Senate committee hands down poor verdict on performance of safety regulator and ATSB

written by australianaviation.com.au | May 24, 2013
The ATSB’s investigation into the Pel-Air ditching has been called into question.

A near-unprecedented attack on the nation’s aviation safety authorities has been handed down by the Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport References Senate Committee following its enquiry into ‘Aviation Accident Investigations’.

The committee’s 153-page report, which was instigated by the release last August of the ATSB’s findings on the 2009 Pel-Air Westwind ditching off Norfolk Island, contained 26 recommendations that aim to address what the committee sees as deficiencies in the performance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), and importantly, the relationship between them.

Contained in the summary of the committee’s findings is an overarching statement that sets the tone for a scathing attack on the safety regulator and the safety bureau:

Advertisement
Advertisement

“The findings of the ATSB’s investigation report are the starting point in untangling and addressing these questions. The ATSB’s firm position is that the ditching was a one-off event due predominantly to the actions of the pilot, and the agency has defended this stance without, in the committee’s view, a solid evidentiary base. Over the course of this inquiry the ATSB repeatedly deflected suggestions that significant deficiencies with both the operator, (identified in the CASA Special Audit of Pel-Air), and CASA’s oversight of Pel-Air, (identified in the Chambers Report), contributed to the accident. The committee takes a different view and believes that ATSB processes have become deficient… “

For industry, the committee report should signal relief, with recognition that undermining confidential reporting would be anathema to sustained safety improvement:

“It also emerged in the course of the inquiry that the previous system of mandatory and confidential incident reporting to the ATSB has been altered. Pilots have expressed concern that CASA now appears to have access to identifying information, which may inhibit pilots reporting incidents and will therefore undermine the important principle of just culture within the aviation industry.”

Robustly, it added: “The committee was understandably troubled by allegations that agencies whose role it is to protect and enhance aviation safety were acting in ways which could compromise that safety. It therefore resolved to take all appropriate action to investigate these allegations in order to assure itself, the industry and the travelling public that processes currently in place in CASA and the ATSB are working effectively.”

PROMOTED CONTENT

With specific reference to the Pel-Air incident, the committee appeared to effectively suspend the existing ATSB findings and has recommended the investigation be re-opened, supported by a review of the memorandum of understanding between the ATSB and CASA.

Read the full story and list of recommendations in the July issue of Australian Aviation.

Did you know that Australian Aviation Magazine comes digitally? Subscribe to Australian Aviation’s digital magazine for just $59.95 a year! Our app is available on mobile, tablet and PC devices! Subscribe now at australianaviation.com.au.

3 Comments

  • Robbo

    says:

    About time CASA was brought to account. The actions by this morally corrupt organisation has been questioned by a lot of people in the industry.

    At last they have to justify porr decision making.

  • Brett

    says:

    This is an important step forward in improving this morally bankrupt association between two organisations that are struggling to individually promote aviation safety yet struggle to maintain transparency and integrity in their own operations.

  • Pontious

    says:

    Even the Senate committe did not see the wood for the trees. Now Pel-Air has a mandatory alternate requirement on Norfolk in their Ops manual. But why does it have to be special! Australia is about the only ICAO State that has a specific difference registered with ICAO againt the Annex 6 Fuel Planning requirements which specifically require ALL IFR flights to have an alternate. End of story. Even John McC operated thousands of hours with an airline where that policy was in force. Why the crashing silence on this issue?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Each day, our subscribers are more informed with the right information.

SIGN UP to the Australian Aviation magazine for high-quality news and features for just $99.95 per year