TSI Act: A wet lettuce with Pelair & a red herring on MH370 -
Reference from the AA&MH370 thread:
Still shaking my head and trying to fathom the rationale behind that unbelievable statement from Hood?
Kind of ironic when you consider that the last time the TSI Act penalties were threatened to be invoked, were in the recommendations & wash up of the PelAir cover-up Senate inquiry. The irony here lies in Hood's inescapable involvement at the time, as the designated decision-maker, with the McCormick endorsed black-letter embuggerance campaign of Dom James.
Here is a reminder, from documents released under a previous CASA FOI request, on just how firmly entrenched, in the middle of the PelAir cover-up, one Mr Greg Hood truly was... DJ CASA FOI docs redacted
E.g.
Hmm...kind of makes you wonder about the appointment of Hoody as Chief Commissioner to the ATSB??
Finally, coming back to the bizarre veiled threat from Hood, perhaps he is feeling just a little bit anxious with ICAO Thor wandering the halls of ATSB HQ - just a thought...
Reference: PAIN/IOS WTD ATSB QRH -
MTF...P2
Reference from the AA&MH370 thread:
(04-17-2017, 09:58 AM)Peetwo Wrote: Captain's Log 17.04.17: Hoody plays the TSI card on MH370 -
Well I'll be?? Hoody threatening sanctions on those considering leaking/whistleblowing on MH370...
Via the Oz today:
Quote:FOI plea on MH370 scotched
12:00amEAN HIGGINS
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material on its hunt.
Quote:The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material about its search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, warning that any bureau employee who provides such information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.
ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood has used the statute to reject a plea from the families of the Chinese passengers who died on MH370 that he grant a Freedom of Information request from The Australian, with the families claiming failure to do so makes Australia complicit with a cover-up by the Malaysian government.
Some ATSB officers are having second thoughts about the agency’s official line that MH370’s pilots were unconscious or dead at the end of the flight.
Mr Hood has declared the Transport Safety Investigation Act covers the FOI request for critical documents the ATSB claims support its “ghost flight” and “death dive” scenario, which holds the Boeing 777 went down in an unpiloted crash.
The theory has been rejected by many commercial pilots and international air crash investigators who believe captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end.
The documents sought are the opinions of international experts, including from the US and British air crash agencies, Boeing, aerospace group Thales, and British satellite group Inmarsat, about satellite data that automatically tracked the course of MH370.
The ATSB says the satellite data shows MH370 was in a rapid unpiloted dive at the end, but experts such as former US captain and crash investigator John Cox have said the data is not good enough to reach that conclusion.
ATSB general manager for strategic capability Colin McNamara in February refused The Australian’s original FOI request, claiming release of the information could “cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth”.
The association representing the families of the 153 Chinese victims who died when the plane went down on March 8, 2014, issued a statement after The Australian reported Mr McNamara’s decision, saying “we react with extreme displeasure and annoyance”.
“Is avoiding offending the Malaysian authorities more important than discovering the truth?” the families asked in the statement.
Mr Hood, in an internal review of Mr McNamara’s decision, also refused to release the documents. “The activities of the ATSB with respect to assisting the Malaysian investigation are covered by the TSI Act,” Mr Hood wrote in his decision.
He advised that the act holds that if a serving or former ATSB staffer or consultant “discloses information to any person or to a court; and the information is restricted” they have breached the act, which stipulates a penalty of two years in prison.
In response to an earlier inquiry, Mr Hood would not say whether he would allow any ATSB staff who no longer agree with the “ghost flight” and “death dive” theory to publicly express their views.
MH370 disappeared on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board, with its radar transponder turned off and radio communication cut after about 40 minutes.
Military radar and the satellite tracking data shows the aircraft deviated back over Malaysia to the Andaman Sea, before a long track south to the southern Indian Ocean. A $200 million search directed by the ATSB based on its “unresponsive pilots” theory failed to find the aircraft’s wreckage and was suspended in January.
When last year it was revealed the FBI had discovered Zaharie had plotted a course quite close to that track on his home computer flight simulator, the ATSB joined the Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines to hose down suggestions this pointed to the “rogue pilot” hijack theory.
UDB!
Here is some recent comments that reflect the general disbelief of the average ATP in respect of the bizarre Hood statement (above):
Quote:Walter
9 hours ago
If the ATSB are merely concerned with protecting Australian relations with Malaysia, then they must be concealing something that would cause Malaysia some problems.
It will come out in the end. This Government must release all relevant information.
Tim
1 hour ago
Perhaps the ATSB should actually be concerned about their relationship,with their employers ie the citizens of this country and not so much behaving like an " alphabet agency" normally associated with the murky world of international intelligence gathering .
William
3 hours ago
This is absolutely disgraceful.
Everybody could see from an early stage that the Malaysians lost the plane 'easily', weren't all that fussed about finding it and then rushed to the exits when the search was 'completed'.
The constant head in the sand stuff from the ATSB is the most disappointing. Weren't they meant to be neutral and objective?
Australia is making itself complicit in Malaysia's cover up and I think our government needs to be told that Australian tax payers expect more.
Peter
2 hours ago
How much of our money as the taxpayer has this agency spent in this search?
What an absolute disgrace and abuse of power.
All should note that the ATSB has powers granted by statute which are extremely draconian, such as preventing individuals from releasing information/ opinion even to a court / judge!
Still shaking my head and trying to fathom the rationale behind that unbelievable statement from Hood?
Kind of ironic when you consider that the last time the TSI Act penalties were threatened to be invoked, were in the recommendations & wash up of the PelAir cover-up Senate inquiry. The irony here lies in Hood's inescapable involvement at the time, as the designated decision-maker, with the McCormick endorsed black-letter embuggerance campaign of Dom James.
(03-22-2017, 09:38 PM)Peetwo Wrote: 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:
Quote:22 Mr Dominic James (PDF 38KB)
Quote: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...
Here is a reminder, from documents released under a previous CASA FOI request, on just how firmly entrenched, in the middle of the PelAir cover-up, one Mr Greg Hood truly was... DJ CASA FOI docs redacted
E.g.
Quote:
Hmm...kind of makes you wonder about the appointment of Hoody as Chief Commissioner to the ATSB??
Finally, coming back to the bizarre veiled threat from Hood, perhaps he is feeling just a little bit anxious with ICAO Thor wandering the halls of ATSB HQ - just a thought...
Reference: PAIN/IOS WTD ATSB QRH -
Quote:...Just getting warmed up but there's a small selection of reading material for Herr Thor that IMO truly qualifies as independent and expert opinion of the ATSB. However if he wants a very informed, pragmatic and qualified take on the real issues with the current version of the ATSB, IMO Thor couldn't go past the inestimable Senator David Fawcett...
Of course Thor will not do any of that because he will be required to strictly adhere to some warm & fluffy agreed ToR...
However I wouldn't have thought that would stop certain elected parliamentary representatives from dropping Herr Thor a line to find out what exactly it is he is scoped to look into...
MTF...P2