4 Corners to Crucify AusSAR

[Zarg]

On Monday 27 August at 2030 AEST, 4 Corners on ABC is running a program on AusSAR, the national SAR coordinating authority.

They will be pulling in all sorts of former SAR dinosaurs to drag AusSAR into the dust with NO right of reply! It will be judgement by media with no input from AusSAR. AusSAR staff have been warned to expect the worst.

What you will NOT hear is that last year AusSAR coordinated the rescue of 410 people; so far this year, the figure stands at 264.

They will not mention the fact that SAR staff nationwide has been reducing every year for the last ten.

They will not mention that AusSAR is held in high regard by MOST, if not ALL, of the professional organisations throughout the country.

So, be warned, all is not as will be portrayed!

The media in this country love to destroy rarely to praise!

[Ausatco]

I have a fair bit of time for the ABC and in particular 4 Corners. This may test my loyalty.

Check your private messages, Zarg.

AA

[429 CJ]

Zarg, did you really expect any different from the media? We (a VMR organisation that I am active within up here in Sydney) used to assist AusSAR to conduct "pads" drops off the northern beaches up here. This practice went out the window around 5-6 years ago (apparently due to financial constraint on the part of the regulatory authority). The resultant loss of our "currency" in retrieval methods and seagoing tactics for the effective collection of them has hit our organisation quite hard in the seabourne training bit. Another factor is the attrition rate of some of our more senior members, and what you have left is basically a team of willing people trying to do the best they can with no access to the training aids that used to be availiable to us. A local newspaper up here got hold of that little bit of info and tried their best to blow it out of all proportion, which served more to damage the public face of many rescue organisations.

There was also a little problem with the operator of the company the a/c were brought in through, however that doesn't require any further comment, only to say that others (not involved in any form of impropriety)lost out as well when he went down.

Just a sign of the times when we have reporters in the press who have ridden in an a/c at one time or another suddenly become all-seeing and all-knowing on all-things aviation. I think they seem to qualify this sort of reporting as "investigative jounalism".


(ed for a bit I missed out).

[ 26 August 2001: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]

[Feeton Terrafirma]

I'm prepared to wait for the show to air before I condem or praise them as I have no knowledge of the content, but I can and will put forward my admiration for the quality and speed of service provided by AusSAR, and I will also point out the not infrequent praise the media provide, if indirectly, for it's services when there is a disaster in the making, and salvation arrives seemingly out of the blue.

Let's hope the ABC give AusSAR the credit it deserves.

[criticalmass]

Who remembers 4 Corners "Search Without Rescue", over a decade ago? I certainly do.

[Capcom]

Hope Aunty has done her homework!

The Guys and Gals do a great job!
Alas I suspect they are like soooo many other "G" entities.

Too few, Too much to do (When it counts), Inevitable systemic failure.

Don't shoot the coal face Aunty !

[gaunty]

I think they'd be much better off looking at why we don't seem to be able to control the drugs, weapons and illegal entries into OZ.

They could learn some real lessons from our American cousins in how they deal with boat people in the Pacific.

Get the churches and so called refugee rights coalitions outa the argument and we might be in with a chance.

They almost but not quite showed footage of the last lot that arrived. Didn't look too distressed or detitute to me.

[RTB RFN]

G'day ZARG.

Any more info?

What's the motive, What's the dirt - who or what is driving this?

Here-here CAPCOM - but more importantly where is the accountability? I would like to believe that there is a better system of ensuring excellence in management rather than just throwing them out for the "other lot" every couple of years. Could this be called The dynamics of rotational incompetence or something.

AusSar has moved far from the days of Search without Rescue and I have no agenda for saying that.

Goodonyerchaps - you have the support of the wider community and this could well flop for Aunty and the perpetrators.

[Frapthirstyfive]

SAR took a nose dive when the National Safety Council folded. That dream of 'Freddo's" OZ Coast Guard would have been a great benefit to sea goers and a deterent to the inbound boat people. Shame the accountant couldn't balance the books!!

[gaunty]

And while they're at it why don't they do something positive and show the Oz public the US Coast Guard and the way they operate both as border control AND a huge SAR resource as a by product, or did they start the other way round.
It really doesn't matter, if we don't do something real soon it won't matter.

I'm going to be off the air for about 4 days but I will be watching with interest.
I will be disappointed with 4 Corners if it turns into a beat up.

Zarg old chap, trouble is, if they have never seen it work when properly resourced, and competently managed then they don't have a means of assesment. Management isn't the issue, I reckon the work you guys do with the limited to non existent resources avbailable to you in what is suppposed to be a 1st world country never ceases to amaze me.

Take Bullimore for example and not to take it away from the Navy, but we had to send a FIRST line ship, with a dodgy main engine yet, with a fleet oiler following it. The official line was for replenishment but I rather suspect as a tow if necessary.
I mean really, the biggest Island in the world surrounded by 3 or 4 oceans and I don't care for a pedantic argument on the geography and that is the best we can do.

We can't even protect our fisheries without serious Naval involvement, tying up the other FIRST line ship chasing some poachers across the Southern Ocean.

But then it's way more important to spend the money to shut the bleeding hearts up by turning the country into a holiday camp for Middle Eastern countries.

Well anyway, I'm going fishing, if there are any left.

Keep your chin up Zarg

[Creampuff]

Title: ADJOURNMENT: Australian Search and Rescue Date: 20 August 2001 Database: Senate Hansard Speaker: O'Brien, Sen Kerry (ALP, Tasmania) Page: 26009 Proof: Yes Source: Senate Type: Speech Context: Adjournment Size: 7K

Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (10.29 p.m.) —The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee had scheduled a hearing for tonight to inquire into the role of Australian Search and Rescue in the search for the Margaret J, a fishing boat lost in Bass Strait in April this year. However, at a private meeting of the committee at 6.30 p.m., the government again used its numbers to block this inquiry— that is, the government members of the committee voted to adjourn the inquiry. Other members of the committee opposed that proposition. In fact, the numbers were tied, and the casting vote of Senator Crane, the government chair of the committee, carried the resolution to adjourn the matter.

Government senators relied on a letter from counsel assisting the Tasmanian coroner as justification for their action. In my view, that letter did not raise any issues that had not already been considered and dismissed by the committee—and, for that matter, dismissed by the Clerk of the Senate in advice provided in response to other material put before the committee. By failing to agree to subject the role of AusSAR and the Tasmanian police to a proper inquiry by this committee, the government is ignoring the public interest. While the government may be happy to ignore the public interest, I am not.

One matter I did intend to pursue with officers from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority at tonight's committee hearing was evidence given to the committee during the estimates hearing of 31 May. The General Manager of Search and Rescue, Ms Barrell, told the committee that a search area of 100,000 square kilometres would require 104 aircraft. Initially, Ms Barrell told the hearing that the search area was 100,000 square miles, but she then corrected that measure to square kilometres. We are talking about the projected possible area in which to search for the occupants of the vessel, who might be drifting somewhere in a life raft.

Ms Barrell is the General Manager of Australian Search and Rescue. In that sense, the committee should have been able to rely on her evidence. I was somewhat surprised that she used the measure of square kilometres rather than the standard measure for search areas of square nautical miles. The area Ms Barrell identified translates to 38,600 square nautical miles. The total area of Bass Strait is 33,010 square nautical miles. Within days of Ms Barrell's evidence to the estimates hearings, I received a document through the mail. The author did not identify himself or herself. The letter read:

It was with much interest that I watched Insight—the SBS television current affairs program—and read a transcript of the recent Estimates hearing involving AMSA.
Someone is either very confused, ignorant or covering up the truth.

The letter then worked through the search effort required to cover the area identified by Ms Barrell, the 100,000 square kilometres. The author calculated that—based on the weather conditions at that time, an average search time per aircraft of three hours and each aircraft doing two sorties a day—only 19 aircraft would be required to cover the search area which Ms Barrell identified. Those calculations were based on a tracking space of four kilometres. The calculations in the correspondence that I mentioned were then redone with a tracking space of six kilometres, and the number of aircraft required dropped to just 13, not the 104 aircraft that Ms Barrell tried to tell the committee were required for such a search. The author of the letter continued:

So they are telling you 13 aircraft is too many to ask to search [searches have been bigger than this, nearly 30 in the search for a helicopter last year].
Someone is lying to you.

I receive a lot of information, and it flows from asking a lot of questions. But I always try to do an independent check of calculations such as these. I provided the calculations I have just mentioned to a second person, who has considerable expertise and experience in such matters, because I wanted to check the veracity of the first set of numbers. The calculations undertaken by the independent expert were based on a higher search aircraft true airspeed than was used in the first set of calculations. The second aircraft true airspeed was set at 150 knots, compared to 120 knots. The tracking space was set at two nautical miles. The second set of calculations, based on Ms Barrell's 100,000 square kilometres and 85 hours at three hours per sortie and two sorties a day, resulted in a figure of 15 aircraft.

Ms Barrell told the estimates committee on 31 May that a search area of 100,000 square kilometres was just not feasible in the Australian environment. I understand that her calculations were built around a tracking space of only one nautical mile. I am not sure that this tracking space number explains Ms Barrell's estimated need for 104 search aircraft. If the hearing had proceeded tonight, I would have asked Ms Barrell about the basis for the one nautical mile tracking space. I would have asked about the safe operation of search aircraft where a one nautical mile tracking space requirement was put in place. I am advised that, depending on the type of aircraft used in a search of this nature, a tracking space of one nautical mile might not only be too narrow but also be both unachievable and unsafe.

Ms Barrell's claim that the search as at 15 April would have required 104 aircraft was just not right. Such a search could have been and should have been mounted. The fact that AusSAR then, on 30 April, agreed to take over the search from the Tasmanian police when the search area had ballooned out to around 370,000 square nautical miles made Ms Barrell's claim to the Senate about the unfeasibility of the 100,000 square kilometres even more bizarre. We had Ms Barrell telling us that the search area was too big as at 15 April and we had AusSAR taking control of the search with an area that had increased by over 900 per cent on 30 April. That search located two bodies and the life raft in good time.

It is my view that, if AusSAR had acted quickly, those men may not have lost their lives. For that reason, I intend to pursue this matter until all the details of what was done or not done by both Australian Search and Rescue and the Tasmanian police is on the public record and until those responsible for what was an inadequate search effort are held to account.


Title: ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE: Questions Nos 3695, 3696 and 3715
Date: 21 August 2001 Database: Senate Hansard Speaker: O'Brien, Sen Kerry (ALP, Tasmania) Page: 26039 Proof: Yes Source: Senate Type: Speech Context: Question On Notice Size: 8K

Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (3.06 p.m.) — Madam President, I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister's response.

I note that on this occasion again we have been given an assurance that an answer will be provided if not today then tomorrow. That has occurred before. I take the minister at his word; I note that he is representing the Deputy Prime Minister and no doubt would not make such a promise if he did not have the assurance of the Deputy Prime Minister or his office that that could be the case.

I am aware that these questions are just outside the 30-day period for providing answers as set out in the standing orders. The reason I am seeking those answers at this time is that they are relevant to the circumstances surrounding the loss of the fishing boat the Margaret J and three lives in Bass Strait in April this year. I have been seeking answers to these questions so that those answers could be considered as part of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry into the role of Australian Search and Rescue in the search for the Margaret J. I note the government again used its numbers on the committee to defer this important investigation, but I am still seeking answers to these questions. I wrote to the chair of the committee, Senator Crane, about these questions on 10 August. I also asked that Senator Crane seek an answer to question 3784, which was not outside the 30-day limit but had direct relevance to the inquiry. I copied that letter to Mr Anderson's office on that day. I then, through the committee secretariat, put in a request to AMSA for answers to those questions. In that letter, I also sought other material relating to the Margaret J, some of which has now been provided. I specifically requested copies of all internal and external emails relating to the lost boat, but they have not been provided. I will continue to pursue that material because it is important that the committee have access to all material held by AMSA or AusSAR relating to the Margaret J.

Question 3695 relates to legal opinions provided to both the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the minister, Mr Anderson. My office was advised last Wednesday that the answer to this question had been cleared and would be provided to the table office and a copy faxed to me in Launceston. I was later advised that that answer had in fact not been cleared and would not be available until some time this week. There was a strange discrepancy between those two contacts. The government has in its possession more than one set of legal advices in relation to the Senate inquiry into the Margaret J. I am given to understand that the department has legal advice that gives AMSA little or no comfort as far as cooperation with the Senate is concerned. This is in sharp contrast to the legal opinion from Mr Bell QC that AMSA is relying on to protect it from proper scrutiny by this chamber. AMSA was quick to provide the Senate with the Bell legal opinion because it suited the authority to do so; but, in doing so, it removed any basis on which it can deny the Senate access to other legal advice on the same matter.

That question also goes to the issue of the role of Mr Anderson in this matter. He is, after all, the minister responsible to the parliament for the performance of the Commonwealth search and rescue function. If that search and rescue effort is found wanting, then it is Mr Anderson who should be called to account for that failure in this parliament. However, given that Mr Anderson's profile is not so much low as subterranean in relation to issues such as the Margaret J, I do not expect him to act to ensure organisations such as CASA or AMSA do the job required of them by their charter. As far as the transport portfolio is concerned, that administrative oversight falls to this place generally and Senator Crane's committee in particular. Mr Anderson's advice to the CASA board in 1998 said it all. He told the board its job was to ensure that he was not asked any questions in parliament about aviation safety. All he wanted to ensure was that air safety was not the subject of public debate. In contrast, his charter is that we enjoy a safe aviation system in Australia. Self-interest beats public interest yet again.

Question 3696 relates to the search for a yacht off the Queensland coast that commenced on 8 July, and question 3715 relates to a missing motor cruiser called Just Cruising that was travelling from Mooloolaba in Queensland to Swansea in New South Wales. The information I am seeking in relation to these two matters relates to the role of both the state authority and Australian Search and Rescue. I want to know—and I am sure my colleagues on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee would also like to know—what level of effort was required by AusSAR of the state authority before it involved itself in those searches. AusSAR was advised by the Tasmanian police that the Margaret J was missing on 13 April, and I understand that the police requested that AusSAR take over the search at that time. I am advised that AusSAR told the Tasmanian police it would not take over the search until the state had exhausted its own resources. I want to know whether the same conditions were imposed on the state authorities involved in the search for these vessels as were required of the Tasmanian authorities. I want to know exactly what resources Queensland and/or New South Wales were required to commit to these searches before AusSAR took an interest in the searches. I am further advised that the Tasmanian police search and rescue had exhausted its resources by late on 14 April or early on 15 April and had advised AusSAR accordingly. But, despite the AusSAR advice of 13 April, the authority refused a second request to search the greater Bass Strait area again because it considered the search area to be too large.

I would like to know—and the answers to question 3696 and 3715 should tell me—exactly what the search area was over the period of the search for the missing yacht and what the search area was over the period of the search for the vessel Just Cruising. I also want to know what intelligence was available to AusSAR in relation to the search for the yacht and the cruiser when it took control of, or put resources into, the search effort for those missing boats. I understand that AusSAR told the Tasmanian police on 17 April that, without further information about the whereabouts of the missing fishermen, the search should be abandoned. I want to know what intelligence was available to AusSAR in relation to both these vessels so that we can compare that with the information available to AusSAR in relation to the Margaret J.

Finally, I thank Senator Ian Macdonald for his cooperation in this matter to date. I again note that he is representing Minister Anderson in relation to these matters.

[cficare]

I have a copy of Special Investigation, Report 833-1017, "Search and Rescue Activities Associated with the Dittching of Rockwell 685 Aircraft VH_WJC in Bass Strait, Tasmania 17 July 1983"
It is very interesting to have reread the report, especially to appreciate how different it was even just 18 years ago to coordinate a search/rescue.
The poor WX conditions on the day(low clougbase), no GPS(no VOR coverage at low level) and (admittedly), a couple of coordination mistakes were the source of the "Search without Rescue" program.
I will watch tonights show with interest and I can only hope that it presents a balanced perpective. Nothing will be achieved if parties involved in S&R are subjected to Kangaroo court type reporting.

[madcat666]

Gaunty old chap calm down, breath deeply, and take some more of that red medicine.
The facts are as follows:
1. Oz's Maritime SAR area is the largest in the world, in fact it is a sh*tload larger than that of the USofA that the coastguard cruises.
2. Oz's population is very, very small. So the cost to everyone from taxes is much much higher, for a service (coastguard) that we don't need to use all that often. Most (if not all ) long distance SAR responses that I had anything to do with in the last 12yrs were for Sail boats racing around the world (Bullimore etc). They paid nothing for the service (you and I paid for that out of our taxes, and my wokmates (Airforce P3 crews, not those Navy types thankyou) gave up Christmas at home to find these guys, for no extra pay or overtime!). These same rescuees then go on to make money from it all by writting books, giving interviews, (wearing Chan 7 hats during interviews etc!)

In a perfect world we have plenty of everything. In the real world you have to use risk management and plan. Ausralia does provide an excellent SAR response, which is capable of very quick response times to 90% of the population. To improve from here will cost a lot more money, and maybe the difference would not be so great as to justify it.
If people want to race around the world a long way to our south, then good luck to them. But perhaps the race organisers should organise SAR for the competitors (or would that be to responsible!)
The fact that Oz has been able to do a number of such rescues at very short notice, during periods of reduced activity, is proof enough that we are doing OK.
Good luck with the fishing. Hope you didn't go too far off-shore

[Frapthirstyfive]

You just have to read into what happened with the 'Rockin Robin' SAR off the East Coast some years back to see what a fast OZ SAR is. That was won hell fo a cover up!!

[criticalmass]

IMHO it begins to look like an issue of accountability on the part of senior bureaucrats. To me, the organisation has become a role-playing organisation, rather than a task-achieving one.

This is usually a sign of bureaucratic maturity, when career bureaucrats replace the trailblazers who set up organisations but who are inherently distrusted by the grey suits who see them as interlopers in the seamless business of bureaucracy.

The future of organisations which settle into this maturity is predictable. They become sinecures for public service mandarins who have waited patiently for the rewards due to them for decades of loyal, but undistinguished, service. These organisations subsequently degenerate into toothless entities until they threaten the very credibility of the government under which the operate.

The usual cure is a re-organisation...the result of which is a foregone conclusion, but the execution of which deludes spectators into believing that reforms have been made and deadwood has been cleared.

In reality, nothing changes. The best thing is to not require SAR in the first place, but if you do, please do everybody a great favour and die quickly, preferably without activating your EPIRB or ELT, which will save the expense of the SAR effort, itself a huge a distraction from the real business of the organisation, empire-building by senior bureaucrats whose only qualification for the job is a good set of connections with the incumbent administration.

I'd be cynical about it if I thought it would help!

[capt cynical]

"Thin Lips in Skirts"
It's time for this "Barrell" to be rolled.
I bet there is a MBA in there somewhere.

[T]

Like her counterpart in CASA, both have reached "use by date" and are "on the nose", Doubtful the Minister will wake up long enough to do anything about the situation.
Expect more of the same.

[Ray Dar]

Gaunty,

Only a small issue, but the First line ship you speak of was an FFG. When they get below a certain figure in fuel they have sinificant top weight problems that require ballast, especially in heavy seas. The decision to send the tanker was made because of the fuel burn by the ship, (lots on two engines when going fast). If the tanker didn't go they would have to reduce the fuel burn going down to reduce the ballasting problem. If they wanted to go fast, (like most SAR's) they would need to fuel rather than ballast, hence the need for the tanker. Ballasting is a pain as the ballast is in the fuel tanks which require a significant clean out prior to re-fuelling. As far as I was was aware, ( and I have much sea time on this war canoe), they did not have an engine problem.

Just to clarify, not to have a go !

Madcat email me to say hello

Edited for spelling, doh

[ 28 August 2001: Message edited by: Ray Dar ]

[go with the flow]

Several I know pulled out of Bass Strait. One still there... AusSAR, many thanks and glad you're there. Unfortunately this incident in the western part of the strait, well,.....
Remember hearing about this on the morning radio when it happened: univeersally: " what a complete c(r)ock up". Nothing on 4corners last night changed that. Not unreasonable to ask why.
As always when asking why the issue should be not to establish fault or find a bunnie in an organisation, but to identify a way to avoid the situation happening again (not that the lawyers agree). If the perception is that an organisation is unwilling to sort out it's own problem, and certainly the head of that organisation failed to reassure me on the box, then it's entirely proper that the media flame that organisation. That's just what happened.

[Wheeler]

Well said Critical Mass!

The onward invasion of 'managerialism' in so many of our institutions seems completely unstopable. Manage up the chain of command - keep the managers happy, worship the gods and 'we' survive. This is a great example of why some of us might not.