[Peetwo]

ATSB – How to cook a book.

You must, as a thinking person, question the usefulness of the ATSB.  Their production of ‘useful’ statistics reflects the disingenuous nature of their approach.  GA accidents have increased – OK – tell us why? While you're at it, lets do the figures and compare reduced ‘activity’ to accident ratio; and, once again, explain why this real accounting is manipulated.  Then explain the real rise.  Then provide real solutions.  Then produce real recommendations.  Then drive those recommendations home, make them stick. Then produce the changes and education to go with change.  This is, after all said and done, what the Australian public pay for.

We could do this for you, or just tell you; but then it would cost the taxpayer another small fortune for ATSB to refute the truth and re-jig the damn lies, provided as statistics to shore up the fiction.  

There is little point to completing, yet alone presenting this last list of meaningless numbers.  The artificially reduced ‘scope’ of what may and what may not be investigated, the careful categorisation of ‘accidents’ to shape the numerical outcome and the claimed ‘resources’ limitations, all serve to bias any attempt at providing a ‘genuine’ picture for consideration.

There are accident and incidents to which a proportion of the causal chain may be sheeted home to the regulator; there are A&I which can be attributed to the same killers which have been around since the Wright brothers; there are several other areas which, under proper scrutiny would reveal alarming, very real, emerging trends.  None of this information has been ‘honestly’ provided to industry or the public.  The lack of ATSB ‘pro-active’ engagement in safety management is an obscene, risible state of affairs for a body which is charged with doing exactly that to be in.  

Selective data, subjective reporting, subversion of reports to assist with the ‘politics’ of an incident all on public display and yet ATSB persist with the fallacy that they are an independent, fearless champion of air safety.

Bollocks – study any report provided by ATSB over the past six years; or, take a long hard look at the Pel-Air incident.  Same crowd in control of ATSB, same piffling, lame, half baked reports coming through; same-same everything – despite political, industry, public censure and ministerial directive.  Who, I wonder, do these people believe they are?

Why bother to produce ‘figures’ no one cares about or reports which disgrace Australia and insult the intelligence of the aviation community.  Ask instead what’s changed since that censure?  The answer, writ large, is SFA, all fully government supported and funded by Australians.  Stellar.

Selah.

Excellent post "K", cuts straight to the chase, no prisoners & all that...

While talking about the dubious veracity of the ATSB AR-2015-082 (& other related QON-dery matters ), I was trolling through last Estimates Hansard & I remembered this humorous exchange with Beaker by Senator Bullock:

Senator BULLOCK: I have a couple of questions. How many accidents have there been in Australia in 2014-15?


Mr Dolan : I am afraid we will have to take that one on notice.

Senator BULLOCK: When you let us know, could you please let CASA know as well, because they have a question on notice that depends on your answer to that question and they say that they cannot get it out of you.

  
Hmm..perhaps Beaker can now forward the AQON in the way of the AR-2015-082 report to the good Senator and also cc it to CASA so they to can answer the QON...

On the BITRE stat links (above), I find most are not very useful for any real analysis of GA activity, even the GA activity survey results is written in such a way as to distract from truly analysing the state of the small end of town GA Ops/Private & Recreational.

However for what it is worth here is the GA hours flown 2003 - 2013:



One group of BITRE stats that caught my eye was the gasoline sales graph, which IMO tells a tale..






MTF...P2

Ps Here is the Senator Bullocks QON (QON index finally released - TY Secretariat ) addressed to CASA:

96/468/CASA/BULLOCK - KPIs:

Senator BULLOCK: Back in May I foolishly assumed that you had adopted as a KPI reducing the number of accidents per flying hours. You responded that you were actually reviewing the appropriateness of your KPIs and whether it was appropriate to have a KPI reducing the number of accidents. I asked you at the time how you were going for 2014-15—this is May—and you said, 'I don't have that information directly to hand but we can certainly gather that information for you and check on it.' After I put it on notice we got an answer and the answer was, 'The data for 2014-15 year is not yet available.' Is it available now?


Mr Skidmore: Unfortunately the data for the 2014 calendar year is still not available but we have been able, based on some of the historical data, to make an assessment in regards to the actual accidents and incidents levels.

Senator BULLOCK: So, you do not know how many accidents there were in the year ended 30 June and it is now October. CASA does not know how many accidents there were?

Mr Skidmore: We rely on the statistics being provided to us and we are still awaiting that information.

Senator BULLOCK: From the ATSB?

Mr Skidmore: It is not just ATSB. It is also to do with the flying hours because we normalise the number of events, accidents and incidents across flying hours to be able to make an assessment from year to year.

Senator BULLOCK: Yes. I understand you would have to know how many hours to do the sum. Could you keep looking for me?

Mr Skidmore: I certainly will

And this was the obfuscated AQON from the May Budget Estimates:

Question no.: 88


Program: 2.4 Air Transport

Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Topic: Key Performance Indicators and Number of Accidents

Proof Hansard Page: 141 (27 May 2015)

Senator Bullock, Joe asked:

Senator BULLOCK: I understand that you have adopted some KPIs with a view to ensuring that there is a reduction in the number of accidents per hours flown by each industry sector from 2015-16. Is that right?

Mr Skidmore: I am currently reviewing all our KPIs to see how appropriate they are in regards to meeting the requirements of CASA going forward into the future. In regards to the actual KPIs on accident statistics, obviously we are looking for a reduction in any accident statistics.

Senator BULLOCK: You have not adopted that as a KPI?

Mr Skidmore: As indicated in the PBS, yes.

Senator BULLOCK: That is from 2015-16 on. If it was applying now, would you have met it? Is 2014-15 a year where the accidents per hours flown by the industry sector have gone down?

Mr Skidmore: I do not have that information directly to hand, but we can certainly gather that information and check on that.

Senator BULLOCK: Take that on notice, if you would not mind. Cockpit regulations—what are the rules currently around who is in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft in Australia?

Mr Skidmore: The regulations surrounding the type of people or the number of people?

Senator BULLOCK: Number and type.

Mr Skidmore: If you are alluding to the recent discussion that we have had with the operators in relation to the incident in Europe, that is being directed to the operators as an amendment to their operations manual—to incorporate an operating procedure such that they have two personnel inside the cockpit. It is not a regulation as such.

…

Answer:

Data required for the 2014-15 year is not yet available from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau or the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, so CASA is unable to determine the performance against the KPIs at this stage. Once it becomes available, information regarding performance against the KPIs can be provided to the Committee.

So Oliver Skidmore-Twist & Beaker, no excuses anymore, just answer the bloody question...