Transair grounded over safety concerns

[altocu]

In accordance with the rules...here's the link:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1798336.htm

[Bleve]

Transair operator might face criminal charges:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1802095.htm

[NAMPS]

ATSB press release...

http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2006/release/2006_49.aspx

[KRUSTY 34]

I have a question:

Why didn't CASA Brisbane office shut these guys down years ago?!

[hotnhigh]

Probably because all casa safety audits had been conducted and assessed as a pass.

Another question, I'd like to know what laws pilots were asked to break?

[Sunfish]

Hmmm, "Failure to report" is the proximate cause. For the rest of us arm chair lawyers I thought I'd like to share one thing with you.

Despite what you may think, it is extremely difficult to remove someone's livlihood through official action (absent corruption) because the Courts set a very high standard of proof and if the complainant has the money and the balls, he can make life very very difficult for the public servant involved, and if there has been a mistake, then your career in the public service is effectively over.

I guess however that a straight out "failure to report" might be cause enough, unless of course the owners of Transair can show that they have been comprehensively deceived by one or more of their employees such that they could not possibly have known.

[Air Ace]

I'm intrigued.........

On December 1, 2006, the ATSB reported (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2006/release/2006_49.aspx):

The ATSB has announced that it will refer Lessbrook Pty Ltd to the Director of Public Prosecutions for its failure over several years to report aviation safety occurrences to the bureau as required by legislation.

On January 13, 2004, CASA reported (http://www.casa.gov.au/media/2004/04-01-13.htm):

CASA’s chief operating officer, Bruce Gemmell, says the start-up of a new air service in north-west NSW is welcome.

“This is a part of NSW that has been without direct air services for some time, so we wish Big Sky Express the best in its new operation,” Mr Gemmell says.

“I’m pleased to say the Big Sky Express operation meets the appropriate safety standards and CASA will continue to monitor the service to make sure safety is maintained.”

The Lockhart River accident was on May 7, 2005.

I presume what is acceptable to CASA is not acceptable to the ATSB???

[Mainframe]

Sunfish,

There is a much bigger picture in all of this. Due process of law can be sidestepped, ignored, perverted, corrupted.

Unfortunately many aviation businesses have suffered financial ruin for the sport of some of the regulator's misfits.

I commend to you the "Phelan Papers", Vols 1 & 2, to give you an insight and understanding of what can and does happen.

Contact Paul Phelan, editor, Australian Flying for an electronic copy.

This document was distributed to most politicians, and large numbers within CASA.


If due process of law is followed in this case, so be it.

Understand that the regulator is going to be investigated, precipitated by this tragedy.

Understand that, like the Cole inquiry into AWB, no public servant,
no minister, no MP will be held accountable for their actions, or lack there of.

In a parallel to the Cole Inquiry, the heads of some corporate directors will be delivered on a plate, to sate and appease.

And like the Cole inquiry, those on a publicly funded salary, who should have and or could have done something,
will be spared the indignity of accountability.


All that we can hope for is a Judicial Inquiry, not a Royal Commission.

That will be the only way to introduce the concept of accountability to the regulator.

regrettably, this is how our country is now run.

[Oh that's super!]

I'm intrigued.........


I presume what is acceptable to CASA is not acceptable to the ATSB???

I'm thinking that the ATSB perhaps initiated the investigation into the issue after the accident and recently found out that Transair had failed to report occurrences over several years. Maybe CASA didn't realise in 2004 what was happening.

[Air Ace]

Super. Nice try.... :ok:

ATSB investigates accidents. Only.

CASA, through it's audit process, investigates aviation operations on a continuing process.

I seem to recall CASA advised on more than one occasion since the accident that Transair was "in compliance" at it's audits.

ATSB are now saying not so!!!

My guess the Coronial Inquiry will be very interesting! Not before time!!!

[Oh that's super!]

ATSB investigates accidents. Only.

Yeah but they would have looked into the systems issue of reporting etc as part of their investigation into Lockhart River, I assume?

I might be getting confused here, but CASA isn't the watchdog for occurrence reporting to the ATSB under the TSI Act, but the ATSB is, I think? What I think the ATSB is referring Transair to the DPP about is their failure to comply with their obligations under of the TSI Act.

Maybe CASA never checked Transair's obligations under the TSI Act (although I think they should have, what I think someone should do and what they 'legally' should do are different matters).

[Creampuff]

AA

Are you sure it’s CASA’s job to secure compliance with the TSI Act?

If CASA went to the ATSB and asked: “Has company x or pilot z reported incidents a, b or c?”, would the ATSB be allowed to answer that question?

It may be that there is an indirect route to CASA’s bailiwick through failure to comply with the ops manual, if the ops manual contained provisions requiring incidents/accidents to be reported in accordance with the TSI Act, but how would CASA ever get access to evidence to determine whether the reports had been received by ATSB?

As a matter of interest, how do you go about determining whether an operator or pilot is complying with the TSI Act?

[Air Ace]

“…….our analysis has shown includes 25 safety incidents….”

“They include a gear failure on departure from Bamaga, a cabin pressurisation warning near Cairns, a burning smell near Inverell, and a problem with flaps leading to a flapless takeoff and associated flight issues from Gunnedah to Sydney.”

“…….ATSB investigations do not seek to assign blame or liability, a serious breach of the TSI Act with respect to the investigations or reporting requires action to deter people from failing to comply with its safety objectives.”

I’m sure it is not CASA’s job to ensure an operator is compliant with the TSI Act, although one would think if CASA discovered an operator was not complying with the provisions of the Act, it should raise serious safety concerns. However CASA stated the operator was compliant with it’s safety obligations (under CASA legislation) in January 2004 and on various occasions since then, whilst the ATSB advise 25 safety related incidents, one at least very serious under CASA legislation, between July 2003 and May 2005, an average exceeding one incident per month.

During a number of comprehensive safety audits, one assumes CASA either did not discover the incidents which the ATSB discovered, or ignored the incidents?

[Air Ace]

And CASA considered "...a problem with flaps leading to a flapless takeoff and associated flight issues from Gunnedah to Sydney...", presumably on an RPT service in a Metro, so minor as to consider and publicly announce the operator is compliant? :confused: :confused:

[J430]

This may be a naive and simplistic look at things, and I do not have operating expeience of an airline but...........If a fault is found by pilots and reported, either written up properly or even verbally, and its fixed, and maint. records show it being done......CASA may well believe compliance is complete.

The fact its not reported and any other non CASA paperwork done may not be of interest to them and hence not looked for.

Not good really, and if its a simple case of this being true, the loop between CASA and ATSB needs to be more effective.

I guess I am stating the obvious here

J:ok:

[hotnhigh]

What does CASA stand for again?:ugh:
Lets see what happens if it goes to court, will it bring us closer to any real facts that aren't already known????

[Air Ace]

Hopefully! :ok:

[captain_cranky]

:sad: :sad:
Do the terms 'institutional timidity' or more recently 'supine and reactive' attributed to the Hon. Justice Staunton or Coroner Hope (WA) respectively prick any individual or collective memory or conscience here?
Industry and grieving families have a real and lasting comprehension of the above terms.
I wonder if the the passing parade of CASA senior management do?
Evidence is to the contrary supported by the appalling accident rate, particularly in QLD, and the shameful performance when called to account before Senate Estimates Committee.
Mainframe.:ugh: For Christ's sake, to quote your mate PPRUNEr, you sound like a broken record. You got what you deserved. Take your medicine and go to bed!:=

[Stink Finger]

CC, you really do not get it do you ?.
To your way of thinking "'institutional timidity" is a weakness, ineffective managment, which you certainly feel you could rectify as the TLFO ( come on boys, break out the big sticks, we're goin hunting ).

What the rest of us see "institutional timidity" as, officers doing their jobs thoroughly, ensuring natural justice.

Remember the charade against a C208 that went into the drink in ?CS, using the wrong flight manual as documentary evidence, actions of malicous over excited by the smell of blood bastards, that is just one example how "institutional timidity" appears to be the diametric opposite to being half-arsed.

There was a much more appropriate method of dealing with that occurence that would have required very little work on the officers behalf, but they were so excited about jumping in the box and telling everyone he was a B737 Captain and proclaiming technical expertise, that on cross examination saw egg on faces, that he and his mates muffed it. No that certaininly is not timidity, stupidity perhaps.

It is common knowledge that Pinnochio has been manipluating and back stabbing the present management, and oh yes, they know very well what the rules are and who's tweaking the knobs.

How does it apply here, well if the paper work is in order, one prosecution witnesses statement can be dismissed by two defence witnesses.

[Torres]

I wouln't get excited Stinky. Knowing the history and integrity of the office he worked from, one can understand his attitude.

[Yup]

Transair have requested CASA to cancel their AOC.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1804440.htm

[captain_cranky]

:hmm:
It seems every time I rattle the CASA cage the same monkeys start screaming............
:confused: Obviously got me confused for someone else but I dont mind!:ouch:
Anyway back to the topic. Here's the latest.:D
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20876064-5006786,00.html

[gaunty]

I am encouraged that one way or the other we are slowly getting back on course in so far as standards are concerned and it is certain that the revenues are improving, almost daily, as the rent a wreck operators are forced to leave the playing field. For the most part the business is almost unrecognisable from that of even 2 years ago and getting better by the day.

It is not as if the operators did not have any notice. It has been clear since Monarch that things had to change, dramatically. Whether CASA or the ATSB had the regulatory tools or the resources to implement it is moot, but their determination wasn't.

So now we'll hear the sob stories from the same people "who wuz robbed" and what about the "Phelan papers". It's so yesterday, deal with it move on and thank your God you're not actually in goal.

There are some who became professional media tarts and even tried to establish media careers as CASA bashers. Daily headlines screaming about regulatory incompetence with half baked and usually incompetent remedies. They would claim that it was their efforts that brought about "the change" and it may be so, but I personally doubt it.

I'm going to say that the inordinate amount of regulatory time and effort diverted by these people in answering their dramatic demands and to quell the public disquiet they generated was actually contributory to the events described here. So lets get on with it and move on shall we.

"institutional timidity" now there's the rub, crucified when they act and when they do not, why are we then surprised that an FOI seeks personal protection by painful process with the shadow of the AAT second guessing every action taken. When every decision however simple has to be turned over and over against the possibility of action. The stoning scene from "The Life of Brian" must have been based on the events in Oz aviation.

So what does he do when Rome is burning. I'm hoping the first action is to put out the fire then sort out the cause. I don't see fireman doing forensic work on the cause of the fire before wheeling out the particular fire cart for that particular cause. There are new regulatory enforcement rules, they appear to be working as they intended. I and another gain some solace from the fact that we played a very small part in ensuring they were passed. It took a lot of courage and attracted a great deal of slander, libel, personal vilification and abuse but we'd do it all again in a heartbeat, because it was the right thing to do.

Mainframe
I will not disagree with:
Unfortunately many aviation businesses have suffered financial ruin for the sport of some of the regulator's misfits. they exist in any large organisation.
but it is equally true that;
Unfortunately many trusting aviation users have suffered death and maiming for the sport of some of the aviation businesses misfits.
and it is also true that those same businesses were never Snow White either.

I know when the system used to work the way it was supposed to because I was there, and I know when it ceased to do so. I also know when the signs appear that it is starting to do so again. It can not be a simple coincidence that the appearance and inexorable disappearance of certain strolling characters of no fixed percentage coincide. I will not here be drawn on whom, except to say that those who actually know about the whole sad sequence will be thinking of the same names as I.

We are back in safe hands despite some pathetic and cowardly efforts to discredit individuals and regulatory organisations by fair means or foul and it also escapes me why any reasonable person thinks that 20+ years of meddling is going to be reversed in less than 5 for a start.

[Mainframe]

Gaunty,

No problems with your assessment.

There is change, and it's happening now, and gaining momentum.

And yes, regrettably most of us knew the names of the strollers,
and others.

And the names were known within as well.

There are some operators out there who have shortened the lives of the trusting public, and seem untouched.

And there are operators of 25, 30 and 40 years standing, who never so much as caused a trusting passenger to even need a bandaid,

but who were destroyed for sport, again the names are known on both sides.

You may consider the Phelan Papers as irrelevant, but they do effectively illustrate the consistent pattern of misconduct.

Careful review of past AAT hearings will also illustrate particular modus operandi.

And I agree that the improvements will take time.

Some very positive improvements are already noted, and are expected to continue.

Careful pruning and weeding will also continue to improve the current crop.

However, I still believe accountability needs to be embraced, and eventually it will.

There is a new breed being recruited, and it's showing.

[gaunty]

Mainframe:ok:

I didnt mean to say the Phelan papers were irrelevant, they weren't, or that they should not be a signpost of where we were and dont ever want to be again. But what's done is done, we cant change it so lets get on with building the future instead of this endlessly boring trawling over the past.
The current efforts by some to rewrite the past in their own imaginings will be as transient as is their life. No amount of money or effort will change the facts or that history will not be kind to them.

There are some operators out there who have shortened the lives of the trusting public, and seem untouched.

And there are operators of 25, 30 and 40 years standing, who never so much as caused a trusting passenger to even need a bandaid,

I would say both of the above were as much a function of bad/good luck as good/bad management, if you follow what I mean.:eek:

Certainly since the early 80's when the great dismantling and dismembering of the single Department for purely ideological reasons by amateur meddlers was commenced, the vast fund of corporate memory and culture that was formerly available within to inform operators was retired, washed out to sea and or forced into exile in foreign climes. Those organisations already in existence with an already entrenched ?? positive safety culture learned to adapt, those who started subsequently only learned how to play the game.

Thinking back maybe as far as Advance and please correct me if I am wrong all of the "controversial" operators and/or those the subject of Commissions Royal were 'new' entries beyond the period of which I speak.

The problem CASA now has, and it may also be a blessing given the unbelievably rapid take up of the fantastic new technology airframes, engines and avionics, is that the staff turnover has been so enormous over such a long period of time, is finding out where all the gaps in "the knowledge" is. There are many hugely competent staff with encyclopaedic knowledge of the industry but they are so busy bailing out the ship to stop it from sinking from increasingly dumb demands for more cuts from the Govt and cost recovery when it should be the other way around, they haven't got the time to spread it around.

And while I am on it this really stupid Government dogma of full cost recovery from the industry doesn't even begin to bear the slightest scrutiny against requirements of the safety agenda.

The concepts are simply mutually exclusive. Certainly entry or upgrade should not be free, but neither does charging a gazillion dollars an hour encourage considered and meaningful results.

All the entry level ticks, checked boxes, jumping through hoops and rug dancing isn't going to change the attitude of the boss and his team (who human nature says will be mostly clones) if he/they haven't "got it".

You and I know an afternoon in the bar will tell you pretty much all you need to know. That would not of course be appropriate for a regulator. Neither would we be happy with being judged by one person in our application. So why dont we have a panel or board with say 6-8 people to hold a hearing with the aspiring boss and all of his intending approval holders as the final sign off for entry and repeated at each renewal.
It could be made up of senior local and interstate staff including the GM of the section or his delegate but perhaps not including the person who has been running the file.
They have something similar in the US.
An AOC is not a right the above process should also have the effect of instilling in the prospective holder that this is a very serious process.

You either have a regulator who can regulate and let him do it, or you dont.

I can think of at least half a dozen operators of the past who would not have made it through that process.

[Sunfish]

So Hanrahan was wrong? We are not going to get rooned? I've always thought GA and RAA aviation has a great future.

I came to this conclusion at the end of yet another three hour drive from my farm back to the city some years ago. There had to be a better way - and fortunately there was. YMMB to Mansfield is about 45 minutes vs. three hours on the road behind some clown towing a caravan.

The technology is getting good enough for even Cessna to get a kick in the backside and start developing new models. All we need is some follow through by the engine manufacturers and the rest of the U.S. industry and we will have a new generation of aircraft.

Tried a Sportstar (LSA) the other day, great aircraft.

P.S. The trade-off in "user pays" is that "user says". You cannot run a regulatory system that was designed under a "full government funding" business model and expect users to pay for it, because they simply can't afford it. This means restructuring regulation to what the users are prepared to pay for, and providing Government funding for the bits that either can't or shouldn't be funded by the industry. Keep up the good work CASA.

[gaunty]

Sunfish

Mate 'twas never rooned 'twas only hen len getting a bit excited because the supply of good used dried up coz the rooster went on strike and they could in any event no longer afford a proper bird bath or the modern chicken licken. So, you tell everybody the sky is falling in and get the barnyard in an uproar hoping no one will notice that your feathers have been plucked.... Simple really :p

What did jump out of your post was:

This means restructuring regulation to what the users are prepared to pay for, is really what hen len has been sqawking about, not tidying, clearing up or raising but lowering standards.

providing Government funding for the bits that either can't or shouldn't be funded by the industry. which equals mostly all safety regulation is where the real game was being played, but none of their side turned up for the match, at least not enough wearing the same uniform.

There is a stoush on in the US right now about FAA funding and the Gov trying to round up a GA contribution. I dont know what the percentage is, but I'll do some research, of all GA non airline movement v airline movements, but I would guess it would be single figures and Oz would be even less.
It comes back to the old who pays for the roads and regulates/polices their use argument, they are part of the national estate and so should provision of Air Services.
But then some genius from the past decided that you could separate one from the other, to give us the regulatory dogs breakfast we now have.

I suspect, but it may not be so, that the US FAA are very aware of the Austrian experience :hmm: and have no desire to go there anytime soon. Maybe we should send our local experts up there to give em a hand.:E

[star*pattern*enter]

captain cranky/cuzzin cletus

It seems every time I rattle the CASA cage the same monkeys start screaming

rather an odd statement for a cage dweller

[beaver_rotate]

Check out ATSB website, weekly summary for week ending 3/12/06. Seems ATSB are making a point, and publishing around 20 of the "unreported incidents" from the last 3 years on the site from Transair's operation.

[Icarus2001]

There isn't a summary for that date. There is a summary for the week ending 1/12/06 here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2006/pdf/aws011206.pdf).

Surely the ATSB would be derelict in their duty if they did not publish reports for the incidents that Transair failed to report but were discovered later as a result of an investigation?