08-07-2017, 08:10 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-07-2017, 08:14 PM by Kharon.
Edit Reason: Curse the bloody I-phone
)
Spade or shovel?
What shall we call it? It’s about time we decided to call it something. Of course it matters not what we may call it. ‘We’ may sit here for ever, ad infinitum, calling it whatever the hell we please; but will that change any damn thing – for the better? – No; it bloody well won’t.
This ‘new’ all singing, all dancing, ATSB shakedown of the Pel-Air accident will steal all the oxygen from the real story. Watch and see; hells bells, I can’t cover the bets on it being a ‘clinical’ analysis of what was, in essence, a fairly simple accident – standing alone.
How the accident came to pass is quite another, very interesting, technical story. With every hole in Doc Reason’s cheese perfectly aligned; sooner or later, someone, somewhere, was going to have ‘an event’. Sure as eggs. You will never, not in a million, hear any one of the agencies involved admit they could have done better. Not from CASA who approved (accepted) the procedures, standards and training of Pel-Air pilots; not from the BoM on how maybe their forecasting updates could be done a little better; not from the briefing or ATC services and, most certainly, not from the CASA officers who were responsible for making sure that standards were met. Forget about it – the big money says Manning will ‘oblige’ and write these elements out of the script. These matters are important; but they won’t signify.
The real story is in the Senate inquiry Hansard. Miles and miles of ‘paperwork’, shed loads of the bloody stuff – which no one had the time, inclination or briefing to examine – very carefully; let alone read and analyse, even if they knew what they were looking for. Then, if a case was supported by ‘evidence’ there would still be the need to prove ‘intent’.
Funny word that – intent – even funnier in legal terms (as in peculiar). In primus, the intent to do “what” must be defined, then that must be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt. There, boys and girls is the rub. You, me and Grand Mamma may be ‘tried’ under strict liability, which makes it difficult to defend yourself. But ATSB and CASA are not bound by the toils and nets of ‘strict liability’; no Sir. To prosecute a Dolan, a McConvict, a Hood or even a Chambers, you must be able to prove the case mounted. Deuced tricky and bloody expensive; to prove what every fool in the Souk knows; they lied through their collective teeth. No point to; or, gain from doing it. However; it must never, ever be allowed to happen again.
The Senate must see to this – gods know ‘we’ can’t change it; much as we would love to. FDS we can’t even get a DAS who knows how to spell reform, let alone make it happen. A decent, honest village idiot for a minister could make it happen; but old Turnbull has more to fuss about than the ethics, morals and practices of Australia’s much vaunted ‘aviation safety issues’ being as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Which leaves us with only ICAO to rely on.
Anyone got a number and two bob I could borrow – I’ll give ‘em a ring, talk to his ‘Excellency’ and see what can be done. Yeah, right; that’s bound to work – not.
No matter, new flights on the darts, my ale has arrived and it is my turn to throw. Best crack on and see if I can pin the tail on the donkey; in Shanghai’s at a dollar a point.
Toot – toot. {Yus P2, us has had had a couple} – Big smile…….(he worries).
What shall we call it? It’s about time we decided to call it something. Of course it matters not what we may call it. ‘We’ may sit here for ever, ad infinitum, calling it whatever the hell we please; but will that change any damn thing – for the better? – No; it bloody well won’t.
This ‘new’ all singing, all dancing, ATSB shakedown of the Pel-Air accident will steal all the oxygen from the real story. Watch and see; hells bells, I can’t cover the bets on it being a ‘clinical’ analysis of what was, in essence, a fairly simple accident – standing alone.
How the accident came to pass is quite another, very interesting, technical story. With every hole in Doc Reason’s cheese perfectly aligned; sooner or later, someone, somewhere, was going to have ‘an event’. Sure as eggs. You will never, not in a million, hear any one of the agencies involved admit they could have done better. Not from CASA who approved (accepted) the procedures, standards and training of Pel-Air pilots; not from the BoM on how maybe their forecasting updates could be done a little better; not from the briefing or ATC services and, most certainly, not from the CASA officers who were responsible for making sure that standards were met. Forget about it – the big money says Manning will ‘oblige’ and write these elements out of the script. These matters are important; but they won’t signify.
The real story is in the Senate inquiry Hansard. Miles and miles of ‘paperwork’, shed loads of the bloody stuff – which no one had the time, inclination or briefing to examine – very carefully; let alone read and analyse, even if they knew what they were looking for. Then, if a case was supported by ‘evidence’ there would still be the need to prove ‘intent’.
Funny word that – intent – even funnier in legal terms (as in peculiar). In primus, the intent to do “what” must be defined, then that must be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt. There, boys and girls is the rub. You, me and Grand Mamma may be ‘tried’ under strict liability, which makes it difficult to defend yourself. But ATSB and CASA are not bound by the toils and nets of ‘strict liability’; no Sir. To prosecute a Dolan, a McConvict, a Hood or even a Chambers, you must be able to prove the case mounted. Deuced tricky and bloody expensive; to prove what every fool in the Souk knows; they lied through their collective teeth. No point to; or, gain from doing it. However; it must never, ever be allowed to happen again.
The Senate must see to this – gods know ‘we’ can’t change it; much as we would love to. FDS we can’t even get a DAS who knows how to spell reform, let alone make it happen. A decent, honest village idiot for a minister could make it happen; but old Turnbull has more to fuss about than the ethics, morals and practices of Australia’s much vaunted ‘aviation safety issues’ being as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Which leaves us with only ICAO to rely on.
Anyone got a number and two bob I could borrow – I’ll give ‘em a ring, talk to his ‘Excellency’ and see what can be done. Yeah, right; that’s bound to work – not.
No matter, new flights on the darts, my ale has arrived and it is my turn to throw. Best crack on and see if I can pin the tail on the donkey; in Shanghai’s at a dollar a point.
Toot – toot. {Yus P2, us has had had a couple} – Big smile…….(he worries).