[Peetwo]

ATSB Senate Inquiry Update: 14/09/19

"..Had the concept of ‘Sector Risk Profile’ (SRP) been adopted for AF/CSF instead of being side-lined in favour of Eastern Bloc style of ‘governance’, then CSF would not be spending time with the RRAT committee..."

Exactly "K" and the point I was trying to make in my previous post - reference:

Maybe this explains the current bizarre imbroglio from both Fort Fumble and the Hooded Canary's Avery, ie they missed the perfect opportunity to put in place a SMS type arrangement based on a mutually agreeable, co-operative SRP. As a consequence of this missed opportunity they (FF & HCA) are now attempting to play catch up in a most unagreeable, toxic way -  

References:  [b]St Carmode the guru of bureaucratic obfuscation of aviation safety?? & Aviation – and the poison chalice piss take within?  [/b]

IMO to best sum up the ATSB's totally flawed report (yes another one -   ) let us refer to several extracts from John Raby's very good submission No.5 of the Senate Inquiry...

..The most important aim of accident and incident investigation conducted by an International Civil
Aviation Organisation, (ICAO) state must always be the prevention of a situation where accidents
of the type being studied are repeated. There must therefore be a sense of tragic failure for safety
investigators world wide when particular types of occurrences continue to recur and form such a
large proportion of fatal aircraft accidents...

...Perhaps it was this overriding sense of failure which lead the Australian Transport Safety Bureau,
(ATSB), to depart from best practice and try so desperately to lay the causal factors at the door of
a non aviation organisation such as the Angel Flight charity. To manipulate the statistical data in
the way they have in this report must be seen as a desperate attempt to lay blame rather than to
advance the search for answers which could lead to an improvement in the accident record and
save lives...

---

...In my view the ATSB has for reasons known only to itself decided to create doubt in the community
as to the value and safety of community service flights. To do this it has used a tiny part of the
data base which is not statistically significant in a very biased and selective manner.

It has done itself the industry and the community a disservice and missed an opportunity to add
value to the consideration of the real challengers of conducting travel flights to the VFR. The truth
is we are continuing to licence pilots both commercial and private who make fatally poor decisions
regarding weather in particular and their own skills and capabilities in general.

The report should be withdrawn and the task given to a truly independent body or group who could
honestly search for practical actions which could assist in reducing these type of aviation
accidents.

A truly complete and unbiased investigative process could lead to really worthwhile and life saving
recommendations and findings...

 On page 5 of that submission John Raby even offers up some practical safety recommendations very much akin to possible risk mitigation solutions that could have been discussed and debated (back in 2014) in the context of a well constructed and consultative SRP??    

Next back to that TAAAF thing??

I note that yesterday Hitch re-hashed the subject in his weekly LMH:

TAAAF's submission to the RRAT hearing on Angel Flight is very straight-forward and brief: they support the ATSB findings and the CASA restrictions placed on any community service pilot. Immediately having read this, I metaphorically checked the back of the page to see where the rest of it was. It's not like TAAAF to put in such a thin submission without the justification behind it, especially one that could be controversial within the associations' memberships. The industry is so divided over this issue that I can't really see consensus anywhere, and for TAAAF to achieve that would be a mighty effort indeed. But did they achieve it? Some straw-polling of members has revealed that the TAAAF secretariat did their homework with the membership before sending off the paper, but not all associations are 100% in agreement. Am I surprised? No. I have always considered TAAAF a micro-copy of the Australian aviation industry, and as the industry itself can never get togther on one issue, I could hardly expect that TAAAF would be able to do it either.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...R7qc4r4.99

Then with a Friday 5pm bombshell, Ben Morgan (backed by facts and figures derived from a phone ring around of his own) brought up the real elephants in the room...

A QUESTION OF INTEGRITY: TAAAF THROWS ATSB & CASA A LIFELINE

September 13, 2019 By Benjamin Morgan

---

AOPA Australia Executive Director BENJAMIN MORGAN reports.



Former CASA Chairman, Corporte Air representative and current TAAAF Chair, Mr Jeff Boyd, has left the general aviation industry stunned, springing to the defense of the ATSB and CASA, in a strongly worded statement of full support, on behalf of the members of The Australian Aviation Associations Forum (TAAAF).


The letter, signed by Mr Jeff Boyd as Chair, stated; “… we believe that the report is thorough and accurate, and addresses serious concerns held by many people in the aviation indutry for some time… the TAAAF also supports the new minimum standards recently published by CASA for the conduct of Angel Flights.”

The TAAAF statement of support was submitted to the Senate RRAT Inquiry, which held its first hearing in Sydney on Wednesday 4th September 2019.

Angel Flight and AOPA Australia have maintained that the ATSB report produced defective findings that were underpinned by false outcomes which were derived from wildly inaccurate and manipulated statistics, calling for the report’s withdrawal.


During the inquiry, the ATSB admitted that it had not interviewed any pilots in arriving at it’s conclusion; that community service flight pilots were operating under significantly more stress than pilots in other sectors.  The ATSB went on to admit that it had conflated findings from an unrelated survey to support it’s allegations of pilot pressure and stress.  When pressed on this issue, the ATSB argued that if it had surveyed or intervierviewd pilots specifically on the issue, they did not feel pilots would have given them honest answers.


Regarding the ATSB statistics, the investigator admitted that they did not have accurate data records and had based their report on estimated and modeled numbers, acknowledging that they did not include all Angel Flight’s undertaken during the statistical period used.  This modelling enabled the ATSB to produce a finding that alleged Community Service Flights to be 7 times more likely to be involved in a fatality, which sits in contrast to the reality that Angel Flight has experienced just two fatal accidents in 20 years spanning 40,000+ flights flown, which left the RRAT Inquiry panel questioning the statistical relevance of the ATSB’s claims.


And, the ATSB weren’t alone in their damning admissions.  CASA went on the record admitting that their legislative changes had no relevance to either of the two Angel Flight accidents, also stating that their changes would not have prevented either accident from occuring and would not stop similar accidents from happening again.


In view of the clear evidence given to the Senate RRAT Inquiry, which leaves no doubt as to the need to withdraw the ATSB report and CASA’s inappropriate legislative changes, it certainly raises serious questions as to how the TAAAF Chair, Mr Jeff Boyd, and it’s members could possibly have supported the ATSB and CASA at all.


Do Australia’s general aviation associations and bodies genuinely feel that it is appropriate or acceptable that the ATSB produce investigation reports based on manipulated data, conflated survey results – all without interviewing or surveying a single pilot or participant?  Its hard to imagine, but this is what the TAAAF have argued, which gives rise to serious quesitons.

Was the former CASA Chairman given a tap on the shoulder for support?  Was he called on to throw a lifeline to the ATSB and CASA?  Did the airline he works for bias his judgement?  Is the TAAAF statement supported by it’s members?  Does the TAAAF represent general aviation as it claims?


Over the past few days, AOPA Australia has reached out to the various members of the TAAAF, seeking to understand if each of the associations were in full agreement with the statement of support, which has revealed some telling facts;

According to the TAAAF letter to the Senate RRAT Inquiry, the association represents thirteen associations and bodies, claiming to be an alliance of the majority of Australia’s major aviation associations… these include;

• The Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia (RFACA)
  
  
• Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA)
  
  
• Australian Helicopter Industry Association (AHIA)
  
  
• Recreational Aviation Australia Limited (RAAUS)
  
  
• Aviation Law Association of Australia and New Zealand (ALAANZ)
  
  
• Aviation Innovation Centre
  
  
• Australian Women Pilots Association (AWPA)
  
  
• Australian Business Aircraft Association (ABAA)
  
  
• Australian Certified UAV Operators (ACUO)
  
  
• Antique Aeroplane Association of Australia (AAAA)
  
  
• Australian Sport Aviation Confederation (ASAC)
  
  
• Australian Association for Unmanned Systems (AAUS)
  
  
• Australian Warbirds Association Limited (AWAL)
  

A brief telephone investigation by AOPA Australia revealed that the majority of the TAAAF membership was either unaware, in disagreement or seeking to disassociate themselves from the statement of support.


These are our findings;

• TAAAF asserts that it represents 13 industry associations and bodies;
  
  
• Three (3) of the thirteen (13) member associations are entirely unrelated to manned general aviation in Australia;
  
  
• Two (2) of the thirteen (13) member associations were unavailable for comment;
  
  
• Five (5) of the thirteen (13) member associations were found to be disassociating themselves with the TAAAF statement of support, but did not want to indicate if they had agreed to its publishing;
  
  
• One (1) of the thirteen (13) member associations was n0t aware that they were a member of the TAAAF and did not understand why their association had been included in the communication;
  
  
• One (1) of the thirteen (13) member associations was aware of the statement, but did not want to provide any statement;
  
  
• And just two (2) of the thirteen (13) member associations stated that they were in full agreement with the TAAAF statement;
  

The above results, appear to contradict the TAAAF statement that it’s membership ‘fully-supports’ the ATSB & CASA, and if correct should be the basis on which the letter should be withdrawn, as it could be considered a gross misrepresentation and an attempt to mislead a Senate Inquiry, leaving significant doubts as to the integrity of the TAAAF and their claim to represent the general aviation industry.


Withdrawn or not, I have no doubt that there will be many pilots shaking their heads, all wondering as to the motivations of each of the industry associations involved.

Sadly, it does appear that the ATSB, CASA and now the TAAAF all share something in common.

BM: "..Sadly, it does appear that the ATSB, CASA and now the TAAAF all share something in common..."

Hmm..ironically this again brings me back full circle to my previous post, for it would seem that over at the ATSB 'H' is for 'conflict of interest'??

Henwood, Hood and Hornby - 

I fully support - minimum pilot experience and currency - minimum licensing requirements - minimum Class1 medical - all night flight to be using instrument procedures - aircraft maintenance to charter standards. The general public has not enough knowledge to make the call. The emotions involved lead pilots to make hasty and not always good decisions about their capabilities. I know everyone wants to help and be seen a hero but no-one wants their nearest and dearest to end up in a crumpled heap of metal in cumulogranite. The PATS scheme whilst less glamorous is adequate for most people's transport. A little extra input from doctors into the application assists in ensuring the patient gets transport appropriate to their condition.

---

What will it take to make a Hooded Canary sing?

Reference: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/thread-10-...ml#pid9354

---

First I note that Sandy's 'open email' submission has now been posted on the Inquiry webpage: 

7 Mr Alexander Reith (PDF 13 KB) 

Quote from that: "..Professional and private aviation industry personnel have been following the ATSB’s reports for many years, but more particularly since it became an independent Commonwealth corporate body in 2009..."

After digging around on the cyber-sphere it would seem that besides graduating from ANU in law; and then becoming a Dept graduate; leading to a career bureaucrat with multi-tasking roles (which include, but not limited to, sometimes acting as the Executive Director of Transport and an Aviation Accident Investigator/SME) inside of the ATCB; PH esq. was also the primary architect of the TSI Act 2009 amendment that saw the ATSB become a independent (code for 'law unto itself') statutory authority...

Ref: https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-horn...bdomain=au

---

Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Total Duration: 16 yrs 11 mos

Title: Manager - Legal and Governance
Dates Employed: Jul 2009 – Present
Employment Duration: 10 yrs 3 mos
Location: Canberra Area, Australia

I work to put the ATSB in the best position to be viewed as outstanding in its transport accident investigation field through leading the delivery of legal and policy advice. I created the ATSB’s corporate structure for the delivery of legal services to the Bureau. With my team I am responsible for:

• In house legal advice;
• Representation in coronial inquests;
• Preparation for litigation and challenges to administrative decision-making;
• Drafting of commercial contracts, intergovernmental agreements, legislative instrumen... See more

Title: Legal Policy Advisor
Dates Employed: Nov 2002 – Jun 2009
Employment Duration: 6 yrs 8 mos
Location: Canberra, Australia

During this period the ATSB was a Division of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. I provided policy advice to the ATSB associated with legal matters. This included:

- Creating confidential reporting regimes for the aviation and maritime industries;
- Amending the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 to make the ATSB an independent statutory agency with a commission structure;
- Negotiating and drafting, through the International Maritime Organization, a mandatory Code for the Investigation for the Investigation of Maritime Casualties. I was awarded an Australian Public Service Australia Day Achievement medal for my work on the Code.

While employed within the Department I contributed to the delivery of corporate objectives as president of the Diversity and Equity Network. The network was given a Departmental Australia Day award

---

 
Hmm..no further comment - FDS!


MTF...P2