[Peetwo]

Correcting the PelAir bollocks - 

Coming back to these attachments: 

Attachment A_QoN147_Aviation forecasting - review of Pel-Air and Mildura

Attachment B_QoN147_Aviation forecasting - review of Pel-Air and Mildura

Trying to make head or tail of the 'QoN147' reference the penny finally dropped -   

 - I have discovered that QoN 147 is not related in any way to the Senator Patrick ATSB QoN above - 

Senator Patrick had earlier in the day (approximately 10 am) attended the BoM session and it was there that QoN147 was put...  

Via the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Additional Estimates Hansard:

Senator PATRICK: Congratulation is in order. Where that question is leading—and it may be my misunderstanding of how aviation get their weather—is that I'm aware of a few incidents that have occurred where weather has been a factor and the forecast has caused issues with Pel-Air. There was a Qantas and Virgin flight that had to divert to Mildura at one stage and almost caused an accident. Do you provide those services to air services? Do you examine those incidents separate from the ATSB?
Dr Johnson : I might again make an overarching comment. We have a deep and longstanding relationship with the aviation sector in this country. We have a hardwired commercial relationship with the aviation sector that's reviewed regularly. In fact, in just the last 12 months we renewed our commitment with our aviation partners and customers. That's not just the big domestic players but also the international carriers that fly into Australia as well as the general aviation sector. We are well aware of some of the incidents that you've referred to there. I think it's important to state for the record that the bureau's performance in each of those incidents was endorsed. There was no question around the forecasts that the bureau provided, so those ATSB investigations had no adverse findings towards the bureau in that regard.

Senator PATRICK: For example, in the Pel-Air situation there was a forecast of weather sufficient for the pilot to be able to land, yet when the pilot arrived the cloud floor was something like 600 feet.

Mr Webb : One of the realities of working with aviation forecasting is that we do work in probabilities. It's a steady stream of information that's used in our forecast to keep the latest information, and the way pilots work is that they refer to information en route as well to see how much it's changed. The absolute details of what wasn't on that forecast at the time I haven't got to the top of my mind, but often, for instance, for fog and thunderstorms we typically, as per international standards, don't start to mention them until there's a 30 per cent probability, as per working with our aviation colleagues.

As for your earlier question about whether we are reviewing our services outside the ATSB: absolutely. We work with major airlines after incidents and do our own reviews, and there are always lessons to be learnt. That's one of the things we take on board. Whether it be pilot education or staff education around ways to deal with certain incidents, the three you mentioned, although having no adverse findings against the Bureau of Meteorology, have lessons to be learnt.

Senator PATRICK: Did you do one for the Pel-Air incident and one for the Mildura incident?

Mr Webb : Absolutely.

Senator PATRICK: Is it possible to get those independent reviews provided to the committee?

Dr Johnson : I believe so.

Mr Webb : I see no reason why not.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you.

Credit where credit is due -   

It makes me smile to think that Senator Patrick went into the ATSB Estimates session armed with the knowledge that he was going to receive the original BoM meteorology reports for both the VH-NGA ditching and the YMIA fog cock-up - 

It is just a shame that the opportunity for PAIN to brief/explain to the Committee on the significance of the weather issues surrounding both the 0739 Auto SPECI and the 0801 AMD TAF was missed because the Chair O'Obfuscation hijacked the briefing - FDS!   

Extract from ATSB Additional Estimates Hansard:

Senator PATRICK: Okay. Flowing to the question of weather, had better forecasting models been available for the Bureau of Meteorology, perhaps in that instance we wouldn't have had the same incident, because the pilot simply wouldn't have taken off or would have taken a different route.

Mr Hornby : The report does address the Bureau of Meteorology and forecasting at Norfolk Island. It mentions that it is difficult. In this situation, a number of events happened with the weather that were difficult to predict.

Senator PATRICK: Sure. I'm just running through a few scenarios in relation to the weather. ATC passed on several amended weather reports. So the ground were aware of weather changes that weren't passed on. Had they been passed on, the pilot in command could have been presented with options much earlier to divert and could have avoided the incident.

Mr Hornby : The report does pick up on all those things as contributing factors. There are quite a number of weather related contributing factors, including the fact that there was an 8.30 special weather report that showed that the weather at Norfolk Island was deteriorating to below the landing minimum. That wasn't provided to the crew. What about the 0739 SPECI & 0801 AMD TAF? Oh that's right the VH-NGA flightcrew didn't get them either - ..That's in the context of a changeover of operations from Nadi to New Zealand air services. We weren't able to determine the exact reasons why that weather information wasn't provided to the crew. But we did acknowledge that, if it was provided at that point, the crew may have been able to make some other decisions—because they still had enough time before the point of no return to decide on another aerodrome.

Senator PATRICK: We would all love BOM to have a better model that would give more accurate information or perhaps more sensors. However, in this situation advice was available but not provided. I understand from my reading of the report that no-one breached any of the regulations. It wasn't a mandatory requirement to pass the information on. But just as the pilot in command could have contacted a home base if they'd had a full-time person on the ground looking at this, or used another method—just as that could have happened from the operator and the pilot's perspective—we could have had a situation where air traffic control could have advised the pilot in command earlier. Yet there don't seem to have been any recommendations made to suggest that we ought to be moving in that direction.

Mr Hornby : That's in the context of whether or not there was a systemic issue. We didn't have enough evidence to suggest that there was a systemic issue, that this would happen in other circumstances for Nadi's international flight information services or for New Zealand's air traffic services. Certainly it was a contributing factor in this accident. But in terms of a wider problem, we didn't have evidence to say that.

Senator PATRICK: We're looking at a number of incidents now that are dealing with weather related concerns. Surely that's something you might turn your mind to in the context of that.

Mr Hood : In the Pel-Air accident report we devoted two full appendixes—H and J—to remote island weather and to Norfolk Island weather. I think out of the 500-odd-page report about 10 per cent, about 50 pages, are devoted specifically to weather. We certainly did have a pretty good look in the report at the weather factors. The other point you make is about general Australian weather. We do have a pretty good look at what we're seeing in Australia in relation to weather events. In most years we have around 12 to 15 reports of unforecast weather where aircraft have been faced with decision-making in relation to diversion because of unforecast weather. That reduced in 2017. We had eight of those. So we are actually looking very carefully. We don't think there's a systemic issue in Australia in relation to weather events currently, but it is certainly under watch.

Senator PATRICK: There was a recommendation made, I believe in 2001, in an ATSB report that weather forecasting be improved at Norfolk. My understanding is that that wasn't actioned, and there's still no action in relation to that. Is something happening on that?

Mr Hornby : There was some safety action at Norfolk Island that the BOM did take, I understand, after the Senate inquiry—I think it was in 2012—regarding this investigation. The BOM did take some safety action to put in place new infrastructure there. So there was some safety action taken.

Senator PATRICK: Could you provide me with that, perhaps on notice?

Mr Hornby : It's in the report. Safety action is towards the back.

Mr Hood : We're still happy to provide that on notice.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you. Once again, when the draft report had come out, my understanding was that the report didn't have as much focus on weather. Would that be a fair assessment?

Mr Hood : As I said, at least 50 pages, or 10 per cent, of the report are devoted to weather, with two specific appendices. So I don't think that's the case.

Senator PATRICK: Will you be presenting this particular report at the International Society of Air Safety Investigators conference this year?

Mr Hood : Not to my understanding.

Senator PATRICK: Normally you present significant reports to that conference. My understanding is the ATSB turns up and often makes presentations there.

Mr Hood : I'm looking at my budget currently in terms of whether we can send someone to the ISASI conference. But from time to time the ATSB presents detailed reports. It is not to my knowledge that we're preparing to present this one.

Senator PATRICK: Thank you very much

HVH: "...As I said, at least 50 pages, or 10 per cent, of the report are devoted to weather, with two specific appendices. So I don't think that's the case..."

Hmm...wonder why such a comprehensive, 500+ page, OTT, bollocks report did not include copies of the original BoM meteorology report?   


MTF...P2