The senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Reference Committee (RRAT) inquiring into the Norfolk Island ditching investigation is focusing on a report CASA did not supply to the ATSB.
Pilot Dominic James was forced to ditch an aeromedical IAI Westwind off Norfolk Island in November 2009 when weather conditions prevented a landing. All six on board were rescued. See more here.
The Chambers Report is an internal CASA report that showed the regulator's oversight of operator Pel-Air was inadequate. According to the RRAT, under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the report should have been supplied to the ATSB and wasn't.
CASA Director of Aviation Safety John McCormick denies the report was withheld intentionally.
"I am sorry, but I reject that the Chambers report is relevant to the ATSB," McCormick told the RRAT. "If the ATSB had asked, after they had completed their report, or when we had finished our report, that would be a different matter. It is an error of judgment in not giving it to the ATSB then I will accept that. But, again, we have withheld nothing; we have withheld no information.
The critical part of the MOU is section 4.4.6, which states "CASA agrees that if a CASA Officer is known to have information that could assist the ATSB in the performance of its investigative functions, CASA will undertake to advise the ATSB of the existence of the information."
Senator Fawcett, an experienced pilot, highlighted the following wording in a CASA audit in respect to the adequacy of CASA's oversight of Pel-Air.
"… it is considered that the oversight by CASA has been inadequate as there is evidence to support that many of the problems identified by CASA during the surveillance audit of March 08 were never appropriately actioned.
"There is a lack of any clear evidence to support corrective actions have been implemented, confirmed by CASA or that there were effective. If this process is indicative of broader practices of CASA, it is considered that CASA is exposed to unnecessary risk, particularly if required to provide evidence to support how it approved and operated a system, in this case their FRMS ... [Fatigue Risk Management System]"
In questioning McCormick, Senator Fawcett raised the issue of potential collusion between the CASA and the ATSB on the investigation report.
" ... there is evidence and there are documents, which we will discuss, that indicate there was relatively frequent and open discussion about the content of reports and alignment between the two organisations, and yet a report that (a) would obviously embarrass CASA was not made available, despite other interactions that go contrary to what you have just stated; and (b) the ATSB report, for example on the issue of fatigue, almost discounts fatigue because they say 'there is a lack of evidence that this is a serious safety concern'—and they take the fact that there have been audits done of the FRMS system used by the company.
"Given that the ATSB chose to ignore the whole issue of fatigue and how that might have affected the errors that were made by the pilot, because of a lack of evidence, and CASA had a formal report within their system dealing with the issue of fatigue and chose not to disclose that to the ATSB as required by the MOU, I think you would have to agree Mr McCormick that that would seem a little unusual to the reasonable man on the street."
McCormick stuck to his guns and was unphased by what seems very directed questioning.
"We did not withhold information," he reiterated later. "The information was not considered to be relevant to the reporting procedures that went on. We were very cognisant that we did not want to interfere with anyone else doing an investigation—any other procedure that was going on. We have our own things to do; the ATSB has its things to do."
At one stage, Senator Xenophon felt it necessary to remind the CASA boss of the Transport Safety Act.
Senator XENOPHON: Mr McCormick, you are familiar with section 24 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act?
Mr McCormick: No, I am not, but someone here will be.
Senator XENOPHON: I will just read it to you:
24 Offence to hinder etc. an investigation
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the person is reckless as to whether the conduct will adversely affect an investigation:
(i) that is being conducted at that time; or
(ii) that could be conducted at a later time into an immediately reportable matter; and
(c) the conduct has the result of adversely affecting such an investigation (whether or not the investigation had commenced at the time of the conduct);
You do not see that you in any way adversely impacted on the ATSB's investigation by not releasing the Chambers report?
Mr McCormick: There has never been any intent to withhold information from the ATSB. Whether the information contained in the Chambers report would have changed the ATSB's line of investigation, their outcomes, conclusions or recommendations is a matter for the ATSB, and I cannot speak for them.
The inquiry is continuing. The transcript of the February 15 sitting is available on the senate website here.