10-03-2015, 02:24 PM
Continued from Planetalking comments:
MTF..P2
Quote:[*]33[*]
DaveinPerth
Posted October 3, 2015 at 3:20 am | Permalink
Fred.
Check the act.
12AA (1) (e) reporting publicly on those investigations;
Can’t see anything in the act about covering up information that might scare the peasants. ( I’m going to guess that you don’t actually think the manifest was ommitted from the internal ATSB report. )
[*]34
Fred
Posted October 3, 2015 at 8:30 am | Permalink
Dave.
Perhaps you should write to the ATSB and inform them of your concerns. While you’re at it, you might also like to write to ICAO, for it is they who set the standards and procedures for accident and incident investigation that are used by signatories to the Chicago Convention, including Australia.
Good luck.
[*]35
PAIN_P2
Posted October 3, 2015 at 10:00 am |
@Fred “..also like to write to ICAO, for it is they who set the standards and procedures for accident and incident investigation that are used by signatories to the Chicago Convention, including Australia..”
That might be so Fred but if you refer to pages 80-85 of our outrageous & embarrassing notified differences to ICAO SARPs..
https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip...15-h30.pdf
..you will see that the ATSB are so far removed from the ICAO established standards that it is debatable whether the bureau, CASA or even the Minister are on the same page as ICAO to (as you say)..
“..The aim of an incident or accident investigation is to find out what happened and why, and to make recommendations to prevent it happening again..”
A classic example was with this recent, initially unreported, serious incident: http://auntypru.com/forum/-Skimore-Corne...89#pid2089
For Ben’s benefit refer H30-15 pg 84, Ch7 ADREP reporting, para 7.2 – might explain the discrepancy with recent delayed incidents, potentially embarrassing, not having prelim reports issued. ‘Less Complex’ gives the bureau a lot of latitude?
And para 8.2? Well as a pilot if you have an accident & survive you might as well hand in your licence and give yourself up to the authorities..FCOL!
Cheers P2
[*]36
Fred
Posted October 3, 2015 at 10:54 am | Permalink
P2:
Many countries have notified differences from ICAO SARPS – the US AIP has over 100 pages of them. Are they outrageous, embarrassing and unsafe too?
You said the Hotham incident is a “classic example”. A classic example of what exactly?
[*]37
PAIN_P2
Posted October 3, 2015 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
Fred good point that you make, from the 2013 US (FAA) AIP GEN 1.7 is indeed 111 pages, ref pdf page 43 here:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat...dition.pdf ..versus 105 pages for Oz.
However your US example is somewhat misleading as many of the reference pages contain some additional pages for extrapolated information or state when there are no differences, for example. Also the US generally set the benchmark for standards, hence the reason the FAA audit on behalf of ICAO. So you will find that generally over time ICAO will eventually amend the SARPs to match the FAA standards. Not so in Australia where we seem to be marching to the beat of a very different drum??
However since we are primarily talking about Annex 13 (& somewhat about Annex 19) the US reference is on pdf page 126 & the Australian on page 80 (A19 Oz pg 104-105, US there is none listed in 2013).
I think you will find the difference of intent & duty of care to the Annex 13 principles is quite obvious and we are on the wrong side of the ledger.
The Hotham incident is a classic example of how ineffective the ATSB has become in their primary objective of mitigating safety risk issues or as you say..
“..The aim of an investigation is to prevent a recurrence..” & “..to make recommendations to prevent it happening again..”
However if you think the YHOT incident is not indicative of a systemic problem with the Oz SSP please refer from about here:
http://auntypru.com/forum/-The-search-fo...12#pid2012
MTF..P2