Merged: Senate Inquiry
Bureaucratic & Political indictment.
Creamy:
{Comment: Spot on Creamy!
}
gaunty:
{Comment: It would seem that the blackbox maybe now be fairgame so how about it gaunty or Sunny?? 
}
SIUYA:
Not to labor(ial) over the Govt response to R1, however it is worth reflecting on the now infamous previous Senate Inquiry thread on the subject of the non-recovery of the OBRs...
Kharon post #953:"...I still wonder why the "Black box" was not recovered, the combined unit would have provided an independent eye witness to the events. We are obliged by law to install and keep serviceable the "boxes": not recovering the thing makes it pointless to do so. The report is happy with 'edited' transcript and 'expert' opinion. I guess expecting the facts and evidence to support assumption are not required in the modern era of investigations. CASA and the ATSB have dreamed up some bull about there being 'enough' evidence without the CVR/FDR; and yet questions are stll being asked against spin, speculation and assumption.
We have three independent witnesses to the event ignored, unheard and buried under a mountain of paperwork; the CVR, the FDR and the co pilot. It would be a brave judge who made a ruling without hearing all the witnesses..."
Closely followed by my post at #954:
And it goes on over numerous posts/pages thereafter..
Creamy etc are right, this response to R1 is a huge indictment of the agencies involved and the political system under which we are governed...
Conspiracy theory: Here's a thought..
?? Maybe at the time (like in the LHR case) and unbeknownst to the ATsB, PIC/FO the CVR/FDR on VH-NGA was in fact U/S??
Addendum:
Non-retrieval of CVR/FDR - Dolan obfuscation 22/10/12 hearing - YouTube
These days the ATSB merely jumps to a convenient conclusion and doesn't bother pursuing anything that might cast doubt on that conclusion. Here's what the AAAA submission to the ASRR Panel says on this issue:
AAAA expressed strong concerns to ATSB management with previous attempts during investigations to attempt to mould evidence to fit a theory, rather than objectively analysing and presenting the evidence available.
That the Laborials are prepared to acquiesce in the ATSB's refusal to retrieve NGA's OBRs is a very sad indictment on the weakness of the fabric of government in Australia.
AAAA expressed strong concerns to ATSB management with previous attempts during investigations to attempt to mould evidence to fit a theory, rather than objectively analysing and presenting the evidence available.
That the Laborials are prepared to acquiesce in the ATSB's refusal to retrieve NGA's OBRs is a very sad indictment on the weakness of the fabric of government in Australia.
}gaunty:
It actually begs the question. Are we to base investigation results on basically uncoroborated evidence and "views"!
It wouldn't be the first time that "evidence" offered on recollection was not supported by other facts. The only way that can become incontrovertible is why CVRs are installed in the first place.
I for one wont rest until they are!
And, otherwise what's the point in mandating them?
It wouldn't be the first time that "evidence" offered on recollection was not supported by other facts. The only way that can become incontrovertible is why CVRs are installed in the first place.
I for one wont rest until they are!
And, otherwise what's the point in mandating them?
}SIUYA:
Look carefully at the timeframes - the decision NOT to recover the recorders was made at an early stage of the investigation as far as I can understand, so how come, at that EARLY stage, was the ATSB so confident that the recorders wouldn't reveal data that wasn't available from other sources...
...The Minister's response to Recommendation 1 defies belief, and provides a stark indication that the Minister, like his predecessor, really doesn't have a clue what it's all about, and that he seems to believe, like the idiot running the ATSB, that bulsh1t baffles brains.
...The Minister's response to Recommendation 1 defies belief, and provides a stark indication that the Minister, like his predecessor, really doesn't have a clue what it's all about, and that he seems to believe, like the idiot running the ATSB, that bulsh1t baffles brains.
Kharon post #953:"...I still wonder why the "Black box" was not recovered, the combined unit would have provided an independent eye witness to the events. We are obliged by law to install and keep serviceable the "boxes": not recovering the thing makes it pointless to do so. The report is happy with 'edited' transcript and 'expert' opinion. I guess expecting the facts and evidence to support assumption are not required in the modern era of investigations. CASA and the ATSB have dreamed up some bull about there being 'enough' evidence without the CVR/FDR; and yet questions are stll being asked against spin, speculation and assumption.
We have three independent witnesses to the event ignored, unheard and buried under a mountain of paperwork; the CVR, the FDR and the co pilot. It would be a brave judge who made a ruling without hearing all the witnesses..."
Closely followed by my post at #954:
post “K” 
and highlights yet another unexplained and unresolved, tainted area within the remit of the Pel-Air enquiry that hopefully hasn’t got past the attention of the good Senators.
A quick Sunday afternoon google search for unrecovered blackboxes turns up a list total of twelve (I guess soon to be 13) from 1965. Some of those cases it wasn’t from a lack of trying to retrieve them. And sometimes they were totally or partially destroyed or lost.
The irony of the Pel-Air Norfolk ditching is that if the crew and pax had of perished then the bureau and FF would have been obligated to recover the blackbox!
Besides being a rather embarrassing retraction by the DAS and points to the question whether the DAS is indeed the puppetmaster or the puppet, the following is interesting in the context of the unrecovered blackbox:
At page 41 of the Hansard from Monday 22 October it was stated:
CHAIR: So your department had no part, no conversations, in the recovery of the black box?
Mr McCormick: No, Senator, we did not.
CHAIR: No input at all?
Mr McCormick: No, Senator.
I have since been advised that this statement is not correct. On 8 December 2009
the ATSB raised with CASA by email the possibility of contributing to a joint fund
sharing arrangement to recover the black box and was advised that CASA did not have the funds to contribute to that exercise. I was not aware of this email at the time of my advice to the Committee.
I apologise if my comments have been in any way misleading.
Besides the fact that the Hansard reference to which he refers is actually located on page 53 this revelation may call into question some of the issues that Kharon raises in post #953.
§ How can it be that FF doesn’t have the necessary funds and where’s the cost/benefit/analysis?
§ As “K” infers could it be that FF legal considered the CVR information could be detrimental to their case of trying (initially) to prosecute the pilot under S20A of the Act and given the protections section 32 AO-AU afford the flight crew?
§ Could it also be that FF were aware that had the blackbox been retrieved then the bureau would have full and privileged control over the CVR/FDR information as per the TSI Act?
The DAS revelation would have been a contributing factor to bean-counter Beaker’s ultimate decision not to recover the black box, which
he explained to the committee on page 67 of the Hansard:
Mr Dolan: At the initial stages, we understood the aircraft was in comparatively shallow water and that access to the recorders would be reasonably achievable by a diver or other mechanisms without too much difficulty. That brief was to convince me to make the necessary allocation of resources to retrieve the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. Upon investigation, it became clear that the depth at which the aircraft was in the water, its location at a remote island, Norfolk Island, and the work health and safety standards applying to diving to those depths meant that there would have been a substantial cost of recovery.
The requirement was effectively that there be a decompression chamber, none of which was available on Norfolk Island, for the full time of the retrieval because of the depth at which the divers would be operating. When we got a reasonable and first approximation assessment of that, in the knowledge that, from our point of view, the key information we had about flight decision making would not have been recorded on the cockpit voice recorder which only had a two-hour time on it—
You got to say what a load of bollocks! And what about the FDR, surely the invaluable information that it holds over a 100hrs of ‘power on’ was worth the cost of retrieval alone??
Not sure about the FA2100 combined CVR/FDR but a lot of FDR’s these days have so many more flight system parameters measured/recorded.
Whose to say if fuel flows, fuel burn etc wasn’t recorded not to mention (as “K” said) actual winds aloft, ground speed etc..etc. Even PTT actuations, which could have possibly shown transmissions that weren’t received or recorded by ATC. The list isn’t endless but there is a 100hrs of possibly relevant information that is still sitting on the ocean floor.
Hopefully the good Senators are all over this because it certainly is an area that raises the stench of this whole Pel-Air debacle to an extreme level!
and highlights yet another unexplained and unresolved, tainted area within the remit of the Pel-Air enquiry that hopefully hasn’t got past the attention of the good Senators.A quick Sunday afternoon google search for unrecovered blackboxes turns up a list total of twelve (I guess soon to be 13) from 1965. Some of those cases it wasn’t from a lack of trying to retrieve them. And sometimes they were totally or partially destroyed or lost.
The irony of the Pel-Air Norfolk ditching is that if the crew and pax had of perished then the bureau and FF would have been obligated to recover the blackbox!
Besides being a rather embarrassing retraction by the DAS and points to the question whether the DAS is indeed the puppetmaster or the puppet, the following is interesting in the context of the unrecovered blackbox:
At page 41 of the Hansard from Monday 22 October it was stated:
CHAIR: So your department had no part, no conversations, in the recovery of the black box?
Mr McCormick: No, Senator, we did not.
CHAIR: No input at all?
Mr McCormick: No, Senator.
I have since been advised that this statement is not correct. On 8 December 2009
the ATSB raised with CASA by email the possibility of contributing to a joint fund
sharing arrangement to recover the black box and was advised that CASA did not have the funds to contribute to that exercise. I was not aware of this email at the time of my advice to the Committee.
I apologise if my comments have been in any way misleading.
Besides the fact that the Hansard reference to which he refers is actually located on page 53 this revelation may call into question some of the issues that Kharon raises in post #953.
§ How can it be that FF doesn’t have the necessary funds and where’s the cost/benefit/analysis?
§ As “K” infers could it be that FF legal considered the CVR information could be detrimental to their case of trying (initially) to prosecute the pilot under S20A of the Act and given the protections section 32 AO-AU afford the flight crew?
§ Could it also be that FF were aware that had the blackbox been retrieved then the bureau would have full and privileged control over the CVR/FDR information as per the TSI Act?
The DAS revelation would have been a contributing factor to bean-counter Beaker’s ultimate decision not to recover the black box, which
he explained to the committee on page 67 of the Hansard:
Mr Dolan: At the initial stages, we understood the aircraft was in comparatively shallow water and that access to the recorders would be reasonably achievable by a diver or other mechanisms without too much difficulty. That brief was to convince me to make the necessary allocation of resources to retrieve the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. Upon investigation, it became clear that the depth at which the aircraft was in the water, its location at a remote island, Norfolk Island, and the work health and safety standards applying to diving to those depths meant that there would have been a substantial cost of recovery.
The requirement was effectively that there be a decompression chamber, none of which was available on Norfolk Island, for the full time of the retrieval because of the depth at which the divers would be operating. When we got a reasonable and first approximation assessment of that, in the knowledge that, from our point of view, the key information we had about flight decision making would not have been recorded on the cockpit voice recorder which only had a two-hour time on it—
You got to say what a load of bollocks! And what about the FDR, surely the invaluable information that it holds over a 100hrs of ‘power on’ was worth the cost of retrieval alone??
Not sure about the FA2100 combined CVR/FDR but a lot of FDR’s these days have so many more flight system parameters measured/recorded.
Whose to say if fuel flows, fuel burn etc wasn’t recorded not to mention (as “K” said) actual winds aloft, ground speed etc..etc. Even PTT actuations, which could have possibly shown transmissions that weren’t received or recorded by ATC. The list isn’t endless but there is a 100hrs of possibly relevant information that is still sitting on the ocean floor.
Hopefully the good Senators are all over this because it certainly is an area that raises the stench of this whole Pel-Air debacle to an extreme level!
Creamy etc are right, this response to R1 is a huge indictment of the agencies involved and the political system under which we are governed...
Conspiracy theory: Here's a thought..
?? Maybe at the time (like in the LHR case) and unbeknownst to the ATsB, PIC/FO the CVR/FDR on VH-NGA was in fact U/S?? Addendum:
Non-retrieval of CVR/FDR - Dolan obfuscation 22/10/12 hearing - YouTube
Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Mar 2014 at 01:41.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA in particular have a history of loosing 'evidence' when it comes to protecting their CRONY's, I am a victim of that, and one Deputy PM accused the CASA Board of 'destroying' that evidence.
Given, if there is no will, by anyone, to recover the FDR/CVR, that 'evidence' is effectively 'lost', who is the 'CRONY' being protected, (by both political Party's and statutory bureaucracy's)?
Unlike my 'evidence', the Pel-Air 'evidence' can still be 'un-lost' and recovered as it still exists, (I'm assuming). There is possibly some legal injunction available to prevent its continued inability to be entered into evidence.
What prevents a salvage by private party's and who 'owns' the savaged hull and its contents?
Lawyers, Insurance assessors, and dive experts welcome to comment on this one.
Given, if there is no will, by anyone, to recover the FDR/CVR, that 'evidence' is effectively 'lost', who is the 'CRONY' being protected, (by both political Party's and statutory bureaucracy's)?
Unlike my 'evidence', the Pel-Air 'evidence' can still be 'un-lost' and recovered as it still exists, (I'm assuming). There is possibly some legal injunction available to prevent its continued inability to be entered into evidence.
What prevents a salvage by private party's and who 'owns' the savaged hull and its contents?
Lawyers, Insurance assessors, and dive experts welcome to comment on this one.
Frank...
Very good point.
See TSI Act S.49, as follows:
49 OBR ceasing to be an OBR under declaration of ATSB
...
(3) If:
(a) the ATSB decides to investigate the transport safety matter to which an OBR relates; and
(b) the ATSB is satisfied that any part of the OBR is not relevant to the investigation;
the ATSB must, by published notice, identify that part and declare that part is not to be treated as an OBR on and after a date specified in the notice.
(4) The ATSB cannot revoke or vary a notice published under this section.
(5) When an OBR, or part of an OBR, ceases to be an OBR because of a notice published under this section, then any related OBR information also ceases to be OBR information.
The $64K question therefore is:
"Did TweedleDUMB (Dolan) publish a notice pursuant to S.49(3)(b) when the ATSB decided not to recover the recorders at the EARLY stage in the investigation when he (TweedleDUMB) became so confident that the recorders wouldn't reveal data that wasn't available from other sources?"
And if, TweedleDUMB didn't publish that notice, then WHY wasn't it published?
However, if TweedleDUMB DID publish the notice, then the recorders are open slather I reckon to be 'un-lost' as Frank is suggesting, if it's at all possible to do that, and then the information that they may provide could be made public as/where/when necessary, and as SHOULD have been published in the first place.
And as far as I can see, there's absolutely fcuk-all that TweedleDUMB could do to stop that if he published the requisite notice under S.49 of the TSI Act, because S.53 would seem to not apply if that were the case.
I'm no lawyer - so I'll defer to Creampuff's opinion here.
Notwithstanding, you better get your scuba gear dusted off gaunty - looks like you might be going for a diving trip to Norfolk Is.
...the Pel-Air 'evidence' can still be 'un-lost' and recovered [if] it still exists...
Very good point.See TSI Act S.49, as follows:
49 OBR ceasing to be an OBR under declaration of ATSB
...
(3) If:
(a) the ATSB decides to investigate the transport safety matter to which an OBR relates; and
(b) the ATSB is satisfied that any part of the OBR is not relevant to the investigation;
the ATSB must, by published notice, identify that part and declare that part is not to be treated as an OBR on and after a date specified in the notice.
(4) The ATSB cannot revoke or vary a notice published under this section.
(5) When an OBR, or part of an OBR, ceases to be an OBR because of a notice published under this section, then any related OBR information also ceases to be OBR information.
The $64K question therefore is:
"Did TweedleDUMB (Dolan) publish a notice pursuant to S.49(3)(b) when the ATSB decided not to recover the recorders at the EARLY stage in the investigation when he (TweedleDUMB) became so confident that the recorders wouldn't reveal data that wasn't available from other sources?"
And if, TweedleDUMB didn't publish that notice, then WHY wasn't it published?
However, if TweedleDUMB DID publish the notice, then the recorders are open slather I reckon to be 'un-lost' as Frank is suggesting, if it's at all possible to do that, and then the information that they may provide could be made public as/where/when necessary, and as SHOULD have been published in the first place.
And as far as I can see, there's absolutely fcuk-all that TweedleDUMB could do to stop that if he published the requisite notice under S.49 of the TSI Act, because S.53 would seem to not apply if that were the case.
I'm no lawyer - so I'll defer to Creampuff's opinion here.
Notwithstanding, you better get your scuba gear dusted off gaunty - looks like you might be going for a diving trip to Norfolk Is.
Last edited by SIUYA; 23rd Mar 2014 at 06:50.
I'm no lawyer either, but I'd put it this way: If I'd been PIC, the recorders would have been out and taken to a trusted organisation a long time ago.
Bear in mind what the prohibitions on the use and disclosure of OBR information are (supposedly) about: The protection of the crew!
It would be a complete perversion of the policy of the legislation, and would expose the ATSB as pursuing an agenda entirely contrary to the interests of air safety, if ATSB tried to prevent someone from recovering the recorders and the disclosing of the information on them for the purposes of finding out the facts and vindicating the crew.
Bear in mind what the prohibitions on the use and disclosure of OBR information are (supposedly) about: The protection of the crew!
It would be a complete perversion of the policy of the legislation, and would expose the ATSB as pursuing an agenda entirely contrary to the interests of air safety, if ATSB tried to prevent someone from recovering the recorders and the disclosing of the information on them for the purposes of finding out the facts and vindicating the crew.
Thanks Creampuff...
We are obviously in violent agreement here!
So, does anyone have any idea if TweedleDUMB ever published a notice pursuant to S.49(3)(b) at the time that the ATSB decided not to recover the recorders at the EARLY stage in the investigation?
Because if he didn't, then it seems to vindicate the assertion that TweedleDUMBER (the Minister) has demonstrated rock-hard STUPIDITY in accepting the reasons provided by TweedleDUMB to justify the ATSB's failure to recover the recorders.
If no notice was issued by TweedleDUMB (Dolan) pursuant to S.49, then I'd say TweedleDUMBER (Truss) might need to not pass GO, not collect $200, and go back to the drawing board and rethink the whole matter and either get TweedleDUMB to issue a notice pursuant to S.49, or to bite the bullet and spend some $$$s to recover the recorders RFN (Right Fcuking Now) without any more procrastination and obfuscation.
It's not rocket science FFS.
Why is this all so bloody hard?
We are obviously in violent agreement here!
So, does anyone have any idea if TweedleDUMB ever published a notice pursuant to S.49(3)(b) at the time that the ATSB decided not to recover the recorders at the EARLY stage in the investigation?
Because if he didn't, then it seems to vindicate the assertion that TweedleDUMBER (the Minister) has demonstrated rock-hard STUPIDITY in accepting the reasons provided by TweedleDUMB to justify the ATSB's failure to recover the recorders.
If no notice was issued by TweedleDUMB (Dolan) pursuant to S.49, then I'd say TweedleDUMBER (Truss) might need to not pass GO, not collect $200, and go back to the drawing board and rethink the whole matter and either get TweedleDUMB to issue a notice pursuant to S.49, or to bite the bullet and spend some $$$s to recover the recorders RFN (Right Fcuking Now) without any more procrastination and obfuscation.
It's not rocket science FFS.
Why is this all so bloody hard?
I wonder if anyone has seen a reasonable estimate on chartering a proficient salvage company to retrieve the FDR/CDR?
If so, could that be funded by a privately led funds drive?
If so, could that be funded by a privately led funds drive?
Ben's take on Govt response!
Ben (& his nearly fried server) have taken taken some time out from the mystery of the disappearance of MH370 to pass comment on the Govt wet lettuce response..:
Scary thought that if the MH370 wreckage is found in the southern search area then the accident investigation, under the terms of Annex 13 section 5.3 'State of Registry', could be delegated by the Malaysians to our ATsB to conduct. Would you want the current regime under Beaker to be carrying out what would be such a heavily internationally scrutinised investigation??
Here is a refresher (CV if you like) on Beaker..
Non-retrieval of CVR/FDR - Dolan obfuscation 22/10/12 hearing - YouTube
Ps Corrected for you SIUYA, good to see that someone is awake!
:
Pel-Air crash report failings flick passed by Govt
Last week the Warren Truss, the deputy PM and transport and infrastructure minister, did what his predecessor Labor’s Anthony Albanese, failed to do last year when he promised but never delivered a timely response to the Senate committee inquiry into the ATSB’s report into the Pel-Air crash.
For the many new readers who are visiting Plane Talking, a Pel-Air Westwind corporate jet was performing an air ambulance contract to transfer a patient from Apia to Melbourne via a refueling stop at Norfolk Island in November 2009 when it was ditched in the sea , from which all six people on board were rescued against all the odds.
The quality of that report, and the suppression of documents that cast a very bad light on Australia’s air safety regulator, CASA, and its safety investigator, the ATSB, has become something of a cause in Australia’s aviation sector where both bodies are distrusted and held in contempt.
The Senate all party committee was unanimous in its criticism of both bodies but all of its substantive recommendations for strong corrective action were in effected ruled out by the new minister, who appears to be channeling his discredited predecessor, when he tabled the much delayed government response to the committee’s findings.
The committee’s report and the new government’s response, can be found on this page.
The are some matters arising from the Pel-Air crash that require the Minister’s attention.
The Senate committee devoted a chapter of its report to its rejection of the integrity of the testimony given by the chief commissioner of the ASTSB, Martin Dolan, something that may be without precedent in the history of parliamentary scrutiny of the affairs and performance of a government agency.
Why is Mr Dolan trusted to head the ATSB when his word is not trusted by an all party committee of the Parliament of Australia?
Why is it the Coalition way to endorse what was the Labor way in the Pel-Air crash, and permit two statutory authorities to rig an air crash investigation so that evidence that showed CASA was incompetent was disregarded and evidence that implicated the regulator and the operator subordinated to the purpose of apportioning all of the blame on the captain of the flight.
It’s one thing for Labor to treat individual rights with contempt when it comes to the misconduct of powerful public authorities. But does this make it right for the Coalition to do the same thing?
Why is it that the Coalition position that the ATSB report, which failed to deal with the lack of regulatory oversight of the operator, or the suitability of the aircraft for the purpose, or the lack of appropriate regulations concerning to conduct and fueling of such operations, should nevertheless be allowed to stand.
Why is the government tolerating a so called independent review of the ATSB’s investigative processes by its Canadian counterpart that is so restrictive in its terms that not all the parties to that inquiry are being asked to participate in what seems to be a desk audit?
Is the government a party to suppressing documents highly critical of CASA that have been submitted to its Aviation Safety Regulation Review?
When a government that models itself on the Westminster system invites submissions to a statutory inquiry and publishes them they are protected by legal privileges.
Can the Minister assure the aviation industry that their ‘suppressed’ submissions are also privileged in the event that these detailed allegations and observations made about CASA are independently made public?
These are important questions. For the public accountability of Government and Public Administration as well as the safety of aviation.
Last week the Warren Truss, the deputy PM and transport and infrastructure minister, did what his predecessor Labor’s Anthony Albanese, failed to do last year when he promised but never delivered a timely response to the Senate committee inquiry into the ATSB’s report into the Pel-Air crash.
For the many new readers who are visiting Plane Talking, a Pel-Air Westwind corporate jet was performing an air ambulance contract to transfer a patient from Apia to Melbourne via a refueling stop at Norfolk Island in November 2009 when it was ditched in the sea , from which all six people on board were rescued against all the odds.
The quality of that report, and the suppression of documents that cast a very bad light on Australia’s air safety regulator, CASA, and its safety investigator, the ATSB, has become something of a cause in Australia’s aviation sector where both bodies are distrusted and held in contempt.
The Senate all party committee was unanimous in its criticism of both bodies but all of its substantive recommendations for strong corrective action were in effected ruled out by the new minister, who appears to be channeling his discredited predecessor, when he tabled the much delayed government response to the committee’s findings.
The committee’s report and the new government’s response, can be found on this page.
The are some matters arising from the Pel-Air crash that require the Minister’s attention.
The Senate committee devoted a chapter of its report to its rejection of the integrity of the testimony given by the chief commissioner of the ASTSB, Martin Dolan, something that may be without precedent in the history of parliamentary scrutiny of the affairs and performance of a government agency.
Why is Mr Dolan trusted to head the ATSB when his word is not trusted by an all party committee of the Parliament of Australia?
Why is it the Coalition way to endorse what was the Labor way in the Pel-Air crash, and permit two statutory authorities to rig an air crash investigation so that evidence that showed CASA was incompetent was disregarded and evidence that implicated the regulator and the operator subordinated to the purpose of apportioning all of the blame on the captain of the flight.
It’s one thing for Labor to treat individual rights with contempt when it comes to the misconduct of powerful public authorities. But does this make it right for the Coalition to do the same thing?
Why is it that the Coalition position that the ATSB report, which failed to deal with the lack of regulatory oversight of the operator, or the suitability of the aircraft for the purpose, or the lack of appropriate regulations concerning to conduct and fueling of such operations, should nevertheless be allowed to stand.
Why is the government tolerating a so called independent review of the ATSB’s investigative processes by its Canadian counterpart that is so restrictive in its terms that not all the parties to that inquiry are being asked to participate in what seems to be a desk audit?
Is the government a party to suppressing documents highly critical of CASA that have been submitted to its Aviation Safety Regulation Review?
When a government that models itself on the Westminster system invites submissions to a statutory inquiry and publishes them they are protected by legal privileges.
Can the Minister assure the aviation industry that their ‘suppressed’ submissions are also privileged in the event that these detailed allegations and observations made about CASA are independently made public?
These are important questions. For the public accountability of Government and Public Administration as well as the safety of aviation.
Here is a refresher (CV if you like) on Beaker..
Non-retrieval of CVR/FDR - Dolan obfuscation 22/10/12 hearing - YouTube
Ps Corrected for you SIUYA, good to see that someone is awake!
Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Mar 2014 at 21:52. Reason: Annex 13 section 5.3 correction
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Frankston
Age: 63
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cvr etc
I'm happy to defer to the significant experience of the posters on this site (gaunty) but I remain to be educated as to the benefits of recovering the cvr etc. Without recourse to this data the powers that be have already demonstrated their complete incompetence. (ie withholding the Chambers report - and then ignoring it)
Surely the issue has moved beyond the technical issues (which I suspect may prove they're f..kw.ts) to making them accountable for the facts that have already been uncovered by the senate. ie the senate knows they're f..kw.ts.; the available facts demonstrate they're f..kw.ts, so how do we stop them being f..kw.ts? The senate has already made a prima facie case which both governments and the AFP appear to have ignored - what else can the truth add?
Imagine if the recovery of the black boxes revealed nothing other than what was already "known" - perhaps the only other benefit might simply be to demonstrate that recovery could be achieved relatively simply and cheaply compared to, say, some other cost centres of the ATSB budget. Even then, with the commissioner immune to embarrassment, what would this add? The lunatics are still in charge.
Of course. it would be worthwhile having the data (the truth is important) and apportioning blame appropriately but what would change if the agencies continue to operate as before? Self serving bureaucrats reporting to self serving politicians. Viva democracy. (note to self - must stop thinking negatively)
Surely the issue has moved beyond the technical issues (which I suspect may prove they're f..kw.ts) to making them accountable for the facts that have already been uncovered by the senate. ie the senate knows they're f..kw.ts.; the available facts demonstrate they're f..kw.ts, so how do we stop them being f..kw.ts? The senate has already made a prima facie case which both governments and the AFP appear to have ignored - what else can the truth add?
Imagine if the recovery of the black boxes revealed nothing other than what was already "known" - perhaps the only other benefit might simply be to demonstrate that recovery could be achieved relatively simply and cheaply compared to, say, some other cost centres of the ATSB budget. Even then, with the commissioner immune to embarrassment, what would this add? The lunatics are still in charge.
Of course. it would be worthwhile having the data (the truth is important) and apportioning blame appropriately but what would change if the agencies continue to operate as before? Self serving bureaucrats reporting to self serving politicians. Viva democracy. (note to self - must stop thinking negatively)
Sarcs...
Nice try, but you need to look at ICAO Annex 13 here:
So it's Malaysia's 'gig' Sarcs until/if it (Malaysia) delegates the investigation to someone else.
Note that Australia is properly performing its responsibilities:
This would be without any kudos to TweedleDUMB and the ATSB - hat's off to the RAAF with the excellent job that they are doing!
But be VERY CONCERNED if Malaysia (State of Registry) in a moment of sheer lunacy decides to devolve the investigation to ATSB per Annex 13 para 5.3 Sarcs, because in all certainty it would become $$$-driven exercise under TweedleDUMB's 'Commissionorship', and going by the quality of ATSB reports under the idiot's so-called management, we would almost certainly end up knowing a good deal less than we presently know when the investigation was, hopefully, concluded in about 50 years time.
Scary thought that if the MH370 wreckage is found in the southern search area then the accident investigation should, by rights, fall to our ATsB to conduct..
State of Registry
5.3 When the location of the accident or the serious incident cannot definitely be established as being in the territory of any State, the State of Registry shall institute and conduct any necessary investigation of the accident or serious incident.
However, it may delegate the whole or any part of the investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent.
5.3 When the location of the accident or the serious incident cannot definitely be established as being in the territory of any State, the State of Registry shall institute and conduct any necessary investigation of the accident or serious incident.
However, it may delegate the whole or any part of the investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent.
Note that Australia is properly performing its responsibilities:
5.3.1 States nearest the scene of an accident in international waters shall provide such assistance as they are able and shall, likewise, respond to requests by the State of Registry.
But be VERY CONCERNED if Malaysia (State of Registry) in a moment of sheer lunacy decides to devolve the investigation to ATSB per Annex 13 para 5.3 Sarcs, because in all certainty it would become $$$-driven exercise under TweedleDUMB's 'Commissionorship', and going by the quality of ATSB reports under the idiot's so-called management, we would almost certainly end up knowing a good deal less than we presently know when the investigation was, hopefully, concluded in about 50 years time.
Man the lifejackets...
You make good points, but you probably need to understand Annex 13 a little bit here with respect to OBRs.
It's not that the OBRs may not reveal information about data/information that's known. It's the fact that effort WAS made to recover the information which may substantiate other information that's already known.
You also need to look at what gaunty said:
In other words, the OBR information really is invaluable to 'corroborate' other information, and also to validate other information that's gained during an investigation.
There are many 'landmark' investigations where OBR data really DID provide the 'key' to what happened MTL, and to disregard the effort to retrieve that data based solely on $$$-considerations, as was seemingly done with the PEL-AIR investigation reveals a very 'flawed' philosophy and understanding of basic investigation methodology by the investigation body conducting the investigation.
Remember too MTL, the purpose of the investigation is NOT to apportion BLAME, but the way CASA approached things with the investigation under consideration might perhaps make you think otherwise.
But nothing I or any other PPRuNERs say/write is going to make the slightest bit of difference to TweedleDUMB and TweedleDUMBER I'm afraid, and unfortunately all we're doing is pissing into the wind.
Time to canvass the independents I think.
You make good points, but you probably need to understand Annex 13 a little bit here with respect to OBRs.
It's not that the OBRs may not reveal information about data/information that's known. It's the fact that effort WAS made to recover the information which may substantiate other information that's already known.
You also need to look at what gaunty said:
It actually begs the question. Are we to base investigation results on basically uncorroborated evidence and "views"!
It wouldn't be the first time that "evidence" offered on recollection was not supported by other facts. The only way that can become incontrovertible is why CVRs are installed in the first place.
It wouldn't be the first time that "evidence" offered on recollection was not supported by other facts. The only way that can become incontrovertible is why CVRs are installed in the first place.
There are many 'landmark' investigations where OBR data really DID provide the 'key' to what happened MTL, and to disregard the effort to retrieve that data based solely on $$$-considerations, as was seemingly done with the PEL-AIR investigation reveals a very 'flawed' philosophy and understanding of basic investigation methodology by the investigation body conducting the investigation.
Remember too MTL, the purpose of the investigation is NOT to apportion BLAME, but the way CASA approached things with the investigation under consideration might perhaps make you think otherwise.
But nothing I or any other PPRuNERs say/write is going to make the slightest bit of difference to TweedleDUMB and TweedleDUMBER I'm afraid, and unfortunately all we're doing is pissing into the wind.
Time to canvass the independents I think.
Just to re-focus everyone on why the content of NGA’s CVR is so important: There were patent errors in the information transmitted to NGA, and there are patent errors in the transcript of the recordings of the information transmitted to NGA, parts of which transcript appear in the ATSB’s report.
The patent errors are not matters of debate. They are fact.
An analysis of NGA’s CVR would, among other important outcomes, help to determine the extent of the errors.
(PS: Ben S has NFI with responsibility for investigation of the MH370 tragedy. Fortunately, for aviation safety, the investigation will have nothing to do with ATSB.)
The patent errors are not matters of debate. They are fact.
An analysis of NGA’s CVR would, among other important outcomes, help to determine the extent of the errors.
(PS: Ben S has NFI with responsibility for investigation of the MH370 tragedy. Fortunately, for aviation safety, the investigation will have nothing to do with ATSB.)
Beyond the pale!
Creamy thanks for the refocus.. Although I don't believe Ben has said anywhere in his MH370 articles that the ATsBeaker will now be conducting the accident investigation, that was just me stirring the pot.. (SIUYA have now corrected my post ).
Out of interest here are the comments (including from Ben himself) from the Planetalking article Pel-Air crash report failings flick passed by Govt:
Although I don't believe Ben has said anywhere in his MH370 articles that the ATsBeaker will now be conducting the accident investigation, that was just me stirring the pot.. (SIUYA have now corrected my post ).Out of interest here are the comments (including from Ben himself) from the Planetalking article Pel-Air crash report failings flick passed by Govt:
Dan Dair
Posted March 23, 2014 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
I know this is an issue very close to your heart, Ben.
So my question to you (& others) is:
Aside from covering-up for their own mistakes &/or institutional deficiencies,
What are the consequences for CASA & the ATSB (& maybe the government) if they come out & admit to all their failings on this issue.?
(aside from the likelihood that the two heads of departments would be asked to resign)
(I’m thinking about them hiding from law-suits, as much as anything.?)
Ben Sandilands
Posted March 23, 2014 at 8:31 pm | Permalink
The only approriate course of action is for the ATSB report to be withdrawn and re-done to the standards expected of a first world state in relation to air accident investigations.
The remedial process should involve the replacement of both bodies with well resourced, effectively run independent bodies like the FAA and NTSB, with appropriate powers of enforcement, and which conduct their affairs transparently and in public.
And Yes, I’m aware of criticisms of the FAA, and some major stuff ups such as its botched investigation of rudder hard overs in older model 737s and a cargo door fault in older 747s. But the structure, scaled to Australia’s needs, would make sense.
comet
Posted March 23, 2014 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
I hope the many new readers of Plane Talking absorb the gist of this:
Australian government authorities rig an air crash investigation.
Hopefully some FAA officials read this too. India got classified as having sub standard aviation regulation. But at least India is doing something about it and making improvements. Australia is not.
[email protected]
Posted March 23, 2014 at 11:11 pm | Permalink
Yes, it is so easy to criticise the way Malaysian politics works.
Yet here in supposedly non corrupt Australia, we have an airline that has an ex politician on the Board of Directors and two Government bodies charged with maintaining safety standards and inquiring in to incidents, both of whom seem to be unwilling to find against the airline with the ex politician, in a serious near fatal incident.
Not a good look, is it?
comet
Posted March 24, 2014 at 5:53 am | Permalink
It’s not a good look.
The problem is that the mainstream media are not looking. They’re not covering this story. Only Plane Talking is.
It’s strange they’re not interested in this story.
And so the mainstream political parties are not interested in doing anything about it. It’s a chicken vs egg situation, and proves the media follow the agenda of the political parties. It stinks, really.
And many people working in the government statuary authorities dealing with aviation safety hope to one day gain employment in the airlines they are investigating. So nobody wants to rock the boat.
So in the end, people who should be acting on behalf of the people end up acting in self interest on behalf of their own careers.
With lax aviation regulation it’s inevitable that mistakes of the past are repeated, costing lives.
It’s actually extraordinary that a report detailing the incompetence and operational failures of another government authority can be swept under the carpet like this.
Posted March 23, 2014 at 8:01 pm | Permalink
I know this is an issue very close to your heart, Ben.
So my question to you (& others) is:
Aside from covering-up for their own mistakes &/or institutional deficiencies,
What are the consequences for CASA & the ATSB (& maybe the government) if they come out & admit to all their failings on this issue.?
(aside from the likelihood that the two heads of departments would be asked to resign)
(I’m thinking about them hiding from law-suits, as much as anything.?)
Ben Sandilands
Posted March 23, 2014 at 8:31 pm | Permalink
The only approriate course of action is for the ATSB report to be withdrawn and re-done to the standards expected of a first world state in relation to air accident investigations.
The remedial process should involve the replacement of both bodies with well resourced, effectively run independent bodies like the FAA and NTSB, with appropriate powers of enforcement, and which conduct their affairs transparently and in public.
And Yes, I’m aware of criticisms of the FAA, and some major stuff ups such as its botched investigation of rudder hard overs in older model 737s and a cargo door fault in older 747s. But the structure, scaled to Australia’s needs, would make sense.
comet
Posted March 23, 2014 at 9:56 pm | Permalink
I hope the many new readers of Plane Talking absorb the gist of this:
Australian government authorities rig an air crash investigation.
Hopefully some FAA officials read this too. India got classified as having sub standard aviation regulation. But at least India is doing something about it and making improvements. Australia is not.
[email protected]
Posted March 23, 2014 at 11:11 pm | Permalink
Yes, it is so easy to criticise the way Malaysian politics works.
Yet here in supposedly non corrupt Australia, we have an airline that has an ex politician on the Board of Directors and two Government bodies charged with maintaining safety standards and inquiring in to incidents, both of whom seem to be unwilling to find against the airline with the ex politician, in a serious near fatal incident.
Not a good look, is it?
comet
Posted March 24, 2014 at 5:53 am | Permalink
It’s not a good look.
The problem is that the mainstream media are not looking. They’re not covering this story. Only Plane Talking is.
It’s strange they’re not interested in this story.
And so the mainstream political parties are not interested in doing anything about it. It’s a chicken vs egg situation, and proves the media follow the agenda of the political parties. It stinks, really.
And many people working in the government statuary authorities dealing with aviation safety hope to one day gain employment in the airlines they are investigating. So nobody wants to rock the boat.
So in the end, people who should be acting on behalf of the people end up acting in self interest on behalf of their own careers.
With lax aviation regulation it’s inevitable that mistakes of the past are repeated, costing lives.
It’s actually extraordinary that a report detailing the incompetence and operational failures of another government authority can be swept under the carpet like this.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
La parfum de l'ananas
The look of gob smacked on horror on the Fawcett visage was a sight to long remember as the miniscule and his merry band of 'advisors' delivered the pineapples to the Senate committee. The miniscule response a calculated insult, designed to inform the 'IOS Senators' that the trusted experts are in charge of all matters aeronautical and extraneous fumbling and groping will not; not in any circumstances, be tolerated. This response from the 'department' insults industry, the Senate committee, the tame overseas experts, the Reverent Forsyth's panel and the general public, who, one way or another pay for the pineapples.
The question now is, do the BRB order another dozen of the specially designed, pineapple accommodating bar stools, or will there be a dust up???. As brother Creampuff rightly points out, actions speak louder than words, now more than ever.
It must be quite an experience for the Senators; to be so publicly humiliated, treated as irrelevant in such a fashion. They have discovered for themselves just how foul the air safety miasma is; the depth of depravity and possibly, based on their own evidence just how deep the suppurating sores on the arse of industry are. They may have discovered just how impotent, how disgusted and how furious, these ridiculous departments make industry feel. Welcome to the club boys and girls, your trump beaten in crooked game where those without an ace or two up their sleeves are doomed to be shown the back door, exiting with a complimentary pineapple; thanks for participating.
Now what can be done is the question; I am a bottle of excellent Claret ahead at the moment in the pre release stakes on the miniscule response to Pel Air; word count 89% correct, paragraph by phrase count 92%; overall accuracy 99% (they left a very exploitable loop hole in one paragraph, which, I confess surprised me). Well, it's the WLR review next, the bottle on offer is a cracker; however, I would happily pay for a case of the same to be cataclysmically wrong and be delighted to share it with those in the Senate who made a fight against the gross obscenity, this travesty the miniscule for transport has seen fit to release. Did you see the smug, treacherous, cynical bugger actually daring to shake hands with a P3 crew going out to search for the missing 777. Rubbish like that daring to shake hands with hard working, honest aircrew after signing the Pel Air response. I'd rather chew my leg off.
We can thank the heavens for small mercies, at least it's the AMSA and RAAF searching, not ATSB and CASA; could you imagine it; I can.
Now then where's that bottle?
The question now is, do the BRB order another dozen of the specially designed, pineapple accommodating bar stools, or will there be a dust up???. As brother Creampuff rightly points out, actions speak louder than words, now more than ever.
It must be quite an experience for the Senators; to be so publicly humiliated, treated as irrelevant in such a fashion. They have discovered for themselves just how foul the air safety miasma is; the depth of depravity and possibly, based on their own evidence just how deep the suppurating sores on the arse of industry are. They may have discovered just how impotent, how disgusted and how furious, these ridiculous departments make industry feel. Welcome to the club boys and girls, your trump beaten in crooked game where those without an ace or two up their sleeves are doomed to be shown the back door, exiting with a complimentary pineapple; thanks for participating.
Now what can be done is the question; I am a bottle of excellent Claret ahead at the moment in the pre release stakes on the miniscule response to Pel Air; word count 89% correct, paragraph by phrase count 92%; overall accuracy 99% (they left a very exploitable loop hole in one paragraph, which, I confess surprised me). Well, it's the WLR review next, the bottle on offer is a cracker; however, I would happily pay for a case of the same to be cataclysmically wrong and be delighted to share it with those in the Senate who made a fight against the gross obscenity, this travesty the miniscule for transport has seen fit to release. Did you see the smug, treacherous, cynical bugger actually daring to shake hands with a P3 crew going out to search for the missing 777. Rubbish like that daring to shake hands with hard working, honest aircrew after signing the Pel Air response. I'd rather chew my leg off.
We can thank the heavens for small mercies, at least it's the AMSA and RAAF searching, not ATSB and CASA; could you imagine it; I can.
Now then where's that bottle?
Last edited by Kharon; 24th Mar 2014 at 19:50. Reason: In the search areas for a suitable corkscrew and a 'proper' glass. Looking, looking
listen cobber . . . . it do your gastric mucosa no good exposing your self to this heartache and agony.
you need to take a break and join us up here for week or two's total media blackout.
catch some fish . .. pop the corks on the choice vintage . . . . . tell us again the maker's name on the clock . . .
but if you do get off on corruption, there's always the stuff about Premier Joh, his police minister Terry Lewis and revelations just coming to light by a researcher and author on the subject who was on with Fran Kelly this morning on the wireless.
(her dad flew B24s . .. RAAF .. . . by the way , which may in part account for her feeling at times for aviation's complexities.)
you need to take a break and join us up here for week or two's total media blackout.
catch some fish . .. pop the corks on the choice vintage . . . . . tell us again the maker's name on the clock . . .
but if you do get off on corruption, there's always the stuff about Premier Joh, his police minister Terry Lewis and revelations just coming to light by a researcher and author on the subject who was on with Fran Kelly this morning on the wireless.
(her dad flew B24s . .. RAAF .. . . by the way , which may in part account for her feeling at times for aviation's complexities.)
Creampuff said...
THIS IS IMPORTANT!
As I previously supposed:
The $64K question therefore is:
"Did TweedleDUMB (Dolan) publish a notice pursuant to S.49(3)(b) when the ATSB decided not to recover the recorders at the EARLY stage in the investigation when he (TweedleDUMB) became so confident that the recorders wouldn't reveal data that wasn't available from other sources?"
And if, TweedleDUMB didn't publish that notice, then WHY wasn't it published?
However, if TweedleDUMB DID publish the notice, then the recorders are open slather I reckon to be 'un-lost' as Frank is suggesting.
What I'm suggesting is that IF the recorders were of no interest (for whatever reasons) to the ATSB, and if there was a Notice pursuant to S.49(3)(b), then as far as I can see it's 'open season' for a recovery effort, and that if successful, MAY provide recorded data that would, among other important outcomes, help to determine the extent of the errors in the ATSB report.
That would then open the door for a re-opening of the investigation pursuant to para. 5.13 of Annex 13, because it would provide new and significant evidence.
So, does ANYONE know if Dolan published the notice under S.49(3)(b)?
there are patent errors in the transcript of the recordings of the information transmitted to NGA, parts of which transcript appear in the ATSB’s report.
The patent errors are not matters of debate. They are fact.
An analysis of NGA’s CVR would, among other important outcomes, help to determine the extent of the errors.
The patent errors are not matters of debate. They are fact.
An analysis of NGA’s CVR would, among other important outcomes, help to determine the extent of the errors.
As I previously supposed:
The $64K question therefore is:
"Did TweedleDUMB (Dolan) publish a notice pursuant to S.49(3)(b) when the ATSB decided not to recover the recorders at the EARLY stage in the investigation when he (TweedleDUMB) became so confident that the recorders wouldn't reveal data that wasn't available from other sources?"
And if, TweedleDUMB didn't publish that notice, then WHY wasn't it published?
However, if TweedleDUMB DID publish the notice, then the recorders are open slather I reckon to be 'un-lost' as Frank is suggesting.
What I'm suggesting is that IF the recorders were of no interest (for whatever reasons) to the ATSB, and if there was a Notice pursuant to S.49(3)(b), then as far as I can see it's 'open season' for a recovery effort, and that if successful, MAY provide recorded data that would, among other important outcomes, help to determine the extent of the errors in the ATSB report.
That would then open the door for a re-opening of the investigation pursuant to para. 5.13 of Annex 13, because it would provide new and significant evidence.
So, does ANYONE know if Dolan published the notice under S.49(3)(b)?
Parliament House pineapple delivery
SIUYA maybe the better question is if the blackbox hasn't been 49'erd by Beaker why not??
On the subject of pineapples...
4:04pm: In tropical fruit news, Parliament House has been inundated with hundreds of pineapples.
Coalition MP Michelle Landry is delivering the fruits to all MPs and senators to showcase the "diversity of the local industry" in her Queensland electorate of Capricornia.
"We are world leaders in coal and beef production, crocodile farming and intellectual research through CQUniversity," Landry says.
"But you may not realise that Capricornia is a key player in Australia's pineapple industry."
The pineapples in question come from a company in Yeppoon.
The Pulse has taken custody of one of the pines in question. We can report it is a sturdy fruit. That is not too prickly and has a flamboyant coiff.
Read more: Politics Live: March 24, 2014
All ready for "Mayday Mayday Mayday" insertion time...
On the subject of pineapples...
4:04pm: In tropical fruit news, Parliament House has been inundated with hundreds of pineapples.
Coalition MP Michelle Landry is delivering the fruits to all MPs and senators to showcase the "diversity of the local industry" in her Queensland electorate of Capricornia.
"We are world leaders in coal and beef production, crocodile farming and intellectual research through CQUniversity," Landry says.
"But you may not realise that Capricornia is a key player in Australia's pineapple industry."
The pineapples in question come from a company in Yeppoon.
The Pulse has taken custody of one of the pines in question. We can report it is a sturdy fruit. That is not too prickly and has a flamboyant coiff.
Read more: Politics Live: March 24, 2014
All ready for "Mayday Mayday Mayday" insertion time...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE does ANYONE know if Dolan published the notice under S.49(3)(b)? QUOTE
I feel an FOI request coming on. Perhaps the notice was 'lost' and if so can it also be un-lost?
I feel an FOI request coming on. Perhaps the notice was 'lost' and if so can it also be un-lost?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The long game – Rien de plus
Fantome – very little heart ache and absolutely no agony; all just bloody good sport to me and the BRB, both relaxing and refreshing. For example, there is a notion floating about to prepare a brief for Albo (remember him); now in opposition. Truss has been horribly exposed by the response to Pel Air. Perhaps, with the right information and the moral high ground Albo could attack Truss in the parliament, there's plenty of ammunition. Remember no one has, as yet, heard his response. Cleverly played, this recent Truss exhibition could create havoc for Abbott, particularly when the Oh so predictable WLR is published. Truss is on bloody thin political ice anyway and Barnaby is enticing him further out into the centre. Quite a coup if Albo could do a Lazarus. Come back from the dead on matters aeronautical; rattle the Shorten cage and force Abbott to dump Truss. All to play for, the aligned Senators have provided a wealth of valid, factual information, all the opposition have to do, is use it.
As the Malaysians are about to discover, death by aviation is not small potatoes. Not when folk are hurt and questions which responsible government should have answered are not responded to; at least not in any meaningful way. There have been enough incidents and accidents recently to make even the most thick skinned politico pay attention. Our mob failed to learn the right lessons from Lockhart, have chosen to white wash Pel Air and expect to continue deluding the travelling public into the foreseeable future. Statistically, (pure math) we are due for a big one, imagine the headlines then.
The problem for the Pollies is they now categorically know how bad things really are; it's a risky business to continue in denial. They become part of the problem, guilty by association, complicit in deceit and derelict in duty by ignoring the obvious risks.
So, thanks, but no thanks mate; having far too much fun to be sat in the sunshine, boozing and murdering innocent fish, just for fun. There are windmills to tilt, dragons to slay, monsters to wrestle and a busy ferry service to run. What, leave all this, just when it's getting interesting - not on your Nellie.
Toot toot.
As the Malaysians are about to discover, death by aviation is not small potatoes. Not when folk are hurt and questions which responsible government should have answered are not responded to; at least not in any meaningful way. There have been enough incidents and accidents recently to make even the most thick skinned politico pay attention. Our mob failed to learn the right lessons from Lockhart, have chosen to white wash Pel Air and expect to continue deluding the travelling public into the foreseeable future. Statistically, (pure math) we are due for a big one, imagine the headlines then.
The problem for the Pollies is they now categorically know how bad things really are; it's a risky business to continue in denial. They become part of the problem, guilty by association, complicit in deceit and derelict in duty by ignoring the obvious risks.
So, thanks, but no thanks mate; having far too much fun to be sat in the sunshine, boozing and murdering innocent fish, just for fun. There are windmills to tilt, dragons to slay, monsters to wrestle and a busy ferry service to run. What, leave all this, just when it's getting interesting - not on your Nellie.
Toot toot.
Last edited by Kharon; 24th Mar 2014 at 21:04. Reason: Great photo Sarcs - still grinning.
Section 49 of the TSI Act has nothing to do with the physical thing that is the CVR box and its electronic component innards.
Section 49 of the TSI Act is about the sounds that are recorded and stored in the CVR box.
The prohibition in section 53 of the TSI Act is about the unauthorised copying of the recording and unauthorised disclosure of the information contained in the recording to someone else.
If I remove the CVR box and listen to its contents, and I don’t tell anyone what I heard, what offence do I commit? If I remove the CVR box and listen to its contents, and make a public statement to the effect that it contains information that in my opinion is directly relevant to the investigation of the ditching of NGA, what offence to I commit? It’s merely a statement of the bleeding obvious.
Unless the Chief Commissioner has given a direction under s 43 to the effect that the CVR not be removed from NGA, where is the impediment to someone recovering the CVR to use it precisely for its one and only intended purpose? (A direction to that effect under s 43 would probably be unlawful, because it would be completely contrary to and a complete perversion of the policy of the legislation.)
Any objection by ATSB to the recovery of the CVR by a third party and delivery of a copy of the contents to ATSB would simply expose ATSB’s motivation as craven self-interest.
Section 49 of the TSI Act is about the sounds that are recorded and stored in the CVR box.
The prohibition in section 53 of the TSI Act is about the unauthorised copying of the recording and unauthorised disclosure of the information contained in the recording to someone else.
If I remove the CVR box and listen to its contents, and I don’t tell anyone what I heard, what offence do I commit? If I remove the CVR box and listen to its contents, and make a public statement to the effect that it contains information that in my opinion is directly relevant to the investigation of the ditching of NGA, what offence to I commit? It’s merely a statement of the bleeding obvious.
Unless the Chief Commissioner has given a direction under s 43 to the effect that the CVR not be removed from NGA, where is the impediment to someone recovering the CVR to use it precisely for its one and only intended purpose? (A direction to that effect under s 43 would probably be unlawful, because it would be completely contrary to and a complete perversion of the policy of the legislation.)
Any objection by ATSB to the recovery of the CVR by a third party and delivery of a copy of the contents to ATSB would simply expose ATSB’s motivation as craven self-interest.
Miniscule's head on a platter!
Kharon:
Interesting concept “K” especially when you consider that Albo in parliament just last week had this to say on the subject of the ATsB...
“…However, there is a role for an opposition to raise concerns about the direction of some government policy, and earlier this month there were reports that the government was considering staff cuts of up to 20 per cent in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The ATSB employs 110 people. They investigate accidents, safety concerns and near misses in air, sea and rail transport.
These cuts should not be considered by government. There is a need to quarantine ATSB...
...Their task is simply too important to cut corners by cutting costs and cutting staff, and I would hope that the government maintains at least the support that is there for these agencies…
….I would urge the minister for transport, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, to make sure that these agencies are not subject to budget cuts…
…when it comes to the potential for cuts in this area, there is a very simple, old-fashioned saying: it is better to be safe than sorry. And when considering the aviation sector, you cannot afford to be in the situation whereby you look back with regret at decisions made that may have been short-sighted. So I am confident that the government will reject the suggestion of making cuts to the agency's staff….”
Albo also infamously stated at the opening of Fort Fumble’s new Brisvegas office in 2008…
“..And, nothing, I repeat nothing, is as important in aviation as safety. Safety must underpin everything the industry does…”
So interesting concept “K”, however there are some rather large credibility issues on the subject of Albo's (as the former miniscule) past statements on aviation safety being sacrosanct. One example HERE..
Not to mention that he was miniscule responsible for hiring bean counter Beaker in the first place…
One thing the MH370 tragedy has highlighted is that there is no place in aviation safety for political obfuscation and playing the ‘blame game’, too many lives can be affected now and into the future for authorities to be either complacent or non-transparent in their delegated actions in the aftermath of aircraft accidents.
For Truss to effectively condone the actions of Beaker and Skull in the PelAir attempted cover up, while thumbing his nose at the Senators, has done further damage to our already tarnished aviation safety record. His inaction on recommendation 1 alone supports the argument that the ATsB should no longer be funded or overseen by his department.
As Albo states above, the ATsB’s role is far too important to be governed by budgetary constraints. Regardless that everyone survived the Norfolk ditching, the issue of whether to salvage VH-NGA’s black box should never, ever have been subject to such constraints…..FFS!
IMHO for the ATsB to be a truly effective independent statutory authority it needs to be modelled on the NTSB or TSBC and be directly reportable/funded by the Parliament (& far from the thieving, politically inspired hands of miniscules & bureaucrat mandarins).
Otherwise, from what we’ve all observed with PelAir, why have the ATsB??
And miniscule your head should be on a platter for even contemplating putting out such a ****e Govt response…TICK TOCK!
Truss has been horribly exposed by the response to Pel Air. Perhaps, with the right information and the moral high ground Albo could attack Truss in the parliament, there's plenty of ammunition. Remember no one has, as yet, heard his response. Cleverly played, this recent Truss exhibition could create havoc for Abbott, particularly when the Oh so predictable WLR is published. Truss is on bloody thin political ice anyway and Barnaby is enticing him further out into the centre. Quite a coup if Albo could do a Lazarus. Come back from the dead on matters aeronautical; rattle the Shorten cage and force Abbott to dump Truss.
“…However, there is a role for an opposition to raise concerns about the direction of some government policy, and earlier this month there were reports that the government was considering staff cuts of up to 20 per cent in the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The ATSB employs 110 people. They investigate accidents, safety concerns and near misses in air, sea and rail transport.
These cuts should not be considered by government. There is a need to quarantine ATSB...
...Their task is simply too important to cut corners by cutting costs and cutting staff, and I would hope that the government maintains at least the support that is there for these agencies…
….I would urge the minister for transport, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, to make sure that these agencies are not subject to budget cuts…
…when it comes to the potential for cuts in this area, there is a very simple, old-fashioned saying: it is better to be safe than sorry. And when considering the aviation sector, you cannot afford to be in the situation whereby you look back with regret at decisions made that may have been short-sighted. So I am confident that the government will reject the suggestion of making cuts to the agency's staff….”
Albo also infamously stated at the opening of Fort Fumble’s new Brisvegas office in 2008…
“..And, nothing, I repeat nothing, is as important in aviation as safety. Safety must underpin everything the industry does…”
So interesting concept “K”, however there are some rather large credibility issues on the subject of Albo's (as the former miniscule) past statements on aviation safety being sacrosanct. One example HERE..
Not to mention that he was miniscule responsible for hiring bean counter Beaker in the first place…
One thing the MH370 tragedy has highlighted is that there is no place in aviation safety for political obfuscation and playing the ‘blame game’, too many lives can be affected now and into the future for authorities to be either complacent or non-transparent in their delegated actions in the aftermath of aircraft accidents.
For Truss to effectively condone the actions of Beaker and Skull in the PelAir attempted cover up, while thumbing his nose at the Senators, has done further damage to our already tarnished aviation safety record. His inaction on recommendation 1 alone supports the argument that the ATsB should no longer be funded or overseen by his department.
As Albo states above, the ATsB’s role is far too important to be governed by budgetary constraints. Regardless that everyone survived the Norfolk ditching, the issue of whether to salvage VH-NGA’s black box should never, ever have been subject to such constraints…
..FFS!IMHO for the ATsB to be a truly effective independent statutory authority it needs to be modelled on the NTSB or TSBC and be directly reportable/funded by the Parliament (& far from the thieving, politically inspired hands of miniscules & bureaucrat mandarins).
Otherwise, from what we’ve all observed with PelAir, why have the ATsB??
And miniscule your head should be on a platter for even contemplating putting out such a ****e Govt response…TICK TOCK!
Last edited by Sarcs; 25th Mar 2014 at 03:18.