Hempy,
I was advised that there were no outstanding issues in regard to actual flying operations. I was also advised that there were several issues in regard to airworthiness.
At the end of the day, however, airworthiness issues and the fact that not all pilots had completed HR courses (not required legally at the time but only by the operator's manual) did not contribute to the crash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the operator audit and surveillance by CASA was as you suggest, how would you account for an FO (who may have been conducting the approach) not rated for that type of approach?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Torres,
From the ATSB report, it is unlikely that the FO was conducting the approach as he had been operating the radio. Notwithstanding that scenario, it was not appropriate for an RNAV approach to be conducted without both pilots being endorsed.
From an operational aspect, however, what would you prefer - NDB or a runway oriented approach?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, an audit is a snapshot and the fact that an FO was not RNAV/GNSS rated may be easily missed.
Most pilots seem to agree that distances on RNAV charts should be to the MA point or runway threshold and NOT simply to the next waypoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrespective of all the above, the sad bottom line is that the approach was far from stable and altitudes were busted, thereby placing all on board in mortal danger. THAT is what should be addressed and avoided.