Lockhart River on Australian Story
Thread Starter
Lockhart River on Australian Story
Missed it! Anyone get to watch to see which way it was heading. Tail end says we are going to get a more independant ATSB as well as an oversight commitee on CASA
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice that they slandered the dead PIC. He cant sue - typical gutless journos.
Whilst I sympathise with the family the bottom line is that they have missed the point - that passengers on small commuter airlines are not prepared to pay the airfares required to support safety at the 'big airline' RPT level.
I thought the sons final comments on the mental condition of the father were interesting
Whilst I sympathise with the family the bottom line is that they have missed the point - that passengers on small commuter airlines are not prepared to pay the airfares required to support safety at the 'big airline' RPT level.
I thought the sons final comments on the mental condition of the father were interesting
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety
Mohikan You obviously have no concept of the commuter airline ops in Australia. The route on which the Lockhart River accident occured would not generate enough traffic for a bigger airline and an operator could probably charge whatever fares they wanted. Not too many options for long distance travel on the Cape.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fella.
You make my point for me - pax arnt prepared to pay for safety and cry sad when accidents / incidents happen.
I have flown commuter BTW. Understand where your coming from
You make my point for me - pax arnt prepared to pay for safety and cry sad when accidents / incidents happen.
I have flown commuter BTW. Understand where your coming from
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I see that Australia's cr@piest aerodrome ...well its not really, but according to some, featured in the end, not sure about the relevence of that but it is local to where Sally's family live.
I am not sure I share Shanes view that the pilot is not the one they blame. Sure there must have been a systemic problems in the company and CASA for not overseeing that organisation, but really.....had he not flown a crazy approach, and the data clearly shows he did, and he had a name for that kind of behaviour, the accident would not have happened.
I feel its covering up some of the facts for the sake of a deceased person who actulally could have prevented it from happening in the first place. Sure, Transair and CASA are very much at fault here, but the PIC is the Pilot IN COMMAND after all.
Otherwise a good programme on a family wanting to see something worthwhile come out of such a tragedy.
J
PS Shane I know you read these pages.
I am not sure I share Shanes view that the pilot is not the one they blame. Sure there must have been a systemic problems in the company and CASA for not overseeing that organisation, but really.....had he not flown a crazy approach, and the data clearly shows he did, and he had a name for that kind of behaviour, the accident would not have happened.
I feel its covering up some of the facts for the sake of a deceased person who actulally could have prevented it from happening in the first place. Sure, Transair and CASA are very much at fault here, but the PIC is the Pilot IN COMMAND after all.
Otherwise a good programme on a family wanting to see something worthwhile come out of such a tragedy.
J
PS Shane I know you read these pages.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again.
"He had a name for that sort of behaviour"
Is the sort of statement that if the Captain were alive would see you in court and sued.
Easy to sink the slipper into those who cant defend themselves.
Moron.
"He had a name for that sort of behaviour"
Is the sort of statement that if the Captain were alive would see you in court and sued.
Easy to sink the slipper into those who cant defend themselves.
Moron.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba,
I'm not sure you meant to contradict yourself, but you did.
So, whose fault was it?
Shane,
Fight the good fight, and congratulations on your efforts so far. Calling on CASA to actually DO THEIR JOB is something that should have been done in this country years ago. Hopefully your efforts will not just improve the lot in FNQ, but Australia wide. Now if only they had a good look at the ANSP....
I'm not sure you meant to contradict yourself, but you did.
I am not sure I share Shanes view that the pilot is not the one they blame
Sure, Transair and CASA are very much at fault here
Shane,
Fight the good fight, and congratulations on your efforts so far. Calling on CASA to actually DO THEIR JOB is something that should have been done in this country years ago. Hopefully your efforts will not just improve the lot in FNQ, but Australia wide. Now if only they had a good look at the ANSP....
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calling on CASA to actually DO THEIR JOB is something that should have been done in this country years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have read ALL the reports of all the investigations in regard to this operator.
Believe it or not, the CASA audits prior to the crash were extensive with four inspectors assigned to the audit immediately prior to the accident. En-route surveillance was conducted on EVERY RPT sector operated by Transair in Qld (including Bamaga and Lockhart River) and its NSW offshoot, Big Skies.
No amount of surveillance, however, would have prevented the accident as described in the ATSB report - the (deliberate) unstable approach.
What did emerge after the crash was the fact that the accident PIC had testified at a previous coronial that a "shooting hole approach" was necessary in order to get visual in certain circumstances. The fact that the PIC of an RPT operation admitted such practices should have been a very large concern for all who were aware of such an admission. Warning bells should have been activated. It has been suggested that a government agency (not CASA) was present at that coronial and did not pass on the intelligence.
Failure to forward such intelligence, if true, is every bit a threat to aviation safety as conducting the actual "shooting hole approach."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have read ALL the reports of all the investigations in regard to this operator.
Believe it or not, the CASA audits prior to the crash were extensive with four inspectors assigned to the audit immediately prior to the accident. En-route surveillance was conducted on EVERY RPT sector operated by Transair in Qld (including Bamaga and Lockhart River) and its NSW offshoot, Big Skies.
No amount of surveillance, however, would have prevented the accident as described in the ATSB report - the (deliberate) unstable approach.
What did emerge after the crash was the fact that the accident PIC had testified at a previous coronial that a "shooting hole approach" was necessary in order to get visual in certain circumstances. The fact that the PIC of an RPT operation admitted such practices should have been a very large concern for all who were aware of such an admission. Warning bells should have been activated. It has been suggested that a government agency (not CASA) was present at that coronial and did not pass on the intelligence.
Failure to forward such intelligence, if true, is every bit a threat to aviation safety as conducting the actual "shooting hole approach."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hempy...... ALL THREE of them. For some reason Shane seemed to take the heat off the PIC. Should I re-word that better, the PIC was at fault and CASA/Transair were to blame for him being able to be at fault. In a more simple way, all three are in it together.
mohikan...... I understand your feeling that way, maybe he was a mate of yours, however the factual data showed exactly what kind of approach he flew. Plenty of others who knew him made that claim, on here and in the media and quite likely at the inquiry.
I and many others have never tried to sink the boot in just because he is deceased. I bet we all feel for his family too. The F/O's family, part of my families school community were close enough to this to feel it too mate. Tell me the data was completely wrong and then prove it, we all may change our minds.
If I were on the flight, and we somehow missed the the treetops and landed, I would have damn well said it to his face! If the slipper fits mate........
As for here we go again, the ABC started the discussion again and you posted at 19.53........
I am sorry this upsets you to have critical comment of the PIC, but the world is full of aviation accidents where the PIC was very much the focus of attention, do you want to deny all of those too?
We can not do anything now to change the PIC, but CASA and operators can change, and every pilot can change just a little bit too to help ensure every flight is a safe one, not just one where they arrived in one piece.
J
PS..... Thanks Casper, I knew I had read something along that line before, but I do not have a library full on the matter!
mohikan...... I understand your feeling that way, maybe he was a mate of yours, however the factual data showed exactly what kind of approach he flew. Plenty of others who knew him made that claim, on here and in the media and quite likely at the inquiry.
I and many others have never tried to sink the boot in just because he is deceased. I bet we all feel for his family too. The F/O's family, part of my families school community were close enough to this to feel it too mate. Tell me the data was completely wrong and then prove it, we all may change our minds.
If I were on the flight, and we somehow missed the the treetops and landed, I would have damn well said it to his face! If the slipper fits mate........
As for here we go again, the ABC started the discussion again and you posted at 19.53........
I am sorry this upsets you to have critical comment of the PIC, but the world is full of aviation accidents where the PIC was very much the focus of attention, do you want to deny all of those too?
We can not do anything now to change the PIC, but CASA and operators can change, and every pilot can change just a little bit too to help ensure every flight is a safe one, not just one where they arrived in one piece.
J
PS..... Thanks Casper, I knew I had read something along that line before, but I do not have a library full on the matter!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that a "shooting hole approach" was necessary in order to get visual in certain circumstances.
Statements like that really give me the sh!ts. Airmanship says that if you don't get visual either try again or divert elsewhere. Yes it may disrupt a few peoples lives but at least they will still have a life to disrupt.
The fact is, this accident did happen. Let us all learn from this, and every other accident, to see that it doesn't happen again.
Something that wasn't addressed in the show was how inconsistent CASA is across the country. They hammer some operators for all sorts of minor non issues yet don't take action on others. From what I've seen if you are game enough to challenge CASA in court they will tend to back off.
However I wasn't impressed by the father's call for the old 'world's best practice' in that senate committee meeting. That is not going to solve anything in this country.
However I wasn't impressed by the father's call for the old 'world's best practice' in that senate committee meeting. That is not going to solve anything in this country.
mohikan. Since when was there a legal correlation between the fare paid by a pasenger and the standard of safety they receive?
That air route was a monopoly air route with a high seat/mile air fare.
Casper. If the operator audit and surveillance by CASA was as you suggest, how would you account for an FO (who may have been conducting the approach) not rated for that type of approach?
That air route was a monopoly air route with a high seat/mile air fare.
Casper. If the operator audit and surveillance by CASA was as you suggest, how would you account for an FO (who may have been conducting the approach) not rated for that type of approach?
Torres, a CASA audit or surveillance can only pick up what they see on the day, or are shown in the records. For example, in my most recent job, I was one of only two Captains on the fleet with a current RNAV approach approval. None of the F/Os had it. That did not preclude us from flying 'practice' RNAV approaches in VMC. But when the wx was IMC, to stay legal we had to fly whatever approach both of us were approved for - usually NDB or ILS at our particular destinations.
But suppose we had illegally done a RNAV approach but shown it in the aircraft trip logs and our own logbooks as NDB. How could CASA know unless they were there on the day and witnessed it or another operator knew and dobbed the crew in?
CASA certainly had a part to play in the Lockhart disaster, but on the day the only persons in a position to prevent what happened were the two pilots. It has been established that the unfortunate F/O was not properly trained for what they attempted, so he is far less culpable than the PIC but nevertheless he obviously was there for the ride and we must presume either agreed it was a reasonable thing to be doing - or was not able to object, perhaps for fear of his job. CASA can't dictate RNAV endorsements for all pilots unless RNAV is mandatory for a particular operation. Any more than they can stop pilots flying under the influence of drugs, unless they test every pilot before every flight.
Other major factors were the approach plate design and aircraft equipment - CASA again. But the guy who drilled it into the hill was ultimately responsible and we as a pilot community have to accept that, as unpleasant as it may be for the deceased pilot's family.
But suppose we had illegally done a RNAV approach but shown it in the aircraft trip logs and our own logbooks as NDB. How could CASA know unless they were there on the day and witnessed it or another operator knew and dobbed the crew in?
CASA certainly had a part to play in the Lockhart disaster, but on the day the only persons in a position to prevent what happened were the two pilots. It has been established that the unfortunate F/O was not properly trained for what they attempted, so he is far less culpable than the PIC but nevertheless he obviously was there for the ride and we must presume either agreed it was a reasonable thing to be doing - or was not able to object, perhaps for fear of his job. CASA can't dictate RNAV endorsements for all pilots unless RNAV is mandatory for a particular operation. Any more than they can stop pilots flying under the influence of drugs, unless they test every pilot before every flight.
Other major factors were the approach plate design and aircraft equipment - CASA again. But the guy who drilled it into the hill was ultimately responsible and we as a pilot community have to accept that, as unpleasant as it may be for the deceased pilot's family.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Casper, as you know, there is a long straw between conducting an audit and acting on its results. What were the results of said audits? What procedures etc were changed? Did CASA supervise these, or monitor their acceptance? CASA has been doing its job alright, only half-arsed and non-committal. I could tell some stories believe me, but my employer monitors these pages....
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy,
I was advised that there were no outstanding issues in regard to actual flying operations. I was also advised that there were several issues in regard to airworthiness.
At the end of the day, however, airworthiness issues and the fact that not all pilots had completed HR courses (not required legally at the time but only by the operator's manual) did not contribute to the crash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the operator audit and surveillance by CASA was as you suggest, how would you account for an FO (who may have been conducting the approach) not rated for that type of approach?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Torres,
From the ATSB report, it is unlikely that the FO was conducting the approach as he had been operating the radio. Notwithstanding that scenario, it was not appropriate for an RNAV approach to be conducted without both pilots being endorsed.
From an operational aspect, however, what would you prefer - NDB or a runway oriented approach?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, an audit is a snapshot and the fact that an FO was not RNAV/GNSS rated may be easily missed.
Most pilots seem to agree that distances on RNAV charts should be to the MA point or runway threshold and NOT simply to the next waypoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrespective of all the above, the sad bottom line is that the approach was far from stable and altitudes were busted, thereby placing all on board in mortal danger. THAT is what should be addressed and avoided.
I was advised that there were no outstanding issues in regard to actual flying operations. I was also advised that there were several issues in regard to airworthiness.
At the end of the day, however, airworthiness issues and the fact that not all pilots had completed HR courses (not required legally at the time but only by the operator's manual) did not contribute to the crash.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the operator audit and surveillance by CASA was as you suggest, how would you account for an FO (who may have been conducting the approach) not rated for that type of approach?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Torres,
From the ATSB report, it is unlikely that the FO was conducting the approach as he had been operating the radio. Notwithstanding that scenario, it was not appropriate for an RNAV approach to be conducted without both pilots being endorsed.
From an operational aspect, however, what would you prefer - NDB or a runway oriented approach?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, an audit is a snapshot and the fact that an FO was not RNAV/GNSS rated may be easily missed.
Most pilots seem to agree that distances on RNAV charts should be to the MA point or runway threshold and NOT simply to the next waypoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Irrespective of all the above, the sad bottom line is that the approach was far from stable and altitudes were busted, thereby placing all on board in mortal danger. THAT is what should be addressed and avoided.
ABC keeping up some pressure.
Facts are that CASA had more than enough information on Trans@ir to warrant an unbiased audit on this company. Forget the confidential hotline, ex-employees went to various CAS@ offices and gave them damning information on Transair. It all had to be sent back to the Brisbane office to be followed up. Surprise surprise, all boxes ticked and the company given a clean bill of health This all way before the Lockart River disaster. That's right, people who could have been key witnesses (with evidence) against CAS@ and Trans@ir at the inquest, weren't called upon
The owner of Trans@ir was mates with the CAS@ office that looked after him. They looked the other way and allowed all to continue. The audits were a joke at best
The ABC know this and this is why they keep running the storey to make people accountable for what they did and didn't do. They have interviewed many ex-employees and taken an account of their times there.
Many people could have stopped this, including a Minister at the time whom had a full account of what was happening prior and swept it under the table. He later resigned as Deputy PM (due to health BS) when he knew he could get in the sh!t. He helped this company in various ways, including free landing charges at a particular aerodrome in NSW.
Too many people covering their ar$es high up in the government (and everywhere else) at the time for anything to really come of this.
CAS@ are like a bull with no Horns and no Balls.. They just sit around and bull$hit all day
This all way before the Lockart River disaster. That's right, people who could have been key witnesses (with evidence) against CAS@ and Trans@ir at the inquest, weren't called uponThe owner of Trans@ir was mates with the CAS@ office that looked after him. They looked the other way and allowed all to continue. The audits were a joke at best
The ABC know this and this is why they keep running the storey to make people accountable for what they did and didn't do. They have interviewed many ex-employees and taken an account of their times there.
Many people could have stopped this, including a Minister at the time whom had a full account of what was happening prior and swept it under the table. He later resigned as Deputy PM (due to health BS) when he knew he could get in the sh!t. He helped this company in various ways, including free landing charges at a particular aerodrome in NSW.
Too many people covering their ar$es high up in the government (and everywhere else) at the time for anything to really come of this.
CAS@ are like a bull with no Horns and no Balls.. They just sit around and bull$hit all day
I like the contrast between posts made by people such as Mach E Avelli, Jabawocky and Casper compared with Mohikan and Snoop Doggy Dog.
The pilot in command has the ultimate responsibility to operate an aircraft safely. However, in Australia we always hear that the pilot of an aircraft that is involved in a major accident or incident was the epitomy of the safest pilot that has ever flown an aircraft.
An audit by a regulator can only do so much. The safety equation relies on everyone involved in aircraft operations meeting their responsibilities.
The information garnered for a television show is very much different to the burden of proof required in a court of law.
Snoop Doggy Dog and some others here, check your factual caution warning light. It's on.
The pilot in command has the ultimate responsibility to operate an aircraft safely. However, in Australia we always hear that the pilot of an aircraft that is involved in a major accident or incident was the epitomy of the safest pilot that has ever flown an aircraft.
An audit by a regulator can only do so much. The safety equation relies on everyone involved in aircraft operations meeting their responsibilities.
The information garnered for a television show is very much different to the burden of proof required in a court of law.
Snoop Doggy Dog and some others here, check your factual caution warning light. It's on.