From page 29 of the ATSB report:
Part A Section 9.11.2 of the operations manual titled Critical Point required pilots to calculate a CP on ‘appropriate’ flights over water that were greater than 200 NM (371 km) from land and on all other flights for which the availability of an ‘adequate aerodrome’52 was critical. There was some disparity between that section and Part B section 6.1.2 of the operations manual titled Calculation of Critical Point, which omitted the need for an available adequate aerodrome, instead stating that a CP was to be calculated for flights where no ‘intermediate aerodromes’ were available.
Does this mean that casa has not "again" failed to surveil the operator??
Smell like Lockhart River??
And then at page 35:
Five different operators were interviewed and provided relevant sections of their operations manuals for review. Those manuals generally reflected the requirements of CAAP 234-1 but also had individual operational requirements appended. However, they either had no guidance, or did not provide consistent guidance on the process to be used when deciding whether to continue to a destination in circumstances similar to those affecting the flight to Norfolk Island.
When questioned on how they expected their flight crews would act in this situation, the operators generally answered that they expected flight crews to base their decisions on past experience and a conservative approach to flight planning to ensure their flight remained safe at all times. The concept of ‘good airmanship’ was frequently used, but consistent methods for implementing good airmanship to address this situation were not provided.
This goes even further, into the failure of casa in it's surveillance methods [or lack of them]
Now, as I read on, is there any SR to be found on the topic???