[Peetwo]

The battle of the Bees - BBeaker (B1) vs BBailey (B2)

Bailey is back and getting stuck into Beaker yet again... :

Malaysia Airlines MH370: money wasted for no logical reason

Another month has rolled by and still the Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 has not been located, though a few aircraft bits suggesting an attempted ditching in heavy seas have been turning up.



Martin Dolan, head of the Australian Transport Safety Board, which is not a specific aviation entity, was supposedly confident that MH370 would have been found by now.


I am hopeful but not confident because only now has the ATSB-led operation begun searching farther south and west to the likelier position of a ditching by a rogue pilot intent on hiding the aircraft in as remote a location as possible.


The search has been conducted on either side of the seventh arc — the notional flight path established by electronic “handshakes” — based on the nonsensical theory of unresponsive pilots because of hypoxia or a similar event.


But the search area should have been extended to allow for a controlled descent.

In other words, for two years the search area has been in the wrong location.

There are only two months left before the search is terminated.


It must be tough going for the crews of the search vessels in those heavy seas and strong winds. Not for nothing are the latitudes south of 40 degrees known as the roaring forties. It is also distressing for the relatives of those who were on board MH370, some very disillusioned with the ATSB and the ­Malaysian authorities, as they have indicated to me.


Why did the ATSB go with an unresponsive pilot theory when it was obvious to airline professionals that the aircraft was under control when it turned southwest three minutes after the captain said good night to Kuala Lumpur air traffic control, and was still in control 90 minutes later when it turned south just north of Sumatra? This was after careful tracking along the Thai-Malaysian border, swinging past Penang (where I lived for two years) and up the Straits of Malacca.


This decision lacked any logic and showed a total lack of understanding of airline procedures on which pilots are trained and retrained every six months in simulators to handle any of these emergencies.


Who made this wrong decision that has had the effect of hiding the pilots from scrutiny? Did it come down to the ATSB from above? Was it former deputy prime minister Warren Truss, under whose portfolio the search fell, or former prime minister Tony Abbott, ­desirous of cosying up to the ­Malaysian government and thus avoiding difficult questions?


The ATSB has a somewhat chequered history.


It has been criticised by pilots for its handling of the Norfolk ­Island Pel-Air Westwind ditching, where the pilot was hailed as a hero but then summarily “exe­cuted” by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the ATSB.


Its rail accident investigations have been found by experts to be slow, overly lengthy and unable to establish cause, or the correct cause, and not demonstrating ­independence (see the paper Lessons from Australian Derailment Investigations by rail engineer Ross Mitchell and solicitor Adam Bisits presented to the International Heavy Haul Association, Perth, in June last year).


Now comes the MH370 search. Does the A in ATSB stand for “amateur”? Is it composed of ­taxpayer-funded, self-appointed armchair experts with no relevant qualifications to enable them to make sound judgment on these ­issues? The identity of individuals who investigate is kept ­secret. Self-appointed armchair “aviation experts” abound and are a real problem in getting the media to acknowledge what is real and what are conspiracy nutcase ­theories.


I lived in the Middle East for 15 years and watched a lot of CNN. The CNN aviation correspondent, Richard Quest, has written a book about MH370 of which he is very proud. It promotes the theory of brave pilots being overcome by a situation they failed to handle such as a serious technical fault (yet the aircraft flew under control for another seven hours).


All very rare problems such as rapid ­decompression, fire and ­engine failure are easily handled by well-trained professional pilots — that is what they are there for.

Quest then rejects pilot suicide based on his knowledge of the human mind. How can a middle-aged English­man understand the mindset of someone from a different race, culture and ideology half a world away?


In his writings last month to mark the second anniversary of the disappearance, Quest criticises me. He mentions “scurrilous” ­assumptions.


Well, if anyone is qualified to express an expert opinion on what happened in the cockpit of MH370, I am.


I have flown for three airlines. I have five airline pilot licences: US, European, Australian, Middle Eastern and New Zealand. I have flown thousands of hours as captain of Boeing 777s and flown many times out of Kuala Lumpur and across the Indian Ocean. What is Quest’s qualification other than a big ego and ­an interesting TV persona?


In Australia we have our share of armchair “aviation experts”. I heard one clown (with no relevant flying qualifications), described by 2GB radio talkback host Steve Price as an “aviation expert”, suggest that any of the passengers could have hijacked MH370 as lots of people these days, with their Xboxes and home computer cockpit simulators, would be able to fly the B777. And pigs might fly.


What an insult to airline pilots. I suppose those with Xbox Grand Prix could compete with Sebastian Vettel in an actual car. How out of touch with reality these “aviation experts” are.


In the three minutes from when the captain said good night to Kuala Lumpur air traffic control, the supposed MH370 passenger hijacker would have to get past the cabin crew, through a locked ­reinforced cockpit door, overpower the pilots, turn off the transponder, turn the aircraft southwest, then disable the ACARS (Aircraft Communications ­Address­­ing and Reporting System) — not an easy thing to do.


The National Geographic Air Crash Investigation team, in its MH370 TV special in December, debunked all the theories of hypoxia, fire, technical fault and massive structural event and is solid in its conclusion that it was a rogue pilot hijack by the MH370 captain.


Why is this important? It concerns liability. Under the Montreal convention, payout for a death due to accident is about $200,000 but in the event of proven pilot suicide, which results in the murder of 238 innocent people and is therefore a criminal matter, the liability may be unlimited.


An article recently in The Australian described Malaysia as being one of the 10 most corrupt countries. Perhaps the ­Malaysian Prime Minister could donate some of the $US681 million ($884m) mysteriously ­deposited into his personal bank accounts to the cost of the search for which the Australian taxpayer is funding an excessive amount?


I strongly believe, as do my airline colleagues, that MH370 captain Zaharie Shah deliberately planned and executed this mission to hijack the aircraft and attempted to cover this up by ditching in as ­remote a location as possible, in the most unsurveyed, inaccessible place on Earth 6km deep so it would not be found and his crime of murder would remain unsolved.


It is time the heavy hitters of the media demanded an explanation from the government and the ATSB about why they ignored professional aviation advice and wasted two years of time and taxpayers’ money by pushing the ­illogical pilot unresponsive theory that has absolutely no evidence to support it.

Standing by for incoming from B2's Jiminy Cricket - Mick
{P2 comment: The B2 rants maybe somewhat repetitive but nearly always it is a prelude to some sort of bigger News Corp media blitz??}
MTF..P2

[Kharon]

Steam On – Sunday rant follows.

Truly superior pilots are those who use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

P2 offers the ATSB report into -THIS -  ‘incident’ - HERE.  The crafty bugger has only published the ‘Hitch’ comment which, for some bizarre reason proffers kudos to the pilot. Bollocks, absolute, total, unmitigated bollocks.  This half baked report helps no one; least of the silly young sod involved or the fool who authorised a newly licenced pilot out alone in a low performance aircraft to operate in high performance weather.  

[as] soon as a pilot is in difficulty, or preferably before they reach that point, cannot be overstated.

No shit Sherlock.  Talk about stating the ducking obvious.  What about examining why young Spotty was there in the first place and what is significantly wrong with the  first potentially suicidal decisions, those made before subsequent actions required the superior skills that superior knowledge would have precluded.  In short, the caution instilled in previous years into neophyte pilots.  Lets take a look at this incident without the rose coloured glasses.  

ATSB - “Confident that the flight could be safely conducted under the VFR, etc.”

OK, we can forgive Spotty for being ‘confident’.  That false confidence, in all probability, stems from ‘training’ related to ensuring the met report is ‘legal’ for purpose.  This has SFA to do with the met report being suitable for ‘operational’ purposes.  This is a flight down a valley, surrounded by vertical dirt, notorious for all manner of foul, unpredictable weather, winds, turbulence and rapid mood changes.  

ATSB - “[the] pilot then discussed the planned route, and associated weather forecasts with a senior instructor at the flying school.”

Can we forgive the ‘senior’ instructor for supporting Spotty’s enthusiasm to tackle the flight in marginal conditions, in a very little, minimally equipped aircraft?  By that I don’t mean GPS and the like, but de-ice and anti-ice gear, sufficient performance to support flight in windy conditions around the high hills and adjacent valleys; or strong enough to withstand the worst of the potential sheer lines, standing waves or CAT that can be, and often are found in that corner of the country, in those forecast conditions?   I think not: neither may we continue to condone a system which promotes the ‘legal’ niceties over the operational realities.

ATSB - “The Area 30 Forecast (ARFOR) overview, issued at 0805 Eastern Standard Time (EST), which covered the time of the flight, predicted isolated scattered showers, and snowfalls above 4,000 ft. Low cloud with precipitation particularly on the windward slopes was also forecast. It was expected that this low cloud would contract to the north-east section of Area 30 by 1200, and clear by 1400. The wind below 5,000 ft was forecast as south-westerly and between 20 and 25 kt. A note stated that winds up to 5,000 ft were forecast to be 10-20 kt stronger in the east (including the Bairnsdale region).”

No mention of the freezing level; no mention of the ‘mixing’ or potential for freezing rain.  No mention made of the penchant for cloud to hang about the hills in layers, or sink into the passes and valleys; reduced visibility, etc.  Delaying until the forecast is ‘good’ (as in legal) is no answer for a private, low experience, low performance flight; for commercial IFR operations, it’s a way of life.  We have to go; Spotty had options and all of Australia to play around in.  So why over the hills, past the valleys and on to Bairnsdale in a half gale Southerly?  Not a ‘job’, not RPT, just a training exercise.  Lunacy beckons.

Moorabbin: Issued at 0907: Scattered cloud at 3,000-4,000 ft, with deteriorating conditions from 1800.

Bairnsdale: Issued at 1027: Wind from 250°T at 14 kt; 10 km visibility; light rain showers and scattered cloud at 3,000 ft, with broken cloud at 4,000 ft.

Latrobe Valley: Issued at 1030: 10 km visibility, light rain showers. Cloud few at 2,500 ft and scattered at 3,500 ft

To an IFR pilot, the TAF’s are all good news; above alternate requirement, highest IAF 6400 at Latrobe, so ice probable, but visual at minima >1000’ (ish) anywhere.  Highest LSALT within 25 nms – 5800@BNS; 6400@ LTV and 3800 NE of ML; so an approach to descend and a good probability of getting visual.  That terrain which requires the initiation of an instrument approach to break cloud does not disappear for VFR traffic; still there, hiding in the murk.  Did Spotty or Spotty’s mentor consider the possibility of him getting trapped above (or in) cloud, with ice accumulating and needing to divert, over (or through) cloud to any of the destinations for which a TAFOR was issued? All legal, course it was. Operationally sensible? Probably not.  

ATSB - "During this discussion, the pilot and instructor decided that due to the METAR at Bairnsdale Airport indicating strong winds of up to 35 kt, the pilot should make an assessment upon arrival there. If the pilot did not assess the wind as suitable/safe for landing, the brief was to overfly the airport and commence the return l
e.g. to Latrobe Valley."

WTF kind of wooly thinking is this?  Wind gusting 35 Kts – from where?  Cross wind component, quartering, sheering, etc.  Why was the wind a problem?   If the flight forecast was deemed acceptable, why should the wind suddenly matter so – OK,  ‘legal’ again; operationally dodgy, but legally covered.  It’s probable Spotty could not make a fist of a gusty, quartering cross wind landing and Bairnsdale can be awkward.  So we can glean that Spotty was unafraid of and confident in winning through the tough stuff on the ‘forecast’, but shit scared of a half gale at Bairnsdale.  So it's OK to by pass a visual landing because of 'wind'; and heading back out into the murk, to pick your way through to where there is less wind.  What are we teaching the kids these days?

ATSB “They visually confirmed the aircraft’s location, noting this on the flight plan.”

ATSB “[they] were confident that they could ‘push on’.

Who is this ‘they’; was this report drafted by the tea lady and edited by the milkman?  We start the report with a single pilot and midway we have the mysterious ‘they’ on site.  More than anything else these two sentences typify the slipshod method of reporting the ATSB have descended to.  Syntax errors I can live with, but a final report needs to be edited and checked. Sloppy, silly and detrimental to the already piss poor ATSB reputation.”

ATSB – “ In hindsight, the pilot reported an unawareness of how thick and widespread the cloud ahead really was, and how it was different to what had been expected. After manoeuvring around several patches of cloud, the pilot made a decision to conduct a 180° turn onto the reciprocal track, and return to Moorabbin.

Assumption, expectation and folly - can we market that?  Seems to be popular these days.

“After logging the diversion time on the flight plan, the pilot initiated a turn to the left.”

For me, the paragraph above defines the entire problem; from CASA through to ATSB and on to training standards.  Read the bold bit, again and again until you see the blindingly obvious.

“After logging the diversion time on the flight plan, the pilot initiated a turn to the left.”  WRONG –

ATSB – “Almost instantly, the pilot realised that the aircraft was now completely engulfed in cloud, and had entered instrument meteorological conditions (IMC).”

Straight - nay - 'instantly' into cloud.  Bollocks, this happens on night approaches, in lousy weather when visual can ‘instantly’ become not visual; quite often, on a dark night you can't see a low patch or layer; now that’s 'instant' loss of VMC.

Aviate; first last and always.  Situational awareness always, and for ever.  Does our kudos covered hero think “Oh crap, best get out of Dodge and head for the ranch”.  Nope, first it’s head down, thumb in arse, mind into neutral, do the paperwork, look up; and, suddenly - Oh, surprise cloud everywhere.  Bollocks , lethal, stupid, amateurish, badly trained Bollocks. Flogging about in marginal VMC you should be able to see the stuff, be aware of it and always, always leave the back open.  Did young Spotty have this beaten into his little wooden head, as often as required, until it was an instinct.  Clearly not.

ATSB - "The pilot was not instrument rated, nor was the aircraft approved for flight in IMC."

Why?  Can someone tell me, why a PPL cannot execute a 180˚ turn on the clocks to reverse course out of the murk, back into the visual conditions which he was enjoying, just a few ‘instants’ ago.  Spotty had just finished training, so he should have the IF lessons fresh in his wooden head; Shirley.  Or at least he had been taught to do a simple, basic rate 1 turn and confirm the attitude and timing on instruments.  Rate 1, for 1 minute to a reciprocal heading to be in the clear – unless he was situationally unaware of the circumstances.  But I forget, the paper work must be done first.  Die young man; but die all legal, but leave the paperwork tidy.

ATSB "The aircraft was equipped with a Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR), but the pilot had not been trained to operate this navigational aid."

So what?  The ducking aircraft was in bloody cloud, not lost in space.  WTF – he was navigating brilliantly in marginal VMC before ‘instantly’ being trapped in a malevolent cloud from nowhere. A 180 should have put him back from whence he came.  The VOR (which is ground based station and unlikely to be fitted in a PA 28) or Omni Bearing Selector (OBS) and Course deviation Indicator (CDI) is irrelevant to the loss of external reference; the primary cause of this dreadful report.

ATSB - "The instructor in QQT was able to work methodically with the pilot in TAU, focusing on reducing the pilot’s workload and keeping them calm.

Finally, we arrive back at the point where there may; or may not have been two in the lost aircraft, “keeping them calm” implies, yet again that there was."  

Wish I’d never read the bloody report; but, I did. Please, please can we have our ATSB back; I don’t get paid enough for doing their job and my own.  FCODL.  Well done ATC, well done the Cirrus pilot.  Spotty and his ‘senior instructor’ need their heads banged together and the drafting  ATSB clown needs a new profession, being the tea lady needs a modicum of brain power; so that’s out.

Toot – weary – toot ends Sunday rant.  Aye; (sigh) -  turn it off GD; we’re done here.

[Peetwo]

Beaker's last Estimates - All 4 minutes & 18 seconds of it - HOORAH! Don't let the door hit you on your stuffed rump Beaker...

MTF...P2
 

[Gobbledock]

Lord of the abacus

Mi mi mi mi what a disgrace. Beaker mumbled and fumbled his way through that less than stellar performance, and to hear him stumble through his favourite topic of money was shocking. It was a simple mathematical question Beaker - how much had the MH370 investigation cost? Yet the response was appalling.

What is it with Beaker and Jules Verne, both sporting the traditional Can'tberra winter beards which keeps their little cheeks warm and hides the evidence of 'pash rash'.

Anyway, good riddence you Muppet. And I agree with P2, 'Beaker, don't bang the door on the way out'. Now be gone....

"Safe departures for all"

[Kharon]

Exeunt Beaker – Halle ducking lujah.

Watch the Heff expression in the first few seconds; priceless.  Then he just ignores the Beaker babble as Sterlo ambles off to the tea trolley, equally disinterested.  Just about sums up the general attitude toward anything Beaker has to say.  

The big question of course is how will Hoody clean up the mess left behind?  It will be a big job for him and it will be the first time he has actually ran a department, let alone a crucial one.  Much of the old guard will still be there, Walsh and Sangston for example; they clearly supported the Beyond all Reason philosophy and the troops will take some time to ‘readjust’ to doing things ‘properly’.  It will be interesting to watch; Hoody knows where the skeletons are buried – in both the ASA and CASA backyards, there may even be a patch or two of payback, if he chose to play that card.  

The question for the IOS/BRB is how much latitude can we afford Hood?  On one hand he has first class knowledge and experience of how things work and should, in theory, be able to hit the ground running. On the other hand, there is the eternal game of dodging the bullets.  To his advantage are the number of sacrificial lambs he has available, there are enough stuff ups on the books to support wholesale slaughter.  

Well, it’s a good riddance to finally be shut of Beaker, that’s for certain sure.  Let’s all hope Hoody can retrieve some credibility and honour for the ATSB.  It would be a fine thing to pick up a report into an accident or incident and say “Well done” ATSB.  It would be a good thing to listen to Estimates and not have to hit my well worn Bollocks key; gods know it needs a break.

Aye well, the best of luck to Hoody; mind you, the tea lady would have outshone Beaker, so there is a chance there that Hoody will shine and breath a little life into the moribund ATSB. Congratulations Greg Hood, your time starts now. Tick tock.  

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

Hoodys first new decree at the ATsB should be the banning of beards. 

P7 Edit - and toga's, perhaps?  Yuk, yuk Yak....

[Peetwo]

More Beaker Bollocks - err..take??  

Before I go any further, please read Mike Chillit's answer to Q19/ of the ATSB dissatisfaction survey:  




IMO that answer/OP is as close an assessment of fact of the currently disgusting, uncreditable and dysfunctional condition of a once proud State AAI agency, that used to punch well above its weight.

Most of this parlous condition (IMO) can be slated to the inept, arrogant, ignorant, poorly informed & possibly captured (e.g. CASA & Malaysians)...

Of M&M #post96: http://auntypru.com/forum/-Of-Mandarins-...27#pid4327 

...Muppet in charge Beaker -

Which makes it all the more despicable that since the government went into caretaker mode, we have seen & heard more from Beaker than at any other time in the last 4-5 months. This is despite a growing chorus of public & professional discord with the management and disinformation of the MH370 investigation & search, being issued (or not) by the relevant authorities:    

Take two and action -

From ABC radio's World Today program:

MH370 search to be called off, recriminations likely after new book on disaster

MARTIN DOLIN: The Australian Government has given us $60 million and the Chinese Government has given us about $20 million, the total cost is about $180 million, if we have to complete the entire search area...

..PETER LLOYD: What is the current thinking about, the confidence you have about whether you're even in the right place?

MARTIN DOLIN: We always said that it was a matter of probability, not certainty, that the aircraft would be found in the area we are searching... 

..CHRISTINE NEGRONI: A triple seven was flying across the Malaysian peninsula off track, off course, off radio communication, perhaps off radar, definitely off radar transponder radio, headed towards Kuala Lumpar towards the Petronas Towers.

I mean that's a huge, frightening lapse in security and radar and air traffic control and, you know, in every respect that's terrible.

PETER LLOYD: By law, a crash investigation must be completed by Malaysia, but the Government says its hamstrung by Australia's failure to find the plane.

Christine Negroni believes that is a bogus claim, and worse still, she claims the crash investigation underway right now in Malaysia is a sham.

CHRISTINE NEGRONI: There is no evidence that this is more than just somebody saying, "Oh no, no, no - it's fine don't worry about it, move on.

PETER LLOYD: Who's going to hold them to account?

CHRISTINE NEGRONI: Well, and that really is the tragedy here, because I think because the aeroplane has not been found and may not be found, there is no sort of calling to account Malaysia.

Malaysia can simply sit back as it has and say without the aeroplane, we can't ever know. And that will be I think the, sort of, the conclusion of Malaysia 370; always a mystery, no-one will ever know and we don't know whether that is true.

KIM LANDERS: Aviation writer Christine Negroni ending Peter Lloyd's report.

Also today from Christine Negroni:

...Every year I attend the meeting of the International Society of Air Safety Investigators I am both impressed and frustrated by what is the two sides of the same coin. The specialists are knowledgeable in their specific areas which is good but closed-minded to the point of dismissive of the contributions of outsiders, which is not good.

Peter Fiegehen recognizes that “group-think, peer or other pressure” and “false hypothesis factors” now infect the official investigation into the mysterious disappearance of MH370. His idea of hitting the reset button is worth consideration. If an agency as cumbersome and bureaucratic as the UN’s ICAO sees the benefit of regular revision, what excuse is there for the resistance of agencies investigating one specific accident?

http://christinenegroni.com/independent-investigators-malaysia-370/

   

Most people (emphasis on people) under such professional & public scrutiny would choose to duck below the parapet and let someone else, like Foley or the JACC's Judith Zielke, front the media. But not Beaker here he is again in today's Oz (by Binger) - notice how much of his statements are in direct conflict to the MH370 court of public opinion:

MH370 search deadline may be extended

• Mitchell Bingemann
  
• The Australian
  
• May 20, 2016 12:00AM
  

The man in charge of the search for Malaysia Airlines flight 370 is set to extend the deadline to find the missing aircraft to August as wild winds and monster waves slow the operation down.

The hunt for the missing flight has entered the last 13,000sq km of its designated 120,000sq km search area and is scheduled to conclude by July.

But Martin Dolan — the chief of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau leading the $180 million effort on behalf of the Malaysian, Australian and Chinese governments — said it was likely to extend its deadline to early August as wild winter seas and 12m waves hampered investigators’ efforts.

“We have some way to go and our best bet is that we will complete that search late July/early August, depending on unforeseen circumstances,” he said.

Mr Dolan said there was no indication from the Australian, Malaysian or Chinese governments that the search would be expanded once the 120,000sq km area was covered.

“The technical capability is there to continue the search but the resources to do it is a matter for government,” he said.

Last week Mr Dolan acknowledged that Australian air crash investigators’ hopes that the missing Malaysian Airlines would be found were fading fast as time and space ran out.

“At this point there is a diminishing level of confidence that we will find the aircraft,” he said.

“There will be a lot of disappointment if we don’t find it. All the planning for this, all the technical staff and in particular the crews out on the water who have been doing a brilliant job, are going to be hugely disappointed because they have given two years of their life to this. At worst we will know at the end of this process that the area we have searched does not contain the aircraft. At best we will find it.”

In the two years since the plane disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 passengers on board, just five pieces of debris believed to come from the aircraft have been found.

Last week two of those pieces — a part of an engine cowling and a panel segment from a main cabin — were confirmed by the ATSB to “almost certainly” come from the missing plane.

Mr Dolan said the discovery of these pieces were vindication that the bureau had been searching in the right place.

“We think we are searching in the right place because each of the locations of the debris was consistent with the drift modelling we’ve done,” he said.

“None of the findings are inconsistent with the analytical work we’ve done to determine the search area.”

Former US airline captain John Cox, who now runs an international air safety consultancy and has participated in several major air crash investigations, agreed.

“This adds evidence that the aeroplane is in the Indian Ocean and will provide the ocean current specialist more data to pinpoint the area of greatest likelihood to search,” he said.

“One of the great mysteries of MH370 is where is the debris? While these are only two pieces, it is debris. It is likely more will be found. MH370 remains one of aviation’s greatest mysteries.”

Should the search prove fruitless, the ATSB is working on a report for the government that will consider alternative possibilities for what happened to the plane, including the “rogue pilot” theory that the captain of MH370 hijacked his own aircraft and deliberately crashed it into the sea.

One possible positive with the extension, is that we will get to see how the new Chief Commissioner Greg Hood manages the ATSB last gasp efforts to locate MH370 (& without the Muppet hovering in the background) - an excellent first test for Hoody..


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Beaker clearing the decks for Hoody??

AO-2013-100 - Landing below minima due to fog involving Boeing 737s, VH-YIR and VH-VYK Mildura Airport, Victoria on 18 June 2013.


ATSB Safety Issue No: AO-2013-100-SI-01
 
ATSB Safety Issue No: AO-2013-100-SI-02

ATSB Recommendation No: AO-2013-100-SR-057 

---

Nothing to see here.

Quote: This occurrence has highlighted the effect of various factors coming together to create and influence a rare event.

The VA 737 landed with less than 15 mins of fuel and essentially no one stuffed up (not BOM, not ATC, not Crew, not Ops Control/Dispatch). - and if it wasn't for the QF skipper taking extra fuel they would have been in the same boat...

What is wrong with the ATSB?!!

---

ozbiggles - 3 years to tell us what the aircraft did, nothing new from the interim report.

This was an opportunity for a top down dissection of how business Is done in this country. Two aircraft from different companies ended up on a country airstrip conducting emergency landings and the conclusion is they should have been getting more regular updates on inaccurate forecasts?

What about the infrastructure? All modern jet aircraft can auto land, in fact the report mentions when emergency autolands have saved us in the past. No recommendation to mandate it at capital airports at least? The bean counters will tell you it's not statiscally significant to warrant the expense but how many times has it saved the day already?

The NOC, National Operations Centre. What the hell does it do, it seems to have got involved right about the time both aircraft were in the circuit area at Mildura. Shouldn't the NOC be the centre of knowledge and information for these types of unfolding events or is it just somewhere in Canberra to sit and drink coffee? Surely we should have a central point for ASA,BOM, major airlines to co-ordinate unfolding scenarios so all the missed opportunities that occured here don't happen?if not why not?

ASA who the hell decided that not passing on SPECIs wasn't going to cause any real problems? That if they can only get that information within visual range it wouldn't be an issue. What the hell is going on there with risk mangement and what other chocolate eggs are hidden?

How did it happen the AIP didn't reflect the intent of the change at ASA? Where else is this a problem. How come the majority of the pilot group didn't know this was the intent?

This just on the first read, I'm sure there is more

How did it happen they had to ask CASA for an interpretation of inflight fuel requirements? Haven't we sorted that out in 100 years of flying.

Nothing on if current fuel policy is appropriate or what other countries might use.

We did cover the big issue that the air ambulance pilot didn't start his radio call with Airep, glad that made it in.

Yesterday (see above) the ATSB finally released their long awaited & much anticipated Mildura Fog duck-up Final Report...

 "K" in an abbreviated post perfectly sums up the value of such a report:

The winner is:-

P-362436 won the prized Tim Tam; closest to a word perfect repeat of the ATSB report in a close run competition.  The following was almost letter perfect in no less than 30 out of 40 entries. Although the semi illiterate drafting and grammatical faux-pas were difficult to replicate, many managed it. Bravo - CF all around.

The safety issue identified during this investigation is listed in the Findings and Safety issues and actions sections of this report. The ATSB expects that all safety issues identified by the investigation should be addressed by the relevant organisation(s). In addressing those issues, the ATSB prefers to encourage relevant organisation(s) to proactively initiate safety action, rather than to issue formal safety recommendations or safety advisory notices.

Now read that again - as an exercise in English and logic.  Then weep.
   
It is unanimous that the above paragraph could have been generated in three minutes which would have saved three years of resources being allocated.  

There you go Greg, 3.4 days off a week, 0.6 day for coffee and chats; 0.5 to sign off on the boiler-plate paragraphs provided, then the weekend is your own, to do with as pleases you best.  Great new job mate; enjoy.

JFHCOAC.

Simply put it is an absolute shocker -   And IMO perfectly personifies the retrograde progress that has been made ever since the Senate Pel-Air cover-up inquiry findings & recommendations were handed down, a little over 3 years ago...  

The release of this report also got me thinking? Is this the first in a line of O&O'd investigation reports to be cynically released by Beaker under the cover of the election and prior to his final departure from the now much maligned ATSB. In other words is he just swabbing the decks with strong disinfectant so that Hoody does not get a sniff of the corruption that lies beneath?

Moving on but still on the soon to be departing SMH Beaker? Some poor bastard is trying to make some sense of the Albo/McComic/Beaker years and asked if I could run a bio search on Beaker.

Still going with this project but some of the goss I have discovered on Beaker so far is simply staggering and begs more questions than answers...

Examples - Did you know that Beaker..

..at one stage was on the CASA Audit & Risk committee?

Here is part of his bio from the CASA 2004-2005 Annual Report:

Martin Dolan Member, Audit and Risk Committee – April 2004 to present

Martin Dolan is the interim Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Energy
Markets Commission and was previously the Executive Director, Aviation and
Airports, Department of Transport and Regional Services...

...In 2001, Mr Dolan transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional
Services. After completing a review of the department’s road programs, he took
over management of the Airports Division. He was then responsible for the
Department’s role in selling Sydney Airport, the enhancement of aviation security,
post-Ansett aviation policy and aviation safety reform. 

Did you know that Beaker..

..was also on the Airservices Australia Directors Board: 

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-c...4-2005.pdf

During the year, Chief Executive Officer Bernie Smith retired after four years in the position, and Board members Ronald Entsch and Kevin Gale completed their terms. Belinda Gibson and Martin Dolan resigned mid year.

Not sure how long he was on the CASA committee or ASA Board but apparently he suddenly and unexpectedly resigned from both positions around about the same time??

Before those positions Dolan of course was a First Assistant Secretary of DOTARS (see page 14 https://infrastructure.gov.au/department...part_2.pdf ) in the Aviation & Airports Policy/Regulation division and was apparently the primary tweaker of the Airports Act & attributed for drawing up and sealing the deal on the Sydney Airport sale.

While at DOTARS Beaker also had a brief stint as Deputy dog to the then Secretary Ken Mathews (see page 16 above link).

However with Beaker what really piqued my interest was his involvement with the implementation of the NAS (2B), remembering that he was the muppet that commissioned Jeff Griffith to review the possible ramifications of modifying (to Australian unique conditions) Class E over D in the NAS(2B) program:  https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/p...report.pdf

The following is a link to Hansard from 26 May 2004 Senate Estimates: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sear...632%2F0002

Mr Dolan —I think I would be the person with principal responsibility in the department for these issues. I have certainly, like Mr Matthews, been aware of developments and been kept informed but have not been involved in any consultations. We have taken the view consistently ever since issues arose in terms of process in relation to 2b that the decisions were to be made by Airservices...

...Mr Dolan —Yes, I have spoken to several Qantas employees at various times about a range of issues to do with air space, including reservations they had about elements of the NAS.

..Senator O'BRIEN —In February, Mr Matthews, you mentioned that Mr Mike Smith had been heavily involved in consultation with industry representatives about NAS stage 2b. Will Mr Smith be involved in consultation in relation to the possible changes proposed by Airservices Australia last Friday?

Mr Matthews —I will ask Mr Dolan to answer that. I am conscious that we have Mr Smith at the table as well.

Senator O'BRIEN —I am sure he will do what he is asked to do, so I was asking you, but if you want Mr Smith to answer I am happy for him to do that.

Mr Matthews —I will refer it, in the first instance, to Mr Dolan. My reason for doing that is that Mr Dolan chairs an interagency group, which is a steering group under NASPAG, which brings together all the agencies that have some functional responsibility or interest in this.

Mr Dolan —The role of the interagency group is to ensure that the various contributions to the overall NAS project from different agencies and the NAS implementation group are aligned and that they take account of each other, so that an exchange of views and consultation happens in that group across the agencies. That is at least one forum where Mr Smith would be consulted on the progress. The point, I think, that we should come back to is that he would be among a range of people who would be consulted by Airservices in making the decision that is theirs under the regulations.

Senator O'BRIEN —He would be a participant rather than an initiator of consultation, if I understand you correctly?

Mr Dolan —That is correct.

Senator O'BRIEN —I want to ask a few questions that relate to a minute from the department to the minister on 23 June 2003, numbered p2003-372. Can you confirm that the NAS implemented in Australia is different to the US national airspace system?

Mr Dolan —I can confirm that the NAS, as currently implemented in Australia, is different from the US system, because implementation of the overall system has been progressive. It has been staged. We are in a transitional stage, so we do not have the US system...

...Mr Dolan —I would potentially have to correct some detail on notice, but the issues, as I recall them, that were being discussed among agencies, and on which it is entirely possible the minister was briefed in the middle of last year, were to do with the processes relating to those elements of NAS 2b that were not demonstrably precisely the same as the US system. I am aware of debate, but not a decision that would have led to the view that there should be a design safety case for the full NAS.

Senator O'BRIEN —A debate?

Mr Dolan —Among agencies.

Senator O'BRIEN —What was the debated view of Airservices at that time?

Mr Dolan —I find it dangerous to rely on memory on this and, as I say, I do not have the benefit of having the documentation in front of me.

Mr Matthews —The broad debate was that Australia was seeking to adopt a system as similar as possible to the US system. The accepted international practice is that a proven and accepted system such as the US system does not need to go through a design safety case. To the extent that there were necessarily some variations to the US system to adapt it to Australia's unique circumstances, an absolutely identical system could not be adopted in Australia—just because of certain differences between the US and Australia. The question that agencies would have been discussing at that time was whether that small number of departures from the pure US system necessitated a full design safety case.

P2 intrigue?? - The outstanding questions that remain are; is there any truth to the rumour that Beaker disgraced himself in 2004-5 to the point of being as closely sacked as a senior public servant can get and if so; how was it possible for Beaker to worm his way back into the aviation safety bureaucracy in the plum job as the first Chief Commissioner of the ATSB only 3 short years later??

I guess what all the scuttlebutt highlights (so far) to me, is if there was one person ideally suited to the role of providing top cover (PelAir, MH370 & Airservices Australia) for any of the aviation safety agencies, or the department, that position would be perfectly suited to that man (muppet) Beaker...    


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

ATSB or not to B? That is the question 

While we've been endlessly bombarded by the 24/7 MSM news cycle on what would have to be one of the most boring & puerile election campaigns in living memory, there has been a changing of the guard at the ATSB...



Finally Beaker has slithered off clutching his 'golden parachute..etc. - '. However that was not be one final passing comment to the MMSM, just in case anybody was remotely interested : 

But Martin Dolan — who yesterday hung up his hat as the chief of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau leading the $180m effort on behalf of the Malaysian, Australian and Chinese governments — said if the search failed governments should consider extending it to new areas.


“Of course (I’d like to see it continue). This has been two years of our lives focused on this task, so of course you want to see it to completion — of course we want to find that aircraft,” Mr Dolan told The Australian on his last day as chief of the ATSB.

“The instinct of a professional investigator would be to find this aircraft so we can find evidence that will help us solve the mystery of what happened.

“But I also recognise there comes a point when governments have to make a decision about the level of resourcing that can be made available and at the moment government are saying that resources are only available to search 120,000sq km.”

Mr Dolan, who has led the ATSB for the past seven years, said not finding the wreckage would be one of the biggest regrets of his working life.

“This has been such a big part of my working life over the last two years, so regret is the right word,” he said.

“But while there is regret that we haven’t found the aircraft, there is also a sense of pride, because the team that’s doing the work and all the professional capability and technology and everything that has been brought to bear, everything possible that could be done has been done really well. So I can take some pride in that.”

Despite finishing his term as the head of the ATSB without finding MH370, Mr Dolan said he remained hopeful the aircraft would be found in the area they had been searching.

“The more area the cover the more you have to review your probabilities and so there is a diminishing level of confidence that the aircraft is there,” he said.

“But we are still in a priority area and it is still quite possible that the aircraft will be found within this search area. So we haven’t by any means given up, and we will complete the job the governments have given us to search that area and find the aircraft, or if we are unsuccessful, then to eliminate that area from the search.”

The search for MH370 was scheduled to conclude in July but severe weather conditions and 15m waves have severely hampered the investigators’ work. The search has been extended to August to compensate, but Mr Dolan conceded that it was now looked like the hunt would take even longer than that.

“We’ve had seriously bad weather this winter. Last winter was much milder than we are encountering this time,” he said.

“So there are still several months to go. Certainly it is possible that the search will go through October.”

In the two years since the plane disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 passengers on board, five pieces of debris believed to come from the aircraft have been found. Last week another piece that appears to be from a Boeing 777 washed ashore on an island near Tanzania.

It is not clear the piece came from MH370, and Malaysian authorities are sending it to the ATSB for closer inspection.

“We haven’t had access to it yet, but we are coming to an agreement with our Malaysian colleagues that it will be brought to Australia for closer examination,” MR Dolan said.

“We can’t comment at this stage on authenticity but the Malaysians are interested in it enough to bring it here for closer examination.”

Spare me - "CLICK"

Good to see the "Hooded-One" is not wasting time getting his feet under the desk... :

Hood begins term as ATSB chief commissioner
July 1, 2016 by australianaviation.com.au
Greg Hood has begun work as the new chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

The former senior Airservices executive, named as the successor to Martin Dolan in May, commenced his new role on Friday.
Greg Hood.

He replaces Martin Dolan, who was the ATSB chief commissioner for the past seven years.

“The Commission sincerely thanks previous Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan for his valuable leadership over the past seven years,” the ATSB said in a statement.

“The Commission wishes Martin the best in his retirement and looks forward to building on his success under Greg’s leadership.”

Hood, who began his career as a RAAF air traffic controller, was previously executive general manager for air traffic control at Airservices, a position he held since 2013. He also previously worked at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and is a pilot who flies his own BD4 aircraft.

He was appointed for a five-year term.

“The Commission looks forward to the extensive experience and expertise Greg will bring to the ATSB, and transport safety investigations,” the ATSB said.

It remains to be seen whether Hood can bring back Reason, sense and sensibility to the bureau; or whether he is just another bit player in the Murky Mandarin's Muppet show...


MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

ATSB & the fiscal legacy of a Muppet - UDB?  

From the 2015 Senate Order for the ATSB I came across the total amount spent on the tender for recovery of the VH-NGA CVR/FDR off Norfolk Island:

Australian Transport Safety Bureau - Pacific Marine Group Pty Ltd

Services for recovery of flight recorders from aircraft submerged near Norfolk Island
Marine transport

---

Publish Date: 17-Nov-15
Start Date: 14-Oct-15
End Date: 16-Nov-15

---

Total: 511,830.00

UDB!

Wonder what the total cost will end up being for the PelAir cover-up investigation/Senate Inquiry/& re-investigation? Either way it is a pretty damning indictment on the ATSBeaker years when you consider that Beaker originally abandoned recovering the black boxes for apparently fiscal reasons: 

This led to the infamous Beaker attempt at political point scoring at the expense of one Senator David Fawcett:

 

Ultimately this cynical attempt for one-up-man-ship by a bureaucratic weasel led to a complete loss of trust & credibility of the former ATSB Chief Commissioner as a reliable witness from what was a totally non-partisan Parliamentary committee. -



MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Like Topsy – it grew and grew.

P2 – “wonder what the total cost will end up being for the PelAir cover-up investigation” etc.

I wonder at the apathy of the tax payer and the incredible lack of press attention to this huge, waste of funds. A totally outrageous waste; a waste that need never have been; had the ATSB simply done their job properly.

There was an incident and ATSB attended, ATSB did the investigation, ATSB located the wreck, buoyed it and had the carcass ready to lift the short 10 fathoms to the surface and retrieve the ‘black-boxes’. Routine, straight forward and a necessary impost, acceptable to all. Then came the word to leave the aircraft ‘in-situ’, black-boxes and all.

Well, since then, that decision has cost not only credibility of the ATSB , exposed CASA faults and left a strong odour of incompetence and possibly corruption, but it has cost a small fortune to achieve.

Lets write off the cost of the original investigation – that’s a furry muff outlay. – we may also treat the cost of the initial report in the same manner. Then we need to examine the peripheral costs.  The CASA ‘parallel’ investigation was not strictly required – not until ATSB had drawn their conclusions, up front this was a ‘straight forward’ incident; or it would have been, had CASA not gotten their knackers in the blender with ‘soft’ audit, easy forgiveness of transgressions and a very suspect change of chief pilot.  So, the cost of the CASA arse covering must be added to the total and it is significant; the man hours alone expended in drafting the reports ‘attached’ to the investigation and the hours spent at ‘audit’ add up to an impressive total, this without the ‘associated’ additional costs of the exercise.

Next we must consider the cost of the Senate Committee (SSC) inquiry; I can’t imagine how much, in total, that event expended. In a good cause, absolutely necessary and completely ungrudged.  Non the less, it was a significant, but unnecessary spend; money saved if ATSB had simply done their work properly, first time about.  

The resulting ASRR could be added to the bill. It’s a reasonable addition, if there was no Senate inquiry, then the good Rev. Forsyth could have been at golf, untroubled. We must not forget to include the significant cost of the ‘administration’ required to support the ASRR.

Next item on the invoice – Canadian TSB report, another spin off cost stemming from the SSC inquiry; once again the total cost – all up, would be significant.

Item next: the PelAir report needs to be done for a second time.  So we can, safely, double the cost for the initial investigation; there now being two of them. Insult to injury, the $AU 500,000 and change cost for retrieval of the CVR.

There are clever folk who could forensically (for a fee) detail the total cost of this debacle. This completely unnecessary, embarrassing, expensive fiasco.  There are not too many would could estimate the cost in human terms; the cost of a government safety investigator and a safety watchdog acting in concert, attempting to brush an event under the mat, then trying to justify that action; then, most heinous of all, getting caught doing it.

I’ve no idea what the total fiscal cost of this shoddy, seedy little drama is.  I could not even begin to quantify the international humiliation or the suspicion surrounding the MH 370 search due to Australia’s tarnished reputation.  All I can say is that it is repugnant to any right minded aviation professional; it is disgusting that Dolan walks away without even a hint of apology and it is a national disgrace that ‘government’ allowed it all to happen, without censure, explanation or apology.

Toot toot.

[P7_TOM]

Given the backlash from the Hood tantrum on his own blog; I thought we should cast a look back at the lead up to his inheritance of Pel-Air and MH 370. I can move it back to the HoS, but ‘Iggins may find some value in the thread. FWIW – the SMH re-run.