AIOS & the ATSB - The top-cover experts
Going off the ABC New England Breakfast Radio program yesterday, where Kelly Fuller briefly interviewed the minister it is clear that Mr Chester is inflicted by AIOS, with the obvious symptom of MOAS ('mystique of aviation safety') there for all to hear. I did try but unfortunately I haven't been able to get a copy of the transcript and/or the recording. However the following is a quote from the miniscule from the ABC article linked HERE:
Sadly that is the standard mantra trotted out when Murky Mandarin & the CASA Iron ring have infected the current Minister incumbent with AIOS - .
Therefore the following basic timeline of recorded O&O on the ATSB ATR top-cover expose, may very well be a wasted effort - with this (NFI) miniscule - but it will nonetheless be on the record in the PAIN 'I told you so' cyber-archives for ever more...
First here is the latest addition to the O&O thread with a quote from Kharon:
Next is a post of mine on the subject made just over a year ago:
It should be noted that it is now 2 years 1 month & 27 days since the original incident (classified as an accident). And it is 1 year 10 months and 6 days since the investigation page has been updated - UFB!
MTF...P2
Quote:Ventus45 - The industry has "acquired institutionalised ostrichitis syndrome" (AIOS).
So, stand by for regular repeats of AF-447 and QZ8501.
Clues:
confusion, befuddlement, bewilderment, puzzlement, perplexity, disconcertment, discomposure, daze, fog, muddle, etc ........
Going off the ABC New England Breakfast Radio program yesterday, where Kelly Fuller briefly interviewed the minister it is clear that Mr Chester is inflicted by AIOS, with the obvious symptom of MOAS ('mystique of aviation safety') there for all to hear. I did try but unfortunately I haven't been able to get a copy of the transcript and/or the recording. However the following is a quote from the miniscule from the ABC article linked HERE:
Quote:The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester says there was a review of regulations underway, and safety must remained a top priority.
"We've got a mutual interest with the aviators and with the flying public to maintain safety levels and make sure we can have an expectation in Australia that when you take off in a plane you arrive safely at your destination," Mr Chester said.
He said CASA had that responsibility, but he wanted to be made aware of any issues.
"If there's a heavy-handed approach and if its proving too difficult then I want to hear that feedback from the industry," he said.
Sadly that is the standard mantra trotted out when Murky Mandarin & the CASA Iron ring have infected the current Minister incumbent with AIOS - .
Therefore the following basic timeline of recorded O&O on the ATSB ATR top-cover expose, may very well be a wasted effort - with this (NFI) miniscule - but it will nonetheless be on the record in the PAIN 'I told you so' cyber-archives for ever more...
First here is the latest addition to the O&O thread with a quote from Kharon:
(04-15-2016, 07:22 AM)kharon Wrote: Safety loop or hangman’s noose?
...I lifted the entire Ventus 45 post from Ben’s blog as it steps us through to what should have provided definitive answers to at least the ‘engineering’ parts of this puzzle. It is remarkable that a manufacturer investigation of an event of this magnitude has not been fully documented. It is not from idle curiosity or vicarious thrill seeking that answers are sought. There are, clearly demonstrable areas of real concern which need to addressed: for example:-
Flight crew training and response to an uncertainty situation; there are many areas which have not been even cursorily examined. The PIC ‘interference’ with the FO actions begs questions; why not call ‘taking over’; or, why not monitor and advise; or, why was there such confusion that the elevator channels were split. Etc. There’s many more related to crew actions and reporting to engineering.
Then we examine what were the engineers told against what was committed to the tech log. This may give some insight into the initial maintenance actions.
The subsequent flights and tech logs preceding to eventual ‘discovery’ at Albury need to be examined in detail and crew questioned in relation to the in-flight performance of the aircraft.
No one is on a witch hunt here; not looking for a scapegoat in the form of an engineer or pilot. However, this incident, like several others raises several red flags over ‘system’. Hiding facts and delaying reports, then producing a ‘thing’ like the latest ATSB rubbish simply assists to hide potential problem areas, which, if not addressed could, when luck runs out end in an avoidable, preventable accident.
ATSB can do better than this – we know they can; so why are they not performing design function. Perhaps when the minister gets done with taking selfies and studying phallic symbols, he could ask that question; maybe even do something about the shameful, deceitful way an expensive investigative body does it’s job. He could even consider doing something to resurrect the inutile and transform it back to at least being honest, if not effective.
Yes GD, I know there’s an election in the wind; so much more important than bodies and aircraft parts blowing in the same breeze. Aye well; tempus fugit and tempers fray; I hope the inevitable never happens on some another day...
Next is a post of mine on the subject made just over a year ago:
(04-13-2015, 04:36 PM)Peetwo Wrote: [quote pid='383' dateline='1428801306']Okay and finally here is a post of mine off the UP from nearly two years ago..
Next moving onto to another bizarre & outstanding ATSB (supposedly pc'ed) investigation, that of the bent tail ATR VH-FVR: AO-2014-032
This serious incident only came to our attention when VH-FVR was strangely grounded indefinitely after the Captain reported a possible bird-strike incident on approach to Albury. We then discovered that the identified structural damage to the ATR actually occurred 5 days earlier on CB to SY sector. And that is where the details of the ongoing investigation started to become strange...
Planetalking articles - Virgin Australia’s leg breaker ATR now ATSB tail breaker plus...
Was it a bird, or a stuff up? The Virgin ATR questions
Ben Sandilands | Apr 23, 2014 1:12PM |
Whatever it was that the ATR hit, it was definitely too damaged to continue to operate in the state in which it came to rest in Albury
Julie Andrews in Sound of Music, or the ATSB in Albury? PR photo 20th Century Fox
...Then - Virgin Australia flew 13 passenger flights in broken turbo-prop - which Ben began with this question...
"...Where on earth is CASA as well as Virgin Australia and the Minister for Aviation in relation to the shocking update by the ATSB in the case of a damaged 68 passenger ATR72 turbo-prop that was allowed to fly 13 times in scheduled service after a turbulence event on a Sydney-Canberra flight in February?..."
And what has happened since & what have we learnt from this incident(s)? Well according to the publicly available records off the ATSB website....um..err..not much??
TBC/- Definitely MTF with this ATSB investigation (& others) P2..
Ps You will all be pleased to hear that VH-FVR's broken tail has been fixed and is reportedly back flying the line??
Quote:[/url]Who is kidding who??
training wheels good catch and interesting article (& photo) from the [url=http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2136758/bird-puts-plane-out-of-service/]Border Mail...
Quote:VH-FTS - How are CASA and the ATSB hiding things? I didn't realise they were the ones obligated to tell the press every time there was an accident or incident? Once the report is finalised, yes, but not during the initial investigation. I'd say they are probably doing their job properly behind the scenes - just because you, the pruner, doesn't know about it doesn't mean it's being handled poorly.FTS I'm sure that you're probably right in regards to the investigators on the coalface doing their job properly, however I beg to differ with the rest of your statement.
Both of the occurrences in this case were listed as 'accidents' and both are being investigated. History shows that anytime a serious incident/accident is notified to the ATSB they will invariably post a media release within a day, if not hours, of the occurrence.
It is interesting that the BM article was released on the 08/03/14, some 11 days after the 2nd incident/accident, yet the article states:
Quote:The incidents are being treated as separate.
A Virgin Australia spokesman, Nathan Scholz, said there was no evidence linking the two matters.
Mr Scholz said that on February 20, the Sydney-bound flight struck turbulence that led to a crew member being injured and Virgin notified the bureau.
He said five days later the pilot reported a bird strike mid-flight and found damage to the outside of the aircraft upon landing to Albury.
However if we refer to the ATSB weekly summary lists for the 28 Feb 14 (entry 168) & 7 Mar 14(entry 182) we get the following notifications for the apparently unrelated occurrences (formatted differently but you'll get the picture):
Quote:20/02/2014 *201400786*Accident Yes - AO-2014-032* near Sydney Aerodrome* NSW* ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A*
Air Transport High Capacity*Passenger* C * CTA
During cruise, the aircraft encountered severe turbulence resulting in a cabin crew member receiving a serious injury. The investigation is continuing.
25/02/2014*201400985*Accident Yes - AO-2014-032* near Albury Aerodrome* NSW * ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A*
Air Transport High Capacity*Passenger* D * CTR
During a post flight inspection, substantial damage to the aircraft's tail assembly was detected. The investigation is continuing.
From this information we can establish that; (a) both events were listed as accidents and; (b) for some strange reason (& unbeknown to the BM reporter & VA spokesman) the bureau has given these (unrelated) events the same investigation number.
{Comment: It is also passing strange that the bureau makes no mention of the PIC's notified bird strike incident}
OK clear as mud so far?? Then we move further down the article to this bit right at the end...
"...The bureau spokesman in Canberra said a preliminary report would be prepared within 30 days..."
The 30 days passed on the 27th of March apparently without a prelim report being issued... However if you refer to investigation number AO-2014-032 you will see that it was last updated on the 25 March 2014. So technically speaking the bureau has come within it's promised deadline of 30 days. What is unclear is how the two occurrences were notified to the required parties (as per Annex 13 para 7.1) and whether there was a Preliminary report issued (to those parties) prior to the 30 days (as per para 7.4 of Annex 13).
Oh well I'm sure it is all above board.. However if that is the case when is the bureau going to make the Prelim report available to the rest of the world??
It should be noted that it is now 2 years 1 month & 27 days since the original incident (classified as an accident). And it is 1 year 10 months and 6 days since the investigation page has been updated - UFB!
MTF...P2