[Peetwo]

The PelAir ghosts & ghouls past, revisited?-   

In a somewhat pre-emptive move and for obvious Reasons, I have decided to drag the new PAIN public enemy No.1 Dr (Hoodoo Voodoo) Walker across to the Senate thread...

So over to you Senators...

Ghost who walks & talks beyond Reason -  

Hiatus; after the storm.

I quite enjoy a full head of steam, most refreshing, but I do however like to know the root cause. When I got the whole story from Kaz; the blue touch paper started to fizz; certainly the Walker insulting, demeaning behaviour and unbelievable ‘attitude’ created the spark, but I was surprised at the level of fury it generated. Time to think it through; so I did.  Ala P2, I put on the research hat, fired up the trusty box, grabbed a fresh ale and went back to the very beginning.  From Seaview to Lockhart through to Pel-Air; Mildura, Albury, Melbourne etc.  The midnight oil bill took a beating, I finally understood the radicals, but not the Walker trigger. A second ale helped sooth the curiosity bump and the little light came on. The Pel-Air review, the itch I couldn’t scratch.

Totally and completely unnecessary. The Senators (bless) allowed a second chance; with which I have no quarrel; they could hardly take an axe to the entire structure of aviation administration, much as they may like to. So, as an act of grace and forbearance, a second chance was gifted. A chance for both the ATSB and CASA of redemption, an escape from the pit.  Furry muff, I can, as a practical man accept that. What I cannot accept is that both agencies have continued, despite a very close shave, to thumb their collective noses at government and industry alike. That attitude clearly reflected in the Walker diatribe against Karen Casey. In a few short moments, he revealed the true attitude of the agency he represents.  Karen, like industry, is an irritant and may be treated with open contempt. There is not a hint of ‘humble-pie’ or apology, not a scrap of remorse, not a glimmer of real change to be seen. In short, despite Pel-Air there is no hope of a real attitude change, in fact quite the reverse. They are coming out swinging, not in a mans way, but with snide, smug, self satisfied work round’s, of which they are ‘proud’.

The concerns PAIN raised in supplementary comments, provided to the SSC on the re-investigation of the Pel-Air incident are proving to be founded in reality. Walker’s attitude indicative of fact.

FWIW – the Supplementary comments are available from the AP library – HERE -.

P7 is correct. A weasel worded apology will not serve, the under pinning structure is deeply flawed and an attitude change is necessary. Anything else is simply window dressing, designed to keep the ministerial arse out the public sling.  Warning – that will not be allowed to happen; not a second time.

Toot – toot.

Surprise - Another bloody useless minister.

No point in waiting for the inevitable results of the Chester ministry; none at all.  The man simply will not allow the problems to be aired and examined; the useless sod will not even ‘talk about’ the latest, in a long string of gross insult offered to Karen Casey. He won’t interact with industry, being content to sit back and let the agencies do their thing and rumble along in the same direction, with the same mind-set and piss poor attitude.

He should be demanding that ATSB issue a written, public apology to Karen;insist the revised Pel-Air report be released, he could also get things moving on the reform front; but does he? Does he hell. We must all wait patiently until the weasel word smiths have finished massaging the latest ‘workshopped’ masterpiece which will, in the fullness of time achieve SFA.  No matter; the ministerial Muppet will have moved on by the time nothing in the form of reform has been achieved, without even getting his highly polished boots muddy.

Well, he joins a long list now of Do Nuthin’s.  It is not a very salubrious list, but he will be in good company, as he stands proudly in the large pension cashing queue; so, no wukkers. Life is good; Bravo.

To put the PAIN supplementary comments in context the following is an archived AP blog post which featured a Hitch article from Oz Flying:

Norfolk ditching Round 2

• Posted by admin
  
• on February 8, 2015
  
• • Accidents and Inquiry
  
• • Edit
  

08Feb



ATSB to feel PAIN over Pel-Air Investigation
19 Jan 2015
 
A confidential group known as the Professional Aviators Investigative Network (PAIN) has raised concerns over the ATSB review of the Pel-Air ditching report.

Late last year, the ATSB agreed to review the report into the 2009 ditching of a Pel-Air aeromedical flight at Norfolk Island, after a Canadian review highlighted anomalies with the investigation report.

In a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) written in December, the group has criticised the ATSB’s decision to use one of their own people to lead the review.

“… the ATSB [has] elected to utilise Dr Michael Walker of the ATSB to lead the investigation,” the PAIN submission points out. “We believe that to be effective, any investigation should be conducted independently and not involve ATSB, the commissioners or staff if only to preclude any suspicion of ‘internal’ influence or external bias being raised.”

PAIN is also concerned that the terms of reference announced by General Manager Aviation Safety Investigations Ian Sangston do not go far enough.

“The terms of reference cited by Mr Sangston are narrow and only mention the ‘report’ itself. Whilst the industry acknowledges that the report was substandard, there is little doubt that the investigators conducted their work with integrity and within the prescribed guidelines. Indeed, the early stages of the ATSB report were exemplary and clearly directed toward serious safety recommendations being made.

“We believe little will gained by utilising scarce resources re-investigating the original ATSB investigative ‘reports’.”

Instead, PAIN points the finger of blame for the original Pel-Air investigation report squarely at the both CASA and the ATSB and hints at deeper issues.

“Our greatest concern is that a deliberate, calculated manipulation of the national aviation safety system was attempted. It is not a ‘one off’ aberration. We firmly believe that the subsequent actions of both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the ATSB were proven, by the AAI [RRAT inquiry] committee, to grossly pervert the conclusions of the ATSB investigation to suit a clearly predetermined outcome, thus denying industry valuable, safety related knowledge and information.

“It is the process by which these subsequent events occurred which demands an independent investigation conducted  transparently in public. We believe the Senate Committee is the right reporting and oversight platform for that investigation. The committee Senators are well briefed, informed and have a firm, current understanding of what transpired during the events subsequent to the Pel-Air aircraft ditching off Norfolk Island.

“Further, the Estimates committee is very clearly ‘awake’ to the machinations of the various aviation oversight bodies and will not easily be misled or confounded by ‘technical’ issues.

“We submit that any other form of investigation will not withstand the scrutiny of industry experts; as the initial premise is fatally flawed.”

PAIN describes itself as “a loosely organised, informal, confidential network which has formed and expanded over a number of years. There are approximately 1000 associates of the network; many participants, in one form or another may be properly considered expert witnesses.”

Its stated aims are to conduct independent investigations to provide aviators with a defence against “unfair, unreasonable or incorrect” made by CASA and its flight and airworthiness inspectors.

The members of PAIN remain largely anonymous to the general public, although it is known the group gave evidence to the original RRAT inquiry into the Pel-Air ditching.

Totally wanting to rub salt into the wounds of the numties in the miniscule's office and at the ATSB (including Sangston, Walsh and the invisible Manning), with a big "WE TOLD YOU SO", here is the executive summary in full from the PAIN sup comments that was originally addressed to the Senate RRAT committee, after the ATSB announced the re-opening of the VH-NGA, Norfolk Island ditching accident investigation nearly 2 years ago:  

Executive summary.

1) The purpose of this report is to draw to the attention of the Aviation Accident

Investigation (AAI) Senate Committee members, who participated in the Pel-Air

inquiry several matters of grave concern raised from within the PAIN network.

2) In short, we are certain that the committee is very aware that the Australian

Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has grudgingly condescended to re-open the

investigation into the 'report' of that incident. The following are of concern:-

a) That the ATSB have elected to utilise Dr. Michael Walker of the ATSB to lead the

investigation. We believe that to be effective, any investigation should be

conducted independently and not involve ATSB, the commissioners or staff if only to

preclude any suspicion of 'internal' influence or external bias being raised.

b) The terms of reference cited by Mr. Sangston are narrow and only mention the

'report' itself. Whilst the industry acknowledges that the report was substandard,

there is little doubt that the investigators conducted their work with integrity and

within the prescribed guidelines. Indeed, the early stages of the ATSB report were

exemplary and clearly directed toward serious safety recommendations being made.

We believe little will gained by utilising scarce resources re-investigating the original

ATSB investigative 'reports'.

3) Our greatest concern is that a deliberate, calculated manipulation of the national

aviation safety system was attempted. It is not a 'one off' aberration. We firmly

believe that the subsequent actions of both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

and the ATSB were proven, by the AAI committee, to grossly pervert the conclusions

of the ATSB investigation to suit a clearly predetermined outcome, thus denying

industry valuable, safety related knowledge and information.

4) It is the process by which these subsequent events occurred which demands an

independent investigation conducted transparently in public. We believe the Senate

Committee is the right reporting and oversight platform for that investigation. The

committee Senators are well briefed, informed and have a firm, current understanding

of what transpired during the events subsequent to the Pel-Air aircraft ditching off

Norfolk Island. Further, the Estimates committee is very clearly 'awake' to the

machinations of the various aviation oversight bodies and will not easily be misled or

confounded by 'technical' issues.

5) We submit that any other form of investigation will not withstand the scrutiny of

industry experts; as the initial premise is fatally flawed. The potential for further

disingenuous obfuscation is obvious. This will, ultimately, be detrimental, not only to

the travelling public and industry, but to the government which allowed one authority

to investigate it's own wrong doings, but avoided investigating those agencies and

their officers, which aided and abetted the travesty, which was the Pel-Air accident

investigation became.

    
MTF...P2