Memo: from the department of funny coincidence.
![[Image: Aviation_Safety-200x.jpg]](http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Aviation_Safety-200x.jpg)
Good job P2, and timely. The BRB tote odds for the release of the latest Pel-Air ditching report is at very short odds (5/4 on) for a ‘Budget day’ slider, (slipped under the door at 1659 followed by the patter of tiny feet, at speed, out of the building).
There are two very important items on the BRB agenda; to wit. Item 1: the actions of CASA officers during the investigations, audit and rehabilitation of Pel-Air. Item 2: the motivation for the acts and actions of both ATSB and CASA.
Item 1:
DJ_22 – “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.”
DJ_22 –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.
DJ_22 – It is therefore only reasonable that this conduct not be overlooked and a fair application of law applied, regardless of who is involved.
P2 –“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' –“
It is not only the Pel-Air matter, but several ‘other’ less publicised cases occurring during the period in question which demand serious scrutiny. Nothing less than an open judicial inquiry into those actions will prevent further ‘embuggerance’ of the spirit and intent of the ‘law’ designed to ensure public safety. We acknowledge the Senate inquiry as a great effort; however, their recommendations have been ignored, contemptuously and summarily dismissed; as was the ASRR. I say the behaviour of individual CASA officers demands the free, fair and impartial scrutiny of JI; if only to establish that they acted properly throughout the period in question. Those questions must be answered if CASA and the ATSB are to have any credibility and public trust; for they have very little of either with which to trade at present. Judicial inquiry into the actions of CASA officers, Sydney region 2009 through to 2012. It will rock and shock you; but will send a very clear message to those within both organisations that they are not above the law, as writ.
Item 2:
I can’t quantify the number of hours spent ‘discussing’ the motivation driving the Pel-Air scandal. Both ATSB and CASA took hellish risks, got caught, went through a Senate inquiry and came out discredited and sanctioned. Then carried on business as usual. There has been absolutely ‘no penalty’ inflicted despite clear evidence that a simple accident report was manipulated. Do you understand what has transpired; a preventable, easily remedied chain of events leading to a life threatening situation was ‘examined’; the report and, more importantly, the results on which the report relied where ‘rearranged’ to suit. Why? What could possibly cause both departments to take such risks? And why have ATSB and CASA been allowed and assisted to escape ‘Scot free’ after foisting their ‘aberration’ onto the public and ignoring almost 70 recommendations. But who arranged to the top cover? That’s a question I’d like answered.
It is passing strange that the gaining and loosing of ‘military’ contracts time line is interwoven with the Pel-Air debacle. Lots of pennies involved, budgets, friends, rice bowls and reputations to protect there. No matter, if the ‘government’ can’t or won’t get to the root of it all; Aunty Pru will keep trying to ‘answer the riddle’.
Toot toot
Good job P2, and timely. The BRB tote odds for the release of the latest Pel-Air ditching report is at very short odds (5/4 on) for a ‘Budget day’ slider, (slipped under the door at 1659 followed by the patter of tiny feet, at speed, out of the building).
There are two very important items on the BRB agenda; to wit. Item 1: the actions of CASA officers during the investigations, audit and rehabilitation of Pel-Air. Item 2: the motivation for the acts and actions of both ATSB and CASA.
Item 1:
DJ_22 – “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.”
DJ_22 –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.
DJ_22 – It is therefore only reasonable that this conduct not be overlooked and a fair application of law applied, regardless of who is involved.
P2 –“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' –“
It is not only the Pel-Air matter, but several ‘other’ less publicised cases occurring during the period in question which demand serious scrutiny. Nothing less than an open judicial inquiry into those actions will prevent further ‘embuggerance’ of the spirit and intent of the ‘law’ designed to ensure public safety. We acknowledge the Senate inquiry as a great effort; however, their recommendations have been ignored, contemptuously and summarily dismissed; as was the ASRR. I say the behaviour of individual CASA officers demands the free, fair and impartial scrutiny of JI; if only to establish that they acted properly throughout the period in question. Those questions must be answered if CASA and the ATSB are to have any credibility and public trust; for they have very little of either with which to trade at present. Judicial inquiry into the actions of CASA officers, Sydney region 2009 through to 2012. It will rock and shock you; but will send a very clear message to those within both organisations that they are not above the law, as writ.
Item 2:
I can’t quantify the number of hours spent ‘discussing’ the motivation driving the Pel-Air scandal. Both ATSB and CASA took hellish risks, got caught, went through a Senate inquiry and came out discredited and sanctioned. Then carried on business as usual. There has been absolutely ‘no penalty’ inflicted despite clear evidence that a simple accident report was manipulated. Do you understand what has transpired; a preventable, easily remedied chain of events leading to a life threatening situation was ‘examined’; the report and, more importantly, the results on which the report relied where ‘rearranged’ to suit. Why? What could possibly cause both departments to take such risks? And why have ATSB and CASA been allowed and assisted to escape ‘Scot free’ after foisting their ‘aberration’ onto the public and ignoring almost 70 recommendations. But who arranged to the top cover? That’s a question I’d like answered.
It is passing strange that the gaining and loosing of ‘military’ contracts time line is interwoven with the Pel-Air debacle. Lots of pennies involved, budgets, friends, rice bowls and reputations to protect there. No matter, if the ‘government’ can’t or won’t get to the root of it all; Aunty Pru will keep trying to ‘answer the riddle’.
Toot toot