Quality of ATSB reports getting worse?

[Eddie Dean]

With only 3rd form (grade 10 I believe in the new money) I was able to read and understand the salient points of the ATSB report.
As far as I remember "they" is the correct pronoun even for singular person.
Although better educated than me here, seem to be able to conjugate verbs better than I.

[Stikybeke]

Hey Eddie,

You got me thinking so I just checked with a young person, I don't know about other states but in NSW 3rd form is Grade 9....

I think I'm starting to get a headache with all this maths stuff!!!!

Stiky

[advo-cate]

Question here from all the posts is the really important ones which have nagging doubts about the conclusion.

In this one, I agree - done to death and low grade. BUT - Pilots still run out of fuel. #casa is about to fix that with the new byline

"EMPTY SKIES ARE SAFE SKIES"

The really important reports that meet the doubtful criteria:

Lockhart River - New information still coming to light
PelAir - 7 1/2 years and report mark #2 just out to the DIP's - Directly Interested Parties
Mildura 737's - Took over 2 years, with poor direction as to what really happened

AND on

[Eddie Dean]

Advo-cate, you must be one of those better educated than me as I completely(in my ignorance) understood both Lockhart River and Norfolk Island accident report.
Both involved JetPilot decal holders making up their own flight rules and reaping the consequences thereof.

Don't know anything about 737's so will defer to your knowledge.

[Lead Balloon]

So with the Norfolk Island report, would those 'made up rules' include the ones that split the CASA FOI population about 50/50? Is there a rule that says a pilot must know when he's been misled by inaccurate and incomplete weather information?

[Eddie Dean]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

So with the Norfolk Island report, would those 'made up rules' include the ones that split the CASA FOI population about 50/50? Is there a rule that says a pilot must know when he's been misled by inaccurate and incomplete weather information?

Wrong topic for this thread, suggest you go to the correct one for that discussion.

[FGD135]

... I have noticed a continuing trend for people to attack any report emanating from the ATSB instead of discussing the incident reported on.

The message from the report is one thing, the quality of the report quite another. This thread is about the quality of the reports.

Myself, and many others are growing concerned about the quality of the written reports.

Macarthur Job would be turning in his grave. Not just at the writing, but the investigations, too. Some recent reports look like they have been written by school children, doing work experience at the ATSB. Are the investigations going the same way?

advo-cate made reference to a few recent investigations of dubious quality. There is one that I would add to his list. This was the investigation (and report) that aroused my interest in the deterioration at the ATSB. Here is the PPrune discussion on the report and investigation:

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...sb-report.html

[thorn bird]

I would agree with you Lead. Always struck me as strange that if the pilot had broken so many rules, as alleged by so many people, why was he not charged with the offences and brought before the courts? He most certainly not the first person to be caught out by the vagrancies of Norfolk Island weather, and most probably won't be the last.

[MagnumPI]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

I'm no more in favour of dumbing down writing skills than you are but I have noticed a continuing trend for people to attack any report emanating from the ATSB instead of discussing the incident reported on. Are you saying that you are confused about what happened? Do you not understand the significance of being aware of your fuel state at all times? That's the message I took from the report. If you are getting bogged down in where the full stop should be or how many times the word pilot appears then you might as well stop reading any report the ATSB publishes.

There is nothing new under the sun so if you want to learn from other people's misfortune then just re-read the ASD. Running out of fuel is nothing new.

The salient point of these reports might be obvious enough but I do believe that if there are consistent grammatical errors that this indicates a lack of thoroughness in the overall investigation. Just because these safety incidents are often repetitive in nature doesn't mean that a poorly written report is adequate.

If you submitted a report like this to an academic institution it wouldn't cut the mustard. We are expected to believe that scientific investigation has taken place, so why shouldn't there be a factually accurate and grammatically correct report?

The A330 report linked above in the other thread is most interesting as it clearly violates the impartiality standards which the ATSB are supposed to uphold. Irrespective of whether or not you think the flight crew did a good job in the circumstances (which I actually do as well), it is not the ATSB's role to use subjective statements which make it more like a narrative than a report.

Centaurus - if you are reading this, please continue posting safety investigations and reports from decades ago. They are often far more insightful than what we are seeing from the ATSB in 2017!

[Old Akro]

I just had a look at the ATSB site to see what was released in the common end of the month dump.

There are currently 97 reports pending.

Over the last 6 months there has been an average of 8 new incidents per month.

Over the last 6 months the number of released reports has averaged slightly under this (something like 7.3).

Not a picture of a department on top of things.

Which puts the pedantry of this report in the spotlight. Why waste time producing such trite when there is such a backlog of real work.

[Centaurus]

Centaurus - if you are reading this, please continue posting safety investigations and reports from decades ago. They are often far more insightful than what we are seeing from the ATSB in 2017!

Will do my best.

[Eddie Dean]

It appears that the reports are written in the new style "simple" English.
Similar to some new Maintenance Manuals.
The reason should be obvious.

[Old Akro]

I was interested to read this newly minted tome from the ATSB regarding the Chieftan that bounced a main gear on a truck on approach to Barwon Heads.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577349...-040_final.pdf

I struggle to find it cohesive, let alone reaching any sort of conclusion of any value.

Not to mention the factual error that the maximum vehicle height in Victoria is 4.3m not 4.6m. Which makes a lot of the reports discussion about landing approach angles valueless. The recommended road clearance in Victoria is 4.6m to deal with vehicles up to 4.3m. If the author doesn't have the English comprehension to figure this out from published material, I weep for the future.

While there is a discussion about land zoning that seems completely spurious, any discussion about the lack of warning road signs about the airport was completely absent. I'm not sure how much difference it would have made, but the interview with the driver suggests that he was oblivious to the airport so, maybe a couple of the standard yellow warning diamonds may have done something.

Why are we paying for this?

[kaz3g]

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

......

If you submitted a report like this to an academic institution it wouldn't cut the mustard. We are expected to believe that scientific investigation has taken place, so why shouldn't there be a factually accurate and grammatically correct report?

......!

No offence, but I wish that were true. At one stage in my life I had quite a bit to do with essays written by LLB students and later, with papers written by legal practitioners and social workers. I am no longer shocked by poor construction of sentences, lack of understanding of basic grammar, and inability to articulate thoughts clearly; but I am concerned that this is at least in part a consequence of the disjointed communication style now practised in social media.

[Flying Binghi]

Originally Posted by MagnumPI

The salient point of these reports might be obvious enough but I do believe that if there are consistent grammatical errors that this indicates a lack of thoroughness in the overall investigation. Just because these safety incidents are often repetitive in nature doesn't mean that a poorly written report is adequate.

If you submitted a report like this to an academic institution it wouldn't cut the mustard. We are expected to believe that scientific investigation has taken place, so why shouldn't there be a factually accurate and grammatically correct report?...

Yep.

The report is the 'coal face' of all the work that happened prior. The interface between the investigators findings and we the reader. If the report reader caint understand or make use of the investigators findings then what is the point of the investigation ?

While a poorly written report might offer annoyance to the more learned around here they soon enuf see and understand the error and read on. To those like me with poor written and reading skills a poorly written report can be a confusing read that needs multiple readings to get a sense of the finer details. Whilst I'm a bit dogged and will persevere I would suspect younger pilots with the instant easy digest info mindset will simply not bother labouring though a poorly written report.






.

[FGD135]

Here we go again. From a report issued today regarding a tailstrike to an A320 departing YMML:

"Good communication from the cabin crew alerted the flight crew that a tail strike may have occurred. The climb was stopped and a timely decision to return to Melbourne was taken which minimised the potential risk from damage caused by a tail strike."

"Good" communication? A "timely" decision?

These are judgements, ATSB. You are not there to make judgements. You are there to investigate and report. You just don't get it, do you?

This was my problem with their report on the Qantas A330. That report was full of glowing judgements about crew performance.

[Lead Balloon]

It's a "factual" report, FGD. It's a fact that ATSB made those judgements.

[First_Principal]

Originally Posted by Old Akro

I was interested to read this newly minted tome from the ATSB regarding the Chieftan that bounced a main gear on a truck on approach to Barwon Heads.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577349...-040_final.pdf

I struggle to find it cohesive, let alone reaching any sort of conclusion of any value.

Apropos of my earlier post I had assumed that reports, particularly from junior investigators, would be reviewed by senior personnel.

Where I have been in this (reviewing) role I have tended to allow some leeway to authors in their telling of the story. Another person's style is not necessarily mine, and if it gets the message across, with some gentle guidance, then why should I try and impose my use of the Oxford comma, for instance?

However this report suggests to me that maybe there is, at best, a flawed review process; certain aspects of it don't reflect well on the organisation, to my mind.

To this end I wonder if anyone knows what the investigation/reporting process is within the ATSB? Is there a published set of criteria?

FP.

[Lookleft]

Not to mention the factual error that the maximum vehicle height in Victoria is 4.3m not 4.6m. Which makes a lot of the reports discussion about landing approach angles valueless. The recommended road clearance in Victoria is 4.6m to deal with vehicles up to 4.3m. If the author doesn't have the English comprehension to figure this out from published material, I weep for the future.

Statements like this is why the ATSB really doesn't care what you think OA. From published material:

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/busi...rance-on-roads

4.6 m is correct for certain types of vehicles.

What I find amusing is that on a pilot's forum no one is talking about the pilots attempts to fix the increased rate of descent. But then again most of the harrumphing about grammar and they and their is from journalists and other pontificating professions.

[Old Akro]

Look left

If you knew me, you wouldn't question.

The Vicroads document recommends a minimum road clearance of 4.6m.

Vicroads don't get to regulate vehicle dimensions, thats the role of the RVCS section of DIRD that publishes the Australian Design Rules which are a legislative instrument. ADR 43/04 specifies a maximum height of 4.3m.

Overdimension is possible, but a completely different kettle of fish.