Cooperation or Collusion?
I wonder, at what point does ‘cooperation’ between agencies become ‘collusion’’? Even if it could be defined as collusion the question of that being for the greater good must be addressed.
The result of an accident or incident investigation should (IMO) be that there is a tangible, positive outcome which reduces the percentage chances of a repeat; otherwise the ‘investigation’ is for naught i.e. pointless, in purist terms.
You could, at a pinch accept that there should be a degree of ‘cooperation’ between the ASA, ATSB and CASA, although many believe even that should be prohibited. There seems to be agreement that ‘basic’ information should be exchanged insofar as there would be detail on record within the bowels of 'the agencies' which ATSB would righteously require to complete their report. There needs to be safeguards in there, but a MoU could be used to define just how ‘deep’ ATSB can dig. But, does an IIC needs to have a clear picture of the company/agency background, based solely on agency say-so? Many believe not. In fact many believe the converse is true and the IIC should be restricted to reviewing only the evidence discovered during the investigation to prevent external bias subconsciously infecting the without fear or favour result.
The need for true independence become apparent where a report on an incident involves the CASA, BoM, ASA and company name. Mildura, Pel-Air are two examples; every agency and the companies were involved, up to their hocks in the end result. This where the cosy, informal arrangements and the cleverly drafted MoU begin to reek of ‘collusion’. Once another agency has been identified as part of the investigation, included in the causal chain; that is where the MoU should become null and void. In both the Norfolk and Mildura events, the BoM and ASA were implicated, as they are in many other investigations; as they must be, every flight requires their services. Report after report emerges where the systematic and human faults of the sister agencies are exposed, then simply glossed over, as a matter of mutual understanding.
For example; it is of concern that ATSB have allowed ASA to take a lead role in many investigations of ASA: the ‘SHEED’ related incidents and LAHSO being classic; all at Melbourne and yet nothing of substance or value has come out the ‘inquiry’ – except everyone is still mates and they have the warm, fuzzy feeling of top cover being legally provided through the MoU.
I could go on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, the examples are numerous. The message crystal clear. In principal the basic MoU is a must have document, placed in the hands of men of honour and good intention it serves to remove the barriers to access of ‘privileged’ information essential to open investigation of accident. But is this what we have?
I say the system has been perverted; corrupted to the point where the MoU is a tool used to cover the many shortcomings within the ‘safety network’ agencies. A get out of jail free card that ‘legally’ allows collusion on a pre-determined outcome, which keeps ‘sister’ agencies out of the firing line. Thus, CASA become faultless; BoM beyond reproach, ASA unimpeachable, companies walk away from the mess left behind and no one can lay a glove on the minister technically responsible. Everyone’s rear end well covered, except that of the poor, criminally liable mutt sitting at the pointy end of the death tube, hell bent on killing them all.
Not right, howls the mob. Bollocks: re read your Pel-Air (or your own personal favourite ‘investigation’, they all work).
Method of Understanding - our point of view;
Mendacity of Understatement.
Manipulation of Undeniable.
Massage of Unpalatable.
Massacre of the Unsuspecting.
Millions of Ure money.
Aye - MoU to you too.
I wonder, at what point does ‘cooperation’ between agencies become ‘collusion’’? Even if it could be defined as collusion the question of that being for the greater good must be addressed.
The result of an accident or incident investigation should (IMO) be that there is a tangible, positive outcome which reduces the percentage chances of a repeat; otherwise the ‘investigation’ is for naught i.e. pointless, in purist terms.
You could, at a pinch accept that there should be a degree of ‘cooperation’ between the ASA, ATSB and CASA, although many believe even that should be prohibited. There seems to be agreement that ‘basic’ information should be exchanged insofar as there would be detail on record within the bowels of 'the agencies' which ATSB would righteously require to complete their report. There needs to be safeguards in there, but a MoU could be used to define just how ‘deep’ ATSB can dig. But, does an IIC needs to have a clear picture of the company/agency background, based solely on agency say-so? Many believe not. In fact many believe the converse is true and the IIC should be restricted to reviewing only the evidence discovered during the investigation to prevent external bias subconsciously infecting the without fear or favour result.
The need for true independence become apparent where a report on an incident involves the CASA, BoM, ASA and company name. Mildura, Pel-Air are two examples; every agency and the companies were involved, up to their hocks in the end result. This where the cosy, informal arrangements and the cleverly drafted MoU begin to reek of ‘collusion’. Once another agency has been identified as part of the investigation, included in the causal chain; that is where the MoU should become null and void. In both the Norfolk and Mildura events, the BoM and ASA were implicated, as they are in many other investigations; as they must be, every flight requires their services. Report after report emerges where the systematic and human faults of the sister agencies are exposed, then simply glossed over, as a matter of mutual understanding.
For example; it is of concern that ATSB have allowed ASA to take a lead role in many investigations of ASA: the ‘SHEED’ related incidents and LAHSO being classic; all at Melbourne and yet nothing of substance or value has come out the ‘inquiry’ – except everyone is still mates and they have the warm, fuzzy feeling of top cover being legally provided through the MoU.
I could go on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, the examples are numerous. The message crystal clear. In principal the basic MoU is a must have document, placed in the hands of men of honour and good intention it serves to remove the barriers to access of ‘privileged’ information essential to open investigation of accident. But is this what we have?
I say the system has been perverted; corrupted to the point where the MoU is a tool used to cover the many shortcomings within the ‘safety network’ agencies. A get out of jail free card that ‘legally’ allows collusion on a pre-determined outcome, which keeps ‘sister’ agencies out of the firing line. Thus, CASA become faultless; BoM beyond reproach, ASA unimpeachable, companies walk away from the mess left behind and no one can lay a glove on the minister technically responsible. Everyone’s rear end well covered, except that of the poor, criminally liable mutt sitting at the pointy end of the death tube, hell bent on killing them all.
Not right, howls the mob. Bollocks: re read your Pel-Air (or your own personal favourite ‘investigation’, they all work).
Method of Understanding - our point of view;
Mendacity of Understatement.
Manipulation of Undeniable.
Massage of Unpalatable.
Massacre of the Unsuspecting.
Millions of Ure money.
Aye - MoU to you too.