[Greedy]

P2 – “If you think about it the potential ramifications of the latest (04 April) update, could lead to far more than yet another overdue & obfuscated ATSB (re)-investigation. I'm thinking on the implications for withholding evidence from a parliamentary inquiry..”

I reckon V45 has nailed it – for the normal, run of the mill, routine delay and obfuscation we expect for every ‘incident’.  PC and ‘sensitivity’ levels are always high and of course the CASA legend must not be tarnished, nor the predetermined outcome be challenged.  This is the ATSB raison d'être under the Beyond all Reason system.

Even so – P2 (IMO) creeps close to the deeper reasons; but not for ‘withholding’.  Turn it around. We know the Senators hold some pretty damning information and have a pretty fair idea of the real why’s and wherefores.  Beaker ain’t got a lot of latitude and no matter how ‘narrow’ a focus the report takes, the Senate ‘evidence’ must be acknowledged, dealt with and be visible in the report; or else, take it away and do it again - properly. Repeat as often as needed.  

P2 – “No I think this delay is more to do with the uncovering of much, much more disturbing revelations that even a dedicated Senate Committee were not able to uncover..”

IMO a slight correction is needed there: [much] more disturbing revelations that even a dedicated Senate Committee were able to uncover  - but lacked enough empirical evidence to make stick, but they have a fair idea of exactly why the initial report was an aberration.  This 'truth' is being used to keep Beaker and Co. honest, force probity into the set piece. If you take the V45 argument + P2 logic there are many reasons to delay the report until the golden parachutes are fully deployed and the fur lined jock straps have been hand crafted to ensure maximum protection and comfort.  

Aye, you can run, but you can’t hide.  (Joe Louis).

Toot toot.

Yes , any reinvestigation done properly including all the terms of reference listed above will or should uncover an ugly can of worms.One term of reference above caught my attention. That was the term of reference of other air ambulance operator's policy and procedure. Simply for the reason that it would be natural for an operator under scrutiny or being confronted with an accusation to defend themselves by stating " everyone does it like that".Have accusations been made in the draft report I wonder?
It is all very moot however as the subject operator has now set up a aeromedical evacuation service based in Singapore.