|
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. |
Originally Posted by UnderneathTheRadar
(Post 9780355)
Why start now?
CC |
3 claps for Karen. Finally awarded payment for the accident.
|
Getting closer - two months or so to go...
Updated: 26 June 2017 The ATSB has released its confidential draft investigation report (AO-2009-072) into the reopened investigation of the 2009 ditching of a Westwind 1124A near Norfolk Island to Directly Involved Parties on Friday 23 June 2017. Directly Involved Parties (DIPs) are those individuals or organisations that were directly involved in the accident or who may have influenced the circumstances that led to the accident and/or whose reputations are likely to be affected following the release of the final investigation report. The DIP procedure is an important process, consistent with International Civil Aviation Organization standards and recommended practices, which provides an opportunity for natural justice for DIPs, and also serves to ensure factual accuracy of the report. The draft report has been released under s26 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, which includes significant protections to ensure confidentiality. Under Section 26, the report may only be copied and disclosed prior to its public release for the purpose of taking safety action or providing comment to the ATSB. Disclosure of this report in any other circumstance prior to its public release date may constitute a criminal offence. DIPs have been given until 31 July 2017 to provide the ATSB with any comments on the draft report, including factual information in support of any changes that may be sought. Given the complexity and size of the draft report, which is over 500 pages long, it is possible that DIPs may seek an extension beyond that period. Once the DIP period has closed and the extent of comments and the likely time needed to give them appropriate consideration is known, the ATSB will be better placed to advise a likely release date for the final report. |
Ah yes, how to protect certain politicians current and former, managers both still in CASA and the now in the ATSB. Just keep kicking the can down the road, until it gets kicked into the bushes and no one can be bothered to get it. Standard beauracratic response to protect the guilty
|
'Getting closer - two months or so to go'....
A bit optimistic I'd say. We'll be lucky to see it this side of Xmas. I reckon Sunfish's earlier estimate was about right. Getting closer..? Yeah, like a mirage in the desert unfortunately :ugh: |
Getting closer - a month or so to go ... ;)
Updated: 6 October 2017 Following release of the draft report to Directly Involved Parties on 23 June 2017, a number of requests for extensions to the draft comment period were received from several parties. Almost all comments were received by the end of August 2017 and the work associated with assessing those comments as part of the finalisation of the report is complete. Comments from a further directly involved party were received on 3 October 2017. To allow the necessary time to consider those comments, it is now expected the report should be finalised and released in early-mid November 2017. |
Still guessing it will be released just before or during the holidays with a view to making the smallest ripple possible.
The report will have been 'sanitized" by lawyers to minimise liability possibilities. Those potentially 'at risk" from the content of the report will have either retired or moved on. The outcome ensures that the report will be content free and contain no learning opportunities at all. This is analogous to the findings of a British Parliamentary inquiry into the disastrous treatment of wounded soldiers in the Crimean war - of Florence Nightingale fame; the entire mess was put down to the non - arrival of a shipment of hay, caused by bad weather - so nobody was to blame. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 9919808)
Still guessing it will be released just before or during the holidays with a view to making the smallest ripple possible.
The report will have been 'sanitized" by lawyers to minimise liability possibilities. Those potentially 'at risk" from the content of the report will have either retired or moved on. The outcome ensures that the report will be content free and contain no learning opportunities at all.......... |
The report will have been 'sanitized" by lawyers to minimise liability possibilities. |
Just curious...but is the PIC of this flight now on the AOPA board, or is the fact that they have the same name a coincidence?
|
An ATSB report does not "go through the lawyers" before it is released. They are peer reviewed by other investigators and of course the Commissioner has final approval. They are not like other government reports. The reputation of the ATSB was severely tarnished by the first report so I don't think that it will be more of the same and I would suggest that the role of CASA and its oversight of PelAir will be given more scrutiny. I would also suggest that is the reason for this statement
a number of requests for extensions to the draft comment period were received from several parties. |
Lookleft:
An ATSB report does not "go through the lawyers" before it is released. They are peer reviewed by other investigators and of course the Commissioner has final approval. http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...highlight=atsb http://www.pprune.org/pacific-genera...highlight=atsb |
Sunfish, certainly ATSB reports will be written IAW the Style Manual and whatever guidelines for government publications are applicable, but they do not get sent to another government agency or legal team for vetting. The process I described is the process used. The IIC is responsible for the final report that ultimately the Commissioner approves. With the original Norfolk report we agree that there was an agenda but that was coming from within the ATSB and its disastrous MoU with CASA. In that instance the investigator's who were in management positions were definitely to blame, the IIC was caught in the middle. I am aware of the other threads and have contributed to them. IMHO a lot of what comes across as criticism of the content and style of the reports tends to have an established bias applied. Time will tell but I think the Norfolk report 2.0 will be very different.:ok:
|
But the initial report was aimed at protecting certain parties interests, an I right? One of those was the person directly responsible for CASA’s control and oversight of PELAIR. This person signed the documents suspending the PICs licence without taking any action against the chief pilot (who got a job with CASA several weeks after the accident in- you guessed it- the division managed by this same person ) or the accountable manager of PELAIR who was a previous Minister for Transport that oversaw CASA. Where is this person now? He is the Head of the ATSB , who is supposedly about to release a report criticising his actions! Will it be a fair and impartial report?? Judging by his past actions.....
|
Originally Posted by Vref+5
(Post 9921338)
But the initial report was aimed at protecting certain parties interests, an I right? One of those was the person directly responsible for CASA’s control and oversight of PELAIR. This person signed the documents suspending the PICs licence without taking any action against the chief pilot (who got a job with CASA several weeks after the accident in- you guessed it- the division managed by this same person ) or the accountable manager of PELAIR who was a previous Minister for Transport that oversaw CASA. Where is this person now? He is the Head of the ATSB , who is supposedly about to release a report criticising his actions! Will it be a fair and impartial report?? Judging by his past actions.....
How was the Chief Pilot implicated in the saga? |
Vref+5. LeadSled would be proud of you...
|
What do you conspiracy theorists not understand?
He ditched an aircraft into the ocean causing a number of others on the aircraft life enduring injuries. Is not the Captain the final arbiter of the disposition of the aircraft and its passengers? Even If all the conspiracy theories have a basis, were any of these people in the aircraft let alone flying it? Isn’t that what captains of aircraft get paid for? Managing the aircraft to be safe all of the time? Sometimes bad luck inhibits this and sometime events conspire to defeat this aim. |
With an abysmal lack of support, grey areas in company policy and regulatory oversight, the PIC was faced with a set of circumstances that clearly stretched what was reasonable.
The director of CASA had it sorted however. Something about him being able to manage it by making notes on the back of a napkin! And why are the flight recorders still sitting in the aircraft. Don’t hold your breath for an honest answer. |
And why are the flight recorders still sitting in the aircraft. Don’t hold your breath for an honest answer. 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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:05. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.