Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Merged: Senate Inquiry

Old 1st Apr 2014, 01:09
  #1841 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yakkity Yak shades of Hempel - Part one

What posters’ seem to be forgetting is the two tonne elephant in the room that refused to contribute to the VH-NGA black box recovery slush fund…
Basic chronology of relevant period (my bold):

8 December 2009: E-mail from ATSB to CASA raising the possibility of contributing to a joint fund sharing arrangement to recover the black box and CASA advised they didn’t have the necessary funds.

16 December 2009: CASA accept the Pel-Air ‘Management Action Plan’ which consisted of three phases.

18 December 2009: Pel-Air successfully completed Phase 1 items and were able to recommence domestic operations.

21 December 2009: ATSB, with the assistance of the Victoria Water Police, use a remotely-operated vehicle (Rover) with an underwater video camera was to assess the wreckage.

23-24 December 2009: CASA overseeing FOI of Pel-Air Eric Demarco issues 14 RCA and a number of AOs. The RCAs needed to be acquitted by 28/01/2010.

24th December 2009: Dominic James notice of suspension of CPL, ATPL, CIR pursuant to CAR 265(1)(a). Also given notice to undertake examinations under CAR 5.38.

24 December 2009: Pel-Air successfully completed Phase 2 items and were able to recommence international operations.

8 January 2010: CASA issue 7 more RCAs and several more AOs, all of which Roger Chambers the Audit Coordinator signed on behalf of several SAR team members.

8 January 2010: Audit Report completed.

13 January 2010: ATSB issue preliminary report AO-2009-072.

3 February 2010: Video conference meeting between the ATSB and CASA to discuss critical safety issue.

So FF shirked the slush fund....but even then the ATsB (up till at least the 13 January 2010) were still determined to recover the black box. Apparently they carried out a feasibility review that was then forwarded to bean counter Beaker as a brief for assessment:

{Comment: Sure would like to get a copy of the Beaker brief…FOI anyone?? }

Kharon: …“Was the wreck ever raised ? - truth or dare…”
Interesting question put… Heard a rumour that the Rover (21 December 2009) had actually managed to get a rope around the tail section of VH-NGA…

Hmm so curious I took a look at the S25 released Rover footage…

Although not very long the time stamp is interesting to follow i.e. it has been significantly edited. The footage starts at 08:38 then jumps back to 08:28, then jumps forward again 08:33, then 08:36, then finally back again to 08:29.

The footage does match the findings as stated in the report…
“….The wreckage came to rest on a sandy seabed. Video footage showed that the two parts of the fuselage remained connected by the strong underfloor cables that normally controlled the aircraft’s control surfaces.

The landing gear was extended, likely in consequence of the impact forces and the weight of the landing gear. The flaps appeared to have been forced upwards from the pre-impact fully extended selection reported by the PIC.

The underwater video showed a lack of visible damage to the turbine compressor blades at the front of the engines. That was consistent with low engine thrust at the time of the first contact with the sea.
Consistent with the aircraft occupants’ recollections, the video footage indicated that aircraft’s configuration resulted in the bottom of the fuselage below the wing making the first contact with the water.

On contact with the water, the fuselage fractured at a point immediately forward of the main wing spar. The flight nurse was seated nearest to that location and reported the smell of sea water and feeling water passing her feet immediately after the impact. All of the aircraft occupants recalled that the fuselage parts remained aligned for a few seconds after the aircraft stopped moving, before the aircraft’s nose and tail partially sank, leaving the centre section above the surface of the sea. The passenger cabin/cockpit section adopted a nose-down attitude, leaving the wings partially afloat and the engines below the surface…”

So no smoking gun but it would be interesting to get a copy of the full rover video footage, especially with a pan out that takes in the tail after about 08:39…

{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??..}

Addendum: Ben's latest kind of fits..
MH370 PR stunt sees ATSB try to avoid its dismal black box record

The ATSB has sought to leverage a bit of reflected glory out of the MH370 black box search today with an illustrated and indeed useful primer on their uses in air accident investigations.

But for those that have followed its disgraceful mishandling of the Pel-Air crash, this PR exercise will do nothing to restore its damaged integrity, and in particular, its cavalier refusal to retrieve the data recorder from the sea floor near Norfolk Island where the small corporate jet was ditched in November 2009 shortly before it ran out of fuel.

The ATSB was a party to a botched and grievously inadequate investigation of that crash, in which in consultation with CASA, the Australian air safety regulator, an internal document related to CASA’s failures to conduct proper oversight of the Pel-Air Westwind operation was withheld from inclusion in the accident report.

A Senate inquiry into the investigation process which lead to the flawed and embarrassingly inadequate ATSB report being released included an entire section dealing with the unsatisfactory nature of the testimony given to its hearings by the chief commissioner of the ATSB, Martin Dolan.
The black box that the ATSB refused to retrieve from the wreckage of the Pel-Air jet could have provided vital information from the two pilots as to what they had been told about weather conditions at Norfolk Island before they found that they were unable to land and no longer had sufficient fuel to fly to an alternative airfield in Noumea, Fiji or New Zealand.

With such a shabby record in relation to Pel-Air and its flight data records , the ATSB lacks the credibility to add very much if anything to the high powered international task force now focused on seeking every possible piece of evidence that could cast light on the MH370 tragedy.

If it resolutely refused to pursue all the evidence available to it in relation to a small jet crash in Australia, what possible relevance could the ATSB have to determining all of the factors involved in the loss of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER that vanished from air traffic control radars on 8 March, on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing?

Dozens of previous articles on the Pel-Air controversy, the Senate inquiries, and links to the full reports and documents that Australia’s aviation regulator and safety investigator sought to hide from the public can be retrieved from this catalogue.

Last edited by Sarcs; 2nd Apr 2014 at 08:23.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 07:54
  #1842 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If the aircraft FDR has been tampered with or removed from the water for any reason and replaced, the evidence is compromised without independent evaluation.

With this break in the evidence chain, one needs to ask if it was intentional, in which case it is a criminal matter, or, if by negligence or incompetence, it is cause to dismiss the public perception of safety in aviation matters attended to by any regulatory body in its current guise.

Read this slowly: Lack of, or feigned lack of knowledge, or awareness of credible, and available evidence, is as culpable as having intentionally destroyed that evidence. If more than one person is involved it is tantamount to a conspiracy.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 1st Apr 2014 at 10:38.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 11:07
  #1843 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,609
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
ATSB and MH 370

Above title sounds a bit mutually exclusive ie keep well apart !!

Perhaps B B B Beaker does have a sense of humour. It is April 1 after all
aroa is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 11:22
  #1844 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATsB and CAsA - Beyond MH 370

Sarcs, succinct timeline of events, nice post. Makes the ATsB and CAsA truly look like the shonks that they are. But don't worry, all is good according to The Skulls tendentious industry letters! And heck, Terry has an A380 endo, they have a magic practising Priest on the payroll and Sky Sentinel is the Holy Grail of I.T software, so we must all be safe?
004wercras is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2014, 20:30
  #1845 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Trust the Australian system? of course you can.

CP # 1844 – "[I] reckon a bunch of professional pilots would be able to judge whether bits were missing or added ex post facto. etc.
Quite often in the CP offerings, there is a little thought provoking gem, like the one above. Think about it; the Canadian report into a CFIT is getting a lot of attention; solid discussion and the considered opinion of a 'bunch of pilots'; a report like that is bound to. The report is 'rock solid' and may be relied on to assist in formulating revised SOP, CRM, training and a whole range of 'safety' related elements. No one doubts the report's probity, no one questions the transcript, the 'pilot' body may examine and glean what lessons may be learned, with absolute confidence that the base information is almost irrefutable. Australian aircrew cannot do this against the current ATSB standard. One purpose of an investigation is to prevent or assist in the prevention of a repeat occurrence. If operators, chief pilots, training and safety departments cannot rely on the report provided to formulate 'policy', it's a sad indictment of the system. If the system can produce one seriously flawed, compromised report into a relatively 'simple' matter, how may it be relied on not to have done this with past reports; and, not to continue to do so with future events. Now it's been proven they can; Truss trusts Beaker – he must be barking.

Great work (again) Sarcs, that time line really spells it out. It really was a 'miraculous' recovery, seems the 'laying on of hands' and the magic healing cupboard work just fine. What a pity Polar and Barrier did not make it to repair station in time; bet they'd have enjoyed the benefits of the fast turn around process.

Yup, there is lots to recommend the great Australian safety myth to the international aviation communities; I expect there's a quite a queue and crowd control measures at HQ; all clamouring for that unique Australian brand of service.

Aye well, at least for time being, the water is drinkable.

Sponsored by the IOS, Lazarus fraternity. (Raising the dead and muff diving).
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2014, 08:49
  #1846 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yakkity Yak shades of Hempel - Part two

Here 'tis...the rope that is..

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 close but no cigar!

..rumour amongst the PBRP is that the box is now proudly sitting on someone's mantelpiece in yonder Norfolk Isle..

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..

Last edited by Sarcs; 3rd Apr 2014 at 13:29.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2014, 10:00
  #1847 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I’m not sure why you’re worried about all this ‘chain of evidence’ stuff, Frank. Who wants to bring what court action against whom, on the basis of the OBR information? The TSI Act has some very hairy-chested prohibitions on the use of OBR information for the purposes of prosecution, civil action or administrative action against the crew of NGA.

All that everyone (other than someone who stands to be vindicated or embarrassed) wants to know is: WTF HAPPENED. The CVR might help to answer that question. That’s the CVR’s job…

If the CVR is indeed sitting on someone’s mantelpiece on NFI, that 'someone' should send it to another 'someone' with the equipment and expertise to extract any available record. If it were on my mantelpiece, I wouldn’t be sending it to ATSB…
Creampuff is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2014, 10:38
  #1848 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

You seem to have missed my point.

Until the OBR's are raised, or revealed however that my be accomplished, and compared to the "evidence" relied on for the report, there are more still more questions than answers.

The OBR's were always meant to expose, post facto, what was actually "said" and what was actually "done" against the perhaps convenient interpretation by the participants of the drama.

Just sayin!
gaunty is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2014, 23:50
  #1849 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I can think of numerous persons who have potential claims to be aired in court and that data that could help, but is suppressed because it is conveniently 'lost'.

It can be 'un-lost' via a 'subpoena duces tecum' by one or all of the following through an ordering authority with their interests at heart, not CASA or ATSB's.

One is a flight nurse who I understand has received nothing by way of compensation for ongoing problems. The pilot could be vindicated and have a claim against everyone tainted with this debacle. The flying public could be given ease for safety concerns and the whole lot could help teach pilots from the lead up to the final part of the flight. Weather providers could be helped by lessons learnt. Otherwise why carry the load in the first place when a carton of XXXX would fit.

I would like to know WTF happened and the CVR would more than likely help. Or maybe I'm just not important?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2014, 05:26
  #1850 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah, but Frank was there an FDR/CVR fitted to said aircraft?? supposed to be, but was it actually working???serviceable??? given the operator's other transgressions......................hmmm?? given the unseemly haste to get the operator back in the air, unlike them with no political pull, like the poor pilot who received the infamous CAsA Xmas eve 1659pm Fax, or the Barriers et al, where the dragging chain chokes the life blood out of them. Would have been a tad embarrassing for CAsA, having moved heaven and earth
to redeem the miscreants got a Friday arvo email " Mate the bloody black box war'nt there!!"

Last edited by thorn bird; 3rd Apr 2014 at 05:38.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2014, 21:04
  #1851 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 'mystique' of CAsA and Pel Air

Sarcs, nice work with the timeline in post #1851. Perhaps a transfer of that information into a Dichotomous key would impress upon the avid reader how 'unrealistic' that timeline of events really is
For an organisation with that level of issues, an organisation that just ditched an aircraft, an organisation that had received previous woeful audit results prior to the accident and also after the accident, one finds it almost miraculous that such a rapid turnaround in culture and processes, in some cases in just a matter of days or weeks, could be achieved and be 'realistic'. And then you have the incredible speed, the almost Superman like speed in which CAsA closed off those findings, which ultimately meant the operator could continue as normal, no problems here officer, back to the business of 'safety'.
I mean hell, it takes those bumbling ninnies 3 months just to approve the inclusion of an additional sentence in an Ops manual! Oh my, how i wish my organisation was fortunate enough to receive such speedy, robust service. I wonder what the 'secret', dare I say 'mystique' is in all of this??

I bet Sky Sentinel has Pel Air ranked very low in its risk matrix, no more audits for Pel Air for 3 years????

Honestly, safe skies for all?
004wercras is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2014, 21:37
  #1852 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
By the pricking of my thumbs.

Sarcs post - 1852 – provides a recording where NX is questioning Dolan with regard to OBR recovery. Interesting passage of play for not only what's mentioned, but what is not. This is purely in the realms of weekend speculation, normally I wouldn't bother; but something, somewhere is 'off'. So I'll risk a brickbat or two and throw the questions out there to the learned colleagues, then perhaps I can assuage the itch.

Smoke and mirrors 1. The Dolan response blatantly ignores the easy, pre-arranged tow from 50 meters to 30 meters and presents his argument intimating that the 'dive' is to be conducted in 50 not 30 meters.

Smoke and mirrors 2. Why abandon the project at such a late stage ? the initial funding allocation by made Sangston would more than adequately have covered the cable tow to a 30 meter location and the modest fees charged by the diver; done and dusted.

Why does Xenophon not give the date of the 'yellow pages' report? This is an interesting, but IMO crucial, 'omission', whether by accident or design we can't know. He did however, despite being advised to 'get a move on' spend a lot of panel time reading the 'part headings' out to Dolan, who probably has them tattooed on his arse. Yet the initials JH are mentioned; while who wrote it is an important part of the overview, the chronology is essential. You get a picture forming; a senior, experienced, proficient investigator armed with a Rover, a couple of very experienced 'local' boys, a handy derrick and an easy tow to where a diver could easily and safely recover 'the box'. The yellow pages are transmitted to HQ when?, the decision made when ?, the advice to knock off was received when? and the Rover was sent home when?. Another critical element is why was there a caveat, making it a step by step approval for the recovery? It was 90% done, the expensive bit was done, the cost of a ship and a cable were not only insignificant, but allocated. So why was the next, logical step not 'approved'.

It's reasonable to assume that JH would be anticipating a go response, it's the logical conclusion to a 'honest' report. You can easily see the 'picture', it's all ready to go, so why not crack on while the weather is good, the sea calm and the last stage set; I know I would. Is it feasible then, that JH anticipating a GO message, would do the same? It does support the persistent rumour that the tail end of the aircraft was indeed raised, albeit briefly. I'd like to know if Dolan and the ATSB crew are all prepared to make a statutory declaration that it was not

Perhaps the Senate could shout NX a ticket and a weekend on Norfolk to have a couple of beers (it's never just one) at the RSL, let's call it a fact finding mission.

I know, let it go, right. Some mystery's intrigue, some conundrums are food for thought on long journeys, even for idle pub conversation; but this puzzles vexes me. Like the tail of NGA, so close, but oh so far away.

Last edited by Kharon; 4th Apr 2014 at 22:00. Reason: After thoughts.
Kharon is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2014, 01:36
  #1853 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Timeline of embuggerance??

I wonder what the 'secret', dare I say 'mystique' is in all of this??
The yellow pages are transmitted to HQ when?, the decision made when ?, the advice to knock off was received when? and the Rover was sent home when?. Another critical element is why was there a caveat, making it a step by step approval for the recovery? It was 90% done, the expensive bit was done, the cost of a ship and a cable were not only insignificant, but allocated. So why was the next, logical step not 'approved'
Yes it is an interesting puzzle to spend some weekend time mulling over... My basic chronology has some serious holes that need filling…
Timeline entries…

“…8 December 2009: E-mail from ATSB to CASA raising the possibility of contributing to a joint fund sharing arrangement to recover the black box and CASA advised they didn’t have the necessary funds…

...21 December 2009: ATSB, with the assistance of the Victoria Water Police, use a remotely-operated vehicle (Rover) with an underwater video camera was to assess the wreckage.

13 January 2010: ATSB issue preliminary report AO-2009-072…”

It is interesting that the 8 December entry was only discovered because the DAS (STBR ) made a (what was to become commonplace for the DAS) correction to the Senate record, see here. {Note: Even then the DAS research minions got the facts wrong as the Hansard quote was not on page 41 but on page 53}

It is also interesting that such a decision was made (i.e. not to contribute to the black box slush fund) without the DAS either signing off on; or apparently being aware that such a decision had been made...

Sometimes body language speaks louder than words, so let us have a look at when the Hansard pg 53 question was asked, starting with Senator Nash questioning the DAS on black boxes, wx reports and Mr Wickham.. :[YOUTUBE]
{Comment: Senator Nash’s questions certainly reflect the significance of Creamy’s post #1821}

So many gaps still to be filled on the timeline of embuggerance but for now back to rovers, black boxes and the strange decision making of mi..mi..mi..Beaker..

Much more to follow.. TICK TOCK!

004 for real squirm factor the following poohtube vid is even better...


...amazing how the more you tie yourself up in knots the redder your ears go...

Last edited by Sarcs; 5th Apr 2014 at 20:48.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2014, 11:12
  #1854 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Thanks Sarcs, there were some nice nuggets in that Poohtube clip. I particularly enjoyed the following:

Hoody - I don't think Senators Nash and Heff could believe that CAsA would refer to anybody's appointment as delightful! Even though the tanned and chiselled Hoody wore a dapper suit and his CAsA issued tie the Senators didn't buy the 'delighted' statement.
This is for you Hoody:

The Skull - Oh my, didn't Herr Skull look like he had a swallowed a handful of chillies when in the background Sen Heff could be heard saying 'save him Mr Hood'! Absolutely priceless. 10/10. Indeed body language is a wonderful thing.
This one is for you Mr bald headed angry stud muffin:

Terry - Oh dear, Terry Terry Terry, did a wonderful job imitating a cardboard cutout! Was it past his bedtime of 1830? Was he tired from the A380 SIM session the previous night? Or was he just smiling along because he is completely deaf? Who knows, who cares really.
For those who enjoy watching paint dry here is how to make your very own Deputy DAS:
004wercras is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2014, 21:41
  #1855 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One thing I find passing strange?? Why would they go to all the expense of shipping a rover & police operators all the way from Melbourne to Norfolk to look at a wreck?...What could the wreck tell them?? other that its a wreck.
I think they fully intended to recover the boxes, thats why the rover was sent,
so what happened to shoo them off? orders from on high?? and if so Why?.
Conspiracy theory...Pel Air were smuggling jars of NUTELLA into the country on behalf of a terrorist cell that ASIO didn't want exposed.....well its plausible...... NUTELLA is now classified as a dangerous substance, according to the foreign gentleman at the Mascot sheep pens.

Last edited by thorn bird; 8th Apr 2014 at 02:36.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 04:08
  #1856 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Men in black coats I'm guessing.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 05:20
  #1857 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thorny, the answer to your question could be multi faceted. I hypothesise as follows;

Perhaps initially the ATSB wanted to conduct an investigation in line with its internal processes and ICAO annexe. However, possibly once the process commenced and after consultation with CASA they realised there may be a problem with one or two government departments looking like knobs as a result of some of the likely causal factors behind the accident.

Perhaps under the leadership of Beaker he quite stupidly decided to stop the retrieval so as to save a couple of pennies. It would not surprise me because he was relatively new to ATSB and had no idea about aviation accident investigations etc.

CASA the 'alpha male'. Perhaps the dominating partner in the marriage of CASA and ATSB is CASA? Normally there would be no marriage at all, but CASA saw a weakness in 'the new world according to Beaker' and CASA went where it had never been able to go before and have the ATSB become its bitch. Either way you have Doc Voodoo to mostly blame for this unholy agency conjugal relationship.

Good ol incompetence. Perhaps this whole sordid untidy affair can be pinpointed to plain old incompetence. You know, when egotistical nupties think they know everything when in fact they know shit. That's why companies are sold off by governments and the private sector takes over, governments are a totally useless waste of air.

Now all said and done, perhaps Nutella is the smoking gun? I've seen things that Nigella Lawson has done with Nutella which proves it is most certainly an underestimated foe, an unmitigated risk, a latent condition indeed
004wercras is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2014, 05:37
  #1858 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good Grief!! guys??
We have men in black coats....screaming skulls...Voodo doctors....Mi MI Beakers..Alpha Males and Bitches!!!
Card board cutouts...and Hooded villains!!!

Na, sorry the Nutella sounds a much more plausible scenario.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2014, 07:31
  #1859 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Devil Two Top Cats who thought they’d scooped the cream??

There was many moments throughout the PelAir inquiry where Beaker & McComic displayed open contempt for the RRAT committee Senators and their questioning. However IMO there was two particular (gotcha) moments that more than adequately highlighted the levels of complicity and obfuscation the two agency heads were prepared to go to in perpetuating the PelAir coverup i.e. PelAir Gate.

Moment one: As referred to in Kharon’s post #1849

“….trying to sell the same fairy story to a Senator like Fawcett is, of it's self, stupid, suspicious, not to mention incredibly arrogant. You have to ask why a potentially career ending gamble, which Dolan freely took, was attempted. He was never going to get away with the version ploy; not ever. The bait was offered and he snapped it up, thinking the hook was avoided. Sarcs posted the - Annexe 13 - Hansard recording; have a careful look, it's all there in glorious Technicolor.

Yup, the box would be nice to have; but the truth would be better…”

Subsequently when Senator Fawcett realised he’d been duped by the lint flicking Beaker he fired off two written QONs which were answered by (tail between the legs) ATsBeaker like this:

Inquiry into aviation accident investigations

Written Questions Taken on Notice – Australian Transport Safety Bureau from Public Hearing – Thursday, 28 February 2013

Written Questions on Notice- Senator Fawcett

1. Could the ATSB confirm which edition of the Annex 13 document was current at the time Mr Dolan made his decision regarding not recovering the FDR.

ATSB response: The version of Annex 13 current at the time was the 9th Edition as amended by Amendments 11, 12-A and 12-B.

2. Explain the discrepancy between the answer he provided today (explaining their decision to not recover the FDR which inferred that the "reasonable" clause in the current document was the basis) given the standard which was in force at the time of the accident, which, if it did not provide that modification would have mandated recovery of the FDR.

ATSB response: The ATSB considers that the general provisions of paragraph 5.4 of the Annex as it stood at the time provided the necessary discretion to the ATSB in its conduct of the investigation.
IMO this is clear evidence that Beaker never even considered the implications his (money pinching) decision to not recover the black box could ultimately have on the ATsB obligations to comply with ICAO Annex 13…

Moment two McComic (at 04:25):

Boy those McComic minions in the background had a busy couple of minutes finding the necessary reference for their boss, however it was to be a short lived triumph (with the Cheshire grin) McComic, as the good Senator Nash’s question still stood and was eventually answered like this:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee


Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations (Pel-Air) 22 October 2012

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
CASA07: Receipt of weather information by Dominic James

Hansard: p.52

Senator NASH: There are two to take on notice. In terms of the information regarding the weather, the initial weather report you referred to earlier was 6,000 feet in terms of the cloud, but then a second one was issued very shortly after with different information. How do you know it was received? Given some of the issues around the radio frequency—and of course I understand that you know it was sent—how do you know it was received?

Mr McCormick: I can look to the ATSB report.

Senator NASH: Can I ask you to take on notice, given the evidence around, how do you and CASA know that information was received by the pilot?

The transcripts of the contacts with air traffic services by the crew of the aircraft VH-NGA do not reveal any apparent communications difficulty. In interviews with CASA, Mr James did not express any views that there were any high frequency communications irregularities. The first CASA became aware of Mr James’s views on HF communications difficulties was when he raised it on the recent 4 Corners television program.

The transcript of the pilot’s conversation with Fiji air traffic control reveals that the pilot acknowledged the second report on weather information indicating it was received.

0802:32 from Nadi to VH-NGA. Roger this is the latest weather for Norfolk...SPECI... I say again special weather Norfolk at 0800 Zulu... auto I say again auto, alpha uniform tango oscar, wind 290 08 knots, 999 november delta victor, overcast one thousand one hundred, temperature 21, dew point 19, QNH Norfolk 1012...remarks... romeo foxtrot zero zero
decimal zero oblique zero zero zero decimal zero go ahead.

0803:21 from VH-NGA to Nadi. Thank you Nadi... much appreciated NGA .

A different response could be expected if the pilot experienced difficulty hearing the radio transmission. The ATSB accident report on page 17 also advised that no difficulties were identified by the flight crew with their radio communications during the flight.
Comment: Notice that (much like the CAIR 09/3 record of the transcript) the above AQON’s transcript copy fails to include the erroneous (infamous) 0801 Nadi transmission of the O630 METAR for Norfolk (reference page 1 - Attachment 9 Aherne submission):

So no harm done and back on script for what FF & ATsBeaker wanted us all (including the man at the back of the room) to believe, yeah right…

IMO these two recorded moments in the PelAir inquiry more than adequately highlight why both Fort Fumble & ATsBeaker should have been excluded from contributing advice & recommendations for the miniscule (Albo & then Truss) DRAFT response to the PelAir report. The conflict of interest is obvious, even to the man at the back of the room, and Truss has by association, with these two numbnuts, potentially put his foot on a claymore that will blow if he doesn’t heed the advice of the IOS bomb disposal experts…
Sarcs is offline  
Old 9th Apr 2014, 11:48
  #1860 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Email trails are a great thing"

"Email trails are a great thing"! Indeed they are Senator Heff. But so are fax machines, especially the fax/printer machines on Levels 1 and 2 Brisbane where often the faxes meant for the third (turd) floor end up on L1 and L2! Gobbledock tells us that these are great places to hang around Monday mornings and particularly at times when CAsA are 'under the pump'! They really are a stupid mob aren't they?

I hadn't viewed the ATSBeaker clip for a few months, and certainly forgot how much the Beaker looks like......Beaker! Those hand movements, head bobbles, wide eyes....better stop there. But on a serious note it was interesting to see his passion for linguistics, arguing the point over 'should' and 'shall' in a manner that would make any bureaucrat proud (including the Spook at the back of the room!). But it was Beakers continued emphasis on 'feasibility' that is very very concerning. Forget SAFETY, forget they are the Australian Transportation SAFETY Bureau, forget that CVR/FDR's are probably the single most important piece of evidence in the majority or air crashes! No, we have a 'cost analysis' instead. Some figure crunching, some spreadsheet stimulation, some number juggling, some penny counting that was more important, took the most precedence, was the driving factor behind his decision making process! What a disgrace. Might as well call it the Australian Transportation Feasability Bureau (what do you reckon Kharon, the ATFB?? ) Without straying to far from the herd I am still disgusted that someone so disconnected, out of tune with and unqualified to run the ATFB is still sitting in that chair??
004wercras is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.