(11-15-2015, 09:20 AM)Peetwo Wrote:(11-11-2015, 06:45 PM)ventus45 Wrote: The writing is on the wall, in the media, for all to see, both inside and outside the aviation community.
Re ATSB:
Clearly, yet another Beaker report, not worth reading, coming up (eventually).
They have their "template" from the "Pelair-Mk-1" saga.
Just change the names, dates, places - a little edit here - a little edit there.
Done and dusted.
Get it out fast too.
Got to get those "completed" stats up.
Re CASA:
Clearly, a carbon-copy re-run of DJ's charge sheet coming up, but this time, no doubt, with a few more thrown in for, let's just say, "spice".
Look at it from the regulator's viewpoint.
This time, the guy can be charged, tried, and convicted, in absentia, and best of all, no likely appeals to that pesky AAAT.
Everything is in their favour.
They will want to savour this one, salivate even.
It makes one wonder.
What is the real definition of tyrany ?
Is what is happening clearly not a "perversion of due process", perhaps even an "outright contempt of due process" ?
To hell with the impotent miniscule.
Perhaps it is time for the Federal Court to intervene, promptly, and directlly. - Here, here; long overdue I would have thought??
Comet's comment , COTY??- “…the main casualty will be our democracy”
Combined with the "V" post (above) and in light of the atrocities in Paris, I thought the following chain of excellent commentary on Ben's blog piece - ATSB now has only one set of black boxes lost at sea; or here on AP - ending with perhaps a nomination for 'comment of the year' by comet was worth regurgitating..
Quote:2
Seth Knoepler
Posted November 13, 2015 at 6:52 am | Permalink
Comet:
As a relatively recent and distant (California) reader of Ben’s blog I’ve been struggling to gain a basic grasp of the Pel-Air affair. On its face it sounds incomprehensibly bizarre that authorities in a technologically sophisticated First World country like Australia could decline to recover a pair of easily recoverable black boxes from a crash whose ultimate causes have never been beyond dispute. The best that I’ve been able to glean so far is that for some reason or combination of reasons, senior bureaucrats at the relevant agencies have been extremely reluctant to retrieve and interrogate those black boxes, and that despite a series of government changes since the Pel-Air crash (equally difficult for this non-Australian to comprehend) until now none of the politicians who, at least in theory, are the bureaucrats’ bosses have had “the guts, wits, or courage” to demand that the bureaucrats do what they’re being paid to do. Will that pass for a not-bad executive summary?
3
Sam Jackson
Posted November 13, 2015 at 6:59 am | Permalink
Choc Frog Comet. Beat me to it –“[but] a government crash investigation department waited six years to recover them” is not quite accurate – it took a Senate Inquiry to persuade the Minister to force the retrieval. Had it not been for those two events, make no mistake, the CVR would still be where it finished up. The truly abhorrent part is the ATSB had to be forced to effect recovery and to be dragged screaming to reopen the investigation. One can only wonder why.
4
Ben Sandilands
Posted November 13, 2015 at 7:06 am | Permalink
Seth,
That’s a good start. I feel guilty knowing that perplexed readers abroad have been lured toward the edge of the black hole and been sucked toward despair and destruction.
5
Posted November 13, 2015 at 7:16 am | Permalink
Thanks Ben. Seth some, but not all of the sad, sorry saga may be explored @Aunty Pru.
http://auntypru.com/forum/-The-search-fo...19#pid2719
There is a lot to plough through, grab a coffee, find a quiet 10 minutes; the outline is there.
6
comet
Posted November 13, 2015 at 10:41 am | Permalink
The ATSB hasn’t made it easy for the media to cover this.
They didn’t put out a press release to say when the flight recorders would be recovered.
One day they announce they’re going to do it. The next day it’s done. No time for film crews to get out there.
I know Four Corners has covered the story before, but this would still make an interesting subject for a 1-hour documentary, wouldn’t it? Not that the ATSB would cooperate.
7
Aero Eng Aviator
Posted November 13, 2015 at 11:21 am | Permalink
Because of the past record of the ATSB on this investigation, there needs to be an independent, technically competent, oversight of the storage of and data retrieval attempt from this CVR and FDR. Too easy to make a finding that the data has faded or was corrupted.
It is unacceptable that the reputation of the ATSB has been so damaged that there is widespread lack of confidence in their objectivity and competence. Those responsible must as a matter of urgency, set about transparently repairing the ATSB so that public confidence in its independence and competence can be restored.
8
Blackstone
Posted November 13, 2015 at 11:30 am | Permalink
The May 2015 judgment from the NSW Supreme Court in the matter of Casey v Pel Air was also informative where in the opening paragraphs it was agreed that the crash was caused by the negligence of the crew – how could that conclusion be reached when the ATSB report had been withdrawn and investigation reopened?
9
Giant Bird
Posted November 13, 2015 at 11:44 am | Permalink
Comet,
I wrote to Cineflix in Canada 5 years ago suggesting they do an Air Crash Investigations program on this crash outlining how it would make a good program. No reply.
10
Posted November 13, 2015 at 12:00 pm | Permalink
Air Crash Investigation usually concentrates on the accident itself. Here we have an investigator that cannot be trusted.
People are expecting transparency, but the ATSB won’t do that willingly.
The retrieval of the flight recorders must have taken a lot of planning. I understand there was a barge and a floating crane. These things don’t happen on the spur of the moment.
Yet the ATSB announced it would retrieve the recorders only hours before it retrieved them. The only …only… explanation is to keep the media off its tail.
11
Dr_Bill
Posted November 13, 2015 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
But why keep the media at bay? Why so many years elasped before the the bleeding obvious is done and the flight recorders recovered?
Who is hiding what – was there something on that plane that was to be kept secret?
12
Posted November 13, 2015 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
But why keep the media at bay? Why so many years elasped before the the bleeding obvious is done and the flight recorders recovered?
Who is hiding what – was there something on that plane that was to be kept secret?
13
Posted November 13, 2015 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
Comet,
I outlined a story which would make good viewing for them. However I think that they always get co-operation with accident investigation authority and in this case they would be unlikely to and they always like to finish on a note that flying has been made safer after the accident. In this case nothing has been to the rules and oversight to stop a repeat. I believe that is why they have not shown interest.
14
Posted November 13, 2015 at 5:15 pm | Permalink
Sam: Thanks very much for the auntypru link.
Ben: In the U.S. a public servant at the state or local level will sometimes forget to vacuum up the trail of crumbs leading from the cookie jar back to his den. However, by the time a 21st century American politician or bureaucrat is ready for the Big Time he will almost always have learned how to make sure that the fingerprints which are found at the crime scene belong to someone else.
15
Posted November 14, 2015 at 8:50 pm | Permalink
Ghost, Joe and all,
There were some outages and losses of comments (including by me) on Plane Talking today during the IT equivalent of a C check, if not a D check.
Apologies to all. All of the news of the day has needless to say been in Paris, something deeply shocking and disturbing.
Quote:
Posted November 15, 2015 at 5:47 am | Permalink
The Pel-Air story is about government opaqueness.
We don’t know – and can only guess – why the governent safety investigator didn’t want to get to the truth, or why two government ministers (Albanese and Truss) took no interest in forcing the ATSB into line.
Unfortunately the atrocities in Paris will give governments around the world the cover they need to become more opaque and less open, while at the same time monitoring their citizens’ every move, and introducing harsher penalties for whistleblowers.
A bad event gives governments the excuse to start other bad events (eg Iraq wars). Aviation will suffer, but even worse, the main casualty will be our democracy.
17
Crocodile Chuck
Posted November 15, 2015 at 6:22 am | Permalink
“…the main casualty will be our democracy”
Comment of the Year. - P2: '2nd that motion Croc"
18
Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Comet:
One interesting aspect from a U.S. perspective is that it sounds like neither of Australia’s two major political parties has tried to taint the other by linking it to the ATSB’s apparent cover-up. At least since the Watergate scandal 40 years ago, at various times both the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties have been willing to go to extraordinary lengths to allege that the other party is rife with corruption. A federal (i.e. national) air crash investigation which appears to have been “fixed” to arrive at a particular conclusion would be low hanging fruit for whichever party happened to be in opposition at the time.
Another 1/2 dozen CF's 4 comet -
'Vive la France!'- P2
Continued with some excellent byplay from "K" in reply to Ben's resident troll (you know where the key to the TimTam cupboard is
):Quote:19
PAIN_P2
Posted November 15, 2015 at 10:56 am | Permalink
Comet & Seth: Excellent contributions to the discussion and I 2nd Croc Chuck’s nomination for COTY – 1/2 dozen choc frogs 4 comet.
With Ben’s indulgence comment’s are reproduced on AP here – http://auntypru.com/forum/-Overdue-and-O...46#pid2746
20
joe airline pilot
Posted November 15, 2015 at 11:53 am | Permalink
In an ideal world every accident would be investigated with the same level of detailed forensic analysis as the likes of MH17 or AF447. However, in the real world of budget and staffing constraints, a relatively straight forward accident in a non RPT flight whereby everyone survives and first hand witness accounts are available, the report will be rather more basic compared to a high capacity RPT accident where everybody is dead, the cause is unknown, and the most minute details of the cause must be known to potentially avert a common fault from causing widespread catastrophe. That of itself isn’t a conspiracy. In this case the raising of the CVR is of great curiosity value, but I can’t see any new “truth” coming out of another report.
It reminds me of a remake of the Titanic movie, the ending will always be the same – the ship hits an iceberg and sinks. In the sorry saga of the Titanic there was a lack of regulatory oversight, but that didn’t cause the accident. What caused the accident was the Captains decision to drive a ship at full speed into an ice field.
21
Posted November 15, 2015 at 12:42 pm | Permalink
In this case the accident investigation spiraled out of control because the regulator and investigator we caught out through a lack of candor and disclosure.
The regulator was found to have discovered that it failed to correctly oversight the operator, but then, contrary to the requirements of the law, withheld from the investigator an internal document outlining its failings (which had major implications for its broader responsibilities).
The operator had no fuel policy for its Westwind operations, or no plan B was its chairman was to admit, if it found itself unable to land at a refueling point without sufficient reserve to make a missed approach and then fly to an alternative strip.
The investigator failed to inquire into the regulatory requirements of the operation, and was indifferent to the situation that a non RVSM compliant jet was being required to fly through such an environment, where its optimum altitude would have the potential to put it into conflict with scheduled large capacity movements.
There was an important question as to what met data had been passed on to the flight by Auckland control as the jet reached and then passed its point of no return in relation to Norfolk Island. A question for which the cockpit voice recorder was critical in answering, but which the investigator seemed incredibly keen not have retrieved, preferring instead to pursue the objective of blaming the pilot for everything.
These factors began to feed the storm of disquiet about the integrity of the investigation and the conduct of the regulator. The peer review by the TSBC uncovered evidence of internal divisions in the ATSB over the direction of the much delayed investigation.
Perceptions of unfairness and victimisation naturally began to gain momentum.
After the final and now withdrawn report by the ATSB was issued, it was found to have bungled the issue of what met data the pilot had actually received about conditions at Norfolk Island earlier in the return medical evacuation mission as well.
All of these components caused much mistrust and anger in the sector.
What would you do if confronted in your country by prima facie evidence of a lack of integrity and a case for victimisation by authority? I would think, in the US context, that these matters would be of serious concern.
It’s one thing for a captain of a ship to disregard principles of navigation or even common sense. It’s another for government bodies, anywhere, to lie, conspire and persecute, and those concerns, rightly or wrongly, are centre stage in the Pel-Air saga.
22
Posted November 15, 2015 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
Some good points Ben and I don’t wish to defend any organisation nor argue report dot points.
That said, I’m familiar with remote island and ems flying and I find some of the decision making processes (or lack thereof) that led to continuing on to a remote island at night in marginal weather conditions in a reduced fuel state, quite strange. (And leaving passengers and an unconscious crew member for dead in order to be first out of a sinking vessel is incomprehensible.) I look forward to seeing the next report, but I suspect that many of the salient points will remain the same. (Or may even reflect worse apron the crew). Time will tell.
23
Posted November 15, 2015 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
But Joe, Shirley: the point is the pilot has admitted and paid (dearly) for his publically acknowledged errors. Did he make some?– damn straight, as any professional will tell you. But that is beside the point Joe, isn’t it? A Senate inquiry, supported by an independent review declared that both ATSB and CASA were – to put it kindly – remiss and not quite ‘open’. After the fact that James made and admitted, whether due fatigue, lack of training or ingrained culture several 20/20 hindsight mistakes is irrelevant. The behaviour of the Regulator and it’s influence on the ‘investigator’ reveals a deeper, darker world.
You know; I am always intrigued by folk who publish claimed ‘expertise’ on a Blog – I mean, why bother? I am always curious about an alleged ‘pilot’; who will persist in an attempt to distract attention from the real issues and to denigrate a fellow aviator, claiming only ‘pilot error’ as the main cause. Did Dom make errors? – an admitted given. But what happened afterwards was pure travesty. That’s why there was a Senate inquiry, and the Forsyth report and a TSBC peer review. Were they investigating ‘pilot error’? NO they were not. Or, did I perhaps miss that bit?
Much like the Chambers report – added to those three ‘other’ reports presents a commentary on the easily determined, now revealed flaws within the ‘safety watchdogs’. Except, Chambers was never (not ever) meant to be published. The Chambers report was, and remains a self serving, damning attack on opposition CASA officers, as means of covert removal of those who dared to disagree, simply to raise the Chambers kudos against his very own crew. Read it – then come back with an answer which does nor beggar belief; or, confront all sworn testimony. The Chambers report may be rightfully deemed – unfortunate; for whom, is yet to be determined.
Meanwhile, if you can; provide me the supporting numbers, for the James worst case OEI (Dep) PNR from the FOB on departure. Then, perhaps I will acknowledge you may even be a pilot with the experience you claim. Tell me how you, as an airline pilot would have done the journey. Don’t ask me to do it – I did mine for the Senators – in camera – on invitation; did you?
MTF..P2
Ps Gobbles this JAP troll on Ben's blog is strangely familiar in toxic, Sociopathic, writing style - hmm...Lefty perhaps or even Blackhand? Nah Blackie wouldn't pretend to be a pilot for love nor money...any ideas??