[Peetwo]

Eeny. meeny, miney, MoU.


Sometime ago I made a UP post (well several actually) on the MoU conundrum that IMO was massively exploited by CASA in the PelAir cover-up:

Sundy cogitation on ANA’s, MoU’s, DJ’s, TASRR & any other safety related matters.

---

Heard a rumour that the Feds investigation into PelAirgate has been stalled while various DIPs get all their ducks in a row & before the WLR panel start sniffing around....just a rumour but most disturbing if true…

Anyway moving on..
Part One: On watering potplants and MOUs

Kharon:
Quote:

Was the 2010 MOU used actually in play at the time of the incident? Did the AILU manager start a parallel investigation assuming that ?, he certainly cited it; but wouldn't the active 2004 MOU prohibited this ?. If so, then they seem to have run very close to the 'legal' wind there. I wonder what the AAT would make of the procedural integrity in that.

A gentle reminder that the 2010 MOU was officially commissioned/signed off on the 9th February 2010, however the MALIU states in the, now infamous hidden report, CAIR 09/3 synopsis…

It is well worth perusing parts of the various MOUs that were kindly submitted, but then mi..mi..minimised, by FF in their original PelAir inquiry submission.

In the 1996 version we had the following paragraph…



.. in 2001…



..and in 2004..




All good stuff clearly outlining the rules of engagement between FF & the bureau and also indicating that bureau investigations will look at the big picture in a holistic, systemic manner, whereas FF’s emphasis will be solely on matters of possible non-compliance.

The 2010 version however does away with (deletes) all that palaver and cuts straight to the chase with their newly headed section, which the MALIU dutifully refers to in the CAIR 09/3 synopsis, ‘Parallel Investigations’…



Gone are the good old days where the bureau held the ultimate trump card, where the singular objective was to learn from accidents/incidents to help mitigate safety risk and where we met our international obligations under the articles of the Chicago Convention.

IMO this disconnection with the real world perception of AAI best practice is quite well highlighted in paragraphs 5.16-5.20 of the 1996 MOU..

Oh what a conundrum..for the miniscule and his WLR panel…

Here’s and idea just scrap the 2010 MOU, go back to the drawing board and use the 1996 MOU as a blueprint for a new MOU…my 2 bob’s worth..


Q/ Hasn't the 2010 MOU now time expired?? Hmm..perfect opportunity perhaps..

Of course the excellent Forsyth & TSBC reports have since been released, both of which supported the original premise of my above post and to top it all off the MoU has now been re-written pretty much in the original spirit & intent of the 1996 MoU...  

But I want to focus on this line from the above UP post...

"...It is well worth perusing parts of the various MOUs that were kindly submitted, but then mi..mi..minimised, by FF in their original PelAir inquiry submission..."

What was it that I meant in that statement??

Well in the original submission from CASA to the Senate Committee for the PelAir inquiry they had an attachment that included all versions of the MoU from 1996 to 2010. This attachment also contained - discretely hidden & unlisted in the contents - the infamous CAIR 09/3 report a.k.a the ALIU report (i.e. Whitey's report)...    

For your convenience here is a link for the original MoU attachment -  http://auntypru.com/?attachment_id=822
You will see that the attachment pdf was 102 pages and included the '96, '01, '04 & 2010 MoUs. The following was the listed contents for Attachment B: 

According to my records I had downloaded the original CASA MoU document on the 18 October 2012 off the Senate Inquiry submissions page - Submissions received by the Committee.

On the 09 July 2013 - when I had further need to again review the CASA MoU attachment and not having access to my original file download - I revisited the Inquiry submission page and again downloaded the pdf attachment. However I was to discover that the attachment had shrunk by 20 pages (now 82 pages) and was now minus the 2004 MoU?? Here is the version that now exists on the Senate Inquiry submissions page - 
http://auntypru.com/?attachment_id=821

So sometime between 18/10/12 to 09/07/13 person(s) unknown and for reasons unknown (although I could hazard a guess), have altered a document held under parliamentary privilege! How bizarre?? The most amusing part is that although the current version of attachment B is now minus the '04 MoU it is still listed in the contents....

Attachment B

Memorandum of Understanding between

the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

(May 1996)

Memorandum of Understanding between

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

(June 2001)

Memorandum of Understanding between

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

(December 2004)

Oops...

Much..much MTF on this...P2

Ps From the TSBC report...

"...3.3.6 Information on regulatory oversight

Throughout the investigation, ATSB staff and management consulted or briefed CASA staff and management. Attachment A of the Memorandum of Understanding between the ATSB and CASA (October 2004) indicated that, upon agreement by both CASA and ATSB, a CASA officer might participate in the ATSB investigation. In this instance, no CASA officer was designated..."

"...Around this time, several meetings and discussions on the signing of a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CASA and the ATSB were documented. The MOU, which was signed on 09 February 2010, reflected the ATSB approach favouring proactive safety action over recommendations. By taking this approach, the ATSB aimed to track action taken by stakeholders on all issues determined to have a systemic impact (known as safety issues) and to issue recommendations only as a last resort when an unacceptable risk persisted..."

Hmm..think we need to have a close look at the 2004 MoU??