Responsbility
Ok - We have determined that the flight crew's approach was outside nominal values as stipulated in the AIP, the aircraft was a definite CFIT and there is a level of conjecture over the RNAV GNSS at YLHR.
What I wish to find a little more about is was there any benefit in operating this aircraft as a multi crew operation? I understand the CVR was U/S but surely the reports taken from other flight crew would have provided some insight into the incorporation of the FO into the 'team' or was it a single pilot accident? Surely this aspect would have been either covered during a check or flights with other crewmembers.
It seems that the chief pilot, CEO and head of training and checking was selective in his hearing of reports about the conduct of operations at this base. Does this sound fishy to others or is it just me? If the checks were completed then the approach profiles would have been examined? What roles did the check pilot take when conducting flights? It has been documented that he was selective in his completion of the CASA approved syllabus items in intial training so did this also flow into the checks and tests required by the CAR 217 organisation?
What was the standard that was applied during the conducted of CASA delegated flight tests by the ATO - manager of Training and checking? What was the standard of checking afforded the ATO by others in the CAR 217 organisation or CASA?
Was the requirements as stipulated in the CASA ATO Delegates handbook completed, or do we find we have a number of flight crew who have 'never' been checked properly?
I hope the coronial enquiry does follow on from where the ATSB report has ended?
I for one want to know whether CASA intend on following up any breeches in procedures that the Delegate conducted? I have no bones with the flight crew but the management of the flight standards department - seems abysmal. I for one cannot close on 'pilot error' - it was an 'airline' so the responsibility of the managers in authorising this pilot are very much to blame (company error). Refer to section 28BE Act.
Considering the 'airline' is closed - are we not entitled to see what recommendations the ATSB would have made against the company? Would it not be in the interest of safety in releasing the specifics. Or is that for the Coroner to determine?
The ASIC records indicate the company is now in administration ! Does that indicate a financial problem ? Does that mean that the financial viability of the organisation was compromised - When ? before the accident ? Does CASA conduct an ongoing financial viability assessment ? Should it?
Did this financial position affect the CAR 217 operation? Was proper company surveillance conducted or was it a paper exercise?
I dunno guys (and Gals) there is much much more to this. After Monarch, Seaview, Whyalla and numerous other enquiries surely it is time to put the 'rougues' out of the game.