Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
MOU rehash and PAIN still kicking!
Creamy top post! 
Then Coroner Barnes put his concerns to a recommendation…
….what followed was the Miller review and the rest (as we now know) is history. Reading the above makes you think that there must have been a lot of Chinese whispers for the 2010 version of the MOU to end up the way it did and for Dr Aleck to interpret it the way he did i.e. for the benefit of Fort Fumble.
Noticed that PAIN has made a comment on one of Phelan’s articles which is worth a read, see ‘here’. Wonder how many recipients to that letter??
Doin a Kelpie…
Although the 2010 version of the MOU was covered on here way back when..
..it is worth a brief revisit. Coroner Barnes kicked it off in the ‘Inquest into the Aircraft Crash at Lockhart River’ report
:
..it is worth a brief revisit. Coroner Barnes kicked it off in the ‘Inquest into the Aircraft Crash at Lockhart River’ report:
Steps were then taken in early 2000 to address those concerns by requiring Transair to appoint a maintenance controller, safety manager and re-organise the structure of Transair’s organisation. I have highlighted earlier the considerable delay that occurred before these organisational deficiencies were addressed and the suboptimal manner in which some key positions were filled. CASA sought to “keep the pressure on” so to speak, by refusing to at first accept the nominee for deputy chief pilot. It was not so assiduous with the equally important role of safety manager.
Thereafter, CASA conducted various scheduled audits and ramp checks in accordance with its Surveillance Procedures Manual. None of the audits identified any problems associated with the duration or quality of endorsement training, frequency of proficiency checks or whether appropriately authorised pilots were conducting such checks.
It may be suggested that having regard to the concerns that CASA raised with Transair in 2000 concerning the work load of the Chief Pilot as the head of the check and training organisation of Transair, inadequacy of Transair’s “systems of corporate management control and communications” and the need for “a comprehensive safety system within the organisation”, CASA should have been minded to ensure that Transair was strictly complying with its own operations manual and had an effective program of recurrent training in place.
The extent of CASA’s assessment of Transair is well documented and highlights a number of inconsistencies between CASA’s oversight of Transair and its regulatory policies and surveillance guidelines. It seems CASA’s surveillance did not detect that some of the line and base checks had been undertaken by pilots not approved to do this, and that training stipulated in Transair’s operations manual had not been delivered. It is also apparent that audits of other operations run by Transair, notably the Big Sky Express, did not detect breaches of various aspects of the AOC. Nor did there seem to be much continuity of effort from one audit to the next, and some audits were done with very few resources (often only one inspector) and very little time spent.
CASA’s task was made more difficult by its inability to develop an adequate risk assessment tool for targeting its audit and surveillance activities. When the agency switched to systems auditing in about 2000 an advance that apparently marks it as a leader in aviation safety and warranting commendation it attempted to apply a safety trend indicator system that failed and was abandoned . Because systems auditing was so new, the guidance the agency could give to its inspectors was minimal.
Further, I accept the ATSB’s conclusion that even if CASA had fully met its own requirements, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it would have detected and corrected the fundamental problems with Transair’s operations.
Another area of concern relates to CASA’s processes for assessing risks associated with applications by air operators to vary their AOC to add new routes. Such applications required CASA field officers to apply the guidelines and provisions of a particular manual of air operator’s certification. In the case of Transair this involved considering the operator’s request, in 2001, to add Bamaga as its first mainland Australia regular public transport route (from Cairns), and subsequently in 2004 to seek the addition of Lockhart River.
In neither case did CASA require the operator to conduct a comprehensive or structured risk assessment of the proposed change. In particular, no such assessment was required in relation to Transair’s operating procedures, pilot experience or level of training, the rostering practices of Transair in relation to pilots who would be flying the routes involved and the pilot resources available to Transair. In short, it was not part of CASA’s processes to require Transair to undertake a formal risk assessment or make out a safety case for the inclusion of Lockhart River as a new port although it did require Transair to revise performance charts.
I find that senior CASA management failed to provide sufficient guidance to its staff to enable them to fully and effectively evaluate risk management issues associated with Transair’s application to add Lockhart River to its air operator’s certificate as an interim port on the Cairns – Bamaga route. That guidance may have been as straight forward as requiring Transair to engage an independent specialist to conduct an assessment of, and provide a report on, all safety issues that were pertinent to the operation proposed. http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/86682/cif-lockhart-river-aircrash-20070817.pdf
Thereafter, CASA conducted various scheduled audits and ramp checks in accordance with its Surveillance Procedures Manual. None of the audits identified any problems associated with the duration or quality of endorsement training, frequency of proficiency checks or whether appropriately authorised pilots were conducting such checks.
It may be suggested that having regard to the concerns that CASA raised with Transair in 2000 concerning the work load of the Chief Pilot as the head of the check and training organisation of Transair, inadequacy of Transair’s “systems of corporate management control and communications” and the need for “a comprehensive safety system within the organisation”, CASA should have been minded to ensure that Transair was strictly complying with its own operations manual and had an effective program of recurrent training in place.
The extent of CASA’s assessment of Transair is well documented and highlights a number of inconsistencies between CASA’s oversight of Transair and its regulatory policies and surveillance guidelines. It seems CASA’s surveillance did not detect that some of the line and base checks had been undertaken by pilots not approved to do this, and that training stipulated in Transair’s operations manual had not been delivered. It is also apparent that audits of other operations run by Transair, notably the Big Sky Express, did not detect breaches of various aspects of the AOC. Nor did there seem to be much continuity of effort from one audit to the next, and some audits were done with very few resources (often only one inspector) and very little time spent.
CASA’s task was made more difficult by its inability to develop an adequate risk assessment tool for targeting its audit and surveillance activities. When the agency switched to systems auditing in about 2000 an advance that apparently marks it as a leader in aviation safety and warranting commendation it attempted to apply a safety trend indicator system that failed and was abandoned . Because systems auditing was so new, the guidance the agency could give to its inspectors was minimal.
Further, I accept the ATSB’s conclusion that even if CASA had fully met its own requirements, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that it would have detected and corrected the fundamental problems with Transair’s operations.
Another area of concern relates to CASA’s processes for assessing risks associated with applications by air operators to vary their AOC to add new routes. Such applications required CASA field officers to apply the guidelines and provisions of a particular manual of air operator’s certification. In the case of Transair this involved considering the operator’s request, in 2001, to add Bamaga as its first mainland Australia regular public transport route (from Cairns), and subsequently in 2004 to seek the addition of Lockhart River.
In neither case did CASA require the operator to conduct a comprehensive or structured risk assessment of the proposed change. In particular, no such assessment was required in relation to Transair’s operating procedures, pilot experience or level of training, the rostering practices of Transair in relation to pilots who would be flying the routes involved and the pilot resources available to Transair. In short, it was not part of CASA’s processes to require Transair to undertake a formal risk assessment or make out a safety case for the inclusion of Lockhart River as a new port although it did require Transair to revise performance charts.
I find that senior CASA management failed to provide sufficient guidance to its staff to enable them to fully and effectively evaluate risk management issues associated with Transair’s application to add Lockhart River to its air operator’s certificate as an interim port on the Cairns – Bamaga route. That guidance may have been as straight forward as requiring Transair to engage an independent specialist to conduct an assessment of, and provide a report on, all safety issues that were pertinent to the operation proposed. http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/86682/cif-lockhart-river-aircrash-20070817.pdf
Recommendation 4 – Ministerial assessment of interagency relations
Accordingly I recommend that the Federal Minister for Transport, consider engaging an external consultant to assess whether high level intervention is warranted.
Accordingly I recommend that the Federal Minister for Transport, consider engaging an external consultant to assess whether high level intervention is warranted.
Noticed that PAIN has made a comment on one of Phelan’s articles which is worth a read, see ‘here’. Wonder how many recipients to that letter??
Doin a Kelpie…
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope the well meaning Mr Entsch is fully versed in various aspects of aviation history, as he will need that understanding if he is to fully grasp what kind of impact a Royal Commission could and likely would have on many many people, including a government and its departments who would stop at nothing to come out smelling like roses, no matter what the cost.
The actions over the past few decades culminating in the Lockhart River tragedy and Pel Air ditching have shadows of 'Erebus' attached to them, and it doesn't sit comfortably with me, not one little but. It seems to me that several 'individuals' involved in this sordid predicament should be likened to Ron Chippendale, and I will leave it at that. Then you have Senator Xenophon who could be likened to Justice Peter Mahon, a genuine, intelligent human being who outed all the dross for who they really were. Again, I will leave it at that.
As is pointed out by Phelan, the Skull is already part of history, a couple more months and he is off to the Bahamas, and I am sure Sith Mrdak will end up 'reassigning' Beaker to a portfolio in treasury or back at Comcare. But that only removes the scabs from both organisations, one must drill down beneath the scab and attack the infection source to make sure the wound is cleansed to the full.
The actions over the past few decades culminating in the Lockhart River tragedy and Pel Air ditching have shadows of 'Erebus' attached to them, and it doesn't sit comfortably with me, not one little but. It seems to me that several 'individuals' involved in this sordid predicament should be likened to Ron Chippendale, and I will leave it at that. Then you have Senator Xenophon who could be likened to Justice Peter Mahon, a genuine, intelligent human being who outed all the dross for who they really were. Again, I will leave it at that.
As is pointed out by Phelan, the Skull is already part of history, a couple more months and he is off to the Bahamas, and I am sure Sith Mrdak will end up 'reassigning' Beaker to a portfolio in treasury or back at Comcare. But that only removes the scabs from both organisations, one must drill down beneath the scab and attack the infection source to make sure the wound is cleansed to the full.
Last edited by 004wercras; 15th Jun 2013 at 12:09.
For purposes of discussion I offer a link to a scholarly paper on workplace psychopathy and quote a few snippets of it. I don't know if its relevent or not. Clearly most CASA staff are ordinary hard working people, but could it be said that CASA as an organisation, not as a collection of individuals, (my bolding) exhibiits some psycopathic/sociopathic traits?
..........The prevalence of personality disorders means that they will occur in the workplace, regardless of size and type. Organizational culture is at once a factor in the expression of symptoms and a product of those symptoms. Organizational dysfunction is driven by individuals, informal and formal groups and divisions, and by leaders and leadership groups that contain a mix of these disorders in interaction with each other..............
....We offer this discussion to raise awareness about the likelihood of encountering pathological behaviors in organizations and the need for outside consultation when they are encountered. In addition, we want to recognize that organizational problems cannot necessarily be blamed on one individual, and that resolution of problems involves addressing the culture that perpetuates the pathology...............
.............Psychopaths travel “incognito,” and may often be the preferred candidate in the interviewing process. They are often charming and appear to be attractive job candidates. Psychopaths are at their best at the one-on-one level. Their pathology becomes much more evident at the group level.
Entry into the workplace is may be predicated upon the existing organizational culture. “Unspoken messages and symbolic gestures may communicate powerful messages that can be misinterpreted by individuals with unhealthy needs and motivations” (Pech & Slade, 2007). Psychopaths will choose environments that not only allow their misbehavior, but propel them to positions of leadership. Such a culture is composed of individuals in need of a leader, and already predisposed to participating in the leader-follower dynamics created by psychopathic leaders.
As psychopaths move into the organization they begin to exhibit red flag behaviors such as a high level of competitiveness that interferes with team work, secretiveness and manipulation of information, deceitfulness, erratic behavior, and bullying and intimidation.............
............Psychopaths cause direct and indirect damage in organizations, first to individuals and then to the culture. So why are psychopaths continuing their ascent into managerial and leadership positions? The answer is not a simple one and is context and culture bound. One answer could be that psychopaths often exhibit traits that are desirable such as intelligence, friendliness, and charismatic charm. While they present a façade of capability, they are undermining everyone around them in order to get ahead. Some suggest that psychopaths have traits that might be seen as good management material such as the ability to inflict a lot of pain without distress, and a high tolerance for risk.
The answer could be “cultural reinforcement and structural complexity” (Giblin, 1981; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984; Pech & Slade, 2007). Organizational culture and perhaps more to the point organizational hierarchy creates a pathway for individuals who seek power and glory. Some organizations promote ruthless competition and achievement, while some promote consistent failure to perform. Highly competitive workplace cultures combined with hierarchy creates a stimulating context for psychopaths to reach their full potential. “Psychopaths tend to rise quickly in organizations because of their manipulative charisma and their sheer, single minded dedication to attain senior levels of management” (Boddy et al., 2010).
Successful “corporate psychopaths” elude notice until they reach a position of authority within an organization (Boddy et. al., 2010). The Boddy paper indicates that individuals with more work experience who are at higher levels of the organization are more likely to have encountered psychopaths, indicating that they do indeed move into the upper levels. This finding is confirmed in Snakes in Suits, and the authors note that psychopaths may well focus on acquiring roles with power, authority and control where they may at least for a period of time demonstrate a self serving ruthlessness that is feared and admired...................
..........As psychopaths move into leadership, they become “selective recruiters.” They engineer the organizational culture through “selective retention” where those who build the desired culture are retained, while those who disagree leave. Snakes in Suits and Without Conscience present psychopaths as solo performers who will destroy anyone who gets in their way. However it is also reasonable that they may develop loyal followers and a cadre of henchmen. So it could be that psychopaths recruit other psychopaths, and simultaneously follower types that complement their pathology, depending on the context.
Whether one takes the stance that organizational psychopaths are unleashed by existing culture, or that psychopaths insert themselves and then alter organizational cultures to support pathology, it is reasonable that “what leadership has created now either blindly perpetuates itself or creates new definitions of leadership…” (Schein, 1985).................
...........People in organizations carry with them a variety of issues and concerns from outside of the organization that color their actions and interactions. They may be addicted, mentally ill, suffering from domestic abuse, having marital and financial problems, or suffering from any number of other stressors that shape their behavior. When individuals enter a group they may naturally find a position within that group that recreates their family environment – current or past – and reinforces their learned behaviors and defenses. It may even exacerbate them. Since pathologies are really patterned by relationships and environments, psychoanalytic observations are likely more accurate than a questionnaire administered during the hiring process, and can offer in-depth explanations about the dynamics of psychopathy in the workplace.
In some cases, unhealthy individuals entering an organization, especially in a leadership position, can significantly alter the development of the organization. Given these considerations, one must move beyond a purely cognitive approach to address these issues and the clinical paradigm has much to offer. A psychodynamic approach considers the disposition of the leader and the leader-follower dynamic. There is a focus on understanding the unconscious emotional and psychological dynamics that are barriers to organizational effectiveness and creating interventions that reduce the negative impact of individual pathologies.
Workplace Predation: A Discussion « Center for the Study of Organizational Change
..........The prevalence of personality disorders means that they will occur in the workplace, regardless of size and type. Organizational culture is at once a factor in the expression of symptoms and a product of those symptoms. Organizational dysfunction is driven by individuals, informal and formal groups and divisions, and by leaders and leadership groups that contain a mix of these disorders in interaction with each other..............
....We offer this discussion to raise awareness about the likelihood of encountering pathological behaviors in organizations and the need for outside consultation when they are encountered. In addition, we want to recognize that organizational problems cannot necessarily be blamed on one individual, and that resolution of problems involves addressing the culture that perpetuates the pathology...............
.............Psychopaths travel “incognito,” and may often be the preferred candidate in the interviewing process. They are often charming and appear to be attractive job candidates. Psychopaths are at their best at the one-on-one level. Their pathology becomes much more evident at the group level.
Entry into the workplace is may be predicated upon the existing organizational culture. “Unspoken messages and symbolic gestures may communicate powerful messages that can be misinterpreted by individuals with unhealthy needs and motivations” (Pech & Slade, 2007). Psychopaths will choose environments that not only allow their misbehavior, but propel them to positions of leadership. Such a culture is composed of individuals in need of a leader, and already predisposed to participating in the leader-follower dynamics created by psychopathic leaders.
As psychopaths move into the organization they begin to exhibit red flag behaviors such as a high level of competitiveness that interferes with team work, secretiveness and manipulation of information, deceitfulness, erratic behavior, and bullying and intimidation.............
............Psychopaths cause direct and indirect damage in organizations, first to individuals and then to the culture. So why are psychopaths continuing their ascent into managerial and leadership positions? The answer is not a simple one and is context and culture bound. One answer could be that psychopaths often exhibit traits that are desirable such as intelligence, friendliness, and charismatic charm. While they present a façade of capability, they are undermining everyone around them in order to get ahead. Some suggest that psychopaths have traits that might be seen as good management material such as the ability to inflict a lot of pain without distress, and a high tolerance for risk.
The answer could be “cultural reinforcement and structural complexity” (Giblin, 1981; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984; Pech & Slade, 2007). Organizational culture and perhaps more to the point organizational hierarchy creates a pathway for individuals who seek power and glory. Some organizations promote ruthless competition and achievement, while some promote consistent failure to perform. Highly competitive workplace cultures combined with hierarchy creates a stimulating context for psychopaths to reach their full potential. “Psychopaths tend to rise quickly in organizations because of their manipulative charisma and their sheer, single minded dedication to attain senior levels of management” (Boddy et al., 2010).
Successful “corporate psychopaths” elude notice until they reach a position of authority within an organization (Boddy et. al., 2010). The Boddy paper indicates that individuals with more work experience who are at higher levels of the organization are more likely to have encountered psychopaths, indicating that they do indeed move into the upper levels. This finding is confirmed in Snakes in Suits, and the authors note that psychopaths may well focus on acquiring roles with power, authority and control where they may at least for a period of time demonstrate a self serving ruthlessness that is feared and admired...................
..........As psychopaths move into leadership, they become “selective recruiters.” They engineer the organizational culture through “selective retention” where those who build the desired culture are retained, while those who disagree leave. Snakes in Suits and Without Conscience present psychopaths as solo performers who will destroy anyone who gets in their way. However it is also reasonable that they may develop loyal followers and a cadre of henchmen. So it could be that psychopaths recruit other psychopaths, and simultaneously follower types that complement their pathology, depending on the context.
Whether one takes the stance that organizational psychopaths are unleashed by existing culture, or that psychopaths insert themselves and then alter organizational cultures to support pathology, it is reasonable that “what leadership has created now either blindly perpetuates itself or creates new definitions of leadership…” (Schein, 1985).................
...........People in organizations carry with them a variety of issues and concerns from outside of the organization that color their actions and interactions. They may be addicted, mentally ill, suffering from domestic abuse, having marital and financial problems, or suffering from any number of other stressors that shape their behavior. When individuals enter a group they may naturally find a position within that group that recreates their family environment – current or past – and reinforces their learned behaviors and defenses. It may even exacerbate them. Since pathologies are really patterned by relationships and environments, psychoanalytic observations are likely more accurate than a questionnaire administered during the hiring process, and can offer in-depth explanations about the dynamics of psychopathy in the workplace.
In some cases, unhealthy individuals entering an organization, especially in a leadership position, can significantly alter the development of the organization. Given these considerations, one must move beyond a purely cognitive approach to address these issues and the clinical paradigm has much to offer. A psychodynamic approach considers the disposition of the leader and the leader-follower dynamic. There is a focus on understanding the unconscious emotional and psychological dynamics that are barriers to organizational effectiveness and creating interventions that reduce the negative impact of individual pathologies.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Miller report.
The Miller report is a lengthy, tedious read. The subsequent MoU between CASA and ATSB is longer again, equally tedious and redefines 'subjective interpretation'.
One response to Miller, presented in 2008 has proven over time to be a remarkably prophetic document, providing a succinct analysis and worth the few moments it takes to download and read the six page summary.
The link below will take you Zippyshare – please only click the large red "Download Now" button in the top right hand corner to avoid unwanted advertisements.
Response to Miller.
P34. a.k.a. Sneaker.
One response to Miller, presented in 2008 has proven over time to be a remarkably prophetic document, providing a succinct analysis and worth the few moments it takes to download and read the six page summary.
The link below will take you Zippyshare – please only click the large red "Download Now" button in the top right hand corner to avoid unwanted advertisements.
Response to Miller.
P34. a.k.a. Sneaker.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miller first then Chambers.
Right to business, The Chambers Report: hands up all those that have actually read this poxy epistle – not too many then. Well you should. The Miller report was a tester, to see exactly how far the boundaries of credibility could be stretched. This crew got away with the MoU and its subsequent amendments by stealth, covering the most outrageous 'easements' under bureaucratic subtext and slight of hand.
The BRB (special un- lubricated meeting) have declared the Chambers report: a badly written, plagiarised (check Google) nonsense, which thinly disguises an unbelievably expensive method of providing the anointed 'few' with almost unlimited power over their 'troops' and enabling a select few (individual managers) the power to decide, when, how and which evidence may be 'used'. Essentially, evidence may be made by the mile and cut off as needed. We have seen this technique used and it is the thin end of the wedge. Miller was allowed to be inflicted on industry with only the mildest of protest, the results are clearly apparent in the Senate report on the Pel Air ditching at Norfolk Island, confidentiality issues and the tangible breakdown of even due process; let alone 'law'.
Now, I know it's a bind but - any serious aviation professional or operator really should take the time and read the wretched thing; then, while the iron is still hot, speak out: loud and long against any part of this twisted, devious, malignant "report" being allowed to have any influence over future changes to the audit, investigation and administrative prosecution of industry operators or the people they employ. They got away very neatly with the Miller report, do not allow a repetition with the "Chambers report".
Perhaps Chambers could share a taxi with Dolan, hell, I'd even shout the fare.
The BRB (special un- lubricated meeting) have declared the Chambers report: a badly written, plagiarised (check Google) nonsense, which thinly disguises an unbelievably expensive method of providing the anointed 'few' with almost unlimited power over their 'troops' and enabling a select few (individual managers) the power to decide, when, how and which evidence may be 'used'. Essentially, evidence may be made by the mile and cut off as needed. We have seen this technique used and it is the thin end of the wedge. Miller was allowed to be inflicted on industry with only the mildest of protest, the results are clearly apparent in the Senate report on the Pel Air ditching at Norfolk Island, confidentiality issues and the tangible breakdown of even due process; let alone 'law'.
Now, I know it's a bind but - any serious aviation professional or operator really should take the time and read the wretched thing; then, while the iron is still hot, speak out: loud and long against any part of this twisted, devious, malignant "report" being allowed to have any influence over future changes to the audit, investigation and administrative prosecution of industry operators or the people they employ. They got away very neatly with the Miller report, do not allow a repetition with the "Chambers report".
Perhaps Chambers could share a taxi with Dolan, hell, I'd even shout the fare.
Last edited by Kharon; 15th Jun 2013 at 22:24. Reason: Fact - you can't roller skate in a buffalo herd.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for a royal commision
I like the idea of Beaker and The Chamber Pot sharing a taxi, just make sure it doesn't run out of petrol! Or make it a bus instead, that way you can fit more individuals in it.
Nah screw it, Gobbles hires out the Styx houseboat for a daily fee, you can fit hundreds onboard that rig, I will give him a call. Anybody know Canada's country and area code???
But all jokes aside, please follow me with this;
After the Erebus crash and disgraceful bureaucratic investigation which not so surprisingly found the pilots were to blame (sound familiar, Pel Air/Dom anyone?) around 13 years after the commision inquiry became shelfware, some 15 years after the tragic crash ICAO published a report that found the Royal Commision inquiry by Justice Mahon, his investigation and subsequent findings were the correct cause of the accident and the root cause of management error was to blame, not the pilots.....you really need to study the entire Erebus accident, reports, investigations, opinions, evidence and 'motivation' to see the entire picture.
Now what is my point? My point is that governments and government departments cannot be trusted, and will lie, deceive, spin and falsify truths if it is in what they perceive is their best interests. The activities of our governments and their bureaucracies over the past few decades in aviation culminating in Lockhart and Pel Air has shone a spotlight on the need for a royal commission, particularly after successive inquiries and certainly the latest one. Senator Xenophon is the man to push this. A Commision headed by a decent Beak or former Beak, someone like Fitzgerald is desperately needed. We need this so as to prevent the day occurring in which 257 souls are lost in a smoking hole. The window of opportunity remains open but not for very long.
And what about ICAO? Why don't they send a team made up of independent people to conduct their own investigation of Pel Air or perhaps even Lockhart? To review the accident reports, evidence, all the facts and make a conclusion for themselves? They should be interested, and so should member states considering Australia does have a Category 1 rating and is connected to the rest of the world. Our risk becomes their risk.
Nah screw it, Gobbles hires out the Styx houseboat for a daily fee, you can fit hundreds onboard that rig, I will give him a call. Anybody know Canada's country and area code???
But all jokes aside, please follow me with this;
After the Erebus crash and disgraceful bureaucratic investigation which not so surprisingly found the pilots were to blame (sound familiar, Pel Air/Dom anyone?) around 13 years after the commision inquiry became shelfware, some 15 years after the tragic crash ICAO published a report that found the Royal Commision inquiry by Justice Mahon, his investigation and subsequent findings were the correct cause of the accident and the root cause of management error was to blame, not the pilots.....you really need to study the entire Erebus accident, reports, investigations, opinions, evidence and 'motivation' to see the entire picture.
Now what is my point? My point is that governments and government departments cannot be trusted, and will lie, deceive, spin and falsify truths if it is in what they perceive is their best interests. The activities of our governments and their bureaucracies over the past few decades in aviation culminating in Lockhart and Pel Air has shone a spotlight on the need for a royal commission, particularly after successive inquiries and certainly the latest one. Senator Xenophon is the man to push this. A Commision headed by a decent Beak or former Beak, someone like Fitzgerald is desperately needed. We need this so as to prevent the day occurring in which 257 souls are lost in a smoking hole. The window of opportunity remains open but not for very long.
And what about ICAO? Why don't they send a team made up of independent people to conduct their own investigation of Pel Air or perhaps even Lockhart? To review the accident reports, evidence, all the facts and make a conclusion for themselves? They should be interested, and so should member states considering Australia does have a Category 1 rating and is connected to the rest of the world. Our risk becomes their risk.
Last edited by 004wercras; 16th Jun 2013 at 03:16.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PAIN network view the acceptance of all recommendations made by the Senate (RRAT committee) report into the Pel Air ditching off Norfolk Island as urgent and the implications serious. The recommendations made to the Senate, combined with the statement made in parliament (Hansard: June 5, 2013) by the Hon. Warren Entsch MP calling for an inquiry into CASA should be fully supported by all industry participants. PAIN believes that if not fully and transparently addressed the issues raised have great potential to be detrimental to the ongoing well being of industry and by extension, the safety of the Australian travelling public.
Given an independent forum, adequate terms of reference, encouraged and supported by industry and the Senate committee, the proposed inquiry would have full, open access to independent industry assistance and expertise. The inquiry should be structured to have enough authority and scope to address and correct what is widely perceived as the failed, ineffective, costly infrastructure currently undermining the 'Safety', security, reputation and well being of industry.
With this objective, PAIN_Net has opened a public media account to actively ensure that Senate identified inconsistencies, anomalies and the self evident facts we believe should be made public are freely accessible and readily available. Your ongoing support would be most welcome and appreciated @ PAIN_Net1
P1. a.k.a. P1.
Given an independent forum, adequate terms of reference, encouraged and supported by industry and the Senate committee, the proposed inquiry would have full, open access to independent industry assistance and expertise. The inquiry should be structured to have enough authority and scope to address and correct what is widely perceived as the failed, ineffective, costly infrastructure currently undermining the 'Safety', security, reputation and well being of industry.
With this objective, PAIN_Net has opened a public media account to actively ensure that Senate identified inconsistencies, anomalies and the self evident facts we believe should be made public are freely accessible and readily available. Your ongoing support would be most welcome and appreciated @ PAIN_Net1
P1. a.k.a. P1.
[A]n inquiry into CASA should be fully supported by all industry participants.
CASA and ATSB are a symptom of a disease created by the Laborials in whom you put your credulous faith every election.
There was a time I would have finished the post with: “Get it?” I’m now convinced you never will.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, what other avenue do you propose? You ought to get down off your high horse and stop alluding to the rest of the world as being stupid mate. Many of us 'get it'. We get it that the system is corrupt, is completely rooted and that we as individuals cant do f#ck all about it, trust me we get it. So some of us support inquiries, support well intentioned Senators, support sections of the media (albeit small and not necessarily mainstream) and support each others personal endeavours and agendas which vary from case to case. And at the end of the day if our energies were wasted, our efforts in vain, and SFA comes of all this then so be it. At least our consciences will be clean, we did all we could to hoist our safety concerns into the spotlight and we did out best.
Sure, I could do a Creampuff and jump online and just prattle on about how nothing will ever change, everybody is wasting their time, and 'all you blokes are dumbasses', but doing so won't even give us a tiny shot at change. So Creamy you are probably correct, nothing will change and if that comes to fruition then congratulations, you were correct, pick a prize from the top shelf as your reward.
Me? I would rather die on my feet than on my knees.
As for voting, and trusting in those that we have voted for? Spare me. My Election Day usually consists of a trip to the nearest polling booth, a voting card, and my writing of the words 'get fu#*ed' on it. Done this for several decades now and have no intention of changing. Politicians and their parties are a scourge on society. However occasionally a genuine politician comes along, or one who can influence a measure of change. It is in this that we occasionally place a limited amount of hope, but that is about it. I will continue to do what it takes to improve our industries viability and improve safety.
Sure, I could do a Creampuff and jump online and just prattle on about how nothing will ever change, everybody is wasting their time, and 'all you blokes are dumbasses', but doing so won't even give us a tiny shot at change. So Creamy you are probably correct, nothing will change and if that comes to fruition then congratulations, you were correct, pick a prize from the top shelf as your reward.
Me? I would rather die on my feet than on my knees.
As for voting, and trusting in those that we have voted for? Spare me. My Election Day usually consists of a trip to the nearest polling booth, a voting card, and my writing of the words 'get fu#*ed' on it. Done this for several decades now and have no intention of changing. Politicians and their parties are a scourge on society. However occasionally a genuine politician comes along, or one who can influence a measure of change. It is in this that we occasionally place a limited amount of hope, but that is about it. I will continue to do what it takes to improve our industries viability and improve safety.
Last edited by 004wercras; 16th Jun 2013 at 11:46.
Folks,
Time for a reality check.
CASA and its predecessors must be the most investigated Government body of all time.
I haven't checked the latest figures, but, up to about 2003, there had been something like fourteen inquiries in the previous twenty years.We have had a few since. You can get a complete list from the Parliamentary library, which also lists the precipitating reason the the inquiry.
This includes the "Morris" inquiry, the longest in Commonwealth, with something over 300 sitting days.
There were almost always some short term changes to address finding, before the "iron ring" got control again.
The first inquiry, in which I took a real interest, was the Lane Report of the mid 1980s, but the first recommendation I read about regulatory reform (recommending we move to a close approximation of the FARs) was in 1966.
Unfortunately, as time goes by, memories "fade", and the recommendations of some significant inquiries are significantly misrepresented. A very good example is the Seaview Inquiry, which CASA continuously misquotes to justify "one standard for public transport", because that was the recommendation adopted by Government.
Except that, that WAS NOT what was recommended at all, by the Seaview inquiry, and adopted by Government in 1996 !!!
Right now, we have some "new CASA policies" that are going to cause mayhem in maintenance, and a huge increase in costs. It's about CAR 42V. After years of having a legislative instrument automatically allowing an AC (by whatever name) from an NAA to automatically be "approved data", we are going back to the bad old days where the use of an AC (for example, the FAA AC on corrosion detection and control --- the bible on the subject) will, once again, be subject to specific CASA approval on application to have such AC's "approved" by CASA. Indeed, I have been advise CASA are considering making it apply only to individual aircraft, not to CAR 30/CASR 145 workshops, so, if you have a line of 5 C-172 at your flying school, you will have to have 5 approvals. In short, anything that is not in the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual will require CASA individual approval before you can use, as a matter of course.
This will be a great jobs and cash generator for CASA, as well as a fruitful source of delays --- that is if CASA will "approve" and not make you pay $$$$ for an "approved design organisation" or a "delegate of CASA" to approve a custom document that only replicates what you can download free from the FAA (or other NAA) website.
We don't need any more inquiries, we need action, but given the lack of interest by politicians, what do we have to do to get real change, and bust the "iron ring" for all time.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the question. How??
Tootle pip!!
Time for a reality check.
CASA and its predecessors must be the most investigated Government body of all time.
I haven't checked the latest figures, but, up to about 2003, there had been something like fourteen inquiries in the previous twenty years.We have had a few since. You can get a complete list from the Parliamentary library, which also lists the precipitating reason the the inquiry.
This includes the "Morris" inquiry, the longest in Commonwealth, with something over 300 sitting days.
There were almost always some short term changes to address finding, before the "iron ring" got control again.
The first inquiry, in which I took a real interest, was the Lane Report of the mid 1980s, but the first recommendation I read about regulatory reform (recommending we move to a close approximation of the FARs) was in 1966.
Unfortunately, as time goes by, memories "fade", and the recommendations of some significant inquiries are significantly misrepresented. A very good example is the Seaview Inquiry, which CASA continuously misquotes to justify "one standard for public transport", because that was the recommendation adopted by Government.
Except that, that WAS NOT what was recommended at all, by the Seaview inquiry, and adopted by Government in 1996 !!!
Right now, we have some "new CASA policies" that are going to cause mayhem in maintenance, and a huge increase in costs. It's about CAR 42V. After years of having a legislative instrument automatically allowing an AC (by whatever name) from an NAA to automatically be "approved data", we are going back to the bad old days where the use of an AC (for example, the FAA AC on corrosion detection and control --- the bible on the subject) will, once again, be subject to specific CASA approval on application to have such AC's "approved" by CASA. Indeed, I have been advise CASA are considering making it apply only to individual aircraft, not to CAR 30/CASR 145 workshops, so, if you have a line of 5 C-172 at your flying school, you will have to have 5 approvals. In short, anything that is not in the Manufacturer's Maintenance Manual will require CASA individual approval before you can use, as a matter of course.
This will be a great jobs and cash generator for CASA, as well as a fruitful source of delays --- that is if CASA will "approve" and not make you pay $$$$ for an "approved design organisation" or a "delegate of CASA" to approve a custom document that only replicates what you can download free from the FAA (or other NAA) website.
We don't need any more inquiries, we need action, but given the lack of interest by politicians, what do we have to do to get real change, and bust the "iron ring" for all time.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the question. How??
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recommendation tracking Canada
Leadie noted something interesting about recommendations. They don't appear to be managed well or verified that the recommendation has been implemented.
This link to Canada equiv of the Atsb shows how to do it.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Recommendation Index
They is a short video talking about SMS approach. It states that smaller operators are seen as higher risk and putting more resource into improving safety is required.
Number of views nudging 490. I reckon 1/2 million will happen by next weekend?
This link to Canada equiv of the Atsb shows how to do it.
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Recommendation Index
They is a short video talking about SMS approach. It states that smaller operators are seen as higher risk and putting more resource into improving safety is required.
Number of views nudging 490. I reckon 1/2 million will happen by next weekend?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From paddock to plate.
Next time you sit down to a leg of lamb on Sunday, think on how easily the sheep was slaughtered. 'Ground lice', as they are affectionately known have passive resistance down to a fine art yet they are fairly easily yarded and will, quite placidly stand about listening to their brothers and sisters being butchered, they can even quite happily eat and socialise while this is happening.
Aye well, I like lamb, so the system works fine for me; but, there is no certainty that I'd stand there happily waiting to be butchered though, if I were a sheep.
I guess it's a perspective thingumy – jigga....004 on the money for me....
Aye well, I like lamb, so the system works fine for me; but, there is no certainty that I'd stand there happily waiting to be butchered though, if I were a sheep.
I guess it's a perspective thingumy – jigga....004 on the money for me....
Last edited by Kharon; 16th Jun 2013 at 20:00.
What Creamy and myself are engaging in is realpolitik.
A tiny shot at what? Endless postings on this thread does not represent a tiny shot at anything! Wishful thinking is not based on any sense of reality. Have another read of Leady's post and count the number of inquiries that have resulted in no change to the system. One of the definitions of stupidity is to do the same thing repeatedly expecting a different result.
The only way that change will happen is to lobby your local member persistently and present them with facts and evidence. This is not a one off process. Its why corporations such as Qantas employ people to be a presence in the halls of parliament. Its why AIPA does the same thing but they understand that it is a long term process. Then again for those who submit donkey votes and then expect the political process to fix their grievances no amount of discussion that diverges from their Lewis Carroll view of the world is going to make any difference.
Sure, I could do a Creampuff and jump online and just prattle on about how nothing will ever change, everybody is wasting their time, and 'all you blokes are dumbasses', but doing so won't even give us a tiny shot at change
The only way that change will happen is to lobby your local member persistently and present them with facts and evidence. This is not a one off process. Its why corporations such as Qantas employ people to be a presence in the halls of parliament. Its why AIPA does the same thing but they understand that it is a long term process. Then again for those who submit donkey votes and then expect the political process to fix their grievances no amount of discussion that diverges from their Lewis Carroll view of the world is going to make any difference.
Last edited by Lookleft; 16th Jun 2013 at 23:20. Reason: The quote is "Its better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" sung in your best Peter Garret voice!
Three points Leadslead:
1) This thread and what Painnet is doing is creating a body of evidence, some anecdotal, some not, that will eventually be large enough that it cannot be ignored.
2) Because of (1) it is possible that CASA may attempt one day to suppress this thread and/or try and litigate it away, so be careful of what you say and how you say it. I hope Painnet has a copy of the thread. Yes, Creampuff, you can guffaw all you like about self important twits yacking on the net.
3) There are Four ways in my opinion that politicians will be galvanised to act:
(a) The aforementioned very large smoking hole, or Three.
(b) Downgrading by the FAA or ICAO.
(c) Something that provokes Department of PM &C to act - those guys are the real police of bad public service behaviour when they want to be and they are capable of fixing the problem if it becomes one of their priorities, but they are very busy people. I doubt that politicians can force them to act, they have their own internal dynamic...perhaps if one of their kids was learning to fly, and..............stranger things have got their attention.
(d) An Australia wide GA and Charter strike by operators and aviation businesses. That will close down major tourist operations and inhibit regional business operations, but it would have to be something large enough to bite. RFDS would need to be the only exception. Bear in mind that sociopaths are bullies and cowards at heart and if CASA has those atrributes then it will fold very quickly.
OK Creampuff, now waffle away. The simple fact is that if nothing is done about CASA, people are going to die and we have a very limited window before some harassed operator or pilot either misses something or makes a mistake. Our task then will be to sheet home the blame where it belongs.
1) This thread and what Painnet is doing is creating a body of evidence, some anecdotal, some not, that will eventually be large enough that it cannot be ignored.
2) Because of (1) it is possible that CASA may attempt one day to suppress this thread and/or try and litigate it away, so be careful of what you say and how you say it. I hope Painnet has a copy of the thread. Yes, Creampuff, you can guffaw all you like about self important twits yacking on the net.
3) There are Four ways in my opinion that politicians will be galvanised to act:
(a) The aforementioned very large smoking hole, or Three.
(b) Downgrading by the FAA or ICAO.
(c) Something that provokes Department of PM &C to act - those guys are the real police of bad public service behaviour when they want to be and they are capable of fixing the problem if it becomes one of their priorities, but they are very busy people. I doubt that politicians can force them to act, they have their own internal dynamic...perhaps if one of their kids was learning to fly, and..............stranger things have got their attention.
(d) An Australia wide GA and Charter strike by operators and aviation businesses. That will close down major tourist operations and inhibit regional business operations, but it would have to be something large enough to bite. RFDS would need to be the only exception. Bear in mind that sociopaths are bullies and cowards at heart and if CASA has those atrributes then it will fold very quickly.
OK Creampuff, now waffle away. The simple fact is that if nothing is done about CASA, people are going to die and we have a very limited window before some harassed operator or pilot either misses something or makes a mistake. Our task then will be to sheet home the blame where it belongs.
Last edited by Sunfish; 16th Jun 2013 at 23:27.
Sunny 3 a&b are the two most likely catalysts. c&d. Your predictions about the role and influence of PM&C are interesting to say the least and the last suggestion comes straight out of the Communist playbook! Have you been taking classes at the militant unions industrial tactics 101 course?
. Your predictions about the role and influence of PM&C are interesting to say the least and the last suggestion comes straight out of the Communist playbook! Have you been taking classes at the militant unions industrial tactics 101 course?
Maybe a recommendations analysis..err maybe??
Sunny..004..HMHB.."K" all good posts!
While we go around in circles on the politics of the PelAir report…"he said she said".."it’ll never happen" etc..etc eventually the report has to be responded to regardless of whether the man in the seat wears a blue tie or a red tie, so how about the professionals on here start discussing the report recommendations and giving an opinion.
Mick Quinn love him or hate him, bag him or applaud him, regardless he is not afraid to front up and put his name on the dotted line
......from ‘Phelan’s’ article
Even AMROBA isn’t afraid to tell it as they see it:
So let’s offer a pprune critique to the mix, starting with Recommendation 1 which is a bit of a no-brainer really and I think most on here are in agreement. From Phelan’s article:
Just kickin it off and doing a Kelpie...
Beaker blog
update:
While we go around in circles on the politics of the PelAir report…"he said she said".."it’ll never happen" etc..etc eventually the report has to be responded to regardless of whether the man in the seat wears a blue tie or a red tie, so how about the professionals on here start discussing the report recommendations and giving an opinion.
Mick Quinn love him or hate him, bag him or applaud him, regardless he is not afraid to front up and put his name on the dotted line
......from ‘Phelan’s’ article
“It’s as good a report as you can get and I think it’s going to be a catalyst for a lot of improvement. It’s so good that it should be used in universities to teach how not to do air safety investigation in the future. The technical experience that Sen David Fawcett brought to the committee, and the acuity of Sen Nick Xenophon and all the others, was remarkable. It’s a credit to all of the senators and the Secretariat has also done an amazing job. I’ve gone through the whole thing and I can’t find a mistake in it, and with such solid evidence and 26 recommendations, it’s going to be very hard for the government to ignore it. I believe that David Fawcett, if what we expect happens in September, could be a huge asset to the incoming government in sorting out the mess.
“No enquiry of this kind has ever presented such a finely-tuned, responsive and dynamic report.”
“No enquiry of this kind has ever presented such a finely-tuned, responsive and dynamic report.”
:
Senate Aviation Accident Report — 5/2013
Available at: Senate Reports—Aviation
It is a sad indictment on our industry when this report has to make the following statement:
“Finally, the committee notes that many submitters and witnesses provided evidence in camera due to fear of retribution, particularly from CASA, were they to go public with their concerns. Many who chose to give in camera evidence did so in the knowledge of protections provided by parliamentary privilege. The committee also notes that this reticence to speak in public has been apparent for each inquiry this committee has conducted in this area over several years, and finds this deeply worrying.
Given the positive statements made about the inquiry by CASA Director of Aviation Safety, Mr John McCormick, the committee trusts that concerns about retribution are unwarranted.
There is an obligation on CASA to allay these concerns that retribution could follow speaking out, which appear to be widespread within the aviation industry.
The committee stresses that it takes the protection of witnesses under parliamentary privilege very seriously. Witnesses—whether public or in camera— should suffer no adverse consequences from providing evidence to the committee. Given the numerous concerns expressed, the committee will be monitoring this situation carefully.
If Australia is to remain at the forefront of open, transparent and effective aviation safety systems, then the goal of this committee is to help our organizations to work transparently, effectively and cooperatively. Ensuring that a systemic approach to aviation safety is in place is the best way to maximize outcomes.”
There are a number of recommendations contained within this report. Many are associated with ATSB and their methods and findings relating to the accident at Norfolk Island. Some relate to CASA and their involvement and what should be changed. Read the full report.
“Recommendation 7
4.87 The committee recommends that the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 be amended torequire that the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB be able to demonstrate extensive aviation safety expertise and experience as a prerequisite for the selection process.
Recommendation 11
6.52 The committee recommends that CASA processes in relation to matters highlighted by this investigation be reviewed. This could involve an evaluation benchmarked against a credible peer (such as FAA or CAA) of regulation and audits with respect to: non-RPT passenger carrying operations; approach to audits; and training and standardisation
of FOI across regional offices”.
Recommendation 12
6.55 The committee recommends that CASA, in consultation with an Emergency Medical Services industry representative group (eg. Royal Flying Doctor Service, air ambulance operators, rotary wing rescue providers) consider the merit, form and standards of a new category of operations for Emergency Medical Services. The minister should require CASA to approve the industry plan unless there is a clear safety case not to. Scope for industry to assist as part of an audit team should also be investigated where standardisation is an issue.
This should be completed within 12 months and the outcome reported publicly.
Recommendation 13
6.58 The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.
Recommendation 26
10.35 The committee recommends that in relation to mandatory and confidential reporting, the default position should be that no identifying details should be provided or disclosed. However, if thereis a clear risk to safety then the ATSB, CASA and industry representatives should develop a process that contains appropriate checks and balances.
http://amroba.org.au/newsletter
Available at: Senate Reports—Aviation
It is a sad indictment on our industry when this report has to make the following statement:
“Finally, the committee notes that many submitters and witnesses provided evidence in camera due to fear of retribution, particularly from CASA, were they to go public with their concerns. Many who chose to give in camera evidence did so in the knowledge of protections provided by parliamentary privilege. The committee also notes that this reticence to speak in public has been apparent for each inquiry this committee has conducted in this area over several years, and finds this deeply worrying.
Given the positive statements made about the inquiry by CASA Director of Aviation Safety, Mr John McCormick, the committee trusts that concerns about retribution are unwarranted.
There is an obligation on CASA to allay these concerns that retribution could follow speaking out, which appear to be widespread within the aviation industry.
The committee stresses that it takes the protection of witnesses under parliamentary privilege very seriously. Witnesses—whether public or in camera— should suffer no adverse consequences from providing evidence to the committee. Given the numerous concerns expressed, the committee will be monitoring this situation carefully.
If Australia is to remain at the forefront of open, transparent and effective aviation safety systems, then the goal of this committee is to help our organizations to work transparently, effectively and cooperatively. Ensuring that a systemic approach to aviation safety is in place is the best way to maximize outcomes.”
There are a number of recommendations contained within this report. Many are associated with ATSB and their methods and findings relating to the accident at Norfolk Island. Some relate to CASA and their involvement and what should be changed. Read the full report.
“Recommendation 7
4.87 The committee recommends that the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 be amended torequire that the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB be able to demonstrate extensive aviation safety expertise and experience as a prerequisite for the selection process.
Recommendation 11
6.52 The committee recommends that CASA processes in relation to matters highlighted by this investigation be reviewed. This could involve an evaluation benchmarked against a credible peer (such as FAA or CAA) of regulation and audits with respect to: non-RPT passenger carrying operations; approach to audits; and training and standardisation
of FOI across regional offices”.
Recommendation 12
6.55 The committee recommends that CASA, in consultation with an Emergency Medical Services industry representative group (eg. Royal Flying Doctor Service, air ambulance operators, rotary wing rescue providers) consider the merit, form and standards of a new category of operations for Emergency Medical Services. The minister should require CASA to approve the industry plan unless there is a clear safety case not to. Scope for industry to assist as part of an audit team should also be investigated where standardisation is an issue.
This should be completed within 12 months and the outcome reported publicly.
Recommendation 13
6.58 The committee recommends that a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.
Recommendation 26
10.35 The committee recommends that in relation to mandatory and confidential reporting, the default position should be that no identifying details should be provided or disclosed. However, if thereis a clear risk to safety then the ATSB, CASA and industry representatives should develop a process that contains appropriate checks and balances.
http://amroba.org.au/newsletter
1.The committee recommends that the ATSB retrieves VH-NGA flight data recorders without further delay.
Throughout the enquiry, the ATSB ‘s decision not to recover the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder had been denounced by air safety practitioners. The fitment of CVRs and FDRs is mandatory in this category of aircraft, and the International safety community relies heavily on those systems as a readily available tool for enhancing air safety even while investigations are still in progress.
The report comments: “the committee understands that retrieval of the recorders would be particularly useful in this instance [and] that the ATSB has certain responsibilities, set out in ICAO Annex 13, when it comes to retrieval of aircraft involved in accidents. It is an assumption throughout Annex 13 that, where a FDR exists, the accident investigation body will prioritise its retrieval.”
The vital role of these investigative aids was highlighted by Air France’s Airbus A330 accident over the Atlantic in June 2009. Although in their absence the investigation reached sound provisional conclusions, the full resolution of the disaster was not achieved until two years later when the recorders were recovered from the ocean floor.
The committee was visibly unsatisfied about the non-retrieval of the recorders, and even about the international legality of the decision not to recover them. ICAO Annex 13 specifies: “the State conducting the investigation shall arrange for the read-out of the flight recorders without delay.”
Throughout the enquiry, the ATSB ‘s decision not to recover the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder had been denounced by air safety practitioners. The fitment of CVRs and FDRs is mandatory in this category of aircraft, and the International safety community relies heavily on those systems as a readily available tool for enhancing air safety even while investigations are still in progress.
The report comments: “the committee understands that retrieval of the recorders would be particularly useful in this instance [and] that the ATSB has certain responsibilities, set out in ICAO Annex 13, when it comes to retrieval of aircraft involved in accidents. It is an assumption throughout Annex 13 that, where a FDR exists, the accident investigation body will prioritise its retrieval.”
The vital role of these investigative aids was highlighted by Air France’s Airbus A330 accident over the Atlantic in June 2009. Although in their absence the investigation reached sound provisional conclusions, the full resolution of the disaster was not achieved until two years later when the recorders were recovered from the ocean floor.
The committee was visibly unsatisfied about the non-retrieval of the recorders, and even about the international legality of the decision not to recover them. ICAO Annex 13 specifies: “the State conducting the investigation shall arrange for the read-out of the flight recorders without delay.”
Beaker blog
update:
Robert said...
Well, after reading this my suspicions of the ATSB have grown. What are you trying so hard to cover up? After the Senate inquiry I had concerns, now I am alarmed. I will certainly think twice before reporting minor occurrences. What is the ATSB hiding? It's a shame the survey has closed, I would have voiced my concerns there.
June 12, 2013 07:31
Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner (author) said...
I’m very keen to make the overall notifications process as transparent as possible so everyone understands why it’s important to report occurrences to the ATSB. As I mentioned in the blog post, we’ve been consulting widely on our reporting regulations with the aviation industry. In response to that feedback, the ATSB produced an information sharing arrangement document with CASA that gives industry greater clarity on what happens with occurrence notifications. We always welcome suggestions and feedback. You can provide comments by completing the feedback form on the ATSB website, emailing [email protected] or calling 1800 020 616.
June 13, 2013 04:07
Geoff Chatfield said...
Dear Sir As a person not activly involved in aviation as my employment but as an avid aviation enthusiast I am using all relevant information for research and for historical sake but I find your wording in the final paragraph of you Blog can I say interesting. It was not that long ago that both organizations were at log a heads with each other now we find that for reasons known only to the powers that be in CASA they (CASA) with held important and relavant information. From a laymans point of veiw I would not call this sort of thing as being a healthy and mature system.
June 13, 2013 08:21
Well, after reading this my suspicions of the ATSB have grown. What are you trying so hard to cover up? After the Senate inquiry I had concerns, now I am alarmed. I will certainly think twice before reporting minor occurrences. What is the ATSB hiding? It's a shame the survey has closed, I would have voiced my concerns there.
June 12, 2013 07:31
Martin Dolan, Chief Commissioner (author) said...
I’m very keen to make the overall notifications process as transparent as possible so everyone understands why it’s important to report occurrences to the ATSB. As I mentioned in the blog post, we’ve been consulting widely on our reporting regulations with the aviation industry. In response to that feedback, the ATSB produced an information sharing arrangement document with CASA that gives industry greater clarity on what happens with occurrence notifications. We always welcome suggestions and feedback. You can provide comments by completing the feedback form on the ATSB website, emailing [email protected] or calling 1800 020 616.
June 13, 2013 04:07
Geoff Chatfield said...
Dear Sir As a person not activly involved in aviation as my employment but as an avid aviation enthusiast I am using all relevant information for research and for historical sake but I find your wording in the final paragraph of you Blog can I say interesting. It was not that long ago that both organizations were at log a heads with each other now we find that for reasons known only to the powers that be in CASA they (CASA) with held important and relavant information. From a laymans point of veiw I would not call this sort of thing as being a healthy and mature system.
June 13, 2013 08:21
Last edited by Sarcs; 17th Jun 2013 at 00:29. Reason: "Gobbles give me a bucket!"
Stop getting personal, we all put up with your incessant posts so you can put
up with ours, if you don't like it then why the hell not bugger of elsewhere?
up with ours, if you don't like it then why the hell not bugger of elsewhere?
Last edited by Lookleft; 17th Jun 2013 at 01:54.
Guest
Posts: n/a
004wercrass.
Your comparing Erebus and its aftermath with the Pel Air incident to me is quite bizarre, happy you have stated you will leave it at that.
But you couldn't you state
(
It was not a bureaucratic investigation, it was carried out by a well qualified Aircraft Accident Inspector. and many pilots, as has been shown in previous threads on this subject, believe he nailed the cause far more accurately than the bureaucratic Royal Commission.
If you wish to follow the link there are many views contrary to the Royal Commissions findings expressed by very experienced aviators.
Richard J. McGrane: Do justice to the Erebus facts - Opinion - NZ Herald News
Thread drift over hopefully, but your comments re Erebus and Ron Chippendale really had to be spoken to.
The actions over the past few decades culminating in the Lockhart River tragedy and Pel Air ditching have shadows of 'Erebus' attached to them, and it doesn't sit comfortably with me, not one little but.
and I will leave it at that.
But you couldn't you state
After the Erebus crash and disgraceful bureaucratic investigation which not so surprisingly found the pilots were to blame
It was not a bureaucratic investigation, it was carried out by a well qualified Aircraft Accident Inspector. and many pilots, as has been shown in previous threads on this subject, believe he nailed the cause far more accurately than the bureaucratic Royal Commission.
If you wish to follow the link there are many views contrary to the Royal Commissions findings expressed by very experienced aviators.
Richard J. McGrane: Do justice to the Erebus facts - Opinion - NZ Herald News
Thread drift over hopefully, but your comments re Erebus and Ron Chippendale really had to be spoken to.
Last edited by prospector; 17th Jun 2013 at 05:00.
Well of course if NZ had a unit as good as today's ATSB, no royal commission into Erebus would have been needed would it?
Frank and fearless reporting of the facts and all that............
Not.
Frank and fearless reporting of the facts and all that............
Not.