Launceston prosecution – what has happened? (Part 2)
Being a good friend with one of the witness's,I can assure everyone that if they knew this was going to be the outcome they would have kept their mouth's shut.
The reason why they reported it is because they are proffesional pilots,(RFDS pilots). I would have done exactly the same thing and I can honestly say that most proffesional pilots would have done the same thing given the situation,not to dob another pilot/s in,but from a "SAFETY POINT OF VIEW !"
If this did really happen,how and why ? Was there a problem with the PAL system or were the pilots involved fatigued or whatever ete etc ? This kind of sh!t put on by CASA,dragging it through the courts for years does absolutly nothing for aviation safety,infact it has a negative effect on aviation safety.
The Qantas pilots should not be named publicly,nor should have the witness's to the incident. The only people making money out of this are the lawyers. The ATSB or CASA,who ever was responsible for pulling the FDR screwed this whole case up completely,for not acting when they got the initial report.
The case should have been thrown out of court and the case closed years ago,nothing has been achieved apart from the lawyers deep pockets getting full,and a hell of a lot of stress put onto the people concerned.
CASA and the ATSB have failed to do there jobs in regard to this case. If someone would have acted within the appropriate time from at least one of these government departments,this mess wouldn't have occurred,maybe there should be an inquiry into why the report wasn't investigated untll after most of the hard evidence had been destroyed (FDR).
The reason why they reported it is because they are proffesional pilots,(RFDS pilots). I would have done exactly the same thing and I can honestly say that most proffesional pilots would have done the same thing given the situation,not to dob another pilot/s in,but from a "SAFETY POINT OF VIEW !"
If this did really happen,how and why ? Was there a problem with the PAL system or were the pilots involved fatigued or whatever ete etc ? This kind of sh!t put on by CASA,dragging it through the courts for years does absolutly nothing for aviation safety,infact it has a negative effect on aviation safety.
The Qantas pilots should not be named publicly,nor should have the witness's to the incident. The only people making money out of this are the lawyers. The ATSB or CASA,who ever was responsible for pulling the FDR screwed this whole case up completely,for not acting when they got the initial report.
The case should have been thrown out of court and the case closed years ago,nothing has been achieved apart from the lawyers deep pockets getting full,and a hell of a lot of stress put onto the people concerned.
CASA and the ATSB have failed to do there jobs in regard to this case. If someone would have acted within the appropriate time from at least one of these government departments,this mess wouldn't have occurred,maybe there should be an inquiry into why the report wasn't investigated untll after most of the hard evidence had been destroyed (FDR).
Last edited by Waghi Warrior; 10th Mar 2010 at 23:04.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW-
Even if the FDR was not 'lost', its decoding was valueless. Thus:
"The FDR recorded the keying of the VHF radio system, the time of transmission and its duration. It did not identify the specific frequency or the purpose of the transmission."
Even if the FDR was not 'lost', its decoding was valueless. Thus:
"The FDR recorded the keying of the VHF radio system, the time of transmission and its duration. It did not identify the specific frequency or the purpose of the transmission."
What about the CVR then,something must have been spoken about the runwaylights/PAL system on the flight deck. They would have made some remark somewhere in their arrival and departure briefings about the runway lights and their activation.
If a mistake has been made by whoever,we as pilots, taxpayers and Qantas customers are entitled to know what happened,especially given the amount of taxpayers money that has gone into this.
If a mistake has been made by whoever,we as pilots, taxpayers and Qantas customers are entitled to know what happened,especially given the amount of taxpayers money that has gone into this.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats this about?
Is there taxi restrictions on a B737 at YMLT?
The above matters are made more complex and significant if, at trial, the jury accepted the prosecution evidence that the aircraft had moved along runway A, whereas it ought to have exited the terminal apron upon taxiway C before executing a 180 degree turn at the southern end of the main runway.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 79
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW-
Regarding the CVR. Flight Crew are perfectly entitled to erase recordings after every flight. Indeed many airline pilots do so as a matter of course.
Even if they do not, the tape is constantly reused. It only holds the last 12 hours cockpit records.
Regarding the CVR. Flight Crew are perfectly entitled to erase recordings after every flight. Indeed many airline pilots do so as a matter of course.
Even if they do not, the tape is constantly reused. It only holds the last 12 hours cockpit records.
Well I'm an airline pilot and I'm even a Captain,I have never found the need to erase the CVR,and I have been involved in a few serious incidents that required a lot of report writing by myself,and I have never even thought about erasing the CVR,and yes I do know where the erase button is. Is this a common thing in Qantas ? And if so why ? No disrespect to the crew involved,but I think this whole incident has been a coverup by Qantas and CASA.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this whole incident has been a coverup by Qantas and CASA
CASA brought the prosecution in the first place. If they then wanted the whole thing to go away they had a chance when the original trial judge agreed to a permanent stay, but no, CASA appealed to the High Court for orders that the trial proceed. Those orders were granted and the trial ground to a conclusion last December.
I don't even think QANTAS had much to do with it either. The CVR and FDR would have been well overwritten by the time they knew of the incident without any need for the flight crew to have erased the CVR.
There is, I think, a serious issue to be raised which is why CASA are pursuing the line of prosecution rather than education? Is there some directive from within government circles that there should be prosecutions? Has it come from the Attorney General's office? Has the Department of Finance directed it for cost recovery purposes?
It runs totally counter to all the accepted advice as to the best way to manage a safety culture by having an open exchange of safety issues. For pity's sake I can recall attending a CASA seminar on safety management schemes which promoted the non-retributive approach to safety. Why the change now?
Last edited by PLovett; 11th Mar 2010 at 09:41. Reason: Further thought.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
justapplhere,
Actually I was aware of that but am guilty of generalisation here.
Will give myself a good bollocking. 
However, I cannot believe, having had some contact with the Commonwealth DPP in a previous life, that they would proceed with a prosecution without consultation with CASA on the merits and substance of the evidence.
That said, I still don't understand the rush to prosecute and the generally poor results that the Commonwealth is obtaining from them. It is counter-productive to the result that CASA is supposedly trying to attain, a safer sky.
Actually I was aware of that but am guilty of generalisation here.
Will give myself a good bollocking. However, I cannot believe, having had some contact with the Commonwealth DPP in a previous life, that they would proceed with a prosecution without consultation with CASA on the merits and substance of the evidence.
That said, I still don't understand the rush to prosecute and the generally poor results that the Commonwealth is obtaining from them. It is counter-productive to the result that CASA is supposedly trying to attain, a safer sky.
Nunc est bibendum
Is this a common thing in Qantas ?
And if so why ?
Personally I couldn't give a stuff. I don't say anything on the flight deck that I wouldn't say to someone's face anyway.
I think this whole incident has been a coverup by Qantas and CASA.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA brought the prosecution in the first place.
The incident took place in 2001, it wasn't until the matter was again raised with Bruce Byron in mid 2003 that CASA had to take action. The whole matter had been dropped within a few months of it starting by an order issued within CASA to the investigating officer. Once the DPP got wind of it they started action, unfortunately most of the evidence had inadvertently been destroyed????
