Six year itch finally gets a scratch - 
Quote from SBG - Lost – perhaps in translation.
Referring to the same intriguing QIW and answers, that were written in context to the extraordinary 15 February 2013 AAI Senate inquiry public hearing, I believe I may have unravelled the case of the nine (10 October received) documents that were apparently 'lost in translation' for 4 months.
Please note that at CASA Q&As 26-27 and ATSB Q&As 1-4 there was a sub-heading, example (in bold):
The referred to document in that QIW was one of the nine documents, therefore it should be safe to assume (maybe??) that the other eight documents (which included the Chambers & Cook reports) were all previously held 'in camera'.
This premise is also supported by the recall (of certain involved parties in those documents) that those reports and email exchanges were compiled by the department at the request of the Senate Committee.
I also have it on good authority that the committee makes such decisions on the accepting or filing of potentially sensitive documents and submissions as 'in camera' totally autonomously from the Secretariat.
Why the committee decided to accept the 9 docs on an 'in camera' basis will therefore remain a mystery but given that the documents were redacted prior to their formal tabling on the 14th & 15th of February 2013, is evidence that the committee had concerns for protecting both the identities and roles of some the agency officers.
Examination and comparison of the redactions would seem to fit the methodology normally used by either the department or the minister's office. It does not fit the methodology normally used by the Senate or the committee Secretariats.
So it could be that the documents were lost in limbo because they were conveniently sitting on the bottom of either Albo's or M&M's intray...
What I think then happened was that when Senator Nash gave up her membership to the AAI inquiry to Senator Fawcett, the committee recalled all outstanding documents for Fawcett to review.
This ultimately led to Fawcett understanding the significance and importance of these nine documents and as they say 'the rest was history'...
Not an excuse I know but if my dot joining is reasonably accurate and this was possibly a procedural committee blunder (or even some kind of political obfuscation campaign on behalf of Albo and even the Nationals) that delayed the 'discovery' and serious implications of these docs; I wonder if that is why one of the original committee members Senator Sterle was so subdued at the extraordinary 15 February 2013 public hearing... 
Here is one comment from a handful that Sterle made at that hearing that was seemingly out of context with the committee line of questioning at the time:
CHAIR: I just want to seek some clarification, with your indulgence, Senator Xenophon. My difficulty with fatigue, and I clearly remember that trip to Perth where both pilots nodded off to sleep. Do you recall that one?
Mr Dolan : It was before my time, but I am aware of it.
CHAIR: It is pretty interesting. My difficulty with having a model for fatigue would be: would the model show whether the pilot was pole dancing or marathon running et cetera in his time off? A lot depends on what the pilot does in his time off.
Mr Dolan : I am probably less colourful than you, Senator. The question relates both to the opportunity for rest and the quality of rest and the extent to which that opportunity is appropriately availed of.
CHAIR: So in this case, you are not to know that it was not pole dancing but just a noisy motel room. How do you overcome that factor?
Senator STERLE: As we have heard, there were three different stories from the pilot as to how much rest he got. With the greatest respect, I think it deflects from the work of the committee, because if you have one man saying three different things—and no one knows about fatigue management more than me, because I do not do it too well. Coming from my ex-industry, that is all I was doing for four years—arguing the toss about fitness for duty.
Hansard link: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sear...%2F0000%22
Hmm...just saying -
MTF...P2
Quote from SBG - Lost – perhaps in translation.
Quote:Rather than ramble on, for the serious student I shall provide just one, solitary link. Fair warning, there are some 37 pages to digest – however; the first dozen or so may be skipped past as they are the written Questions on Notice (QoN) and are repeated as part of the intriguing answers. The questions, standing alone, are incisive; IMO the answers are incredibly revealing.
Referring to the same intriguing QIW and answers, that were written in context to the extraordinary 15 February 2013 AAI Senate inquiry public hearing, I believe I may have unravelled the case of the nine (10 October received) documents that were apparently 'lost in translation' for 4 months.
Please note that at CASA Q&As 26-27 and ATSB Q&As 1-4 there was a sub-heading, example (in bold):
Quote:Questions in relation to previously in-camera documents
1. An email on 9 Feb 2010 appears to show that you were looking for a way to assist CASA with their early intervention with Mr James. Can you explain that please?
ATSB response: The email exchange was in the context of a discussion about the
complementary but distinct roles of CASA and the ATSB in maintaining aviation safety.
The interest of the ATSB officer involved was in CASA’s concentrating on improvements to the regulatory and other guidance for the future safety of such flights as the Norfolk Island one.
He was of the view that this would be the most effective way for CASA to address the issues arising from the investigation. My response was to advise him that CASA’s assessment of what was required was now focussing on compliance-related interventions, rather than changes to the regulatory framework.
The referred to document in that QIW was one of the nine documents, therefore it should be safe to assume (maybe??) that the other eight documents (which included the Chambers & Cook reports) were all previously held 'in camera'.
This premise is also supported by the recall (of certain involved parties in those documents) that those reports and email exchanges were compiled by the department at the request of the Senate Committee.
I also have it on good authority that the committee makes such decisions on the accepting or filing of potentially sensitive documents and submissions as 'in camera' totally autonomously from the Secretariat.
Why the committee decided to accept the 9 docs on an 'in camera' basis will therefore remain a mystery but given that the documents were redacted prior to their formal tabling on the 14th & 15th of February 2013, is evidence that the committee had concerns for protecting both the identities and roles of some the agency officers.
Examination and comparison of the redactions would seem to fit the methodology normally used by either the department or the minister's office. It does not fit the methodology normally used by the Senate or the committee Secretariats.
So it could be that the documents were lost in limbo because they were conveniently sitting on the bottom of either Albo's or M&M's intray...
What I think then happened was that when Senator Nash gave up her membership to the AAI inquiry to Senator Fawcett, the committee recalled all outstanding documents for Fawcett to review.
This ultimately led to Fawcett understanding the significance and importance of these nine documents and as they say 'the rest was history'...
Not an excuse I know but if my dot joining is reasonably accurate and this was possibly a procedural committee blunder (or even some kind of political obfuscation campaign on behalf of Albo and even the Nationals
) that delayed the 'discovery' and serious implications of these docs; I wonder if that is why one of the original committee members Senator Sterle was so subdued at the extraordinary 15 February 2013 public hearing... Here is one comment from a handful that Sterle made at that hearing that was seemingly out of context with the committee line of questioning at the time:
CHAIR: I just want to seek some clarification, with your indulgence, Senator Xenophon. My difficulty with fatigue, and I clearly remember that trip to Perth where both pilots nodded off to sleep. Do you recall that one?
Mr Dolan : It was before my time, but I am aware of it.
CHAIR: It is pretty interesting. My difficulty with having a model for fatigue would be: would the model show whether the pilot was pole dancing or marathon running et cetera in his time off? A lot depends on what the pilot does in his time off.
Mr Dolan : I am probably less colourful than you, Senator. The question relates both to the opportunity for rest and the quality of rest and the extent to which that opportunity is appropriately availed of.
CHAIR: So in this case, you are not to know that it was not pole dancing but just a noisy motel room. How do you overcome that factor?
Senator STERLE: As we have heard, there were three different stories from the pilot as to how much rest he got. With the greatest respect, I think it deflects from the work of the committee, because if you have one man saying three different things—and no one knows about fatigue management more than me, because I do not do it too well. Coming from my ex-industry, that is all I was doing for four years—arguing the toss about fitness for duty.
Hansard link: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/sear...%2F0000%22
Hmm...just saying -
MTF...P2