Passing strange disconnection?
P2 - “Yet here we are 18 months later and the suspected operator is still IMO having very real systemic operator safety issues that should have been captured and effectively safety risk mitigated by the operator's SMS. Or if not responsibly by the operator, it should have been addressed by the national regulator AMSA, with the assistance of OTSI's firm evidence and recommendations (like the above excellent Safety Advisory) established in a systemic investigation into the operator”..
Admittedly, only a quick 'dabble' into the publicly available 'safety investigation' reports etc. published. But there seems to be a rather rapid decline in reporting of an 'investigation' IFS - (basic detail) - and follow up interim updates and safety advisories and final report from within OTSI since the change of band leader.
Rumour has it that 'someone' has stuck their thumb in the Dyke wall to prevent the leak from becoming a deluge. Politics, contracts, money and public perception of how 'safe' their transport system really is do not make for accurate, factual, honest reporting. Not disingenuous or deliberately misleading; but 'soft peddled' through time and system. Time passes and interest fades; what was yesterdays headline becomes tomorrows fish and chip wrapper, particularly in the 'high-speed' / high mass communications world we have today. This applies very much to those who, unlike regulars on the Manly ferry, may only have a vague notion that a bus caught fire, or a ferry lost steering control; or, a bus they don't rely on is late every day.
However, in the 'safety' world there are strict protocols and good reason for those; lots of money spent on these systems and any member of the public who cared to 'check' on how their 'pet' event was investigated and the results from that event's investigation should be able to see 'due process' followed through, in a timely manner, from the initial notification to final recommendations implemented.
Looking back at the OTSI published 'results' from before and after 'the change' (we had to have) leaves you wondering. On the surface there seems to be a big increase in 'clerical' staff, a bigger budget but little in the way of increased investigators and even less in the way of 'meaningful' final reports and safety related ways to prevent an event reoccurring – like ferry steering failures. No doubt they have got it all 'in hand' (given the clerical support) but can we find out exactly how they achieved a better result through published 'investigation' steps to final report? Short answer - 'No'.
Yep; absolutely nothing to worry about here; move along; pay here and hope for the best. Really?
P2 - “Yet here we are 18 months later and the suspected operator is still IMO having very real systemic operator safety issues that should have been captured and effectively safety risk mitigated by the operator's SMS. Or if not responsibly by the operator, it should have been addressed by the national regulator AMSA, with the assistance of OTSI's firm evidence and recommendations (like the above excellent Safety Advisory) established in a systemic investigation into the operator”..
Admittedly, only a quick 'dabble' into the publicly available 'safety investigation' reports etc. published. But there seems to be a rather rapid decline in reporting of an 'investigation' IFS - (basic detail) - and follow up interim updates and safety advisories and final report from within OTSI since the change of band leader.
Rumour has it that 'someone' has stuck their thumb in the Dyke wall to prevent the leak from becoming a deluge. Politics, contracts, money and public perception of how 'safe' their transport system really is do not make for accurate, factual, honest reporting. Not disingenuous or deliberately misleading; but 'soft peddled' through time and system. Time passes and interest fades; what was yesterdays headline becomes tomorrows fish and chip wrapper, particularly in the 'high-speed' / high mass communications world we have today. This applies very much to those who, unlike regulars on the Manly ferry, may only have a vague notion that a bus caught fire, or a ferry lost steering control; or, a bus they don't rely on is late every day.
However, in the 'safety' world there are strict protocols and good reason for those; lots of money spent on these systems and any member of the public who cared to 'check' on how their 'pet' event was investigated and the results from that event's investigation should be able to see 'due process' followed through, in a timely manner, from the initial notification to final recommendations implemented.
Looking back at the OTSI published 'results' from before and after 'the change' (we had to have) leaves you wondering. On the surface there seems to be a big increase in 'clerical' staff, a bigger budget but little in the way of increased investigators and even less in the way of 'meaningful' final reports and safety related ways to prevent an event reoccurring – like ferry steering failures. No doubt they have got it all 'in hand' (given the clerical support) but can we find out exactly how they achieved a better result through published 'investigation' steps to final report? Short answer - 'No'.
Yep; absolutely nothing to worry about here; move along; pay here and hope for the best. Really?