ATSB clearly holds back Mt Hotham incident report
Thread Starter
ATSB clearly holds back Mt Hotham incident report
I have started a new thread on this because after reading an article in The Australian this morning, and also the editorial, it appears that it is going to be at least two and a half years from the incident to when the report actually sees the light of day.
A summary of the incident can be seen on the ATSB website here: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2015-108/
How could a report about such a simple incident take so long?
Could it be that the original report recommends that Airservices use the radar properly at Mt Hotham (let’s say bring in a bit of Class E airspace) and no one can bring themselves to actually put this in writing, as it may confirm what others have been saying for years?
This is a rumour network. Does anyone have a factually based rumour on why the delay has been so great?
It is also interesting that the report on Richard Green’s fatal helicopter crash, now two years ago, has still not seen the light of day. It keeps getting put off and put off.
What is going on here? It would be fascinating to know.
A summary of the incident can be seen on the ATSB website here: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2015-108/
How could a report about such a simple incident take so long?
Could it be that the original report recommends that Airservices use the radar properly at Mt Hotham (let’s say bring in a bit of Class E airspace) and no one can bring themselves to actually put this in writing, as it may confirm what others have been saying for years?
This is a rumour network. Does anyone have a factually based rumour on why the delay has been so great?
It is also interesting that the report on Richard Green’s fatal helicopter crash, now two years ago, has still not seen the light of day. It keeps getting put off and put off.
What is going on here? It would be fascinating to know.
The corporate competence and integrity of the ATSB has been so weakened that it just stumbles from crisis to crisis and makes sh*t up as best it can along the way.
Naturally ATSB will say FWGJAU, but that’s the dead giveaway.
Naturally ATSB will say FWGJAU, but that’s the dead giveaway.
Completion of the draft investigation report has been delayed by competing priorities and workload of the investigator in charge. It is now anticipated for release to directly involved parties (DIP) for comment in October 2016...[snip] January 2017... [snip] March 2017...
Good thing they're not dealing with peoples lives or safety, and that there hasn't been an accident subsequent to this event in which CASA's oversight of flight standards might be called into question.
...yes, good thing, that.
Based on the recent number of fatal accidents that have occurred in the past 3 weeks, it would be fair to assume that the ATSB have a bit of work on. All we need now is a high profile accident - not!
Maybe if they jacked up their salaries and started hiring, they would get a few good investigators after some good training. That will never happen though........
Maybe if they jacked up their salaries and started hiring, they would get a few good investigators after some good training. That will never happen though........
Duck Pilot, If you look at the throughput of reports over the last 2 months, its slowed to a dribble. Thats not consistent with high workload.
And they seem to be able to fit collaboration with other bodies and especially overseas authorities into their schedule.
More likely, they are completely absorbed to the point of apoplexy by high profile political cases like the Pelair one. You'd think that if the ATSB mess that up yet again, then they're history.
The Mt Hotham incident that Dick highlights is the one involving Max Quartemain & VH-OWN. My guess is that this has been placed on hold so they can make it align with the Essendon Airport accident investigation. Which you would have to say represents very questionable ethics.
The Mt Hotham airport report was already past due when the Essendon airport accident occurred. My personal unsubstantiated, biased reasoning is that any ATSB report that criticises AsA is very slow coming, and (as Dick pints out) there are some pretty big questions for AsA to answer in this incident. One of which is that AsA claimed to not have radar coverage of the aircraft and yet FlightAware did on its public web page.
I can imagine that the delay in the Mt Hotham report coupled with the Essendon accident puts the ATSB in a difficult position. If they criticise the pilot, then I can imagine there is a gaggle of lawyers warming up in the wings in the USA who will be itching to add the ATSB to the list of litigants.
And they seem to be able to fit collaboration with other bodies and especially overseas authorities into their schedule.
More likely, they are completely absorbed to the point of apoplexy by high profile political cases like the Pelair one. You'd think that if the ATSB mess that up yet again, then they're history.
The Mt Hotham incident that Dick highlights is the one involving Max Quartemain & VH-OWN. My guess is that this has been placed on hold so they can make it align with the Essendon Airport accident investigation. Which you would have to say represents very questionable ethics.
The Mt Hotham airport report was already past due when the Essendon airport accident occurred. My personal unsubstantiated, biased reasoning is that any ATSB report that criticises AsA is very slow coming, and (as Dick pints out) there are some pretty big questions for AsA to answer in this incident. One of which is that AsA claimed to not have radar coverage of the aircraft and yet FlightAware did on its public web page.
I can imagine that the delay in the Mt Hotham report coupled with the Essendon accident puts the ATSB in a difficult position. If they criticise the pilot, then I can imagine there is a gaggle of lawyers warming up in the wings in the USA who will be itching to add the ATSB to the list of litigants.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation began in an era of derring do and the terrible beginnings of modern warfare.
Those magnificent men in their flying machines were drawn to trip the light fantastic with their lives in frail wood, wire and canvas contraptions because risk gave you an adrenalin rush, status and admiration by your peers. Back then the nanny state was less inclined to intervene to save us from ourselves. Today those pioneering hero's of aviation we so admire would more than likely be in jail.
Forever so the younger generation will always seek whatever form of risk taking is the fad of the day.
As it matured aviation became useful, efficient and vital as it grew into what it is today.
The safest mode of transport on the planet.
This did not happen by accident. It was driven by a developing professionalism within the industry and a recognition that safety was of paramount importance to the industries wellbeing.
Driving that safety ethos was the determination to investigate every accident. To forensically examine every facet of human frailty, design, error or omission that lead to that accident until a cause was found. Once the cause was known, valuable lessons could be disseminated amongst the industry and steps taken to minimise the chances of it happening again.
I agree with Dick, somewhere along the way this ethos to discover what really happened in a timely manner seems to have been left behind by our ATSB. Their determinations are increasingly subjective, heavily influenced to predetermined outcomes dictated by others. Instead of objective analysis of facts they increasingly rely on subjective innuendo and unsubstantiated rumours. All that achieves is a deep suspicion that the ATSB has been high jacked, is no longer an independent investigator and more inclined to follow political imperatives than seek the truth.
If lessons are to be learnt from accident investigation, conclusions must be available in a timely manner. Two and a half years is too long to wait for a report on an incident, the lessons from which could have prevented a fatal accident.
Eight years and counting for the Norfolk report is positively obscene.
Those magnificent men in their flying machines were drawn to trip the light fantastic with their lives in frail wood, wire and canvas contraptions because risk gave you an adrenalin rush, status and admiration by your peers. Back then the nanny state was less inclined to intervene to save us from ourselves. Today those pioneering hero's of aviation we so admire would more than likely be in jail.
Forever so the younger generation will always seek whatever form of risk taking is the fad of the day.
As it matured aviation became useful, efficient and vital as it grew into what it is today.
The safest mode of transport on the planet.
This did not happen by accident. It was driven by a developing professionalism within the industry and a recognition that safety was of paramount importance to the industries wellbeing.
Driving that safety ethos was the determination to investigate every accident. To forensically examine every facet of human frailty, design, error or omission that lead to that accident until a cause was found. Once the cause was known, valuable lessons could be disseminated amongst the industry and steps taken to minimise the chances of it happening again.
I agree with Dick, somewhere along the way this ethos to discover what really happened in a timely manner seems to have been left behind by our ATSB. Their determinations are increasingly subjective, heavily influenced to predetermined outcomes dictated by others. Instead of objective analysis of facts they increasingly rely on subjective innuendo and unsubstantiated rumours. All that achieves is a deep suspicion that the ATSB has been high jacked, is no longer an independent investigator and more inclined to follow political imperatives than seek the truth.
If lessons are to be learnt from accident investigation, conclusions must be available in a timely manner. Two and a half years is too long to wait for a report on an incident, the lessons from which could have prevented a fatal accident.
Eight years and counting for the Norfolk report is positively obscene.
Hear! Hear!
Correspondence within CASA shows that the content of ATSB’s yet-to-be-released second go at a report into the NGA ditching is going to be used by CASA to justify the further torture of Dominic James. In those circumstances, what pilot in his or her right mind would cooperate with or volunteer any information to ATSB?
The ATSB, like CASA, has become mere political tools. That’s bad enough, but when the outcome detracts from safety it becomes Orwellian.
Correspondence within CASA shows that the content of ATSB’s yet-to-be-released second go at a report into the NGA ditching is going to be used by CASA to justify the further torture of Dominic James. In those circumstances, what pilot in his or her right mind would cooperate with or volunteer any information to ATSB?
The ATSB, like CASA, has become mere political tools. That’s bad enough, but when the outcome detracts from safety it becomes Orwellian.
So are you saying LB that you are privy to correspondence within CASA or are you basing this on factually based rumour? You are a lawyer and should know that not cooperating or withholding information from the ATSB during an investigation is not an option.
Is this also factual rumour or is there hard evidence of this?
Instead of objective analysis of facts they increasingly rely on subjective innuendo and unsubstantiated rumours.
Correspondence within CASA shows that the content of ATSB’s yet-to-be-released second go at a report into the NGA ditching is going to be used by CASA to justify the further torture of Dominic James.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The email tabled at the recent Senate Hearing alludes to the as yet released report. In so much as the correspondent feels that the report may incriminate Dom further.
The CASA jobsworth’s email dated Friday 6 October 2017 said, with my bolding:
We need to be careful in what is discussed with Dominic as the draft final report into the Westwind accident is protected under S32 of the TSA.
For [name redacted, but the numpties left Dominic’s name in the first sentence] to be asking “how his judgement in flight from on November 18 2009 is still under question” shows he still doesn’t understand the gravity of the situation and his part in it.
The draft final report makes it clearer that [I wonder who’s name was redacted] lacked good decision making skills at that time and since then CASA has been given no evidence that that has changed.
I do not want to keep [guess who] from returning to a command role but believe the only way we could be satisfied is to continue with the assessment as planned in the F20 simulator.
[I wonder what name’s been redacted here] does not accept this from me so perhaps a response from a more senior manager may be appropriate.
For [name redacted, but the numpties left Dominic’s name in the first sentence] to be asking “how his judgement in flight from on November 18 2009 is still under question” shows he still doesn’t understand the gravity of the situation and his part in it.
The draft final report makes it clearer that [I wonder who’s name was redacted] lacked good decision making skills at that time and since then CASA has been given no evidence that that has changed.
I do not want to keep [guess who] from returning to a command role but believe the only way we could be satisfied is to continue with the assessment as planned in the F20 simulator.
[I wonder what name’s been redacted here] does not accept this from me so perhaps a response from a more senior manager may be appropriate.
UNCLASSIFIED
Good Morning Dominic,
This email is in regard to how and when CASA will proceed in the matter of your satisfying the conditions attached to your ATPL so that you are able to exercise the privileges of your ATPL.
There have been discussions on whether or not CASA should exercise some discretion in the application of the ATPL conditions and, if so, what would a suitable assessment look like. During The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senate Estimates of 27 October 2017 CASA’s CEO/DAS stated in response to a question from a Senator “…The ATSB report is due to be handed down in three weeks. I’m considering the approach from Mr James, but I will not make a decision until after the ATSB report is finalised. I just want to make that clear”
In light of that response, as recorded in the Hansard transcript of that committee (refer page 29 of 70), I will not be proceeding in determining how any assessment will be made or when that could occur until after the ATSB report is issued.
Regards
Fred van der Heide
Region Manager Sydney
Safety Assurance Branch
CASA\Aviation Group
p: +61 2 8651 3132 m: +61 408 591 214
260 Elizabeth St., Sydney NSW 2010
GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601
Good Morning Dominic,
This email is in regard to how and when CASA will proceed in the matter of your satisfying the conditions attached to your ATPL so that you are able to exercise the privileges of your ATPL.
There have been discussions on whether or not CASA should exercise some discretion in the application of the ATPL conditions and, if so, what would a suitable assessment look like. During The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senate Estimates of 27 October 2017 CASA’s CEO/DAS stated in response to a question from a Senator “…The ATSB report is due to be handed down in three weeks. I’m considering the approach from Mr James, but I will not make a decision until after the ATSB report is finalised. I just want to make that clear”
In light of that response, as recorded in the Hansard transcript of that committee (refer page 29 of 70), I will not be proceeding in determining how any assessment will be made or when that could occur until after the ATSB report is issued.
Regards
Fred van der Heide
Region Manager Sydney
Safety Assurance Branch
CASA\Aviation Group
p: +61 2 8651 3132 m: +61 408 591 214
260 Elizabeth St., Sydney NSW 2010
GPO Box 2005, Canberra ACT 2601
And the person in the right hand seat of NGA refused to say anything to [ATSB edit - my assertion here may be inaccurate. I’m checking further. Futher edit: The person in the right hand seat refused to talk to CASA or the Senate Committee]. Section 32 of the TSI Act does not require “cooperation”, LL.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 8th Nov 2017 at 05:10.
So the answer is yes LB,you are privy to correspondence within CASA. So how do you know that the F/O refused to answer any questions from the ATSB? Once again factual rumour or do you also have internal correspondence for that?
Read my edited post. I was wrong in asserting that the person in the right hand seat refused to say anything to ATSB.
However, my position continues to be that I would refuse to cooperate with the ATSB, given what has happened. The ATSB could exercise its powers under section 32 of the TSI, and I would comply strictly with a notice under that section. But I’m not cooperating and they’ll get the minimum necessary for compliance.
That it should come to this is a sad commentary on the perversion of ATSB’s role.
However, my position continues to be that I would refuse to cooperate with the ATSB, given what has happened. The ATSB could exercise its powers under section 32 of the TSI, and I would comply strictly with a notice under that section. But I’m not cooperating and they’ll get the minimum necessary for compliance.
That it should come to this is a sad commentary on the perversion of ATSB’s role.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Is this also factual rumour or is there hard evidence of this?"
I would suggest you read the Hansard from the senate inquiry into the First ATSB report, also many of the submissions to that report that completely debunked much of the ATSB's assumptions.
But this thread is not so much about the Norfolk incident as the unconscionable amount of time the ATSB takes to complete a report. That I believe is in itself an impediment to safety as illustrated by Mr. Smith. A timely report into an incident could have prevented an accident in which people lost their lives.
I would suggest you read the Hansard from the senate inquiry into the First ATSB report, also many of the submissions to that report that completely debunked much of the ATSB's assumptions.
But this thread is not so much about the Norfolk incident as the unconscionable amount of time the ATSB takes to complete a report. That I believe is in itself an impediment to safety as illustrated by Mr. Smith. A timely report into an incident could have prevented an accident in which people lost their lives.
Read my edited post. I was wrong in asserting that the person in the right hand seat refused to say anything to ATSB.
You seem to be a bit distracted at the moment, LL.
But this thread is not so much about the Norfolk incident as the unconscionable amount of time the ATSB takes to complete a report
Otherwise, there deserves to be an explanation why its taken 27 months and counting.
so the answer, for all us non legal types, is that CASA, ATSB and Airservices are utterly and completely corrupt. They will skew any investigation of any aviation event to suit their own agenda.
given this fact, why would anyone cooperate with any of them more than the minimum legal requirement?
the FO of N G A obviously had first class legal advice.
given this fact, why would anyone cooperate with any of them more than the minimum legal requirement?
the FO of N G A obviously had first class legal advice.
Only so many hours in the day...
.
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methinks the usual sh#ts have floated to the top and organisational paralyses has well and truly set in. Sadly, it's not rocket science for the qualified.
Service unto thyself.
Service unto thyself.