gaunty
I have fairly recently completed a task which involved the building from a blank piece of paper a transport category only AOC with unrestricted worldwide operation and with the highest international SMS, best practise and management accreditations available. It is not BARS which does not even get close. However! Fleet now Citation, Phenom, Challenger and Gulfstream.
So that'd be this mob then:
A First for Australian Business Aviation | International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations (IS-BAO) | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association
I see the good Senator X has caught onto the tautological comment from the DAS that gobbles had in his last post on this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/7528218-post825.html
Senator XENOPHON: Just finally from me—again, possibly on notice—can you advise whether CASA has any right to access an operator's internal investigations? What about internal disciplinary proceedings? If Mr McCormick reads this I hope he does not consider this a 'tautological rubbish' question.
(my bold)
Onya Nick!
Sorry Creamy almost missed your post, which is extremely relevant because for some reason the ATSB initially missed the erroneous 0630 METAR that was relayed at 0801 UTC (giving few at 6,000') and subsequently due to the 4C program had to correct their report.
Something that is equally troubling is that in the CASA Accident Investigation Report 09/3 on page 7 there is this statement for the 0801 UTC NADI communication:
0801 UTC NADI ATC provides the aircraft with the METAR for YSNF issued at 0630 ZULU. This was then updated with an Auto SPECI for Norfolk issued at 0800 ZULU. Wind 290 at 08 Knots cloud (OVC) at one thousand one hundred ft AGL, 21°C and the dew point was 19°C and QNH Norfolk 1012.
Which besides leaving out several parts of the true transcript also totally leaves out the details for the 0630 UTC METAR and the pilot asking for the issue time to be repeated.
So my question would be was the CASA truncated version the one that was originally given to the ATSB and hence the reason why they missed the erroneous "few at 6,000 ft" message??
