ABC reports 2 dead in a light aircraft crash near Bundaberg

[eightyknots]

Aviation accidents are a specialist area and should be investigated as such and on conclusion the results be made available to whoever feels they may benifit from it in a reasonable time span.

I agree. For the aviation community to truly benefit from such a tragic loss, there really should be a proper investigation and a timely report.

 

Shags: please continue to pass on our condolences to the family, including mine.

 

 

[Mark11]

Very sad news... So sad for the family and friends...

 

Mark

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I was only aware that CASa and ATSB have the mandate to investigate aircraft crashes

In NSW the Police have jurisdiction over any aircraft crash scene where a death is involved. The ATSB and/or CASA are basically invited there as guests of the Police. IF ATSB/CASA choose not to attend, then the investigation is handled solely by the Police. The Police force has suitably qualified personnel, most of whom are ATSB trained and may have even spent some time on secondment with the ATSB. There investigations are as in depth as you would expect from any aviation organisation, where it differs is in the end brief.

PS: I do realise this accident is not in NSW, but expect that a similar system would apply in Qld.

 

 

[turboplanner]

And Victoria and every other State and Territory.

 

 

[Powerin]

In NSW the Police have jurisdiction over any aircraft crash scene where a death is involved. The ATSB and/or CASA are basically invited there as guests of the Police. IF ATSB/CASA choose not to attend, then the investigation is handled solely by the Police. The Police force has suitably qualified personnel, most of whom are ATSB trained and may have even spent some time on secondment with the ATSB. There investigations are as in depth as you would expect from any aviation organisation, where it differs is in the end brief.PS: I do realise this accident is not in NSW, but expect that a similar system would apply in Qld.

By my inexpert reading of the Transport Safety Act (PDF download) I would say that the ATSB has jurisdiction over any transport accident (maritime, rail or aviation) IF it chooses to investigate. They are the Feds. The criteria by which they choose to investigate or not is on this ATSB page.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

By my inexpert reading of the Transport Safety Act (PDF download) I would say that the ATSB has jurisdiction over any transport accident (maritime, rail or aviation) IF it chooses to investigate. They are the Feds. The criteria by which they choose to investigate or not is on this ATSB page.

I think it all revolves around the specific wording...

ATSB will own the aircraft and any evidence until they decide not to investigate, however ATSB staff may take a day or more to arrive at the site, so state police secure the site, as they are the first of the responsible authorities to arrive on the scene.

 

If ATSB decide to investigate, then their investigation runs in parallel with the police investigation (where there was a death or state laws were infringed). ATSB take custody of the physical evidence and grant the police supervised access to perform their own examination of the evidence. The two investigations have separate purposes and legal standing.

 

So in a sense both HH and Pow's statements are correct, but not the whole story, which is why they seem at odds.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

*thread drift alert on*

 

By my inexpert reading of the Transport Safety Act (PDF download) I would say that the ATSB has jurisdiction over any transport accident (maritime, rail or aviation) IF it chooses to investigate. They are the Feds. The criteria by which they choose to investigate or not is on this ATSB page.

I always stand to be corrected, but I got this information from one of the people charged with executing the investigations in NSW and have no reason to doubt him. I would however say this, we have no 'Feds' per se in Australia and the Commonwealth receives its power from the States, not the other way round. This is the very reason the Government has struggled to make health reforms, the individual States health services are not 'beneath' the Commonwealth umbrella, as some would have us think. But I digress.

*thread drift alert off*

 

 

[Tex]

Continued thread drift... Constitutional law what a joy Some powers were given exclusively to the Commonwealth exercisable only by the Commonwealth. This is only a minority of powers and s 52 sets out the express powers granted to the Commonwealth. There are also provisions in s 51 of the Constitution that are exclusive to the Commonwealth.

 

Concurrent powers exist and are powers that can be exercised by both Commonwealth and the States. Most of the powers granted to the Commonwealth are concurrent. Section 109 provides that the Commonwealth law will prevail where there is a conflict between Commonwealth and State laws.

 

State residuary powers are powers that don’t fall within Commonwealth grants of power. These residuary powers do not lie exclusively in the hands of the States because the boundary between Commonwealth power and State residuary power is fluid and dynamic, not rigid. This is because interpretation by the High Court can expand the powers of the Commonwealth. Like Workchoices and the expansion of the Corporations power under s 51(xx)

 

Edit: Ergo; both the Cth and the States get their power from the Constitution not one or another, nor each other.

 

 

[seb7701]

Just to clarify, police forensic crash unit (FCU) do establish the cause of the incident as well as subsequent cause of death on behalf of the coroner, as required under the Coroner's Act. FCU police officers in many cases do have specialist aviation crash training and in any case are very highly trained in crash/incident investigation. One of the issues is that ATSB undoubtedly have the best investigative resources, but unfortunately do not investigate all aircraft incidents, generally will not touch RAA incidents and even if they did, their investigation is conducted parallel to the police investigation and they are prevented from sharing the contents of their investigation until they release their findings much later down the track. Edit - speaking in Qld that is, but Howard Hughes said it perfectly.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Continued thread drift... Constitutional law what a joy

I knew I'd get one, there's one in every crowd.

 

 

[Tex]

Just to clarify, police forensic crash unit (FCU) do establish the cause of the incident as well as subsequent cause of death on behalf of the coroner, as required under the Coroner's Act. FCU police officers in many cases do have specialist aviation crash training and in any case are very highly trained in crash/incident investigation. One of the issues is that ATSB undoubtedly have the best investigative resources, but unfortunately do not investigate all aircraft incidents, generally will not touch RAA incidents and even if they did, their investigation is conducted parallel to the police investigation and they are prevented from sharing the contents of their investigation until they release their findings much later down the track. Edit - speaking in Qld that is, but Howard Hughes said it perfectly.

They are concurrent powers under the Cth Legislation and the State Legislation. There is nothing stopping the ATSB sharing any information whenever they choose to if they are also conducting an investigation, they do not have to wait, nor does the State Coroner have to make a finding until after any ATSB finding is released. There is also nothing to stop the state Police (or Coroner) requesting ATSB investigate all of the event, or just a particular event/item/equipment etc and report on that to the relevant state authority.

 

 

[Powerin]

*thread drift alert on*I always stand to be corrected, but I got this information from one of the people charged with executing the investigations in NSW and have no reason to doubt him. I would however say this, we have no 'Feds' per se in Australia and the Commonwealth receives its power from the States, not the other way round. This is the very reason the Government has struggled to make health reforms, the individual States health services are not 'beneath' the Commonwealth umbrella, as some would have us think. But I digress.

 

*thread drift alert off*

Continued drift....I'm sure you're correct HH. I wouldn't know! I just read the Act, and one law never seems to cover how things are done in practice. My glib reference to the Feds was purely because the Act seemed to give a Federal bureau (ATSB) jurisdiction.

Anyway, it seems the only way we ever get to see an accident report in RAA is if the ATSB get involved...which is almost never.

 

 

[seb7701]

There is also nothing to stop the state Police (or Coroner) requesting ATSB investigate all of the event, or just a particular event/item/equipment etc and report on that to the relevant state authority.

No, there is nothing stopping state police from requesting ATSB to investigate, but there is nothing stopping me from requesting an election either, it's just that neither of us will get what we want. The Act states - (1) Subject to section 21, the ATSB is not subject to direction from anyone in relation to the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers. (The prescribed exception to this comes in writing from the Minister).

Basically, yes, the ATSB could share information if they are also conducting an investigation, but the fact is, they won't.

 

The reason the ATSB will always say 'no' to such a request is that to participate in a police investigation would compromise the aim of the Act under which they operate, which stipulates that ATSB investigations are not undertaken to apportion blame or liability to any person. If they start peforming police investigations, they lose their image of impartiality and therefore hinder their investigative abilities. Witnesses, for example, will not provide information as freely when they are aware that their testimony may be used in criminal or civil proceedings. Oh, and even when providing evidence in coroner's court, ATSB evidence comes with conditions and protection. As per the information re Commonwealth juristiction, a federal entity such as ATSB are not answerable to a state authority such as the police.

 

I'll leave it at that - I've probably waffled enough considering the real issue here the tragic loss of two souls from our flying fraternity. May they RIP.

 

 

[Tex]

Yes I agree, they decline regularly to become involved, but sometimes they do assist (latest Flight Safety has one very small example). I don't think it is necessarily the case that they say "no to such a request is that to participate in a police investigation would compromise the aim of the Act under which they operate which stipulates that ATSB investigations are not undertaken to apportion blame or liability to any person." Rather because they can see no significant safety outcome from an investigation of the incident that would warrant expenditure of the finances.

 

What specific conditions and protection does ATSB evidence have in a Coroner's Court?

 

We have to also remember here that Police investigating a death for the Coroner are not always doing so to prosecute someone either, rather to find the place, cause, identity etc.

 

 

[Powerin]

My paraphrase of the ATSB page I linked above is:

 

We have a limited budget, therefore we will only investigate accidents that have the potential for the greatest safety outcome OR (interestingly) investigate accidents that create a big public interest.

 

 

[eightyknots]

My paraphrase of the ATSB page I linked above is:We have a limited budget, therefore we will only investigate accidents that have the potential for the greatest safety outcome OR (interestingly) investigate accidents that create a big public interest.

...such as incidents creating nationwide or worldwide publicity, e.g., if a ferris wheel is involved, etc.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...such as incidents creating nationwide or worldwide publicity, e.g., if a ferris wheel is involved, etc.

In that case, I suspect the reason they investigated was not so much the publicity, but rather the potential for significant injury to the public who were not involved in the flying activity. The publicity would have strengthened the case for ATSB to investigate, but I doubt it was the primary reason.

As it happened, there was a lot of good and useful findings, from that investigation, that will lead to improvements in safety and hopefully adherence to the law, by some who previously didn't treat it seriously.

 

P.S. Thread drift seems to have become the norm, rather than the exception!

 

 

[old man emu]

to participate in a police investigation would compromise the aim of the Act under which they operate, which stipulates that ATSB investigations are not undertaken to apportion blame or liability to any person.

This is a bullshit cop out by the ATSB. They are usurping the role of the Coroner initially, and the Criminal and Civil Courts ultimately. The ATSB blows its trumpet by saying that it is the most expert in investigating aviation incidents. BULLSHIT. I'd rather see an investigation carried out by the Crash Investigation Units of the State Police than a half rsed investigation by ATSB (if they think that such an investigation is economically worthwhile)

 

Let's get the sequence in correct order. The first step in an investigation is to gather facts. Then these facts are examined. This examination may reveal that an offence may have been committed. If Police investigate, and form the opinion that a crime has been committed, they can immediately lay charges. If they are unsure, the facts are reviewed by the Coroner. The Coroner can either recommend charges, or not. In either case, the discovered facts can form the basis of a Civil action.

 

If the ATSB thinks that witnesses won't talk for fear of entanglement in legal proceedings, and so won't release the statements to the legal system, so be it. There is nothing stopping Police from conducting a parallel investigation. If the ATSB won't release information it has, then isn't it puting itself in the same position as a witness who declines to speak to Police? Is the ATSB above the law?

 

And don't think that the ATSB has the best qualifications and resources to investigate incidents. There are LAMEs who are more highly qualified in airframe, engines and systems than ATSB investigators. In civil matters, where there are large financial claims involved, money is no object in examining all the evidence available.

 

Let's stop putting the ATSB in a pedestal and placing offerings at its foot. The ATSB is a government functionary, affected by financial and political constraints.

 

OME

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

This is why we need our own RAAus investigation team. WITH TEETH! our sport, our accidents, our investigation!

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...If the ATSB thinks that witnesses won't talk for fear of entanglement in legal proceedings, and so won't release the statements to the legal system, so be it. There is nothing stopping Police from conducting a parallel investigation.

Which according to the info on the ATSB site, is exactly what happens and the ATSB play an enabling part in the process.

There is of course, also nothing to stop a witness from telling ATSB more than they tell the law enforcement agencies. In fact the protections afforded under the Act creating ATSB are specifically to encourage greater openness. ATSB doesn't start the conversation with "...anything you say, we can use against you... and so can any number of future litigants!"

 

If the ATSB won't release information it has, then isn't it puting itself in the same position as a witness who declines to speak to Police? Is the ATSB above the law?

No. Again, the info on the ATSB site and in the Act is quite clear, as is the manner in which they work with law enforcement investigations.

 

...

 

Let's stop putting the ATSB in a pedestal and placing offerings at its foot. The ATSB is a government functionary, affected by financial and political constraints.

 

OME

I don't think it is on a pedestal, but it does uniquely enjoy the only legal protection that can afford us early access to safety information emanating from the occurrence.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

This is why we need our own RAAus investigation team. WITH TEETH! our sport, our accidents, our investigation!

Why don't you start a new thread and tell us how you think this can be achieved, including how the federal government can be persuaded to enact the appropriate legislation to give an incorporated association the same legal status and protections as a government agency (ATSB).

I've previously published my thoughts, which coincidently were are along the lines recently proposed by John McKeown. John's proposal now has Board approval to investigate feasibility, thanks to anyone else who contacted their reps to request support of John's initiative.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yea I think a new thread is needed here. All valid points but once again a thread starting with the deaths of two aviators has degraded into political diatribe.

 

Remember, people are hurting. This isn't the wrinkly fruit forum.

 

 

[eightyknots]

This is why we need our own RAAus investigation team. WITH TEETH! our sport, our accidents, our investigation!

If this idea was taken up the conflict-of-interest issue would have to be very carefully managed, tight-rope style. I can imagine a skeptical public saying "interesting conclusion in that case: no pilot fault found ...yet again. No wonder they came up with conclusion. The RA-Aus are investigating their own crashes, therefore you wouldn't expect them to come to any other conclusion about this incident" or words to that effect.

 

I agree that this issue needs a new thread even though this discussion is a related issue.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree with Motz; this erudite discussion on possibilities is not contributing to learning how we can avoid another incident like this.

 

A lot of incorrect information has been aired and that has led to more confusion.

 

Better to try and find how how the aircraft came down in such a vertical manner, ie not an engine failure/glide into the cane and the mud.

 

 

[rick-p]

BTW, just found out this was my mates dad. I have passed on everyones condolences.

Sorry, but I have to ask mate, did he have a brother named Lex?