Apollo 4
Now at last we are getting there.
If this thread was to be forwarded to all the Skippers clients in the mining game, I doubt any of them would be happy about the way the Fatigue Issue is being handled, I doubt that they would reckon that it fits in with their philosophy of fatigue anagement…
Then again the mining companies might insist on FULL TIME employment
From a "Duty of Care" perspective they, the miners that is, do not have any other alternative.
Most miners have a higher and more rigorous safety standard and protocols than the aviation business.
The Mines Act, has more draconian penalties for failure than the aviation business.
The responsibilities in the Act extend equally from the janitor to the Chairman and make the CASA penalties look like a walk in the park.
OpsNormal
The PIC on this flight was "casual" i.e. not full time.
Recently endorsed and not experienced on the type or for that matter any high performance turboprop.
Yes he was a truly nice guy but IMHO that didn't help him or the pax when it really counted.
The aircraft was the either "oldest" of its type on the register, or if not, the other B200 belonging to the operator was.
A deliberate policy on the part of the operator to find the cheapest or lowest capital cost aircraft in a fallacious bid to expand the the profit potential or an even dumber attempt to reduce the "revenue rate" to an even more competitive low than before.
A "consultant", perhaps, advising the miner, that the organisation was "kosher", which in the context of the CASA regs, it, without reservation, was, with out him, the operator or the miner understanding what it really meant.
The miner believes that it has satisfied its "Duty of Care", and is entitled to believe so, in the context of the advice received and its perceived weight.
The CASA Regs and the background of the adviser support the advice, which, however, is fundamentally flawed.
Everything is actually "legal" according to black letter law.
However the decision is made in the absence of, and the lack of Regulatory requirement for the revelation of the "higher standard" mandated for "public transport".
Whilst the "legal nicety" of whether FIFO is or isn't "public transport on fixed schedules between fixed points" is covered the fact and the reality is, that it is.
Further the protection of the
"transport category rules " required for the "carriage of the public.........etc" and necessarily more expensive is neatly avoided.
The miner gets it cheap, the local community as a result, misses out on an economic RPT in "transport category aircraft, and the miners staff get to be exposed to the lowest common denominator in aviation transport.
That's not what I understand as meeting the highest level of "Duty of Care " available to your staff.
This genie is now out of the bottle subsequent to the most recent Coroners findings.
It will be a brave miner and their supplier of aviation services who does not take notice of the probable consequences and do something positive about it.
Lest they have to try and explain to the next set of families, why the few extra dollars profit were more important than their loved ones lives.
A positive start would be for FOs to exercise the professional obligation to the privilege of their license and refuse to operate "part time", surviving by topping up your income at Maccas.
I gaurantee, you will be hung out to dry in the subsequent legal fracas. If you are lucky you will not survive the accident and not have to suffer the professional ignominy and severe financial pain.
The miners have the money if they are forced to cough it up, if they haven't then they haven't got a viable mine, unless you subscribe to theory that the workers should subsidise the operation by accepting a higher level of risk than is required
by law for the rest of the population
The operators generally lack the skills to deliver the essential argument to the miner, it's sad that they still think that their business is simply about flying aircraft between point A and B.