CASA investigates

[stewser89]

Aviation authorities will begin their investigations into the star of Keeping Up With The Joneses on Wednesday, with the Northern Territory-based flight company boss facing fines of thousands of dollars.

Jones is alleged to have committed a host of safety breaches during the 10-episode series, which screened on Network Ten last year, including using a helicopter to tow his 15-year-old son Beau for water-skiing.

The investigation was launched when Civil Aviation Safety Authority investigator Mark Haslam allegedly saw on the program in November a series of safety breaches.

He then watched seven other episodes - available on Channel 10's website - and allegedly identified more breaches.

In March, the authority was granted a warrant to raid the offices of Jones's production company, WTFN, where they seized DVDs containing raw footage and out-takes.

Jones failed in an attempt to have the warrant overturned in the Federal Court this month.

CASA will begin its investigation on Wednesday when an injunction preventing the authority from examining the DVDs expires.

The court also heard that Jones allegedly breached regulations by using a helicopter to collect crocodile eggs without an appropriate licence. He is also accused of drinking alcohol within eight hours of flying and leaving a helicopter unattended with the engine running and rotors turning with children in the back.

The investigator told the court CASA needed to view the unedited footage to prove the offences had been committed - or whether they simply appeared to have occurred because of "an editing issue" or "poetic licence" for TV broadcasting purposes.

A court spokesman said that Jones had not lodged an appeal.

A Channel 10 spokeswoman said the remaining episodes of the series would be screened this year. Jones did not return telephone calls from The Sunday Telegraph.


Nice of Casa to get its act together 8 months after this show aired. I remember watching the episodes and thinking hmm that looks a bit sus.

What do you guys think, serious safety breaches or an overzealous regulator trying to find something to do?

Orgininal story here (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/tv-pilot-lands-in-hot-water-at-casa/story-e6freuy9-1226077772417)

[le Pingouin]

"CASA will begin its investigation on Wednesday when an injunction preventing the authority from examining the DVDs expires". Very hard to conduct an investigation without access to the evidence......

[Flying Binghi]

...What do you guys think...



IMO, we should wait for CASA to do their investigation.





.

[waren9]

Only watched some of the series so won't pass comment on his guilt or otherwise, but having said that, if you are dumb enough to do (or give the impression you did) something dodgy and then put it on national telly, then you can hardly squeal if it raises some eyebrows.

Good luck to him, it makes better telly than those inane endless singing/cooking/dancing/reality race/RBT cops bollocks.

[ChaseIt]

waren9 "Good luck to him, it makes better telly than those inane endless singing/cooking/dancing/reality race/RBT cops bollocks." :D:D haha so very true... as for old mate Jones as you guys said... if he is stupid enough to do it on national TV then he is stupid enough to get caught...

On another point its good to see CASA actually get up and do some real Safety work... :E If only we had a camera to record what some other operators do out there... :ok:

[djpil]

If only we had a camera to record what some other operators do out there... Amazing what you see on FB or Utube put there by the pilots themselves or by unwary passengers.

Reminds me of one of my thoughts about the new draft Part 61 rules - all set up to allow third party organisations, such as the Victorian speed camera operators, to offer a service to CASA in collecting evidence.

[004wercras]

If only we had a camera to record what some other operators do out there... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif 19th Jun 2011 15:02

Amazing what you see on FB or Utube put there by the pilots themselves or by unwary passengers.


You mean like in this link?

YouTube - ‪HOFO TEST FLIGHT‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc_jnUIltmw&feature=youtu.be)

[Track5milefinal]

That links nothing! :}:}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5nWzWJbIjs

:ok::ok::ok:

[VH-XXX]

That last link is a mustering flight. No issues there. Simply looking for cattle to muster with appropriate low level endorsements being held.

An optimist always sees the bright side!

Me thinks some of the Jones's issues may appear vastly different when the full footage is reviewed.

[propblast]

That mustering link might be ok. But the Kakadu link might raise a few eyebrows. I swear I can hear the GPWS going off in the last bit. Maybe getting a little to close the the valley wall on the other side???

[601]

That last link is a mustering flight. No issues there. Simply looking for cattle to muster with appropriate low level endorsements being held.

And the pax doing the filming - just the station owner showing the pilot which paddock they had to muster

[The Green Goblin]

I'd say the first one is a aerorescue dornier doing a bit of low level practice and filmed by one of the crew.

[PyroTek]

GG, Clearly it's low level VFR nav due stress of weather!:cool:

[Dangnammit]

PPL test perhaps?

[Flying Binghi]

...just the station owner showing the pilot which paddock they had to muster

Yep, yer can just see the back fence as the plane pulls up..:cool:







.

[The Green Goblin]

GG, Clearly it's low level VFR nav due stress of weather!

With PW100s on the wing, I highly doubt it's VFR :cool:

As to the second one, that's certainly due stress of *cough* (perfect) weather :p

[004wercras]

This flight was apparently a test flight after the aircraft had come out of heavy maintenance! The video was taken by a non-crew member and it is only part of the full video.

This flight was in contravention of the operators low level approval and flown at close to max speed in total contravention of the low level SOPs. The ground prox audio warning was not ownly ignored but was not reported to the relevant authorities!

[Sarcs]

So what gives:

This flight was apparently a test flight after the aircraft had come out of heavy maintenance! The video was taken by a non-crew member and it is only part of the full video.

This flight was in contravention of the operators low level approval and flown at close to max speed in total contravention of the low level SOPs. The ground prox audio warning was not ownly ignored but was not reported to the relevant authorities!

So this mob, unlike the rest of us, are legally and politically immune to adherance to the regs??:ugh:

[Howard Hughes]

But the Kakadu link might raise a few eyebrows. I swear I can hear the GPWS going off in the last bit. Maybe getting a little to close the the valley wall on the other side???
I suspect there is nothing on the other side, looks like heading South to Deaf Adder Gorge to me, doesn't make it right though!;)

[Tankengine]

Dornier valid training, Cessna might have been doing the low run of a "precautionary search and landing" checking out landing areas in the riverbed - no problems!:E

[ChaseIt]

haha love the vids guys! i dont have any like that :E:E the difference is there is no rego's shown etc on yours instead of every man and his dog seeing it on national tv ha

[djpil]

A lot in this series.
YouTube - ‪Acrobatic flight over Agnes Water‬‏

[Jabawocky]

No doubt the girls were dubbed in coz there is no way u could fit them all in the Aerobat:E

[Dangly Bits]

What an idiot (Criminal). He had no right whatsoever to put his passengers lives at risk just so he can show off.

I hope you have been expunged from the industry.

DB

[NCD]

The ground prox audio warning was not ownly ignored but was not reported to the relevant authorities!

In VMC a ground prox warning needs to be reported?

[Sarcs]

I suppose you could tick the box in the test flight report that the "GPWS works well" and in the comments section you could put "pax enjoyed the flight, especially the bit through the Kakadu gorges at 100-200' and 250kts, apparently he got some really good video footage while he was moving around the cabin".:D

cheers

[VH-XXX]

So someone must know who this is? It was on 12-3-2007 at 1770 / Agnes Waters... hopefully the wings are still on that aircraft safely.

Is he commercial, is he an instructor? Passenger manipulating the controls, rapid and near full control deflection by the passenger, lands on the beach and swaps over passengers, numerous aerobatics including inverted flight.

All in a 172, WITH 4 POB... Dumb, not to mention illegal.

Low level through a gorge is one thing, but this is something else.

YouTube - ‪Flight 1770‬‏

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/1770.jpg

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/1770-1.jpg

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/1770-2.jpg

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/1770-3.jpg

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/1770-4.jpg

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/1770-6.jpg

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/1770-7.jpg

[The Green Goblin]

Someones going to jail!

Hell hath no fury like the CASAs scorn :ouch:

[Sunfish]

Google gives you the name in about Two seconds.

Could CASA please have this stupidity stopped? We do not need Three more dead European backpackers.

At full aft CG this stuff is not very wise.

[Sarcs]

How stupid is he??? Have to agree the footage is very damning!!:=

Like all things in life it is the minority that give the rest of us a bad name. Idiots that are represented in this thread, so far, should be found, prosecuted and expunged from the industry!

In VMC a ground prox warning needs to be reported?

Can't seem to find where there is any reference to whether the aircraft is in VMC or not. However this is the general principle used across various regulatory and safety authorities:

Reporting of TAWS/GPWS ‘PULL UP’ Warnings
All flight crew who receive a ‘PULL UP’ warning should raise an Air Safety Report (ASR) detailing all known circumstances. ATCOs who become aware of such occurrences should do likewise and their organisation should then advise the Operator. Aircraft Operators with a flight data monitoring programme (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Flight_Data_Monitoring) should have an automatic alerting system for any recording which contains such an occurrence, and this should support an investigation already initiated by receipt of an ASR or prompt the commencement of a new investigation.

Also bare in mind that this individual has been known to turn the same aircraft (in post #7) inside of the Berkeley/King George river gorges, sometimes directly in front of the King George falls. See link:
http://www.australiantraveller.com/images/imported/duncon01.jpg

[NCD]

Sarcs

I note your reply, but a "general principle" is not legislation, and your quoted paragraph is unreferenced.

Your quote uses "SHOULD" rather than definitive terms such as SHALL" or "MUST".

A TAW/GPS warning in VFR conditions will be be treated quite differently in a practical sense than one received in IMC. Perhaps this difference may be reflected in the company manuals.

Not here to defend anybody, just can't see a blanket IFR/VFR rule.

Open to correction though.

Cheers

[strutless]

Are ALL airports and ALA's in a terrain awareness system in such an aircraft? Surely a SAR would have terrain awareness alerts popping up regularly, particularly at non standard and un-licenced aerodromes.

[Dangly Bits]

XXX,
I understand that CASA got the clown in the C-172 on a number of counts including operating without an AOC doing Joy Flights. It was based on the YouTube Vomit Comet footage from the same guy. I hope this isn't a different person to that one.

[Dacman767]

Where do you find out about CASA getting people? do they publish it? or is it pretty much word of mouth?

[Sarcs]

NCD I totally agree with your sentiments, i.e. the IMC/VMC and practical reasons for not reporting a day VMC EGPWS event.

I came across this ATSB info paper:http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/27543/gpws.pdf But it is more in reference to the previous GPWS not EGPWS and also only refers to main airport activation. However the paper does indicate that reports were made regardless of in-flight conditions!

Also bare in mind that the operator in question has a CASA approval for low-level ops. Part of this approval includes Low Level SOPs and checklists. One of the checklist items prior to operating low level is to activate the EGPWS audio inhibit switch (switch is a supp item particular to the operator). This stops all EGPWS audio annunciations etc while the aircraft is operating low level.

cheers

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

All flight crew who receive a ‘PULL UP’ warning should raise an Air Safety Report (ASR) detailing all known circumstances.

Oh dear, Helga, the terrain warning voice was raving on about "TERRAIN, PULL UP, PULL UP'" last night as I was going into Townsville. I thought she was just a bit confused.

Dr :8

[VH-XXX]

Wotz the name of the annoying chick in Jaba's retard vehicle? She can be quite annoying at times. I used to have an electronic sounding "passenger" yelling STALL STALL at me whenever I landed. Scared the crap out of me the first time!

[peterc005]

Looks like the joy flight guy forgot to latch his door as well. Check the early part of the video (1:04 min). So much for "hatches and harnesses".

Good point though. Throwing a full plane, which is likely to be close to it's aft CoG limits, around in aerobatic maneuvers at a low altitude.

[Sarcs]

CASA will begin its investigation on Wednesday when an injunction preventing the authority from examining the DVDs expires.

So what happened on Wednesday? Anything heard?

Or is this another investigation that is going to be caught up in the bureaucratic morass and subsequently lost while someone in CASA finds a nice little bonus deposited in his bank account!

[Sarcs]

So is there anymore to this story, or is it as described above?

I really feel for the poor buggers on the coalface whose job it is to investigate these cases. Not only do they have to produce the perfect prosecutable case, they also have to navigate the politics, cronyism, corruption that their superiors have in place.

What happened to the good old days where you 'suspended the culprit pending further investigation'?:ugh: When will CASA realise there is no such thing as the 'perfect case'? CASA heavies should grow some 'cohuna's' instead of severely hampering their underlings!

Still waiting for the "CRUNCH!!"

[004wercras]

Interesting posts here!

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/456841-hofo-test-flight.html

[boofhead]

Pardon my iggerence, what is the rule in Aus regarding minimum altitudes when in remote areas? The US system (which I am using now) would not make low flying itself illegal. The rule allows for a minimum of 500 feet except over open water or sparsely populated areas, which this first video of the airplane flying down the creek bed seems to be. Does Aus have other rules?

[thorn bird]

Boof old mate,
we dont have "Rules" in Australia we have "Opinions"
depends on the FOI of the day.

[spriteah]

Boof. 500ft also.

[compressor stall]

CAR 157. 500 feet over unpopulated areas.

[Tinstaafl]

...except due stress of weather.

[Sarcs]

Or if your AOC has a Low Flying/level approval. Even then you can only operate to the directions/restrictions in the approval.

[004wercras]

Or if your AOC has a Low Flying/level approval. Even then you can only operate to the directions/restrictions in the approval.

Exactly! So here is part of that exemption/approval:


Schedule 1 Extent of exemption
The exemption extends only to the directions under subregulation 150 (2) of
CAR 1988 that are contained in paragraph 4.5 of CAO 29.5.
Schedule 2 Conditions
1 The operator must ensure that dropping operations are conducted in
accordance with the operator's operations manual and the Australian Maritime
Safety Authority (AMSA) manual of Search and Rescue Standards and
Procedures.
2 The dropping operations may only be carried out for emergency relief, search
and rescue or for training associated with search and rescue operations.
3 The operator must include a copy of this instrument in the operator's
operations manual.
4 The operator and pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the operator
must ensure that no persons or livestock are in the drop site intended for the
alighting of dropped stores.
5 Despite clause 4, lightweight trail lines may alight outside of the drop site.
6 The operator must ensure, with the exception of the approval, permission and
exemption, all other requirements of CAO 29.5 are be complied with.
7 The operator must ensure that if a flight below 500 feet AGL is required, it
must be conducted in accordance with the ********** Pty Limited Low Flying
Approval and the operator's operations manual current at the time of this
instrument and as revised from time to time.
8 The operator must ensure that for every dropping operation, 1 of the following
aircraft systems is operational:
(a) Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS);
(b) Auto Dependent Surveillance Broadcast System (ADSB).
9 The operator must ensure that appropriate radio broadcasts on both the area
and CTAF frequencies are made if dropping is within a lane of entry or within
5 miles of an aerodrome.
10 The operator must obtain the approval of Air Traffic Control before any
dropping operation is carried out in a control zone.
11 The pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must ensure that adequate
separation is maintained if air traffic is identified in the area of a dropping
operation.
12 The operator and the pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must ensure
that the aircraft is not flown directly over any building during the approach
and departure from the drop site.
13 The pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must remain wings level on
the approach run to the drop site.
14 The operator and pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the operator
must ensure that only persons required for the dropping operation are carried
in the aircraft.
Instrument number CASA EX25/11 Page 2 of 3 pages


This flight (link:HOFO TEST FLIGHT - YouTube) was reportedly a flight after heavy maintenance and with a non-crewmember (not CAO 20.11 approved) onboard. So the question is does this flight meet the requirements of para 2?


2 The dropping operations may only be carried out for emergency relief, search
and rescue or for training associated with search and rescue operations.


Simple answer! No it doesn't, another classic case of thumbing their nose at the regulator.

[Sarcs]

except due stress of weather.

Not too much wx in that vid!:ok:

Maybe it was a test of the ground prox, if so it seems to work well!:rolleyes:

[004wercras]

This on a previous thread says it all I'm afraid, although I believe Tony Kern's book would end up in the bin with this 'individual'!:ugh:

Sounds like you have a "Bud Holland" as the HOFO maybe someone should put a copy of Tony Kerns book "Darker Shades of Blue" on his desk.

[pinkpanda]

One of the crew at work noticed this thread with the HOFO TEST FLIGHT vid, which is good because the other one on JB got shafted! Still got issues at work but hopefully the regulator is on to it.

betaman (if your out there), this was your quote again: Sounds like you have a "Bud Holland" as the HOFO maybe someone should put a copy of Tony Kerns book "Darker Shades of Blue" on his desk. . I have to thank you for your insight as I finally got a chance to read Industry CRM Developers - Situational Awareness Management Course Outline (http://www.crm-devel.org/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm) . You nailed "our Buzz" to a tee, fortunately though I think he may have been pulled up by the short and curlys.

Having said that he is still in the position with all his approvals intact, go figure!:ugh:

cs&bs pp

[Sarcs]

So what ever happened to the 'Jone's' investigation?:cool: Is it still pending or has it been shelved in the 'too hard' basket? Can't see how when the footage was on national TV!:ok:

However if you go by the copy of a REPCON report originally posted in Jetblast:
Report narrative:
The reporters expressed a safety concern regarding the length of time it was taking for CASA to conduct their investigation into safety breaches at **********. The reporter has stated that CASA have been informed about a number of serious safety breaches which have occurred in ********** aircraft over the last eighteen months to two years.

The reporter states that ********** has a history of not reporting incidents to the ATSB or CASA. An example of this is CASA Airworthiness Inspector who was told (discretely) of numerous torque rollbacks occurring across the fleet which had not been reported. He subsequently brought in an order that all torque rollbacks be reported. The order was in place for 3 months and there was 64 torque rollbacks reported across the fleet. This is the link to the former CASA instrument http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/miscinst/2009/casa437.pdf

The following is a list of some of the incidents which have occurred but have not been reporter to the ATSB apart from the last dot point:
• On 28th April 2011, a “stick shaker” event that was finally recovered at 260 feet above sea level during a search and rescue flight from Mackay. A crew member on board the aircraft had to request that the captain recover from the situation. The captain applied full power and raised the nose of the aircraft but was not able to prevent the aircraft sinking further before climbing and accelerating.
• A test flight conducted at low level through the Kakadu gorges NT. This was after the aircraft had come out of heavy maintenance and was conducted contrary to the operator's Low Level approval and low level company SOPs and checklists. There was also an inadvertent activation of the EGPWS with no corrective action taken.
• After completing upper air work the captain took control of the aircraft. He then asked the crew if they had seen a Stuka dive, the aircraft then pitched up steeply and commenced a wingover to the left. Upon rolling out of the manoeuvre the pilot noticed the aircraft was pointed directly at a large tourist boat crowded with people. The captain continued the dive to within approximately 300 meters and 200 feet above the vessel before breaking off and flying alongside. The aircraft then proceeded a few miles west of the vessel at 200 ft, the captain handed control back to the pilot and instructed them to commence a stick shaker climb from 200 feet back to altitude for the return flight.
• An emergency descent was conducted while crew members were un-restrained.
• The aircraft took off with full fuel which meant that they were 150 kg over the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW). The aircraft then returned from the flight with less than the statutory fuel minimums. The aircraft landed with 290 kg where 300kg is the minimum. The landing weight was 10.2 tonnes which is 500 kg less than the zero fuel weight (10.7 tonnes)
• On a flight where the crew members were unrestrained, they were thrown around the cabin due to moderate to severe turbulence. The pilot in command continued to fly the aircraft at close to the maximum cruise speed instead of slowing to the turbulence penetration speed. The aircraft was not inspected after landing and the tech log was not endorsed.
• The aircraft was climbed on the stickshaker from 600 ft to cruise altitude. During the cruise the captain then feathered the propeller for a few minutes. Later in the flight, the aircraft was descended to 200 ft above water and the captain commanded the pilot flying to follow the boundary of the reef, which meant they had to consistently maintain a bank angle in excess of 45 degrees. This type of manoeuvring is in contravention of the company’s Standard Operating Procedures. On completion of these manoeuvres the aircraft was climbed to a safe altitude where extreme unusual attitudes were conducted, i.e., at one stage the pilot looked at the instruments and the aircraft had an extremely high nose attitude, a bank angle approaching 90 degrees and a low airspeed.
• A runway overrun where all of the main wheel brakes had to be replaced.
• A near stall at low level (100-200 ft agl) while conducting SAR drop training.
• The nose wheel steering safety pin left in, resulting in the landing gear being unable to retract.
• A departure where the hot battery bus was disconnected and the flight continued with a multitude of EICAS messages and warnings.
• During instrument renewal tests, unusual attitudes and steep turns are conducted at low levels.
• A Dornier 328 nose wheel tow hitch was found close to the holding point of an active runway after the aircraft had departed.

Response/s received:
REPCON supplied CASA with the de-identified report. The following is a version of the response that CASA provided:
CASA is aware of the matters raised in the above REPCONs. Although CASA is not able to disclose actions being planned or undertaken against the Operator, it can
confirm that these matters are being taken very seriously. CASA is working to ensure the Operator meets its safety obligations.


Note: The above texts may have been altered to protect any personal information contained in them.

Please note that this report and any responses might be published in safety related publications like the ATSB section of the CASA safety awareness magazine ‘Flight Safety Australia’. However, no person or operator will be identified in the article.

Personal information about the reporter and any person referred to in the report is required by legislation to be kept confidential. If you believe it would be necessary to act on information about an individual referred to in your report then you should consider reporting this directly to CASA. CASA’s confidential hotline number is 1800 074 737.

If you wish to make comment on the above text please do so by the COB 18 August 2011. If no further comments are received through this process then the REPCON will be closed and all your personal details and your original report will be deleted.

Regards


Then one would think that it is possible to get away with nearly anything, as I understand that the person behind most of these incidents continues to operate with impunity!:ugh:

However there is a marked difference between the two investigations. Jonesy and his brethren have probably been doing similar things with their Robos for years! If the truth be known similar activities are probably happening in a remote outback station right now. The only difference being that there isn't any footage on national TV and the regulator is therefore none the wiser.:ok:

This other operator is however a purely commercial venture, that is contracted to the Federal Government. Therefore they are also ultimately answerable to the taxpayer!

[004wercras]

Therefore they are also ultimately answerable to the taxpayer! That is true, but the problem is that there is now only one tier one fixed wing SAR operator in Oz, so the political onus is to make sure that operator continues to be able to operate (dodgy brothers or not).:{ There is also this: Air rescue group gave to Coalition | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/air-rescue-group-gave-to-coalition/story-e6frg6nf-1111115369157). Although I have no idea their influence over the present government, maybe the Minister and Nick are good neighbours in Mosman (Sydney)?:rolleyes:

[004wercras]

Apparently the latest from this dictatorial regime has the HOFO making an example of some poor bugger in a check by throwing 'multiple unrelated emergency/abnormal ops' to trip the poor bastard up!:ugh:

This practise is totally contrary to the latest ATOM manual and given that it was all totally unbriefed, it would appear this poor individual is being set up for a fall.

Not to mention that the 'Checker' doesn't deserve to have a license, let alone a check pilot approval. Yet this drongoe continues to operate with impunity, go figure! CASA when will you be happy, maybe when he kills some poor bugger??

[Desert Flower]

Saw on TV today where a new series of Keeping Up With The Joneses will go to air soon.

DF.

[Sarcs]

Saw on TV today where a new series of Keeping Up With The Joneses will go to air soon.


So does that mean Jonesy has been given a slap on the wrist, or will he not be operating Robos in this next series? Shame if that is the case as the flying was what made the first series interesting to watch!:ok:

[004wercras]

This quote was taken from the Supplementary Senate estimates for Rural Affairs and Transport hearing held yesterday (18/10/2011).

This is a general question to AMSA. How many aircraft operators do you use for surveillance of the coastline? Is it one or two operators, or three or four?
Mr Kinley: We do not do surveillance of the coastline. We use aircraft to undertake search and rescue.
Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Not surveillance. So how many operators are there in terms of search and rescue around the country?
Mr Young: One dedicated operator provides five fixed wing aircraft around the country, dedicated search and rescue aircraft. I do not have the immediate figure but it is in the order of 55 other operators that we will use from time to time. They range from state and territory provided emergency medical services helicopters, for example Safcare is on our list as an aircraft we would use and we have a number of other fixed wing operators around the country that we can use from time to time as need be. All up, I think there are around 60 and I can get you an accurate number on those.
Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) So a significant number of operators. In general terms, what protocols and safeguards are there to ensure that those operators have appropriate standards of pilots training and of safety so that you know that the rescuers in a sense will not need to be rescued? Are there particular requirements that are set for those operators in terms of minimum standards?
Mr Young: Yes, there are. Firstly, we contract commercial operators. They obviously need to have an air operating certificate approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. We provide specialist search and rescue pilot training. That is about flying at lower altitudes, bad weather and special requirements for search and rescue operations. We run an audit program through which we go out with aircraft and watch their specialist operations.
Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) I might place some of my questions on notice. Essentially, if they have the air operator certificate, that gives you comfort, because in order to get that you need to satisfy CASA. So you quite justifiably rely on that. In addition to those minimum requirements for an AOC you undertake your own audits.
Mr Young: We undertake our own audits of the search and rescue operation not flight operation.
Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Perhaps on notice you can give me some information on the extent of those audits.
Mr Young: Certainly.
Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) And whether there been any issues with respect to any of those audits.
Mr Young: Yes.
Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) Can you say whether there have been any concerns or outcomes as a result of those audits with respect to any of your operators? Are you able to answer that now, or do you want to take that on notice?
Mr Young: I would prefer to take that on notice, thanks.
Senator XENOPHON: (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22handbook%2Fallmps%2F8IV%22;queryty pe=;rec=0) That is fine. I would be grateful if you could

I wonder who the good Senator is referring to??:= and :D

[Desert Flower]

Saw on TV today where a new series of Keeping Up With The Joneses will go to air soon.

Just saw the tail end of this - forgot it was on. They showed a couple of shots of what's on next week - one was of a robbo lying on its side in amongst some trees!

DF.

[Sarcs]

Yeah I missed it too! Had that digital TV 'no signal' thing:{.

[Desert Flower]

Watched Keeping up with the Joneses last night. I was of the understanding that once an aircraft crashed it became the property of the insurance company, & as such couldn't be moved without their say so. However in last night's episode it showed Jonesy going out & retrieving (winched out by another helo) the remains of a downed robbo (HYE) the day after it crashed into a heavily timbered area. He even gave his verdict on why it crashed - it ran out of power!

DF.

[Bidgee13]

Yeah, I saw that too. I was of the understanding that the ATSB investigates all such accidents and you dont tamper with the evidence. There's no record of the accident on the ATSB site. Might be a gee up.

[T28D]

Uninsured , single pilot , private Ops ?????????

[Desert Flower]

I was of the understanding that the ATSB investigates all such accidents and you dont tamper with the evidence.

Nowadays the ATSB only investigates if someone is killed. In this case nobody was.

Uninsured , single pilot , private Ops ?????????

Perhaps he doesn't need to insure it if he's got that much money. Can't remember exactly but I think they said there were 2 POB. Either way, very lucky!

DF.

[dreamer84]

The chopper belonged to his neighbour. 2 POB, one ok, the other a bit banged up so they said. Unconscious for a couple of hours.

I reckon its a ripper show, but I was a bit surprised to see Milton grab the chopper only a little while after the accident. He doesn't muck around. He made a comment, maybe in passing, that they operate 30-40 choppers. Wonder if they all belong to him or he gets someone else in for mustering.

Cool show, hopefully CASA don't shut him down. Bit of a cowboy but he and his pilots seem to have some skill. Not like any paying public would get hurt.

[muddergoose]

What happened to the chopper pilot kid. Id he still around? Did he ever get into the air?

[dreamer84]

Yeh he's still about. I've seen him fly once or twice but they're not letting him muster till he's done his fair amount of time in the yards. Last episode a couple of young backpackers arrived to work in the kitchen, seemed to perk him up a bit.

[Sarcs]

Good to hear Jonesy hasn't been grounded!:ok: I believe there are a number of chopper operators who don't bother with insurance, as the premiums are exorbitant!

[pinkpanda]

004wercras the Senator needs to ask more questions, still no changes on the coalface that I've seen!!?? CASA needs to be asked where their investigation is at and what happened to last year's audit report? The AMSA audit only involves the checking of SAR ops not Flight Ops and Check&Training.

[VH-XXX]

I believe there are a number of chopper operators who don't bother with insurance, as the premiums are exorbitant!

Not to mention excess on a Robo 22 around $40k for operating online / ab initio etc !!!!!

[004wercras]

004wercras the Senator needs to ask more questions, still no changes on the coalface that I've seen!!?? CASA needs to be asked where their investigation is at and what happened to last year's audit report? The AMSA audit only involves the checking of SAR ops not Flight Ops and Check&Training.

PP good points, one can only hope the good Senator is asking these questions behind the scenes!!

Here's an idea, how about you ark up your local MP or Senator to ask those questions??

[Sarcs]

Here's an idea, how about you ark up your local MP or Senator to ask those questions??

Already done that and we're still waiting on the results!

The only avenue that we haven't tried is the media, that doesn't mean we're about to give up either!

[Sarcs]

They kept this one pretty quiet.......

Investigation: AO-2012-009 - Runway Excursion - Dornier 328,VH-PPJ, Horn Island, Queensland, 10 January 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-009.aspx)

...., well at least it was reported properly this time!!:ok::ok: Oh yeah as GD would say...tick..tock..just a matter of time...tick..tock!

[PA39]

There has been many a guts up and other prangs not reported over many years.

[pinkpanda]

well at least it was reported properly this time

It was reported properly because the Captain is the last decent and honest Checkie we have. Unfortunately he'll probably be crucified for it by our idiot CP!:ugh:

[Sarcs]

There has been many a guts up and other prangs not reported over many years

Are you referring to this mob...or in general, if it is this mob you are spot on?? Someone on a previous thread had made a list of some of their unreported incidents, there was also a REPCON submitted on the issue.:D

It was reported properly because the Captain is the last decent and honest Checkie we have

You got that right!

Unfortunately he'll probably be crucified for it by our idiot CP!:ugh:

Word is he won't be happy till he has got rid of all his experienced Captains.:ok:

[004wercras]

"Evereetink OK Herr Mee-shah-ayl!"

Maybe there is hope after all! Buzz has been demoted...yeehah!."Dankeschön Herr Mee-shah-ayl" but please..please don't stop there!:D:D:D

We're not real happy about Woody's reinstatement either Herr Mee-shah-ayl :{ but it is a start so again "dankeschön":ok: and keep up the good work!

[Sarcs]

"Evereetink OK Herr Mee-shah-ayl!"


Oh 004wercras you crack me up! Your beginning to sound like 'Sour Kraut' way back when...??:ok:

Good to see the regulator finally do something proactive, even if it was long over-due, and a reaction to a near serious incident, see here:

Investigation: AO-2012-009 - Runway Excursion - Dornier 328,VH-PPJ, Horn Island, Queensland, 10 January 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-009.aspx)

By the way is there any news on when the ATSB is releasing their report?:E

[Sour Kraut]

King Villy ist dead..!!

Long live ze King!!:E

[Sarcs]

The Kraut is back..!!:cool:

Long live ze Kraut!!:D

Hey SK good to see your still with us, what 'pearls of wisdom' have you found in your grand adventures!:ok:

[boofhead]

With reference again to low flight. In the US if the area is remote there is no lower limit to the altitude allowed. I don't need a low flying permit to fly at any altitude below 500 feet over sparsely populated or open water areas, provided I stay 500 feet away from any building or person. I have nowhere in my logbook to record low flying approvals nor do I need one, unless I plan to fly over congested airspace (and I do that occasionally for photo flights in cities) and that is a separate application not related to my logbook but for a special flight permit.
Pilots will get dinged for flying over a hut or tent, because there might be people in them, but this is rare and someone has to identify the airplane and make a complaint.

[LeadSled]

----In the US if the area is remote there is no lower limit to the altitude allowed-----

Folks,
Just one of many areas where the Yanks don't see the need to regulate aviation to a standstill --- but leave it up to common sense and personal responsibility --- and recognize that you can't regulate the unwise, and/or terminally immature and/or irresponsible out of existence.

Many regulatory areas of what we call "airwork" simply do not exist in the US, another example being aerial photography ---- no AOC equivalents, with all the inevitable bureaucratic red tape. Just what air safety threat does our forest of aerial photo rules address --- beyond the "if it moves - regulate it" syndrome.

And, the air safety outcome of the "lax" US regulation ---- a far better (lower) accident rate than Australia, comparing apples and apples.

The FAA/AOPA-US/EAA/NBAA/etc. approach to educating to produce the world's best air safety outcomes obviously works ---- compared with the Australian approach of regulating almost everything ( and not just aviation, either) to within an inch of its life.

There is a message here, which we consistently fail to get!!

Don't just blame CASA --- industry is not short of fans of the thoroughly discredited idea that "more regulation = more safety" --- as long as the "more regulation" is imposed on "them", not me, because I am a really dutifully compliant operator, and therefor "safe" ---- it's "them" that need all the extra regulation to be "safe".

As former FAA Administrator, (Vice-Admiral) Donald Engen said, on a visit to Australia: "In US, we trust a person because they are a pilot, in Australia you distrust a person because they are a pilot".

Just about says it all about the about the Australian (not just CASA) approach to aviation regulation.

Tootle pip!!

[blackhand]

Just about says it all about the about the Australian (not just CASA) approach to aviation regulation.
Fair call, but the other side of the argument is, that in Australia, unlike in the States, the absence of a law stopping an activity is seen as authority to do it under any circumstance.

[LeadSled]

Blackhand,

All part of our good old British heritage --- All rights are reserved to the Crown, all that is not expressly permitted is prohibited, is probably closer to the origin.

Really, the "cultural" differences that we should have long since outgrown, but in may ways haven't , have got a lot answer for.

I have often wondered how much Australia has suffered, by not having had a revolution against the Crown, we simply have no conception of the concept of freedom, as embraced in the US Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

All our laws stem from the same basic origin, Blackstone's Commentaries, but how differently they have developed in various Common Law countries, and how what freedoms we may have are increasingly circumscribed by an avalanche of statutory law.

In short, freedom as the yanks understand it, is too dangerous a concept to be allowed Australians.

Tootle pip!!

[thorn bird]

Ah Leady, never truer words were spoken.

[mickjoebill]

we simply have no conception of the concept of freedom, as embraced in the US Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Including the freedom to chase someone down (who you think may be a threat) and kill them in the name of self defense under the "stand your ground law"

No hard evidence need be produced as the threat is in the eye of the beholder.

Lovely.


Mickjoebill

[LeadSled]

mickjoebill,

The US Constitution didn't enable such state based statutory law, and there is nothing in the Australian Constitution that would prevent such statutory law being enacted by a state in Australia.

So, what's your point --- apart from airing your prejudices.

Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

As writ by Leadie...
Another great example that pilots are an untrustworthy lot is the ASIC card.
US had 911 and asked that all pilots etc on airields around the country keep an eye out for any unusual activity.
What did we get ffs.!!
A drone empire to do "security checks" and give/sorry, sell, you a red card so you can enter SSA ( gotta have that acronym).
And having got that card, go and blow up an aeroplane tomorrow if you really feel pissed off about something.! Like tarmac idiots nitpicking because yr cards upside down. Jeezus wept, what a colony!:eek:

And as for the freedom to "chase someone down"...well thats been getting a bit of news time lately right here in Oz.
Pinch a packet of biscuits and nick off....Zappo! Finito:mad:

[Sarcs]

Oh wow! This thread has taken off in a whole new direction that I didn't forsee:E. All good stuff by the way, compliments must especially go to Leady:D:D!

By the way when is Jonesy going to court next???:cool:

[aroa]

If that is the Jonesy as in the keeping up with show.??? be advised that the CASA Investigator was one Mark Haslam. (FYOP Make a note of that)
Obviously a person that likes to watch aviation video programs and news clips to see who he can do over for any reg breaches he might 'detect'
See : CASA V Jonker (2008) NTMC 27.
Must have been verily pissed with that one. ...didnt have a win.
Bugger!, the court required 'beyond reasonable doubt'. How galling.

BE Alert... and alarmed all you FNQ folk, said Mark Haslam is now based in FNQ CNS office. NQ offices being famous for having CASA people make things up as they go along.... all in the name of safety of course.
As an ex AFP, he's looking for business ....as a 'knock-off' merchant ( ex AFP), any little thing will do.
You know CASA ..they can turn a little molehill into a courthouse Mt Everest. Occassionally they have a win, oft times they do a 1921 Expedition, break a leg and fall off. At great cost to the taxpayer.
So be warned. DONT talk to these people without legal backup.
And put away all those viddy cameras, and smart phone, lest clips get out.
:mad::mad:
ps: Let us know what happens to Jonesy.:sad:

[gobbledock]

Sounds like the perfect fit for CASA, couldn't muster up the testicular fortitude to hassle people face to face and would rather hide behind a desk watching Y Tube and nailing people that way! Great work.

[Sarcs]

aroa you mean this case:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Jonker (http://www.nt.gov.au/justice/ntmc/judgements/20080427ntmc027_000.htm)

I thought Haslam had been in CS office for quite a while, it's funny how these investigator types all hark back to the AFP, QPS etc..etc:ugh: Couldn't get a six figure salary pounding the beat so they take up a position enforcing laws they know nothing about, yeah that makes sense!:cool:

These CASA enforcers soon discover it's very hard to up the quota investigating dodgy operators from the big end of town, so instead they pick on the little guys with dodgy video footage, yeah that makes sense!:mad:

[Sunfish]

I think we may be able to come to the conclusion from Jonkers and Quadrio and that it would be foolhardy for ANY Australian Pilot to post video footage of ANY of their activities, on the ground or in the air at any time, since even the most innocent footage may be grounds to start an investigation and prosecution.

I'm also now in the market for a GPS data logger for use on every flight.

[blackhand]

I see a lot of difference between John Q's situation on Jonker's situation.
Mainly that the NT Police reported the matter to CASA.
The footage on video was an ABC program.
The court decided that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a reckless flying charge.
To me the system worked.

Cheers
BH

[thorn bird]

CASA must have been sure they had this guy stitched up to go to a real court rather than the Kangaroo variety (AAT) as in the JQ case.
Oh well I guess they can still do the old "Not a fit and proper person" thing,
or get an FOI to inform medical that he though they were drunk six months ago and pull his medical. Do they still pull the"We suspect this person Psycho" stunt? still lots of options for them to screw this citizen. One wonders why they bothered putting the Reg's in the criminal code, they dont seem to use it much and when they do it seems they get their ears boxed more often than not.

[aroa]

Jeez BH thinks its a system that works.!! FFS.!
Jonker got 'justice' in the end... but at a cost.

Wouldnt it have been better... after the NT Police (av experts?) complaint to TALK to Mr Jonker, and go thru the wherewithall of low level News video missions and decide what both parties require/need/ want, and how to go about it.
And it could all end there, a potential/possible safety issue resolved with a cooperative approach. But NO, all CASA persons of the ex-police type see is a conviction, and a few brownie points.
People like Haslam & Co are fetishists for the punitive approach to aviation safety. Every little 'thing' is a crime,Whack em in court... that'll make the world safer from falling aeroplanes. And cost people time, stress and money.:sad:
Does CASA give a (non) flying fcuk about that!..of course not... endless time to spend "investigating", generating "work" for themselves, and a bucket of taxpayers dollars to tip on it, successful court outcome or otherwise. And the net benefit to safety is?????
And the net benefit for the industry to look to CASA as a place of integrity, fair dealing, honesty and consistency is an FN BIG NIL.!!
Which means their code of conduct is total crap.
They just do what they want. Whatever it takes. Power crazy :mad::mad:

[Sour Kraut]

The Kraut is back..!!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cool.gif

Long live ze Kraut!!:D

Hey SK good to see your still with us, what 'pearls of wisdom' have you found in your grand adventures!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Hellooooooo my little fleigenpoops!!

I trust you vill all join viz me at ze coronation of ze new King - FOI (oops) F/O Redflags :E

Herr Redflags has helped me make zis company vot it ist today -soooo....it ist time zis voz recognised:ok:

Sooooo...everyvun raise a stein for the new Chief Fleigenpoop Redflags.

OK. Back to verk or I vill cancel Easter.

[gobbledock]

Great stuff! Always enjoy the Kraut's input.

[Sarcs]

Or as Schultz would say "I know nutink!":ok:

[Kharon]

Willkommen zurück Sour`Kraut.

The guys certainly have identified the Bavarian flavor of this on going, tyre destroying bunfight. The spin seems to cover the glaring obscenities , so all is well. The only character omitted appears to be the fearless leader.

May I offer the following as food for thought, every outfit needs a clearly defined 'leader' of men (and the other ones, uhhmm, wotcha call 'em again) ; anyway - I commend as the antagonist :-

Wikipedia -Colonel Klink: Kommandant Oberst (Colonel) Wilhelm Klink (Werner Klemperer) is an old-line Luftwaffe officer of aristocratic (Junker) Prussian descent, and a social climber. He was born in Leipzig in the early 1890s, though he refers to Düsseldorf, where he attended the Gymnasium (high school) (graduating 43rd in his class), as his home town.
After failing the entrance exams to study law or medicine, he received an appointment from Kaiser Wilhelm II to a military academy, through the influence of his uncle, the Bürgermeister's barber, and graduated 95th in his class – the only one who has not risen to the rank of general. However, when questioned by Colonel Hogan, Colonel Klink admits that many of his higher-ranking classmates have been killed in action or shot by Hitler.
The nearest he ever comes to General is when Hogan tricks the German General Staff into thinking Klink will be the General to repel the D Day invasion. When faced with a decision whether to move the German reserves to Normandy or not Klink can only order more champagne!

He has fencing armor in his dining room and wears a monocle. In one episode it shows him sleeping with the monocle in, but in another, he wakes up and puts it on. [This monocle often reflects an image of the round studio lights.] One episode has a brief shot of his office showing that Klink has a pompous coat of arms on his wall.
In another episode when he thinks he is going to be rich, he claims his 500-year-old name will finally have some money as well.
A veteran aviator of the First World War, Klink happily lives out the end of his military career in the relative comfort and safety of a prison camp commandant's billet - although in one episode he wished he was piloting a Heinkel bomber again, and also wants his old bomb group back. {Even as a pilot his skills are suspect: during World War I he panicked and crashed which resulted in his passenger ace "The Blue Baron" {a parody of The Red Baron} with a permanent limp}.
He has been stuck at the rank of colonel for 20 years with an efficiency rating a few points above "miserable".
In a few episodes Klink is seen wearing the Pour le Mérite (or The Blue Max); Iron Cross and the Parachutist Badge.
All you boys need is a 'Hogan', comes the hour comes the man; perhaps. :D

[Sarcs]

K maybe SK is in the 'Schitzen Hausen' fighting for position at GD's trough, or he could be consulting with the Fuhrer about their d-day moves, while contemplating what to do with that pesky Goebbels!:ok:

[004wercras]

Last month's diatribe from 'Herr Führer' was another in a long line of 'das Memo' giving more 'spinnen'. A fellow flat lander down the road was asked about the latest 'Herr Führer' proclammation and was quoted as saying;

“An amazing piece of violation and distortion of the truth. But the bottom line is .... no change, back to the good old days. Buzz controls the thugs Woody and ‘Oh weird one’ while 'Herr Führer' keeps the new Luftwaffe T&C man "compliant". The outcome is actually worse than the situation was last week. All the crooks are back in their seats.
Don't let anyone bring safety matters to the attention of the crooks because the result will be blocked promotion, sneaky dismissal etc.
Revolting really...”.



Or the dreaded 'gas chamber'!

About sums it up really!:ugh:

[Sarcs]

Rumour is that 'Herr Führer' has struck a deal with the bureau and the regulator, hence the rubber stamped audit and the shuffling of key personnel.:=

My source tells me that apparently the same 'das Memo' indicated that this incident:Investigation: AO-2012-009 - Runway Excursion - Dornier 328,VH-PPJ, Horn Island, Queensland, 10 January 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-009.aspx) is about to be downgraded to less serious. No wonder it is slowly being pushed down the pages!:ugh: "Well MD, shonky deal or not, we're monitoring that one so don't think you can discreetly delete it off the database!":sad:

[pinkpanda]

That Horn Island incident seems to be taking a long time to investigate or is that normal?
The memo did indicate that it had been downgraded but it shouldn't be as there have been several similar incidents that weren't reported, even internally. The experience levels of flight crew are dropping and they lack currency and there is no bona fide T&C system, it is all just Check and Chop.
While we keep loosing experienced drivers there will be more and more of these Horn Island incidents so please Mr ATSB get on with your investigation and don't let it become a political football.

[Sarcs]

I don't know about anyone else but isn't it about time the regulator took a good hard look at the orange cancer mob, oh that's right:rolleyes:, I forgot, their related to the red rat!:ugh:

Ben Sandilands the 'lone voice' in journo circles is onto them though:ok:.....Jetstar pilot mobile txting stuff up uncovered by ATSB | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/04/19/jetstar-pilot-txting-stuff-up-uncovered-in-atsb-inquiry/) :D

[Sarcs]

Over on the other thread, see here:http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/483045-jetstar-pilots-fatigued-4.html what seems to have gone amiss is Ben's secondary blog to the Jetstar incident :ugh:Jetstar report is reason to inquire into CASA and carrier | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/04/20/jetstar-report-is-reason-to-inquire-into-casa-and-carrier/) the link is there but people have payed it scance attention!:rolleyes:

Again Ben is spot on with his questioning; 'where was the regulator in all this'? The regulator hole in the now mouldy bit of 'orange cancerous cheese', is just passed over, almost accepted as a given these days.....sheesh...:mad:..me...TICK...TOCK!

[004wercras]

What is happening to this investigation Mr ATSB?

Investigation: AO-2012-009 - Runway Excursion - Dornier 328,VH-PPJ, Horn Island, Queensland, 10 January 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-009.aspx)

With a report pending, there is a heightened risk with this mob, of it happening again! We believe this incident highlights the deficiencies of the C&T system (or should I say the check and chop system).

By the Bureau sitting on their hands while CASA strike a dodgy deal with the Furher is so totally against your principals Mr ATSB. So please release this report, it is important to affect a change.

[T28D]

'where was the regulator in all this'? The regulator hole in the now mouldy bit of 'orange cancerous cheese', is just passed over, almost accepted as a given these days.....sheesh...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif..me...TICK...TOCK!

Me thinks it was Norwegian Cheese, they never thought the unthinkable could happen , but it did.

The holes will line up it is inevitable, then the rats in the regulator will run for cover.

I just hope it never happens while I am alive.

[Sarcs]

The HID incident was just one in a long list of similar events dating back to not long before this company's inception, the ownly difference being that it was the first incident to be properly reported by a responsible Captain and crew....and that is the quandary that the bureau, regulator and company now find themselves in! :ugh:

However that doesn't excuse not releasing the final report for what should be a relatively simple investigation...:cool:

[Sarcs]

Makes for an interesting read:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3605246/ab2012044.pdf#page=26

Probably has greater implications for the Essendon incident as that was conducted by a Check Pilot, who it would appear has operated the aircraft in direct contravention to the AFOM:

ATSB comment
In 1995, a runway excursion incident involving a
Dornier 328-100 occurred in London. The UK Air
Accident Investigation Branch conducted an
investigation into that incident and found that due
to the aircraft being held in a more nose-up attitude
than normal, the nose wheel steering system did
not engage, resulting in the crew being unable to
maintain directional control.
The AAIB issued a safety recommendation to
AvCraft, the Dornier 328 type certificate holder, to
produce guidance to all Dornier 328 operators
regarding post-touchdown elevator handling and
the implications of the nose leg weight-on-wheels
switch not being activated. This has since been
incorporated in the Dornier 328-100 Airplane
Operating Manual.
The full report can be found by following this link:
Air Accidents Investigation: Download PDF document (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Dornier)
%20328-100,%20G-BWIR%202-06.pdf



This was interesting as well:



•
an external advisor has been recruited to review
the organisations safety system and check and
training program
•

the organisation is assessing the introduction of
simulator training.


What they fail to mention is that the external advisor is a mate of 'Herr Führer' and that Simulator training is about to become mandatory for this category of aircraft.

The safety message has a few clangers also:


This incident highlights the need for utilising correct
handling techniques. It is also essential that pilots
are taught precise methods for operating the
aircraft and that these techniques are reinforced
through ongoing mentoring, re-currency training
and proficiency testing.
Subtle deviations from approved handling methods
can have significant implications with other
operating systems and may have an impact on the
overall handling of the aircraft


"utilising correct handling techniques": Not sure if 'stick shaker climbs' or 'timing main wheels elevated' while demonstrating x-wind technique (unless your a test pilot) would qualify.

"these techniques are reinforced through ongoing mentoring, re-currency training and proficiency testing.": Mentoring is a bit of a joke and the re-currency training, well recurrency maybe, but the training forget it, however the proficiency testing is spot on as it is a classic 'check and chop' system!

There is a lot to learn from this incident but unfortunately those who should be taking notice have got the blinkers and earmuffs firmly positioned!