[Peetwo]

Defence contract probity & the PelAir connection.

Recently in the course of BRB debate/discussion, on one of the PAIN email chains, someone re-hashed what IMO was one of the more powerful submissions to the Senate PelAir Inquiry:

22 Mr Dominic James (PDF 38KB) 

Submission- Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations (Pel-Air)

Dear Committee members,

As the release of the report draws near, I thought I would share a few things with the Committee that have been worrying me for some time. I have left the details alone and sought to frame the bigger picture, as ultimately this is what really matters.

Section 24 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act was written to prevent any person - regardless of who they are - from interfering with the ATSB's process of investigation. If one was to inhabit the mind of the author of Section 24 and the scenario they wished to prevent, then the events surrounding the investigation of the Norfolk Island accident would almost certainly be what they had in mind. Therefore, in order to respect the purpose of Section 24, it is vital that action be taken when it becomes evident it has been breached. Anything less will make Section 24 abstract and impotent and the integrity of the ATSB will cease to exist.

Consider the following: if it became known that I had taken my training records and other similar documents from Pel-Air and hidden them from the ATSB in fear of criticisms contained within them, then I would have been subject to the provisions of Section 24 and more than likely been charged. The present reality is however far more serious than the hiding of records by one individual. This seriousness stems from the number of persons involved, the self interest driving their actions and most importantly the way their behaviour has diminished aviation safety in Australia. It is therefore only reasonable that this conduct not be overlooked and a fair application of law applied regardless of who is involved.

My other concern is for what may occur if no one is held accountable for the misconduct that has taken place. If this does indeed happen, I fear that employees of CASA and the ATSB would regard those who have been involved in this misconduct as 'rock stars' worthy of admiration and emulation. These employees would then quite rightly regard themselves as above the law and without fear of it, discharging their responsibilities with little care or professionalism. They would take comfort knowing that even if they had to appear in before the Senate that they would emerge almost certainly unscathed. This would have grave consequences for the aviation industry, as it would demonstrate that safety is a secondary imperative after personal reputation. For the sake of the flying public this must never be allowed to occur.

I appreciate the scope of the Senate's powers and I'm not asking for the Senate to reach beyond them. All I ask is that this matter be referred to the appropriate authority so that evidence can be given under oath and the facts be examined in the appropriate forum.

Regards,

Dom James

 
  As history will show the Senate committee referral to the AFP for investigation under S24 of the TSI Act 2004, eventually fizzled into a 'nothing' -

However IMO and in light of the turn of events since that time, the Dom James submission 22 is now more relevant than ever, especially if motivated elected representatives had the mind to ask for a judicial review into the circumstances and suspected illegalities surrounding the still puzzling ATSB VH-NGA cover-up investigation...

Joining dots & making of dashes -  
 
"K" quote from tick & flick thread: 

..However, if he wanted to take a shot at ‘Rex’ top level management, this was not the story to go with; there are other juicy morsels to choose from, which would do the trick. A decent researcher would have questions about ‘defence’ contracts and cover ups and manipulated accident reports; all there, freely and publicly available....

Have just begun looking at this but the timeline "dots" with a little known/publicised 2011 Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade inquiry; versus the bizarre attempted PelAir cover-up certainly deserves further review.

For the record here is the completed Senate inquiry webpage:

Inquiry into the Department of Defence's request for tender for aviation contracts and associated issues

• Information about the Inquiry
  
• Terms of Reference
  
• Submissions Received
  
• Public Hearings and Transcripts
  
• Interim Report
  
• Report
  
• Government Response tabled 9 February 2012 (PDF 15182KB)
  

For further information, contact:

Department of the Senate
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia
Phone:
+61 2 6277 3535
Fax:
+61 2 6277 5818

Email:
fadt.sen@aph.gov.au

Although the context of this inquiry largely focussed on one particular 2010 air services Defence tender, the MEAO tender awarded to Adagold, there was much involvement from related parties (e.g PelAir & CASA) that make this inquiry particularly interesting, while raising suspicions of impropriety in regards to the concurrently ran ATSB VH-NGA accident investigation.

References:

2 Pel-Air Aviation Pty Limited (PDF 153KB) 

&.. former PelAir Chief Operating Officer giving evidence 28/03/11: Hansard reference - 28/03/2011 Sydney, NSW (HTML format) (PDF 57KB) (PDF 208KB) - page 19-26.

---

7 Civil Aviation Safety Authority (PDF 661KB)

&.. Adam Anastasi, Acting Chief Legal Officer, Legal Services Division, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, giving evidence 29/03/2011: Hansard reference - 29/03/2011 Canberra, ACT (HTML format) (PDF 58KB) (PDF 478KB) - page 37-44.

P2 comment - A passing interest in the above interactions that bring to mind shades of Lockhart River and the connection between Aerotropics & Transair: 

Senator JOHNSTON—This is the Adagold case—

Mr Anastasi—Which is Adagold, which is contracted with the Commonwealth. If it were the
case that CASA formed a view that, having regard to all the arrangements, and CASA did review the contract between Adagold and Hi Fly when assessing the application to vary the AOC by Hi Fly; if, for example, there was a view formed that—in fact it looks like—Adagold really has operational control over the aircraft, then we would look at that issue more carefully, make inquiries of Adagold and, in an extreme case, take the view that in reality Adagold is the operator and not Hi Fly. That was not a view that was formed in this case...

---

Senator JOHNSTON—Thank you. On the paragraph that I have taken you to, what
regulatory obligations do Hi Fly have to CASA?

Mr Anastasi—Hi Fly has regulatory obligations to the aviation legislation—that may be a
better way to describe it. The aviation legislation requires any operator to comply with certain rules. Generally, for a foreign registered aircraft the Australia maintenance regulations have no application to such aircraft, but the operational requirements on any aircraft in Australian airspace will generally apply to that aircraft.

Senator JOHNSTON—So operational matters refer to the way they conduct their flying
within Australian airspace?

Mr Anastasi—Yes, and complying with Australian rules when operating in that airspace.

Senator JOHNSTON—But maintenance issues do not relate to that regulation because it is a
foreign aircraft?

Mr Anastasi—That is correct, but CASA will still review the maintenance arrangements for
the aircraft in question. In this case, CASA asks questions of the operator about how the aircraft was going to be maintained and by whom...

---

Senator JOHNSTON—You say that:

Such charter brokers have no regulatory obligation to CASA, and CASA has no authority to regulate the conduct of those charter brokers.

What do you mean by that?

Mr Anastasi—What is meant to be said there is that if a charter broker is not the operator then
obviously the charter broker has no obligations on it as if it were an operator. The only
regulatory—

Senator JOHNSTON—Let me just clarify that: because he is not conducting operations, he
is not bound by the civil aviation legislative framework in Australia? The operator is the one who is bound?

Mr Anastasi—Yes, other than that there is a regulatory provision which states that,
effectively, you cannot hold yourself out as an operator if you are not, in fact, an operator. That applies to anyone...

  
Moving on to the Senate Inquiry Report I note that in chapter 6, much like the PelAir Senate inquiry,  there was another AFP referral for investigation that appears to have fizzled out...

Allegations concerning the 2005 tender and AFP investigation

6.66 As noted earlier, on 2 September 2010, while the external reviews were under
way, an article published in the Age newspaper reported allegations of impropriety in
the 2005 tender process, which resulted in the awarding of the contract to Strategic.93
The allegations concerned the 'leaking' of tender specifications to Strategic prior to the
release of the RFT. The article reported that it had uncovered email correspondence
between Strategic directors which suggested that two members of 1JMOVGP—
identified as Major Charlton and Warrant Officer John Davies—had 'fed' this
information to Strategic.94 This matter was not taken up by the reviews of the 2010
tender process, on the basis that the Phillips Fox (DLA Piper) review of the 2005
tender process did not identify any probity related compliance issues that would
require the process to be set aside.95

6.67 On 10 September 2010, Defence referred the allegations concerning the 2005
tender to the AFP. Defence stated that it had not previously been aware of any
allegations that Strategic had received inside information in 2005. It noted that, 'if
proven, these allegations would give rise to a range of possible criminal offences'.96
At the time of writing, the matter remained under investigation by the AFP.97

So anyone else see why the stink emanating off this inquiry could be causal to the shenanigans surrounding the botched and O&O'd ATSB VH-NGA ditching investigation...


MTF? Yes definitely..P2