Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw three detailed posts on this on Plane Talking today and gotta say there was some amazing stuff going on.
Watched the last part of the webcast and the Sens seemed to really corner the ATSB person.
Sad to see no other media stories apart from the Herald one that was about the morning evidence.
Watched the last part of the webcast and the Sens seemed to really corner the ATSB person.
Sad to see no other media stories apart from the Herald one that was about the morning evidence.
denabol here's another bit of mainstream media coverage, oh and the blokes name is Dolan (Beaker):
Air regulator not proud of Norfolk report | News.com.au
And here's a copy of Ben's latest.....
ATSB chiefs admits he's not proud of Pel-Air report | Plane Talking
And to borrow from the leader of the opposition...isn't that JMack.. "a piece of work!"
Air regulator not proud of Norfolk report | News.com.au
And here's a copy of Ben's latest.....
ATSB chief admits not proud of Pel-Air report
Ben Sandilands | Oct 22, 2012 6:35PM | EMAIL | PRINT
A dossier full of confidential emails, and a day full of tough questions, kick off Senate committee hearings into ATSB report into the ditching of a Pel-Air Westwind into the sea near Norfolk Island while operating a Careflight medical charter.
Toward the end of the public testimony given to the Senate committee on Aviation Accident Investigations today Senator Sean Edwards drew the attention of the chief commissioner of the ATSB Martin Dolan to a thick folder of confidential information including emails between the supposedly independent air safety investigator and CASA.
Commissioner Dolan said he didn’t think the contents of the folder would change his answers to questions.
But that moment was indicative of intensive questioning of Dolan as to why the ATSB had produced a final report into the ditching of a Pel-Air Careflight medical charter off Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009 that made no safety recommendations, and contained no analysis of organizational, human or systemic issues with the operator.
The day of hearings included repeated questioning of the ATSB and CASA concerning the propriety of the latter hiring the Pel-Air chief pilot John Wickham, who was organizationally responsible for the operator at the time it failed a special CASA audit after the crash, as a Flight Operations Inspector during the prolonged period it took the ATSB to conclude its investigations and publish the accident report.
The contents of the emails and other material is likely to be influencing the lines of questioning raised by the committee even though they will not form part of its report which is due by 29 November unless released by the sources that have provided them.
Earlier posts from today’s proceeding have appeared here and then here.
Senator Nick Xenophon, who instigated the Senate inquiry, told the ATSB head Dolan that the “only reason this didn’t go to the Coroner’s Court was that a flashlight in the jacket pocket of the pilot Dominic James was spotted from Norfolk Island”, leading to the rescue by boat of the six people on board the small Westwind corporate jet, which sank after they managed to escape from its mostly submerged and fractured hull.
Dolan admitted that he was not proud of the report.
He conceded that it took too long to produce (1015 days) and that the focus on the immediate reason for the crash, which was imminent fuel exhaustion the ATSB found was caused by poor flight preparation and decision making by the pilot, had neglected some other safety lessons.
He was criticised strongly in exchanges with the the committee members for the report totally disregarding an adverse special audit by CASA of Pel-Air made immediately after the accident which found numerous serious safety breaches by the operator, as well as removing from a privately circulated draft of the final report of references to Pel-Air having voluntarily grounded its fleet of Westwinds on 7 December.
Senator Fiona Nash took Dolan up on his admission that at no-stage did the ATSB inquiry refer to the failure of the safety equipment on board the jet, ranging from an unsecured life raft that was lost inside the partly submerged hull, to life jackets on which the torches and whistles didn’t work, or couldn’t be reached because of poor design.
Dolan was unable to answer her question as to whether the six people on board were actually asked if the emergency equipment worked, although he insisted each was interviewed.
Senator Fawcett tried to engage Dolan as to why the ASTB couldn’t make commonsense recommendations such as suggesting that Australia ask New Zealand air traffic controllers who were responsible for some of the air space transited by the flight that crashed couldn’t ensure that aircraft were advised of deteriorating weather conditions at their intended destinations.
Dolan was preceded in the afternoon session of hearings by CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, who insisted that the full responsibility for the accident would ‘come back to the pilot Mr James’.
McCormick said ” There is not a pilot in Australia who would not say that the responsibility for correctly loading the fuel on a jet is the responsibility of the captain. ”
He described some of James’ actions as ‘bordering on the reckless’ and rejected suggestions that CASA had colluded with the ATSB to protect Pel-Air from criticism or exposure for its unsafe operations, or that it had unfairly treated James by singling him out for criticism.
However in his answers McCormick said that James should have calculated fuel based on contingency planning for deteriorating weather and such things as cabin depressurisation or engine failure, even though documents released under a Freedom of Information request show that Pel-Air did not have a fuel policy which covered such events affecting its Westwind fleet.
In an exchange with McCormick, Senator David Fawcett said “There are significant human factors issues here that are critical to this report. Yet you have taken a very black and white view.
“The concern raised here significantly is that the regulatory, human and procedural factors that are writ large across this issue have been written out of this report.
“Why weren’t they included in report?”
McCormick said the contents of the report were a matter for the ATSB. He added that “I doubt you would see a different outcome if they were (included).”
The dossier of confidential emails may have received a further workout in the last testimony of the day, which was taken in camera.
There is no indication at this stage as to when there may be further public hearings.
Ben Sandilands | Oct 22, 2012 6:35PM | EMAIL | PRINT
A dossier full of confidential emails, and a day full of tough questions, kick off Senate committee hearings into ATSB report into the ditching of a Pel-Air Westwind into the sea near Norfolk Island while operating a Careflight medical charter.
Toward the end of the public testimony given to the Senate committee on Aviation Accident Investigations today Senator Sean Edwards drew the attention of the chief commissioner of the ATSB Martin Dolan to a thick folder of confidential information including emails between the supposedly independent air safety investigator and CASA.
Commissioner Dolan said he didn’t think the contents of the folder would change his answers to questions.
But that moment was indicative of intensive questioning of Dolan as to why the ATSB had produced a final report into the ditching of a Pel-Air Careflight medical charter off Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009 that made no safety recommendations, and contained no analysis of organizational, human or systemic issues with the operator.
The day of hearings included repeated questioning of the ATSB and CASA concerning the propriety of the latter hiring the Pel-Air chief pilot John Wickham, who was organizationally responsible for the operator at the time it failed a special CASA audit after the crash, as a Flight Operations Inspector during the prolonged period it took the ATSB to conclude its investigations and publish the accident report.
The contents of the emails and other material is likely to be influencing the lines of questioning raised by the committee even though they will not form part of its report which is due by 29 November unless released by the sources that have provided them.
Earlier posts from today’s proceeding have appeared here and then here.
Senator Nick Xenophon, who instigated the Senate inquiry, told the ATSB head Dolan that the “only reason this didn’t go to the Coroner’s Court was that a flashlight in the jacket pocket of the pilot Dominic James was spotted from Norfolk Island”, leading to the rescue by boat of the six people on board the small Westwind corporate jet, which sank after they managed to escape from its mostly submerged and fractured hull.
Dolan admitted that he was not proud of the report.
He conceded that it took too long to produce (1015 days) and that the focus on the immediate reason for the crash, which was imminent fuel exhaustion the ATSB found was caused by poor flight preparation and decision making by the pilot, had neglected some other safety lessons.
He was criticised strongly in exchanges with the the committee members for the report totally disregarding an adverse special audit by CASA of Pel-Air made immediately after the accident which found numerous serious safety breaches by the operator, as well as removing from a privately circulated draft of the final report of references to Pel-Air having voluntarily grounded its fleet of Westwinds on 7 December.
Senator Fiona Nash took Dolan up on his admission that at no-stage did the ATSB inquiry refer to the failure of the safety equipment on board the jet, ranging from an unsecured life raft that was lost inside the partly submerged hull, to life jackets on which the torches and whistles didn’t work, or couldn’t be reached because of poor design.
Dolan was unable to answer her question as to whether the six people on board were actually asked if the emergency equipment worked, although he insisted each was interviewed.
Senator Fawcett tried to engage Dolan as to why the ASTB couldn’t make commonsense recommendations such as suggesting that Australia ask New Zealand air traffic controllers who were responsible for some of the air space transited by the flight that crashed couldn’t ensure that aircraft were advised of deteriorating weather conditions at their intended destinations.
Dolan was preceded in the afternoon session of hearings by CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, who insisted that the full responsibility for the accident would ‘come back to the pilot Mr James’.
McCormick said ” There is not a pilot in Australia who would not say that the responsibility for correctly loading the fuel on a jet is the responsibility of the captain. ”
He described some of James’ actions as ‘bordering on the reckless’ and rejected suggestions that CASA had colluded with the ATSB to protect Pel-Air from criticism or exposure for its unsafe operations, or that it had unfairly treated James by singling him out for criticism.
However in his answers McCormick said that James should have calculated fuel based on contingency planning for deteriorating weather and such things as cabin depressurisation or engine failure, even though documents released under a Freedom of Information request show that Pel-Air did not have a fuel policy which covered such events affecting its Westwind fleet.
In an exchange with McCormick, Senator David Fawcett said “There are significant human factors issues here that are critical to this report. Yet you have taken a very black and white view.
“The concern raised here significantly is that the regulatory, human and procedural factors that are writ large across this issue have been written out of this report.
“Why weren’t they included in report?”
McCormick said the contents of the report were a matter for the ATSB. He added that “I doubt you would see a different outcome if they were (included).”
The dossier of confidential emails may have received a further workout in the last testimony of the day, which was taken in camera.
There is no indication at this stage as to when there may be further public hearings.
And to borrow from the leader of the opposition...isn't that JMack.. "a piece of work!"
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blow my whistle sweetie.
N.B. to make this work, read in the sweetest, sickening patronising voice you can.
Well, well. Congratulations, here is your CAO 20.11 training system as approved by CASA. Just place a 25 Kg life raft by the door, of course unsecured you Silly Billy, how else can you throw it (manfully) out of the window ??, now under a 5g impact it will not come through the bulkhead and beat your sweet little head to a pulp, no sausage; CASA knows best.
You actually believe it may escape from the unsecured position?, or that a shocked or hurt crew member can't physically hoist a 25 Kg raft out of a small hole, secure it and assist to launch the thing, relax possum. The average stretcher patient, like you Mum can easily unbuckle 6 stetcher straps, under water, "don" a jacket in the robustly approved fashion (don't forget the crutch strap dear) and then just flip it into the water, easy as pie.
Once everyone is safely out, into the dark, relaxing ocean rhythm, you can all play a nice little game of blow jobs; oh, you know how it goes; you swim over here pet and blow my whistle, then I get a turn to swim over there and blow yours; assuming I can find you that is, but wait goose, your little blink a blink light will help me find you. Only one torch each mind you, no cheating; this is after all an approved system.
Yes possum, this is a CASA approved system, trust me; we are after all "THE" safety regulator, and shame on those nasty people who take the piss out of our world class, approved methods of ensuring air safety for all who swim with us. Yes dear, the swim between the flags are complimentary, from your caring, benevolent regulator.
Yes, Sorry about your Uncle Martin, yes sweetie, nice fellah, but his benchmark was his tombstone. No pet, collateral damage ve do not haff, in fact no loose ends at all.
End 20.11 training video.
Oh FFS. Throw the silly buggers off the back of a boat one dark and stormy, robust system reality road test. (OH&S forbidden solution - simulator anyone?).
Thank the Gods for the Norfolk Island lads and ladies all, a fluke and Every Ready batteries, (the robust choice for CASA approved CAO 20.11 safety systems) saved the day. It's late and I'm getting grumpy so: in the words of the immortal Kelpie, "more to follow". (Just a bit).
Well, well. Congratulations, here is your CAO 20.11 training system as approved by CASA. Just place a 25 Kg life raft by the door, of course unsecured you Silly Billy, how else can you throw it (manfully) out of the window ??, now under a 5g impact it will not come through the bulkhead and beat your sweet little head to a pulp, no sausage; CASA knows best.
You actually believe it may escape from the unsecured position?, or that a shocked or hurt crew member can't physically hoist a 25 Kg raft out of a small hole, secure it and assist to launch the thing, relax possum. The average stretcher patient, like you Mum can easily unbuckle 6 stetcher straps, under water, "don" a jacket in the robustly approved fashion (don't forget the crutch strap dear) and then just flip it into the water, easy as pie.
Once everyone is safely out, into the dark, relaxing ocean rhythm, you can all play a nice little game of blow jobs; oh, you know how it goes; you swim over here pet and blow my whistle, then I get a turn to swim over there and blow yours; assuming I can find you that is, but wait goose, your little blink a blink light will help me find you. Only one torch each mind you, no cheating; this is after all an approved system.
Yes possum, this is a CASA approved system, trust me; we are after all "THE" safety regulator, and shame on those nasty people who take the piss out of our world class, approved methods of ensuring air safety for all who swim with us. Yes dear, the swim between the flags are complimentary, from your caring, benevolent regulator.
Yes, Sorry about your Uncle Martin, yes sweetie, nice fellah, but his benchmark was his tombstone. No pet, collateral damage ve do not haff, in fact no loose ends at all.
End 20.11 training video.
Oh FFS. Throw the silly buggers off the back of a boat one dark and stormy, robust system reality road test. (OH&S forbidden solution - simulator anyone?).
Thank the Gods for the Norfolk Island lads and ladies all, a fluke and Every Ready batteries, (the robust choice for CASA approved CAO 20.11 safety systems) saved the day. It's late and I'm getting grumpy so: in the words of the immortal Kelpie, "more to follow". (Just a bit).
Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Oct 2012 at 13:47. Reason: I wouldn't do this commercial unless -
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GD highlighted this earlier. But it appears casa is consumed with conflicting opinions, inconsistent views and competing egos. Flying fiend has never posted after being challenged as a member of lsg.
Anybody of the opinion there may be some chess game movements soon?
Last edited by halfmanhalfbiscuit; 22nd Oct 2012 at 13:55.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll play –
HMHB # 495 - Anybody of the opinion there may be some chess game movements soon?
'I'm a star see' to - Jmac Bishops 4, sacrifice a Chamber Pot:
'Lord Farquard' to Senate rook 7, sacrifice a 'Beeker'.
Last edited by Kharon; 22nd Oct 2012 at 14:21.
Don't forget the 'Beaker!'
Beaker: "When referring to our Crat rule book version zLMXXIV and embodied within Appendix S (for Spin) you will find a Matrix headed..Risk assessment process for commissioners while assessing the priorities of all relevant stakeholders (fellow trough feeders) that maybe implicated politically, financially, legally etc..etc by the events of a serious pilot induced incident/accident."
"So Senator Nash this led the commissioners and I to believe that the survivability issues were well outside the remit and the matrix of Appendix S!"
Ok but the Senators point out with fingers on the reference:
injuries sustained, failure of structures such as seats and seatbelt
attachments.
Beaker: "No Senator according to our considered opinion the "survival aspects" weren't neither relevant or noteworthy enough to put in the Final Report!"
"So Senator Nash this led the commissioners and I to believe that the survivability issues were well outside the remit and the matrix of Appendix S!"
Ok but the Senators point out with fingers on the reference:
APPENDIX. FORMAT OF THE FINAL REPORT
(See Chapter 6)
(See Chapter 6)
Section 1.15 " Survival aspects. Brief description of search, evacuation
and rescue, location of crew and passengers in relation toinjuries sustained, failure of structures such as seats and seatbelt
attachments.
Last edited by Sarcs; 22nd Oct 2012 at 22:34.
Lets hope that the Commissioner will now produce reports that he can be proud of. I think the ATSB have found to their cost that working closely with CASA makes their job harder and that they will ulitmately be the fall guy when a report is put under the microscope. I think this quote sums up the CASA view.
The report is not their product even though the suggestion is they had a huge input into the final product. Its also difficult not to come to the conclusion that the former CP was being protected by CASA so they made sure that the operator and the regulator were not exposed in the report for their responsibilities. I don't think that anything we have heard exonerates the crew but hopefully the ATSB will include in future reports all factors that surround an accident. I suspect that the investigators will also hope that they will be allowed to include all the relevant factors as well.
McCormick said the contents of the report were a matter for the ATSB. He added that “I doubt you would see a different outcome if they were (included).”
The report is not their product even though the suggestion is they had a huge input into the final product. Its also difficult not to come to the conclusion that the former CP was being protected by CASA so they made sure that the operator and the regulator were not exposed in the report for their responsibilities. I don't think that anything we have heard exonerates the crew but hopefully the ATSB will include in future reports all factors that surround an accident. I suspect that the investigators will also hope that they will be allowed to include all the relevant factors as well.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update
I believe Beaker and Mr Angry are attempting to do the following at the moment;
Either way, these organisations remain the same underneath - Pooh.
P.S. Kharon, nice Queen clip. There are still a couple of outdated Inspectors at Fort Fumble who style themselves after the great chiseled one!
Either way, these organisations remain the same underneath - Pooh.
P.S. Kharon, nice Queen clip. There are still a couple of outdated Inspectors at Fort Fumble who style themselves after the great chiseled one!
Last edited by gobbledock; 23rd Oct 2012 at 00:20. Reason: Avoiding the pink object in the room
I believe Beaker and Mr Angry are attempting to do the following at the moment;
CHAIR: We have had an interesting day. As you know, I am Australia's most disgraced senator and I am grumpy. The evidence we have received today is that you are also grumpy, a bullying and an intimidator of people. I presume you think you are just a calm and collected bossy boss.
Mr McCormick: I do not think I am a bully in any respect, but you have other people here who you can ask—
CHAIR: So you are just a bossy boss, are you?
Mr McCormick: No, I am not a bossy boss at all. What I found when I got to CASA, as I think we have discussed before, is that there was a significant lack of direction, and perhaps some of the things that we see and we are here discussing may be direct outcomes of some of that lack of direction and focus.
Mr McCormick: I do not think I am a bully in any respect, but you have other people here who you can ask—
CHAIR: So you are just a bossy boss, are you?
Mr McCormick: No, I am not a bossy boss at all. What I found when I got to CASA, as I think we have discussed before, is that there was a significant lack of direction, and perhaps some of the things that we see and we are here discussing may be direct outcomes of some of that lack of direction and focus.
You guessed it hansard is out read it and weep or be thoroughly embarassed or ashamed by the bloody numbnuts running our aviation safety authorities here in Oz!
Oh here's the link:
ParlInfo - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee : 22/10/2012 : Aviation accident investigations
This is the point at which I feel off my chair, laughing. (I then cried, for the travelling public):
So, nobody is responsible.
New CEO turns up and, apparently, doesn’t ask for a brief on progress on all ongoing matters and projects for which the organisation is responsible.
“Circus” would be an insult to all the people who manage to put on and make a living out of the shows of that name.
Senator FAWCETT: There is actually a broader issue, though, Mr McCormick. There is no closed-loop system so that recommendations that are made by ATSB, that CASA agrees—particularly we have seen a number where, in a coroner's court, the coroner has said, 'We'll close out this issue, because ATSB made a recommendation and CASA said they will do it,' and then a decade later there is has been no action. Is that an issue for the travelling public? I hear you that you were not there for that whole 10 years, but we are talking about a system now, not personalities. Is the system not working as it should?
Mr McCormick: I cannot speak for what happened in 2000. I only got here in 2009. …
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?
Mr Boyd: Yes, but not in that position.
Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?
Dr Aleck : I was in Montreal.
Mr McCormick: I cannot speak for what happened in 2000. I only got here in 2009. …
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?
Mr Boyd: Yes, but not in that position.
Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?
Dr Aleck : I was in Montreal.
New CEO turns up and, apparently, doesn’t ask for a brief on progress on all ongoing matters and projects for which the organisation is responsible.
“Circus” would be an insult to all the people who manage to put on and make a living out of the shows of that name.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said..... wait until the music stops and see who doesn't have a chair !!
These turkeys are an embarrassment to themselves and the aviation industry.
What horrors will await the travelling public after they wriggle out of this inquiry, ...and they WILL !!
These turkeys are an embarrassment to themselves and the aviation industry.
What horrors will await the travelling public after they wriggle out of this inquiry, ...and they WILL !!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously the regulatory review programme has now been backdated to commence 2009. (23 years minus 3 years makes for only 20 years of wasted taxpayers money).
I feel much better now.
I believe Farquharson was around at the time, (although I could be wrong as I usually am), and Aleck was, if I dare to feign to be correct, being groomed by the other lawyer who is now ensconced with Attorney General.
What a clusterfcuk!
I feel much better now.
I believe Farquharson was around at the time, (although I could be wrong as I usually am), and Aleck was, if I dare to feign to be correct, being groomed by the other lawyer who is now ensconced with Attorney General.
What a clusterfcuk!
ATSB Clusterfcuk
Oh dear................from Hansard:
Would you buy a used car from these (ATSB) clowns? Probably not.
Will you continue to report knowing that they are providing this information to CASA because '...information that is de-identified ...would not be helpful [to CASA]' ? Probably not.
Will the idiot Minister do anything about these idiots? Probably not.
FFS.
Senator XENOPHON: And I do not think they have any axes to grind; it looks like they understand as pilots about making reports to the ATSB about any incidents, so there is that just culture and the like. Now, in a recent consultation document on the enhanced mandatory reporting proposal, you, or ATSB, said:
Presently, CASA receives a summary of each occurrence with only a little more detail than in the Weekly Summaries posted on the ATSB’s website.
I put it to you, Mr Dolan, that that statement is deliberately misleading or at least grossly misleading. Do you agree with that proposition?
Mr Dolan: No, I do not.
Senator XENOPHON: Well, I am told that CASA actually gets the verbatim report with only the reporter's name redacted but still all the details of the aircraft and the time of the incident.
Mr Dolan: That is certainly not my understanding. Mr Walsh is responsible for the system—
Senator XENOPHON: I have seen a document that seems to contradict what you have just put.
Mr Dolan: Would you like to comment, Mr Walsh?
Mr Walsh: We certainly provide CASA with a daily report on all occurrences that the ATSB has received. We remove any overt personal information that identifies any individual from those—
Senator XENOPHON: You include the aircraft, though, don't you?
Mr Walsh: Yes, we do include that.
Senator XENOPHON: So, through identifying the aircraft, you can identify the pilot, can't you?
Mr Walsh: Yes, you can and— SIUYA's bolding
Senator XENOPHON: Hang on. So, Mr Dolan, given Mr Walsh's answer, when the ATSB says, 'Presently, CASA receives a summary of each occurrence with only a little more detail than in the weekly summaries posted on the ATSB's website,' that is actually grossly misleading because you can identify the pilot involved because you identify the aircraft. And the AIPA pilots, two very competent men who are well regarded in aviation circles, had no idea of that.
Mr Walsh: We have just completed some face-to-face consultation as part of the consultation package that you have talked about. During that process, we flew around the country and spoke to many operators—all the major airlines, a lot of the regional airlines and the like—and we also met with representatives, as I understand it, from AIPA. During those conversations, we made it quite clear what we provide to CASA currently. Obviously, the reaction by industry to the proposal in that consultation package has been very strong. We are trying to work with CASA at the moment to—
Senator XENOPHON: Mr Walsh, I apologise, but I am running out of time. I need to ask you, ATSB, and Mr Dolan in particular: what protection is currently provided to a reporter under the existing mandatory reporting scheme, given the ease with which CASA can establish the redacted information; and have we actually already embarked on a regulatory assault on the reporter's privilege against self-incrimination? We have; isn't that the case?
Mr Dolan: The notification system is in parallel with our investigation system and not part of it. It is a mandatory system that is designed—
CHAIR: Did that note you just got help?
Mr Dolan: No, Senator. On the specific question, the system is designed to provide safety information not just to the ATSB but to the broader system. It is designed to minimise the risk that it will be used by the regulator to identify and take action against individuals.
Senator XENOPHON: Mr Dolan, we are running out of time.
Mr Dolan: We are having a discussion at the moment in terms of a proposal to change the system.
Senator XENOPHON: No, the system has already changed, hasn't it? In a recent consultation document, you said:
Presently, CASA receives a summary of each occurrence with only a little more detail than in the Weekly Summaries posted on the ATSB’s website.
Given what Mr Walsh has said, that is actually grossly misleading, because CASA can identify the pilot because you can identify the aircraft. Do you agree with that proposition, Mr Dolan?
Mr Dolan: I still stand by it, but I can understand—
Senator XENOPHON: How can you stand by it? It is patently misleading. It is false. How can you stand by a misleading statement? How can you say that there is only a little more detail in the weekly summaries posted on the ATSB website, which guarantees anonymity, when in fact the information that you provide to CASA can pinpoint the pilot? How can you stand by that?
CHAIR: The easiest way out might be to say it might be a bit of a balls-up and say, 'Yes, we've cocked it.'
Mr Dolan: I think the point is that the ATSB, as I think Mr Dolan said, only plays one part in the safety system, and we do not have any responsibility for the management of risk in the aviation industry. That is something that is much more aligned with CASA. For CASA to be able to perform its functions, it must have access to occurrence information, and information that is de-identified to the extent that it does not become usable would not be helpful.
Presently, CASA receives a summary of each occurrence with only a little more detail than in the Weekly Summaries posted on the ATSB’s website.
I put it to you, Mr Dolan, that that statement is deliberately misleading or at least grossly misleading. Do you agree with that proposition?
Mr Dolan: No, I do not.
Senator XENOPHON: Well, I am told that CASA actually gets the verbatim report with only the reporter's name redacted but still all the details of the aircraft and the time of the incident.
Mr Dolan: That is certainly not my understanding. Mr Walsh is responsible for the system—
Senator XENOPHON: I have seen a document that seems to contradict what you have just put.
Mr Dolan: Would you like to comment, Mr Walsh?
Mr Walsh: We certainly provide CASA with a daily report on all occurrences that the ATSB has received. We remove any overt personal information that identifies any individual from those—
Senator XENOPHON: You include the aircraft, though, don't you?
Mr Walsh: Yes, we do include that.
Senator XENOPHON: So, through identifying the aircraft, you can identify the pilot, can't you?
Mr Walsh: Yes, you can and— SIUYA's bolding
Senator XENOPHON: Hang on. So, Mr Dolan, given Mr Walsh's answer, when the ATSB says, 'Presently, CASA receives a summary of each occurrence with only a little more detail than in the weekly summaries posted on the ATSB's website,' that is actually grossly misleading because you can identify the pilot involved because you identify the aircraft. And the AIPA pilots, two very competent men who are well regarded in aviation circles, had no idea of that.
Mr Walsh: We have just completed some face-to-face consultation as part of the consultation package that you have talked about. During that process, we flew around the country and spoke to many operators—all the major airlines, a lot of the regional airlines and the like—and we also met with representatives, as I understand it, from AIPA. During those conversations, we made it quite clear what we provide to CASA currently. Obviously, the reaction by industry to the proposal in that consultation package has been very strong. We are trying to work with CASA at the moment to—
Senator XENOPHON: Mr Walsh, I apologise, but I am running out of time. I need to ask you, ATSB, and Mr Dolan in particular: what protection is currently provided to a reporter under the existing mandatory reporting scheme, given the ease with which CASA can establish the redacted information; and have we actually already embarked on a regulatory assault on the reporter's privilege against self-incrimination? We have; isn't that the case?
Mr Dolan: The notification system is in parallel with our investigation system and not part of it. It is a mandatory system that is designed—
CHAIR: Did that note you just got help?
Mr Dolan: No, Senator. On the specific question, the system is designed to provide safety information not just to the ATSB but to the broader system. It is designed to minimise the risk that it will be used by the regulator to identify and take action against individuals.
Senator XENOPHON: Mr Dolan, we are running out of time.
Mr Dolan: We are having a discussion at the moment in terms of a proposal to change the system.
Senator XENOPHON: No, the system has already changed, hasn't it? In a recent consultation document, you said:
Presently, CASA receives a summary of each occurrence with only a little more detail than in the Weekly Summaries posted on the ATSB’s website.
Given what Mr Walsh has said, that is actually grossly misleading, because CASA can identify the pilot because you can identify the aircraft. Do you agree with that proposition, Mr Dolan?
Mr Dolan: I still stand by it, but I can understand—
Senator XENOPHON: How can you stand by it? It is patently misleading. It is false. How can you stand by a misleading statement? How can you say that there is only a little more detail in the weekly summaries posted on the ATSB website, which guarantees anonymity, when in fact the information that you provide to CASA can pinpoint the pilot? How can you stand by that?
CHAIR: The easiest way out might be to say it might be a bit of a balls-up and say, 'Yes, we've cocked it.'
Mr Dolan: I think the point is that the ATSB, as I think Mr Dolan said, only plays one part in the safety system, and we do not have any responsibility for the management of risk in the aviation industry. That is something that is much more aligned with CASA. For CASA to be able to perform its functions, it must have access to occurrence information, and information that is de-identified to the extent that it does not become usable would not be helpful.
Would you buy a used car from these (ATSB) clowns? Probably not.
Will you continue to report knowing that they are providing this information to CASA because '...information that is de-identified ...would not be helpful [to CASA]' ? Probably not.
Will the idiot Minister do anything about these idiots? Probably not.
FFS.
Last edited by SIUYA; 23rd Oct 2012 at 08:49.
Dead men walking perhaps?
So many clangers to choose from in this lot but in reference to my post #497 here is Senator Nash's clanger:
Which was closely followed by Senator Edwards who was basically adding the dressing to the Beaker's diced nuts:
Some of this could be directly sent to a script writer for some satirical stage play, they could call it..."Safe Skies for all!"
The trouble is this is for real and these numpties are supposedly keeping the skies safe for all the air travelling public, families, friends and loved ones...god help us!
As a side note there was over 30 MB of tabled documents in yesterday's hearing, may I suggest that could be a record for a one day hearing:
Bet there's a couple of pencil pushers employed at Fort Fumble and the bureau who have had their feet nailed to the floor and one hand nailed to a desk to decipher that lot!! Here's the link:
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Senator NASH: So at no stage did you ask them, 'Did the prescribed safety procedures work?' You are the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and at no stage did you ask the prescribed safety requirements work?
Mr Sangston: I do not know precisely what was asked in the interview.
CHAIR: Could we have a record of the interviews?
Mr Dolan: We can draw it to your attention. It should be amongst the material we have already supplied. We will find it for you.
Senator NASH: Wouldn't that be the first thing you would do? We all spend half our lives on planes and we are getting the safety procedure drilled into us every time we get on a plane. Surely, as the ATSB, the first thing you would ask would be: did the process work properly?
Senator EDWARDS: Was the lifejacket under your seat?
CHAIR: I always check?
Senator STERLE: I—
Senator NASH: Sorry, Senator Sterle, I just want an answer.
CHAIR: Here comes the 'no'.
Mr Dolan: It is an attempt to establish a matter of fact, Senator. The focus of the investigation, from a comparatively early stage, was on what led up to the accident. If there is a fair criticism here it is that we did not quite get the balance right. We were focused more on why it came to that event rather than what happened afterwards. That is what I am hearing and I think there is substance to it. With the wisdom of hindsight, it might not have been quite the right balance in terms of how we reviewed processes.
Mr Sangston: I do not know precisely what was asked in the interview.
CHAIR: Could we have a record of the interviews?
Mr Dolan: We can draw it to your attention. It should be amongst the material we have already supplied. We will find it for you.
Senator NASH: Wouldn't that be the first thing you would do? We all spend half our lives on planes and we are getting the safety procedure drilled into us every time we get on a plane. Surely, as the ATSB, the first thing you would ask would be: did the process work properly?
Senator EDWARDS: Was the lifejacket under your seat?
CHAIR: I always check?
Senator STERLE: I—
Senator NASH: Sorry, Senator Sterle, I just want an answer.
CHAIR: Here comes the 'no'.
Mr Dolan: It is an attempt to establish a matter of fact, Senator. The focus of the investigation, from a comparatively early stage, was on what led up to the accident. If there is a fair criticism here it is that we did not quite get the balance right. We were focused more on why it came to that event rather than what happened afterwards. That is what I am hearing and I think there is substance to it. With the wisdom of hindsight, it might not have been quite the right balance in terms of how we reviewed processes.
Senator EDWARDS: Chair, since we have started, there has been mea culpa after mea culpa after mea culpa in this thing. Now you are hearing evidence for the first time of what is supposed to be a forensic investigation. I have heard that this report would be a joke in the international standing—if other reviewers were to have reviewed this. I think that the evidence that Senator Xenophon and Senator Fawcett are drawing out would suggest that. We haven't even got to the black box yet. Are you proud of this report?
Mr Dolan: I certainly would not hold this report as a benchmark. I am still satisfied that the key elements—
Senator EDWARDS: Three years in the making. Mea culpa after mea culpa. Are you proud of this report?
Mr Dolan: No, I am not proud of this report.
Senator EDWARDS: Senator Fawcett has questioned you about what the outcome is of it: forget the people, forget who you nailed, forget who was responsible—what did we learn, and where does it go from here? We have not heard that. He has asked you twice. Where do your recommendations go? In fact, you do not make many recommendations a year, do you? Two last year?
Mr Dolan: I think that would be right.
Senator EDWARDS: I am a fair bloke. I do not live in the airline world like many people on this committee. But this is not reasonable for you. I have one last thing to ask before I hand over to my more learned friends. I am holding up a folder and the yellow papers in there are confidential evidence received by this committee—there is a majority percentage of the information in this folder. We are trying to get that on the public record. But in the context of there being nearly a ream of confidential information that you have not seen—email trails and things like that from people who have been involved—did you or your officers have any formal or informal ongoing involvement with CASA officials in and about the formation of this report? Remember, I have all of this information I have indicated.
Mr Dolan: I recognise that and I do not think that would change my answer at all. In the broad, in terms both of our memorandum of understanding with CASA and of our operational relationships, given that we both have roles in the safety system, we have ongoing interactions with CASA. We have six-monthly meetings with CASA formally with an agenda to work through issues of common interest and how they are working—
Senator EDWARDS: Specifically about this inquiry.
Mr Dolan: All I am aware of in relation to this inquiry is the discussion that took place in relation to that initially identified critical safety issue, and how that was played through. There was some discussion from time to time about the progress of the investigation, as part of our normal contact with CASA—and update. And a directly—
Senator EDWARDS: Were they critical of you and the time you were taking?
Mr Dolan: And a directly interested party stage. They asked from time to time about progress. But Mr Sangston may be aware of other interactions that I am not aware of.
Mr Sangston: In addition to those, I at times have an administrative type interaction with a gentleman of the Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit in CASA. But that is on an formal administrative basis only, so it was not specific to the progress of this investigation—
Senator EDWARDS: At any time did any of those people direct you as to what your line of inquiry should be or who you should be targeting for interviews and outcomes.
Mr Sangston: No.
Senator EDWARDS: Suggest?
Mr Sangston: No.
Mr Dolan: I certainly would not hold this report as a benchmark. I am still satisfied that the key elements—
Senator EDWARDS: Three years in the making. Mea culpa after mea culpa. Are you proud of this report?
Mr Dolan: No, I am not proud of this report.
Senator EDWARDS: Senator Fawcett has questioned you about what the outcome is of it: forget the people, forget who you nailed, forget who was responsible—what did we learn, and where does it go from here? We have not heard that. He has asked you twice. Where do your recommendations go? In fact, you do not make many recommendations a year, do you? Two last year?
Mr Dolan: I think that would be right.
Senator EDWARDS: I am a fair bloke. I do not live in the airline world like many people on this committee. But this is not reasonable for you. I have one last thing to ask before I hand over to my more learned friends. I am holding up a folder and the yellow papers in there are confidential evidence received by this committee—there is a majority percentage of the information in this folder. We are trying to get that on the public record. But in the context of there being nearly a ream of confidential information that you have not seen—email trails and things like that from people who have been involved—did you or your officers have any formal or informal ongoing involvement with CASA officials in and about the formation of this report? Remember, I have all of this information I have indicated.
Mr Dolan: I recognise that and I do not think that would change my answer at all. In the broad, in terms both of our memorandum of understanding with CASA and of our operational relationships, given that we both have roles in the safety system, we have ongoing interactions with CASA. We have six-monthly meetings with CASA formally with an agenda to work through issues of common interest and how they are working—
Senator EDWARDS: Specifically about this inquiry.
Mr Dolan: All I am aware of in relation to this inquiry is the discussion that took place in relation to that initially identified critical safety issue, and how that was played through. There was some discussion from time to time about the progress of the investigation, as part of our normal contact with CASA—and update. And a directly—
Senator EDWARDS: Were they critical of you and the time you were taking?
Mr Dolan: And a directly interested party stage. They asked from time to time about progress. But Mr Sangston may be aware of other interactions that I am not aware of.
Mr Sangston: In addition to those, I at times have an administrative type interaction with a gentleman of the Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit in CASA. But that is on an formal administrative basis only, so it was not specific to the progress of this investigation—
Senator EDWARDS: At any time did any of those people direct you as to what your line of inquiry should be or who you should be targeting for interviews and outcomes.
Mr Sangston: No.
Senator EDWARDS: Suggest?
Mr Sangston: No.
The trouble is this is for real and these numpties are supposedly keeping the skies safe for all the air travelling public, families, friends and loved ones...god help us!
As a side note there was over 30 MB of tabled documents in yesterday's hearing, may I suggest that could be a record for a one day hearing:
Additional Information Received
1Documents tabled at public hearing in Canberra, ACT on Monday, 22 October 2012;(PDF 27681KB)
1Documents tabled at public hearing in Canberra, ACT on Monday, 22 October 2012;(PDF 27681KB)
Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
Last edited by Sarcs; 23rd Oct 2012 at 10:17.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this straight. If a new airline CEO inherits a basket case that has been falling apart for 10 years he can plead 'the fifth' and be absolved of any accountability if an aircraft crashes one week after he commences his tenure?
What is hilarious is that the very people mentioned are part of the root cause of CASA problems:
Definitely the S.S Titanic. It was not my fault Senator, I wan't at the helm, I was hiding in a broom closet, I was making a cup of tea, I was feeding from a trough!
Skull is Director. The buck stops there. Step up and take responsibility.
Boyd. 10+ years. Far to long influencing decisions. Time to go.
Mr Farquharson. 15+ years. Far to long influencing decisions. Time to go.
Dr Aleck. 20+ years. Far to long influencing decisions. Time to go.
What is hilarious is that the very people mentioned are part of the root cause of CASA problems:
Mr McCormick: I cannot speak for what happened in 2000. I only got here in 2009. …
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?
Mr Boyd: Yes, but not in that position.
Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?
Dr Aleck : I was in Montreal.
Senator FAWCETT: Mr Boyd, were you around?
Mr Boyd: Yes, but not in that position.
Senator NASH: Anybody else? Mr Farquharson? Dr Aleck?
Dr Aleck : I was in Montreal.
Skull is Director. The buck stops there. Step up and take responsibility.
Boyd. 10+ years. Far to long influencing decisions. Time to go.
Mr Farquharson. 15+ years. Far to long influencing decisions. Time to go.
Dr Aleck. 20+ years. Far to long influencing decisions. Time to go.
Last edited by gobbledock; 23rd Oct 2012 at 11:16.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sniff sniff, I smell pony pooh
CHAIR: So what would an independent observer sitting at the back of the room, considering what we have heard so far today—which, to say the least, is puzzling—think about a chief pilot who has obviously breached some regulations in his role at Pel-Air, including suitability of the aircraft to fly, the conditions in which it is loaded and everything from safety vests et cetera, and who during the period of this inquiry, and according to the evidence we have received, has switched over as an inspector in the Bankstown office of CASA and is dealing with the case in which he is alleged to have breached? Wouldn't that be a considerable conflict of interest by someone?
Mr Quinn : A major conflict of interest. I am not aware of it, but the chief pilot actually may have declared a conflict of interest. That is not my problem. My problem is: the organisation knew that this guy had been involved in Pel-Air and it had serious problems and, therefore, is he really a fit and proper person is the question that needs to be asked.
CHAIR: Well, the bloke standing at the back of the room could say, 'I wonder if they've bought his silence?'
Mr Quinn : A major conflict of interest. I am not aware of it, but the chief pilot actually may have declared a conflict of interest. That is not my problem. My problem is: the organisation knew that this guy had been involved in Pel-Air and it had serious problems and, therefore, is he really a fit and proper person is the question that needs to be asked.
CHAIR: Well, the bloke standing at the back of the room could say, 'I wonder if they've bought his silence?'
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all those highlights of the days inquiry. Well, they certainly had some interesting exchanges. Quite a few elephants were discussed in the room.
This Muppet clip says it all.
This Muppet clip says it all.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunate, to say the least.
There are so very few of this class of aircraft ditched, even fewer where there are survivors: I would imagine that folks like the NTSB would appreciate a heads up on the problems experienced with the life jackets. Vital intelligence of this nature should have been shared with world as soon as the problem was identified; not sat on for a couple of years. Ah, but wait, with the NTSB involved a 'proper' investigation would have to be done, and we can't have that, can we now. That would mean the Black (orange) box and CVR would have to be recovered.
I read the 'he who will not be shamed' filibuster with interest and disgust, found it amazing. Can he be so desperate to imagines a stunt like that could go on until time was up?, what a tirade. The Senators were patient and gave him time to dig a very large hole in which to bury (________); insert your choice. It was amazing that after pretty much 'dictating' his version of the ATSB report, he then sat there and denied having any input to it. It must have taken a further 25 months to persuade the ATSB to print his dictated version, because that's how long ATSB took to bow to pressure and print the sanitised Ministerial version.
I can't find a case where both crew have survived that the statement and evidence of both crew members was not examined, in some depth. It's amazing that neither the pilot, CASA, the ATSB, company or the Senate have even bothered to mention the FO, let alone get an essential eye witness statement. I know one thing, if it was me I would want the FO there and kicking in defence of 'our' actions. Why does no one want the FO version to heard?
Are we now, once again Internationally compromised and embarrassed by the CASA impact on this ATSB report?.
WTF are we hiding from here, a well known Singapore family perhaps?
TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry? (William Blake).
GD - Rumours of some very Interesting sub plots are floating about the place. Not the first time in the Sydney region this has occurred they say, no sir. I hear on the breeze that the Senate have 'just a little' more information on the intriguing machinations of the Sydney office.
I read the 'he who will not be shamed' filibuster with interest and disgust, found it amazing. Can he be so desperate to imagines a stunt like that could go on until time was up?, what a tirade. The Senators were patient and gave him time to dig a very large hole in which to bury (________); insert your choice. It was amazing that after pretty much 'dictating' his version of the ATSB report, he then sat there and denied having any input to it. It must have taken a further 25 months to persuade the ATSB to print his dictated version, because that's how long ATSB took to bow to pressure and print the sanitised Ministerial version.
I can't find a case where both crew have survived that the statement and evidence of both crew members was not examined, in some depth. It's amazing that neither the pilot, CASA, the ATSB, company or the Senate have even bothered to mention the FO, let alone get an essential eye witness statement. I know one thing, if it was me I would want the FO there and kicking in defence of 'our' actions. Why does no one want the FO version to heard?
Are we now, once again Internationally compromised and embarrassed by the CASA impact on this ATSB report?.
WTF are we hiding from here, a well known Singapore family perhaps?
TIGER, tiger, burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry? (William Blake).
CHAIR: Well, the bloke standing at the back of the room could say, 'I wonder if they've bought his silence?'
Last edited by Kharon; 23rd Oct 2012 at 19:21. Reason: Pick up my shovel and help with the digging. Hey Ho off to work I go