Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

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

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Old 22nd Jan 2013, 09:15
  #941 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Feb could be interesting with the Hempel inquest due to report as well as this inquiry.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 10:15
  #942 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,637
Jack,

It's late in the day so I'm not sure if you're having a dig or not.

I think Kharon gets my point - one sees militaries from other nations getting involved in searches; the RAN and RAAF go after stranded yachties (amongst other tasks).

Recovering a CVR / FDR could be, if this thread is to be believed, something which actually does go to the national interest - aviation safety - and hence a reasonable task for the ADF.

My line about sticking it through the training budget is simply to say, as Kharon has, that if the Russell bean-counters wouldn't pass it as an operational cost, then maybe it could be seen as real-life training. Just as when Bullimore and Dubois were rescued and the then Defence Minister, Ian McLachlan, brushed aside questions of cost by saying it was excellent practical training.

Reply over, back to topic.
Taildragger67 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 10:22
  #943 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Gotta love FNQ
Posts: 86
Funnily enough, if the ADF had sent a team to Norfolk for a training mission they would have flown with ...... Pel-Air
JetA_OK is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 12:52
  #944 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
HMHB in reference to your mentioning the Hempel inquest perhaps the ATSB could of utilised the RAN to raise the Yak??

Also relevant to the Hempel accident and from the NTSB investigator’s manual is a memo put out by the NTSB Director of the Office of Aviation Safety back in 1991, the subject being the “Implementation of Selective Criteria Policy”, here’s an extract from that memo:
A review of our investigative activity has revealed that although the overall number of accidents are down, our number of field investigations remains relatively constant. Of more significance is the finding that many of these field investigations involve types of accidents that historically and predictably have no safety impact. They very seldom result in anything other than the determination of probable cause.

Accidents that involve experimental, amateur built and aerial application aircraft fall in this category. Because the FAA is required to investigate these accidents to satisfy their obligations, we developed an agreement with them to delegate the investigations when their workload permits. This delegation process has not always been consistent in the number and types of accidents delegated nor in the quality and timeliness of the completed reports and a more uniform application of delegations is needed.

Therefore, in the future, no experimental, amateur built, or aerial application accident will be done as an NTSB field investigation unless there are unusual circumstances that the regional director feels justify the field investigation, and that action has been coordinated with either AS-1 or AS-2.

Although that sounds similar to the way the ATSB prioritise their investigations there is some very notable differences in their actual selective criteria list:
2. Selected emphasis areas:

a. Part 91 accidents with elements common to Part 121/135 operations (e.g., aircraft
typically used in Part 121/135 operations; Part 121/135 training flights, etc.).
b. All fatal general aviation accidents.*
c. Commercial passenger flight incidents with safety improvement potential.
d. Air traffic control incidents with safety improvement potential.
e. Aging aircraft.

*The Safety Board, through a letter of agreement with the FAA, delegates the investigation of all agricultural, home-built, and experimental category aircraft accidents to the FAA. However, for those cases in which the FAA does not accept a delegated accident, the Safety Board must perform the investigation.
Although I can’t imagine the ATSB ever delegating an investigation to CAsA it is apparent from the above that had the NTSB been notified of the Hempel accident and the FAA (FF) refused the delegation, then the NTSB would still be obliged to carry out the field investigation. And even if the FAA (FF) accepted the investigation delegation the NTSB still keeps an element of control or supervision over the investigation:
When an accident is delegated to the FAA, it will be the regional director's responsibility to make sure the delegated accidents meet minimum quality control and timeliness standards.
Which is very different to the Hempel investigation where the ATSB and CAsA totally wiped their hands of the matter.


Just like the CVR/FDR issue with Pel-Air the ATSB should have been obliged to salvage the wreckage. With the relevant history of prangs in the Yak (FOD jammed controls etc), I have no doubt that the NTSB would have recovered the wreck regardless of whether the investigation had been delegated to the FAA (or in the Hempel case the QPS Forensic Crash Unit)!

No as HMHB says it is going to be an interesting month and a half!

Sarcs is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2013, 03:35
  #945 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
VH-NGA OBR 49er’d ?

Further to the non-recovery of the blackbox, section 49 of the TSI Act reads:
49 OBR ceasing to be an OBR under declaration of ATSB

(1) The ATSB may, by published notice, declare that a recording, or a
part of a recording, identified in the notice is not to be treated as an
OBR on and after a date specified in the notice.

(2) If the ATSB decides not to investigate the transport safety matter
to which an OBR relates, the ATSB must, by published notice, declare that the OBR is not to be treated as an OBR on and after a
date specified in the notice.

(3) If:
(a) the ATSB decides to investigate the transport safety matter to
which an OBR relates; and
(b) the ATSB is satisfied that any part of the OBR is not relevant
to the investigation; the ATSB must, by published notice, identify that part and declare that part is not to be treated as an OBR on and after a date specified
in the notice.

(4) The ATSB cannot revoke or vary a notice published under this
section.

(5) When an OBR, or part of an OBR, ceases to be an OBR because of
a notice published under this section, then any related OBR
information also ceases to be OBR information.
Q1/ Given Beaker’s decision to not recover the blackbox and that the Final Report has been published, have the ATSB effectively 49er’d any useful evidence contained on the OBR?

It would appear from the TSI that if the OBR has been 49er’d then even if the Pel-Air investigation was miraculously re-opened then two eyewitness statements would be regarded as inadmissible evidence. Which probably suits the likes of Fort Fumble and the operator but may not please the victims and the interested insurance companies.

Q2/ However could this also mean that any interested party can now recover the OBR devices or is the wreckage still effectively quarantined by the ATSB?

Q3/ What would be the legal implications if the wreck and OBRs have been written off by the ATSB and someone, say an insurance company or two, salvaged the wreck/OBR devices i.e. could the OBR evidence then be used in any legal action?

The more that is revealed, or rather not revealed, of this sordid tale the more the pile of pony pooh grows, as flight nurse Karen Casey said: “CASA & ATSB have a lot to answer for, dragging this on for selfish intent is criminal & at the least cruel to all on board. The coverup is surfacing and all will be revealed about the incompetencies of all parties involved.” One can only hope she is right and to quote her again they… “Just stop the B.S & tell the truth.”
Sarcs is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2013, 06:53
  #946 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Here here.

Sometimes I sits and thinks – sometimes I just sit.

ATSB - Ben Sandilands – Plane Talking.
Kharon is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2013, 11:28
  #947 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Another classic Ben Sandilands, hope the Senators are getting his stuff piped into them?

So Beaker’s mob prattles out this:Under reporting of occurrences

But in the enquiry environment Beaker wants us to believe his justification for decimating the once obligatory ‘Safety Recommendation’ is as stated in the following Beakerised policy:
From ATSB supplementary submission 2[1]:

Managing safety issues and actions

Traditionally, accident investigation agencies produce final reports and issue safety recommendations to other organisations or individuals, to encourage change in order to prevent a recurrence of an accident. Further, performance targets are often associated with the number of recommendations issued by investigation authorities. The focus of an ATSB investigation is on achieving safety outcomes; that is through the identification of the factors that increased risk, particularly those associated with ongoing/future risk (safety issues), such that action can be taken by relevant organisations to address the identified 'safety issue'. This does not in itself require the issuing of safety recommendations, although that is an option. Noting that safety recommendations are not enforceable, the issuing of a safety recommendation in itself may not achieve any
tangible safety benefit, if the target organisation elects not to accept and react to the recommendation.

In this regard, the ATSB prefers to encourage proactive safety actions that address the 'safety issues' identified in its reports. Other benefits of this approach are that the stakeholders are generally best placed to determine the most effective way to address any 'safety issues' and the publication of the safety actions that address an issue proactively should be viewed as a positive step that provides for timely safety action prior to the release of the report and a level of completeness when the final report is published. This approach is reflected in the difference that Australia has filed with respect to Annex 13 para 6.8.

The response to a safety recommendation is most often unlikely to be any different to the safety action reported by an organisation in response to an identified safety issue, but the latter is likely to be more proactive and timely. That is specifically the case with respect to the Norfolk Island investigation, where the responses to any formal safety recommendations to CASA and Pel-Air related to the two identified safety issues, are likely to be as per the safety action detailed in the report.

The ATSB is in the process of redeveloping its website to be 'safety issue' focused rather than 'recommendation' focussed. The point of importance is that the safety issue remains open (like a recommendation) until such time as it is either adequately addressed, or it is clear that the responsible organisation does not intend taking any action (and has provided its reasons). In the event that no, or limited, safety actions are taken or proposed, the ATSB has the option to issue a formal safety recommendation. However, experience has been that this is rarely required.

The ATSB's Safety Investigation Information Management System (SliMS) provides tools for investigators to record and track safety issues and actions, including through the setting up of alerts to prompt periodic follow-up of progress with safety action where a safety issue is open and the safety actions are being monitored (the same process applies if a recommendation were issued). In addition, a standing agenda item is included in the quarterly Commission meetings to review safety issues and actions during the previous quarter, with particular focus on those that remain open.

The ATSB's Annual Plan and part of the ATSB's Key Performance Indicators
specifically relate to a measurement of safety action taken in response to safety issues; in the case of 'critical' safety issues, the target is for safety action to be taken by stakeholders 1 00% of the time, while for 'significant' safety issues, the target is 70%.

For the FY11 /12, there were no identified critical safety issues and 28 significant safety issues. In response to the significant safety issues, adequate safety action was taken in 89% of cases and a further 4% were assessed as partially addressed.
(NB Carefully read this passage a couple of times and try to understand the Beaker logic, stuffed if I can!)

Hmm…clear as mud yet???

WTF? Beaker’s left hand appears not to know what his right hand is up to, although after reading this crap I think I’ve got a pretty good idea!

The “Managing safety issues and actions” extract also seems to conflict the importance the TSI Act places on the ‘Safety Recommendation’:

"25A Responses to reports of, or containing, safety recommendations
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the ATSB publishes a report under section 25 in relation to
an investigation; and
(b) the report is, or contains, a recommendation that a person,
unincorporated association, or an agency of the
Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, take safety action.
(2) The person, association or agency to whom the recommendation is
made must give a written response to the ATSB, within 90 days of
the report being published, that sets out:
(a) whether the person, association or agency accepts the recommendation (in whole or in part); and
(b) if the person, association or agency accepts the
recommendation (in whole or in part)—details of any action
that the person, association or agency proposes to take to
give effect to the recommendation; and
(c) if the person, association or agency does not accept the
recommendation (in whole or in part)—the reasons why the
person, association or agency does not accept the
recommendation (in whole or in part)."

Maybe the Beaker regime is breaching the TSI Act….what a joke!



Sarcs is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2013, 01:13
  #948 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
A Fifth column – perhaps.

A coffee and 5 minutes to mull over Ben's latest provokes some interesting thoughts; like I wonder if there is still a "real", old ATSB struggling to get out from under the pile of dross CASA have left them saddled with. The ATSB were always a well respected, world class operation and very few of the main players have changed in the engine room. Some of the 'old school' must be tearing their hair out, but I expect protecting the family rice bowl must come above professional pride and integrity. Whilst it's an understandable position, the aftertaste must be grim.

Perhaps the Senate could dig some of them out and find out exactly what happened with not only the Pel Air investigation but with a few of the other stinkers laying about, Hempel, Canley Vale etc. etc. etc. I believe permanent protection would be available under privilege; any future threats could be passed off as revenge for spilling the beans. QED.

A worrying thing is the time and money required to get 'proper' legal opinion on the 'legality' of the CASA operations with PA. Someone has shot from the hip again only this time, shot their foot off. The question as to whether due process under the Investigation manual and the TSI act was followed is worthy of some serious consideration. Clearly the outcome was pre defined, pre ordained by the gods and executed by the willing accomplice – no question there. Then the deeply hidden first agenda is revealed then the 'amazing' back flip, then the ATSB joining in. Who was the masked man with a smoking gun and only one foot? Bet a dollar he was not wearing a hood or a mask at the time.

Lots of lovely big fat legal issues right there, the legal fandango on the extremes of the law begs so many questions I doubt that simply grilling a few of the top dogs will divine the truth. We need to see managers, auditors, FOI and IIIA investigators, under oath giving their version of events. That would clear some of the deckchairs which cannot any longer support the arses, large and small stuck there.

Did I mention managers ?– I believe I did.

Last edited by Kharon; 31st Jan 2013 at 01:19. Reason: Sponsored by the GWM Bag snatchers union.
Kharon is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2013, 02:49
  #949 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Mr Kharon, I believe you to be correct. The ATSB does have an inner core that are bursting to be break free of the Beakerology that has been inflected upon them in recent years. Those people can only do what they are permitted to do, even if it includes sitting by as the upper echelon put a red pen through their investigation reports and insist that they are diluted to worthless pieces of paper.

And I must agree that a higher level of inquiry that goes beyond the Senate is desperately needed. The answers are out there, but who wants to sacrifice their careers and the livelihood of their families in the pursuit of truth? Not many bold souls, and that is fair enough. A royal commission would see all stones overturned and an assortment of evidence providers brought to the fore, some willing and some by chain and hook.

I know that out there in aviation land will be an ATSB investigator who has kept his original notes, concerns, drafts and final report, before it was 'modified' by the upper echelon.
I know that out there somewhere are the auditors from the 'CASA Special Audit' of Pelair. They too would have transcript, evidence, and the draft version of their initial report.
I know that out there are the audit team who undertook the general audit of Pelair, they too would have copies of what was handed to their seniors and what actually made it into the mainstream.
These people are the keys to unlocking the 'mystique' of CASA and ATSBeakers actions in all of this. But they too would be held at the mercy of senior management, hence the need for a robust inquiry.

So again dear Senators, it's over to you. You hold the keys to the chest full of treasures, will you unlock it?

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 31st Jan 2013 at 02:51.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 00:59
  #950 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Top posts Oleo and "K"!

Oleo said:
I know that out there somewhere are the auditors from the 'CASA Special Audit' of Pelair. They too would have transcript, evidence, and the draft version of their initial report.
Oleo don't forget that a couple of those very same auditors were also tasked to help at least one designated CAA Part IIIA investigator conduct and contribute to the infamous, hidden investigation report titled CAIR 09/3.

A report that appeared to initially support the findings of the ‘Special Audit Team’ but then did an almost complete 180 by the time they got to their own findings and conclusions.

NB It would also appear; much like the ATSB A320 report, that the ATSB ‘Final Report’ pretty much mirrored the CAIR 09/3.

As FF is a recognised federal government investigation/enforcement agency they are obliged to conform to the ‘Australian Government Investigation Standard’. Therefore it should follow that the Pel-Air investigation team should have documented, managed, compiled evidence (chain of evidence etc) as per the AGIS 2011, see here:
http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtec...GIS%202011.pdf
Which I suggest Oleo could/should be made readily available for the good Senators to review?? It would be interesting to see if the FF IIIA investigator(s) have followed ‘due process’ in the conduct of the Pel-Air investigation…perhaps a few more required witnesses to give evidence, the list is growing!

As Mr. Buzzy would say…Bbzz..bbzzz..bbzz…or the Kelpie: “More to follow”!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 02:16
  #951 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Sarcs, agreed. The Pelair special audit report, along with the relevant documented observations, NCN's, obtained evidence, written notes and list of persons spoken with, along with the names list of the Inspectors who undertook the audit will be on file. The audit report will also contain references to which part of the regulations they were non compliant with. If the audit report can't be produced then CASA has breached it's own procedures and due governance. Then again it's executives are promulgators of the 'do as I say not as I do' philosophy.

I see no reason why the Senators cannot be given this full audit documentation at a moments notice, it is as simple as pressing the print or send button. Any delay or stalling tactics should be viewed as suspicious to say the least. That is my concern, the stalling game. A royal commission would remove that little ace in CASA's deck of cards. The commissioner could simply call up all who he/she wishes to the witness stand your honour!

The other option is obtaining material under FOI however that is a wasted drawn out exercise as government departments have that issue nutted out perfectly, and getting anything tangible takes years, blacked out page at a time.

So yes, lot rests on the shoulders of the good Senators.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 05:10
  #952 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Folks,
Something I have been meaning to ask: Where did the nickname "Beaker" come from?
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 05:14
  #953 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Totally agree Oleo that all the information collated in the SAR and previous Pel-Air audits should be made available to the Senators and the FF auditors be made available to give evidence.

However in all due repect you kind of missed my point about the FF investigative team that was apparently headed up by the Manager of the then newly formed 'Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit', which was tasked to conduct a parallel investigation with the ATSB.

Whereas the ATSB's investigation team is governed by the the TSI Act 2003 and their own investigation procedures manual, as a Government Enforcement agency FF is totally different and are beholden to adhere to the "Australian Government Investigative Standard (2011)".

This is even quoted on page 11-4 of the CAsA enforcement manual, which reads: "The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards."


One of the team (at least) has to be a Part IIIA investigator and must manage the investigation as per the AGIS 2011 (previous version was AGIS 2003):http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtec...GIS%202011.pdf

What this means is that all the required documentation, evidence, case notes, meeting minutes etc..etc has to be filed and correctly collated as per the AGIS.

So therefore these required files should be made available for the Senators to review, or on the other hand if it hasn't been done properly (i.e. due process hasn't been followed) then the obligatory Friday afternoon pineapple insertions and beheadings will soon be a regular feature!

Last edited by Sarcs; 1st Feb 2013 at 05:17.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 05:29
  #954 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Boxes that need to be ticked.

Perhaps the Senators could make sure, to be sure that all the boxes which needed to be ticked, were indeed ticked. It should not be too difficult to produce a man with one foot shot off and all of his paperwork. If not the TRIM system works just fine.

Investigation, evidence and investigators manual references:

If the relevant manager considers that there may be evidence of a breach then the first action to be taken is initiation of the CEP (see Chapters 2 and 3). It is only after discussion in this forum that a request for investigation should be made using form 333.

The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)

If a prima facie case exists and prosecution is considered, a Brief of Evidence will be compiled and submitted in accordance with the procedures set down in the Investigators Manual. Alternatively, on consideration of the investigator’s report, the Manager EPP may decide that the issue of an AIN is a more appropriate penalty. This will also be discussed as part of the CEP. (Reference 11-4 enforcement manual.)

11.5.2 Reporting The Investigators/Coordinator Investigations make entries on AIRS, on the ASIS database and on the Enforcement Action Register on the Enforcement Action Rooms. (Note: This would be as per the AGIS 2003.)

13.6.2 Staff Responsible

Inspectors.

At any time, where inspectors may be unsure of exhibit-handling procedures, advice should be sought from EPP.

Note: Investigators are also responsible for evidence/exhibits and should refer to the Investigators’ Manual. (reference 13-7 enforcement manual).

Note: For procedures for evidence and evidence handling (for Inspectors) refer to section 13 of enforcement manual. Investigators procedures are contained within the Investigators Manual.
For Leadsled -
.
Tootle pip.

Last edited by Kharon; 1st Feb 2013 at 05:31. Reason: Hopping off for a good week end.
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 06:33
  #955 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Leadie. The answer to your question is contained in Kharons post. See the resemblance now? It is uncanny, plus when they both speak it is an incredible likeness! Goes to show they are all muppets!

Sarcs, valid point. However the accident investigations liaison manager put a team together and told them to 'go forth and audit'. That is the most of what he did, then in the wash up he toyed with the reports wording, and a robust here and a robust there. If the holistic task was left up to him you would be left with blank pieces of paper and the odd doodling.
The nuts and bolts, the meat and veg, the bricks and mortar of the investigation was undertaken by frontline inspectors. To them I offer no criticism. However their puppet master, the go between, the man who acts as a double adaptor (so to speak) between CASA and the ATSBeaker is probably about as skilled as Beaker. A tanned man, lover of bling and proud sponsor of a topless car. If you speak to some former colleagues of his in the UK, CAA NZ or the ATSB they trip over themselves laughing at the 'beautiful mans' ability to play the system and remain afloat, skipping between lifeboats at the right time!
And don't shoot me, I'm passing on the message!

You know, I think Russell is the smartest out of the lot of these clowns. Took a parachute at the right time, made hay while the sun shined and then and went to work for the company whom supplied most of the systems he permitted into ASA! There's gold in them there hills son!
Perhaps Skull, Beaker and assorted friends will also soon search for a parachute, after all the poo bomb has well and truly exploded. Only problem is who in their right mind would employ them?

Sarcs, the pineapples are in position, the lube has been applied and deep breaths taken. Time for the Senators to do the rest!

Anyway, gotta run kids, I need to start checking the emails as it is Friday afternoon and it is 16 minutes shy of 1659 pm !

Tootle pip!

Last edited by my oleo is extended; 1st Feb 2013 at 06:38.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 09:11
  #956 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 312
Kharon that is Gold. Animal looks suspiciously like the Skull.....
Dangly Bits is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 09:54
  #957 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Cheers`DB - we do try; Lord knows we try. I forget who said it but there is many a true word spoken in jest.
Kharon is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 12:35
  #958 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
"K" top shot and DB good catch!

Oleo said:
However the accident investigations liaison manager put a team together and told them to 'go forth and audit'. That is the most of what he did, then in the wash up he toyed with the reports wording, and a robust here and a robust there. If the holistic task was left up to him you would be left with blank pieces of paper and the odd doodling.
Oleo what you say maybe entirely the way it happened and old mate the ALIU manager is just manipulating the situation to gain a carte blanche invitation to the esteemed trough but I believe that could be where he ultimately trips himself up.

As you seem to be in the know was said manager a Part IIIA designated investigator? If not who was? Because it would appear that one was required.

On pg 6 of CAIR 09/3 it reads;

“Synopsis

The Accident was notified to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) who in turn notified the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on Wednesday 18 November. The ATSB decided to conduct an investigation. The CASA Manager Accident Liaison and Investigation Unit (ALIU) was tasked with conducting a parallel investigation for CASA purposes. An investigation into the circumstances of the accident was commenced the next day. CASA informed the ATSB of the investigation in accordance with sub section 4.1.2 of the joint MOU.”

So this was definitely a parallel investigation and I don’t believe FF were doing it… “to help those poor under funded ATSB boys’n’gals out”. It was most likely that they were exploring the possibility of cuffing some poor bastard under section 20A; or if that didn’t work “we’ll get him administratively under CAR 265”; or “whatever works as long as the mud doesn’t stick to our new, best pals from Singapore”!

4.1 Parallel investigations:
4.1.1 The ATSB may undertake ‘no--blame’ safety investigations in accordance with the TSI Act and CASA may separately undertake investigations with a view to possible safety—related action pursuant to its functions under Section 9 and/or Part IIIA of the Civil Aviation Act.”

Oh in case your wondering 4.1.2 of the MOU reads:

“4.1.2 As soon as reasonably practicable after either the ATSB decides to conduct an investigation, or CASA decides to conduct an investigation in relation to a matter that would be a reportable matter to the ATSB, each organisation will notify the other organisation.”

So Oleo regardless if old mate Aliu is on the take, rogering the DAS’s missus or he is just a lazy bugger, the half assed investigation that he was tasked to do still had to comply with an “Australian Government Investigative Standard” and if for some inexplicable reason it doesn’t then his ass is definitely ripe for a pineapple rheeming courtesy of the Senators canteen.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2013, 23:25
  #959 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Double, double toil and trouble;

"If the relevant manager considers that there maybe evidence of a breach then the first action to be taken is initiation of the CEP (see Chapters 2 and 3)".
Think about that for a second.

What we do need to know is the basis of an unqualified "office" manager's (admin, load control etc.) decision that part 20 A (for anything) of the Act has been breached. It's a hell of a call:

From this 'informed' decision being made, all hell is let loose, on one mans say so. It's a stock standard, catchall bluff from Sleepy Hollow; they know the impact but they also know just how hard it is to prove at law. But, none of that matters; they have a "suspected" breach, which lets the dogs out.

Now, you may suspect chemtrails, alien life forces, or the way your Grannies tea leaves fall dictate the fate of the universe. You are quite entitled to believe in Santa, the Easter bunny or even that all politicians are honest; but, you cannot prove it too easily. So why, on the whim of one man, is such a mighty pony pooh storm able to be called down? Who is this masked man?

The brakes need to applied before any such "decision" is made; that suspicion needs to be better than a whim or a 'standard departure' point for the AAT. Before a 'manager' is allowed this much horsepower a case should be presented; the cops can't get a search warrant without reasonable grounds, so how come some office wallah can decide that a serious criminal investigation can be initiated.

I refer you to Macbeth Act 4 scene 1 to discover the way in which these matters are arranged, I reckon the three witches were closer to being legally concise than the 'masked manager' and his crew. Talk about foxes in chook houses.

Selah.

Last edited by Kharon; 1st Feb 2013 at 23:27. Reason: Ayup, all better now, thank you.
Kharon is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2013, 21:37
  #960 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Sandilands - "In an election year it’s quite clear no-one in government or opposition really gives a damn about questionable standards in air safety investigations in this country.
Plane Talking – Ben Sandilands.

This short piece by Sandilands highlights, once again the lack of service to industry from the ATSB new system of recording and reporting and the evils of the MOU. It is not the tail strike per se causing the problem, but that industry must now rely on the Aviation Herald to report the incident and make it's own decisions based against the report there.

Aviation Herald.

How are developing trends to be isolated and rectified if there is no "authoritative" voice; tail strike 1 = something nothing. Tail strike 15 from one company = a different animal; 15 tail strikes across a fleet different again. Different responses required.

No matter where the funding for service is drawn from, in the end the travelling public pay – one way or the other. They pay for a first class analysis and reporting system, which oversights accidents, in the hope of preventing a recurrence. Even the humble tail strike.

ATSB is not there to cover the CASA arse, to save a few dollars by not examining accidents, or sign off on reports which are not only sub standard, useless and flawed but could allow a repeat incident to occur. It's hard to believe that in Australia we have a size 10, million dollar bun fight in the Senate just to get these people to do the job they are asked to do.

Last edited by Kharon; 2nd Feb 2013 at 21:39. Reason: Yes Minnie, definitely out of the wrong side this morning.
Kharon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.