Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

Old 5th Oct 2016, 20:48
  #881 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,769
The ATSB transcripts of ATC recordings differ between the draft & final reports of the Bankstown Mojave accident. Which really raises questions about the ATSB preparedness to change transcripts to suit the conclusion they want. Transcripts are no longer evident in recent ATSB reports that i have read. They seem to instead to adopting isolated quotes from a transcript.
That's because in the 'Beyond Reason' model you jump to a conclusion and then find evidence to support that conclusion and ignore or downplay evidence to the contrary.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 6th Oct 2016 at 08:02.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2016, 19:12
  #882 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,532
Updated: 13 October 2016
The collection and analysis of a large volume of evidence for this investigation has taken longer than originally foreseen. However, the ATSB now has sufficient evidence to establish findings across a number of lines of inquiry. The ATSB is in a position to finalise a draft report which is expected to be released to directly involved parties by the end of the year. Subject to comments made during the draft report review process, the final report should be released publicly in the first part of 2017.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2009-072.aspx
Checkboard is online now  
Old 28th Oct 2016, 20:33
  #883 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,376
"In the first part of 2017" Lets see, New Years day, Australia day, Good Friday or Queens Birthday weekend? Justice delayed is justice denied. The ATSB seems to me to be as corrupt as CASA.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2016, 21:01
  #884 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,769
I doubt it will happen at all. Mr Hood's nauseating praise of his predecessor indicates Mr Hood's primary job is to perpetuate the facade of ATSB competence and capacity patched up by his predecessor.

Unless and until I hear the actual content of NGA's CVR and tapes of transmissions to it from the ground, I will believe not a single syllable of what is represented as a "transcript" of what NGA's crew heard.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2016, 21:17
  #885 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
It looks like the list from the April update:

That analysis is focusing on:
  • pre-flight planning and fuel management procedures and practices
  • in-flight fuel management and related decision-making procedures and practices
  • fatigue management procedures and practices
  • flight crew check and training
  • the operator’s oversight of its flight operations activities
  • provision of weather and other flight information to flight crews
  • cabin safety and survival factors
  • regulatory oversight of activities such as those listed above
that the ATSB is finally focusing on the organisational issues which were MIA from the original report. If they had done the job properly in the first place they wouldn't have to tie up resources doing it again now. I will be surprised if they do a 180 on their original findings as the hole they dug for themselves is a very deep one.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2016, 06:28
  #886 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 507
The ATSB is in a position to finalise a draft report which is expected to be released to directly involved parties by the end of the year. Subject to comments made during the draft report review process,
Just trying to understand the implications of this statement. Is this to say the ATSB is not entirely independent and that the final report will not necessarily be a straight reporting of the facts? Sounds a bit political. (tongue firmly in cheek, relax....)
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2016, 13:48
  #887 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,532
Updated: 21 November 2016
Reopened investigation into 2009 aircraft ditching near Norfolk Island
The investigation team is now finalising the draft report and has started an internal review process. Once the internal review is completed, the report will be handed to the ATSB Commission for their consideration and approval. The ATSB will then provide the draft report to directly involved parties for their comment and feedback. Given the broad-ranging and complex nature of the investigation, and the size of the report, the draft report is now expected to be released to directly involved parties in early 2017.
The investigation process has required a cycle of continuing review of the evidence and the acquisition of new evidence as knowledge gaps and new lines of enquiry have been identified. Further, the ATSB has not sought to confine the scope of the reopened Norfolk Island investigation in the way that it normally would to manage its overall investigation outputs recognising the interests of all parties involved, as well as the Senate Inquiry and the Canadian Transportation Safety Board review of the original ATSB investigation.
A significant amount of detail is required to explain the findings, which are based on a rigorous application of the ATSB’s analysis methodology. To date, the investigation team has acquired and analysed an extensive range of evidence as part of the new investigation. This includes:
  • reviewing evidence from the ATSB’s original investigation, and obtaining and reviewing evidence from CASA’s investigation of the accident, CASA’s special audit conducted soon after the accident
  • recovering and analysing data from the aircraft’s flight recorders
  • re-interviewing the flight crew and medical crew from the accident flight, and conducting over 30 additional interviews, including with 14 Pel-Air Westwind pilots, eight other Pel-Air personnel and six CASA personnel
  • obtaining and analysing wind and temperature data, and integrating this information with Flight Data Recorder data, Cockpit Voice Recorder data, Air Traffic Control data, flight crew interviews and refuelling records to provide the best estimate of the aircraft’s fuel status during the accident flight
  • obtaining and analysing 8 years of Westwind flight records from the operator’s fleet to examine fuel management aspects for different types of flights, particularly flights to remote aerodromes and air ambulance flights. This also involved obtaining and analysing meteorological information and other information for several flights
  • obtaining and reviewing a substantial amount of documentation from the operator, including documentation from the operator’s safety management group meetings, selected samples of incident/hazard/fatigue reports, audit reports, flight crew training records for 18 Westwind pilots, and duty periods for all Westwind pilots for the 6 months prior to the accident
  • obtaining and reviewing 10 years of CASA documentation associated with the operator’s Air Operator Certificates
  • reviewing documentation from the air traffic services’ providers in Fiji and New Zealand about their policies and procedures for the provision of flight information, and how these were applied during the accident flight. Information was also obtained and analysed regarding how operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum airspace were conducted.
The re-opened investigation has also involved many other activities, some of which have been outlined in the ATSB’s progress web updates.


The ATSB recognises the importance of being able to demonstrate that the reopened investigation addresses identified areas for improvement with the original investigation. Given the size of the report and the complexity of many of the issues, it is difficult to predict how long the draft review and final report processes will take, although it is likely to extend beyond those typical of more routine investigations/reports. After the draft report review process is complete, the ATSB should have a better understanding of a more specific likely timing for the release of the final report.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2009-072/
Checkboard is online now  
Old 23rd Nov 2016, 20:08
  #888 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,376
it's now clear to me what is going to happen.

Pel Air or its successors is going to be wound up reorganised or sold before the final report is released.

it then becomes impossible to attach blame to any organisation, thing or person.

The technical term for this in organisational behaviour studies is "diffusion of responsibility".

the final report, far from being a damning document, will consist of nothing but motherhood statements and "who coulda knowns". Domenic James will still be left hanging out to dry.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2016, 02:30
  #889 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,769
You're off with the fairies, Sunfiish.

Even assuming the new report makes the durr-obvious finding that the operator's systems and procedures contributed to the accident, that's a finding about the operator and its circumstances over 7 years ago. All of that was tidied up, quick smart, 7 years ago.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2016, 19:13
  #890 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,376
It can't have ben tidied up Leadsled, otherwise why are we getting a new report? Or did I miss some sarcasm?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2016, 19:29
  #891 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,769
We're getting a new report because everybody found out that the first report was a quick and dirty hatchet job to tidy up some very inconvenient political problems.

The new report will be another attempt to explain what happened, and why, seven years ago. So even if the report deals objectively and factually with the systemic issues within the operator, the regulator, the air navigation service providers and the meteorological forecasters that contributed to the accident, those are all circumstances that prevailed seven years ago.

You don't seriously think that the new report will contain any material that could justify some kind of legal or regulatory or administration action within or against or by any organisation or person involved, seven years later?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2016, 20:59
  #892 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Do we have a "Statute of limitations" as in the USA, in Australia?
I seem to recall that in the USA it was seven years.
Coincidence?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2016, 08:09
  #893 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 672
And don't call me Leadsled
The name is Porter is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2016, 08:24
  #894 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,769
Do we have a "Statute of limitations" as in the USA, in Australia?...
I'm gonna go waaaaaay out on a limb here, and guess there is a 'statute of limitations' for lots and lots of stuff that happens in the Australian jurisdictions.

But I could be wrong.

I'd be interested to hear your theories about who could take action against whom, for what, now.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2016, 20:54
  #895 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,532
Do we have a "Statute of limitations" as in the USA, in Australia?
I seem to recall that in the USA it was seven years.
Coincidence?
Not really - no one would wait for an accident report to begin civil proceedings.
Checkboard is online now  
Old 25th Nov 2016, 21:18
  #896 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Checkboard, it would appear civil action has been to foot for several years, the doctor was successful in compensation a couple of years ago.
Interesting to note that Dr Helm was awarded just under AU$ one million whist the nurse was awarded AU$ 5 million.
It was not in dispute that the crash had been caused by the negligence of the pilot and co-pilot of the aircraft (for which Pel-Air had vicarious liability).
Having just read this, any one know if this will impact on the latest ATSB review of the accident?
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2016, 21:57
  #897 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
A statute of limitations is relative to the time you have to take action. An ongoing live action maintains its impetus until it goes stale or ends up dead filed or in somebody's tool shed.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2016, 10:37
  #898 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 507
I'd be interested to hear your theories about who could take action against whom, for what, now.
An unvarnished, precise report of what occurred and when would be a start. With transcripts and flight data included. ATSB always trumpets accident investigations as not being about blame. Let the report show what happened, who did what and when and nothing further. Layout the shortfalls in operating procedures, whatever, we can all draw our own conclusions. Thats probably why the report is being redone in the first place.

The ATSB will then provide the draft report to directly involved parties for their comment and feedback.
Say what? This thing may never see the light of day in a transparent form.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 17th Dec 2016, 02:18
  #899 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 507
Have a look at the process of the Swedish Accident Investigation Authority.

Accident in the arctic north of Sweden to a Canadair CRJ 200 aircraft (SE-DUX) 8 Jan 2016

SHK has recovered parts of the aircraft wreckage.

SHK has been cooperating in the investigation with the corresponding authorities in Norway, Canada, USA, France and Spain.

The 9 March 2016 SHK published an interim report containing information about the progress of the investigation. The final report was published the 12 December 2016.
And...the final report is translated from Swedish!
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2016, 03:06
  #900 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,230
Oh, you silly person. You & I both know that it's extremely unlikely that anyone at ATSB can speak Swedish. How do you expect them to translate their report from English --> Swedish, so that they can do what the Swedish accident authority did ie translate from Swedish --> English and then release within 9 months from interim to final.

*Of course* it's going to take the ATSB much, much longer to do. They have more translating to do first!
Tinstaafl 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.