Obfuscation 101.

21 Apr

@ V45 – Good morning V; I do, most sincerely apologise Sirrah for buggering up your schedule – Tongue

However; your analysis takes the discussion to a more basic, less esoteric level; to that of trust.  For many years I, like the rest of the aviation community have taken the ATSB investigations at face value; and, why not? Things like the ‘crash comic’ and reports into accidents were impeccable reference and advice sources, trusted and appreciated by all.  It has taken the last few years for ATSB to destroy that faith, it was not easily done.  Indeed I resisted the nagging doubts and the small shouts of bollocks which crept in while reading for a long while.  It was not until I had ‘in-depth’ personal knowledge of what really happened in a few fatal accidents that the rot really set in; which prompted seriously deep analysis and investigation.  The method used was holistic – working backwards from response to SR and Coroner recommendations to deep accident background.  Then validating, revaluating recommendations, response to recommendations and subsequent actions taken to positively prevent a repeat event.  To do this we needed to drag CASA into the matrix.  I won’t bore you with the results; suffice to say the conclusions left much to be desired and begged the questions; WTF and why?

That aside we hit the wall of trust.  We should, without hesitation or doubt be able to look at any accident report and subsequent response and believe it.  This has not been possible for the last few McComic driven Beyond all Reason years.

Unless we see a radical change in ATSB and real reform of the regulator, there is little to gained by pouring obscene amounts of public money down this sewer. As it stands, we may as well save the dollars and be better off relying on the UP for ‘analysis’. We are (IMO) at a sorry impasse where every element of an accident or incident report must be challenged and ‘tested’ for probity, accuracy and effectiveness of purpose.  Look at the ridiculous, recently released VMC into IMC report for an example of inutile reporting.  Take a deep look at Pel-Air or, better still Canley Vale; then ask the question, can I trust these unaccountable people?   The short answer in No; the long answer is No Ducking Way.  Now, if it was your friend or relative being shovelled into a body bag, what sort of answers would you like to see provided? Certainly not the platitudes and fluffy yarns ATSB eventually crank out.

If we cannot rely on their reports, then the reports need to be tested, every element proven beyond reasonable doubt, the conclusions examined; and, like the Pel-Air report, stripped down until some semblance of fact may be relied on.  This so the expensive report may be of some actual value (practical or intrinsic) to those who paid for it and must rely on it.  Then we need to see what the regulator does in response; but that is another tale, for another page, on another day.

Toot toot… Big Grin

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,