[Peetwo]

Dots-n-dashes on Su_Spence stating the bollocks media pages?? - 

Remember this from the Hooded Canary's days as the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB??

MH370 reporting by The Australian

Letter to the Editor of The Australian

I am writing to express my concern regarding the manner in which The Australian journalist Ean Higgins continues to inaccurately report on the search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 – in particular I am concerned at the negative impact this inaccurate reporting is having on the knowledge of the search by the families of those on board the aircraft.

To reiterate, under the International Civil Aviation (ICAO) Annex 13 provisions, the government of Malaysia is responsible for investigating, determining and reporting the causal factors behind the loss of MH370. It is my understanding that their investigation team is well progressed in the development of a draft report. The role of the ATSB, at the request of the government of Malaysia, is to coordinate the conduct of the underwater search.

Many of Mr Higgins’ recent articles have been centred on the ATSB’s decision not to provide him with a series of emails between members of the group of experts advising the ATSB on the search strategy in 2016. The emails pertain to an analysis of the final series of satellite communications between the aircraft and the ground earth station which indicate that the aircraft was, at that time, in a high and increasing rate of decent. The analysis was performed by one of Australia’s leading scientists in the field, is based on solid evidence and it has been extensively peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal.

The implication of this analysis for the search is that the aircraft probably impacted the surface of the ocean reasonably close to where the transmissions were made (what is known as the 7th arc). This is contrary to the views expressed by Mr Higgins and Mr Byron Bailey from The Australian, who have been vocal critics of the search and have long contended that the aircraft was being actively controlled at the end of flight and was glided to a location well away from the area which has been searched. The analysis of the transmission data, when complemented by the recently published CSIRO drift-modelling analysis, provides the best possible definition of an area in which the aircraft is likely to be located.

Mr Higgins’ articles have also consistently attempted to create the appearance of contention between the search strategy experts and members of the ATSB’s search team where none exists. He has suggested in his articles that some ATSB officers have had second thoughts about the ATSB’s position in relation to the end of flight scenario and further;

“(the) Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material about its search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, warning that any bureau employee who provides such information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.”       

I find the use of this journalistic tactic particularly objectionable. No such warning has ever been issued, every member of the search strategy group and the ATSB’s search team understands, and is in agreement with, the science associated with the search and the implications on the search area of the analysis of the satellite communication data. Members of the ATSB’s search team are operating under the standard legislation that ATSB employees normally operate under, governing the disclosure and use of information.

Similarly Mr Higgins suggests in his most recent article that the work currently being performed by the ATSB was prompted by negative public opinion about the search. To quote;

“But he (Mr Hood) and his ATSB colleagues are no doubt thinking the best way out of this continuing world of pain is to find MH370, and behind the scenes that’s exactly what they are trying to help make happen.”

This is also incorrect – the CSIRO drift study work we have recently published was commenced in April 2016. It is the most comprehensive and accurate study of the point of origin of MH370 debris performed to date. It forms a part of the ATSB’s ongoing work to bring the best possible science to bear to find the aircraft.

It is particularly regrettable that Mr Higgin’s articles have now led to some of the MH370 next of kin expressing doubts about the ATSB’s conduct of the search, and by implication, our commitment to finding the aircraft. The ATSB’s search team, and the experts from many organisations both in Australia and overseas supporting the search, have worked with absolute commitment, dedication and a single minded focus on finding the aircraft to provide the answers for the families of those on board and to improve transport safety. It is extraordinarily difficult and challenging work.

Leaving aside his harassing and intimidating approach in dealing with my staff when requesting information, you can perhaps now understand why I find Mr Higgins’ approach to attacking the credibility of the search unwarranted. The ATSB reserves its rights not to interact with Mr Higgins.

Greg Hood Chief Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer Australian Transport Safety Bureau


_____________- Web page updated 1 May 2017 to correct text.

Correction Date
Fri, 2017-04-28 00:00

P2 - At least HVH had the balls to actually put his name to that load of bollocks... 

Plus:

Ongoing false media reporting on search for MH370

&..

Inaccurate media reporting on search for MH370

&..

Misleading media reporting on the First Principles Review into the search for MH370
 
Eventually this precious, subversive, defensive approach adopted by HVH was thankfully ended, presumably from someone within the Mandarin ranks that could see how inappropriate it was for a independent statutory government agency being politically combative with the 5th Estate - well done for some sense of sanity from the political/bureaucratic elite ranks...  

However it would seem that HVH has been whispering in the Pup_Spence ear and she has subsequently whole-heartedly embraced this self-serving, self-righteous concept to tackle media/industry critiquing the performance of the Board, Spence and her executive team.

Where did this 'stating the bollocks' begin?

Intrigued with where this all began and perhaps discover what may have triggered this sneaky, defensive concept, I visited the CASA 'News media releases and speeches' pages - see 'stating the facts' bylines here: https://www.casa.gov.au/search-centre/ne...d-speeches  

So tracing the byline back I got to page 4, for this 1st entry on 9 November 2022:

Safety regulations require that the minimum take-off and landing distances calculated by an aircraft manufacturer have a safety buffer added.


Torres Strait island

These rules have been in place for decades and apply internationally.

Runway safety buffers provides a margin of error to account for issues like unexpected weather conditions, poor runway surfaces, aircraft performance or pilot skill.

Safety buffers are determined by adjusting the actual runway distance by using a ‘factoring’ multiplier. This factoring increases the minimum runway length required based on the type of operation and the aircraft.

There has been no change to the rules for factoring and runways which increases the runway length required.

Regulatory detail

Part 135 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations was introduced on 2 December 2021. It sets out the rules for air transport operations in small aeroplanes and incorporates the rules that were previously known as Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 20.7.4, including those factoring requirements.

A small change was made as part of the rule transition which allows slightly shorter runways to be used for take-off in some circumstances.

The new rules also allow an operator to make an application to use reduced factoring (and shorter runways) if additional safety measures are put into place – for example additional pilot training, or limitations on weather conditions.

An operator can apply for an exemption or approval on its Air Operators Certificate provided it can satisfy CASA that operations to affected aerodromes still meet acceptable safety requirements.

This bit: "The new rules also allow an operator to make an application to use reduced factoring (and shorter runways) if additional safety measures are put into place – for example additional pilot training, or limitations on weather conditions..."

For a presser that believes it is stating the facts, this bit neglects to recognise that these safety risk mitigation concepts were brought in nearly a quarter of a century before by CASA with the issuing of a special exemption form of Low Capacity RPT AOCs, that included additional safety measures like those mentioned...

Ref: http://proaviation.com.au/2013/04/28/a-s...d-stuffup/

..In recognition of the need for scheduled air services in remote areas of Australia, CASA implemented a low capacity AOC to regulate scheduled air services into air strips which did not meet the regulatory requirements for normal scheduled air services. CASA stationed FOI Rod Bencke on Horn Island, who recognised the need for these essential services. Working with Rod, Uzu Air rapidly qualified for the issue of a low capacity RPT AOC enabling conduct of scheduled air services to the islands of the Torres Strait...

So the 'stating the bollocks' media releases were brought in after the change in government??

Theory 1: Hmm..so perhaps Pup_Spence got a bit defensive from about here??

Of interest with these bollocks entries so far was this one:

Enforcement of safety rules

Type Stating the facts
Date 21 July 2023

Everything we do is driven by safety and we understand most people in the aviation industry do the right thing and act in good faith in accordance with the rules.



The professionalism and integrity of the majority of aviation industry participants underpins Australia’s strong safety record but we understand people sometimes make mistakes.

When that happens, we work with them using just culture principles to help them understand how they may have inadvertently erred and what they need to do to avoid making the same mistake again.

We may decide to provide education or formal counselling to ensure that in future they have adequate knowledge and will operate safely and in compliance with the rules.

It is a way of achieving a good safety outcome without the need to limit a person’s aviation privileges unless necessary in the interests of aviation safety.

Where we have zero tolerance is for serious, wilful or repeated disregard of the aviation rules.

We take all reports of illegal aviation behaviour seriously and we employ a range of responses determined by the available evidence.

Information about potential breaches can come from a variety of sources, including the public, other members of the aviation industry, CASA surveillance or oversight operations and anonymous or self-reporting.

All reports are important and even if a single report does not result in regulatory action, it may be used to build a case in the longer term.

We carefully consider all information and concerns raised with us, assessing how we should respond and the sort of action we should take.

We use proportionality and discretion in regulatory decision making and we always act according to the law. 

This means exercising our powers in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, which require us to rely on evidence rather than hunches, rumour or speculation.

Our decisions need to be lawful and defensible and they are governed by our documented procedures, including those set out in the Enforcement Manual.

Different pathways that are available, depending on the issue, include:

• assisting people with education and guidance material
  
• encouraging people through audit safety findings and counselling notices
  
• taking administrative action such as varying suspending, suspending or cancelling an authorisation
  
• issuing an aviation infringement notice (AIN)
  
• referring the matter for criminal prosecution.
  

We use enforcement action where necessary to compel a person to comply with legislative requirements or limit, constrain or prevent someone who is demonstrably unable or unwilling to follow the rules from exercising their aviation privileges.

Administrative action can include entering an enforceable voluntary undertaking, issuing directions or delivering a 'show cause' notice to vary, suspend or cancel and authorisation. An aviation infringement notice can involve fines of up to $1565 but the penalty a court can impose for the same offence can be up to $15,650. Demerit points may also be incurred and lead to the automatic suspension or cancellation of a licence.

A 'show cause notice' tells the holder of a civil aviation authorisation – such as a flight crew, remote pilot, aircraft engineer or air operator – why we believe there are reasons to vary, suspend or cancel their authorisation and invites them to tell CASA why they believe we should not do so.

If we consider there is an imminent and serious risk to safety, we can move to immediately suspend an authorisation while we complete an investigation into the facts and circumstances giving rise to our concerns. Such action requires CASA to make an application to the Federal Court, which must agree to maintain the suspension pending the completion of CASA’s investigation.

We also refer serious cases to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP), who determines whether to start a prosecution.

Matters are usually referred to the CDPP when breaches are deliberate, show a reckless disregard for the rules or a pattern of disregarding rules, and/or cause a significant safety risk that can include putting other people in danger.

Whichever way we proceed, the chain of events begins with the accumulation of sound evidence supporting the belief that the safety rules have been breached.

We can’t be everywhere and see everything but credible reports from the public and industry can alert us to people doing the wrong thing, help preserve aviation’s well-deserved reputation and improve safety.

This is why we encourage people to report any safety concerns to us through our safety reporting mechanism. They should provide us with as much information as they can to support the concerns they have raised.

Hmm...wonder what precipitated the issuing of that sinister presser? It's got Dr A's pugmarks all over it...

MTF...P2