[Peetwo]

ATSB – How to cook a book.

You must, as a thinking person, question the usefulness of the ATSB.  Their production of ‘useful’ statistics reflects the disingenuous nature of their approach.  GA accidents have increased – OK – tell us why? While you're at it, lets do the figures and compare reduced ‘activity’ to accident ratio; and, once again, explain why this real accounting is manipulated.  Then explain the real rise.  Then provide real solutions.  Then produce real recommendations.  Then drive those recommendations home, make them stick. Then produce the changes and education to go with change.  This is, after all said and done, what the Australian public pay for.

We could do this for you, or just tell you; but then it would cost the taxpayer another small fortune for ATSB to refute the truth and re-jig the damn lies, provided as statistics to shore up the fiction.  

There is little point to completing, yet alone presenting this last list of meaningless numbers.  The artificially reduced ‘scope’ of what may and what may not be investigated, the careful categorisation of ‘accidents’ to shape the numerical outcome and the claimed ‘resources’ limitations, all serve to bias any attempt at providing a ‘genuine’ picture for consideration.

There are accident and incidents to which a proportion of the causal chain may be sheeted home to the regulator; there are A&I which can be attributed to the same killers which have been around since the Wright brothers; there are several other areas which, under proper scrutiny would reveal alarming, very real, emerging trends.  None of this information has been ‘honestly’ provided to industry or the public.  The lack of ATSB ‘pro-active’ engagement in safety management is an obscene, risible state of affairs for a body which is charged with doing exactly that to be in.  

Selective data, subjective reporting, subversion of reports to assist with the ‘politics’ of an incident all on public display and yet ATSB persist with the fallacy that they are an independent, fearless champion of air safety.

Bollocks – study any report provided by ATSB over the past six years; or, take a long hard look at the Pel-Air incident.  Same crowd in control of ATSB, same piffling, lame, half baked reports coming through; same-same everything – despite political, industry, public censure and ministerial directive.  Who, I wonder, do these people believe they are?

Why bother to produce ‘figures’ no one cares about or reports which disgrace Australia and insult the intelligence of the aviation community.  Ask instead what’s changed since that censure?  The answer, writ large, is SFA, all fully government supported and funded by Australians.  Stellar.

Selah.

Excellent post "K", cuts straight to the chase, no prisoners & all that...

While talking about the dubious veracity of the ATSB AR-2015-082 (& other related QON-dery matters ), I was trolling through last Estimates Hansard & I remembered this humorous exchange with Beaker by Senator Bullock:

Senator BULLOCK: I have a couple of questions. How many accidents have there been in Australia in 2014-15?


Mr Dolan : I am afraid we will have to take that one on notice.

Senator BULLOCK: When you let us know, could you please let CASA know as well, because they have a question on notice that depends on your answer to that question and they say that they cannot get it out of you.

  
Hmm..perhaps Beaker can now forward the AQON in the way of the AR-2015-082 report to the good Senator and also cc it to CASA so they to can answer the QON...

On the BITRE stat links (above), I find most are not very useful for any real analysis of GA activity, even the GA activity survey results is written in such a way as to distract from truly analysing the state of the small end of town GA Ops/Private & Recreational.

However for what it is worth here is the GA hours flown 2003 - 2013:



One group of BITRE stats that caught my eye was the gasoline sales graph, which IMO tells a tale..






MTF...P2

Ps Here is the Senator Bullocks QON (QON index finally released - TY Secretariat ) addressed to CASA:

96/468/CASA/BULLOCK - KPIs:

Senator BULLOCK: Back in May I foolishly assumed that you had adopted as a KPI reducing the number of accidents per flying hours. You responded that you were actually reviewing the appropriateness of your KPIs and whether it was appropriate to have a KPI reducing the number of accidents. I asked you at the time how you were going for 2014-15—this is May—and you said, 'I don't have that information directly to hand but we can certainly gather that information for you and check on it.' After I put it on notice we got an answer and the answer was, 'The data for 2014-15 year is not yet available.' Is it available now?


Mr Skidmore: Unfortunately the data for the 2014 calendar year is still not available but we have been able, based on some of the historical data, to make an assessment in regards to the actual accidents and incidents levels.

Senator BULLOCK: So, you do not know how many accidents there were in the year ended 30 June and it is now October. CASA does not know how many accidents there were?

Mr Skidmore: We rely on the statistics being provided to us and we are still awaiting that information.

Senator BULLOCK: From the ATSB?

Mr Skidmore: It is not just ATSB. It is also to do with the flying hours because we normalise the number of events, accidents and incidents across flying hours to be able to make an assessment from year to year.

Senator BULLOCK: Yes. I understand you would have to know how many hours to do the sum. Could you keep looking for me?

Mr Skidmore: I certainly will

And this was the obfuscated AQON from the May Budget Estimates:

Question no.: 88


Program: 2.4 Air Transport

Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Topic: Key Performance Indicators and Number of Accidents

Proof Hansard Page: 141 (27 May 2015)

Senator Bullock, Joe asked:

Senator BULLOCK: I understand that you have adopted some KPIs with a view to ensuring that there is a reduction in the number of accidents per hours flown by each industry sector from 2015-16. Is that right?

Mr Skidmore: I am currently reviewing all our KPIs to see how appropriate they are in regards to meeting the requirements of CASA going forward into the future. In regards to the actual KPIs on accident statistics, obviously we are looking for a reduction in any accident statistics.

Senator BULLOCK: You have not adopted that as a KPI?

Mr Skidmore: As indicated in the PBS, yes.

Senator BULLOCK: That is from 2015-16 on. If it was applying now, would you have met it? Is 2014-15 a year where the accidents per hours flown by the industry sector have gone down?

Mr Skidmore: I do not have that information directly to hand, but we can certainly gather that information and check on that.

Senator BULLOCK: Take that on notice, if you would not mind. Cockpit regulations—what are the rules currently around who is in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft in Australia?

Mr Skidmore: The regulations surrounding the type of people or the number of people?

Senator BULLOCK: Number and type.

Mr Skidmore: If you are alluding to the recent discussion that we have had with the operators in relation to the incident in Europe, that is being directed to the operators as an amendment to their operations manual—to incorporate an operating procedure such that they have two personnel inside the cockpit. It is not a regulation as such.

…

Answer:

Data required for the 2014-15 year is not yet available from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau or the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, so CASA is unable to determine the performance against the KPIs at this stage. Once it becomes available, information regarding performance against the KPIs can be provided to the Committee.

So Oliver Skidmore-Twist & Beaker, no excuses anymore, just answer the bloody question...     

[Peetwo]

ATSB & MH370 - Public interest disclosure?

{P2 comment: Thought it was worth dragging the continuing theme of interactive commentary & debate, emanating from the Australian's MH370 articles - which appear designed to probe the depths of the ATSB MH370 induced information vacuum - to this thread and for obvious reasons.. }

Extract off Australia, ATSB and MH 370 thread - Post #222:

[quote pid='3293' dateline='1453470880']

Questions over MH370 search funding shortfall

- Okay tin hat donned:

Not sure how many people have a subscription to the Oz but some of the commentary, comment numbers must now have surpassed 1000 across all MH370 blogged articles, associated with the Higgins articles (above) & the Bailey articles is really very good.

Now although I don't totally agree with some of the finer points (opinions/theories), the best for today's Higgins article so far has to be from Mervyn, who IMO pretty much nails it: 

Mervyn 5ptsFeatured
1 hour ago

It would seem to me that the real story here is the sheer incompetence and bloody-mindedness of the ATSB, whose investigative members do not have the experience or knowledge of the airline pilots who have commented on this matter.

Consider for one moment the implications globally of the aircraft being found, and the recovery of the black box clearly shows that the pilot was in command right until the very end. Not only will that contravene all the rubbish that has been touted by the various authorities to-date, but will give the ATSB a resounding slapping which they so richly deserve.

There is no doubt that a very serious game of cover-up is being played by all the governments embroiled in this fiasco, no the least our own Australian government, but mostly the Malaysian government. Please do not think that for one moment because Australia commissioned Fugro to conduct the search, and that Australia guaranteed the fees for such search, that Australia is not part of the cover-up. When one controls the search, and more importantly the information dissemination, then one controls what is being reported!

And what is being reported is what the ATSB is dribbling, because this is what our Government, in collusion with Malaysia and others, has decided is the best strategy to cover up the obvious - that the pilot may well have committed this atrocity as a extremist Islamist in the name of Islamic State!

If that is the case, and it does appear to be a logical albeit unproven possibility, then it is not unreasonable to assume that Malaysia, as a secular Muslim state, would seek to distance itself from such atrocity - and the easiest way to do this is to cosy up to Australia and quite easily convincing our relevant Minister that it is best served to sweep this matter under the rug than for the truth to prevail.

Consider for one moment the implications of a pilot with an Islamist bent behind the controls of a commercial airliner - there would be mass panic in air travel circles, with aircraft from secular Muslim countries banned from entering our airspace. Think Etihad, think Malaysia Airlines,  think Air Singapore. Think chaos.

Truss is a National, who are socialist agrarians, who believe in state protection of primary industries, and like every other farmer has a sense of entitlement to mass government handouts to maintain the status quo. He is the Minister for Transport because of his political position, not because of his competency or knowledge of matters transportation.

The theory submitted by the ATSB will over time be shredded, as more and more B777-200 pilots voice their knowledge and experience in this regard. However, for now, the ATSB is the "official" voice on this matter, and clearly it is doing the bidding of a subversive agenda, and not fulfilling the mandate for which it was empowered under law.

As I said, the real story here is about lies and deceit, not about air safety. Root out who is telling the lies and who is being deceitful, expose them publicly, and air safety will have meaning and precedence once again.

Now although Bailey comes across as somewhat arrogant & opinionated I have to admire the fact that he is prepared to face down any of his critics. One way he is doing that is by being interactive on the blog comments, where one dude called 'Mick' is repeatedly & comprehensively dishing it out.

Here is an example:

Mick 17 hours ago

I know that Captain Bailey is not a bona fide journalist but he would be well served by having a journalist proof his work prior to publication. That way he might avoid misrepresenting the Air Transport Safety Bureau. The ATSB have not postulated on the cause of the loss of MH370, that is not their job. Their job is to find the crash site and then hand over to Malaysian and US investigators whose job it is to determine the cause.

In order to determine the search zone the ATSB are working with limited data
- the known performance characteristics of the Boeing 777-200 ER in general (Boeing are assisting here)
- the specific performance characteristics of the actual aircraft that operated as MH370, rego 9M-MRO (Malaysian Airlines have assisted here)
- the projected flight path of the aircraft based on the analysis of satellite data (INMARSAT and The University of London have assisted here).

What the ATSB have said is "The limited evidence available for MH370 was compared with three accident classes: an in-flight upset, an unresponsive crew/hypoxia event, and a glide event (generally characterised by a pilot-controlled glide). The final stages of the ‘unresponsive crew/hypoxia’ event-type appeared to best fit the available evidence for the final period of MH370’s flight when it was heading in a generally southerly direction."

Note - "best fit", "available evidence", "final period", emphasis on "final period".

Captain Bailey's theory is that the captain, for reasons unknown, took control of the aircraft by securing himself in the cockpit, made the aircraft "dark" (difficult to track) by disabling all communications including the transponders, depressurised the aircraft so as to incapacitate and kill everybody on board, reprogrammed the flight management system (FMS), what most of us know as the "auto-pilot", to fly back across the Malaysian Peninsula and then down between Malaysia and Indonesia before turning south into the Indian ocean, repressurised the aircraft so that he would not freeze to death and then stayed at the controls for the remainder of the flight so that he could ditch in the Southern Indian Ocean whereupon he flooded the aircraft to sink it so as to avoid leaving any debris and he then died by either drowning or exposure.

One question immediately arises - why would the pilot risk a ditching in the Southern Indian Ocean, a manoeuvre fraught with the risk of an aircraft break-up (one only needs to look at video of the last moments of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 to understand the risk) in order to leave no debris in an area that no one would be looking at (there is absolutely no doubt that the captain was not aware that the INMARSAT satellite handshakes were even occuring leave alone that the data could be used to plot the course of the aircraft he had so painstakingly disappeared).

If you accept the first premise of Captain Bailey's theory - that the Captain was responsible for disappearing the aircraft as part of an elaborate suicide - once the FMS was reprogrammed, the Captain's efforts to disappear were effectively complete; he did not have to stay at the controls for the aircraft to fly the elaborate evasive track it subsequently flew. He could have completed the reprogramming very shortly after securing the cockpit and if the ultimate end he had in mind for himself was suicide, what method would he choose?

- hypoxia, achieved by taking his oxygen mask off, painless and certain, he would have lost consciousness and then died from lack of oxygen; or
- drowning, only after he had executed an extremely hazardous ocean landing that may have left him badly injured or killed him anyway.

If you opt for hypoxia (who wouldn't?) then the ATSB's unresponsive crew/hypoxia event accurately describes the terminal phase of the flight.

I fear Captain Bailey is simply and persistently looking for a very public fight where there's none to be had.

To which BB replied:

Byron 16 hours ago

@Chris @Mick The Australian did proof my article and left out a lot of the damning criticism of the ATSB and my challenge to the head of CASA to debate live on the ABC, why the ATSB report of 04 Dec 2015, so proudly presented by Warren Truss, was, to put it mildly a confection that did not agree at all with what I and a senior Emirates B777 Instructor experienced 3 weeks ago, in a Dubai B777 simulator when we tried their various Flame Out theories.

[/quote]

In reply to Mervyn, Bots absolutely nails it for my QOTM nomination... :

1LikeReply





Botswana O'Hooligan
22 hours ago

@Mervyn  Pretty good Mervyn, I was reminded about incompetence the other day when visiting a pilot "convenience" way out in the bush. Someone had posted a sticker on the door and it read, "CASA is not happy until all pilots are unhappy" and that about sums it all up for the ATSB too.

Fugro is a very competent outfit but they are looking where they were told to look and that aeroplane could be anywhere from where the last supposedly "ping" was transmitted.

No one seems to know, or if they do they are not saying, how much fuel was on board at departure, what level and what power settings were used after that last "ping" was heard for that would be vital in figuring the search area dimensions. Once that set of data is known it is not hard to figure out how far the aeroplane could have travelled for if we assume it was at forty thousand it could possible glide 120 nautical miles in just about any direction so the search area or circle of probability would be (to be on the safe side) 140 nautical miles across and that alone covers sixty one and a half thousand square miles. That is assuming nil wind conditions and about normal jet aeroplane operating procedures.

There is absolutely no doubt in the minds of many of we old aviators that the aeroplane was under the control of a pilot or someone who knew how to operate the systems, and there is also no doubt in our minds that the ATSB and CASA are incompetent to a certain degree, but always remember that it is a big ocean out there and that there are a couple of crashed aeroplanes on the eastern seaboard that have never been found either.

 
Also a very insightful post from Gary helps join the dots of the ATSB & CASA trail of ineptitude, obfuscation & malfeasance..   

Gary 5ptsFeatured
2 days ago

This won't be the first time a previously highly respected worldwide and experienced investigator, the ATSB has excelled in practising incompetence or has bowed to a political agenda.

They drove the legislative requirement for ALL aircraft private or airline with a maximum take off weight over 5700kg to carry both FDR and CVR. A laudable result putting Australia in the forefront of this arena. This is at considerable expense for private non fare paying passenger aircraft who mostly elsewhere are only required to carry a simple CVR.

The obvious rationale being that should there be an accident they, the ATSB,  would have a superior means of investigation and resolution.  Fair enough.

So when we have an aeromedical aircraft (the industry insists that technically patients are non fare paying passengers and are therefore not entitled to the considerably more expensive safety requirements mandated for fare paying passengers) in the case of an air ambulance Westwind over 5700 kg and presumably carrying serviceable FDR and CV as required, "ditching" off Norfolk at night and by some miracle without loss of life. Do they recover the recorders which should have contained a blow by blow description of the events prior.  Inexplicably no, and they were and probably still are in around 30, yes, thirty meters of water. A Senate investigation was not kind to the investigators. 

There are still many unanswered questions and unresolved issues concerning this accident many of the answers to which which would be provided by the recorders, but the clairvoyants in the ATSB have decided they know better, and that the recorders would have nothing to offer.  Really, you couldn't make it up.

And that's just for a start.

Those of us with the same breadth and depth of experience as Captain Bailey in other areas of the industry in Australia, both agree with his hypothesis and remain astounded at what passes in the ATSB for "logic" in this instance, but are not the least but surprised.

As with the Norfolk accident, there is another agenda most likely political at work.

Australia where 'Ineptocracy' rules OK -

Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers. syn- socialism.

MTF...P2

[ventus45]

Interesting that Gary 5ptsFeatured revisits the Norfolk Swimming Carnival, in the way he has.

Upon reflection, I think that the good Senators have unwittingly made a mistake, a tactical error, with how they handled the shower sequence.

I am no lawyer, but as I understand it, the law effectively says that after Mr mi mi had closed his investigation with the issuance of his final report, the provisions of his beloved annexes - complete with exceptions - ceased, ie, closed the case in terms of scene protection for him. Note that in every other accident investigation, the investigators "take what they want" and "leave the rest" for the owners, insurance companies, local councils, whatever, to "clean up the mess".

So, at that point, ie, the "closing out" of the case with the publication of "the final report", instead of carpeting Mr mi mi, the Good Senators should have just simply sidelined him, specifically, ignored him, and instead, referred the matter directly to the Federal Police, demanding that those unimportant useless pieces of very expensive junk be recovered under "evidential seal" and examined by appropriate foreign experts (the manufacturers) under police "custody of evidence" procedures, with the results / reports (complete) provided under summons to the Senators, directly.

The good senators should take that suggestion on notice. Enter the SON's !!
Ref: Auntypru-2016-01-24-001alpha

Now, when did Mr mi mi say we would see the new disinfected final ?

[P7_TOM]

My (first) Sunday ramble.

Always been a troubling pair of questions those “V”.  The best guesstimate we have is the Senators were not expecting so much to hit the surface (PtP) as it did; well briefed as they were, the degree of ‘gobsmack’ was overwhelming. Consider the mental obstacles they needed to overcome.

The mystique of aviation safety and inherent political ‘fear’ which accompanies that.

The cultural, deeply held belief that ATSB was beyond reproach, which, up until the beyond all reason season, was well deserved, although in decline.  The IOS have charted the slow demise of a once proud, independent organisation from the best ATSB have ever been, to the present day, with great sadness.  There was, after Lockhart a steady decline; many factors involved, the Miller report, the MoU, a lack of political support and interest as CASA ascended, a lack of funding; all contributed to a slow, but measurable descent into limbo.  With the advent of the beyond all reason model and a willingness to supply only bare bones of investigation; and, a MoU which, effectively, allowed CASA to write the report (control the narrative) in support of their own skewed agenda; things deteriorated to the present state.  Pel-Air was simply one more marker on the path to irrelevance.  ATSB with a couple of minor adjustments may be rehabilitated to full, robust, health.  Remove the MoU, close down the CASA AILU, make ATSB independent, reporting to Senate oversight; provide a suitable commissioner and watch the changes take place, overnight.  As it stands, the ATSB reputation is shredded, although the last couple of reports have shown a distinct resemblance to ‘proper’ investigation and reporting; the latest SR a beacon of hope.  The question is, will the CASA response render that SR nugatory, ignore it; dismiss it; or, just placate the minimum needs of response and be shelved for attention – at some point in the future?  We shall see.

The cultural, deeply held belief that while CASA was never beyond reproach, it also had top cover and had successfully beaten off many expensive reports and inquiry which all called for reform and attitude adjustment.  It’s a big ask to expect a bunch of politicians to just accept, let alone believe that theirs was the ‘watchdog’ slaughtering the lambs.  Close observers and students of the Sleepy Hollow antics need no such encouragement, but to the rest of the world, CASA is an upright, law abiding stalwart of aviation safety.  It’s bollocks of course; but to that man ‘at the back of the room’ the CASA story almost beggars belief; in many cases, it does exactly that.   Little hope of rehabilitation there, the board told to bugger off by the CASA boss; not one of the McComic Casamites shown the door; in fact many of the worst have been gifted prominent positions and allowed to run riot.  The current DAS can barely tie his boot laces without assistance let alone reform the ‘old boys’ network; there is great doubt that reform was ever contemplated.  Anyway, you know the rest, so I’ll quit there.

So there we were, Beaker on the verge of internal disgrace; AFP involved; NGA with recorders still languishing in 50 meters of sheltered water; Mc Comic heading off to Montreal and 370 vanishes.  After a brief hiatus where things were ‘done right’ who should be put in charge – Beaker.  Did you hear a roar of objections from the Senate ? – No.  Howls of dismay from Malaysia?- No.  Cries of outrage from ICAO? –No.  What we heard was the silken glide of the junior reporters pen as the Beaker lunch special was scripted.

The Pel –Air aberration, the revised report? Who knows when that will surface; it’s been delayed.  “K” is running two tote boards on this event and a competition.  Board 1 is for the date of the report's release; board two requires you to pick the official response and the competition is for the closest IOS version of that report to one which may, sometime in the future be published.  

PAIN has finished their version; it ain’t a pretty picture.  The decision to publish has not been made yet; the arguments for and against are compelling.  One of the most persuasive is why bother; no one is listening and little has changed which would engender confidence that the plain truth will make one iota of difference.

Just realised; this is my first and probably last Sunday ramble.  Strange thing to do, once you get rolling, it’s hard to put the brakes on –. 

 Ale, I need ale.

[Kharon]

Puzzle solved.

P7 – “Just realised; this is my first and probably last Sunday ramble.  Strange thing to do, once you get rolling, it’s hard to put the brakes on”. Etc.

About time too, but I agree, just snatching a stray thought or a notion off the breeze and ‘thinking’ it through, out loud, and sketching it ‘free- hand’ is a strange experience.  When you think about it, not too much of the ‘stuff’ we do can be done ‘free-hand’.  I wondered why that first pint vanished so quickly last evening; you never mentioned why and it ain’t my way to ask. Crafty old sod....... .  

P7 - “K” is running two tote boards on this event and a competition.  Board 1 is for the date of the report’s release; board two requires you to pick the official response and the competition is for the closest IOS version of that report to one which may, sometime in the future be published.

Ayup, for my sins ‘tis so, M'lud.  Board 1 is the headache: I could run it as a simple sweepstake but that’s not much fun.  Setting the odds is tough, but fascinating.  There are some fairly canny punters watching this saga and the matter of the release date for the second attempt at reporting the Norfolk debacle has become a hot topic.  It’s the ‘timing’ of the release which generates the interest; to get the date right there are several factors which must be considered, each dependent on something else happening or, not happening; as preferred.  There are a couple of dates firming into favourites, the logic sound, result not guaranteed.  It’s a tougher call than you may think - to actually nut out the puzzle.  

Board 2: bit harder to get better than an even money bet on this race.  Many favour the totally predictable; the tight, narrow, carefully worded terms of reference more or less frame the response.  

Some brave souls are tipping a ‘white-hat’ breakout.  It’s an interesting concept, the good guys having more than enough of beyond all reason actually draft a factual, professional assessment of just where the investigation got screwed, who skewed it, why and what the real report should have read. I’ll give better then evens on that.  

The ‘purist’ entry has some merit, just the facts and nothing but the facts; a report which falls back into the protection of no blame, no foul, not our business. This construct also finds favour and is nudging it’s way to just a little less than ‘even money’.    

The reckless entry is at long odds; good bloodlines but no track record.  First race ever, in a very tough field.  The construct goes that the Senators have demanded a warts and all report, although the mandarins are earnestly set against it and may yet prevail through shameless use the DPM’s left ear.  Name, blame and shame those who were involved, hock deep in the mud, blood and shit of the Pel-Air debacle.  

There are a couple, or three additional entrants; I will, in due course set the field and rattle the numbers for the final odds.  Remember, you pays your money and takes your chances.



Toot toot...

[ventus45]

Not any time soon.
Timeing of other events is key.
Consider the Third Quarter (July - September) with Federal Election by then imminent.
Sequence of events:--
1. MH-370 search will be "wound up".
2. Beaker term expires.
3. Truss retires.
4. Release "black-hat" Norfolk Mk2 during election campaign period so that it is "lost in the noise".
Post Election:-
1. New Minister.
2. Mrdak gets Beaker re-appointed.
3. New senate committees - existing "troublesome" senators "neutralised" by putting them on "other committees".
4. Game starts again ..................

[P7_TOM]

Well caught “V”; thick edge off a slow ball – straight to second slip.  I note you cover all three boards, which is the only way to ensure your investment bears fruit; however:-

Pre election:

Your (4) is in serious dispute; the betting about even on the black hats (BH) v white hats (WH) bout.   On the breeze is the argument that the WH’s have had just about enough and; as they are really the folks who provide ‘the goods’ they can back their wares with, qualifications, expertise and runs on the board.  Replacement ‘administrators’ (BH) are, literally, two bob a dozen in Cantberra.  It comes down to ‘nuts’, determination and; dare I say it, professional integrity.  These folk live in a very small, closed world which is, rightfully, inhabited by a proud tribe.    

Post election:

Your (2).  The BRB (not IOS) betting is against you.  Merde’k is an acknowledged, respected and in some quarters feared, ‘master of the game’.  Even so; Beaker is well and truly on the nose.  There exists serious doubt that he will ever dare show his ugly mug at estimates again. There is also an argument that to do so would have serious, far reaching ramifications.  You need to consider the Pel-Air rehash and the insult offered to the Senators.  They have not forgotten and an admin ‘guru’ is just that. National pride, reputation, national dollars and a FAA audit is on the line.  The public may not grasp the whole picture; but the TSBC and NTSB most certainly do.  

As “K” says; you pays your money and takes your chances.  Choc Frog anyway, for a good catch, well posted.

[Gobbledock]

Herr Ventus;

"Not any time soon.
Timeing of other events is key.
Consider the Third Quarter (July - September) with Federal Election by then imminent.
Sequence of events:--
1. MH-370 search will be "wound up".
2. Beaker term expires.
3. Truss retires.
4. Release "black-hat" Norfolk Mk2 during election campaign period so that it is "lost in the noise".
Post Election:-
1. New Minister.
2. Mrdak gets Beaker re-appointed.
3. New senate committees - existing "troublesome" senators "neutralised" by putting them on "other committees".
4. Game starts again .................."

Pure gold! An all class post. Ventus, you know the 'game' very well indeed. I'm sure at some time in the past we would have been in the same room together, somewhere, sometime  

It's really a game of tautology the game of politics. It's a a well honed sport, a craft all of its own. It is fun, dangerous and at times criminal. The Westminster system has been crafted for over a century. It takes a very special person to be able to play these political shysters at their own game, and win!! For me one of the most memorable, astute and well played game of David vs Goliath was Paul Hogan vs the ATO. Hoges won, a very rare feat, especially against the most powerful government agency in the land. However when all the dust settled all he got was a financial victory, no scalps were removed at the ATO.

Anyway, back to the subject at hand. The coming election in the next 12 months including the departing of crusty head won't change much. The Goldman Sachs capitalist will win the next election, Pumpkin Head will retain his power, there will be a re-alignment and distribution of some independent committee Senators, and ultimately the malfeasance, incompetence, cronyism, bullying and deception will continue unabated and along the same line that it has for eons.

Two things would change this position; a smoking hole in Can'tberra c/o a well known Aussie icon, or an FAA downgrade (the preferred option). However considering the closeness of Australia to its mama, Unlce Sam, I am doubtful that the downgrade would ever happen. It would be like pulling a potty calf off its mothers teat, or pulling Mal Brough away from the public trough! It's never going to happen. You have more chance of seeing Julia Gillard walk, talk and act like a woman!!


"Corrupted skies for all"

[ventus45]

P7
Gobbles,
Re: Pre Election 4 and Post Election 2 - the "picture".

Gentlemen:

I spent many years in the "purple" world, and thus, unfortunately, learnt some of the dirty tricks and tactics of the game (at a low level), but at times, at close quarters with very high levels as well, with too few wins (1 only) and way too many losses (pick any three digit number). PS, on reflection there may have been 1 draw as well.

Although the troops may well be restless, the brutal reality is that they are powerless to change anything, short of open mutiny, or mass resignations. The backs rule, the whites are the fodder.

The point is, whether or not Beaker goes or stays is ultimately irrelevant. He, like everyone else in the system is expendable, and replaceable, seamlessly.

The real enemy, is Sir Humphrey Mrdak Appleby, who has a ready supply of replacements on his departmental "merit list", all champing at the bit for elevation to a top gig as a Mandarin Level 3. Just change the name on the door/desk, business as usual. Changing Ministers and Senators achieves nothing. Even changing Prime Ministers changes nothing. Changing Commissioners ? Come on, changing the pot plant contractor would be bigger news.
Read this from 24th September 2015:- http://www.themandarin.com.au/53447-chan...QE.twitter
The first three paragraphs are:-
(1) The recent ministerial reshuffle on Capital Hill and the machinery of government changes it catalysed may have far reaching effects, but it’s pretty much business as usual for the seasoned bureaucrats running the show.
(2) “Oh, it was no big deal really,” Treasury secretary John Fraser (pictured) told the ABC’s Emma Alberici last night, after a dinner event hosted by the ACT division of the Institute for Public Administration Australia.
(3) “I mean, we did all the preparation that you’d normally do. The first week was remarkably quiet. It was pretty seamless.”

Sir Humphrey must be so proud.
Now, where was I ?
Oh yes ......

The point is this.
The system is so robust, that it can not be changed from within.
That is a fact.
Do not delude yourselves otherwise.

Even though the occasional David versus Goliath perceived "win" events may be entertaining, and good for the soul, they do nothing for morale, in fact, paradoxically, they actually damage morale, because they quickly fade into oblivion, and quick as a flash, nothing actually changes.

Returning to the subject at hand.

Mildura (18th June 2013) very nearly provided that smoking hole, but two and a half years later:-
The "published" lessons learned were .......... ?
The changes actually implemented have been ........... ?
I repeat - "quick as a flash".

Have a read of this:-
http://vocasupport.com/actual-involvemen...n-mildura/
Now read, and consider, the 25th November 2015 "update", which reads as follows:-
"Updated: 25 November 2015
The draft investigation report is in the final stages of review by the ATSB Commission prior to it’s release to directly involved parties (DIP) for comment in December 2015. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period on the factual accuracy of the draft report will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated to be released to the public in March 2016."

One must ask ........ why so slow ?
The answer, in my view, is disturbing.
None of the DIP's can yet agree on the specification for the required white wash paint.
Perhaps Beaker should hire Dulux as a consultant, and just get it done (no open tender mind).

Thus, as I see it, there is only one thing that might, just might, force change.
Change can only come externally, from decisive action at the political level.
That decisive action can only come from a royal commission, or two.
That royal commission can only come from the smoking hole, that we all see looming.

Remember TE-901 and Justice Peter Mahon.

I think that the Chief Justice should prepare his recommendation to the PM & GG now.
Best to "be prepared".

QED.
(in advance of the fact of the proof).

[Gobbledock]

Ventus;

"Remember TE-901 and Justice Peter Mahon".

If only, if only! Justice Mahon was brilliant, absolutely brilliant. He called them all out for what they were. I see the kind of spark that was in him in Senator Xenophon. However I doubt if even a hundred Mahon's would defeat our crooked bureaucrats in a battle to the death. Justice Mahon, a true man of integrity, still couldn't bring down the vermin at ANZ, Muldoon and his goon's or the 'chief investigator of air accidents'. The powers to be turned Mahon's ass into the golden circle pineapple factory and his career and reputation were forever sullied, but his integrity remained forever until his sad passing. Only 'natural attrition, in other words 'death', has seen the Erebus criminals get justice when the individuals finally left this planet. 

(My apologies for getting off track, to me Erebus is like a red rag to a bull)

Ventus does however make a sound logical point of view in his comments if you read deeply enough. The reality is that our aviation industry and regulatory bureaucracies are in a parlous state. We've been begging for change, reform, and corrective action for years now. Sadly, it would take a Royal Commission into a smoking hole to possibly change the system. An FAA downgrade would be peachey, and would certainly rattle the governments chains, but the incestuous relationship between the Yanks and us puts the kybosh on that happening any time soon. Then again, if Malcolm the capitalist starts flirting too heavily with China we may get that FAA audit and downgrade, just to teach us a lesson for straying too far from our protective mother - Uncle Sam. And of course we can't rely upon ICAO for any meaningful intervention, especially with Krudd and the PM sniffing the UN's crotch.

Tis mostly a game of chance. However  I'm still putting my money on the Black Hats at 2/1. I'm sure the wheel is rigged.

P_666

[ventus45]

Gobbles,

Re Norfolk, not just rigged, fixed solid. There is no way it could be otherwise. Could you imagine what would happen if CASA or ASA or BoM got a severe serve in Mk2 ? Even though they all screwed up to a greater or lesser extent, they are portrait as innocent "Contributors" only. Justice has already been done. PelAir got a finger or two slightly burned, Dom took the bullet. Archive.

Re Mildura, same top players, any change ? Nope. Will CASA or ASA or BoM got a severe serve ? No way. Will Virgin or Qantas cop some heat for their own fuel policies ? Perhaps some, but it will be muted. Where are the 4 crew ? Probably meeting with Dom, for the pre execution briefing.

[Kharon]

At the tote.

Board 1 – I’ll leave board one covered for the moment; to many variables and possible dates. When the dates firm up to a popular dozen or so, we can study the form and set the odds.

Board 2.  The odds are constrained within a very narrow band just for the nonce.  The whole field has not been declared and, as the race may be some time off yet, form and training reports are not yet available.  I’ll set the entire field at 4/1 which is a safe each-way bet.  FWIW the current Trifecta selection:-

Terms of Reference; Gelding, out of Narrative Control by Spin Doctor.  Always a danger in any race, from a stable which expects winners.  When other entries for the same stable are in the same race, the benefit of pre planning and careful blocking of other competitors usually ensures a place for the connections  preferred selection.  

Air Brush; Gelding, out of White Wash by Dulux.  While never a front runner and with very few ‘wins’ in the form guide this horse nearly always enters the same events as Narrative Control.  The Stewards never seem to pick the exact moment when an opening was created to allow the stablemate to slide to the lead, but veteran watchers are never surprised when NC crosses the line, just ahead of his team mate.  

Snake Charma; Filly, out of Obfuscation by Weasel Words.  Always a danger, even to her own connections.  Many carefully orchestrated win-wins have been spoiled by the unpredictable Filly.  The instinctive urge to win did, until side bets on the win were laid off cause some embarrassment to the connections.  Many Bookies have learned (the hard way) to be cautious when these three are entered into a single event; money for one does not indicate the true expectations.

Here endeth the Trifecta.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~  ~~

Murky Machiavellian; Rig (Gelded but cut proud) out of Untrammelled by Ministers Ear.  The connections are one of the few not troubled by the Black Hat consortium Trifecta team.  The Rig has power to spare and in any sort of distance race, the animal will cruise along behind the front runners, taking advantage of ‘mistakes’ without becoming involved in the ruck.  Once the post is in sight, the effortless acceleration and rails run always ensures the victory.  To cast the odds is a very chancy, it all depends on who the connections ‘need’ to win.

White Rabbit; Mare, out of Job Security by Pension fund.  This is one of the mysterious outside chance entries which could surprise.  Pedigree, bloodlines, off track form and connections should have added a string of winning runs to the form guide.  Trainers and supporters despair, some say it’s simply a reluctance to lead the herd, which is countered by nature.  Mares always lead the charge away from danger.  Others have it that the mare is simply protective of the young ones, and refuses to leave them behind, no matter what.  Others say it’s merely complacency, others that the Black Hat consortium persistent race fixing simply prevents the notion of winning from developing.  Should street the field, but will it?

Reasons Folly; Gelding; out of Swim Club by Nicks Lament.  The odds against this horse finishing the race are better than those for it running the distance, let alone winning.  There is a protest in with the Steward committee demanding the animal be disqualified.  Seems the disgraceful on track behaviour and involvement with Black Hat consortium attempts at knobbling potential winners has cast a long, dark shadow over a less than stellar career.  The local pet food and glue factory have put in a solid offer to the connections.

Those children are the known entrants in the ‘Race to the Bottom’ cup.  We will bring you updates as they come to hand and an exclusive interview with the mystery sponsors.

Toot toot, and yes, it’s horse pooh makes the world go around.....

[Peetwo]

ATSB AQON - 04ATSB (82 pages)

QON 115-116:

Senator FAWCETT: There are a couple of points that come out of this. There is one about the trust of industry in the organisations that are supposed to be having an oversight around safety and regulation, but the other is a very real impact on people. At the time, the committee were concerned about what we saw as a breakdown in the relationship between you and CASA and the inadequacies of the report. Subsequent to the Canadian peer review, which was quite scathing about the fact that there were very clear systemic issues which were not addressed, people who have been affected by this accident—being the pilot involved and potentially the nurse— have sought some remedy for the situation they find themselves in as a result of this report. In the pilot's case, correspondence I have seen from him has indicated that that report has essentially finished his aviation career.

My understanding is that even after the Canadian report, when he has sought an act of grace payment from the Department of Finance, ATSB's recommendation is: 'Don't pay it. It was his fault.' Can you confirm that was the case?

Mr Dolan: I recall that there was some information sought from the Department of Finance in relation to an act of-grace payment. We provided the facts as we understood them. It is not a purpose of our organisation to assign blame, and we would not have said that to the Department of Finance.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide the advice that Senator Fawcett has asked you for?

Mr Dolan: I beg your pardon?

Senator XENOPHON: Can you table that advice?

Mr Dolan: I cannot see any reason why we should not, so I will obtain it and table it for the committee.

---

Senator FAWCETT: That would be very useful. I look forward to the report.
….
Senator XENOPHON: So we will get a copy of that advice. Mr Dolan has been good enough to indicate that we would get a copy of that advice in this committee as to what was said and all the correspondence in relation to that. I have a couple of questions.

Answer:

The advice and correspondence in relation to the advice are set out in Attachments A-C of this answer.

Attachment A – Letter dated 18 August 2015 from Hon Michael McCormack MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance to Turner Freeman Lawyers

Attachment B – Email Correspondence between the Department of Finance and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau dated from 13 June 2014 and 13 April 2015.

Attachment C – Advice dated 12 June 2014 from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to the Department of Finance

(see ATSB AQON page 67 onwards for attachments)

..Reasons

Section 33 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) provides that payments may be made to a person if there are 'special circumstances'. What may constitute 'special circumstances' is not defined although guidance is provided by Finance that special circumstances may apply where:

• the action or inaction of the Australian Government has directly resulted in a loss;

• the application of Commonwealth legislation or policy has caused an unintentional or inequitable outcome; or

• there is some other relevant anomaly or moral imperative.

The ATSB does not consider that those circumstances apply. As you state in your email dated 31 March 2014 while the majority of the applicant's claims relate to alleged actions of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, mention is made of the ATSB. The application itself canvasses excerpts from the Inquiry into Aviation Safety Investigations by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport with respect to the ATSB's investigation of the ditching of VH-NGA, 5 km SW of Norfolk Island Airport, 18 November 2009.

The application does not reflect the substance oft he evidence given by officers of the ATSB to the Senate Inquiry or the written submissions made by the ATSB to the inquiry.

The Government response (released March 2014) to the Senate Inquiry's report clarifies the substance of the ATSB' s position with respect to any need for the ATSB to review the findings of its investigation. Specifically, please refer to the Government's response to recommendation 10 of the Senate Inquiry's report (attached).

The ATSB does not consider it necessary to add anything further. If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact John Taylor, Principal Lawyer, on 6274 6416.

Yours sincerely

Martin Dolan


Recommendation 10

That the investigation [of the Pel-Air Incident] be re-opened by the ATSB with a focus

on organisation, oversight and broader systemic issues.

Response

The Government notes this recommendation.

Consistent with undertakings given to the Committee, the ATSB will be amending the

Pel-Air investigation report to correct administrative errors which have been brought

to its attention, including at the inquiry hearings.

However the re-opening of investigations is ultimately a matter for our independent

aviation safety investigatory body, the ATSB.

In this regard, in accordance with ICAO Annex 13, the reopening of an investigation

should be considered by the investigating agency where significant new evidence

comes to light.

The ATSB's Commission has closely monitored the proceedings of, and submissions

to, the inquiry and has advised the Government that it does not consider that any

significant new evidence has arisen on issues that have already been considered

which are likely to have contributed to the accident.

The ATSB investigation report Included the identification of two safety issues which

are focussed on organisation, oversight and broad systemic considerations:

- the available guidance on fuel planning and on seeking and applying en route

weather updates was too general and increased· the risk of inconsistent in-flight

fuel management decisions to divert; and

- the operator's procedures and flight planning guidance managed risk consistent

with regulatory provisions but did not effectively minimise the risks associated with

aeromedical operations to remote islands.

Further organisation, oversight and systemic issues have been assessed and

addressed by the operat<?r, CASA, and other parties, which is acknowledged in the

ATSB report.

Therefore the ATSB does not consider that re-opening its investigation will add further

safety benefits, but would unnecessarily divert Investigative resources currently

involved in other ongoing investigations.

The Government also notes the Committee's concerns regarding aspects of the

investigation and these will be examined as part of the Canadian Transportation

Safety Board peer review of the ATSB investigation methodologies and processes

having regard to Australia's obligations under ICAO Annex 13.

Whoops...







MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

Heff's Choc frog award.

 For those not familiar, a while back now Heff (legend) read out to the committee a spiteful, conceited, unsigned little note whining about being kept waiting for a turn to speak.  It clearly offended Heff, for many old school reasons and the writer of that missive was put on notice.

This time around, a long ATSB wait outside preceded a very short short time inside. On entry the majority of the committee barely acknowledged the existence of team ATSB, a couple of soft questions were lobbed in for forms sake, and ATSB was dismissed, four short minutes later.

Four minutes, 30 seconds was all the time pay-back took; if you don’t count the preceding hours, hanging about outside.  NX had a couple of soft questions, the rest of the committee pretty well ignored Beaker and Co.  Why?  You may well ask, everyone watching found out, right at the end.  As Dolan beat a very hasty retreat, heading for the exit at warp speed, Heff pipes up, with impeccable timing,  “Sorry for the delay Mr Dolan; please don’t send me a nasty note”.   (Paraphrased e&oe)

It was elegant in it’s simplicity, artful in execution and was the last thing Beaker heard as he left the building; hopefully, for the last time.  

Classic Bill.  Bravo and thank you for a big smile.... ...

[Peetwo]

Heff's Choc frog award.

 For those not familiar, a while back now Heff (legend) read out to the committee a spiteful, conceited, unsigned little note whining about being kept waiting for a turn to speak.  It clearly offended Heff, for many old school reasons and the writer of that missive was put on notice.

P2 - Also see HERE

This time around, a long ATSB wait outside preceded a very short short time inside. On entry the majority of the committee barely acknowledged the existence of team ATSB, a couple of soft questions were lobbed in for forms sake, and ATSB was dismissed, four short minutes later.

Four minutes, 30 seconds was all the time pay-back took; if you don’t count the preceding hours, hanging about outside.  NX had a couple of soft questions, the rest of the committee pretty well ignored Beaker and Co.  Why?  You may well ask, everyone watching found out, right at the end.  As Dolan beat a very hasty retreat, heading for the exit at warp speed, Heff pipes up, with impeccable timing,  “Sorry for the delay Mr Dolan; please don’t send me a nasty note”.   (Paraphrased e&oe)

It was elegant in it’s simplicity, artful in execution and was the last thing Beaker heard as he left the building; hopefully, for the last time.  

Classic Bill.  Bravo and thank you for a big smile.... ...

Here is the comment, also note (turn up the volume) the exchange between Sterle & Xenophon on MH370 search tender cock-up; & I believe a mention of a future Inquiry...  

MTF...P2

[aussie500]

Thanks, I had forgotten about that note, and never had the sound up enough to hear the latest comment on notes. I had been wondering what was going on, on the carpet for a few minutes then a speedy departure.

[Peetwo]

Here we go - more Beaker Bollocks

Just when I thought the Minister may have muzzled the Muppet & rested back control of the Australian narrative, up he pops like a Jack-in-the-box; this time in the Guardian Australia (BB in blue):

MH370: head of search says 'very likely' plane will be found by July


Martin Dolan, head of the Australian authority scouring the Indian ocean, is confident aircraft will be located

Elle Hunt in Sydney
@mlle_elle
[/url]
Monday 7 March 2016 14.05 AEDT Last modified on Monday 7 March 2016 19.59 AEDT


The man in charge of the hunt for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 believes it is “very likely” the plane will be found in the next four months, even as the multimillion dollar search effort enters what is likely to be its final stage.

In the two years since the plane disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 227 passengers and 12 crew on board, its only confirmed trace has been a barnacle-encrusted flaperon wing that washed up on the French island of Réunion last July.

Two other pieces of flotsam, found on Réunion and Mozambique, are suspected to come from the plane, but are yet to be positively identified.

Yet Martin Dolan, the head of the Australian authority tasked with scouring an expanse of seafloor for the wreck of the aircraft, is confident it will be found this year.

Since 31 March 2014, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has led the search effort for the plane, driven by what its investigators have always considered to be the most likely scenario – known as the “ghost flight” theory – that no-one was at the controls when the jet went down.

The ATSB’s modelling shows that, after running out of fuel, the plane would have crashed in the southern Indian ocean, off the coast of Western Australia. As of this month, four ships have searched more than 85,000sq km of a long but narrow “seventh arc”, totalling 120,000sq km of seafloor – without success.

To Dolan, that suggests that the plane is in the 30,000-odd sq km yet to be searched, and will be found when the operation concludes around July, if not before.
“It’s as likely on the last day [of the search] as on the first that the aircraft would be there. We’ve covered nearly three-quarters of the search area, and since we haven’t found the aircraft in those areas, that increases the likelihood that it’s in the areas we haven’t looked at yet.”

At this late stage, Dolan is aware that his assurance could seem like blind optimism, or a bid to save face over a US $133.3m operation – paid for by Australia and Malaysia, plus $14.8m in funding and equipment from China – that has already been said to have failed.
The search zone – twice the size of Tasmania – shows a range of places the plane could be, some higher probability than others. “We now know that there’s a range of those places the aircraft isn’t in, but that hasn’t changed the overall probability that the aircraft is in the total search area,” Dolan said.

“To eliminate that from the search – assuming we don’t find the aircraft – we have the cover the whole area.”

The complexities surrounding the search are immense: the area is six days’ sail from the nearest shore and previously unmapped, with water depths of up to 6,000m and underwater mountains, crevasses and 2,000m sheer drops. It is being covered at a rate of two knots – about walking pace.
 
       

A waiter walks past a mural of flight MH370 outside Kuala Lumpur. Photograph: Joshua Paul/AP

Given those uncertainties, Dolan can’t be specific about when the search will be completed. But he remains optimistic. “We’ve still got some serious area to cover, including some areas in the assessment that are highly prospective for finding the aircraft, and the aircraft’s very likely there.



“We’ll cover those very thoroughly and I hope our next conversation is going to be about how we found the aircraft.”

He draws his confidence from the robustness of investigators’ analysis of the plane’s last satellite communications. What looks like obscure technical language is expressing a “very reliable proposition”, he says, which the ATSB has sometimes struggled to communicate to laypeople. “And that is why there’s not always a good understanding of why we’re so confident in what we’re doing.”

The model may be perfect, but it is only as accurate as its input data. And that’s where the ATSB’s single-minded approach falls short, says journalist Jeff Wise, a member of the so-called Independent Group (or IG) of professionals conducting their own work on the search for MH370. While the ATSB’s “ghost flight” theory is the most simple, most reasonable, most likely explanation of what happened, it is not the only one.

“The ATSB has essentially spent $130m to rule that out,” he says. “And as the more reasonable hypotheses get ruled out, we have to move further down the list to look at ones that seem more outrageous.”

One such theory is that the plane’s systems were tampered with so that it only appeared to be going south. That factors into Wise’s own hypothesis, which he posted in a six-part blog post last February: that the plane was hijacked on Vladimir Putin’s instruction.

His “spoof” theory got “a respectful hearing but no converts among the IG”, he wrote in a 4,000-word feature for New York magazine: “My gut still tells me I’m right, but my brain knows better than to trust my gut.”

With the end of the search in sight, every day that it does not throw up the plane casts doubt in the minds of even those who take the “ghost flight” theory as given. “Some of the people who believe it has to be in the search box are thinking they’ve probably missed it,” says Wise.

The example he gives is of mowing a lawn: in theory, you can cut every single blade of grass. But it’s very easy to leave gaps, even if you are systematic and precise.
Correspondence seen by Guardian Australia shows that a short section of a search line approximately 24km west of the seventh arc was missed when the vessel Fugro Discovery’s survey on 4 September was cut short by poor weather.
 
       
[url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/mh370-head-of-search-says-very-likely-plane-will-be-found-by?CMP=twt_gu#img-2]
Flight officer Rayan Gharazeddine on board a Royal Australian Air Force AP-3C Orion searches for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370. Photograph: Rob Griffith/AP

Independent investigators Richard Cole and Brock McEwen, who flagged the apparent oversight with the ATSB, were initially told that the area had been accounted for. But on 3 December, operational search program director Peter Foley emailed to correct that statement, clarifying that approximately 80km had been missed and was “earmarked to be rerun”.

It was later scanned, said Cole, though there was no evidence to suggest that this was a result of his or McEwen’s work.

Dolan says the ATSB’s approach has been dynamic, transparent and and informed by regular correspondence with the Independent Group. “They provide a criticism and questioning that is very valuable to us. That’s one component of the wonders of the internet.”

Less welcome is the correspondence – often “quite insistent”, he says – from those whose theories cast doubt on the operation “with no real reason”. “We will listen to anyone, but the more they insist on things that are inconsistent with the facts, the less we’re going to pay attention to them.”

The most promising development in some time may have been made by a 58-year-old lawyer from Seattle, Washington, with no relevant professional expertise or accreditation.
Blaine Alan Gibson has spent much of the past year travelling in the Indian ocean region, attempting to solve the mystery of what happened to MH370. On 27 February he made his most exciting discovery yet: a 1m piece of metal, washed up on a sand bank in Mozambique.

It will shortly arrive in Canberra for testing. Until that is complete, Dolan says he cannot comment other than to say he is “certainly very interested” in what the debris may prove to be. The location, at least, is consistent with drift analysis, and the Malaysian transport minister said on Twitter there was a “high possibility” it belonged to a Boeing 777.



Based on the experience of the flaperon, Dolan warns to “not have too many expectations”: even if it is found to be from MH370, it would not necessarily lead to the plane.

In the absence of significant developments, the hunt for MH370 will end with the completion of the 120,000sq km zone, slated for around July. If the plane has not been found, says Dolan, “the alternative scenarios might apply”.

These include the “controlled glide” theory, in which someone was in charge of the plane when it went down, and would implicate an area three times as big. The Australian, Malaysian and Chinese governments have been fairly explicit that the cost of searching such a vast tranche of ocean floor is prohibitive.

Whether or not the plane is found in that last 30,000-odd sq kms of seabed, investigators will have to take the available evidence, however insubstantial, and put forward their best guess as to what happened in the final moments of flight MH370.

“At some point, whatever the total of the evidence is, is going to have to be assessed and a conclusion reached as to the most likely solution to the mystery,” says Dolan.


“That’s the way we see our job. That’s the way our Malaysian colleagues see their job. And that will happen. The only question really is, how extensive that information will be.”

Don't get me wrong, personally I hope Dolan is absolutely correct & that they will find MH370 in the current ATSB defined search area.

However I just wish the message delivery was coming from someone other than the most discredited public servant currently in the government aviation safety portfolio. This man has inflicted far to much pain & grief through ineptitude & obfuscation to ever have been trusted with heading up the greatest aviation mystery of all time. The integrity & reputation of the ATSB as a State accredited Annex 13 AAI, lies in tatters largely due to the obstinate, arrogant & flawed philosophy of this individual.

The worst part is that it does not appear that the ATSB CC has embraced or even acknowledged the lessons of PelAir. In fact if you read HERE it would appear that Dolan's ''beyond all sensible Reason' (BASR) approach to AAI has effectively eroded the transport safety investigator's ability to join the most elementary of dots in the causal chain of an aviation accident or incident...

Kharon - The common threads are easily discerned,but even this latest pathetic report tries to hint at pilot error.  It is a good thing that the ATSB do not apportion blame; but they do hint at it.  Why?, well, another common factor is the sacred cow of the BoM, who only need to be within +/-70% accuracy of actual in their forecast (from memory) to be off the hook.  This level of accuracy has little intrinsic or practical value to a pilot.  In court the responsibility will all fall to the pilot, everyone else has wriggle room and bolt holes, all except the poor mutt in the dock.  


ATSB, ASA, BoM and CASA need to resolve this situation; we now have escaped four times from disaster where bad weather and low fuel reserves have been intricately bound with poor, late weather forecast.  It’s a trend and ATSB should be screaming from the roof tops, demanding something be done to reverse that trend.  Do they? No sir, they do not.  We get presented with a snide, trite, puerile little report which tries to shift the spotlight off the piss poor service to the travelling public delivered by our expensive ‘safety watchdogs’.    

Miniscule....TICK...TICK...TICK...TICK




MTF...P2

 

[Gobbledock]

Hmmmm, 'Ghost flight'. I wish Beaker would 'make like a ghost' and disappear for good.......arseclown.

[Peetwo]

More Beaker bollocks & the nugatory section 25A.

---

Kharon - For my sins...I strayed into section 25A of that Act; David Fawcett and his 'closing the loop' questions and remarks must have triggered some kind of subconscious thinking pattern which has been demanding answers for a while now.

Good catch Ferryman.... always was missing some dots with the Beaker SR disconnection (i.e. BASR) - which is so contrary to recognised world's best practice with addressing identified safety issues...

First your reference to Senator Fawcett and his 'closing the loop' QONs I believe initially was mentioned in budget & sup Estimates, & then in the initial hearing of the PelAir inquiry (22/10/12):

Senator FAWCETT: With the process you are describing whereby you use a process, and risk and consequence and all the good tables I have seen in your submission, do you consider balancing that against the cost of action? I will take for example the New Zealand flight information service where, in Australia, if there is a deteriorating weather situation they have an obligation to update the pilot and alert them to the fact that something is occurring, or the Unicom operator who was not legally allowed to use the HF radio to talk. But if either of them had said, 'The situation is getting worse,' as Unicom did to the New Zealand FIS who chose not to pass it on, surely, even including that kind of thing, there should be a recommendation that the Australian government should talk to the New Zealand government and ask for cooperation for safety reasons. Even if it is only for one in 1,000 flights and your probability of occurrence is very low, given the cost of action is also very low, why does your process exclude consideration of something that to the common man in the street seems like common sense? Why are we not seeing logical, reasonable recommendations coming out of ATSB reports to an address in this case two things, either of which probably would have prevented the accident?

To which Beaker replied - part in bold is I believe in reference to s25A:

Mr Dolan : There are two things there and I will go to the question of recommendations before I get to the specifics of your question. The ATSB at the point where it became independent of the Department of Infrastructure and Transport also got a shift in its powers in relation to the making of recommendations which raised the ante with recommendations and their significance. There is a legal requirement to respond to each of the recommendations we make. In recognition of that we set up the system of identifying safety issues that said there needs to be a critical or a significant safety issue before we will explicitly use that power to make a recommendation and require a response, and we would generally limits recommendations to those sorts of things. What you are talking about we would in our normal framework, given what you said about likelihood and consequence, deal with as a safety issue without going to recommendation. That is the context: it is still there but your question remains….

If we track the timeframe of amendments to the TSI Act we can see that with the change of ATSB governance (i.e. from Dept to an independent Commission) on the 01 July 2009 also saw the introduction of s25A.

The following from the ATSB website describes the conditions for possibly enforcing s25A (3):

Failure to respond to a Safety Recommendation


Sections 25A of the TSI Act requires a person, association or agency to provide a written response to a Safety Recommendation contained in a report released under section 25 of the TSI Act. The response is required within 90 days of the report being published. Responses to recommendations are published on the ATSB website.
Failure to respond may attract a penalty of up to 30 penalty points ($3,300 for a natural person and $16,500 for an incorporated organisation), and advice of any such failure to respond will be published on the ATSB website.

Policy

Responses to Safety Recommendations are to be provided within the timeframe (within 90 days of the report being published) as required by the TSI Act.

Where responses are not received, a decision about appropriate enforcement action is taken. Choice of an appropriate action is based on a graduated response that focuses on the primary objective to achieve an appropriate safety outcome, including to:

• continue to engage with the responsible person, or class of responsible persons, to ensure compliance; or if necessary
  
• refer the apparent breach to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for investigation, with the potential for a brief of evidence to be provided by the AFP to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) to assess for possible prosecution action.
  

The ATSB's policy is that the option of continued engagement is used where the apparent breach does not meet the criteria for referring it to the AFP for investigation. The matter must be serious for a referral.

Criteria for referral

Where there is an apparent breach of section 25A of the TSI Act it is likely that it would only be considered serious if:
a) the person or organisation was aware of their obligations to respond, or should have in the circumstances been aware of their reporting obligations, and there is evidence to indicate that the person or organisation:
i. deliberately decided not to respond in accordance with their obligations; or
ii. was reckless in their failure to respond; and
b) the matter or matters that required a response:
i. have the potential for serious safety consequences if not addressed; or
ii. have the potential for less serious safety consequences but there is no other means to ensure that the person or organisation explains to the industry and the public how the matter or matters are being addressed; and
c) an investigation by the AFP, with potential prosecution by the CDPP, is thought necessary to:
i. obtain compliance from the person now and in the future; or
ii. deter other persons or organisations from failing to respond.

Okay so what possible reason suddenly precipitated the necessity for the introduction of s25A to the Act? Well to help explain I too have borrowed from a PAIN publication (thanks P7..):

Opinion : The following data compares ATSB v NTSB Safety Recommendations over a ten year period (2000-2010). This data highlights that Mr Dolan has used the above philosophy in regards to Safety Recommendations to significant affect:

Now when referencing the ATSB database for SRs - addressed to CASA on or shortly before the arrival of s25A - I noticed another disturbing trend that had been developing... To highlight this I have taken one of the three SRs that were addressed to CASA in relation to the Willowbank parachuting aircraft tragedy- R20070030.

Now refer to the date the SR was issued - 30 October 2007 - & the date the SR was responded to was 13 March 2008 which was outside of the prescribed and long accepted requirements of Annex 13 CH 6 para 6.10...

"...A State that receives safety recommendations shall inform the proposing State, within ninety days of the date of the transmittal correspondence, of the preventive action taken or under consideration, or the reasons why no action will be taken..."

And that I believe is one of the reasons for the introduction of s25A combined with the continued trend of CASA obfuscating adequate responses to SRs for sometimes over a decade.

However s25A under Beaker as Chief Commissioner has essentially been made nugatory with his adoption (see quote above) of the BASR approach to mitigating safety issues identified in the course of an investigation...

This point of contention was highlighted by David Fawcett further on in the Hansard:

Senator FAWCETT: With all due respect, to have a process that deliberately closes the door to suggestions that another agency, if they wished to say they would respond to that recommendation by saying no but if they chose to say yes may have saved this flight and may potentially save another flight, I suggest is process that is extremely poorly misplaced and prioritised...


...Senator FAWCETT: Mr Dolan, I think you have probably heard a number of the witnesses this morning indicate that in their view ATSB in the past has taken a far more proactive approach to identifying issues and being prepared to make a recommendation. The general consensus from witnesses has been that that is a far more value-adding document. With a technical issue, for example an A330 off the North West Shelf with a software glitch that causes the aircraft to plunge, in terms of probabilities it was very remote that that would never happen again. But there was a report, recommendations and the OEM put a fleet-wide alert out to look at a software reload or whatever. If that approach is taken on something that almost led to the loss of an aircraft, here we have the loss of an aircraft. Why did you take such a conservative approach as opposed to saying any information, any opportunity to preclude a further incident by including all of the regulatory and systemic issues in terms of the organisation, their training, they check-in training, the lack of control, the lack of standardisation around fuel planning—all the things that led to this occurrence—should be canvassed in the report? I have heard your process, but putting the process aside, is the process wise when after three years we end up with a report that deals quite narrowly with one element of the things that led to this incident?

The post above also references this PAIN report - Opinion :-ATSB since 2003.
I shamelessly copied the above post of mine from the infamous, closed UP thread - Merged: Senate Inquiry. Why you may ask? Well that post was written well over a year ago & perfectly highlights, very clearly, how nothing - except for the appointment of the invisible Manning - has changed. In fact, with the aiding & abetting of CASA with their embuggerance of Jabiru, it is IMO getting worse, way worse -
CASA Estimates #21:

Now compare that to the Mildura Fog Duck-up - see HERE, HERE & HERE -...

Kharon - "..ATSB, ASA, BoM and CASA need to resolve this situation; we now have escaped four times from disaster where bad weather and low fuel reserves have been intricately bound with poor, late weather forecast.  It’s a trend and ATSB should be screaming from the roof tops, demanding something be done to reverse that trend.  Do they? No sir, they do not.  We get presented with a snide, trite, puerile little report which tries to shift the spotlight off the piss poor service to the travelling public delivered by our expensive ‘safety watchdogs’..."  

 ...where there has been no safety recommendations issued, yet the safety risk identified is yet to be effectively mitigated and still puts at risk potentially hundreds of travelling public at anyone time...       

MTF...P2
 

[Ziggy]

The Seven Year Itch...and I'm not talkin' 'bout marriage Honey!


Yep, I read the excellent post above, twice.
I do try to keep my cyber-mouth shut, but, when I see in bold the word "preventable" and it is in direct relation to the aircraft accident I was in, from a well respected Senator. Followed by a rather Pathetic, Unsafe, Unqualified answer/s. From a scared wee man who was clearly swooped on by a screaming, flying skull. 

A tight knitted web with a spare loop was needed when an audit of the organisation (P/A) showed many breeches, over fifty pages of grey. Oh dear!
The Gov hasn't been doing their job, neither has the organisation who CEO is an ex Transport Minister and now a Federal Treasurer to the Nats.

Accountability.
Screw that. We need to save face.

What do we do?

Scene One:
Act: Shit-Cover-Stat

Swooping and Screaming, the Skull- Well I WANT a certain job. So we can't look bad.
Don't 'Effin say anything to the International people. I want that 'Effin job.

So Squeaky Head MiMi bows. As do all others. 
Shame on you all.
A nickname such as the Screaming Skull results for REASON, there must be Reason...a word yet to be explored in this here matter.

Senators questions- Ignored

We all know the rest.

Well...

Being a Survivor of such a prolonged, political, legal, ethical and moral torture is daily and disturbing.
Not to mention the personal pain, loss, disability and a bleak future of the opposite of who I really am. 
A "preventable" Jet Ditching Accident. My blood curdles.


My Personal Matter- 
Appealed. NSW Supreme Court for Directions March 23rd. They- the Insurance Giants under Many Umbrellas. Those who are linked from Government to Co-Operations. Linked in an UnderGround sorta way.
Taking advantage of ridiculous outdated laws that lack scientific foundations.


(Honestly, I must send thoughts out to families about to battles the Giants. Stay strong. Patience and do research. Knowledge and support will help with your strength. From Good Senators and blog-sites such as this one.'
Thank you Aunty P
You will need support. It's here.)


With my matter. They are appealing eeevveryyythinggg! 
I have been told in no uncertain terms that I need to lose to win.


I have been surveyed, intercepted, lost two years worth of emails in a flash, November last year, have had my bedroom window opened twice at night. I now have locks on them. I have a small hole which I have witnesses to that was recently drilled in the corner of my lounge room roof. I noticed new gyprock on the floor when I was cleaning. I poke a skewer through and push around. 
My Telco urged me to call the Police for my Safety.
I have not. As I have no trust I either State (they'll think I'm loopy) or Feds. Not interested.


Why? Who?
True story. Have pictures.
Frankly though, "their" tactics do not scare me. "They" can rot in their own scum.




So I am told..
The Insurance giants have just too much money. I don't. 
They can take this to the International Court of Justice as they have the funds to do so. By then I will be broke. I must lose!
I would need a philanthropist to see me through. 
I have had 500.00 per week taken from my wage, I still rent, I live in agony and frustration.
If I lose the appeal. 
[b]I will be on the Pension.[/b]
[b]I am 45.[/b]

After almost seven years of battling for justice and safety, I feel isolated and silenced. No politician will speak with me.
Media, well I've had to call them a few times to change their stories as they were incorrect and to unquote words I had not said...you dirty dogs. You know who you are!

My question is,


WHERE IS, HAS BEEN MY GOVERNMENTS SUPPORT?


With absolutely no disrespect to any air accident victims who's lives were taken, or their families.
I often think of many of the Victims.
Were they waiting as we were to be rescued as we were in the Ocean?
Did they know what was happening?
Did they brace with their memories of life flashing before them?
Did they suffer?

I don't need imagine these emotions. I know.


I hear from people constantly the question, "what if people lived"? 
Well, I think the treatment would be very different to the Accident I was in. You see, the Media are in charge of delivering superficial, sensationalised, uninformed news

Did the flying public know that Mrdak changed the Law in 2013 back to the old Montreal Convention, which is in Serious need of updating. 1929 law as if. You've got to be joking, right. 
Wrong.

I tend to have questions myself.
What could have been learned from the Norfolk Island Ditching. Could there be a possibility that what could have been extracted and passed on as Aviation Evolving Should be by Our Leaders. Rather than dodging the Subject like a well scripted Movie.
(look how far we are behind in the Space-Race...(cool song by Oz band Mi-Sex).


Aaaand our Second International Aircraft Accident Investigation Of Questionable Collective GovernMental Narcissism.

Still no Aviation Safety Here.
All swept swiftly under the carpet and disrespected as shoes lined with lies trampled on the truth of NGA. 
Again. Shame.

Quite unbelievable.
Alboslutely!

The Aviation Portfolio, is a friggin Sinking Safety Ship Sailing the Scripted Current of the Govs Army.

NFI Ditching, 2009
Over Seven years. NTSB involvement. 
Report still pending.
Golden handshake for Truss. Thanks  for nothing, Dorothy. Nice meeting you. Well where-ever you were whilst I spoke to you. Eyes glazed over, looking to the roof, wall...eye contact was a problem. Especially when we spoke of Aviation Safety with an Audit in front of us both with GovernMental Accountability Issues.
Should have known then, that nothing would change.
Political donations from the CEO of the organisation to his own party of which he is the Treasurer. Unchallenged.
All the safety recommendations for Aviation.
Not yet implemented.

So what COULD have been learned, was not due to the creating of a false report to save the Skulls next move perhaps?
Well, sorry chap. Checkmate. Transmitted beyond our shores to tell of a true happening. Which was not correctly reported. Oops. 
To quote the Fabulous Heffernen "Dipshits"
You're Aviation Practice is Unsafe.
Barnaby. Are you paying attention?
Do you even know about the Messy Portfolio or is it "off limits"?

Federal Investigation for NGA is still Current. Overdue.

The TSI Act. 

As a DIP, I have been ignored when asking for reasonable requests.

Could you imagine if they sent the piece found recently on the island to the mainland in a red plastic shopping bag, opened??
Well, after five years there were the three miraculously found Norfolk Island Ditching Life-Vests. Which I had to argue to see. Under the TSI Act.
Then in a Red Plastic Shopping Bag, they arrive. Not professional at all.
The whole bloody past six plus years has been a sick, cruel and twisted distortion of our "safe skies" for Political Bullshite. 
Oh so Dangerous.
It's called a Red Flag "Dipshits"...just love using that word.
And yes, still 'Effin risky.



I have asked for many Reasonable and Logical request. Met with the same dribble. No. No. No. Huh. Oh. No. 
Basically, from my Gov (bless 'em)...it's Eff Off KCy

So step right up to the New Malcom & Barnaby Production.


There is a Problem here.
Many problems in FACT.

In the Aviation Portfolio.

Seriously.

It seems to be the right time for a request for an RC into Australia's Aviation Portfolio or for the FAA to get involved here. Chat with NZ Aviation. Created a movement with momentum. Before the stagnation of Aviation Safety and Fairness is Impeded by Egos that dare Not Fly with the Truth. They will steal your dreams and ruin your life if you cross them solo. 
Not in numbers though. With numbers, Politicians listen. Because a stir will attract media and the Gov need to respond. 
It's how this Aviation Law Labyrinth Game works. 

No more ignoring it.

Dipshits.
Had to write it again, dipshits Just sounds so, dignified for "them"

So what have we been left with regarding a very Important Portfolio for Australia?

Morally and Ethically wrong minds corrupting the Compass of Australian Aviation Safety and Fairness. That's what we have now.

Barnaby, Malcom, Albo, Bowen, Truss, Lambie, Abbott, Gillard, even the Queen and many more, anybody.
Wrote to you all with voided or no replies.
Explain?

Mechanical Birds in a Busy Sky needs Attention. 
Please understand the necessity for a Royal Commission.
Aviation is not a Game. Nor is it just business's, profits and laws.

It's peoples lives, safety, fairness and in a land as large as ours, General Aviation should be bloody everywhere. Small Business Promo from TurnBalls. Saw the ad with a young Pilot Starting an Aviation Business.
Acting. Ah, they naive minds they manipulate.
Young Pilots, try getting past CASA first.
They are self proclaimed Aviation Experts...of the Law.
A warning should be at the bottom of the screen advising the above.

Well, it's all True Blue.


Stay safe,

 Ziggy