<![CDATA[AuntyPru Forum - ATSB Aberrations.]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/ Wed, 29 Apr 2026 01:23:25 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Times up for Pel_air MkII]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=149 Wed, 08 Feb 2017 08:46:34 +0000 P7_TOM]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=149
The endless wait for the revision of the revised report has blunted interest. Seriously, ATSB will probably only release ‘their’ version of the thing when Trump declares war on China  - just to make sure it get lost in the drama – failing that they are holding off until Karen Casey’s judgement is handed down. But, they do have a problem, in fact they have as many problems as CASA does.

Give you a for instance (one of the many).

The Pel Air ‘fuel’ policiy, versions I and II have, somehow, fallen into the hands of those who know about such things –.  Both versions, one on which James was operating, have been branded as either amateurish twaddle or, flying school basics. Neither constitutes a ‘professional’ briefing; or, indeed a reasonable facsimile of ‘policy’; both being fatally flawed, legally and operationally. I will see if I can get the policies on site soon, let the troops have a look-see.

The ATSB claim to be ‘investigating’; I’d like to know if they have investigated who, in CASA, ‘accepted’ as satisfactory, this crock of total bollocks and allowed maximum range operations, internationally, under the IFR to continue on such a basis.

“Ah” says the CASA backroom; “we only accepted it, therefore – all care, no responsibility”. They forget that by issuing an AOC, they offer ‘approval’ for the operations, as writ and accepted. The Pel-Air ‘fuel policies’ V1 and V2 are an absolute travesty. No doubt, they too are all parlayed into being Dom James fault.  The hell they are.

Time for a question or two to the minister of NFI I think; at least that will be entertaining.]]>
The endless wait for the revision of the revised report has blunted interest. Seriously, ATSB will probably only release ‘their’ version of the thing when Trump declares war on China  - just to make sure it get lost in the drama – failing that they are holding off until Karen Casey’s judgement is handed down. But, they do have a problem, in fact they have as many problems as CASA does.

Give you a for instance (one of the many).

The Pel Air ‘fuel’ policiy, versions I and II have, somehow, fallen into the hands of those who know about such things –.  Both versions, one on which James was operating, have been branded as either amateurish twaddle or, flying school basics. Neither constitutes a ‘professional’ briefing; or, indeed a reasonable facsimile of ‘policy’; both being fatally flawed, legally and operationally. I will see if I can get the policies on site soon, let the troops have a look-see.

The ATSB claim to be ‘investigating’; I’d like to know if they have investigated who, in CASA, ‘accepted’ as satisfactory, this crock of total bollocks and allowed maximum range operations, internationally, under the IFR to continue on such a basis.

“Ah” says the CASA backroom; “we only accepted it, therefore – all care, no responsibility”. They forget that by issuing an AOC, they offer ‘approval’ for the operations, as writ and accepted. The Pel-Air ‘fuel policies’ V1 and V2 are an absolute travesty. No doubt, they too are all parlayed into being Dom James fault.  The hell they are.

Time for a question or two to the minister of NFI I think; at least that will be entertaining.]]> <![CDATA[On joining the dots and making of dashes.]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=36 Mon, 23 Feb 2015 20:27:07 +0000 Kharon]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=36

Senate Estimates.  The estimates today are considered a 'crucial' yardstick.  

1) It has been almost two years since the Pel Air recommendations were published by a furious committee which lambasted Merdek, his department, the CASA and ATSB and yet nothing has changed; not on the surface anyway.  We shall see tonight whether Xenophon has, as is rumoured, turned away from the aviation soap box, focussing now on power and glory.  It would be a sad thing if true, but the pragmatists are betting that way.

2) The monopolistic, profitable Quango ASA provider of air traffic services got a fair old flogging last round, dodgy doings with large lumps of (AAFRS) money, holidays paid for under the guise of 'training courses and several other unsavoury matters, all of which demanded answers to written question.  The answers have been grossly delayed by Merdek and, as the committee was 'fairly cross' about this game last time around, no doubt they will displeased with a what? an eight week delay.  Heff is Chair and he did make mention of this tiresome game last time. 

Then of course there is the great credit card rort to deal with.  Much mystery surrounds one case which Stabbed in the Dark (Staib) insisted be dealt with in camera (sub rosa).  The problem is, despite trying to keep a lid on the worst kept secret, that the answers provided were 'disingenuous'.   Hells bells, the world and it's wife knows the story; remember the Purcell ditty "Nymphs and Shepherds come away" well, transpose those words to "lawyers and firemen play all day" and you'll get the picture.  The Navy is miffed, the credit card auditors are going nuts and because of the unholy mess left behind by previous and existing 'high rollers' the Senators are all over it.  Could be fun. 

3) We will be interested to see if the payments made, sorry, donations to political parties surfaces.  It is a matter which needs to be attended to, if anyone ever joins the dots and follows the money trail from when Ansett went down and took it's two feeder airlines out with it, there will political embarrassment all around.  Then what will Singapore say over G&T in the Iron Bar??: well, I'll leave that up to your imagination.  Political mutual benefit is an old notion; but where does the undue influence line get drawn?  Anyway – it's up for BRB discussion.  Betting is the Senate won't touch it.

4) The appointment of Manning to ATSB may assist Be-a-Cur step around the Merde, certainly a useful delaying tactic, time to settle the new boy into school.  It will be intersting to see how the Senators treat this as it will signpost their intentions.  Soft line and no more Heff thundering at his famous man at the back of the room; or will we get some sound, tinged with fury from the panel.  Time will tell.

5) It's Mark Skidmores' first rodeo and that will tell us a tale.  It will be of great interest to see who's there, who sits where and the body language will tell a better story than the rhetoric.  If rumour is true; the Farq-u-hardson school of McComical embuggerance has declared war on the Skidmore boys.  A classic white hat v black hat shoot out.  The body count and score card will matter a great deal to aviation in this country.  If you do nothing else tomorrow, try and watch the Hansard video for it will tell you if we are indeed ducked for all money or; can struggle on to fly another day.  Do not; not ever, allow the price of land for development to be far from your thoughts.  Watch carefully children.

That's enough PAIN secrets for one day; I expect there will be more tomorrow.  Aunt Pru takes an interest in such matters; and, as we must pay our rent we need to earn our humble corn.  MTF? probably.

Music to muse by.

Toot toot... Wink ..]]>

Senate Estimates.  The estimates today are considered a 'crucial' yardstick.  

1) It has been almost two years since the Pel Air recommendations were published by a furious committee which lambasted Merdek, his department, the CASA and ATSB and yet nothing has changed; not on the surface anyway.  We shall see tonight whether Xenophon has, as is rumoured, turned away from the aviation soap box, focussing now on power and glory.  It would be a sad thing if true, but the pragmatists are betting that way.

2) The monopolistic, profitable Quango ASA provider of air traffic services got a fair old flogging last round, dodgy doings with large lumps of (AAFRS) money, holidays paid for under the guise of 'training courses and several other unsavoury matters, all of which demanded answers to written question.  The answers have been grossly delayed by Merdek and, as the committee was 'fairly cross' about this game last time around, no doubt they will displeased with a what? an eight week delay.  Heff is Chair and he did make mention of this tiresome game last time. 

Then of course there is the great credit card rort to deal with.  Much mystery surrounds one case which Stabbed in the Dark (Staib) insisted be dealt with in camera (sub rosa).  The problem is, despite trying to keep a lid on the worst kept secret, that the answers provided were 'disingenuous'.   Hells bells, the world and it's wife knows the story; remember the Purcell ditty "Nymphs and Shepherds come away" well, transpose those words to "lawyers and firemen play all day" and you'll get the picture.  The Navy is miffed, the credit card auditors are going nuts and because of the unholy mess left behind by previous and existing 'high rollers' the Senators are all over it.  Could be fun. 

3) We will be interested to see if the payments made, sorry, donations to political parties surfaces.  It is a matter which needs to be attended to, if anyone ever joins the dots and follows the money trail from when Ansett went down and took it's two feeder airlines out with it, there will political embarrassment all around.  Then what will Singapore say over G&T in the Iron Bar??: well, I'll leave that up to your imagination.  Political mutual benefit is an old notion; but where does the undue influence line get drawn?  Anyway – it's up for BRB discussion.  Betting is the Senate won't touch it.

4) The appointment of Manning to ATSB may assist Be-a-Cur step around the Merde, certainly a useful delaying tactic, time to settle the new boy into school.  It will be intersting to see how the Senators treat this as it will signpost their intentions.  Soft line and no more Heff thundering at his famous man at the back of the room; or will we get some sound, tinged with fury from the panel.  Time will tell.

5) It's Mark Skidmores' first rodeo and that will tell us a tale.  It will be of great interest to see who's there, who sits where and the body language will tell a better story than the rhetoric.  If rumour is true; the Farq-u-hardson school of McComical embuggerance has declared war on the Skidmore boys.  A classic white hat v black hat shoot out.  The body count and score card will matter a great deal to aviation in this country.  If you do nothing else tomorrow, try and watch the Hansard video for it will tell you if we are indeed ducked for all money or; can struggle on to fly another day.  Do not; not ever, allow the price of land for development to be far from your thoughts.  Watch carefully children.

That's enough PAIN secrets for one day; I expect there will be more tomorrow.  Aunt Pru takes an interest in such matters; and, as we must pay our rent we need to earn our humble corn.  MTF? probably.

Music to muse by.

Toot toot... Wink ..]]> <![CDATA[Proof of ATSB delays]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=188 Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:44:11 +0000 Kharon]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=188 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..]]> 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..]]> <![CDATA[The search for investigative probity.]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=10 Fri, 13 Feb 2015 06:29:48 +0000 Kharon]]> https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=10
"Unfortunately accident investigation is being driven by organisational theory and bureaucrats with the end result being sub-standard reports like Pel-Air."

Good point; and, in a normal world, it would be a legitimate topic for civilised peer discussion. But for Pel-Air at least I reckon it could stand a little expansion. For sake of argument lets 'assume' (we may, safely take a small risk) that the ATSB investigators were competent and they followed the well trodden path a 'bog-standard' accident investigation should take. The report even allowing for the 'theoretical' should have got us to within a bulls roar of the why, how and wherefore; it may have even provided some peripheral causal reasons which assisted in defining the desired end result – risk mitigation. There were several valid, not overly theoretical issues which did make it into the final report; RVSM, flight and fuel planning, lack of operational support, fatigue, lack of 20.11 training, etc, (don't ever forget, CP responsible for all) from which a reasonable operator could make adjustments to SOP, in an effort to mitigate the risk of reoccurrence. I don't have too many problems with the notion of 'theoretical', provided it can be translated, by the operator into practical fixes. So far the ATSB investigators are free and clear, reputation intact.

It's what happened next that got me cranky (just a bit): Sarcs at # 2653 has gone to some trouble to point out the direction a perfectly serviceable accident 'report' was being driven and IMO, in deference to the law, he has treated the 'aftermath' with kid gloves. For the thinking man, joining up the remaining dots to form the final picture is a piece of cake. The Senate inquiry surely got there.

It has been a long, slow difficult process since then: the Senators didn't waste too much time, their report was out in a timely manner; but since then, purgatory. Forsyth, then TSBC, then miniscule response, at the end we get (headline) "Pel-Air to be reinvestigated".

The academics and theory of 'how' to investigate an incident which happened, what ? five years and a bit ago have not changed and have had precious little to do with what transpired after the IIC report was 'edited' and produced. It's not Dr. John we need, but a judicial inquiry supported by the AFP, I'd even settle for the Senate committee as a DIP to manage yet 'another' inquiry (how many do we need). But FCOL someone with some juice do something – anything. Anything bar giving the true villains more time to clean up and hide the evidence which should rightfully hang the lot of them. The IOS has been very, very patient: thus far.

The comment below followed an article published by Australian Flying re the re Pel-Air MKII.

Quote:

Sceptical • 10 days ago

Head of Aviation Investigations at the time of the report? Ian Sangston.

Told of factual errors prior to release of the report? Ian Sangston.

Head of Aviation Investigations for the new report? Ian Sangston.

Conflict of interest?



Just about says it all. The background noise? Oh, that's the playroom clock; tick, tock, tick, tock.]]>
"Unfortunately accident investigation is being driven by organisational theory and bureaucrats with the end result being sub-standard reports like Pel-Air."

Good point; and, in a normal world, it would be a legitimate topic for civilised peer discussion. But for Pel-Air at least I reckon it could stand a little expansion. For sake of argument lets 'assume' (we may, safely take a small risk) that the ATSB investigators were competent and they followed the well trodden path a 'bog-standard' accident investigation should take. The report even allowing for the 'theoretical' should have got us to within a bulls roar of the why, how and wherefore; it may have even provided some peripheral causal reasons which assisted in defining the desired end result – risk mitigation. There were several valid, not overly theoretical issues which did make it into the final report; RVSM, flight and fuel planning, lack of operational support, fatigue, lack of 20.11 training, etc, (don't ever forget, CP responsible for all) from which a reasonable operator could make adjustments to SOP, in an effort to mitigate the risk of reoccurrence. I don't have too many problems with the notion of 'theoretical', provided it can be translated, by the operator into practical fixes. So far the ATSB investigators are free and clear, reputation intact.

It's what happened next that got me cranky (just a bit): Sarcs at # 2653 has gone to some trouble to point out the direction a perfectly serviceable accident 'report' was being driven and IMO, in deference to the law, he has treated the 'aftermath' with kid gloves. For the thinking man, joining up the remaining dots to form the final picture is a piece of cake. The Senate inquiry surely got there.

It has been a long, slow difficult process since then: the Senators didn't waste too much time, their report was out in a timely manner; but since then, purgatory. Forsyth, then TSBC, then miniscule response, at the end we get (headline) "Pel-Air to be reinvestigated".

The academics and theory of 'how' to investigate an incident which happened, what ? five years and a bit ago have not changed and have had precious little to do with what transpired after the IIC report was 'edited' and produced. It's not Dr. John we need, but a judicial inquiry supported by the AFP, I'd even settle for the Senate committee as a DIP to manage yet 'another' inquiry (how many do we need). But FCOL someone with some juice do something – anything. Anything bar giving the true villains more time to clean up and hide the evidence which should rightfully hang the lot of them. The IOS has been very, very patient: thus far.

The comment below followed an article published by Australian Flying re the re Pel-Air MKII.

Quote:

Sceptical • 10 days ago

Head of Aviation Investigations at the time of the report? Ian Sangston.

Told of factual errors prior to release of the report? Ian Sangston.

Head of Aviation Investigations for the new report? Ian Sangston.

Conflict of interest?



Just about says it all. The background noise? Oh, that's the playroom clock; tick, tock, tick, tock.]]>