It’s common knowledge that the Sea King military helicopters have design flaws. A Sea King at Bamaga on Cape York in northern Australia in 1995 all 15 people on board – two pilots and 13 passengers - died. An inquiry into the Bamaga incident had recommended that Sea Kings have "crashworthy" seating installed and proper harnesses. But a decision had been taken not to install them on the grounds of cost, weight factors and convenience.
In the aftermath of the Indonesian tsunami, the region around Nais was hit by another devastating quake. The Australian navy quickly dispatched emergency assistance, including helicopters. When a second Sea King Shark 02 crashed on Nias in April last year, only two on board escaped.
The inquiry into the second crash was just about to wind up, after 103 days. The panel had taken 9000 pages of transcript evidence, heard from 150 witnesses and cost more than $5 million, and has been aborted.
It seems head of the Sea King Board of Inquiry, Commodore Les Pataky, and a fellow board member were asked to step down because Commodore Pataky was chief of staff of the maritime command and deputy maritime commander. From 1998 to 2000 the other member, Captain Dowsing was fleet aviation officer.
The basis of the dismissal: “there was no "actual" evidence of bias by Commodore Pataky or Captain Dowsing in the present inquiry, but there should be perceived fairness in procedure; and if the board proceeded as it was, any finding it made was likely to be set aside by a court.”
Why the inquiry managed to get so far before this gem surfaces isn’t clear. What is clear is that self-regulation and internal inquiries are bound to be flawed, or at least subject to suspicion.
Whether it is military personnel, politicians or the commercial sector, there is simply no guarantee of unqualified, independent assessment.
Commander Alexander Street, representing Rear Admiral Rowan Moffitt, maritime commander at the time of the Shark 02 crash, said he opposed the recommendation. He said the application that the two step down was a "misconception of the obligation of fair process".
Commander Jack Rush, representing families of the victims, argued that there were great advantages in keeping the five-member board, representing the navy (Pataky and Dowsing), the RAAF (Group Captain Ian Farnsworth), the army (Lieutenant-Colonel Martin Raby) and a civilian (John Raby, chief pilot of Virgin).
Australia has a highly respected Civil Aviation Authority with a strong record in air accident assessment and not ties to the military. Surely it would have save time, money and grief to appoint them to conduct a truly independent investigation.
But what of all the other incestuous inquiries, based on the dubious claim that groups can fairly evaluate their own internal issues. The only thing guaranteed from them is whitewash and cover-up.
No comments:
Post a Comment