Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grando ad regem
Kharon, aka articulatis unum that's the point. They don't want an honest and transparent process, because that would mean;
a) They have to fix the problem. That takes planning and commitment, both of which they are incapable of.
b) A commitment means something has to be actioned and completed. Again, something they are incapable of. 'Team ASOP' is a fine example, the SPM (now the CSM), the reg re-write etc etc.
c) Accountability - To fix something means they may be held responsible or held to account in relation to the fix. Oh my, a big no no, they will never accept that.
Can you imagine the LSD accepting 'accountability'? Ha ha. I think not, Clarise.
Sarcs, aka studiosis unum, there will indeed be some robust mi mi mi-ing this afternoon by King Beaker (tautological unum). I am just hoping that the Senators ramp things up a notch. It's time to put the dog out of its misery, to coin a phrase.
I propose that the Senator(s) who claims the first scalp be awarded by PAIN a full bag of chocolate frogs. This will accompany the bag of pineapples they already have sitting in the top drawer.
Safe skies are 'Beaker free' skies
a) They have to fix the problem. That takes planning and commitment, both of which they are incapable of.
b) A commitment means something has to be actioned and completed. Again, something they are incapable of. 'Team ASOP' is a fine example, the SPM (now the CSM), the reg re-write etc etc.
c) Accountability - To fix something means they may be held responsible or held to account in relation to the fix. Oh my, a big no no, they will never accept that.
Can you imagine the LSD accepting 'accountability'? Ha ha. I think not, Clarise.
Sarcs, aka studiosis unum, there will indeed be some robust mi mi mi-ing this afternoon by King Beaker (tautological unum). I am just hoping that the Senators ramp things up a notch. It's time to put the dog out of its misery, to coin a phrase.
I propose that the Senator(s) who claims the first scalp be awarded by PAIN a full bag of chocolate frogs. This will accompany the bag of pineapples they already have sitting in the top drawer.
Safe skies are 'Beaker free' skies
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 27th Feb 2013 at 21:42. Reason: Eating oysters and chocolate frogs while drinking Guinness with a pineapple chaser
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like Dolan got cornered
Maybe the ATSB is going to blink.
ATSB urged at Senate inquiry to reopen Pel-Air inquiry | Plane Talking
It is difficult to imagine after this afternoon’s examination of the head of the ATSB Martin Dolan by an experienced military helicopter pilot Senator David Fawcett, that the controversial report the safety investigator issued into the Pel-Air crash will be allowed to stand.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chess move - Fawcett takes Beaker
What? The Beaker went quiet? No tautology, no mi mi mi mi-ing?
Damn straight he went quiet. Outclassed by Fawcett. But what did one expect? Fawcett is an accomplished pilot, but better yet, he understands systemic and holistic causal factors, unlike Beakers only comprehension of safety being the laminated cards in the back pocket of the business class EK seat in front of him. The guy doesn't even know what a 'mid air' is!
Well done Beaker, you have taken the ATSB with a good 30 year superb reputation and turned it into a steaming pile of guano.
Close the door on the way and good riddance....next!
Damn straight he went quiet. Outclassed by Fawcett. But what did one expect? Fawcett is an accomplished pilot, but better yet, he understands systemic and holistic causal factors, unlike Beakers only comprehension of safety being the laminated cards in the back pocket of the business class EK seat in front of him. The guy doesn't even know what a 'mid air' is!
Well done Beaker, you have taken the ATSB with a good 30 year superb reputation and turned it into a steaming pile of guano.
Close the door on the way and good riddance....next!
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 28th Feb 2013 at 09:45. Reason: Oysters and Guinness took its toll
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happens now?
What happens now? Is the Atsb obligated to re open the investigation. What safeguards would need to be in place to ensure done openly. Perhaps, get NTSB or AAIB to be involved. Or Dolans idle Prof Reason.
Just wondering how the next FAA and ICAO audits will play out! The inquiries recommendations need to be thorough and ensure changes are made and progress reported back.
The Atsb and casa have been discredited. The crew and passengers should receive apologies from both depts.
Just wondering how the next FAA and ICAO audits will play out! The inquiries recommendations need to be thorough and ensure changes are made and progress reported back.
The Atsb and casa have been discredited. The crew and passengers should receive apologies from both depts.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
atsb and answers to the Senators
Well Mr. Dolan, your answers leave much to be desired.
From your own paperwork:
By any measure, you have not achieved these primary functions.
A search of the atsb site reminds us that the Norfolk ditching was reported on 30th August 2012, and needed to meet the ICAO principles at the time.
The "Chamber's report" by casa, which casa "conveniently" forgot under the MOU between casa and the atsb, to pass on to the atsb, identifies a number of areas, including, but not confined to:
Yet on the 28th February 2013, atsb head Mr. Dolan says ".......it would not change what we said...."
When asked on 15th February 2013:
Surely that tells us there has been a simple pressurisation placed on an investigator???
Maybe someone can tell us whether that is an offence under the TSI Act
From your own paperwork:
ATSB Function:
The ATSB’s function is to improve safety and public confidence in the aviation, marine and rail modes of transport through excellence in:
Independent investigation of transport accidents and other safety occurrences;
Safety data recording, analysis and research;
Fostering safety awareness, knowledge and action.
The ATSB is responsible for investigating accidents and other transport safety matters involving civil aviation, marine and rail operations in Australia that fall within Commonwealth jurisdiction, as well as participating in overseas investigations involving Australian registered aircraft and ships.
A primary concern is the safety of commercial transport, with particular regard to fare-paying passenger operations.
The ATSB’s function is to improve safety and public confidence in the aviation, marine and rail modes of transport through excellence in:
Independent investigation of transport accidents and other safety occurrences;
Safety data recording, analysis and research;
Fostering safety awareness, knowledge and action.
The ATSB is responsible for investigating accidents and other transport safety matters involving civil aviation, marine and rail operations in Australia that fall within Commonwealth jurisdiction, as well as participating in overseas investigations involving Australian registered aircraft and ships.
A primary concern is the safety of commercial transport, with particular regard to fare-paying passenger operations.
A search of the atsb site reminds us that the Norfolk ditching was reported on 30th August 2012, and needed to meet the ICAO principles at the time.
The "Chamber's report" by casa, which casa "conveniently" forgot under the MOU between casa and the atsb, to pass on to the atsb, identifies a number of areas, including, but not confined to:
CASA identified in an audit the following breaches:
CAR 5.04
CAR 50
CAR 78 and CAO 82.1
CAR215(2)
CAR 215(8)
CAR 215(9)
CAR220(1)
CAR 233(3)
CAR 233(1)
CAR 235(1) and (2)
CAR 253(4)
CASR 92.095
CAO 20.7.1B parts 4, 7 & 12
CAO 20.11 parts 11 & 12
CAO 40.0 para 5.1, resulting in noncompliance with CAR 215(2)
CAO 48 para 4
CAO 82.1 para 3.3
Act Section 28BE paragraph (1), (2), (3a), and (3b).
CAR 5.04
CAR 50
CAR 78 and CAO 82.1
CAR215(2)
CAR 215(8)
CAR 215(9)
CAR220(1)
CAR 233(3)
CAR 233(1)
CAR 235(1) and (2)
CAR 253(4)
CASR 92.095
CAO 20.7.1B parts 4, 7 & 12
CAO 20.11 parts 11 & 12
CAO 40.0 para 5.1, resulting in noncompliance with CAR 215(2)
CAO 48 para 4
CAO 82.1 para 3.3
Act Section 28BE paragraph (1), (2), (3a), and (3b).
When asked on 15th February 2013:
Senator FAWCETT: We are really running short of time. Can I just go to a different point. You have talked about the expertise and the robustness of your investigators.
Did the investigator in this case support the narrowing of the scope and the downgrading of that critical safety factor?
Mr Dolan: No, he remained of the view that it ought to be given more weight than it ended up being given in the report.
Senator FAWCETT: Was he required, at any stage, to change the evidence tables in the report to match the final recommendations that came out?
Mr Dolan: I suspect—and perhaps Mr Sangston can help me—that there was some reworking of the evidence tables to reflect the consideration that had been given. I am not sure how that was brought about. Is there anything you want to add, Mr Sangston?
Mr Sangston: That does occur and has occurred. In fact, there is a QA, a quality assurance, process in our processes to ensure that our findings are reflected in our investigation management system. The words that are in our final report agree with things in our investigation management system, because those things go up on the web and so on. So there is a process for quality assurance, yes.
Senator FAWCETT: I am making the assumption here that that would be about checking that, as you said at the start, Mr Dolan, any reports you put out are backed up by facts. Does it also cover the case where facts are left out because they do not fit with the recommendations that the organisation wants to make?
Mr Dolan: I am not aware of anything in this case where we suppressed or left out facts that did not support analysis. What we had was some vigorous disagreement within the organisation, including with one officer in particular, about the analysis and what the analysis arrived at.
Did the investigator in this case support the narrowing of the scope and the downgrading of that critical safety factor?
Mr Dolan: No, he remained of the view that it ought to be given more weight than it ended up being given in the report.
Senator FAWCETT: Was he required, at any stage, to change the evidence tables in the report to match the final recommendations that came out?
Mr Dolan: I suspect—and perhaps Mr Sangston can help me—that there was some reworking of the evidence tables to reflect the consideration that had been given. I am not sure how that was brought about. Is there anything you want to add, Mr Sangston?
Mr Sangston: That does occur and has occurred. In fact, there is a QA, a quality assurance, process in our processes to ensure that our findings are reflected in our investigation management system. The words that are in our final report agree with things in our investigation management system, because those things go up on the web and so on. So there is a process for quality assurance, yes.
Senator FAWCETT: I am making the assumption here that that would be about checking that, as you said at the start, Mr Dolan, any reports you put out are backed up by facts. Does it also cover the case where facts are left out because they do not fit with the recommendations that the organisation wants to make?
Mr Dolan: I am not aware of anything in this case where we suppressed or left out facts that did not support analysis. What we had was some vigorous disagreement within the organisation, including with one officer in particular, about the analysis and what the analysis arrived at.
Maybe someone can tell us whether that is an offence under the TSI Act
Up-in-the-air...
24 Offence to hinder etc. an investigation
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and
(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct); and
(d) the conduct is not authorised by the Chief Commissioner.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.
I guess the question would be whether the pressure placed to narrow the scope and downgrade that critical safety factor was authorised by Dolan.
What T28D said:
Maybe someone can tell us whether that is an offence under the TSI Act
24 Offence to hinder etc. an investigation
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and
(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct); and
(d) the conduct is not authorised by the Chief Commissioner.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.
I guess the question would be whether the pressure placed to narrow the scope and downgrade that critical safety factor was authorised by Dolan.
What T28D said:
Dolan is a fool
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe someone can tell us whether that is an offence under the TSI Act
Australian Public Service Commission - APS Values and Code of Conduct
APS Values and Code of Conduct
The principles of good public administration, embodied in the APS Values, lie at the heart of the democratic process and the confidence the public has in the way public servants exercise authority when meeting government objectives. Good public administration is a protection not only against inefficiency and poor performance, but also against fraud, corruption, inequity, inability to conduct business confidently and infringement of human rights.
The APS Values and Code are not simply aspirational statements of intent. They are mandatory. A breach of the Code of Conduct can result in sanctions, ranging from a reprimand to termination of employment. All APS employees are required to uphold the Values and comply with the Code. Failure to do so may attract sanctions. Agency heads (and the Senior Executive Service) are required also to promote the Values. The Public Service Commissioner is empowered to evaluate the extent to which agencies incorporate and uphold the Values and the adequacy of systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the Code.
Legislative framework
The APS Values are set out in section 10(1) of the Public Service Act 1999. A copy of the APS Values are available here.
The Code of Conduct is set out in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999. A copy of the Code of Conduct is available here.
The Code
Australian Public Service Commission - Code of Conduct
The Code of Conduct requires that an employee must:
APS Values and Code of Conduct
The principles of good public administration, embodied in the APS Values, lie at the heart of the democratic process and the confidence the public has in the way public servants exercise authority when meeting government objectives. Good public administration is a protection not only against inefficiency and poor performance, but also against fraud, corruption, inequity, inability to conduct business confidently and infringement of human rights.
The APS Values and Code are not simply aspirational statements of intent. They are mandatory. A breach of the Code of Conduct can result in sanctions, ranging from a reprimand to termination of employment. All APS employees are required to uphold the Values and comply with the Code. Failure to do so may attract sanctions. Agency heads (and the Senior Executive Service) are required also to promote the Values. The Public Service Commissioner is empowered to evaluate the extent to which agencies incorporate and uphold the Values and the adequacy of systems and procedures to ensure compliance with the Code.
Legislative framework
The APS Values are set out in section 10(1) of the Public Service Act 1999. A copy of the APS Values are available here.
The Code of Conduct is set out in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999. A copy of the Code of Conduct is available here.
The Code
Australian Public Service Commission - Code of Conduct
The Code of Conduct requires that an employee must:
- behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment;
- act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment;
- when acting in the course of APS employment, treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment;
- when acting in the course of APS employment, comply with all applicable Australian laws;
- comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee's Agency who has authority to give the direction;
- maintain appropriate confidentiality about dealings that the employee has with any Minister or Minister's member of staff;
- disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment;
- use Commonwealth resources in a proper manner;
- not provide false or misleading information in response to a request for information that is made for official purposes in connection with the employee's APS employment;
- not make improper use of:
- inside information, or
- the employee's duties, status, power or authority,
in order to gain, or seek to gain, a benefit or advantage for the employee or for any other person;
- at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS;
- while on duty overseas, at all times behave in a way that upholds the good reputation of Australia; and
- comply with any other conduct requirement that is prescribed by the regulations (regulations available on the ComLaw website)
SImple conclusion: the ATSB is no longer independent. It appears that CASA and ATSB are being "managed" to ensure that Minister Albanese can concentrate on doing what he does best: factional and Parliamentary politics.....and f*&^ aviation unless there is airport land to be flogged.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting session.
Great research boys:- 
For mine, it's a shame that Sen. Fawcett was using a different version of the ICAO Annexe 13. I felt he had some pretty heavy ordnance lined up, but decided to let it go. No doubt the premise of non compliance would stand a test but, without the actual words to use, a tactical withdrawal was prudent. The committee pretty much has the idea anyway.
I was fascinated by the Beaker body language though; he scarcely glanced at Sanga, the only remark addressed to him was off hand, allowing disagreement "If you wish". Sanga wisely kept his trap shut, meanwhile old whiskered, whispering Julian was leaning in close, providing the cue cards and 'attaboys'.
While Fawcett was scratching around in his notes, Beaker, from a cue card reads the part of Annexe 13 about his discretionary powers and the OBR recovery, then, quite animated for him he uncoils and flicks a piece of lint off his shoulder, drinks his water, smiles at Julian (pseudo high 5). No doubt they think they have just scored a major point off a cheap shot. Think again boys,– Sen. Fawcett has the whip hand here and if required he can mount the argument again. Beaker is very lucky that there was some kind of mini stuff up with the Senators notes.
The attempt to use a Ministerial directive in defence was abandoned as a no go, early. DF seemed not to be too intimidated by the "regard" one must have for the Ministers directive, not that minister anyway. The Chambers report has come back to haunt both CASA and ATSB; that crock was meant to assist with the internal (infernal) chess game, not the Senate. What a hoot; whoops. At the risk of being repetitive, anything Chambers touched must now be suspect; Pel Air honestly done will reflect that and much more.
Gobbles told the one about the fellah who used two bricks to castrate camels, "don't that hurt ?" asked an observer; "Only when you get your thumb caught in between the bricks" was the answer. Made me smile all night, thought it fit the bill to a T.
For mine, it's a shame that Sen. Fawcett was using a different version of the ICAO Annexe 13. I felt he had some pretty heavy ordnance lined up, but decided to let it go. No doubt the premise of non compliance would stand a test but, without the actual words to use, a tactical withdrawal was prudent. The committee pretty much has the idea anyway.
I was fascinated by the Beaker body language though; he scarcely glanced at Sanga, the only remark addressed to him was off hand, allowing disagreement "If you wish". Sanga wisely kept his trap shut, meanwhile old whiskered, whispering Julian was leaning in close, providing the cue cards and 'attaboys'.
While Fawcett was scratching around in his notes, Beaker, from a cue card reads the part of Annexe 13 about his discretionary powers and the OBR recovery, then, quite animated for him he uncoils and flicks a piece of lint off his shoulder, drinks his water, smiles at Julian (pseudo high 5). No doubt they think they have just scored a major point off a cheap shot. Think again boys,– Sen. Fawcett has the whip hand here and if required he can mount the argument again. Beaker is very lucky that there was some kind of mini stuff up with the Senators notes.
The attempt to use a Ministerial directive in defence was abandoned as a no go, early. DF seemed not to be too intimidated by the "regard" one must have for the Ministers directive, not that minister anyway. The Chambers report has come back to haunt both CASA and ATSB; that crock was meant to assist with the internal (infernal) chess game, not the Senate. What a hoot; whoops. At the risk of being repetitive, anything Chambers touched must now be suspect; Pel Air honestly done will reflect that and much more.
Gobbles told the one about the fellah who used two bricks to castrate camels, "don't that hurt ?" asked an observer; "Only when you get your thumb caught in between the bricks" was the answer. Made me smile all night, thought it fit the bill to a T.
Last edited by Kharon; 28th Feb 2013 at 19:26. Reason: Thats a speck on the screen, not a comma. Old fool.
I am sure that CASA and ATSB have this view of Kharon.
There Chairon stands, who rules the dreary coast -
A sordid god: down from his hairy chin
A length of beard descends, uncombed, unclean;
His eyes, like hollow furnaces on fire;
A girdle, foul with grease, binds his obscene attire.
Virgil, Aeneid 6.298–301, as translated by John Dryden (English lines 413–417.)
This senate hearing is becoming a saga.
There Chairon stands, who rules the dreary coast -
A sordid god: down from his hairy chin
A length of beard descends, uncombed, unclean;
His eyes, like hollow furnaces on fire;
A girdle, foul with grease, binds his obscene attire.
Virgil, Aeneid 6.298–301, as translated by John Dryden (English lines 413–417.)
This senate hearing is becoming a saga.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's rules now retrospective ???.
Senator FAWCETT: In paragraph 5.4 it says:
The accident investigation authority shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct … The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident;
Mr Dolan: 'Shall normally include', yes.
Senator FAWCETT: No, it says: The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident;
There is no 'should', no 'normally'—it says 'shall'.
Mr Dolan: The version I have, which is the version promulgated on 18 October 2010, with additions that have been updated, says, 'The investigation shall'—and I agree with 'shall'—'normally include …' my bold
The accident investigation authority shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct … The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident;
Mr Dolan: 'Shall normally include', yes.
Senator FAWCETT: No, it says: The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available information on that accident or incident;
There is no 'should', no 'normally'—it says 'shall'.
Mr Dolan: The version I have, which is the version promulgated on 18 October 2010, with additions that have been updated, says, 'The investigation shall'—and I agree with 'shall'—'normally include …' my bold
Propstop - Indeed, it is divine comedy; or perhaps just a dirty job that someone has to do. Either way I'm a Dante man – Virgil well; you know, recherché perhaps?
Then with mine eyes ashamed and downward cast,
Fearing my words might irksome be to him,
From speech refrained I till we reached the river.
And lo! towards us coming in a boat
An old man, hoary with the hair of eld,
Crying: "Woe unto you, ye souls depraved!
Hope nevermore to look upon the heavens;
I come to lead you to the other shore,
To the eternal shades in heat and frost.
And thou, that yonder standest, living soul,
Withdraw thee from these people, who are dead!"
But when he saw that I did not withdraw,
He said: "By other ways, by other ports
Thou to the shore shalt come, not here, for passage;
A lighter vessel needs must carry thee.
"And unto him the Guide: "Vex thee not, Charon;
It is so willed there where is power to do
That which is willed; and farther question not.
"Thereat were quieted the fleecy cheeks
Of him the ferryman of the livid fen,
Who round about his eyes had wheels of flame.
Fearing my words might irksome be to him,
From speech refrained I till we reached the river.
And lo! towards us coming in a boat
An old man, hoary with the hair of eld,
Crying: "Woe unto you, ye souls depraved!
Hope nevermore to look upon the heavens;
I come to lead you to the other shore,
To the eternal shades in heat and frost.
And thou, that yonder standest, living soul,
Withdraw thee from these people, who are dead!"
But when he saw that I did not withdraw,
He said: "By other ways, by other ports
Thou to the shore shalt come, not here, for passage;
A lighter vessel needs must carry thee.
"And unto him the Guide: "Vex thee not, Charon;
It is so willed there where is power to do
That which is willed; and farther question not.
"Thereat were quieted the fleecy cheeks
Of him the ferryman of the livid fen,
Who round about his eyes had wheels of flame.
Last edited by Kharon; 1st Mar 2013 at 03:50. Reason: You can always tell a Roman, you just can't tell him much.
Albo's thumbprint??
From page 4 of the Hansard for the 28/02/2013 public hearing:
It would appear that ATSBeaker is beholden to Albo’s circus troupe (a) for funding and (b) because… “so it is an interesting balance, 'the ATSB must have regard' to such a notification. 'Having regard' actually has quite a significant legal force.”
So much for the ATSBeaker being an 'independent investigator'!
Sorry "K" I butted in there!!
Good point as the evidence shows the decision by Beaker to abandon salvaging the black box for 'budgetary reasons' was well and truly made prior to the 18/10/2010:
Oh there's so much more mischief and fun in this transcript & AQONs tabled..yippee..hmm..I don't think Beaker will be able to sit down for a week!!
Senator FAWCETT: So the head of power, if you like, that you use to constrain how you do accident investigation is the statement from the minister? It is not a piece of legislation. It is not an act. It is not a regulation. It is a statement from the minister. I am not criticising but saying: that is the fact?
Mr Dolan: What I am saying is that section 12AE of the Transport Safety Investigation Act says:
The Minister may, by written instrument, notify the ATSB of the Minister's views on the appropriate strategic direction for the ATSB.
And, subject to another section, which relates to our independence, so it is an interesting balance, 'the ATSB must have regard' to such a notification. 'Having regard' actually has quite a significant legal force.
Senator FAWCETT: I understand that.
Mr Dolan: That is the basic legal mechanism that is in play here.
Senator FAWCETT: Can you provide a copy of that statement?
Mr Dolan: Yes. As I say, it is available publicly on the website, but we are happy to get a copy to the committee.
Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. Where it says 'the ATSB's highest operational priority' is to 'fare-paying passenger transport operations', in practice what does that actually drive? Does that drive the scope of investigations to other forms of aviation? Does it drive your priority, as in when you get around to it, or both? What is the practical impact of that?
Mr Dolan: The practical impact is that it drives priority with always limited resources. It has the potential to drive scope. And it leads to a world where we have a tension between the annex 13 requirement to investigate all accidents and a range of significant occurrences and a government expectation that the resources of the organisation will be more focused on the fare-paying passenger than that broader annex 13 requirement. We are always conscious of our annex 13 requirement to investigate a whole range of matters, so scope and attention are driven to a considerable extent by that government policy but always conscious of our other responsibilities.
Mr Dolan: What I am saying is that section 12AE of the Transport Safety Investigation Act says:
The Minister may, by written instrument, notify the ATSB of the Minister's views on the appropriate strategic direction for the ATSB.
And, subject to another section, which relates to our independence, so it is an interesting balance, 'the ATSB must have regard' to such a notification. 'Having regard' actually has quite a significant legal force.
Senator FAWCETT: I understand that.
Mr Dolan: That is the basic legal mechanism that is in play here.
Senator FAWCETT: Can you provide a copy of that statement?
Mr Dolan: Yes. As I say, it is available publicly on the website, but we are happy to get a copy to the committee.
Senator FAWCETT: Thank you. Where it says 'the ATSB's highest operational priority' is to 'fare-paying passenger transport operations', in practice what does that actually drive? Does that drive the scope of investigations to other forms of aviation? Does it drive your priority, as in when you get around to it, or both? What is the practical impact of that?
Mr Dolan: The practical impact is that it drives priority with always limited resources. It has the potential to drive scope. And it leads to a world where we have a tension between the annex 13 requirement to investigate all accidents and a range of significant occurrences and a government expectation that the resources of the organisation will be more focused on the fare-paying passenger than that broader annex 13 requirement. We are always conscious of our annex 13 requirement to investigate a whole range of matters, so scope and attention are driven to a considerable extent by that government policy but always conscious of our other responsibilities.
So much for the ATSBeaker being an 'independent investigator'!
Sorry "K" I butted in there!!
Kharon said: Pretty slippery – research indicates an apology or retraction required, methinks.
8 December 2009: E-mail from ATSB to CASA raising the possibility of contributing to a joint fund sharing arrangement to recover the black box and CASA advised they didn’t have the necessary funds.
Last edited by Sarcs; 1st Mar 2013 at 04:09.
AS advised..
to me from the Aust. Public Service Commission that their code of conduct, complete with criminal provisions does NOT apply to employees of a Commonwealth Authority, as is CASA.
So does that make CASA persons non Public servants, just employees of a Govt Authority, altho they claim to be "public servants"
Presumably ATSB...for what its worth..is the same
CASA has its own "Code" (sic)...with NO criminal provisions.
Cobbled up no doubt by those on LSD from CYA 101.
How self protective..how convenient.!
Up until a few years ago the CASA code wasn't even a public document.
Its a deliberate and disgusting "oversight" that needs to be rectified.
There is no excuse for these "federal public servants" not to be under the same set of Code rules.
And as for CASA not having the funds to contribute to recovery of the black box...BS tru.!! CASA has the $$s and then some to urinate up the wall on interstate and overseas "jollies", never a problem then.
Yet another example of CASA's real interest in "safety".
So does that make CASA persons non Public servants, just employees of a Govt Authority, altho they claim to be "public servants"
Presumably ATSB...for what its worth..is the same
CASA has its own "Code" (sic)...with NO criminal provisions.
Cobbled up no doubt by those on LSD from CYA 101.
How self protective..how convenient.!
Up until a few years ago the CASA code wasn't even a public document.
Its a deliberate and disgusting "oversight" that needs to be rectified.
There is no excuse for these "federal public servants" not to be under the same set of Code rules.
And as for CASA not having the funds to contribute to recovery of the black box...BS tru.!! CASA has the $$s and then some to urinate up the wall on interstate and overseas "jollies", never a problem then.
Yet another example of CASA's real interest in "safety".
Beaker’s little helpers!
Senator Fawcett on page 5 of the Hansard:
Perhaps we can help Beaker in finding that Indonesian report...hmm here it is:
http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...t%20PK-TXL.pdf
And here’s an excerpt to show what the Senator is actually referring to…
It would also be worth Beaker having a look at another of our regional neighbour’s efforts, again with the support of the ATSB. In this case PNG’s AIC report into the C550 runway overrun at Misima
:
http://www.aic.gov.pg/pdf/P2-TAA%20F...812.221112.pdf
How’s that for giving a friendly, helpful hand?? Certainly beats getting a 16:55 Friday Arvo fax from Fort Fumble!
:
Senator FAWCETT: Do you happen to have looked at the Indonesian report from 6 November 2008 into a Dornier aircraft that had its undercarriage collapse after a heavy landing?
Mr Dolan: No, that is not one that I can recall having looked at.
Senator FAWCETT: I merely raise that to highlight the point that my understanding is that the ATSB actually spent some time instructing, supporting and helping the Indonesian government in terms of their ability to conduct aviation accident investigations?
Mr Dolan: That is correct.
Senator FAWCETT: As I look at the scope of the report, whilst it was fairly clear from their examination that in this case it was pilot error—a fast approach, inappropriate crew interaction and other things—they were very brief but quite good in highlighting that things like the runway and safety area airport facilities oversight and the level of compliance were not up to speed. They were quite blunt about making those observations around other government agencies and around the recommendations that then flowed in the report to those other agencies and the operator, which can then clearly be tracked.
Noting the Air France report looking at the A330 that had the icing problem, and EMS accidents in the USA, all of them appear to take the same basic analysis model you have started with but put quite clear emphasis on organisational factors that you are saying, even having looked at the Chambers report, are not applicable. Does it concern you at all that we seem to be out of step with our near neighbours as well as probably the world leaders in aviation?
Mr Dolan: Important though it is, the Norfolk Island investigation report is only one of a considerable number of reports we produce on an annual basis. Each investigation results in those reports. We have an assessment as to scope, taking account of a range of factors, and in a number of cases, because we think it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation to go all the way to organisational factors both at the operator level and the regulator level, we will quite often go there and make quite clear statements and findings in relation to it.
Mr Dolan: No, that is not one that I can recall having looked at.
Senator FAWCETT: I merely raise that to highlight the point that my understanding is that the ATSB actually spent some time instructing, supporting and helping the Indonesian government in terms of their ability to conduct aviation accident investigations?
Mr Dolan: That is correct.
Senator FAWCETT: As I look at the scope of the report, whilst it was fairly clear from their examination that in this case it was pilot error—a fast approach, inappropriate crew interaction and other things—they were very brief but quite good in highlighting that things like the runway and safety area airport facilities oversight and the level of compliance were not up to speed. They were quite blunt about making those observations around other government agencies and around the recommendations that then flowed in the report to those other agencies and the operator, which can then clearly be tracked.
Noting the Air France report looking at the A330 that had the icing problem, and EMS accidents in the USA, all of them appear to take the same basic analysis model you have started with but put quite clear emphasis on organisational factors that you are saying, even having looked at the Chambers report, are not applicable. Does it concern you at all that we seem to be out of step with our near neighbours as well as probably the world leaders in aviation?
Mr Dolan: Important though it is, the Norfolk Island investigation report is only one of a considerable number of reports we produce on an annual basis. Each investigation results in those reports. We have an assessment as to scope, taking account of a range of factors, and in a number of cases, because we think it is necessary for the purposes of the investigation to go all the way to organisational factors both at the operator level and the regulator level, we will quite often go there and make quite clear statements and findings in relation to it.
http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...t%20PK-TXL.pdf
And here’s an excerpt to show what the Senator is actually referring to…
1.17 Organizational and Management Information
1.17.1 Operator
Aircraft Operator : Express Air
Operator Certificate : AOC 121-038
1.17.2 CFIT and ALAR training5
The DGCA introduced the CFIT ALAR training program using the United States Flight Safety Foundation’ CFIT and ALAR material (Appendices G and H), to all Indonesian operators between 18 and 21 July 2005. The training for operators’ training instructors and some line pilots was jointly conducted by the DGCA and International Civil Aviation Organization.
The FO(1), handling pilot involved in this occurrence had successfully completed the DGCA/PT. Aurora Perdana Mandiri CFIT and ALAR Implementation Flight Safety Training course number 28, conducted between 13 and 15 August 2008.
Despite a number of requests, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the FO(2), and the PIC (Monitoring/instructor pilot) had completed CFIT and ALAR training.
1.17.3 Express Air safety programs and training
At the time of the accident Express Air had not implemented Flight Operations’ Quality Assurance (FOQA) or Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA) programs.
5 Copies of the ALAR education and training programs, including video programs, are available in CD-ROM format and can be obtained directly from the FSF (www.flightsafety.org).
This subject was extensively covered in the report
published 22 October 2007 by the National Transportation Safety Committee into the Boeing 737 accident on 7 March 2007 at Yogyakarta. Recommendations were made in that report to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Indonesian airlines. www.dephub.go.id/knkt
The Crew Resource Management (CRM) training was not adequately and
effectively implemented during post-ground school training. The operator did not have a robust CRM program. No evidence was provided to demonstrate that the pilots involved in this accident had received CRM training.
1.17.4 Airport Emergency Planning
Based on the lack of emergency personnel and equipment at Torea Airport, Fak Fak, Papua, to respond to an aircraft accident, it was clear that emergency planning and exercising did not meet the ICAO Annex 14 Standards.
ICAO Annex 14 contains Standards and Recommended Practices with
respect to Airport Emergency Planning.
Paragraph 9.1.12;
The plan shall contain procedures for periodic testing of the adequacy of
the plan and for reviewing the results in order to improve its effectiveness.
Note.— The plan includes all participating agencies and associated
equipment.
Paragraph 9.1.13
The plan shall be tested by conducting:
a) a full-scale aerodrome emergency exercise at intervals not
exceeding two years; and
b) partial emergency exercises in the intervening year to ensure that
any deficiencies found during the full-scale aerodrome emergency
exercise have been corrected; and reviewed thereafter, or after an
actual emergency, so as to correct any deficiency found during such
exercises or actual emergency.
ICAO Annex 14, paragraph 9.1.14 states that:
The airport rescue and fire fighting services shall have a plan that
shall include ready availability of coordination with appropriate
specialist rescue services to be able to respond to emergencies where
an aerodrome is located close to water/or swampy areas and where a
significant portion of approach or departure operations takes place
over these areas.
Paragraph 9.2.2 states that:
Where an aerodrome is located close to water/or swampy areas and
where a significant portion of approach or departure operations takes
place over these areas, specialist rescue services and fire fighting
equipment appropriate to the hazards and risks shall be available.
The requirement for Airport emergency planning and exercising at Indonesian airports was extensively covered in the report published 22 October 2007 by the National Transportation Safety Committee into the Boeing 737 accident on 7 March 2007 at Yogyakarta. Recommendations were made in that report to the
Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Indonesian airport operators. www.dephub.go.id/knkt
1.17.1 Operator
Aircraft Operator : Express Air
Operator Certificate : AOC 121-038
1.17.2 CFIT and ALAR training5
The DGCA introduced the CFIT ALAR training program using the United States Flight Safety Foundation’ CFIT and ALAR material (Appendices G and H), to all Indonesian operators between 18 and 21 July 2005. The training for operators’ training instructors and some line pilots was jointly conducted by the DGCA and International Civil Aviation Organization.
The FO(1), handling pilot involved in this occurrence had successfully completed the DGCA/PT. Aurora Perdana Mandiri CFIT and ALAR Implementation Flight Safety Training course number 28, conducted between 13 and 15 August 2008.
Despite a number of requests, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the FO(2), and the PIC (Monitoring/instructor pilot) had completed CFIT and ALAR training.
1.17.3 Express Air safety programs and training
At the time of the accident Express Air had not implemented Flight Operations’ Quality Assurance (FOQA) or Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA) programs.
5 Copies of the ALAR education and training programs, including video programs, are available in CD-ROM format and can be obtained directly from the FSF (www.flightsafety.org).
This subject was extensively covered in the report
published 22 October 2007 by the National Transportation Safety Committee into the Boeing 737 accident on 7 March 2007 at Yogyakarta. Recommendations were made in that report to the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Indonesian airlines. www.dephub.go.id/knkt
The Crew Resource Management (CRM) training was not adequately and
effectively implemented during post-ground school training. The operator did not have a robust CRM program. No evidence was provided to demonstrate that the pilots involved in this accident had received CRM training.
1.17.4 Airport Emergency Planning
Based on the lack of emergency personnel and equipment at Torea Airport, Fak Fak, Papua, to respond to an aircraft accident, it was clear that emergency planning and exercising did not meet the ICAO Annex 14 Standards.
ICAO Annex 14 contains Standards and Recommended Practices with
respect to Airport Emergency Planning.
Paragraph 9.1.12;
The plan shall contain procedures for periodic testing of the adequacy of
the plan and for reviewing the results in order to improve its effectiveness.
Note.— The plan includes all participating agencies and associated
equipment.
Paragraph 9.1.13
The plan shall be tested by conducting:
a) a full-scale aerodrome emergency exercise at intervals not
exceeding two years; and
b) partial emergency exercises in the intervening year to ensure that
any deficiencies found during the full-scale aerodrome emergency
exercise have been corrected; and reviewed thereafter, or after an
actual emergency, so as to correct any deficiency found during such
exercises or actual emergency.
ICAO Annex 14, paragraph 9.1.14 states that:
The airport rescue and fire fighting services shall have a plan that
shall include ready availability of coordination with appropriate
specialist rescue services to be able to respond to emergencies where
an aerodrome is located close to water/or swampy areas and where a
significant portion of approach or departure operations takes place
over these areas.
Paragraph 9.2.2 states that:
Where an aerodrome is located close to water/or swampy areas and
where a significant portion of approach or departure operations takes
place over these areas, specialist rescue services and fire fighting
equipment appropriate to the hazards and risks shall be available.
The requirement for Airport emergency planning and exercising at Indonesian airports was extensively covered in the report published 22 October 2007 by the National Transportation Safety Committee into the Boeing 737 accident on 7 March 2007 at Yogyakarta. Recommendations were made in that report to the
Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Indonesian airport operators. www.dephub.go.id/knkt
:http://www.aic.gov.pg/pdf/P2-TAA%20F...812.221112.pdf
How’s that for giving a friendly, helpful hand?? Certainly beats getting a 16:55 Friday Arvo fax from Fort Fumble!
My Fair Aroa
As advised … to me from the Aust. Public Service Commission that their code of conduct, complete with criminal provisions does NOT apply to employees of a Commonwealth Authority, as is CASA.
So does that make CASA persons non Public servants, just employees of a Govt Authority, altho they claim to be "public servants"
Presumably ATSB...for what its worth..is the same
Presumably ATSB...for what its worth..is the same
It’s such a thrill when the slow ones finally get it.
Last edited by Creampuff; 1st Mar 2013 at 06:45.
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
Apologies for interrupting, but isn't "THE WHITE PAPER" thrusted forth by the small letter, (the minister), the holy gospel for all matters aviation? Who are these Senators/ Inquisitors who dare question the wisdom of "THE WHITE PAPER?
What regulatory review is necessary when we have a "WHITE PAPER"?
Who are these "bottom feeder "aviationalists" who dare question any matter of "SAFETY" when those who hold the solution to every tectonic plate movement and force of nature that is controlled by the almighty "REGULATOR" who is not accountable for its actions nor disbursement of petty cash?
Who buy's the drugs for these Dudes? They can't be that stupid and sober at the same time.
What regulatory review is necessary when we have a "WHITE PAPER"?
Who are these "bottom feeder "aviationalists" who dare question any matter of "SAFETY" when those who hold the solution to every tectonic plate movement and force of nature that is controlled by the almighty "REGULATOR" who is not accountable for its actions nor disbursement of petty cash?
Who buy's the drugs for these Dudes? They can't be that stupid and sober at the same time.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 1st Mar 2013 at 08:48. Reason: I've forgotten. Either spelling or rolling around with the dog.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ode to Beaker
Creampuff, in all fairness to aroa you shouldn't take the piss. If one hasn't worked either for or close to a government bureaucracy it can be hard to fathom or believe that they can operate with impunity, no accountability and in reality (yet not in the laws eyes) above the law, beyond reproach and with free will to do as they please!
That doesn't make aroa dumb, it simply highlights that 'Government pony poo 101' is not his main trade, and that is no crime.
Now, to the Beaker. Yes, Beaker Beaker Beaker. Acting so smug because Senator Fawcett made a mistake hey? Beaker, you best not poke the bear. If the taxpayer was refunded a $1 every time you f#ked up we would have a surplus, and Swanny would be harder than a lumberjack!
So Beaker, you may have notched up a minor win but you have lost the battle. The fact remains that under your watch and stewardship the ATSB has gone from probably third best Investigative body behind the USA and Singapore to the laughing stock of the world. Even our neighbours in some dubious Asian countries where smoking holes are the norm are putting us to shame.
What could have been your crown of glory, Norfolk, has become your death sentence. I hope the good Senators remember your smug look at Julian Knight and Ian's Sandwich and deliver you a pineapple that is so robust that for the next 20 years your wife will feel like she is married to the Golden Circle cannery!
The actions of the ATSB and CASA over the 'Norfolk affair', the 'Shelfware Chronicles', the 'Inquiry into Assclownery' whatever you want to call it is a disgrace. It does nothing to appease the flying publics fear about the mystique of aviation, it does nothing to install confidence in an industry that is sick to death of bullying, cronyism, incompetence and malfeasance.
But, and may I say, there is a glimmer of goodness. With Kharons permission as well as all the other hard working stewards keeping the styx riverboat chugging along nicely (and compliantly, its AOC and COA were renewed yesterday) chocolate frog award goes to the ATSB lead investigator who had the skill, tenacity, integrity and testicular fortitude (something his bosses lack) to put together a report that contained all the causal factors, root causes, latent conditions and facts, warts and all, the good the bad and the ugly. It is sad that all that good work must be polished, shined, cut, smoothed, ironed, stretched, bleached and re-painted by the top layer of dross so as to make sure that no embarrassment befalls anybody in government.
So where to next? Will Senator Fawcett have some robust surprises in store for the ATSBeaker? Will Senator Xenophon lobbith another holy handgrenade at Mr Skull? Will Flyingfiend take his team to Montreal for a 'working study' in which they will learn about postulation, spin doctoring, apple bobbing, and perhaps give an aviation brief to ICAO titled 'The Richard White Paper'??
Anyway, time to jump on Poohtube and watch 'Ode to Joy, Beaker'! Those quivering lips, bulging eyes and mi mi mi mi-ing reminds me of somebody I know....
'Safe skies are unmolested by CASA skies'
That doesn't make aroa dumb, it simply highlights that 'Government pony poo 101' is not his main trade, and that is no crime.
Now, to the Beaker. Yes, Beaker Beaker Beaker. Acting so smug because Senator Fawcett made a mistake hey? Beaker, you best not poke the bear. If the taxpayer was refunded a $1 every time you f#ked up we would have a surplus, and Swanny would be harder than a lumberjack!
So Beaker, you may have notched up a minor win but you have lost the battle. The fact remains that under your watch and stewardship the ATSB has gone from probably third best Investigative body behind the USA and Singapore to the laughing stock of the world. Even our neighbours in some dubious Asian countries where smoking holes are the norm are putting us to shame.
What could have been your crown of glory, Norfolk, has become your death sentence. I hope the good Senators remember your smug look at Julian Knight and Ian's Sandwich and deliver you a pineapple that is so robust that for the next 20 years your wife will feel like she is married to the Golden Circle cannery!
The actions of the ATSB and CASA over the 'Norfolk affair', the 'Shelfware Chronicles', the 'Inquiry into Assclownery' whatever you want to call it is a disgrace. It does nothing to appease the flying publics fear about the mystique of aviation, it does nothing to install confidence in an industry that is sick to death of bullying, cronyism, incompetence and malfeasance.
But, and may I say, there is a glimmer of goodness. With Kharons permission as well as all the other hard working stewards keeping the styx riverboat chugging along nicely (and compliantly, its AOC and COA were renewed yesterday) chocolate frog award goes to the ATSB lead investigator who had the skill, tenacity, integrity and testicular fortitude (something his bosses lack) to put together a report that contained all the causal factors, root causes, latent conditions and facts, warts and all, the good the bad and the ugly. It is sad that all that good work must be polished, shined, cut, smoothed, ironed, stretched, bleached and re-painted by the top layer of dross so as to make sure that no embarrassment befalls anybody in government.
So where to next? Will Senator Fawcett have some robust surprises in store for the ATSBeaker? Will Senator Xenophon lobbith another holy handgrenade at Mr Skull? Will Flyingfiend take his team to Montreal for a 'working study' in which they will learn about postulation, spin doctoring, apple bobbing, and perhaps give an aviation brief to ICAO titled 'The Richard White Paper'??
Anyway, time to jump on Poohtube and watch 'Ode to Joy, Beaker'! Those quivering lips, bulging eyes and mi mi mi mi-ing reminds me of somebody I know....
'Safe skies are unmolested by CASA skies'
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 1st Mar 2013 at 10:30. Reason: Was relaxing with candles, wine and some soothing muppet ballads
Well said Oleo! What gets me riled more than anything about yesterday’s hearing was that Senator Fawcett was offering an olive branch to Beaker on the condition that he just hardened up and fessed up.
And what did the Senator get in return…a mi…mi…mi political point scoring exercise, a total denial and more spin that everyone, including the bloke at the back of the room, can totally see through and so the mi…mi…mi Beaker has now lost all credibility with the industry and the travelling public.
The worst part is that the BASI/ATSB reputation worldwide because of this numbnut has been totally trashed…what pilot, operator or member of the public is ever going to have trust or confidence in reporting an incident or safety concern to the bureau ever again…it’s a f***ing disgrace!!
Meanwhile the perpetrators of this heist Fort Fumble continue unabated with covering up their deficiencies, their culture of corruption and systematic decimation of a once proud General Aviation industry in Oz!
No Beaker your days are now severely numbered…sh#t knows how much angst you’ve caused your good and loyal investigators and ops crew under you but god lets hope the damage that you have so obviously fraught is able to be undone because this industry needs our reliable and honest safety watchdog back again, I mean FFS who else is going to keep these Fort Fumble executive and middle management pr##ks honest!
And what did the Senator get in return…a mi…mi…mi political point scoring exercise, a total denial and more spin that everyone, including the bloke at the back of the room, can totally see through and so the mi…mi…mi Beaker has now lost all credibility with the industry and the travelling public.
The worst part is that the BASI/ATSB reputation worldwide because of this numbnut has been totally trashed…what pilot, operator or member of the public is ever going to have trust or confidence in reporting an incident or safety concern to the bureau ever again…it’s a f***ing disgrace!!
Meanwhile the perpetrators of this heist Fort Fumble continue unabated with covering up their deficiencies, their culture of corruption and systematic decimation of a once proud General Aviation industry in Oz!
No Beaker your days are now severely numbered…sh#t knows how much angst you’ve caused your good and loyal investigators and ops crew under you but god lets hope the damage that you have so obviously fraught is able to be undone because this industry needs our reliable and honest safety watchdog back again, I mean FFS who else is going to keep these Fort Fumble executive and middle management pr##ks honest!