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

ATSB reports

Old 13th Nov 2013, 22:12
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
I have to agree with T28D, although he is being generous with the hour. Much was a copy and past exercise of others work.

When the insurance assessor arrived on site, the helicopter engine was started and performed without fault. No fuel contamination was found. Other than the damage sustained in the accident, the helicopter was reported to have been well maintained and in excellent condition.
The insurance assessor considered that the weather conditions were an incipient cause of the incident. At the time, the temperature and dew point indicated a risk of serious carburettor icing. The pilot reported that he would have expected the engine to run roughly if carburettor icing was present.
Hang on a minute, can I rewrite this in under 5 minutes and let ppruners be the judge of whether my version would make a better conclusion.

When the insurance assessor arrived on site, the helicopter engine was started and performed without fault. No fuel contamination was found. Other than the damage sustained in the accident, the helicopter was reported to have been well maintained and in excellent condition.
The insurance assessor considered that the weather conditions were an incipient cause of the incident. At the time, the temperature and dew point indicated a risk of serious carburettor icing. The pilot reported that he would have expected the engine to run roughly if carburettor icing was present.

At the time of the accident, the conditions conducive to carburettor icing existed, and despite the popular myth than an engine will run rough, this is not true if the Fuel/Air ratio's are consistent across all cylinders and simply the engine power is reduced due to a significant loss in mass air flow to the engine.

Safety message to pilots: At the onset of a power loss and noting the insufficient carburettor heat by indication of the instrument, if the non normal state is unexplained, (i.e. heat was applied but instruments show otherwise) treat the instruments as correct and suspect an imminent engine failure, take appropriate measures immediately. Do not continue the flight until the anomaly is resolved.

Safety message to engineers, and pilots: Know your systems and the critical nature of certain elements and ensure they are 100% functional. Trust your instruments


Took 5-10 minutes, and perhaps provides a better safety message.

Another waste of a report, and possibly only achieves one thing, KPI's. Attribution to AKRO
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2013, 22:36
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 56
Posts: 864
So Insurance Assessors do ATSB investigations now?
Jamair is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2013, 23:05
  #43 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,659
Jaba

You forgot to add..."when in doubt about weather conditions or other operational considerations, call your local insurance representative"

Unbelievable.

What's the bet the insurance assessor is ex CASa or BASI and left because he got sick of the young preppies that didn't know anything.
Old Akro is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2013, 02:06
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Finally..only took 27 months!!

Not too many surprises there I guess??

It is interesting that the ATSBeaker have issued yet another SR (AO-2011-102-SR-59)to Fort Fumble, that would be 5 for 2013. Considering prior to March (refer here: Safety Recommendations for 2013) there was only one SR issued to FF within the last 5 years, that is somewhat of a world record for ATSBeaker.

Speaking of Beaker just heard him mi..mi..mi-ing on the wireless talking about that particular SR (above)...hmm wonder if he is aware the two mentioned in my previous post have expired???

Sarcs is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2013, 12:10
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 303
Nice pick up Sarcs. No doubt Beaker is churning out the work knowing for several months now that his mi mi mi empire would end up coming under the spotlight. I'm still looking forward to the Canadians releasing the results of their review next year. Not sure why though as nothing will get done with the findings.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of Truss's initiative next year with the 'independent' review. No doubt the report will be handed to the minister in which the government will respond to each recommendation with 'the government acknowledges that recommendation'. The usual carefully crafted responses in which the government doesn't actually agree to implement any changes, it just acknowledges that changes have been recommended.
Political school of bullshit 101.

Time will tell, but none of this would have been made possible without the growing number of IOS (and don't forget that Mr Truss's international panel of experts will themselves receive the opportunity to earn an honorary place among the IOS), or without the savvy Senators who have refused to allow polish to be applied liberally to the turd.

I would recommend that the review panel spend time with the good Senators and discuss the mystique of Australian aviation with them. I suggest Senator Nash's office, that way they can meet pot plant Pete.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2013, 12:26
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
A positive spin.

CASA and ATSB make ASA look outstanding
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2013, 20:06
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
No more spinning – I'm dizzy.

Well, in all probability, the pilot probably stacked the chopper, we probably should have sent the insurance investigator (QBE 1) who would have probably made it probable that the chopper was probably pranged. But no matter CASA will probably redefine "probable darkness" and all will probably be well. But it's probable that we have conned the ABC, probably shut down the probability of bad press, which cannot in any probable cause case, end up with my resignation.
Mi Mi "That's a great relief, glad we have the beyond reason probability model and a simpering nodding interviewer who probably swallowed the guff".
Long live short reports, long waits and great KPI bonuses. Thank the gods for the remote control button, new TV's are expensive.

Last edited by Kharon; 14th Nov 2013 at 20:08. Reason: Manfully ignoring the "pukey' icon, that's why.
Kharon is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2013, 06:30
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Linking the links i.e. accident(s) causal chains (back to reason)!

Having now read the report (AO-2011-102), scrolled through numerous media articles and video coverage, including the ABC 7:30 report (Report on ABC helicopter crash urges overhaul of regulations), I'm quite disturbed by some very interesting parallels coupled with some déjà vu(flashbacks) to episodes in the Senate Inquiry and previous Senate Estimates.

{Note: The 7:30 vid is well worth watching but warning you'll have to put up with large sections of Beaker fumbling along mi..mi..mi-ing. However it is not quite as bad as his appearances at the Senate inquiry/Estimates or the 'head buried in the sand' interview on 4 corners..see here- 4C Beaker interview}


So for a setting the scene here's a quote from the 7:30 Report transcript(my bold):
PHILIPPA MCDONALD: The crash and subsequent fire was so intense that Air Transport Safety investigators feared they'd never determine exactly what happened. But an intense two-year forensic investigation uncovered far more than ever anticipated, with vital information provided by the United States Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory.

MARTIN DOLAN: One of the key things they did for us was to feed into some modelling of human perception the flight data that we had for this flight which showed that the sort of increasing bank associated with this helicopter and this accident would probably until very late in the stage not have been detectable without visual reference or without reference to instruments.

PHILIPPA MCDONALD: Investigators believe the pilot experienced what's called spatial disorientation. In the dark of night, with no visible horizon, he couldn't recognise the chopper's spiralling descent in time to recover.

Fellow chopper pilot and friend, David Wilson, knows how spatial disorientation can unhinge the senses.

DAVID WILSON, CHANNEL NINE PILOT: I don't think there'd be a pilot out there today who couldn't say he has never suffered from spatial disorientation. It's a matter of firstly recognising it and then doing something about it because it fights all your senses. You think you're sitting bolt upright, whereas you're actually leaning at 45 degrees.

PHILIPPA MCDONALD: Gary Ticehurst was considered one of the nation's best helicopter pilots and was qualified to fly under the conditions that night. But the Australian Transport Safety Bureau says this tragedy shows aviation regulations need to be tightened.

MARTIN DOLAN: We're saying we're not sure that flight in dark-night conditions, that the standards of safety are necessarily at the level they should be and we're asking the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to take a close look at that.

PHILIPPA MCDONALD: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority says things will change. In future, all helicopters flying at night with passengers will have to be fitted with an autopilot or have a two-pilot crew.
This is where the neurons started pinging around, so I then referred to the report and in particular Appendix F – Accidents involving night VFR operations. In table F1 (halfway down the page) there was this entry:

17 Oct 2003
200304282
Bell 407 helicopter, VH-HTD, aerial work (emergency medical services) en route from Mackay to Hamilton Island, Qld. Loss of control en route. Dark night conditions. 3 POB, all fatally injured.


It was then that it all started to gel and drew my attention to a recent post from PAIN post #34 , that linked to some working notes and this is where it gets interesting , from the PAIN notes:
1) CFIW: East of Cape Hillsborough, QLD, Bell 407, VH-HTD; 17 October 2003.
Report - R20050002.
Issue date 14 March 2005.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24411/a...304282_001.pdf
Recommendation R20050002
As a result of the investigation, safety recommendations were issued to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority recommending: a review of the night VFR requirements, an assessment of the benefits of additional flight equipment for helicopters operating under night VFR and a review of the operator classification and/or minimum safety standards for helicopter EMS
operations.


ATSB Safety Recommendation.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority review it's operators classification and/or it's minimum safety standards required for helicopter Emergency Medical Services operations. This review should consider increasing; (1) the minimum pilot qualifications, experience and recency requirements, (2)
operational procedures and (3) minimum equipment for conduct of such operations at night.
Ok so if you then download the 2003 ATSB report (link above) and put that report alongside the AO-2011-102 report you will see some remarkable parallels..especially in the areas that deal with spatial disorientation and in the Safety Actions/Recommendations section (pg 71 onwards from 2003 report).

{Hmm..kind of makes you wonder why the ATSBeaker needed to rely on the United States Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory when they had already done the hard work back in 2003.}

On a final note here is a quote from the PAIN working notes from Coroner Henessy's findings/recommendations:
16. The Coroner supports CASR draft regulations point 61 and 133 becoming final.
17. That beacons, both visual and radio, be placed on prominent and appropriate high points along routes commonly utilised by aero-medical retrieval teams, including Cape Hillsborough.
18. The Coroner supports the ATSB recommendations 20030213,and promulgation of information to pilots; 20040052, assessment of safety benefits of requiring a standby altitude indicator with independent power source in single pilot night VFR; 20040053, assessment of safety benefits of requiring an autopilot or stabilisation augmentation system in single pilot VFR; and R20050002, review operator classification and minimum safety standards for helicopter EMS operations.

Starting to join the dots?? More to follow..Sarcs (K2)

Addendum:

CASA SRs for AO-2011-102: AO-2011-102-SI-02 , AO-2011-102-SI-03

CASA SRs for air200304282: R20040053,R20050002, R20010195, R20030213.

Note: With the courage of their convictions and experience, you will note that the bureau of old issued R20030213 within a month of the accident.. compare that to ATSBeaker...27 months was it??

Last edited by Sarcs; 16th Nov 2013 at 23:20. Reason: Addendum: SR Links
Sarcs is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2013, 18:25
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Post of the year award.

Can someone make sure the idiot reporters at the ABC get a copy of Sarcs # 53 where he does their job for them, properly and almost writes their story. What a sorry tale ABC investigative journalism makes, how sad that our national "razor sharp" press cannot research and develop a story that is very much in the nations interest. Why would they bother, it's probably more self indulgent and PC to publicly weep and wail over a lost comrade, rather than to try to understand why he's dead, why the ATSB and CASA are full of it and why entire industry is seriously pissed off. Wakey wakey Aunty....

I'll stick my neck out and say that the Sarcs post more clearly defines, in one page the need for reform than all the bloody awful polly chatter, CASA waffle and ATSB probability statements ever printed. Nicely played Sarcs, please accept my vote for the post of the year award. Bravo......Indeed, well done sirrah.
Kharon is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2013, 02:23
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Captain 49'er & Beaker's Pink Elephant insulation scheme cont/-

Aw shucks "K".. but..but..but I'm not finished yet!!

From the Hansard Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee 23/05/2012 Estimates (my bold):
Senator FAWCETT: I notice CASA is often another player in the coronial inquests and often you will highlight something, the coroner will accept it and basically tick off in his report on the basis that a new CASR or something is going to be implemented. Do you follow those up? I have looked through a few crash investigations, and I will just pick one: the Bell 407 that crashed in October '03. CASR part 133 was supposed to be reworked around night VFR requirements for EMS situations. I notice that still is not available now, nearly 10 years after the event. Does it cause you any concern that recommendations that were accepted by the coroner, and put out as a way of preventing a future accident, still have not actually eventuated? How do you track those? How do we, as a society, make sure we prevent the accidents occurring again?

Mr Dolan : We monitor various coronial reports and findings that are relevant to our business. We do not have any role in ensuring that coronial findings or recommendations are carried out by whichever the relevant party may be. I think that would be stepping beyond our brief.

Senator FAWCETT: Who should have that role then?

Mr Dolan : I would see that as a role for the coronial services of the various states. But to add to that, because we are aware of the sorts of findings—as you say, it is not that common that there is something that is significantly different or unexpected for us, but when there is—we will have regard to that obviously in our future investigation activities and recognise there may already be a finding out there that is relevant to one of our future investigations.

Senator FAWCETT: Would it be appropriate to have—a sunset clause is not quite the right phrase—a due date that if an action is recommended and accepted by a regulatory body, in this case CASA, the coroner should actually be putting a date on that and CASA must implement by a certain date or report back, whether it is to the minister or to the court or to the coroner, why that action has not actually occurred?

Mr Dolan : I think I will limit myself to comment that that is the way we try to do it. We have a requirement that in 90 days, if we have made a recommendation, there is a response to it. We will track a recommendation until we are satisfied it is complete or until we have concluded that there is no likelihood that the action is going to be taken.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Mrdak, as secretary of the relevant department, how would you propose to engage with the coroners to make sure that we, as a nation, close this loophole to make our air environment safer?

Mr Mrdak : I think Mr Dolan has indicated the relationship with coroners is on a much better footing than it has been ever before. I think the work of the ATSB has led that. I think it then becomes a matter of addressing the relationship between the safety regulators and security regulators, as necessary, with the coroners. It is probably one I would take on notice and give a bit of thought to, if you do not mind.

Senator FAWCETT: You do not accept that your department and you, as secretary, have a duty of care and an oversight to make sure that two agencies who work for you do actually complement their activities for the outcome that benefits the aviation community?

Mr Mrdak : We certainly do ensure that agencies are working together. That is certainly occurring. You have asked me the more detailed question about coroners and relationships with the agencies. I will have a bit of a think about that, if that is okay.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.
History will show that the 'Machiavellian One' completely obfuscated the good Senator's question until it was lost in all the 'white noise' of politics and parliamentary process.

That is of course until it was (in part) brought up again in the PelAir inquiry. The committee, with all available evidence presented, considered this enough of a 'significant safety issue' that they wrote no less than 5 recommendations to adequately address:
Recommendation 17
9.18 The committee recommends that the ATSB prepare and release publicly a list of all its identified safety issues and the actions which are being taken or have been taken to address them. The ATSB should indicate its progress in monitoring the actions every 6 months and report every 12 months to Parliament.

Recommendation 18
9.40 The committee recommends that where a safety action has not been completed before a report being issued that a recommendation should be made. If it has been completed the report should include details of the action, who was involved and how it was resolved.

Recommendation 19
9.42 The committee recommends that the ATSB review its process to track the implementation of recommendations or safety actions to ensure it is an effective closed loop system. This should be made public, and provided to the Senate Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Committee prior to each Budget Estimates.

Recommendation 20
9.44 The committee recommends that where the consideration and implementation of an ATSB recommendation may be protracted, the requirement for regular updates (for example 6 monthly) should be included in the TSI Act.

Recommendation 21
9.45 The committee recommends that the government consider setting a time limit for agencies to implement or reject recommendations, beyond which ministerial oversight is required where the agencies concerned must report to the minister why the recommendation has not been implemented or that, with ministerial approval, it has been formally rejected.
The crash of VH-NTV provides the perfect example of why the PelAir report should not and cannot be flippantly ignored..10 years of procrastination and no lessons learnt!

The DAS & Chief Commissioner have closed the loop alright, they've closed the loop so that we are insulated from the rest of the world. How many more clearly preventable deaths will there be while these type of individuals continue to bluff the community with the mystique of aviation safety?? TICK..TOCK!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2013, 08:11
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Addendum to post #44

Better late than never I guess??

Regulatory requirements for class B aircraft maintenance

Correspondence

Date received:11 November 2013

Response from:Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Response status:Monitor
Response text:With regard to Recommendation AO-2011-115-SR 050 you have recommended that CASA address the safety issue that the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 allow class B aircraft registration holders to maintain their aircraft using the CASA maintenance schedule in situations where a more appropriate manufacturer's maintenance schedule exists.

You remain concerned that this safety issue may not be adequately addressed and have issued the recommendation that CASA proceed with our program of regulatory reform to ensure that all aircraft involved in general aviation operations are maintained using the most appropriate maintenance schedule for the aircraft type.

I accept this recommendation and CASA will address this issue, work has commenced and again it will involve consultation with industry. As this is likely to be a protracted process; CASA is not in a position to specify a specific completion date at this time.

ATSB action in response:The ATSB recognises the acceptance of the recommendation by CASA. The ATSB will continue to monitor the ongoing work by CASA until the issue has been satisfactorily addressed.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2013, 10:49
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 303
Sarcs, your post addendum to #44 had me vomiting over the floor and hiding my head ashamedly from public view. That dual response is nothing short of embarrassing, pathetic, and an outward statement of 'we have done bugger all, intend to do bugger all, so you can all bugger off'.
If that is the best that the CAsA and ATSBeaker have to offer then we are overwhelmingly in deep sh#it.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2013, 20:22
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
With regard to Recommendation AO-2011-115-SR 050 you have recommended that CASA address the safety issue that the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 allow class B aircraft registration holders to maintain their aircraft using the CASA maintenance schedule in situations where a more appropriate manufacturer's maintenance schedule exists.
Nooooooooooooo.

Whoever made and supports that recommendation obviously had and have no clue what the CASA maintenance schedule and manufacturers’ maintenance schedules actually contain and require, in the context of the regulatory framework of which they are part.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2013, 20:37
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,473
Medal is simply a larger version of beaker. They both believe safety issue can be dealt with by managing them until they vanish under a pile of regulatory BS.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2013, 02:43
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Probably - he just likes to watch.

Estimates Hansard – 18/11/13. P.71 PDF - P. 67 Hansard.(My bold)

Senator FAWCETT: You recently released a report about the crash of the ABC helicopter, which I commend you for. I am a little disturbed when I look back at the report about the helicopter that crashed off the Queensland coast some years ago—basically it was a controlled flight into water, with the understanding that there had been disorientation. Very similar recommendations came out of that in terms of changing the regulations to look at either augmentation of stability systems or two crew, et cetera. What gives you confidence that we will see action in response to this latest report when clearly nothing occurred in response to your last report?
Here is where the pictures were brilliant – Now, I don't know whether the poor man had wind, or if the bloke alongside has just let rip. But I got a top screen shot of his face, (I regret NFP here). The print, now a glossy, framed 8" x 10" is hanged (yes) behind the bar of the BRB favourite water hole; priceless. But I digress:-

Mr Dolan: What gives us increased confidence is that Civil Aviation Safety Regulation part 133 is almost in place and involves for passenger carrying air transport operations a requirement for an autopilot in helicopters.


Mr Dolan: Not under the regulations as they stood at the time, but we are also advised by CASA that they are going to redefine the classification of operations, particularly in relation to aeromedical work. We agree. In 2004 we made a recommendation in relation to autopilots for a range of helicopter activities, not just passenger transport. We will continue to watch to ensure that the intent of that recommendation is met through the regulations CASA is putting into place.


Senator FAWCETT: Sure. As I, hopefully, indicated at the start, I fully support your indication; having flown unaided and aided, I can see that there is clearly a safety benefit in that. My concern is that good intentions did not fix it from 2004 and good intentions will not fix it now. I am interested in what concrete actions ATSB are going to take to try to bring either to CASA or to your secretary or the minister an awareness of where these gaps are such that we achieve a safe outcome.


Mr Dolan: Our starting point will be CASA's response to that particular investigation report on the ABC helicopter you are talking about. We certainly want to understand better the new CASA part 133 and what that means not just for passenger operations but more broadly. Depending on what happens with that, the commission reserves the right to make recommendations after receiving responses from various organisations, but we do not have any power to direct any organisation. We only have the power to recommend.


Senator FAWCETT: Chair, can I clarify: in the previous discussion Senator Xenophon was asking CASA for a copy of the advice that was provided to the previous minister?


CHAIR: For which there is no impediment.


Senator FAWCETT: So I relay the same request to ATSB: that we see a copy of the response to the Senate report into the air accident investigation that was provided to the minister.

Well done PPRuNe, well done Sarcs and Bravo Senator Fawcett.........

Oh - Has anyone woken Aunty up yet??.....

Last edited by Kharon; 20th Nov 2013 at 02:46. Reason: Bloody spacing and formatting - again. Probably my fault.
Kharon is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2013, 00:40
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
ATsBeaker wet letter response vs TSBC 'name & shame'!

ATSBeaker:
ATSB action in response:The ATSB recognises the acceptance of the recommendation by CASA. The ATSB will continue to monitor the ongoing work by CASA until the issue has been satisfactorily addressed.
The wet lettuce response from mi..mi..mi Beaker got me thinking how do our Canuck counterparts admin and follow up SRs and is it more effective and possibly more transparent???

To begin with let's compare the two versions of the respective Acts on the subject of SRs.

TSI Act:
25A Responses to reports of, or containing, safety recommendations

(1) This section applies if:

(a) the ATSB publishes a report under section 25 in relation to
an investigation; and
(b) the report is, or contains, a recommendation that a person,
unincorporated association, or an agency of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, take safety action.

(2) The person, association or agency to whom the recommendation is made must give a written response to the ATSB,within 90 days of
the report being published, that sets out:

(a) whether the person, association or agency accepts the
recommendation (in whole or in part); and
(b) if the person, association or agency accepts the
recommendation (in whole or in part)—details of any action
that the person, association or agency proposes to take to
give effect to the recommendation; and
(c) if the person, association or agency does not accept the
recommendation (in whole or in part)—the reasons why the
person, association or agency does not accept the
recommendation (in whole or in part).
Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation
and Safety Board Act Section 24:

(5) The Board shall
(
a) during its investigation of a transportation occurrence, notify forthwith in writing any minister or person who, in the opinion of the Board, has a direct interest in the findings of the Board of any of its findings and recommendations, whether interim or final, that, in the opinion of the Board, require urgent action; and
(
b) on completion of its investigation of a transportation occurrence, notify forthwith in writing any minister or person who, in the opinion of the Board, has a direct interest in the findings of the Board of its findings as to the causes and contributing factors of the transportation occurrence, any safety deficiencies it has identified and any recommendations


resulting from its findings.

Minister to reply
to Board
(6) A Minister who is notified of the findings and recommendations of the Board under paragraph (5)(a) or (b) shall, within ninety days after being so notified, (a) advise the Board in writing of any action taken or proposed to be taken in response to those findings and recommendations, or (b) provide written reasons to the Board if no action will be taken or if the action to be taken differs from the action that was recommended, and, in either case, the Minister shall make that reply available to the public.



&
Extension of
time
(8) Where the Board is satisfied that a Minister is unable to reply to the Board within the period referred to in subsection (6), the period

may be extended as the Board deems necessary.
Well on first assessment there appear to be a number of similarities but to my mind the big difference is that the Canucks cut out the middle man and address SRs direct to the Minister...hmm worth noting that?

Next do the Canucks just accept the responses as given i.e. the wet lettuce approach (above). Well trolling through the TSBC website I came across a news release, although dealing with rail SRs, would seem to indicate that the TSBC is not afraid to name and shame when they're "not happy Jan"! :
Transport Canada falls short in response to Board recommendations issued from VIA Rail Burlington accident investigation

Gatineau, Quebec, 15 November 2013 — Citing a lack of firm action, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) is concerned there is no clear strategy in place to address the rail safety issues identified by the Board.

Today, the TSB released its assessment of Transport Canada's response to the three recommendations it made following its investigation into the February 2012 VIA Rail Burlington accident (investigation report R12T0038). In that accident, three locomotive engineers died and dozens of passengers were injured when VIA No. 92 derailed at a crossover en route from Niagara Falls to Toronto.

“We think the TSB has made a compelling case for these recommendations. They are definitely aimed at improving safety,” said Wendy Tadros, Chair of the TSB. “Two of these recommendations are on our Watchlist (Following signal indications and On-board voice and video recorders) and their implementation will bring down the risk of another accident like Burlington.”

The first recommendation called upon Transport Canada to require physical fail-safe train controls, beginning with Canada's high-speed rail corridors (R13-01). Transport Canada is taking some action to study the issue, but the TSB cautions that this study needs to result in a clear and definitive action plan to ensure trains will automatically slow down and stop when they are supposed to.

While Transport Canada accepted the second recommendation on in-cab video cameras in locomotives (R13-02), it stopped short of requiring them, and instead as with voice recordings, is encouraging voluntary installation.

The TSB believes a voluntary approach does not go far enough and will not ensure that the vast majority of locomotives in Canada will be equipped with essential recorders.

On the other hand, the TSB is optimistic with the proposed action on its third recommendation. Transport Canada plans to start the regulatory process by March 2014, requiring that crashworthiness standards for new locomotives also apply to rebuilt passenger and freight locomotives (R13-03).

“While it is positive that Transport Canada accepts the recommendations,” added Tadros, “Canadians deserve a clear strategy and timely action plan to implement these recommendations.”

The TSB will continue to monitor progress on these recommendations and will reassess them on a regular basis.
So like chalk and cheese I reckon ...hmm Minister perhaps a slight adjustment to the TSI Act could be warranted here??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2013, 20:28
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Babes in the woods.

But sir, there is no culture of fear in Canada, it's an alien concept: just try to bully or bullshit a Canadian and see where you wind up. Probably on your arse in a pile of bear pooh. They are used to accountability, sane legislation and for the most part, men of good will running the show. The Canucks will need a refresher course on snake pit survival, seeing through smoke, avoiding mirror induced blindness and their own specialist anti voodoo hoodoo protection team.

Yup, I'd love to see our CASA and ATSB try to run Canadian aviation: I truly would. I reckon I'd still be laughing when booze and old age carried me off. It is truly a happy thought....
Kharon is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 00:12
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
mi..mi..Beaker(coached by McSkull & GWM) & the art of good spin bowling!

It would appear that mi..mi..mi Beaker (ably coached by McSkull and the GWM) has been working on his googly, not only has he mesmerised Aunty but it seems his spin (ozfuscation style) has bamboozled the poms as well...(my bold):
Australia tightens rules for helicopter night flying

Australia is tightening up rules for flying helicopters at night following the release of the final report into the August 2011 crash of a Eurocopter AS355F2 Twin Squirrel helicopter at Lake Eyre in South Australia.
Helicopter air transport operations with passengers at night will be required to have an autopilot fitted or operate with a two-pilot crew.

The helicopter, which was carrying a film crew for Australian broadcaster ABC, crashed, killing the film crew, comprising a reporter and cameraman, and well-known and respected helicopter pilot Gary Ticehurst.

The helicopter was conducting a 30min flight after last light and although there was no low cloud or rain, it was a dark night, according to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

After take-off, the helicopter levelled at 1,500ft (460m) above mean sea level, shortly after which it entered a gentle right turn and began descending. The turn tightened and the descent rate increased, resulting in it hitting the ground at high speed with a bank angle of about 90 degrees. The crew were fatally injured and the helicopter destroyed.

The ATSB determined that before departure, the pilot had selected an incorrect destination on the global positioning system. After initiating the right turn, the pilot probably became spatially disorientated. Contributing factors were the dark night conditions, high pilot workload associated with establishing the helicopter in cruise flight and probably trying to correct the incorrect GPS input, the pilot’s limited night flying and instrument flying experience and the fact the helicopter was not equipped with an autopilot.

The ATSB identified safety issues with existing regulatory requirements, whereby flights for some types of operations are permitted under visual flight rules in dark night conditions that are effectively the same as instrument meteorological conditions, but without the same level of safety assurance as provided by requirements under instrument flight rules. {Note: Forgot to add that the bureau identified the same issues a decade ago}

New regulations being introduced next year will require all air transport flights in helicopters with passengers operating at night to be equipped with an autopilot or a two-pilot crew. While this extends the range of operations required to have such risk controls, the ATSB notes it does not address the situation for other helicopter operations, namely those not carrying passengers.

Now back to the Adelaide Oval where the Poms are all out for 133 and mi..mi..mi..Beaker finished up with figures of 2 for 10!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2013, 00:14
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 67
Posts: 303
Mi mi

New regulations being introduced next year will require all air transport flights in helicopters with passengers operating at night to be equipped with an autopilot or a two-pilot crew. While this extends the range of operations required to have such risk controls, the ATSB notes it does not address the situation for other helicopter operations, namely those not carrying passengers.
The 'fix' is dependant then upon the new regs next year? And what happens when the new 'regs' (as robustly promulgated by our Capital 'R' Regulator) don't come to fruition for another decade?? Which is the norm by the way. The risks remain and life as they say goes on. Good old Beaker and his wet lettuce move on to the next investigation in which CASA will obviously once again escape unharmed if found to be part of the root cause, or at least be found to have inefficient regulations?

As creamy would say 'talk talk talk'. Mi mi mi Beaker and his tautological outcomes, all folly. As for Fort Fumble they don't like those pesky whirlybirds anyway, the more that crash the less there are to regulate!!

Last edited by Paragraph377; 29th Nov 2013 at 22:51.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2013, 22:33
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
377 -"Good old Beaker and his wet lettuce move on to the next investigation in which CASA will obviously once again escape unharmed if found to be part of the root cause, or at least be found to have inefficient regulations?"
In vainglorious hope that the Pel Air fiasco has been lost in the mists of time. Tick tock and it won't be too long before the piper must be paid. I wonder if this crew is just too dumb to get out of the rain, or like King Canute reckon they can simply stem the tide. I quite enjoy a good mind boggle; but one step beyond boggle, what then??....
Kharon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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