Transair grounded over safety concerns
Thread Starter
Transair grounded over safety concerns
In accordance with the rules...here's the link:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...1/s1798336.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...1/s1798336.htm
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm intrigued.........
On December 1, 2006, the ATSB reported:
On January 13, 2004, CASA reported:
The Lockhart River accident was on May 7, 2005.
I presume what is acceptable to CASA is not acceptable to the ATSB???
On December 1, 2006, the ATSB reported:
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.
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.”
“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.”
I presume what is acceptable to CASA is not acceptable to the ATSB???
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Office
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Super. Nice try.... 
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!!!
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!!!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Office
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
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?
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?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“…….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.”
“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.”
During a number of comprehensive safety audits, one assumes CASA either did not discover the incidents which the ATSB discovered, or ignored the incidents?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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? 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simplistic View
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
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
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DeJa Vu
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.
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!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Stink Finger; 4th Dec 2006 at 22:25.