Perhaps Sunny this will refresh your memory? ...From AQONs 22/10/12 public hearing
CASA01: Experience of Pel-Air Chief Pilot
Hansard: p.34
CHAIR: It has been suggested to us that the chief pilot, who is now the CASA Bankstown person, did not really have a lot of experience himself with these types of aircraft. Do you know what his experience was with Westwind aircraft? I presume he was endorsed to fly the damn things—was he?
Mr McCormick: He was, but I do not have the figure in front of me showing what his experience was at the time. It may be in some of the documents we gave you.
CHAIR: Could you take that on notice?
Mr McCormick: Sure.
Answer:
Mr Wickham completed a co-pilot endorsement on the Westwind on 23 September 1992.
Mr Wickham has 50 hours experience on the aircraft as a co-pilot.
A chief pilot need not, in all cases, be endorsed to fly all of the aircraft types covered by an Air Operator’s Certificate as pilot-in-command. In such cases, the Civil Aviation Orders permit the chief pilot to delegate his or her operational duties to another member of the operator’s staff. In this case, the chief pilot’s operational duties in relation to Pel-Air’s Westwind aircraft had been delegated to the fleet manager, Mr Ian ‘Wally’ Meyer. At the time of the accident, Mr Meyer was fully endorsed on the Westwind aircraft, had over 20,000 hours total aeronautical experience with 147 hours as pilot-in-command on the Westwind in the 12 months preceding the accident.
Kharon said:
Yes, but; is this the only aberration within the documents? We could probably be convinced that a qualified, trained ATSB investigator managed to miss a single item in a draft report, we may even allow some latitude for an item being overlooked when a report is being cross checked during compilation. At a stretch we could even allow that the final edit before release missed one, solitary, albeit important item.
No there is quite obviously plenty of 'aberrations' in this whole sordid tale.
My point is the one document that FF wanted and apparently manafactured to suit a purpose (theirs) that was released under section 32 of the TSI Act in spirit of the MOU is CAIR 09/3. If you put the ATSB report alongside the CAIR 09/3 they basically run to a scripted outcome, albeit the bureau report has a lot more 'meat 'n' veg' and spin.
So are you trying to tell me that the two agencies dropped all their previous deeply entrenched animosities and all of a sudden they were running like two perfectly synced props? That's like the Carbon Queen telling us that last week's self-indulging labor party aborted leadership spill is all over.."
nothing to see here, move along"! Yeah right
??
Kharon said:
You know, I keep coming back to the why and the how of it?. Why take these incredible risks, publicly, on record, in the Parliament?
Who knows it is bizarre, my guess is it was some directive from the main circus act to stop all sideshow events that might detract attention from the ringmasters performance in the big top...but that's just my guess??
