Focal length it really matters.
The ‘Chambers Report’ served only as a red herring – sure, it created a distraction and gave the Senators a lever to pull on, raised the level of suspicion and, IMO almost defined the cynical nature of the CASA intransigence. The ‘mystery’ surrounding the 16 week delay of nine critical documents being available; and, the missing 20 odd pages from the CARE 09 report and; the dismissed ‘Cook Report’ all make for interesting questions to be asked. If those questions are ever asked, that is.
But, under what terms of reference may the RRAT committee ask those questions? The ATSB was charged with conducting a second investigation ‘only of the accident’ – standing alone. There was no mention made of investigating the process and particulars of the official actions subsequent to the accident which produced the original perverted report. Nor was investigation of the ATSB/CASA ‘behaviour’ (for want of better) during the Senate inquiry included in the ToR for the second report.
Detailed examination of the second report shows that it tip-toes, just as carefully, around the major issues as the original did. For example the ‘Fatigue’ element. I won’t belabour point here – but there are deeper issues than simple flight crew fatigue; the fatigue level of the medical crew from example. It is clear; that both doctor and nurse were ‘out on their feet’ – serious insurance implications had the medical crew missed a vital sign and lost their patient. Even more serious for the contracting company who knowingly allowed a fatigued flight and medical crew to operate. Miles of wriggle room and endless court battles; nothing to do with CASA or ATSB, nothing to do with the contracting company who, in good faith entered the transport agreement; nothing to do with anyone really. Ain’t that grand….
So, here we sit, staring at a 500 page, multi million dollar re-investigation of ‘the incident’. I grant you, it makes a great door-stop, but does it get any nearer to the radical causes of the incident.
Does it explain the CASA acceptance and approval of severely flawed operating practice?
Does it explain the reasons for the ATSB/CASA bizarre behaviour and highly suspect actions subsequent to the incident?
Does it explain the almost indecent haste with which Pel-Air returned to operational status?.
NO, it does not. Ask a silly question; you may well expect a silly answer. The ‘Manning’ second report is useless in terms of defining ‘Why’ this event occurred and ‘Why’ such extraordinary risks were taken by ATSB and CASA during the Senate inquiry.
Aye well, no doubt we shall soon have a measure of the latest ‘minister’ for transport. The ministerial response to this smooth, top cover job will provide a perfect yardstick.
What say you minister? Will ye piss or get of the pot? I hear the Armadale council needs a new dog catcher, so there is hope for employment after the transport portfolio.
Toot-toot.
Quote:P2 – “Keeping a focus on what IMO was the more important CASA withheld document, i.e. the Cook report, let's fast forward to the Beaker section of the Hansard”...
P2 –Q/ Did the ATSB stick to the Truss ToR and/or their own commitment to review and/or utilise the findings of the TSBC, the ASRR and the Senate AAI inquiry in the re-investigation of the VH-NGA ditching?”
P2 Answer: Using the examples of the comprehensive, scientifically based Cook - Special Audit of Pel-Air Fatigue Risk Management System - Report and the Chambers Report it should be a simple matter of referencing the 'Sources and submissions' section under 'references' of the MKII report (refer pages 389 - 391) - however there is no reference to either report. Nor is there any reference to the TSBC peer review report, the ASRR or Senate AAI Inquiry reports. Nor is there any attributable references to any of the aforementioned reports in the large Appendices, or in the contextual sections of the body of the report. Therefore, the answer is NO!
The ‘Chambers Report’ served only as a red herring – sure, it created a distraction and gave the Senators a lever to pull on, raised the level of suspicion and, IMO almost defined the cynical nature of the CASA intransigence. The ‘mystery’ surrounding the 16 week delay of nine critical documents being available; and, the missing 20 odd pages from the CARE 09 report and; the dismissed ‘Cook Report’ all make for interesting questions to be asked. If those questions are ever asked, that is.
But, under what terms of reference may the RRAT committee ask those questions? The ATSB was charged with conducting a second investigation ‘only of the accident’ – standing alone. There was no mention made of investigating the process and particulars of the official actions subsequent to the accident which produced the original perverted report. Nor was investigation of the ATSB/CASA ‘behaviour’ (for want of better) during the Senate inquiry included in the ToR for the second report.
Detailed examination of the second report shows that it tip-toes, just as carefully, around the major issues as the original did. For example the ‘Fatigue’ element. I won’t belabour point here – but there are deeper issues than simple flight crew fatigue; the fatigue level of the medical crew from example. It is clear; that both doctor and nurse were ‘out on their feet’ – serious insurance implications had the medical crew missed a vital sign and lost their patient. Even more serious for the contracting company who knowingly allowed a fatigued flight and medical crew to operate. Miles of wriggle room and endless court battles; nothing to do with CASA or ATSB, nothing to do with the contracting company who, in good faith entered the transport agreement; nothing to do with anyone really. Ain’t that grand….
So, here we sit, staring at a 500 page, multi million dollar re-investigation of ‘the incident’. I grant you, it makes a great door-stop, but does it get any nearer to the radical causes of the incident.
Does it explain the CASA acceptance and approval of severely flawed operating practice?
Does it explain the reasons for the ATSB/CASA bizarre behaviour and highly suspect actions subsequent to the incident?
Does it explain the almost indecent haste with which Pel-Air returned to operational status?.
NO, it does not. Ask a silly question; you may well expect a silly answer. The ‘Manning’ second report is useless in terms of defining ‘Why’ this event occurred and ‘Why’ such extraordinary risks were taken by ATSB and CASA during the Senate inquiry.
Aye well, no doubt we shall soon have a measure of the latest ‘minister’ for transport. The ministerial response to this smooth, top cover job will provide a perfect yardstick.
What say you minister? Will ye piss or get of the pot? I hear the Armadale council needs a new dog catcher, so there is hope for employment after the transport portfolio.
Toot-toot.