[Peetwo]

We have a problem.

Now that the boxes have finally been recovered, much to the ATSB's displeasue, who will "supervise" the downloading and analysis ?

I would not "normally" suggest this, but GIVEN THE "HISTORY" AND "FLAVOURS" of this PANTOMIME OF AN INVESTIGATION over the last SIX years, the core troubling issue that we have here, is "whether or not we can trust" the ATSB.

Can we trust the ATSB to produce a full, honest and unbiased analysis from the boxes ?
Only a naive fool would be so trusting at this point in proceedings.

We all know the ATSB never "wanted" the boxes to ever see sunlight.
There are nagging questions as to "why".

Many months ago, I speculated that a possible answer could be encapsulated in the phrase, "There is no evidence your honour".
Possibly because some potentially "unhelpful evidence" would best be left in the murky depths ?

If there is any "unhelpful evidence", how can we be sure that it will ever see the light of day, even now ?

We may need to adopt the French system of dual investigations, both legal and technical.

Perhaps the Federal Police should be INVITED to "sit in on this one", purely in the interests of "investigative probity", of course.

Perhaps the miniscule should so "direct" ?

All excellent points you make "V" but it is still a very large probability that the recorders will be dead; or the data corrupted; or totally unreadable...

No IMHO (and many others) there is a far bigger issue here and it lies in this part of the ATSB investigation update:

...During the afternoon of 11 November 2015, the rear section of VH-NGA, which contained the flight recorders, was lifted onto the deck of PMG Pride. Both the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were removed from the wreckage and placed into sealed containers in preparation for transportation to the ATSB’s technical facilities in Canberra...

 
And from the Senate PelAir Inquiry:

Senator XENOPHON: There is a briefing note on points for consideration in relation to ATSB recovery of aircraft flight recorders for the Westwind aircraft, VH-NGA—and it goes through various things. It talks about an overview of flight crew, recovery options, issues, risks, decision points, the costs and the benefits. It talks about the ATSB's reputation of being seen as acting seriously when appropriate and fulfilling its share of the commitment associated with the considerable costs of installing and maintaining black boxes. It said 'present indications show a likelihood of strong safety measures in both normal and abnormal flight conditions based on existing data'. Then it talked about the benefits and costs, risks and ATSB's reputation for being relevant on risks. It says, 'Next year's budget was reduced because of this year's underspend. We cannot assess the accuracy of the pilot's perceptions.' Following the EMT, it advised the approved deployment of the investigation team in Norfolk Island to conduct a search for the aircraft using a ping locator. They also approved funding of up to $20,000 to recover the recorders and were open to discussions on further expenditure if required. So there clearly was a detailed discussion. The conclusion early on seemed to be to recover the cockpit voice recorder, but it was not recovered. We are all mystified—or I am. I think my colleagues are also mystified as to why we did not recover it.

Mr Dolan : At the initial stages, we understood the aircraft was in comparatively shallow water and that access to the recorders would be reasonably achievable by a diver or other mechanisms without too much difficulty. That brief was to convince me to make the necessary allocation of resources to retrieve the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. Upon investigation, it became clear that the depth at which the aircraft was in the water, its location at a remote island, Norfolk Island, and the work health and safety standards applying to diving to those depths meant that there would have been a substantial cost of recovery.

The requirement was effectively that there be a decompression chamber, none of which was available on Norfolk Island, for the full time of the retrieval because of the depth at which the divers would be operating. When we got a reasonable and first approximation assessment of that, in the knowledge that, from our point of view, the key information we had about flight decision making would not have been recorded on the cockpit voice recorder which only had a two-hour time on it—

Senator XENOPHON: That is that 08:00 weather detail thing?

Mr Dolan : The crash was nearly at 10:30 and there is only two hours on the cockpit voice recorder. So we did a benefit-cost analysis of recovery and formed the view that the costs substantially outweighed the benefits.

Senator XENOPHON: So let us not labour the point. That was an earlier assessment and subsequent assessment said that it was going to cost a lot more?

Mr Dolan : Correct.

CHAIR: Even though someone offered to do it for $500.

Senator EDWARDS: Is that right?

CHAIR: Yes.

Senator XENOPHON: But it would not have been on, on health and safety. Chair, to be fair to the ATSB, there is no way—

Mr Dolan : I would be unable to countenance that in terms of my responsibility.

CHAIR: As for your occupational health and safety background I am not allowed to climb up on my bloody bulk tanker, which I have been climbing on for 40 years, to put a hose in the top of it because it is not safe to climb up the side on a ladder on a fuel tank.

Mr Dolan : Falls from heights are a substantial cause of injury—

CHAIR: Yes, mate, but I have been doing it for 50 years and everyone else has been doing it. But there you go. All right and okay and we are grateful for your evidence.

 

And then this puerile, spin & bulldust gotcha moment

Which, if you will remember, Dolan later had to retract because Sen Fawcett actually had the correct version for the time of the accident.

Now apparently the tail of VH-NGA was roped & dragged towards the surface in early 2010 but then left to settle back on the ocean floor at 45m.

There is proof here that the tail was left roped to a buoy, note the date of the video upload was March 2010:

Dear Ag PM - Not only is the above evidence that your Chief Commissioner has lied to the Parliament but also he has hindered the carriage of a ATSB investigation for the better part of six years. This could (not should or shall) be interpreted as a breach of S24 of the TSI Act:

Offence to hinder etc. an investigation
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person engages in conduct; and

(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:

(i) that is being conducted at that time; or

(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and

© the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct); and

(d) the conduct is not authorised by the Chief Commissioner.

IMHO this should (not shall) be grounds for his instant dismissal...

Yours disgusted P2