Proof of ATSB delays
#1

This has been on the table for a long while now, stinking to high heaven.  Now that at least one journalist (or as Dolan refers Tendentious Blogger) the inestimable Ben Sandilands has picked up the whiff of corruption in the wind.  Those who followed the development through the unspeakable prune threads have no need of background; those who did not may want to spend a quiet half hour, acquiring the knowledge need to fully realise what the Senate inquiry into the Pel-Air debacle really and truly meant to Australian credibility; as a first world aviation nation. 

HERE - your starter for 10.

Plane Talking_1

Plane Talking_2

While we wait for brother Slats_11 to catch up, here is the start point for some pretty fancy research.

Quote:P11_Slats.

This story keeps getting more and more murky.   Plane talking today:\

Did Australia mislead ICAO over the Pel-Air crash? | Plane Talking

ICAO Third Meeting of the Asia Pacific Regional Aviation Safety Team (APRAST/3)\Appendix B (starts page 32) lists occurrences from 2002 - 2011. 

No mention of PelAir at Norfolk Island.

http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/20...G%20Report.pdf

The following document sets out the responsibilities of ICAO member states

http://www.airsafety.com.au/trinvbil/C619icao.pdf

This is the 2001 edition, which was in force at the time of the 2009 crash. The current edition (2010) is the same with regard to reporting responsibilities.

Page 7-2Incidents to aircraft over 5 700 kg

7.7 If a State conducts an investigation into an incident to an aircraft of a maximum mass of over 5 700 kg, that State shall send, as soon as is practicable after the investigation, the Incident Data Report to the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Perhaps it would be best if ICAO simply asked the Canadian TSB for a copy of their review.  Don't think the severity is the explanation. Australian incidents reported to ICAO included gear collapse with no injuries. Based on this, a ditching with hull loss and significant injuries should meet the reporting threshold. 

There may be some gamesmanship regarding class of operation.  However the intent of the ICAO seems pretty clear.  From what I have heard, a very senior ICAO person is surprised to be unaware of Norfolk.

Even more oddly, there are some incidents that were reported to ICAO for which there is no ATSB report (or at least, the ATSB report can not be found on the ATSB site). For example, the following PelAir / Rex incidents.

25/11/2004 VH-EEX Metro. Port gear collapsed on landing at Rockhampton ATSB reference 200404619 (I eventually found the ATSB record so ATSB know of incident, but could not locate the actual report). 

3/4/2007 VH-KDO Metro Can’t find anything at all about this.  Probably not major incidents but odd that they have been reported to ICAO and we can't find any ATSB report.

"K" -comment - The words Canley Vale, Andy Wilson, Cathy Sheppard or VH-PGW will mean little to many outside Australia.   Norfolk Island and VH-NGA may mean something as that was a widely carried story.  The focus of interest lays in the fact that neither of these accidents seem to have been reported to ICAO as per the book.
 
I find the similarities and parallels between the two 'missing' report intriguing.  We know that the ATSB system for reporting is spot on, the TSBC tell us so.  Whoever is ultimately responsible for the despatch of those reports clearly has a bullet proof system and clearly uses it, as every other report transmission has been made in a timely, proper manner; which begs the question.  How did these two heavily criticised, highly suspect reports slip through the robust ATSB system net.  It's probably just a coincidence that the same crew managed and edited both final reports, funny how things like that just happen.  Must be one of them there 'aberrations'.   

No doubt the word weasels are hard at, developing 'credible' excuses, I expect some wretched clerical type will get moved, an apology issued and all will be bright and rosy, once again in the DoIT garden.  Terrific.


Selah..
Reply
#2

Things are certainly moving in recent days onto Round 3 already...who would of thought?? Dodgy

For those who missed here was Round 2 off the Aunty blog:

Norfolk ditching Round 2

08 Feb

[Image: Norfolk_Island_0C55C330-9F98-11E4-B6E7020F57397571.jpg]

ATSB to feel PAIN over Pel-Air Investigation
19 Jan 2015
 
A confidential group known as the Professional Aviators Investigative Network (PAIN) has raised concerns over the ATSB review of the Pel-Air ditching report.

Late last year, the ATSB agreed to review the report into the 2009 ditching of a Pel-Air aeromedical flight at Norfolk Island, after a Canadian review highlighted anomalies with the investigation report.

In a submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) written in December, the group has criticised the ATSB’s decision to use one of their own people to lead the review.

“… the ATSB [has] elected to utilise Dr Michael Walker of the ATSB to lead the investigation,” the PAIN submission points out. “We believe that to be effective, any investigation should be conducted independently and not involve ATSB, the commissioners or staff if only to preclude any suspicion of ‘internal’ influence or external bias being raised.”

PAIN is also concerned that the terms of reference announced by General Manager Aviation Safety Investigations IanSangston do not go far enough.

“The terms of reference cited by Mr Sangston are narrow and only mention the ‘report’ itself. Whilst the industry acknowledges that the report was substandard, there is little doubt that the investigators conducted their work with integrity and within the prescribed guidelines. Indeed, the early stages of the ATSB report were exemplary and clearly directed toward serious safety recommendations being made.

“We believe little will gained by utilising scarce resources re-investigating the original ATSB investigative ‘reports’.”

Instead, PAIN points the finger of blame for the original Pel-Air investigation report squarely at the both CASA and the ATSB and hints at deeper issues.

“Our greatest concern is that a deliberate, calculated manipulation of the national aviation safety system was attempted. It is not a ‘one off’ aberration. We firmly believe that the subsequent actions of both the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the ATSB were proven, by the AAI [RRAT inquiry] committee, to grossly pervert the conclusions of the ATSB investigation to suit a clearly predetermined outcome, thus denying industry valuable, safety related knowledge and information.

“It is the process by which these subsequent events occurred which demands an independent investigation conducted  transparently in public. We believe the Senate Committee is the right reporting and oversight platform for that investigation. The committee Senators are well briefed, informed and have a firm, current understanding of what transpired during the events subsequent to the Pel-Air aircraft ditching off Norfolk Island.

“Further, the Estimates committee is very clearly ‘awake’ to the machinations of the various aviation oversight bodies and will not easily be misled or confounded by ‘technical’ issues.

“We submit that any other form of investigation will not withstand the scrutiny of industry experts; as the initial premise is fatally flawed.”
PAIN describes itself as “a loosely organised, informal, confidential network which has formed and expanded over a number of years. There are approximately 1000 associates of the network; many participants, in one form or another may be properly considered expert witnesses.”
Its stated aims are to conduct independent investigations to provide aviatiors with a defence against “unfair, unreasonable or incorrect” made by CASA and its flight and airworthiness inspectors.

The members of PAIN remain largely anonymous to the general public, although it is known the group gave evidence to the original RRAT inquiry into the Pel-Air ditching.

- See more at: http://auntypru.com/norfolk-ditching-rou...w1dg3.dpuf  
Reply
#3
Lightbulb 

Yet again Dougy has got the scoop Wink - Editor's Insights 19 February 2015

Quote:So, as has long been expected, former Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning has got the job as Aviation Commissioner at the ATSB. The position was created out of the noise that emerged from the Senate enquiry into the Pel Air ditching, where the absence of aviation experience at the top of the ATSB was loudly noted. Chris Manning is forthright and knowledgable and should do the job admirably. Good news.


 Not such good news for those who were hoping to see an Australian in the top job at ICAO. Although the decision about a successor to Raymond Benjamin will not be revealed until the second week of March, the word around Montreal is that the Chinese contender is looking likely to get the nod, ahead of our former CASA DAS John McCormick. Apparently money still talks in those UN circles and the Chinese have been lavish with it in order to win votes.

 The re-opened Pel Air investigation is underway, but given the level of work involved, it is expected to take eight to 12 months to complete. In parallel, the previously issued final report of the investigation has been removed from the ATSB website until the re-opened investigation is complete. If any new safety issues are identified during the investigation, these will be communicated to the relevant parties as soon as possible.
So Manners did get the gig... Smile
Stby for Presser...MTF Tongue
Reply
#4

Ben Sandilands @ Plane Talking – the best of all tendentious bloggers asks one of the many big questions.   It beggars belief that after the unholy mess McComic left behind in Australia; the only support group for his ICAO appointment is the Department of murky Machiavellian land deals, manipulation, influence peddling and obfuscation.

I will reiterate, the Senate Pel-Air inquiry only exposed the tip of a very ugly, sinister ice berg.  The DoIT, under Merdek running both the CASA and ATSB top dogs has successfully smothered and minimised the impact not only the damning FAA audits of CASA, the Senate inquiry recommendation, the Ministerial review recommendations and the Canadian TSBC peer review recommendations, but have also managed to beat off a once furious, hostile industry with endless delays, meaningless promises and no bloody action whatsoever.  This all before the multitude of Coronial recommendations which have been fobbed off with ‘promised changes or simply ignored are examined; or, the disgraceful ATSB reports into fatal accidents.  Let’s just not mention the non reporting of loss of separation incidents or non publication of Safety Recommendations, Mildura or Air North; etc. etc. etc….


The human face of the incredible damage whether inflicted by designed intent or as happenstance provides a long list of those persons or companies who have been sacrificed or decimated to meet those predetermined outcomes, requested or required, under the McComic rule of ‘black letter law’, extruded by the mile, cut off as needed and welded to suit.


The faithfully and caringly tended Senate Inquiry thread on the unspeakable Pprune carries the whole ugly story and would have brought these future revelations to the aviation world, had it not been pre-emptively shut down.  Boring they said (1, 600, 000 views); well, we can now let the world decide exactly how boring it was.   I suggest the doyens of the ICAO do their homework before allowing the McComic to plonk his fat bottom on one of their plush seats and embarrass them all further.  Seriously – start – at page 1 and don’t speak until you have read the entire disgusting saga.   –HERE – Off you go…Shoo little mice..


The sketchy track record of playing fast and loose with ICAO protocols is not mentioned, that’s all of’ em.  Australia has over 1600, registered differences which, rather cleverly, make it ‘technically’ compliant with ICAO, while thumbing it’s nose and laughing up it’s sleeve.   Then there is the demonstrated complete disregard for ICAO Annex 13 and the allegations of breaches of the Transport Safety Acts to be accounted for, either proven of eliminated.
IMO: Not only has the Australian public been defrauded, the politicians bluffed and ill advised but the breathtaking arrogance with which the Iron Ring takes the Mickey Bliss out the world at large while being paid handsomely for doing it, simply beggars belief.


No children, not cynical, just well researched, experienced and very disappointed, that I must, as an Australian hang my head in shame.  Shamed that this industry has allowed it ‘self be so so gulled and beaten into a passive, Pavlovian response of accepting what the bullies, the ignorant and the despicable dole out.
No doubt there will be more on this, but meanwhile, if you love a really juicy scandal; and, want to enjoy this one: get your homework done.


Selah.
Reply
#5

Top showing last night from Senator X... Big Grin  

It was the most obliging I have ever seen or heard Dolan be - under Senate Estimates/Inquiry - while answering questions in regards to the PelAir saga. This time about the reinvestigation Mr Dolan was very demure and NX was able to extract all his required answers and must have left most satisfied indeed... Angel

Anyway here is Part 1:



 
TBC with Part 2..
  
Reply
#6

Senator X v Dolan Estimates Part 2 on  VH-NGA CVR/FDR recovery:



About bloody time only took 1896 days to finally see Reason....sheesh.. Angry

MTF... Tongue

Ps Still irks me that the muppet is still there... Dodgy
Reply
#7

(02-25-2015, 02:16 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Senator X v Dolan Estimates Part 2 on  VH-NGA CVR/FDR recovery:



About bloody time only took 1896 days to finally see Reason....sheesh..

Hot off the cyberpress a update on the ATSB PelAir reinvestigation: Ditching of Israel Aircraft Westwind 1124A aircraft, VH-NGA, 5 km SW of Norfolk Island Airport on 18 November 2009

Quote:Update

On 4 December 2014, the ATSB formally reopened the investigation into the ditching of an Israeli Aircraft Industries Westwind 1124A aircraft, registered VH-NGA. As part of the re-opened investigation the ATSB is taking all reasonable steps to recover the flight recorders from the accident aircraft and download and analyse the data from them.

In order to make an informed assessment of the feasibility of recovering the recorders from the tail of the aircraft, the ATSB recently conducted an underwater survey of the aircraft wreckage on 28–29 March 2015. The survey was completed with the assistance of specialist dive officers from New South Wales Police and the Australian Federal Police. A remotely operated vehicle (ROV) equipped with video recording capability was used in the conduct of the survey. The images were compared with those undertaken for the ATSB in the initial ROV survey, conducted in December 2009.
Conditions for the latest survey were difficult, with large ocean swells, poor visibility and a strong underwater current, all likely as a result of the passage of Cyclone Pam to the north of Norfolk Island a couple of weeks previously. Regardless of the less than ideal conditions, the survey exercise was successful and adequate for the ATSB to continue its planning for the next phase based on a good understanding of the state of the wreckage:

  • The wreckage remains at its last recorded position, submerged in water to a depth of 48 m, approximately 4.5 km to the west of Norfolk Island.
  • Both wings, both engines, the rear section of fuselage and the tail remain attached and were accounted for during the survey.
  • The two major fuselage segments are no longer connected by flight control cables (as they were in 2009) and the front section of the passenger compartment has shifted slightly as a result of underwater currents, but the two segments remain close together.
  • The wreckage has been resting on a sandy-based ocean floor and as a consequence the tail section of the fuselage containing the flight recorders has been partially buried by the movement of sand. The left and right main landing gear have also been partially buried by sand.
  • Both engines, as well as the left and right wings, remain clear of the sandy ocean floor. 
 
Sample images are provided in Figures 1-3.

Figure 1: March 2015 ROV still image of aircraft wreckage view looking down

[Image: AO-2009-072_fig1_472x317.jpg]

Figure 2: March 2015 ROV still image from the right side of the aircraft view looking rearward
 
[Image: AO-2009-072_fig2_471x303.jpg]
 
Figure 3: March 2015 ROV still image from the left side of the aircraft tail: the rear fuselage section containing the flight recorders is partially buried in sand

[Image: AO-2009-072_fig3_471x337.jpg]

Based on enquiries by the ATSB, it does not appear that there have been any successful dives onto the actual wreckage by independent parties since the accident. The depth of the water at the site requires the use of specialised commercial diving expertise and equipment, including the provision of a hyperbaric chamber in case of an emergency situation. In addition there are no locally available vessels capable of lifting the aircraft from the ocean floor. The information obtained from this latest underwater survey will be used to assist the ATSB in its planning and assessment of options for the next phase of the project to recover the recorders.
The main focus of the re-opened investigation to date has been the review of documentation requested from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the operator and other organisations, as well as interviewing a number of personnel from these organisations. These activities are ongoing.
 
________
The information contained in this web update is released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and is derived from the initial investigation of the occurrence. Readers are cautioned that new evidence will become available as the investigation progresses that will enhance the ATSB's understanding of the accident as outlined in this web update. As such, no analysis or findings are included in this update.

MTF...you betcha! P2 Tongue
Reply
#8

Give the poor commissioner a break.  Only five and a half years to get the Norfolk investigation started and an update, this early, stating "Yup, it's right where we left it" is not too shabby a response.   Busy old Beaker; press calls at Silly O'clock, lunch with hare brained cub reporters to discuss the spaghetti menu; and there's all that report writing, re editing and drafting and peer reviews to massage for the convenience of his mates over road, golf on Wednesday, beard grooming Thursday, beard shaving Friday.  All of this then there is 'the'  MH 370 search matrix to massage (sorry) manage and direct; after all, he is  the only really, truly qualified career bureaucrat on the planet who can do it – well, apart from his Mum who briefs him from the daily tea leaf readings that is.  

Nah, a five year hiatus is not too bad an effort; we can expect other outstanding, peerless reports before the end of this decade; have no fear.
Reply
#9

Tom, is this the sort of activity that Beaker indulges in behind the scenes (along with turd polishing and playing wank word);

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6jfBnVVeKZs
Reply
#10

Speaking of 'Overdue & Obfuscated', the following is a quote from the miniscule (courtesy the Oz) extracted from my post #16 (CASA meets the Press):

Quote:Mr Truss told The Australian the CASA letter and a similar statement of expectations sent to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau fulfilled a promise arising from the Forsyth Review.

“The key changes are obviously that they should implement the findings of the review and also my expectation is that they will seek to develop a co-operative relationship with all sectors of the industry,’’ he said.

However unlike CASA the ATSB appear to have lost the miniscule's letter in the mail, because when you visit the Media section of the ATSB internet site there is no mention of the miniscule's SOE letter - Media releases and alerts ... Huh

Further to that if you go to if you then go to the page labelled - Minister's expectations... 

Quote:Minister's expectations

Minister's Statement of Expectations

 
Statement of Intent

  • Statement of Intent
    This Statement of Intent describes the ATSB's functions and approach and outlines priorities which will form the basis for the ATSB's business and resource allocations. Those priorities and related key business outputs are consistent with the Minister's expectations and broader Government policy in the area of transport safety.

...then click on the SOE link provided you still get Albo's piece of shit SOE.. Dodgy

Quote:Minister's statement of expectations

For the Australian Transport Safety Bureau
1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015
The Australian Government is committed to ensuring the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) continues to be a global leader in transport safety investigation, research and analysis, and fostering public awareness of transport safety.

The strategic direction in this Statement is given in accordance with my power under section 12AE of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (the Act).
The functions of the ATSB under the Act include:

  • receiving and assessing reports of transport safety matters, reportable matters, and other safety information;

  • independently investigating transport safety matters;
  • indentifying factors that:

    - contribute, or have contributed, to transport safety matters; or
    - affect, or might affect, transport safety;

  • communicating those factors to relevant sectors of the transport industry and the public in any way, including in any one or more of the following ways:
    - by making safety action statements;
    - by making safety recommendations;
    - by issuing safety advisory notices;

  • reporting publicly on those investigations; and

  • conducting public educational programs about matters relating to transport safety.

The Government expects the ATSB, while retaining operational independence in discharging its functions, to remain an active and effective participant in the transport policy and regulatory framework, working effectively with the Department of Infrastructure and Transport (the Department), other Government agencies including the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Airservices Australia, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator, and the transport industry.

My expectations are that the ATSB will:

1. Perform its functions in a manner that supports Government transport safety policy, by giving safety the highest priority.

2. Continue to give priority to transport safety investigations that have the potential to deliver the best safety outcomes for the travelling public.

3. Implement policies, programs and other initiatives to enhance transport safety, including:
a. Subject to available resources, providing assistance to accident investigations in other countries, in accordance with international protocols;

b. Supporting the Government's transport safety agenda in the Asia/Pacific region;
c. Continuing to undertake an appropriately-scoped research agenda informed by analysis of its own safety data and investigation findings;

d. Providing me, as part of its Annual Report, a status report on formal safety recommendations issued by the ATSB; and

e. Continuing to review current investigation policies and practices to ensure that the ATSB retains its reputation as a best practice safety investigation agency and its influence on the national and international safety agenda.

4. Complete the ATSB’s transition to being the National Rail Safety Investigator, as established through the Council of Australian Governments’ Intergovernmental Agreement on Rail Safety Regulations and Investigation Reform.

5. Work collaboratively with the Department and State and Territory agencies to position the ATSB progressively to become the single national maritime investigator.

6. Work closely with CASA and the Department to ensure that arrangements are in place for the appropriate sharing and use of safety information by the ATSB and CASA and that these arrangements are transparent to the aviation industry with a strong reporting culture.

7. Work closely with National Rail Safety Regulator to ensure that arrangements are in place
for the appropriate sharing and use of safety information by the ATSB and the Regulator and that these arrangements are transparent to the rail industry and consistent with a strong reporting culture.

8. Provide timely and accurate assistance, information and advice on safety issues to governments, industry and the community.

9. Adhere to a set of values and a code of conduct that maintain high standards of professionalism, service, probity, reporting, accountability and transparency, consistent with the Government's commitment to excellence in the public sector.
 
Signed
ANTHONY ALBANESE
Minister for Infrastructure and Transport
12 April 2013
 
Which was written before the release of the Senate PelAir cover-up report and was never formerly amended to reflect the very damning report findings?? {Comment - Yet another thumb in the nose to industry from the former miniscule for No Aviation Albo}

However the current miniscule made a commitment in the Government response to the Forsyth (ASRR) report to write a new ATSB SOE in light of the findings of that report - apparently he has upheld that commitment. So where the f#*k is it???

MTF..P2 Tongue   
 
Reply
#11

The ghost of Albo strikes again!! That is frickin hilarious! Nothing on Beakers website, and Herr Albo's old outdated shite is still on Farmer Truss's site! It goes to prove that all the wankery they print off and place in the public domain for us to get a safety chubby over is just toilet paper for us to wipe our spotted asses with, it really is a load of completely useless bollocks.
What will we discover next, that our State Safety Program was pinched from the Indons and written and massaged by a non aviation Ranga from Can'tberra? Don't laugh, dig deep enough and ye shall find the truth!!!

Tick tock? Indeed yes.
Reply
#12

(02-19-2015, 03:04 PM)kharon Wrote:  Ben Sandilands @ Plane Talking – the best of all tendentious bloggers asks one of the many big questions.   It beggars belief that after the unholy mess McComic left behind in Australia; the only support group for his ICAO appointment is the Department of murky Machiavellian land deals, manipulation, influence peddling and obfuscation.

I will reiterate, the Senate Pel-Air inquiry only exposed the tip of a very ugly, sinister ice berg.  The DoIT, under Merdek running both the CASA and ATSB top dogs has successfully smothered and minimised the impact not only the damning FAA audits of CASA, the Senate inquiry recommendation, the Ministerial review recommendations and the Canadian TSBC peer review recommendations, but have also managed to beat off a once furious, hostile industry with endless delays, meaningless promises and no bloody action whatsoever.  This all before the multitude of Coronial recommendations which have been fobbed off with ‘promised changes or simply ignored are examined; or, the disgraceful ATSB reports into fatal accidents.  Let’s just not mention the non reporting of loss of separation incidents or non publication of Safety Recommendations, Mildura or Air North; etc. etc. etc….


The human face of the incredible damage whether inflicted by designed intent or as happenstance provides a long list of those persons or companies who have been sacrificed or decimated to meet those predetermined outcomes, requested or required, under the McComic rule of ‘black letter law’, extruded by the mile, cut off as needed and welded to suit.


The faithfully and caringly tended Senate Inquiry thread on the unspeakable Pprune carries the whole ugly story and would have brought these future revelations to the aviation world, had it not been pre-emptively shut down.  Boring they said (1, 600, 000 views); well, we can now let the world decide exactly how boring it was.   I suggest the doyens of the ICAO do their homework before allowing the McComic to plonk his fat bottom on one of their plush seats and embarrass them all further.  Seriously – start – at page 1 and don’t speak until you have read the entire disgusting saga.   –HERE – Off you go…Shoo little mice..


The sketchy track record of playing fast and loose with ICAO protocols is not mentioned, that’s all of’ em.  Australia has over 1600, registered differences which, rather cleverly, make it ‘technically’ compliant with ICAO, while thumbing it’s nose and laughing up it’s sleeve.   Then there is the demonstrated complete disregard for ICAO Annex 13 and the allegations of breaches of the Transport Safety Acts to be accounted for, either proven of eliminated.
IMO: Not only has the Australian public been defrauded, the politicians bluffed and ill advised but the breathtaking arrogance with which the Iron Ring takes the Mickey Bliss out the world at large while being paid handsomely for doing it, simply beggars belief.


No children, not cynical, just well researched, experienced and very disappointed, that I must, as an Australian hang my head in shame.  Shamed that this industry has allowed it ‘self be so so gulled and beaten into a passive, Pavlovian response of accepting what the bullies, the ignorant and the despicable dole out.
No doubt there will be more on this, but meanwhile, if you love a really juicy scandal; and, want to enjoy this one: get your homework done.


Selah.

Just thought I revive this excellent post from the Ferryman cause there are further signs that ICAO are on the march & heading our way. Although whether they will actually do any good or not is hard to say???

Anyway I intercepted this article from a slightly less known publication.. Big Grin .. the Phnom Penh Post... Wink :

Quote:[Image: airport_heng-chivoan.jpg?itok=J6A3TNSu]

A member of Phnom Penh International Airport’s ground crew walks along the tarmac past a plane shortly before a storm in 2013. Heng Chivoan

Sector sweats on ICAO audit
Thu, 7 May 2015
Hor Kimsay and Charles Rollet

The UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization is planning an audit of Cambodia’s aviation authority in November, officials confirmed yesterday.

The announcement of a pending review comes just months after an industry report warned that Cambodia’s lax regulations could lead to an ICAO blacklisting.

Cambodia fared poorly during its last full audit by the ICAO in 2007, with all criteria ranked substantially below international standards. Areas including navigation services and accident investigations were graded at almost 40 per cent below international safety levels.

Contacted yesterday, Sinn Chanserey Vutha, spokesman at the Sate Secretariat of Civil Aviation (SSCA), said that his organisation had already begun reviewing a questionnaire from ICAO in anticipation of an audit in November.

Vutha said he recognised the country’s aviation sector had some deficiencies, but was optimistic that the SSCA had improved significantly over the past years.

“Our performance is better than before and we hope that we can solve many of the issues mentioned. But we agree that we cannot be as good as advanced countries,” he said.

“We always worry because we are a developing country lacking human resources – we lack human and financial resources. We can’t predict the result, but we are worried and we are trying [to get a good result],” he said of the upcoming ICAO review.

Others have been less hopeful. This February, the Australia-based Centre for Aviation (CAPA) said current and future airlines were “worried the audit could result in Cambodia being placed on ICAO’s blacklist”.

The consequences of an ICAO downgrade can be far reaching. The UN watchdog raised questions earlier this year about the safety standards applied by the authorities in Thailand, which led to Japan, South Korea and China imposing restrictions on new charter and new scheduled flights from Thai-based to their countries.

According to the report, Cambodia was viewed as an easy way to obtain an Airline Operation Certificate (AOC) due to lax regulatory standards.

“As it is much more difficult to start an airline in China, establishing a Cambodian airline to pursue the China-Cambodia market represents a far more attractive solution,” the report states.

Three airlines alone – Bassaka Air, Bayon Air and Apsara Air – were approved to fly in Cambodia in 2014’s last quarter.

However, the report warned that Chinese authorities were monitoring the Kingdom’s airlines, and that Cambodia would have to tighten its standards due to renewed scrutiny from the ICAO.

The audit comes at a time when international safety officials are reportedly eyeing stronger enforcement in Asian countries due to increasing tourism traffic in the region and a series of accidents from regional carriers.

Nancy Graham, the ICAO’s top safety expert, told the Wall Street Journal this February that small countries such as Cambodia and Nepal were particularly vulnerable if they did not put safety before demand.

Ho Vandy, co-chair of the Government-Private Sector Working Group on Tourism, warned of the importance of the SSCA meeting the ICAO standards.

The ripple effect of a poor outcome, he said, would have broad consequences for the Kingdom’s tourism sector.

“[All the sectors] are in the same rice cooker,” he said.

“If the SSCA is [blacklisted], the airline companies would not be operating properly, so then it would affect all of us, both public and private institutions.”

SSCA spokesman Vutha said the audit results would be made available three months after the review was completed.
 
Dear Nancy,...??

"..Nancy Graham, the ICAO’s top safety expert, told the Wall Street Journal this February that small countries such as Cambodia and Nepal were particularly vulnerable if they did not put safety before demand.."

..Karen Casey & few of the PAIN crew would still like to know why it is that you were not properly informed about the significant other safety issues like Life Jacket failings etc. in the VH-NGA Norfolk ditching accident.

L&K PAIN

Ps have you been able to track down the report yet??



“We always worry because we are a developing country lacking human resources – we lack human and financial resources. We can’t predict the result, but we are worried and we are trying [to get a good result],”



Hmm..wonder what our excuse will be??- Bureaucratic embuggerance ably backed by a series of incompetent Laborial Governments who don't give a rats arse about aviation... Sad



Tick...tick...tick...tick



MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#13

I made the mistake of searching out some new and informative HF info on ATSBeaker site today. Apart from Beaker waffling about "global villages" and ATsB courses I didn't find anything new. Sadly however I did stumble on to an ATsB Poohtube clip from last year in which Beaker (complete with splendid beard, head wobbling and lots of mi mi mi) tells the ABC (who he loves prancing around for) that night flying is more dangerous than daylight flying!! Well f#ck me sideways with Nanna's rolling pin, who would've thought???

Bollocks as follows;



Surely Beaker will do a follow up story (perhaps without the beard) telling us that flying with one engine out into Ballina during an eastcoast low is more dangerous than landing at Brisbane on a sunny, still, clear Sunday morning at 0600?

'Safe media tarts for all'
Reply
#14

Speaking of overdue & obfuscated I noticed the tender for the black box recovery of VH-NGA has finally been advertised - Huh

Services for recovery of flight recorders from aircraft submerged near Norfolk Island.

Quote:ATM ID

ATSB-AO-2014-190
Agency
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Category
25110000 - Marine transport
Close Date & Time
7-Jul-2015 2:00 pm (ACT Local time)
Show close time for other time zones

Publish Date
12-Jun-2015
Location
ACT, Other, Overseas
ATM Type
Request for Tender




Description

The ATSB requires a Contractor to supply commercial services in order to recover of the Flight Recorders from a submerged Westwind 1124A aircraft that ditched off the coast of Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009. An ROV survey of the wreckage was conducted over the period 27-31 March 2015, which confirmed the location and disposition of the main wreckage fragments.

The wreckage fragments lie on a sandy ocean floor approximately 4km due west of Norfolk Island. The aircraft has remained largely intact since the initial accident with the wings / tail section separated from the passenger compartment. The Flight Recorders are located in the wings / tail fragment of the wreckage. The passenger compartment is located underneath the left wing. It is likely that both main sections are no longer physically connected by any flight control or electrical cables, although this was not confirmed for certain during the ROV survey. The dry weight of the wings / tail section was calculated to be around 5 tonnes. Sand has accumulated around a portion of the rear most section of the aircraft tail.

The ATSB anticipates that a recovery operation of this nature may involve the use of any or all of the following:
  • Vessel
  • Lifting Equipment
  • Divers
  • ROVs
While the ATSB anticipates that any or all of the above assets may form part of a proposed method for recovery, the ATSB invites Tenderers to propose methods for retrieval that are effective and efficient, representing value for money.  It is not necessary that a method include a particular asset if it is not necessary to achieve the recovery objective.

Once the flight recorders are removed from the aircraft wreckage, the wreckage must be left substantially unchanged in its current location.

Conditions for Participation
As per section 2.1 of the Request For Tender
 
Timeframe for Delivery
Before the end of September 2015

Address for Lodgement
Austender at www.tenders.gov.au, in accordance with instructions in Request documentation.
{N.B. Bean counter Beaker has neatly obfuscated the recovery so that it will not effect his precious budget for another financial year at least..FCOL Dodgy }
Speaking of next financial year, I note that Beaker continues to not acknowledge the current miniscule's new SOE that apparently Farmer Truss sent to him back in April at least... Huh  
Quote:Minister's expectations


Minister's Statement of Expectations
 
Statement of Intent
  • Statement of Intent
    This Statement of Intent describes the ATSB's functions and approach and outlines priorities which will form the basis for the ATSB's business and resource allocations. Those priorities and related key business outputs are consistent with the Minister's expectations and broader Government policy in the area of transport safety. 

[Image: share.png][Image: feedback.png]

Last update 31 January 2014

So effectively nothing has changed, but we all knew that anyway...UFB Confused

MTF...P2 Tongue

Ps BOLO for this bloke Rolleyes :

 
Quote:Safety fears at three major airports with military air traffic controllers  
[Image: 823323-33b647d8-0d71-11e4-b0ba-27d7e67cfe8c.jpg]

Former Qantas chief pilot Chris Manning. Source: News Limited

A FORMER Qantas chief pilot has called for an urgent inquiry into safety levels at three major Australian airports managed by military air traffic controllers after figures revealed air force controllers had a poorer safety record than their civilian counterparts.  

Chris Manning says the government must investigate why Darwin, Townsville and Newcastle airports have a disproportionately high number of “loss of separation” incidents. The term is used when passenger planes pass too close together, increasing the risk of a mid-air collision.

Mr Manning, Qantas’s chief pilot between 2002 and 2008 and one of the most respected figures in Australian aviation, said while the three airports were not unsafe, they were less safe than the country’s other major airports and this was unacceptable.

“It is safe but, according to the Australian Transport Safety ­Bur­eau report, there are more incidents per (flight) movement in military airspace,” he told The Australian. “There should be no difference in the level of safety at all towered aerodromes that civil aircraft use.”

Mr Manning’s public warning is highly unusual and reflects the privately held concerns by many pilots that Australia’s unusual system of having military personnel controlling civilian passenger planes at Darwin, Townsville and Newcastle is flawed.

Military controllers are not subject to oversight from Civil ­Aviation Safety Authority.
Mr Manning is angry that the government has all but ignored a damning ATSB report from October last year which found that military (air traffic controllers) were involved in a disproportionate number of safety incidents.

The report found that between 2008 and 2012 military controllers were involved in 36 per cent of all loss of separation incidents despite controlling only 25 per cent of aircraft traffic near terminals.

“This ATSB investigation concluded that civilian aircraft have a disproportionate rate of loss of separation incidents which leads to a higher risk of collision in ­military terminal area airspace in general and all airspace around Darwin and Williamtown (Newcastle) in particular,” the ATSB said.

The military controls all traffic at its 11 air bases around the country, but because Darwin, Newcastle and Townsville are adjacent to air bases, military controllers are also responsible for civil aircraft at these locations despite the fact that civil aircraft account for 94 per cent of traffic at Darwin and 88 per cent at Townsville.

“Some military aerodromes, such as Darwin and Townsville, are primarily used for civilian traffic and some, such as Williamtown (Newcastle), act as an important regional airport and the evidence indicates those civil aircraft are exposed to a higher level of risk compared with equivalent civilian-operated airports,” the ATSB said.

Mr Manning said this report had been largely ignored despite its potentially grave findings.

“I find it difficult to believe that an ATSB report that highlights safety issues has received scant attention — makes you wonder why they bother doing a report if there’s no obvious desire to address the real (safety) problems raised,” Mr Manning said.

He has called for a three-person independent inquiry to examine the issues raised by the ATSB report and devise a safer and more transparent system to ensure the safety of all Australians who fly in and out of Darwin, Newcastle and Townsville.

Mr Manning has also called for the country’s 250 military air traffic controllers to be subject to safety auditing by CASA in the same way that the country’s civil air traffic controllers are.

“ I would much prefer to see one standard that was audited by CASA throughout Australia,” he said.

Defence has strongly defended the standards of its controllers and disputes the ATSB claim that civil aircraft are exposed to a higher level of risk at the military-controlled airports of Darwin, Newcastle and Townsville.

“Defence disagrees with the findings of the ATSB’s Loss of Separation report,” a Defence spokesman said this week.

“Defence does not agree with an implication that the number of loss of separation per number of aircraft movements directly correlates to safety.”

Defence said that military and civil controllers had “common qualifications” and applied the same standards and procedures. “There are legislative reasons, particularly pertaining to airspace control in times of war, why military air traffic controllers must be regulated and authorised by Defence, rather than CASA,” a Defence spokesman said.

But the ATSB criticised Defence for a lack of transparency on the question of safety and concluded that “the evidence indicates that those civil aircraft (in military-controlled airports) are exposed to a higher level of risk compared with equivalent civilian-operated airports”.

“At present, there is no comprehensive and independent assessment of the levels of safety and compliance with respect to civil aircraft operations at these airports and no transparency for industry with respect to any differences in the levels of service provided or safety afforded … some level of independent assessment and assurance … is warranted.”
Reply
#15

Is he there yet?

There was a flicker of hope that the ATSB inquiry into the ATSB aberration may have been overseen by an ‘independent’; exeunt hope.  The Senators in one of their few, small disappointments have allowed a re-investigation of just the accident, not the following debacle, just the Norfolk incident.  Furry muff – they probably expected the invisible Manning to keep the whole thing at least ‘honest’.  But talking to some of the DIP, you get the feeling that the umpire is still in the pavilion and not required for this match. 

Quote:“To do such a thing would be to transcend magic.  And I beheld, unclouded by doubt, a magnificent vision of all that invisibility might mean to a man—the mystery, the power, the freedom.  Drawbacks I saw none.  You have only to think!  And I, a shabby, poverty-struck, hemmed-in demonstrator, teaching fools in a provincial college, might suddenly become—this.” (H. G. Wells, The Invisible Man).

Toot toot. 
Reply
#16

(06-15-2015, 08:01 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Speaking of overdue & obfuscated I noticed the tender for the black box recovery of VH-NGA has finally been advertised - Huh

Services for recovery of flight recorders from aircraft submerged near Norfolk Island.


Quote:

Description

The ATSB requires a Contractor to supply commercial services in order to recover of the Flight Recorders from a submerged Westwind 1124A aircraft that ditched off the coast of Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009. An ROV survey of the wreckage was conducted over the period 27-31 March 2015, which confirmed the location and disposition of the main wreckage fragments.

The wreckage fragments lie on a sandy ocean floor approximately 4km due west of Norfolk Island. The aircraft has remained largely intact since the initial accident with the wings / tail section separated from the passenger compartment. The Flight Recorders are located in the wings / tail fragment of the wreckage. The passenger compartment is located underneath the left wing. It is likely that both main sections are no longer physically connected by any flight control or electrical cables, although this was not confirmed for certain during the ROV survey. The dry weight of the wings / tail section was calculated to be around 5 tonnes. Sand has accumulated around a portion of the rear most section of the aircraft tail.

The ATSB anticipates that a recovery operation of this nature may involve the use of any or all of the following:

  • Vessel
  • Lifting Equipment
  • Divers
  • ROVs
While the ATSB anticipates that any or all of the above assets may form part of a proposed method for recovery, the ATSB invites Tenderers to propose methods for retrieval that are effective and efficient, representing value for money.  It is not necessary that a method include a particular asset if it is not necessary to achieve the recovery objective.

Once the flight recorders are removed from the aircraft wreckage, the wreckage must be left substantially unchanged in its current location.

Conditions for Participation
As per section 2.1 of the Request For Tender
 
Timeframe for Delivery
Before the end of September 2015

Address for Lodgement
Austender at www.tenders.gov.au, in accordance with instructions in Request documentation.

From the AFR on the above Government tender... Wink :

Quote:Salvage for flight recorders at Norfolk Island
  •   
[Image: 1434525399003.jpg] 
by Christopher Jay

After more than five years submerged on the ocean floor four kilometres due west of Norfolk Island, the two flight recorders from the crash of a Pel-Air Israeli Westwind aircraft on November 18, 2009 are scheduled to be recovered by a salvage contractor for yet another inquiry into the night-time ditching at sea by pilot Dominic James.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has issued a tender for commercial salvage of just the recorders, leaving the rest of the reasonably intact wreckage pieces where they are. An underwater survey by a remotely operated vehicle (ROV) from March 27-31 earlier this year showed the aircraft in two main pieces.

In contrast to the problems questing for flight recorders from Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 in the ocean off Western Australia, the exact position of the Pel-Air VH-NGA aircraft flight recorders is pinpointed – on two vertically stacked racks in the tail cone of the aircraft.

Australasian tenders specialist TenderSearch says salvage contractors with access to a vessel, lifting equipment, divers and remotely operated underwater vehicles have until July 7 to put in for the recovery task.

The dry weight of the wings and tail section are calculated at around five tonnes, with some sand banked up around the rearmost portion.

The flight recorders were originally left where they were by Australian civil aviation authorities on the grounds that there were no particular issues about the operational performance of the Pel-Air aircraft itself.

This functioned normally with engines running and flight performance fine while the two pilots attempted four night-time landings in rain squalls with no runway lights or radar on Norfolk Island, and then flew south for a technically well-executed night-time ocean ditching with fuel still available and engines on.

Deteriorating weather

The investigations at the time centred on weather reporting, with suggestions that the pilots were inadequately informed about deteriorating weather conditions at the Norfolk Island airport, and consideration of flight plans, possible diversion to Fiji or Noumea and quantities of fuel loaded.

The events of the air disaster have remained controversial, with legal action over eligibility for compensation for post traumatic stress disorder (resolved in the affirmative in the NSW Supreme Court a month ago on May 15) and a review by the Canadians, for the Australian government, of the initial local investigations.

Finally, at the end of last year, the Australian government announced that it was going to re-run the whole inquiry process. This time this would include raising the orange-coloured flight recorders to make sure all bases were covered, even though it is arguable whether this will actually disclose much that is not already known.

Norfolk Island is an external Australian Commonwealth Territorial island (eight kilometres by four kilometres) jutting up from the Tasman Sea located 1670 kilometres east north east of Sydney.

The largest aircraft visiting is an Airbus A320.

With no deep water harbour, there are limited opportunities to move personnel by boat. There are two piers, one at Kingston and another at Cascade where a crane can be used to move goods.

Local knowledge is generally required to successfully navigate the shallow-water reef that surrounds the piers.

The water depth at the recovery area was measured by vessel-mounted sonar at 48.3 metres just after high tide on February 24, 2015.

Like it or lump it but the ATSB MH370 SIO deep search; & the PelAir cover-up re-investigation will forever be intrinsically linked in the eyes of many. As @oceankoto alludes it is a wonder the ATSB is not 'Aquaphobic'--- Big Grin ---  "..Lol! Aquaphobic people in ATSB. No luck.."

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#17

Herr Manning said;

A FORMER Qantas chief pilot has called for an urgent inquiry into safety levels at three major Australian airports managed by military air traffic controllers after figures revealed air force controllers had a poorer safety record than their civilian counterparts.

Chris Manning says the government must investigate why Darwin, Townsville and Newcastle airports have a disproportionately high number of “loss of separation” incidents. The term is used when passenger planes pass too close together, increasing the risk of a mid-air collision.

Mr Manning, Qantas’s chief pilot between 2002 and 2008 and one of the most respected figures in Australian aviation, said while the three airports were not unsafe, they were less safe than the country’s other major airports and this was unacceptable.

“It is safe but, according to the Australian Transport Safety ­Bur­eau report, there are more incidents per (flight) movement in military airspace,” he told The Australian. “There should be no difference in the level of safety at all towered aerodromes that civil aircraft use.”


Two points worth raising here Chris now that you have traded 4 bars for full beard and joined the ATsB; a) You are now in a position where you can act on this concern Chris. Have you yet? And if not, will you? And point b) it seems that a very obvious risk has, or should I say was raised concerning the 3 RAAF controlled towers having a greater number of separation incidents. Wouldn't/shouldn't this be considered more than a coincidence? Why isn't/hasn't this been investigated to find out the root cause?

I don't know Mr Truss, it's not a good look to have a risk identified, particular a risk involving infrastructure/services provided by Government departments/employees, as was raised by Capt Manning, and then do nothing about it! Naughty naughty. Could be somewhat uncomfortable for you and your Government Mr Truss you silly old buffoon should a mid-air occur???? The risk is well known, has been for some time, and you plonkers are obviously happy to own that risk by the looks of things. Tsk tsk, hardly 'safe skies for all Minister', would you not agree Warren?

TICK TOCK
Reply
#18

(06-18-2015, 07:58 PM)Gobbledock Wrote:  “It is safe but, according to the Australian Transport Safety ­Bur­eau report, there are more incidents per (flight) movement in military airspace,” he told The Australian. “There should be no difference in the level of safety at all towered aerodromes that civil aircraft use.”

Two points worth raising here Chris now that you have traded 4 bars for full beard and joined the ATsB; a) You are now in a position where you can act on this concern Chris. Have you yet? And if not, will you? And point b) it seems that a very obvious risk has, or should I say was raised concerning the 3 RAAF controlled towers having a greater number of separation incidents. Wouldn't/shouldn't this be considered more than a coincidence? Why isn't/hasn't this been investigated to find out the root cause?

I don't know Mr Truss, it's not a good look to have a risk identified, particular a risk involving infrastructure/services provided by Government departments/employees, as was raised by Capt Manning, and then do nothing about it! Naughty naughty. Could be somewhat uncomfortable for you and your Government Mr Truss you silly old buffoon should a mid-air occur???? The risk is well known, has been for some time, and you plonkers are obviously happy to own that risk by the looks of things. Tsk tsk, hardly 'safe skies for all Minister', would you not agree Warren?

TICK TOCK

TICK TOCK indeed Gobbles... Dodgy  Although not similar in airspace management etc. the recently release prelim report from the NTSB - into the fatal mid-air collision between a F-16 & Cessna 150 - makes for very sobering reading. From Avweb online magazine:

Quote:NTSB Prelim Released On F-16 Collision


By Russ Niles | July 19, 2015

[Image: p19qj7c42s10kd1c1r1uqh183f1cev6.jpg]

The NTSB's preliminary report into the July 7 collision between an Air Force F-16 and a Cessna 150 in South Carolina says an air traffic controller was in contact with the fighter right up to the moment of impact and advised the fighter pilot that he expected the Cessna to pass almost directly below the F-16 with only 100 feet of vertical separation. Instead the two aircraft slammed into each other, killing pilot Joseph Johnson and his father Michael aboard the Cessna and scattering debris over a wide area. The F-16 pilot, Maj. Aaron Johnson, ejected three minutes later and wasn't hurt. According to the report, both the fighter pilot and controller were aware of the potential conflict with the Cessna and trying to resolve it but the two targets moved inexorably on a collision course in the 30 seconds or so in which the situation unfolded.

"At 1100:49, the radar target of the F-16 was located 1/2 nautical mile northeast of the Cessna, at an indicated altitude of 1,500 feet, and was on an approximate track of 215 degrees," the report says. "At that time, the Cessna reported an indicated altitude of 1,400 feet, and was established on an approximate track of 110 degrees. At 1100:52 the controller advised the F-16 pilot, 'traffic passing below you 1,400 feet.' At 1100:54, the radar reported altitude of the F-16 remained at 1,500 feet and no valid altitude information was returned for the radar target associated with the Cessna. At that point the targets were laterally separated by about 1,000 feet." The F-16 had a data recorder in the seat and it's being analyzed by the NTSB.

This tragic accident perfectly highlights the inherent risks of mixing GA & Military aircraft movements in close proximity airspace, & even with active ATC control. Sad

MTF..P2 Angel  
Reply
#19

PelAir - 'Lest we forget' Part III - Six years on and the ATSB is still a basket case.. Undecided

(10-21-2015, 03:42 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  I note that in the very entertaining Estimate's session on Monday, that there was several references to the PelAir cover-up & indeed the "Chambers Report"... Confused
 
From CASA Hansard:

Quote:Senator FAWCETT:  ...In coming back to your regulatory philosophy, you are saying that CASA is committed to maintaining the trust of the Australian aviation community. One of the biggest breaches of trust recently was the ATSB investigation into the Pel-Air report where CASA maintained that the internal investigation, the Chambers report, the fatigue risk management report and the special audit were not necessarily pertinent. I think the term was they were a private, internal report. Now that ATSB has reopened that investigation could you assure the committee that it is your intention to share all that information about the inadequacies of CASA's oversight at the time with the team so that the new report reflects not just the actions of the pilot but the inadequate supervision of the organisation and the self-identified inadequacies of CASA at the time?


Mr Skidmore : I think it is fair to say that we have provided all the information that the ATSB has requested of us and we will take into account any recommendations that come out of the investigation.

Senator FAWCETT: Would it be your view that a report like the Chambers report should have been provided to ATSB voluntarily?

Mr Skidmore : I was not there at the time. It is very unfair for me to be making a statement of the organisation of the past.

Mr Aleck : One of the significant amendments we have made to the MOU with the ATSB is to put beyond doubt the kind of information that can and should be provided on request, or sometimes voluntarily. As you may recall, the existence of the Chambers report was conveyed to the ATSB. The circumstances under which that happened probably were not as concrete as they certainly will be in future.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Aleck, I think you might recall Mr Dolan found out about it 30 minutes before he appeared before the Senate committee because he had overheard the evidence where we had dug it out of half a truck load of cardboard boxes that CASA had dumped on our doorstep. I do not accept the contention that they knew about it before the report was issued; in fact, the Canadian peer review confirms that was not the case.

Mr Aleck : I will not challenge that except to say that I believe the former director gave evidence that he had mentioned this to Mr Dolan. Now, he might not have mentioned it by the term Chambers report, because that was a term that came into existence afterwards, but I think the information about some inquiry having been made internally had been conveyed. I guess the major point is that that kind of thing should not happen again under the new arrangements.

Senator FAWCETT: I am very pleased to hear that...
From ATSB Hansard:

Quote:Senator FAWCETT: I would like to go to the information-gathering stage. Going back to an answer to a question on notice that you took at the time of the original investigation, you said:


… the Chambers Report does not contain any new evidence that organisational factors were likely to have contributed to the accident.

You go on to say:
… the Chambers Report reflected what was separately reported (and available to the ATSB) in the reports of CASA’s accident investigation and of its special audit …

I challenged that at the time, and so did your Canadian peers ,who have done an independent peer review and who have made numerous comments in their report that in actual fact regulatory systemic issues to the organisation and oversight of the organisation by CASA were significant and were omitted. They go into some detail about the process within your organisation that resulted in those being omitted even though they were significant. Can you provide me with an assurance that the rework of this report will be considering the quite detailed information contained not only in the special audit but in the Chambers report and in the fatigue report that go to the heart of how the individual ended up having that accident?

Mr Dolan : Yes, I can give you that assurance. We have acquired from CASA not just the various reports but the core material they relied on to prepare those reports as part of the process of undertaking the reopened investigation.

Senator FAWCETT: I am pleased to hear that cooperation. Could you also comment on whether you still stand by the remarks that you made in the questions on notice?

Mr Dolan : I am not in a position to comment on that until I see the results of the reopened investigation. It is entirely possible. The Canadians have already alluded to the fact that we did not give sufficient weighting as an organisation to the organisational aspects of this investigation, and that is what we hope we can determine through the reopened investigation.

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: In the light of the Canadian report, which indicates there were very clear systemic failures on the part of the company and in terms of CASA's oversight, the whole concept of systems safety is that whilst the pilot was the last link in the chain these other considerations had a significant impact, which was borne out by the fact that the company had to cease operations after these investigations until remedial measures were put in place. With that now on the public record, with this new focus, would you consider providing the Department of Finance with alternative advice if he were to come back and seek some compensation for the fact that as a direct result of the report that your organisation issued, with all of the failings and how that was put together, his career has essentially been finished and all the financial loss that has gone with that?

Mr Dolan : That is not a matter that I can answer on the spot here. I am happy to turn my mind to that if any such request comes forward.

Senator FAWCETT: That would be very useful. I look forward to the report.

Senator EDWARDS: We will be very interested in that.

Senator XENOPHON: Mr Dolan, do you think it is inappropriate that you provide any opinion as to the appropriateness of an act-of-grace payment to the pilot involved, given your involvement in this particular matter, that there might be an issue of apprehended bias on your part and on the part of the ATSB, and that it really should be a matter that the ATSB either needs to get someone independent to comment on or not comment on it at all?

Mr Dolan : I am between a rock and a hard place here. I am being urged, on the one hand—

Senator Colbeck: If, through the administration of the act-of-grace process, the department is asked to provide some advice, that would not be an unusual process, I have to say. But during the administration of the act-of-grace payment there would be advice sought from a number of areas. At the end of the day that decision is a discretionary decision for the person making the decision.

Senator XENOPHON: But you understand the importance of the ATSB advice.

Senator Colbeck: I understand it very well.

Senator XENOPHON: If the advice were a thumbs down to the pilot, that could be quite damaging to the act of grace. I am very grateful that Senator Fawcett raised that issue.

Senator Colbeck: Having administered that myself previously, I can say there are a range of pieces of advice sought and it is at the discretion of the decision maker at the end of the day.

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.

Senator Colbeck: Further questions around that process probably should go back through the Department of Finance.

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy to do that. My last comment is that the other two people deeply involved in this are the person who was the patient on the flight and particularly the nurse, and part of the mental anguish that those families have suffered is the clear disconnect between the facts that have been laid out for all the public to see through that Senate inquiry and the position that ATSB has taken. So I hope, Mr Dolan, for the sake—

Senator XENOPHON: It is no longer live.

Senator FAWCETT: I know that, but for the sake of everyone involved, particularly those who are still with us, I hope that this will be a fair and accurate report of responsibilities that led to the situation where, rightly or wrongly, the pilot did what he did. But very clearly it is a result of a system failure—regulator, company and individual—and not just the individual as that original report stated. Thank you.

That last passage is quite remarkable and hopefully will now result in 'natural justice' for the living victims of the Pelair ditching & hopefully recompense for DJ's anguish.

The most reassuring fact from the above Hansard excerpts is that the Senators (in particular DF & NX) will not allow the passage of time to dilute the serious aviation safety issues & deficiencies highlighted in the findings & recommendations of the Senate AAI (PelAir) Inquiry. 

Courtesy Ben Sandilands (Planetalking blog):

Quote:Six years on, ATSB about to recover Pel-Air flight data recorder

Ben Sandilands | Nov 09, 2015 3:30PM |

In another triumph of administrative efficiency, diligence and focus the Australian Transport Safety Bureau or ATSB, is poised, after almost six years, to recover the flight recorder from the Pel-Air Westwind corporate jet that was ditched in the sea near Norfolk Island on 18 November 2009.

The small jet had intended to refuel at Norfolk Island on its way from Apia to Melbourne as part of a medical charter flight, but had insufficient fuel on board to divert to an alternative airport when despite four missed approaches it was unable to land because of deteriorated weather conditions.

All six people on board were rescued by an island fishing boat and in the course of its original and since discredited investigation into the accident the ATSB decided not to recover the recording device, which is less sophisticated than those on larger jets, and of a design which in some quarters is said to be prone to medium term salt water corrosion.

The decision of the ATSB to blame everything on the pilot, and not recover the flight recorder led to a prolonged and continuing controversy.  A peer review of the ATSB’s conduct of the first inquiry by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada found (for those who managed to read all of it) that not all of the relevant information available to the ATSB may have been taken into account, and referenced internal frustrations and divisions within the ATSB investigation.

A review of that report can be read here.

Quote:Damning review of ATSB Pel-Air investigation released

Ben Sandilands | Dec 02, 2014 12:44PM |

Memo Tony Abbott and Warren Truss. Second rate isn’t good enough in air safety investigations, and the Canadian peer review of the ATSB re Pel-Air makes us look very grubby.

The independent peer review of the ATSB by its Canadian counterpart the TSBC finds serious issues with the methodologies and processes it followed before publishing its much criticised final report into the Pel-Air crash near Norfolk Island in 2009.

This might not of course, be what the ATSB or the minister responsible for aviation, Warren Truss, might say, but the closely argued Canadian report, if read in its detail, makes it clear that the Australian safety body failed at many levels to collect and process the necessary information.

The report also casts light on internal frustrations and divisions within the ATSB investigation.

It summarises some of those matters as follows.
Quote:3.10 Findings from the TSB review of the Norfolk Island investigation

  1. The response to the Norfolk Island investigation report clearly demonstrated that the investigation report published by the ATSB did not address key issues in the way that the Australian aviation industry and members of the public expected.
  2. In the Norfolk Island investigation, the analysis of specific safety issues including fatigue, fuel management, and company and regulatory oversight was not effective because insufficient data were collected.
  3. The ATSB does not use a specific tool to guide data collection and analysis in the area of human fatigue.
  4. Weaknesses in the application of the ATSB analysis framework resulted in data insufficiencies not being addressed and potential systemic oversight issues not being analyzed.
  5. The use of level-of-risk labels when communicating safety issues did not contribute to advancing safety, and focused discussion on the label rather than on the identified issue and the potential means of its mitigation.
  6. A misunderstanding early in the investigation regarding the responsibilities of CASA and the ATSB was never resolved. As a result, the ATSB did not collect sufficient information from Pel-Air to determine the extent to which the flight planning and monitoring deficiencies observed in the occurrence existed in the company in general.
  7. Ineffective oversight of the investigation resulted in issues with data collection and analysis not being identified or resolved in a timely way.
  8. The lack of a second-level peer review in the Norfolk Island investigation meant that improvements to the analysis and conclusions stemming from the peer review were not incorporated into the report.
If the ATSB or the Minister thinks this supports a decision to leave this second rate, and severely flawed and grossly unfair and compromised report up,  as Australia’s contribution to the safety lessons arising from the world’s first ever ditching of a Westwind corporate jet, then the more fool them.

This is a national embarrassment, and not good optics when we are managing at Kuala Lumpur’s behest, the ocean floor search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

The government has previously ignored a highly critical Senate Committee report into these matters, including its adverse findings as to the credibility of the ATSB’s chief commissioner Martin Dolan, and the discovery of the questionable suppression of a CASA audit of the Pel-Air operation, a matter the Canadian TSB says was felt throughout the ATSB investigation.

This is just a part of what the TSBC review says on such matters.
[Image: one--610x277.jpg]
The Minister supposed to be looking after aviation, Warren Truss, has previously parrotted lines written for him by his department that there is no value in re-opening or replacing the final report of the Pel-Air investigation.

This embrace of second rate by a Minister supposed to uphold fairness and excellence in aviation safety reporting is unworthy.

The Canadian review, no matter how much the government tries to massage it, exists in a detail which is damning as to the conduct and processes followed by the ATSB.
Second rate isn’t good enough for Australia.

The ATSB was subsequently ‘invited’ by the Deputy PM and minister responsible for aviation, Warren Truss, to revisit its report, which the agency after a delay removed from its web site pending its in effect, being redone.

Recovering the flight recorder is part of this process.

The dysfunctional manner in which the prolonged ATSB inquiry was conducted was laid bare in the peer review by the TSBC although this was only apparent on a full reading of that document rather than in relying on the summaries offered by the Department of Infrastructure which is responsible for both the safety investigator and the air safety regulator CASA.

The crux of the Pel-Air controversy is that the pilot was framed by the ATSB and CASA while the safety regulator improperly withheld an internal report which found gross failures on its part to correctly oversight or remedy what was found to have been serious safety deficiencies by the operator.

One of the critical matters raised by the controversy is the integrity of the ATSB in relation to the first Pel-Air accident investigation report, including its disinterest in that suppressed internal CASA review of its own performance.

That internal report, known as the Chambers Review, concluded that had CASA done its job the accident might not have happened.

The ATSB website has been updated on the recovery operation.

The image below from the ATSB shows what the wreckage looked like in March this year.

[Image: Pel-Air-March-2015-610x409.jpg]

Will we forget? Not bloody likely.. Dodgy


MTF..P2 Tongue
Reply
#20

Much ado –

The approaching recovery of the Norfolk ditching ‘black box’ is creating a ripple of interest – Ben Sandilands – to the fore, yet again.  Bravo Ben, keep the buggers honest.

OBRD. Symbol or evidence? that is the question.  The pilot (not crew) admitted errors and paid dearly for it with a Bankstown special –(administrative embuggerance), which, to this day, unfairly, haunts his life, livelihood and happiness.  The Chinese whispers machine has, once again, been very active and effective.  As evidence, the OBRD may, or may not shed additional light, the ATSB clearly don’t believe it will, despite the initial IIC having the recovery, as per Annexe 13, sorted out.  Then came the bizarre decision not to recover the OBRD, this was, eventually, followed by the disgraceful ATSB/CASA report.  This was followed by a Senate committee inquiry, many days of evidence, thousands of documented pages leading to the publishing the damning Inquiry report, with some 20 odd ‘recommendations’, based on their findings.  The accurate, damning closing remarks of both Fawcett and Xenophon were not complimentary to either ATSB or CASA.  DPM Truss ordered an independent ASRR (Forsyth) review which threw up another 30 odd ‘recommendations’.  To date only two of those recommendations have seen the light of day. Work in progress claimed for the rest, that fiction strongly disputed.  The Canadian TSBC review was commissioned – more recommendations made.  Alas, all to no immediate, visible effect.

No.  recovery of the OBRD is simply symbolic; and, perhaps some small recompense for failed attempt to hoodwink Fawcett with ‘wording’ on the Ax13 in force at the time.  When that OBRD breaks the surface it signifies that ATSB and CASA are beatable.  Took a Senate inquiry and Ministerial review to get it that far – once.  Unfortunately, time has since proven that hopes of even some small measure of reform have been smothered.  Hopes that never, ever again will the industry see the likes of the Pel-Air report have been destroyed.  All for naught, save the symbol of a battered, waterlogged, barnacle encrusted OBRD which may yet satisfy compliance and honour the basic tenets of probity. Until next time.  

Read the truly disgusting article in today’s Telegraph; pilot and passengers dead – CASA crowing that they, and only, they are the saviours of aviation and the final word in passenger safety.  The fact that Green hammered the crap out of them at every turn in the AAAT is not mentioned and, they allude to him being a menace, that they, the safety watchdog could not control.  Nothing is further from the truth.

Cynical, self serving, disgusting and very wrong; not to mention the possibility of pre-empting and prejudicing yet another flawed, biased, manipulated ATSB report.

This before the dead are decently buried and properly mourned.

Shame on you CASA.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)