So what ever happened to the 'Jone's' investigation?
Is it still pending or has it been shelved in the 'too hard' basket? Can't see how when the footage was on national TV!
However if you go by the copy of a REPCON report originally posted in Jetblast:
Report narrative:
The reporters expressed a safety concern regarding the length of time it was taking for CASA to conduct their investigation into safety breaches at **********. The reporter has stated that CASA have been informed about a number of serious safety breaches which have occurred in ********** aircraft over the last eighteen months to two years.
The reporter states that ********** has a history of not reporting incidents to the ATSB or CASA. An example of this is CASA Airworthiness Inspector who was told (discretely) of numerous torque rollbacks occurring across the fleet which had not been reported. He subsequently brought in an order that all torque rollbacks be reported. The order was in place for 3 months and there was 64 torque rollbacks reported across the fleet. This is the link to the former CASA instrument http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...09/casa437.pdf
The following is a list of some of the incidents which have occurred but have not been reporter to the ATSB apart from the last dot point:
• On 28th April 2011, a “stick shaker” event that was finally recovered at 260 feet above sea level during a search and rescue flight from Mackay. A crew member on board the aircraft had to request that the captain recover from the situation. The captain applied full power and raised the nose of the aircraft but was not able to prevent the aircraft sinking further before climbing and accelerating.
• A test flight conducted at low level through the Kakadu gorges NT. This was after the aircraft had come out of heavy maintenance and was conducted contrary to the operator's Low Level approval and low level company SOPs and checklists. There was also an inadvertent activation of the EGPWS with no corrective action taken.
• After completing upper air work the captain took control of the aircraft. He then asked the crew if they had seen a Stuka dive, the aircraft then pitched up steeply and commenced a wingover to the left. Upon rolling out of the manoeuvre the pilot noticed the aircraft was pointed directly at a large tourist boat crowded with people. The captain continued the dive to within approximately 300 meters and 200 feet above the vessel before breaking off and flying alongside. The aircraft then proceeded a few miles west of the vessel at 200 ft, the captain handed control back to the pilot and instructed them to commence a stick shaker climb from 200 feet back to altitude for the return flight.
• An emergency descent was conducted while crew members were un-restrained.
• The aircraft took off with full fuel which meant that they were 150 kg over the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW). The aircraft then returned from the flight with less than the statutory fuel minimums. The aircraft landed with 290 kg where 300kg is the minimum. The landing weight was 10.2 tonnes which is 500 kg less than the zero fuel weight (10.7 tonnes)
• On a flight where the crew members were unrestrained, they were thrown around the cabin due to moderate to severe turbulence. The pilot in command continued to fly the aircraft at close to the maximum cruise speed instead of slowing to the turbulence penetration speed. The aircraft was not inspected after landing and the tech log was not endorsed.
• The aircraft was climbed on the stickshaker from 600 ft to cruise altitude. During the cruise the captain then feathered the propeller for a few minutes. Later in the flight, the aircraft was descended to 200 ft above water and the captain commanded the pilot flying to follow the boundary of the reef, which meant they had to consistently maintain a bank angle in excess of 45 degrees. This type of manoeuvring is in contravention of the company’s Standard Operating Procedures. On completion of these manoeuvres the aircraft was climbed to a safe altitude where extreme unusual attitudes were conducted, i.e., at one stage the pilot looked at the instruments and the aircraft had an extremely high nose attitude, a bank angle approaching 90 degrees and a low airspeed.
• A runway overrun where all of the main wheel brakes had to be replaced.
• A near stall at low level (100-200 ft agl) while conducting SAR drop training.
• The nose wheel steering safety pin left in, resulting in the landing gear being unable to retract.
• A departure where the hot battery bus was disconnected and the flight continued with a multitude of EICAS messages and warnings.
• During instrument renewal tests, unusual attitudes and steep turns are conducted at low levels.
• A Dornier 328 nose wheel tow hitch was found close to the holding point of an active runway after the aircraft had departed.
Response/s received:
REPCON supplied CASA with the de-identified report. The following is a version of the response that CASA provided:
CASA is aware of the matters raised in the above REPCONs. Although CASA is not able to disclose actions being planned or undertaken against the Operator, it can
confirm that these matters are being taken very seriously. CASA is working to ensure the Operator meets its safety obligations.
Note: The above texts may have been altered to protect any personal information contained in them.
Please note that this report and any responses might be published in safety related publications like the ATSB section of the CASA safety awareness magazine ‘Flight Safety Australia’. However, no person or operator will be identified in the article.
Personal information about the reporter and any person referred to in the report is required by legislation to be kept confidential. If you believe it would be necessary to act on information about an individual referred to in your report then you should consider reporting this directly to CASA. CASA’s confidential hotline number is 1800 074 737.
If you wish to make comment on the above text please do so by the COB 18 August 2011. If no further comments are received through this process then the REPCON will be closed and all your personal details and your original report will be deleted.
Regards
Then one would think that it is possible to get away with nearly anything, as I understand that the person behind most of these incidents continues to operate with impunity!
However there is a marked difference between the two investigations. Jonesy and his brethren have probably been doing similar things with their Robos for years! If the truth be known similar activities are probably happening in a remote outback station right now. The only difference being that there isn't any footage on national TV and the regulator is therefore none the wiser.
This other operator is however a purely commercial venture, that is contracted to the Federal Government. Therefore they are also ultimately answerable to the taxpayer!