CASA Again! [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

aroa

29th Oct 2018, 01:54

Dont ya just love 'em.
Rest assured their phrases of choice ' not a fit and proper person' and ' an imminent threat to aviation safety' are a one way street. Sure as hell doesnt apply to any of the xxxxxxxs within CAsA..!
I feel for the guy, and sure as hell dont have any faith that the AAT will give him some justice either.
A tragedy compounded by a travesty.
Disgusting...but all in the name of "safety", of course.

Slezy9

29th Oct 2018, 02:26

I’m not saying CASA were correct with the actions taken, but why were they are 180 feet? Had they just taken off?

Squawk7700

29th Oct 2018, 02:48

The passengers YouTube videos of their “adrenaline” flights probably didn’t do them any favours.

KRviator

29th Oct 2018, 03:49

The passengers YouTube videos of their “adrenaline” flights probably didn’t do them any favours.You mean the ones where they're pushing negative G in a 172 with passengers on board? ?? The idiot deserved everything he got. It might not have been the result of due process, but nonetheless I'm glad they won't be sharing the skies with anyone else again. That sort of **** has no place in a responsible operation. Like this one or this one or even this one

outnabout

29th Oct 2018, 04:23

If the pilot is licenced, current and confident to conduct aerobatics / adventure flights, and the aircraft is licenced to conduct aerobatics / adventure flights, then I don't understand the drama. In the top video, I can't see whether or not the passenger in the rear on the left is wearing a seatbelt but apart from that, if the operation was licenced and current, then what regs have been broken?? I am assuming that seatbelts should be worn during aerobatics / adventure flight manouvres?

If they are not licenced to do aerobatics with passengers then that is a different kettle of fish entirely.....

NOTE - I don't have an aerobatics rating..

KRviator

29th Oct 2018, 04:41

There's a bloody big difference between "adventure" flights in a Yak that is certified (or at least, designed) for it, and a scenic charter in a 172 that is restricted to the Normal category with passengers in the back seat. I reckon you'd be hard-pressed to convince CAsA a spilt-S is required, or that negative-G pushover with the coke-bottle hard against the headliner is kosher...

flopzone

29th Oct 2018, 05:10

CASA suffers from these problems.
Not enough funding, career bureaucrats, the want of a Minister who has a relevent aviation background, a heavy reliance on ex police types as investigators and an arrogant beligerant holier than thou approach to all its dealings with the aviation industry. When the VCAT Member or similar whose only experience in aviation is a flight to London for a Contiki tour simply groans and says "If CASA says its not safe theres noting I can do" because you cant afford a QC and years in litigation, nothing can improve.

With proper professional oversight, and a willingness to work with not against those it deals with, safety would improve by leaps and bounds. As it stands, the smaller the operator, the bigger the stick.

At present, it is commercial suicide to self report, seek advice or assistance.

Flying visits by hit squads who concerntrate on wrong parts on wrong shelves, does not say much for the quality of its investigators.

By the same token, idiots in command of aeroplanes, idiots in command of flight schools, idiot mechanics, idiot student pilots, idiot planning Ministers do not make for safe flying.

When you can call CASA and make an anonymous report but can not call and ask for advice anonymously, what hope is there?

The further you go from a capital city, the worse things get from both sides. Over the last 30 years, it all just gets worse. "Pommy Backpacker" mentality reigns supreme, get em up, give em a thrill, get another load up. Mind you, if the pommy backpacker asked to see a license or a log book, no one would get up.

Most of these issues would be resolved by investment in technology that monitors maintenance, repairs, licenses, hours, weights and measures.

But that would see half of the bludgers on the public payroll made redundant overnight.

VH-MLE

29th Oct 2018, 05:35

The phrase "an accident going somewhere to happen" (& in this case it unfortunately did) springs to mind here...

A very poor display by a supposed CPL in my opinion & some of you guys can't see why CASA does what it does from time to time...

rutan around

29th Oct 2018, 07:39

or that negative-G pushover with the coke-bottle hard against the headliner is kosher..

I call BS on that statement. I saw the plastic coke bottle float slowly up and kiss the roof. The aircraft would have been pulling just a tad over 0 negative gs. I have seen much higher gs negative and positive sprung on me by nature. To my mind a completely controlled planned manoeuvre is much safer than a surprise one of unknown strength. I think a lot of pilots think they are 1g negative and freak out when actually they are at zero g and weightless. At 0g there is not much stress on the wings. Work it out.

kaz3g

29th Oct 2018, 09:00

I think the key to this is in the “unconditional”:settlement provided by CASA and I didn’t see any aerobatic manoeuvres in the video.

0g and less than 60degree bank.

not sure why it crashed so badly though. Soft sand?

kaz

Squawk7700

29th Oct 2018, 09:25

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1334/27b2a1ff_b204_4fa3_9ca9_e80c1aec2b27_ec3500f54e6b7c0b3a539c3 7c419d70a92d5dda3.png
I didn’t see any aerobatic manoeuvres in the video.

You didn’t look very hard then!

KRviator

29th Oct 2018, 09:30

I think a lot of pilots think they are 1g negative and freak out when actually they are at zero g and weightless. At 0g there is not much stress on the wings. Work it out.What would you say to negative G maneuvers that were of sufficient magnitude to result in a power interruption? Such as occurred on the accident flight only 60 seconds before the loss of power that caused the crash??

I think the key to this is in the “unconditional”:settlement provided by CASA and I didn’t see any aerobatic manoeuvres in the video.0g and less than 60degree bank. not sure why it crashed so badly though. Soft sand?kaz
at about 7 minutes flight time, the engine sustained a sudden power loss and subsequently the:
- pilot turned the aircraft to the right momentarily before raising the nose and initiating a left turn with an initial bank angle of about 45°
- bank angle increased and the airspeed decreased to a point where the aircraft’s stall warning horn sounded for about 3 seconds
- aircraft rolled left and pitched nose down before impacting terrain.
Any time you spin in it ain't going to be pretty...Even if it is from only 100 feet.

josephfeatherweight

29th Oct 2018, 09:36

If that is a C172 in the second video, then that is crazy bananas and I’m happy to hear they were grounded.

Sunfish

29th Oct 2018, 09:59

If what was being done was illegal, why wasn't the business prosecuted years ago? Why now?

Cloudee

29th Oct 2018, 10:15

If what was being done was illegal, why wasn't the business prosecuted years ago? Why now?

Because someone died and the resulting publicity highlighted the activities being undertaken in these C172 aircraft via the medium of youtube.

AIso, I would have thought that pulling zero or negative G in an aircraft with a gravity fed fuel system is best done at very safe altitudes.

Sunfish

29th Oct 2018, 10:57

Cloudee, is prosecution for illegal acts optional?

Cloudee

29th Oct 2018, 11:22

Cloudee, is prosecution for illegal acts optional?

Yep, the DPP here is forever quoting something like "not in the public interest" or "lack of sufficient evidence" when they decide not to prosecute. Perhaps more civil action will be taken once the ATSB report is finalised. Perhaps CASA decided grounding them was enough punishment and it was not in the public interest to further prosecute. In our wonderful system of justice, prosecution isn't always necessary to get punished.

Ethel the Aardvark

29th Oct 2018, 12:12

Why did the Authority recommend landing on water? Why did the Authority not have the second aircraft thoroughly inspected after the alleged aerobatics? Well worth looking at abc website which documents all the correspondence with those who shall not be mentioned. I believe rather a bit embarrassing.
any takers on the next long overdue CASA name change.

rutan around

30th Oct 2018, 02:03

Any time you spin in it ain't going to be pretty...Even if it is from only 100 feet.

The pilot was between a rock and a hard place. IF he landed straight ahead almost certainly the plane would have flipped and all would drown. He elected to to do everything in his power to get the aircraft back to land. This probably saved 3 lives.

What would you say to negative G maneuvers that were of sufficient magnitude to result in a power interruption?

I would say that one tenth of a negative g will unport the fuel tank outlet and soon after the fuel bowl will empty to below the pickup and you'll be in a glider. There will be no stress on the airframe and once even one tenth of a g positive is established the engine will resume normal operations in 2 or 3 seconds. I have no idea why you mentioned 60 seconds. The only time I can imagine a restart taking that long is if an inattentive pilot let a fuel tank run out and then he stuffed around figuring out why the noise stopped and then lost more time finding a tank with some fuel still in it.Originally Posted by kaz3g https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/614851-casa-again.html#post10295426)I didn’t see any aerobatic manoeuvres in the video.You didn’t look very hard then!

Unless the camera is on the dash it is really difficult to know what is happening especially if the camera is held in a wobbley hand.The other 2 clips looked pretty tame though not necessarily for PXs experiencing weightlessness for the first time.

Squawk7700

30th Oct 2018, 03:51

In the second video the camera is fixed and it would be approx 120 degrees from thte horizon based on my crude estimate.

rutan around

30th Oct 2018, 05:28

Squawk7700

30th Oct 2018, 07:47

Jeez Squawk Team Prune is lucky to have such an expert on aircraft attitudes based on one camera in an unknown position. Were you the one that worked out the various supposedly dangerous attitudes of John Quadrio's helicopter? That turned out well didn't it?

You mean the camera that is held against the dash in a fixed position throughout the half-baked barrel roll or whatever it was?

My vague recollection of the Quadrio video was that it was hand-held and affected by the shape of th R44 windscreen divider.

Different kettle of fish completely.

rutan around

30th Oct 2018, 08:43

The voice just audible above the engine told everyone to hold cameras on the right window sill. I just selected camera on my (proper flash) mobile phone and watched the picture as I rocked it about 30* left and right. It nearly made me airsick and looked a lot like the the 3 clips without my feet leaving the floor.It did however make me thirsty. See ya.

josephfeatherweight

30th Oct 2018, 10:17

Rutan, I have often found you the voice of reason above the noise that often drowns out sensibility on PPRUNE. But seriously, if you can't see the EXTREME aerobatic attitudes in this:
Exhibit A
then, I'm afraid you are ignoring the obvious. This is very different to the Quadrio situation - no distortion, just how it is.
Unacceptable and worthy of some CASA action, IMHO.

LeadSled

30th Oct 2018, 23:24

My vague recollection of the Quadrio video was that it was hand-held and affected by the shape of th R44 windscreen divider.

Squawk 7700,
What I would remind everyone of, is that the "Quadrio" video was a composite, not of a single flight, and in one part another pilot could be identified. This was established by a rather expensive accredited forensic lab in WA. One used by WA Police.

As for this case, and whatever definition of "aerobatic/acrobatic" you use, a wing over is a pretty harmless positive G manoeuver. Anybody remember the G.O.Ds of Sunday morning club flying, and streamer cutting competitions, the "CASA" of the day had no problem with that, including the manoeuvers involved.

What disturbs me most about this is CASA abrogating the legal rights and duties of the pilot in command, by deciding, in arrears that he should have done something different once the emergency occurred ---- but, or course, this is not the first time CASA has done this ---- "knowing better".

In the coming Part 91, those ICAO mandated rights of the pilot in command have been so watered down that Australia will have to (or should) notify ICAO of yet another (to add to the 4000 or so) difference to ICAO standards.

Tootle pip!!

aroa

31st Oct 2018, 00:02

Sunny...Yep . With CAsA prosecutions are optional. Depends on the target, and their vulnerabilty, financial well-being and status.
As for any criminal actions by CAsA persons...prosecution gets very quickly wiped off the white board.
Top place to work..a dopey code of conduct with any 'criminality provisions' chopped off. Why so? they claim to be federal 'public sector workers' but with this Law to Itself Free range 'agency'
Anything criminal by their folks is called a 'code breach', which is a constructive fraud and perverts the course of justice.
A crime is a crime and must be dealt with under the criminal codes.
CAsA wont have a bar of that.!
Their claim of a "just culture" is just ar$e...BS Supreme polished to a mirror finish by the tongues of specific legal wizards in LSG.

megan

31st Oct 2018, 02:29

Why did the Authority recommend landing on water?Because on the face of things they are bereft of competent folk who do have a clue. I need go no further than cite their decree that GA aircraft are not permitted to fly in temps above 40 degrees C. When questioned on the matter, no reply was the firm non answer. I don't assume it was the tea lady who made the decision, as I'm sure she would be more forthcoming with her level of knowledge, or lack thereof. A report was given to CASA prior to the introduction of REPCON, in fact the particular report may well have been the one that brought about REPCON, and the person to whom it was sent hadn't replied after a month so a phone call was made. His reply was "send it to XXXX, but don't say you've previously sent it to me". The reporter was invited to discuss with the FOI, but his only interest was in talking about mutually known individuals in the industry. The report made involved matters such as flying with no alternates when they were required, IMC at 300' when technically it was a VFR operation, and a general lack of compliance with the ops manual. It was all the "Normalisation of Deviance" that Prof. Vaughan introduced into the lexicon. Trouble was, the company was a LARGE multinational and had the capacity to bring any government to heel. The outcome? No idea, the reporter had left prior to submitting the report, but not before trying to get management to address matters, but to no avail. Leaving their employ was seen as the only means by which matters may be addressed. Sunfish is well aware of the company and the means by which it did business.

tartare

31st Oct 2018, 02:55

That video Joseph posted looks like a full stall and recovery - followed by some kind of weird wingover - the strut being the airframe point of reference.
I certainly wouldn't do either with pax in the back of a 172..

jonkster

31st Oct 2018, 04:03

or a split s? (the first attempt aborted and the second carried through but comes out off line)?

If it was a split s, seems a tad ambitious for a 172 with 4POB...

:ooh:

1a sound asleep

31st Oct 2018, 04:15

As of today the Final ATSB report is NOT complete or published

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-005/

josephfeatherweight

31st Oct 2018, 04:30

That video Joseph posted looks like a full stall and recovery
Please note, I simply reposted the video that KRaviator linked above - I have taken it that it is video of the discussed company/operator, but personally don’t know that to be fact.
Regardless, not a good idea in a 172!

KRviator

31st Oct 2018, 07:56

From the ABC article: (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/dying-pilot-tries-to-clear-his-name-after-fatal-plane-crash/10396812)
Mr Rhoades said passengers enjoyed "rock and roll flights" but they weren't aerobatic and before each flight passengers were asked to fill in a form if they wanted a flight which included a demonstration of a light aircraft's ability within "normal" procedures.Someone might want to re-read the rulebook...And do we see functioning dual-controls there in contravention of CAR 155? :=

...manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed.
For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8e9caab04f792d93d0738c9d3290164e&term_occur=2&term_src=Title:14:Chapter:I:Subchapter:F:Part:91:Subpart:D:9 1.303)'s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

Sunfish

31st Oct 2018, 22:14

If these actions were illegal, a safety threat to the public and known to CASA, why wasn’t the operator prosecuted years ago?

What is the explanation? Lack of staff? Inefficiency? Incompetence? Or worse; laziness, capriciousness, corruption, cowardice. Given CASAs mission, isn’t this accident a damning example of failure to protect the public? Shouldn’t the operators and pilots have been publicly hanged by CASA after the detection of the first bunt?

What are we paying CASA for if not safety?

aroa

1st Nov 2018, 01:39

Your explanations are right. All those things, rolled into one for a total flustercluck.
Consistency in prosecution for reg breaches ....pass me the bucket.!
Helicopter pilot busts it, flies it, alterations to MR and illegal entries..blames others.
In the collapsed legal wash up, many innocent folk are 10s of thousands of $$s out of pocket.
And the instigator of all this mayhem...gets off scott free.
When asked by one of the financial victims why was he not prosecuted for all the serious reg breaches, the astounding answer was .."Oh, dont you think he has been hurt enough, he's lost his helicopter." !!
Comments of bribery relating to this event spring to mind.
No good calling Houston...Cantberra , we have a problem.!
CAsA is one sick puppy...like the RSPCA, I believe it should be put down.

Cloudee

9th Nov 2018, 09:47

Clearly the low level of the Cessna when the engine failed contributed to the sad outcome that precipitated this discussion. The reason given for the low level pass was to do a precautionary search of the proposed landing area. I may well be wrong, but it was my understanding that the aircraft was taking people to an island camp and that there were staff members on the ground. If this was the case why could those staff members not patrol the landing area/beach, negating the need to do the low pass? The ground inspection would have been far more thorough and far safer, or was the low level pass just part of the thrill of the ride?

https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif https://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif (https://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=10306233)

harrryw

9th Nov 2018, 12:55

Those stalls with a wing drop that I did many years ago in a C172 as required in training must be one of those false memories I guess.

jonkster

9th Nov 2018, 21:32

Those stalls with a wing drop that I did many years ago in a C172 as required in training must be one of those false memories I guess.

Am I looking at the same video as everyone else?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=wcDCF8dS-Uc

I look at the second manouvre see the aircraft heading inland, it pitches up and rolls wings level inverted, the nose still tracking inland, then the nose pitches to bring it back to upright and level, now tracking the opposite direction.

To me, that does not seem to be a typical wingover nor a stall with yaw or 0g pushover. More like a half roll or half cuban. Or am I seeing it wrong?

If also 4 pob and in a 172 (assuming that is what is happening) I think is knowingly getting cheeky with the regulations. I would not be happy if someone I was responsible for (or in an aircraft I owned) was deliberately doing that. 2 pob in a decathlon, sure, fine. 4 pob in a 172? work for someone else.

That said - it is not a video of the forced landing and so really doesn't indicate how well that was carried out or the circumstances of it - indeed it may not even be a video of the same aircraft, pilot or operator as far as I would know. My eye raising is solely about the video and the manouvre and circumstances of that.

josephfeatherweight

10th Nov 2018, 01:10

Am I looking at the same video as everyone else?
Well, I'm seeing the same video as you, Jonkster, and I wholeheartedly agree that that second manoeuvre ain't no "stall with a wing drop" - have another look, harryw.
FFS, I certainly can see that the manner in which CASA has pursued this company leaves a lot to be desired, particularly with regard to due process.
And it is made all the more unfortunate that the owner/operator is now terminally ill (my sincere condolences) - but, with videos like these, does anyone seriously wonder why they've been pursued in the wake of an aircraft crash and given that these videos then became prominent????