then in the initial hearing of the PelAir inquiry (22/10/12): Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)With the process you are describing whereby you use a process, and risk and consequence and all the good tables I have seen in your submission, do you consider balancing that against the cost of action? I will take for example the New Zealand flight information service where, in Australia, if there is a deteriorating weather situation they have an obligation to update the pilot and alert them to the fact that something is occurring, or the Unicom operator who was not legally allowed to use the HF radio to talk. But if either of them had said, 'The situation is getting worse,' as Unicom did to the New Zealand FIS who chose not to pass it on, surely, even including that kind of thing, there should be a recommendation that the Australian government should talk to the New Zealand government and ask for cooperation for safety reasons. Even if it is only for one in 1,000 flights and your probability of occurrence is very low, given the cost of action is also very low, why does your process exclude consideration of something that to the common man in the street seems like common sense? Why are we not seeing logical, reasonable recommendations coming out of ATSB reports to an address in this case two things, either of which probably would have prevented the accident? To which Beaker replied - part in bold is I believe in reference to s25A:Mr Dolan : There are two things there and I will go to the question of recommendations before I get to the specifics of your question. The ATSB at the point where it became independent of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport also got a shift in its powers in relation to the making of recommendations which raised the ante with recommendations and their significance. There is a legal requirement to respond to each of the recommendations we make. In recognition of that we set up the system of identifying safety issues that said there needs to be a critical or a significant safety issue before we will explicitly use that power to make a recommendation and require a response, and we would generally limits recommendations to those sorts of things. What you are talking about we would in our normal framework, given what you said about likelihood and consequence, deal with as a safety issue without going to recommendation. That is the context: it is still there but your question remains…. If we track the timeframe of amendments to the TSI Act we can see that with the change of ATSB governance (i.e. from Dept to an independent Commission) on the 01 July 2009 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2009C00270) also saw the introduction of s25A.

The following from the ATSB website describes the conditions for possibly enforcing s25A (3):Failure to respond to a Safety Recommendation

Sections 25A of the TSI Act requires a person, association or agency to provide a written response to a Safety Recommendation contained in a report released under section 25 of the TSI Act (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2009C00270/Html/Text). The response is required within 90 days of the report being published. Responses to recommendations are published on the ATSB website.
Failure to respond may attract a penalty of up to 30 penalty points ($3,300 for a natural person and $16,500 for an incorporated organisation), and advice of any such failure to respond will be published on the ATSB website.

Policy

Responses to Safety Recommendations are to be provided within the timeframe (within 90 days of the report being published) as required by the TSI Act.

Where responses are not received, a decision about appropriate enforcement action is taken. Choice of an appropriate action is based on a graduated response that focuses on the primary objective to achieve an appropriate safety outcome, including to:

continue to engage with the responsible person, or class of responsible persons, to ensure compliance; or if necessary
refer the apparent breach to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for investigation, with the potential for a brief of evidence to be provided by the AFP to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) to assess for possible prosecution action.
The ATSB's policy is that the option of continued engagement is used where the apparent breach does not meet the criteria for referring it to the AFP for investigation. The matter must be serious for a referral.

Criteria for referral

Where there is an apparent breach of section 25A of the TSI Act it is likely that it would only be considered serious if:
a) the person or organisation was aware of their obligations to respond, or should have in the circumstances been aware of their reporting obligations, and there is evidence to indicate that the person or organisation:
i. deliberately decided not to respond in accordance with their obligations; or
ii. was reckless in their failure to respond; and
b) the matter or matters that required a response:
i. have the potential for serious safety consequences if not addressed; or
ii. have the potential for less serious safety consequences but there is no other means to ensure that the person or organisation explains to the industry and the public how the matter or matters are being addressed; and
c) an investigation by the AFP, with potential prosecution by the CDPP, is thought necessary to:
i. obtain compliance from the person now and in the future; or
ii. deter other persons or organisations from failing to respond. Okay so what possible reason suddenly precipitated the necessity for the introduction of s25A to the Act? Well to help explain I too have borrowed from a PAIN publication (thanks P7..;)):Opinion : The following data compares ATSB v NTSB Safety Recommendations over a ten year period (2000-2010). This data highlights that Mr Dolan has used the above philosophy in regards to Safety Recommendations to significant affect:

http://i1238.photobucket.com/albums/ff498/004wercras/Untitled_Clipping_011415_052627_PM.jpg

Now when referencing the ATSB database for SRs - addressed to CASA on or shortly before the arrival of s25A - I noticed another disturbing trend that had been developing...:ooh: To highlight this I have taken one of the three SRs that were addressed to CASA in relation to the Willowbank parachuting aircraft tragedy- R20070030 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/recommendations/2007/r20070030.aspx).

Now refer to the date the SR was issued - 30 October 2007 - & the date the SR was responded to was 13 March 2008 which was outside of the prescribed and long accepted requirements of Annex 13 CH 6 para 6.10...

"...A State that receives safety recommendations shall inform the proposing State, within ninety days of the date of the transmittal correspondence, of the preventive action taken or under consideration, or the reasons why no action will be taken..."

And that I believe is one of the reasons for the introduction of s25A combined with the continued trend of CASA obfuscating adequate responses to SRs for sometimes over a decade.

However s25A under Beaker as Chief Commissioner has essentially been made nugatory with his adoption (see quote above) of the BASR approach to mitigating safety issues identified in the course of an investigation...:ugh:

This point of contention was highlighted by David Fawcett further on in the Hansard:
Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)With all due respect, to have a process that deliberately closes the door to suggestions that another agency, if they wished to say they would respond to that recommendation by saying no but if they chose to say yes may have saved this flight and may potentially save another flight, I suggest is process that is extremely poorly misplaced and prioritised...

...Senator FAWCETT: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2FDYU%22;queryty pe=;rec=0)Mr Dolan, I think you have probably heard a number of the witnesses this morning indicate that in their view ATSB in the past has taken a far more proactive approach to identifying issues and being prepared to make a recommendation. The general consensus from witnesses has been that that is a far more value-adding document. With a technical issue, for example an A330 off the North West Shelf with a software glitch that causes the aircraft to plunge, in terms of probabilities it was very remote that that would never happen again. But there was a report, recommendations and the OEM put a fleet-wide alert out to look at a software reload or whatever. If that approach is taken on something that almost led to the loss of an aircraft, here we have the loss of an aircraft. Why did you take such a conservative approach as opposed to saying any information, any opportunity to preclude a further incident by including all of the regulatory and systemic issues in terms of the organisation, their training, they check-in training, the lack of control, the lack of standardisation around fuel planning—all the things that led to this occurrence—should be canvassed in the report? I have heard your process, but putting the process aside, is the process wise when after three years we end up with a report that deals quite narrowly with one element of the things that led to this incident? :D:D Hmm...no more comments needed except to say..."miniscule the muppet has to go!":=
I'll be back...:ok:

Kharon

14th Jan 2015, 19:13

Well done Sarcs; it's there ain't it and Fawcett caught it; but at SMO there's not a lot of time to think and frame the catch; just reflex. It is a shame this is a 'technical' blog, if ever there was enough 'heat' and this could be transmogrified into bite size pieces for public consumption, I reckon there would be 'trouble at mill'. The very notion that the accident which killed or maimed some loved ones would be investigated by an outfit which was hand in glove with the regulator and that any or all 'systematic' problems would be nullified and the report 'skewed' to suit a predetermined outcome, would send shivers of disgust through the wider community. Predetermined as in there will never be any admission that any of the government agencies could have played even a minor part in an accident event; which is bad enough. But when the public and industry is denied that knowledge; those flawed elements and errors are not only allowed to continue, but are buried never to be addressed and corrected, that is a serious problem. Problem? – oh yes: any contributing factor to an accident, not eliminated, has the potential to be part of the next accident. QED. Have a little think about VA ATR, Mildura, or Canley Vale, or the Darwin Braz, or better yet: look back at the other two Pel-Air hull losses. The pattern is there, clear as day with only the Be-a-Cur, beyond all reason methodology to solve the puzzle.

Collusion is an agreement between two or more parties, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair market advantage.

To circumvent is to avoid. Someone who trains elephants but somehow gets out of picking up after them has found a way to circumvent the cleaning of the circus tent.

Circum in Latin means "around" or "round about," and vent- comes fromvenire, "to come," but painting a picture from these two parts of the word helps. Picture someone circling around a barrier instead of climbing over it. That's what you do when you circumvent. You find a smart way around rules or barriers, or avoid doing something unpleasant altogether.

To reiterate; Pel-Air was only the tip of a very ugly ice berg. It is not an isolated aberration; but the established norm. Anyone who can believe this was the first time the Dolan-McComic lead teams have played this game may join those who seek fairies at the bottom of the garden club and live happily ever after.

This must be addressed, it is entirely pisspotical to have the investigator a captive of the regulator; not to mention contravening an international treaty. It's nearly as bloody daft as allowing a thief to investigate and decide if he did, indeed commit his own crime. Yet there the elephant sits, encouraged by the unspeakable Albo, now spoon fed by the risible Truss. The public and industry just keep funding this – for the mystique of aviation safety must be maintained, no matter what the cost. For mine the only mystery is how, in the seven hells, have they got away with so much, for so long....

Selah.

Sarcs

15th Jan 2015, 13:06

MMSM Steve is back on the job and for once he has actually scooped the pack (including the New York Times) and got an exclusive of mi..mi..mi..Beaker flapping his felt gums enough times to make you want to puke...:yuk::yuk:: MH370 flight hunt stepped up (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/mh370-flight-hunt-stepped-up/story-e6frg95x-1227186234353) AUSTRALIAN Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Martin Dolan remains optimistic that searchers can find the wreckage of missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 by the time funding runs out later this year.

A fourth vessel, Fugro Supporter, will join the search later this month with an autonomous underwater vehicle designed to probe “shadow” areas that towed sonar equipment was unable to penetrate.

The Fugro Equator, which had been engaged in mapping the sea floor, left the West Australian port of Fremantle on Sunday to join the search and was due to arrive in the search area yesterday along with sister ship the
Fugro Discovery.

They will join the GO Phoenix, which on Monday restarted the methodical search of the area believed most likely to be the site of the mystery crash of the Boeing 777 on March 8 with 227 passengers on board, including six from Australia.

Fugro Supporter is equipped with a HUGIN 45000 AUV, which can be deployed without a connection to the ship to search a pre-programmed area. It ascends automatically and downloads its data.

Mr Dolan said the use of the AUV had always been part of the plan but searchers wanted to see how the towed sonar operated first.

“There was always a provision in the contract that we had with Fugro that we could acquire additional capability,’’ Mr Dolan said. “The towed capability gives us pretty good coverage of the area we’re looking at, but because the terrain is complex and uneven there’s a bit of shadowing and areas where we don’t have a 100 per cent guarantee that we’ve covered adequately, and that’s what the AUV is designed for.’’

The searchers are taking advantage of generally favourable summer conditions in the area and have scanned about 14,000sq km, about a fifth or the area believed to have the highest probability of containing the crash site.

“There’s still quite a way to go with the highest priority areas,’’ Mr Dolan said. “We’re looking at completion in probably April-May.’’ Mr Dolan said that if nothing was found by this date, the ATSB would have to talk to the government about the next steps.

He said the money would run out “around about the same timeframe’’.

“We’ve got the resources to search the priority areas … and we expect to complete that within the resources we’ve been given by April-May,’’ he said. “We’ll keep government informed. We’re still confident that we’ll find it within that priority search area, it’s just that we can’t give a guarantee so governments may have to run their mind to what next. But at this stage we’re focused on the area we’re looking at.’’

The restarted search for MH370 comes as Indonesian investigators this week successfully downloaded information from the flight data recorder from Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 and took possession of the cockpit voice recorder, which will shed light on the last words of the pilots.

The Airbus A320 crashed on December 28 with 162 people on board after encountering severe thunderstorms.

Conversation between the flight crew and air traffic controllers included a request to climb from 32,000ft to 38,000ft to avoid threatening clouds.

Investigators were expected to start reading the data on Wednesday and would begin by looking at 30 indicators such as speed, altitude and engine temperature. They expect a preliminary report on the accident will be produced within a month, and a final report after a year.

The investigation has an Australian connection because the ATSB helped set up the laboratory being used to examine the recorders and trained personnel there. The bureau also has one of its experts in Indonesia co-operating with authorities on some of the work.

Singaporean searchers announced on Wednesday that they had found the fuselage of the downed plane. Errr....I feel too ill & embarrassed to comment...:yuk::oh:

Kharon

15th Jan 2015, 20:45

I believe we may safely ignore both the Be-a-Cur messenger and the Australian, the message being delivered is clear enough. It is probably coming to the time where the government must look to the practicalities of continuing the MH 370 search. Of course everyone wants the aircraft found and the mystery explained, but the cost is phenomenal and must, one way or another, be supported. The worst case would be that the most probable areas of search are a 'dry hole'; it's a bloody big ocean and once the best guess options have been eliminated, what then? Do we keep the ships and crews out there indefinitely?; and, if we do, who will pay the bill?

It's not (IMO) that the government is so parsimonious or cynical to chop off the funding at the stroke of midnight; but there will be some work to do persuading other governments to kick the tin. Rock and hard place; the equipment, manpower and expertise is out there, on the job right now and will be until May so the 'pulling them out' deadline is a way off; and who knows what will transpire this hour or tomorrow. But through Dolan the reality of an end of search scenario is being mooted. This way, everyone knows, in advance that there must, at some point in time, be a full time whistle.

No, I believe the search area will be covered properly and if a few extra bucks need be found to do that, they will be unstintingly provided; the worry is that if nothing is found after an exhaustive search, what then?

Aye, it's as pretty a problem as you could ever wish to find: the fun part?; watching Dolan squirm as the Indonesians show him how to recover a 'black box' from the water and the pennies wriggle out of his clammy clutches. From the subliminal to the sublime eh?

Like the dew on the mountain,
Like the foam on the river,
Like the bubble on the fountain,
Thou art gone—and for ever!
(Scott)

denabol

16th Jan 2015, 02:03

Ben had the story two days before Steve and managed to avoid mentioning Dolan once.

MH370 searchers to look at hard to reach sea floor wrinkles | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2015/01/14/mh370-searchers-to-look-at-hard-to-reach-sea-floor-wrinkles/)

He also did it better with stuff you won't find on the ATSB web site.

As a keen media watcher it seems to me that one of aviation's problems in this country is that journos just reprint whatever crap gets pushed out by CASA, Truss and the airlines.

Kharon

16th Jan 2015, 20:06

Denabol –"Ben had the story two days before Steve and managed to avoid mentioning Dolan once."

Agreed, read the piece when it was published and wondered what the canny Sandilands was up to. He has a habit of developing a sound platform, unassailable by 'legal' threat before launching a blockbuster; this due to a natural prudence, respect for his craft and bitter experience. I always get the feeling that Ben writes from solid fact leading the discerning reader to their own informed conclusion, until the story is clear and unimpeachable.

Was the story provided designed to 'smoke out' Dolan? well, the slippery Cready went for it. A rehash of a two day old yarn, salted with a Muppet show script and was only just comparable with the risible SMH fine dining interview. Perhaps it's not GT who is in dire need of the gaffa tape treatment.

"[journos] just reprint whatever crap gets pushed out by CASA, Truss and the airlines."

True dat..:D.

Sarcs

16th Jan 2015, 22:14

Was the story provided designed to 'smoke out' Dolan? well, the slippery Cready went for it. A rehash of a two day old yarn, salted with a Muppet show script and was only just comparable with the risible SMH fine dining interview. Perhaps it's not GT who is in dire need of the gaffa tape treatment.
Key for the Tim Tam cupboard for Ben; well done that man ;)

Okay take the Ben piece...
Searchers for lost Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 have always been concerned that wreckage might have come to rest in complex canyons or slopes or ‘holes’ in the south Indian Ocean sea floor search zones where it might escape detection by towed deep water sonar scanning devices.

Those concerns, and the blanks left unprobed during the current systematic sweeps of the sea bed, are to be addressed by a large autonomous underwater vehicle or AUV deployed from an additional search vessel, the Fugro Supporter, from later this month.

Fugro Supporter will join the other contracted ships, the Fugro Equator and Fugro Discovery and the GO Phoenix, which have been involved in the search effort to date.

It means that by May, when the primary ocean search should have been completed, any doubts that a piece of wreckage has been missed ought to have been removed.

It would make a decision to abandon the Australian managed search possibly easier to justify to the aggrieved relatives of the victims of the MH370 disappearance, although no one at an official level has done anything more than hint that May might be when the curtain is drawn over this baffling mystery.

The search areas, as shown in the map below, lie along the so called seventh arc of possible locations from which an Inmarsat satellite parked in equatorial geosynchronous orbit over the Indian Ocean near the east coast of Africa heard the last pings coming from a computer server on board the 777, which was carrying 239 people on a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing when it suddenly disappeared over the Gulf of Thailand on 8 March last year.

It is possible that MH370 struck the ocean with such force that it was torn into small fragments that may in turn be buried under silt or hidden in crevices on the sea floor, which in places is as deep as about 6000 metres, and in others, as relatively shallow as 600 metres.

However the two engines and some of the heavier sections of the jet, such as the wheel structures and any metallic cargo containers or other underfloor objects are expected to have sunk comparatively intact making them easier to detect. The frames of seat racks may have settled in sufficient concentrations to create an anomalous return on the various scanners being used to examine the selected strips of sea floor.

The Kongsberg HUGIN 4500 AUV about to go down on the black holes will be the second such device deployed in the search for MH370. Last year the US Navy loaned a sophisticated but smaller AUV, a Bluefin-21, for use in the early unsystematic period of the sea floor search, in which it investigated areas where pings from MH370′s two black boxes had mistakenly been thought to have been heard.
The JACC describes its role as follows:
The AUV will be used to scan those portions of the search area that cannot be searched effectively by the equipment on the other search vessels. It is not connected to the ship by cable, but is rather deployed with a pre-programmed area of the sea floor to investigate. After each underwater mission, the AUV will ascend automatically and return to the Fugro Supporter in order for the gathered data to be downloaded and the AUV’s batteries to be changed out with a spare charged set.
This larger device, made by Norwegian firm Kongsberg Marine, is not only more capable in its instrumentation and performance specifications, but has the advantage of targeting areas identified by a detailed bathymetic survey of what is otherwise unknown or little mapped parts of the ocean floor.

These surveys have allowed the towed sonar scanning devices currently doing the systematic search to avoid hazardous obstacles like unmapped sea mounts that might otherwise destroy them. This work is critical to the success of the Kongsberg device in being able to enter and search the most difficult to see parts of the ocean floor terrain.

Whether use of this device finds MH370, or helps consign it to the forgetfulness of the future, is yet to be determined....then take a look at Steve's Beaker quotes:“There was always a provision in the contract that we had with Fugro that we could acquire additional capability,’’ Mr Dolan said. “The towed capability gives us pretty good coverage of the area we’re looking at, but because the terrain is complex and uneven there’s a bit of shadowing and areas where we don’t have a 100 per cent guarantee that we’ve covered adequately, and that’s what the AUV is designed for.’’
“There’s still quite a way to go with the highest priority areas,’’ Mr Dolan said. “We’re looking at completion in probably April-May.’’ Mr Dolan said that if nothing was found by this date, the ATSB would have to talk to the government about the next steps.
“We’ve got the resources to search the priority areas … and we expect to complete that within the resources we’ve been given by April-May,’’ he said. “We’ll keep government informed. We’re still confident that we’ll find it within that priority search area, it’s just that we can’t give a guarantee so governments may have to run their mind to what next. But at this stage we’re focused on the area we’re looking at.’’ Beaker was obviously not satisfied with this primarily domestic coverage has then squeaked to the AFP (no not that AFP unfortunately..:ugh:) and that is where the spin recycle machine has now gone into overdrive:

Ten months on, Australia confident of finding MH370 (http://english.astroawani.com/news/show/ten-months-australia-confident-finding-mh370-52295)

10 months on, Australia confident of finding MH370 (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/10-months-on-australia/1594240.html)

This one is slightly different...:E: MH370: Missing Plane Will 'Very Likely' Be Found In Good Condition, Says Search Chief (http://www.ibtimes.com/mh370-missing-plane-will-very-likely-be-found-good-condition-says-search-chief-1785744)
Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, which has been missing since March 8, is "very likely" in the current search area in the Indian Ocean, according to Martin Dolan, the chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Dolan, who heads the search operation being conducted from Australia, also told Agence France-Presse (AFP) that the plane could probably be in good condition despite being underwater for more than 10 months.

“Our satellite calculations gave us an area we determined was high priority,” Dolan reportedly said. “In this 60,000 square kilometers (about 23,166 square miles), it's very likely we will find the aircraft, but we don't know exactly where. We just have to cover that area thoroughly.”

Dolan said that authorities believed that the aircraft is about 13,000 feet below the ocean's surface, adding: "It's just that it's a very large area, so it's going to take a long time," AFP reported.

The search for the missing jet resumed in early October and is expected to be completed by May 2015, depending on factors like weather conditions and the operability of search vessels. Three vessels -- Fugro Equator, Fugro Discovery and GO Phoenix -- are currently involved in the search for the missing plane in the southern Indian Ocean where the Boeing 777 is believed to have crashed, while a fourth vessel is expected to join the operation in late January.

The current vessels use sophisticated sonar systems attached to tow cables, while the new Fugro Supporter (http://www.ibtimes.com/mh370-warrant-out-couple-who-stole-passengers-bank-accounts-fourth-vessel-join-search-1780350) will have an autonomous underwater vehicle, Dolan reportedly said.

"(It) can be programmed and cover areas much more thoroughly. It's of course a lot slower," Dolan said. "We need to go slow so that we can be 100 percent sure that we have covered that area totally."

Authorities are also reportedly ready with a recovery plan if the aircraft, which went missing on March 8 with 239 people on board, is found.

Investigators believe that the final resting place of the aircraft could be along the seventh arc, which has been described as “a thin but long line that includes all the possible points where the last known communication between the aircraft and the communication satellite could have taken place.” What next Beaker the New York Times...:ugh:

However the passing strange bit is that the relevant MH370 SAR authority the JACC still continues to neither confirm nor deny any of the Beaker offerings: MH370 Operational Search Update— (http://jacc.gov.au/families/operational_reports/opsearch-update-20150114.aspx#.VLmT_lL8TiA.twitter)14 January 2015

(http://jacc.gov.au/families/operational_reports/opsearch-update-20150114.aspx#.VLmT_lL8TiA.twitter)Indeed Beaker's very own agency the ATSB merely defers to the JACC update...

"...#MH370 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/MH370?src=hash) Operational Update: 14 January 2015, includes details of new search vessel Fugro Supporter. http://www.atsb.gov.au/mh370.aspx (http://t.co/7XlZW0tfBh)"

But IMO the biggest clanger is that since the Fugro contract presser - much like with the announcement of McCormick resigning - the Miniscule's office has not once acknowledged the existence of Beaker or the ATSB in relation to MH370. Example from earlier in the week:
Fugro Supporter to join search for MH370

Media Release
WT003/2014
12 January 2015

An additional vessel has been commissioned to carry out underwater search activities for missing Malaysia Airlines aircraft MH370.

Fugro Supporter is currently on its way to the search area after conducting trials in Bali.

It is expected to arrive in the search area and commence search activities in late January.

The addition of Fugro Supporter, jointly funded by the governments of Australia and Malaysia, brings the number of vessels engaged in the underwater search for the aircraft to four.

The bathymetric survey of the sea floor has revealed previously unknown features including rugged terrain and deep trenches.

Fugro Supporter has been equipped with a Kongsberg HUGIN 4500 autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV). The AUV will be used to scan those portions of the search area that cannot be searched effectively by the equipment on other vessels.

The Australian Government remains committed to the search for MH370. The other thing that has been missing - in regards to any commentary, press releases, speeches by the Miniscule where the ATSB has been part of the subject - is the total lack of any of the usual motherhood statements...you know the ATSB.."world leaders in aviation safety investigation" or "what an exemplary job their doing blah..blah..blah".

Probably the best example of this was in the Miniscule's speech to the Parliament 3 December 2014:ATSB Governance

The government fully supports the vital role of the ATSB. Independent investigation of accidents or incidents remains a crucial element of the safety system, helping us understand the causes and hence the sources of risks to safety. This helps to avoid future accidents. If the system is to work well, industry must cooperate in providing information during accident and incident investigations and in reporting incidents generally. The government will take a number of actions to give effect to this commitment including:

the appointment of an additional ATSB commissioner with aviation experience; and issuing a new Statement of Expectations to the ATSB once the commission and the government has had an opportunity to
review the findings of the Canadian Transportation Safety Board review of the ATSB, which was publicly released in Canada yesterday.
Yesterday the Canadian Transportation Safety Board released its independent report into the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The ATSB tasked the Canadian TSB to undertake an independent review of their investigation methodologies and processes; how they are applied in specific cases and how this compared to international best practice standards. The TSB review looked in detail at three separate investigations, one of which was the Pel-Air inquiry—which, as members may recall, was the subject of a report by the Senate's Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.

While the Canadian TSB found that ATSB investigation methodology and analysis tools represent best practice and have been shown to produce very good results, they found in the case of the Pel-Air investigation there were errors made. I am concerned that the TSB report raises some concerns about the application of ATSB methodologies in the investigation of the ditching of the Pel-Air aircraft off Norfolk Island in 2009. As a consequence I have asked the ATSB Commission to give serious consideration to re-opening the investigation.

On a related point, I have just announced that I will shortly be appointing a new commissioner for the ATSB with a specific background in aviation. This will fulfil an undertaking made by the coalition prior to the election and also one of the recommendations of the report. I have asked that a fresh review of the Pel-Air accident take into account the findings of the ATSB report. Why do I get the distinct impression that Beaker is on his own lone muppet mission...:ooh:

I'll be back...:ok:

Kharon

17th Jan 2015, 19:19

And what will the Senators will make of it. If you can put aside that the person being quoted by Cready in 'the Australian' is Dolan, the co author of the infamous Pel-Air aberration; the three items quoted there are reasonable. The statements are focused on new equipment, completion dates and an update on the rate of search; all fair enough comment from the head of a national TSB. The only possible query could be why should the commissioner be speaking out, independently of the JACC?, even if the quoted remarks do mirror the 'official' version.

Occasionally I'll visit 'news' websites which carry banner headline stories, such as MH 370 and after the Dolan remarks in 'the Australian' I was curious to see what the 'world' and it's wife made of them, so I had a little look around in cyber space. What I found beggared belief; there is a mini media frenzy surrounding the further 'additional' prophetic Dolan comments. These comments have been widely reported, spread around the world in a very short time and given the degree of public, governmental and industry interest in the MH 370 event will have been intensively read and studied for 'inference'.

Unless the commissioner has 'secret' information or a bloody good crystal ball, I fail to see how statements like "very likely to be found", "probably be in good condition"; and, in one published piece a statement to the effect that the aircraft is likely to be pretty much in one piece, resting quietly at 4000 meters.

"Relatives of those on board have endured a long wait for answers on what happened to their loved ones, with their torment reawakened by AirAsia Flight QZ8501 crashing into the sea off Indonesia on December 28."

I wonder what those poor souls waiting for any scrap of good news about their loved ones will make of the extraordinary Dolan statements. I wonder how many have placed faith, belief and made prayers based on those statements. I also wonder what the effect will be should the aircraft not be found, as advertised.

A statement from JACC that there is new equipment and an ongoing effort provides solid reassurance and 'real', tangible hope. It is, IMO cynical and irresponsible to provide elevated hopes and increased expectations which could yet be cruelly dashed by the fates or at the whim of the gods. There will be a lot of disappointed, angry people if the 'Dolan prophesy' turns out to be false yet has raised spurious hopes for those who wait for news.

Our good Senators who nursed the Pel-Air debacle through to a landmark report must be scratching their collective heads in wonder. I'd love to see a quote from Houston or Fawcett or Xenophon, but they are all too downy a bird to go anywhere near this mess.

Nostradamus may have gotten away with this type of nonsense; but in this day and age, given the mystery, drama and global interest in MH 370, I wonder if silence would have proven golden. As Abe Lincoln said;

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Selah.

Can't quote Lincoln without trotting out my favourite;

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Sarcs

18th Jan 2015, 00:42

Much like the Beaker quotes currently doing laps of the world at warp speed; there is another MH370 story/theory/research paper doing laps & gathering much comment in the cyber-universe. It is a research paper by a Canuck mathematician Brock McEwan titled - MH370 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72LW04dlJnQXQ4cTQ/view)
Time to Investigate the Investigators (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72LW04dlJnQXQ4cTQ/view) .

The executive summary starts like this:
On March 18, 2014 - ten days into the investigation of flight MH370 - Col. Stephen Ganyard (USMC Ret.) summarized its turning point for George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s GMA:

[3:29]

“The good news, here, is that we have the Australians with the NTSB now in charge of this investigation.
We've seen a lot of inconsistency out of the Malaysian authorities all week; their statements haven't matched up. But now we have the real pros on the scene, and really, we are now at day one in this investigation, because we have people who know how to do this.”

This paper tests the last of Col. Ganyard’s assertions: it critically examines the subsequent work of these “real pros” (referred to in this paper as “officials” or “investigators”, and meant to describe the members of the Joint Investigation Team Ganyard describes as having taken the reins from Malaysian authorities in mid-March), finds clear evidence of deception, and recommends the investigators be held to account.

Now the interesting thing is that McEwan at one stage was one of Beaker's main inquisitors on his most popular personal blog piece so far - Cautious optimism in search for MH370 (http://atsb.gov.au/infocus/posts/2014/cautious-optimism-in-search-for-mh370.aspx).

Unfortunately for Beaker it appears that he was forced to shut the commentary down on that piece somewhat prematurely...:{ ???:Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner (http://atsb.gov.au/infocus/posts/2014/cautious-optimism-in-search-for-mh370.aspx#!//infocus/posts/2014/cautious-optimism-in-search-for-mh370/comments/martin-closed.aspx) (author) said...

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the conversation. My apologies for the delay in addressing some of your questions. Many of the questions were highly technical so I took the time to consult with our specialists before responding.

The comments and questions have helped us to clarify some of the technical aspects of our report into defining the underwater search areas. You can now find the updated report on the MH370 page of our website.

August 20, 2014 09:17
View all comments by Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner (http://atsb.gov.au/infocus/posts/2014/cautious-optimism-in-search-for-mh370.aspx?commenter=Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner#comments)

All passing strange and convoluted...:rolleyes:

Perhaps Ben can shine some light on all this in his latest...;):

MH370: Is it time to investigate the investigators?

Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/author/bensandilands/) | Jan 18, 2015 11:26AM | EMAIL | PRINT (http://javascript<b></b>:window.print();)

A Canadian mathematician, Brock McEwen, says it’s high time to investigate the MH370 investigators (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r3yuaF2p72LW04dlJnQXQ4cTQ/view?pli=1) themselves because there are reasons to believe the search is being set up to fail for reasons unknown.
It’s a compelling analysis at a number of levels, but manages to self destruct at a critical point by buying into an unscientific conspiracy theory that the sea floor search has been materially diverted into one seeking ocean floor mineral riches.

Trying to put that really silly part of the paper aside, the balance of McEwen’s thesis raises some very serious matters, including some that have long been flagged here on Plane Talking not on a mathematical basis, but on common sense grounds including unexplained inconsistencies in the narratives of the Australian and Malaysian authorities.

For those who have been following the MH370 saga closely McEwen isn’t part of the Independent Group that includes Duncan Steel (who is well known and respected in this country) but acknowledges their support and advice and cites much of their work in coming to his conclusions.

For those who haven’t followed developments closely, there are some key events so far that have been brushed off or frozen out of frame by the Australian led and managed search that McEwen raises, as well as one that he inexplicably ignores.

Australia assumed the management of the search for MH370 on 18 March 2014, ten days after it disappeared as a transponder identified airliner on ATC screens while en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people listed as having been on board.

Between 20-26 March last year a range of satellite images of objects floating on the surface of the southern Indian Ocean west to southwest of Perth were published. McEwen ignores the possible significance of these images, which may well have included objects from MH370 as well as the more abundant presence of flotsam off commercial shipping.

However McEwen doesn’t ignore that rather abrupt shifting of the then largely aerial search priority far to the north west, pointing out that this move and a subsequent further shift meant looking in places that MH370 could never have crashed if the communications data, available fuel and likely flight performance data and main southwards turning point assumptions were being taken seriously.

In short, McEwen is leading us to ask if the that the search priorities were swiftly moved away from any risk that floating debris would actually be found.

It’s a very good question. It has become abundantly clear that Australia was dealing with a dishonest and incompetent Malaysian government when it came to disclosures about MH370 not to mention alleged dishonest dealings that we are forbidden to mention in another matter widely publicized throughout SE Asia because the Abbott government is muzzling the Australian media over a serious additional matter that makes its Je suis Charlie posturing about freedom of the press look shallow and shabby.

These doubts about the integrity of the ‘story’ coming from the Malaysian and Australian authorities have been championed in no uncertain manner by the president and CEO of Emirates, Tim Clark, as also widely reported in Plane Talking and foreign media, rather than the cowed Australian general media.

McEwen also catches the feeble excuses that the chief commissioner of the ATSB Martin Dolan made for the decision to rush away from what looked like the best leads we have had so far when it came to the fate of MH370.
However like the Independent Group, McEwen seems to misunderstand Dolan and the ATSB in their constant criticism of him for not answering their questions in full or in satisfactory detail.

Dolan wouldn’t (on the basis of his various embarrassing press conferences) even understand their questions. He is a discredited civil servant whose integrity was called into doubt in no uncertain manner by the all party Australian Senate inquiry into the ATSB’s disgraceful crash investigation of the Pel-Air ditching near Norfolk Island in 2009.

The last time the Prime Minister of Australia or his deputy, and the transport minister, Warren Truss, were even referring to Mr Dolan by name was back when a television reporter asked the chief commissioner to explain the difference between a great circle route and a straight line, resulting in one of the most cringe worthy and embarrassing performances even given by an aviation administrator on live national television.

The ATSB has itself been found seriously wanting by a peer review of their procedures in producing that report by the Transport Safety Board of Canada, and the responsible Minister, when he can bring himself to focus on this humiliation, continues to amaze the aviation sector by his inability to resolve the compromised position the ATSB, and the regulator CASA, have been put in by the Pel-Air matters.

If the Independent Group was street smart, as well as scientifically incredibly smart, it would be pursuing the parties advising the ATSB on the management of the search, that is, grilling the chefs, not the waiters.
McEwen asks some very pertinent questions about the early April ‘we have pings’ embarrassment for Australia, and in particular, its supposedly expert Naval underwater acoustics laboratory, which lead to the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, humiliating the country by very publicly declaring to the people and government of China in particular, that Australia was on the verge of locating MH370, in a place where with dispassionate analysis of the then known facts, it couldn’t have possibly been anyhow.

It also led to this reporter publishing the most cringe worthy post ever on Plane Talking saying that the voices of the missing on MH370 were being heard from the deep.

While the writer can’t talk for the PM, we share the mortification.

McEwen’s analysis develops the need to examine the investigators, the real ones reporting directly to Kuala Lumpur, in a persuasive manner, yet there is a second very disappointing blemish in relation to the claimed call to a co-pilot’s cell phone after the 777 diverted from its filed flight path.

McEwen even relies on a CNN report in relation to this, which is more than appalling given that CNN couldn’t even find Canberra on a map of Australia and briefly managed to locate Perth in Tasmania.

The phone calls that were referred to in a media conference in Australia were to a company satphone, not a cell phone, so his analysis as to how a cell phone call couldn’t have been connected via a ground tower to a 777 flying above a certain altitude is beside the point. McEwen seems to have put undue reliance on unconfirmed media ‘myths’ about MH370, which is unnecessary given the self-incriminating flaws in the information directly released by the authorities themselves.

With blemishes like these, this report destroys much of its credibility. If it was redone dealing only with the mathematical problems, and the credibility or otherwise of the satellite images, and the unanswered satphone issues, it might be a much more convincing document.

It might even lead to pressure to search more realistic locations on or near the seventh arc than might presently be the case.

I'll say it again someone needs to muzzle the muppet...:ugh:

I'll be back...:ok: