[Peetwo]

AOPA Oz response to Hooded Canary's bollocks survey - 

Via BM CEO AOPA Oz:

---

ATSB SURVEY: HOW GOOD ARE THEY?
June 3, 2020 By Benjamin Morgan

Here is your chance to provide some feed back to the ATSB.



The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is seeking industry participation in an online survey on the effectiveness of their stakeholder engagement and communications channels.

Survey Link:  https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items...sb-survey/

The survey will close as of 30 June.

I would encourage AOPA Australia members and industry supporters to review my opinion editorial, titled:  ‘What’s Wrong with the ATSB’ before you make your submission.

My response to the ATSB Survey:

Section 10:  Other Comments

ATSB’s data analysis displays a worrying lack of credibility and absence of critical evaluation of the validity of data used in their analyses. ATSB also fails to act on advice from well qualified experts from outside the organisation.

The ATSB was shown by the Senate RRAT Committee to have based its reports on manipulated ‘modeled’ data – rather than seeking actual hard safety data – all done to support a per-determined outcome, that ultimately served to undermine confidence in general aviation nationwide.

The ATSB has destroyed the trust between it and industry and the pilot community, by presenting reports that are focused on political outcomes – not safety.

How can the aviation industry or pilot community trust any report from the ATSB as a result of these and other recent historical inexcusable failures?

For the ATSB to regain trust and respect, if must withdraw report AO-2017-069, and undertake a new investigation and reporting effort using hard ‘actual’ safety data – not made-up, manipulated, modeled data.

BENJAMIN MORGAN, CEO, AOPA Australia.

---

OPINION: WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE ATSB?
May 29, 2020 By Benjamin Morgan

AOPA Australia Chief Executive BENJAMIN MORGAN provides an opinion.

Boyd Munro's blast from the past - 

From over on the 20/20 hindsight thread "K" posted this: 18 Across: 'A moral obligation; perhaps'.

Quote: ..If we are to demand changes, the first item of business (IMO) is to bring the 'agencies' to heel, make 'em responsible and accountable – under law to the parliament. Until there is an enforceable 'Act' which obliges them to make the changes and address the edicts of a Senate Committee; or, explain why not – then we are simply pissing into the wind - again.

The RRAT committee had a taste of what they face with the Angel Flight shambles. The committee need look no further back than the Pel-Air scandal to see the contempt in which their 'recommendations' were treated and the insult to the good Rev. Forsyth report. Should the committee want to ask questions; perhaps they could start there. Review their own, the Canadian and Forsyth's recommendations and simply ask 'please explain'. Why have none of these been paid anything more than lip service?  The answer is simple enough - “Not obliged to M'lud”...

The reference to the Rev Forsyth report got me reflecting on the historical lead up to the good Reverend's review and dredging through the UP Truss ASRR thread posts from before the Forsyth report was  handed down, I was drawn to this 2013 NYE post of mine...

Food for thought and a blast from the past for 2014??

In particular I would like to reflect on the quoted 2004 article from Boyd Munro and how much things have changed for the ATSB - err NOT!

KEEP A LITTLE SALT HANDY THIS WEEK, PLEASE …
IN CASE ANOTHER ATSB REPORT COMES OUT


I urge members of the Press Corps to keep a grain or two of salt handy this week. It may be needed when ATSB publishes its report into the Aviation Incident which occurred near Launceston on Christmas Eve.

The Report will probably be released this week, and it may contain the kind of inaccuracy for which the ATSB is rapidly developing a reputation. Before you go to camera, microphone or print on it, please contact us by phone or e-mail so we can – if necessary - tell you what ATSB may have chosen not to reveal.

The Aviation Incident is being beaten up for industrial reasons. Changes were made to Australia’s management of airspace. These changes take us part of the way out of the “quill pen and green eye-shade” era in which our airspace management has been for the past 50 years. Our airspace is now managed like that of the USA, which has an outstanding safety record – and there is far more flying in the USA than in any other country.

Those changes, sadly, are apparently seen by the leaders of the Air Traffic Controllers’ Union as a threat to their members’ jobs rather than the opportunity for professional development that they are,

The relationship between ATSB and the Air Traffic Controllers is a close one – so close that ATSB appointed a former Air Traffic Controller to investigate this incident.

ATSB has been widely criticised for its conduct of investigations. For example –

Mr. Wayne Chivell - Coroner, South Australia, July 2003

"Mr. Fearon was made available by the ATSB to answer as many questions as he could arising from Mr. Cavenagh's evidence.

"The difficulty I have with Mr. Fearon's evidence on this topic is that he is happy to seize upon data, such as that produced by Mr. Braly, as supporting his theory, but when contradictory data was put to him he reverted to rather facile positions.

"......Mr Fearon's evidence became unhelpfully speculative.

"I find the ATSB's theory, namely................., as to be so unlikely as to be almost fanciful.

"In my opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly against the ATSB theory...........

"As each of these technical issues were put to (The ATSB's) Mr. Cavenagh and Mr. Fearon their explanations and arguments became more abstruse and less credible. I gained the very distinct impression that this constituted an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached rather than a genuinely dispassionate scientific analysis of the factors involved.

Ms Lyn McDade - Deputy Northern Territory Coroner, March 2003.

"ATSB apparently acting on the advice of others determined that they would not attend the accident site because it appeared to be an accident involving pilot error only. The basis for that determination could not be explored... ...because Mr. Heitman the ATSB representative who made that determination was not able to give evidence because he could not be located. This has deprived the family of the opportunity to test Mr. Heitman and ascertain why he formed the view about the accident he clearly did, without attending the scene or conducting any other enquiries other than telephone contacts with, it appears, Senior Sergeant B and nobody else."

Mr. Alistair Hope - Coroner, Western Australia, September 2002

"I should stress at the outset that any comments in relation to the performance of the ATSB are made in the context where eight people have unnecessarily lost their lives, such a tragic event in my view requires careful analysis of available evidence and where answers are not forthcoming because of a lack of evidence, an examination should take place as to the way in which evidence has been obtained and possible deficiencies in obtaining evidence identified, which should be corrected in future cases if such tragedies are not to be repeated on a continuing basis."

Mr. Kurt Mackiewicz - Father of deceased pilot, on the ABC in July 2003

"The protracted investigation was attributable to the ATSB's questionable culture and also their arrogant and obstructionist conduct at the inquiry."

Mr. Peter Scollard – Pilot involved at Launceston, in the Hobart Mercury on December 29th. 2003

"I was fully aware of the Virgin Blue plane's presence at all times, I was monitoring it on two radio frequencies and I was maintaining separation. It is quite simple for me to diverge one or two degrees. At no stage was there ever going to be a collision or even a near-collision."

Peter has good reason for concern. ATSB has not given him a copy of the transcript of the radio transmissions at the time of the incident, even though he took part in the transmissions. If all ATSB was doing was carrying out a “no blame” investigation, why on earth would they not give him a copy so that he could, for example, point out any transcription errors? To make matters worse it seems that a copy of that transcript, or a tape of the transmissions, has been made available to others!

If you were investigating with the intention of finding out what had happened, once you has made a transcript of a recording wouldn’t you send it to ALL those whose voices were on the tape asking them to verify the transcription? But if you were seeking “an ex post facto justification for a conclusion that had already been reached” (to quote Coroner Chivell) then you might well be selective about who got the transcript and who did not.

So keep that salt handy and be sure to give us a call on 08 8276 4600 if you feel an urge to report on whatever character assassination it is that ATSB has in store for Peter.

Boyd Munro
AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA

Hmm..wonder what Boyd would make of the Hooded Canary's bollocks survey?? 

MTF...P2