|
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). |
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.
|
I'd be interested to hear your theories about who could take action against whom, for what, now. The ATSB will then provide the draft report to directly involved parties for their comment and feedback. |
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. |
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! |
Report is getting closer ...
Updated: 20 February 2017 Reopened investigation into 2009 aircraft ditching near Norfolk Island During the normal internal investigation review process, the investigation team identified the need to obtain additional information from some organisations in order to clarify various matters. In addition, significant time was allocated to refining analyses of flight recorder data and the aircraft’s fuel status during the accident flight. These activities have delayed the finalisation of the draft report. It is now expected that the draft report will be provided to the Commission for their consideration and approval in March 2017. The ATSB’s next update will advise when the draft is released to directly involved parties. |
8 years......outstanding effort :D
Must be a lot of arse covering, ducking and weaving going on. Still. |
During the normal internal investigation review process, the investigation team identified the need to obtain additional information from some organisations in order to clarify various matters. That would be a novel approach for a post-Reason ATSB. |
And the question would be; why are they only figuring out that they need more information, now?
|
One can only hope none of the Norfolk team are on the Essendon investigation
|
When will they release the corrected edition of VH-EDC????
|
Has anyone realised that gentleman in charge of the ATSB, the one responsible for ensuring that the report is an accurate unbiased report ensuring that all aspects are covered, including CASA's oversight, is the same person that was responsible for that oversight and ran the CASA PELAIR investigation when he was in CASA? Basically he is responsible for investigating his own actions and investigation whilst he was in CASA. I'm sure a conflict of interest declaration was made
|
Does anyone know where the flight crew (Dom & Zoey) from VH-NGA ended up?
|
Does anyone else ponder the likelihood of another ATSB NGA-style snow job on the SF340 prop departure?
Rex Group still a major donor to the LNP. |
Very different circumstances, I would have thought.
No hull loss, no loss of life and no physical injuries (although there is scope for PTSD-type claims). The strong suggestion is that the failure was caused by a random fatigue-related or manufacture defect-related failure unconnected with departures from normal operating procedures. Therefore, it seems to me that there is little motivation for a 'shaft the pilot' whitewash and little prospect of it being successful even if it were attempted. Maybe a rearguard skirmish between the manufacturer and the maintenance organisation, but unless there are specific inspection and NDI procedures for the component that were overlooked by the maintenance organisation, I doubt whether this could successfully be pinned on the maintenance organisation. |
Lead Balloon
I am thinking about the hastily-withdrawn allegations that the engine was shut down not long after departure and the aeroplane flew past several acceptable diversion ports before the fan fell off. It struck me as pretty strange that Ben Sandilands would have published something based ona flaky source. It also occurred to me that REX group will be concerned to minimise the fallout or any implication of undue operational pressure on the crew, especially after those allegations were a significant factor in the discussion surrounding the Norfolk incident. I wonder if significant pressure was applied to Sandilands to make him withdraw? I wonder. |
It doesn't surprise me at all that Ben Sandilands published something that was inaccurate. He is trying to sell his product in a crowded market and is trying to get one up on his competitors. Not that GT is much of a competitor but he gets more coverage than BS. I don't think he was forced to withdraw but what little credibility he had required that he did, when what he stated was blatantly wrong.
|
may expectation would be that the report will be released on the Sunday of Queens Birthday weekend, or failing that, Boxing Day 2017.
|
Updated: 19 May 2017 Presently the draft investigation report is with the ATSB Commission for consideration and approval for release to directly involved parties. It is expected that the draft report will be provided to directly involved parties in early June 2017. The involvement of directly involved parties is an important measure for the ATSB to ensure factual accuracy and the validity and transparency of its investigation processes. Given the size and complexity of this report, the time for directly involved parties to review the report and then the ATSB to give due consideration to any submissions may take longer than the normal 28 day timeframe. After the draft report review process is complete, the ATSB will be able to project a more specific date for the public release of the final report. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2009-072/ |
Boxing Day 2017 it is then.....
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:04. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.