Lockhart River May 7, 2005....9 years ago
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears Frank, you have no idea about such commercial arrangements and where the operational responsibilities lie. Give it up.
"I'm coming and Hells coming with me"? You having an Abbott shirtfront moment there 377?
"I'm coming and Hells coming with me"? You having an Abbott shirtfront moment there 377?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think the passengers who had an Aero Tropics ticket, purchased at an Aero Tropics Travel Agent, who boarded an Aero tropics aeroplane, on an Aero Tropics Regular Public Transport flight, gave any thought to any fine print or commercial arrangements or operational responsibility, be it with Aeroflot, Transair or simply believed the name on the ticket was the operator? I would wager they all expected the regulatory authority to be up to the task of providing all assurances that they would arrive as safely as they would with Qantas.
I prefaced my post with a question. Perhaps you would oblige by telling us how any commercial arrangements have let CAsA off the hook.
I prefaced my post with a question. Perhaps you would oblige by telling us how any commercial arrangements have let CAsA off the hook.
Last edited by Frank Arouet; 15th Nov 2014 at 02:10. Reason: Looking left, I didn't see the black iron bar coming.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not an "Aero-Tropics" aeroplane Frank, a Trans-Air aeroplane. The fine print is what matters. If you fly on a Qantas branded 717 you will see the same fine print.
Lambast CASA if you wish, but lets not confuse the issue with ill informed rubbish.
Lambast CASA if you wish, but lets not confuse the issue with ill informed rubbish.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P377, thank you for your comments. I believe that there are many who share the blame for this particular crash, however, the principle ones are dead with the only ones left being the CASA personnel responsible for the oversight of the companies concerned and those from Aero Tropics.
Aero Tropics had a duty of care to their clients to ensure that 3rd party contractors were up to standard. I believe they manifestly failed in that duty of care as the stories of Transair's woeful performance were publicly known prior to the Lockhart River crash.
I am currently in the process of changing occupations from operations to administrative with an emphasis on safety management. As a pilot I firmly believed that safety started with me. I was the first line in ensuring that my passengers arrived safely and if I did not think that was probable on the day for whatever reason it was my responsibility to cancel or delay the flight until it was. I still believe that to be true. As a safety manager I can assist that process but I can't ensure it. CASA are very much in the same position so long as they do their job properly.
The regulatory shortcoming revealed by the investigation into the Lockhart River crash should be addressed because it prevents CASA from doing their job. Hopefully the need for CASA intervention is lessening with cowboy operators falling by the wayside with their antics causing clients to go elsewhere. But CASA is necessary to get them out of business where they exist. If there was illegality in dealings between the regulator and the companies concerned with Lockhart River then as a matter of public policy they should be prosecuted if the evidence is there.
In summary, if there was illegal behaviour on the part of CASA employees and it can be proven then prosecute. If you can't do that then stop howling for blood, its only noise. Aero Tropics is no longer in operation and as far as I'm aware any action against the principles could only be a civil action and I doubt there's any money to be had. Again pointless. The main thrust should be to ensure it never happens again rather than some pointless desire to use the court system as a means of revenge.
Aero Tropics had a duty of care to their clients to ensure that 3rd party contractors were up to standard. I believe they manifestly failed in that duty of care as the stories of Transair's woeful performance were publicly known prior to the Lockhart River crash.
I am currently in the process of changing occupations from operations to administrative with an emphasis on safety management. As a pilot I firmly believed that safety started with me. I was the first line in ensuring that my passengers arrived safely and if I did not think that was probable on the day for whatever reason it was my responsibility to cancel or delay the flight until it was. I still believe that to be true. As a safety manager I can assist that process but I can't ensure it. CASA are very much in the same position so long as they do their job properly.
The regulatory shortcoming revealed by the investigation into the Lockhart River crash should be addressed because it prevents CASA from doing their job. Hopefully the need for CASA intervention is lessening with cowboy operators falling by the wayside with their antics causing clients to go elsewhere. But CASA is necessary to get them out of business where they exist. If there was illegality in dealings between the regulator and the companies concerned with Lockhart River then as a matter of public policy they should be prosecuted if the evidence is there.
In summary, if there was illegal behaviour on the part of CASA employees and it can be proven then prosecute. If you can't do that then stop howling for blood, its only noise. Aero Tropics is no longer in operation and as far as I'm aware any action against the principles could only be a civil action and I doubt there's any money to be had. Again pointless. The main thrust should be to ensure it never happens again rather than some pointless desire to use the court system as a means of revenge.
You need to stop jumping at shadows Frank! Its only your group like 004wercras that posts under several different labels. I have no idea who Iron Bar is but I'm sure he can speak for himself. As for PLovett, its nice to see a bit of sanity return to any discussion about CASA and Lockhart River.
Transair had Brisbane CASA office in their back pocket and no other CASA office, ie Sydney or Cairns, could or would do anything, as Transair was under Brisbane's eye 
The whole circus was wrapped up in red tape. Several Senior National Party members of the federal government at the time, including a Transport Minister, had knowledge of Transair's short comings well in advance of Lockhart River and did nothing but pass the buck! This is why it was covered up
The whole circus was wrapped up in red tape. Several Senior National Party members of the federal government at the time, including a Transport Minister, had knowledge of Transair's short comings well in advance of Lockhart River and did nothing but pass the buck! This is why it was covered up
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At great risk of rebuttal from Iron bar, and without extending any invitation for long term relationships with Lookleft, I stand by my posts and advise I am very informed about the Lockhart River matter having had a personal interest since the CAsA bastardry of Cape York Air, its Chief Pilot and its subsequent demise. The slot in the time line that facilitated the emergence of a replacement airline with neither the ability, skill or aircraft to carry out the tasks at hand. Linked by politics, cronyism and economic outcome based planning, the subsequent events were predictable and turned out to be accurate.
Had CAsA not persecuted CYA into oblivion, the subsequent events would not have occurred. The broken link in the chain of events leading to the catastrophe was engineered by CAsA.
Now is that too "Islamic"?
sdd is on the money. I would add the northern CAsA office as well.
Had CAsA not persecuted CYA into oblivion, the subsequent events would not have occurred. The broken link in the chain of events leading to the catastrophe was engineered by CAsA.
Now is that too "Islamic"?
sdd is on the money. I would add the northern CAsA office as well.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Frank, I fail to see how the demise of CYA has any sustainable relationship to an unfortunate error by a Metro crew that led to the sad LHR crash. How far back do you want to go? Air Cairns, Wings North, Sunbird Airlines, Air Qld, Bushies? If any one of them had not folded then there would have most likely been no Trans-Air Metro in the air that day either.
Clearly you are convinced there is a conspiracy. What are you going to do about it? Tapping away at PPrune is fine but fairly fruitless. Perhaps you could borrow Richards ute for another drive to Canberra?
If you are so well informed, have a read of the whistleblowers Legislation, get your evidence together and give it to em' between the eyes.
Clearly you are convinced there is a conspiracy. What are you going to do about it? Tapping away at PPrune is fine but fairly fruitless. Perhaps you could borrow Richards ute for another drive to Canberra?
If you are so well informed, have a read of the whistleblowers Legislation, get your evidence together and give it to em' between the eyes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snoop doggy dog - bingo!! You got it. Great post and accurate. You certainly have a good understanding of some of the behind the scenes malfeasance.
Frank, correct - add the FNQ office to the list. I do recall an individual at CASA with questionable links to Transair. He had an ego bigger than a Collins Class Submarine
Lookleft/Algie/Guilders - many of your posts indicate your dislike for Ppruners with 'online multiple personalities'. Go look in your own backyard. Besides this thread is about Lockhart and the resultant deaths.
Iron bar - don't get personal with Frank, and don't bring the Rudd caravan campaign into it. The thread is about Lockhart. You may call Frank a 'keyboard tapper' but people like him have done a lot of work behind the scenes to try and right many of the wrongs in this industry.
Frank, correct - add the FNQ office to the list. I do recall an individual at CASA with questionable links to Transair. He had an ego bigger than a Collins Class Submarine
Lookleft/Algie/Guilders - many of your posts indicate your dislike for Ppruners with 'online multiple personalities'. Go look in your own backyard. Besides this thread is about Lockhart and the resultant deaths.
Iron bar - don't get personal with Frank, and don't bring the Rudd caravan campaign into it. The thread is about Lockhart. You may call Frank a 'keyboard tapper' but people like him have done a lot of work behind the scenes to try and right many of the wrongs in this industry.
many of your posts indicate your dislike for Ppruners with 'online multiple personalities'.
I suggest you and your little mate have another read of PLovett's post, no hyperbole just a statement of facts. Then again a little hysteria and vitiriol from "the usual crowd" is never a surprise.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having now read the ATSB report and Coroner's report it would appear to be the PIC's below standard airmanship that was the prime cause.
Those on here that know the CASA people responsible for Transair and Aero Tropic oversight may be able to explain what they did to enable the accident to happen, was it direct involvement? Or did the CASA people take bribes or something similar?
Those on here that know the CASA people responsible for Transair and Aero Tropic oversight may be able to explain what they did to enable the accident to happen, was it direct involvement? Or did the CASA people take bribes or something similar?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lookleft - standard childish retort one comes to expect on Pprune. Thank you for not disappointing us.
Eddie, reading the ATSB report is recommended, kudos to you. What the report won't tell you, and can't tell you, is details about some of the behind the scenes game play which snoop doggy dog has eloquently, yet not so subtly, posted. Answers to your questions can be found peppered around pprune on various open and closed threads about CASA, and about Lockhart. But it will take you a lot of time, effort and research to put the jigsaw together, your call.
Eddie, reading the ATSB report is recommended, kudos to you. What the report won't tell you, and can't tell you, is details about some of the behind the scenes game play which snoop doggy dog has eloquently, yet not so subtly, posted. Answers to your questions can be found peppered around pprune on various open and closed threads about CASA, and about Lockhart. But it will take you a lot of time, effort and research to put the jigsaw together, your call.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that you mention it:-
One of the least mentioned parts of ATSB 200501977 is Appendix E, which deals with radio procedure and traffic. I have often wondered if some explanation for the last few minutes of the CFIT could not be drawn from this appendix. It seems, to me at least, to have been overshadowed by other events and the attendant hoo-hah. But IMO the 'conversation' between VH-PAR and the Metro is of interest.
From the report, the Aero Commander was inbound from the East and visual – tracking for a left circuit to the same runway as the Metro; looking at the timing, it seems reasonable that the Metro would have been at decision height at or about the time VH-PAR could be expected around base or final. It is noteworthy that a discussion related to the ambient (cloud base) conditions was entered into, but establishing positive separation was not mentioned. Well, I can't find any reference to the aircrew attempting to establish positive separation from the opposing traffic. Potentially overshoot from the instrument approach would be conducted at low level, in poor conditions at about the time the aircraft VH-PAR would be in close proximity. The radio conversation leads me (for discussion purposes) to three speculative conclusions which are worth a moments thought, as an explanation to some of the questions.
(i) The crew had poor situational awareness related to conflicting traffic and had not considered, planned or briefed for a missed approach, including potential traffic conflict.
(ii) The increase in descent profile was triggered by a report of the cloud base from VH-PAR, that information prompting an increase descent rate on the expectation of becoming visual. (Radio call time line v Descent profile).
(iii) The determination to become visual and 'beat' the opposing aircraft into the circling area, thus assuring priority for landing had some bearing on subsequent command decisions.
The two aircraft were, potentially in conflict, the situation certainly worth more air time than it appears to have been given. From the report timing, the Metro was expecting the instrument approach minima at or about the same time as the opposing aircraft would be joining the landing pattern. Executing the missed approach procedure, the Metro would potentially be below and behind the conflicting traffic, the overshoot path being across the logical flight path of the inbound aircraft.
If LHR is to be discussed – again – then perhaps solving (discussing) some of the puzzles would be a much better use of time that time. I have always been curious about the ATSB report Appendix 3 and the lack of discussion related to it.
Any ideas, help me scratch a long standing itch?? Curse this curiosity bump.
Toot toot.
From the report, the Aero Commander was inbound from the East and visual – tracking for a left circuit to the same runway as the Metro; looking at the timing, it seems reasonable that the Metro would have been at decision height at or about the time VH-PAR could be expected around base or final. It is noteworthy that a discussion related to the ambient (cloud base) conditions was entered into, but establishing positive separation was not mentioned. Well, I can't find any reference to the aircrew attempting to establish positive separation from the opposing traffic. Potentially overshoot from the instrument approach would be conducted at low level, in poor conditions at about the time the aircraft VH-PAR would be in close proximity. The radio conversation leads me (for discussion purposes) to three speculative conclusions which are worth a moments thought, as an explanation to some of the questions.
(i) The crew had poor situational awareness related to conflicting traffic and had not considered, planned or briefed for a missed approach, including potential traffic conflict.
(ii) The increase in descent profile was triggered by a report of the cloud base from VH-PAR, that information prompting an increase descent rate on the expectation of becoming visual. (Radio call time line v Descent profile).
(iii) The determination to become visual and 'beat' the opposing aircraft into the circling area, thus assuring priority for landing had some bearing on subsequent command decisions.
The two aircraft were, potentially in conflict, the situation certainly worth more air time than it appears to have been given. From the report timing, the Metro was expecting the instrument approach minima at or about the same time as the opposing aircraft would be joining the landing pattern. Executing the missed approach procedure, the Metro would potentially be below and behind the conflicting traffic, the overshoot path being across the logical flight path of the inbound aircraft.
If LHR is to be discussed – again – then perhaps solving (discussing) some of the puzzles would be a much better use of time that time. I have always been curious about the ATSB report Appendix 3 and the lack of discussion related to it.
Any ideas, help me scratch a long standing itch?? Curse this curiosity bump.
Toot toot.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ohhh FFS. 337, I don't see much good being done. (Especially by the caravan)
"He had an ego bigger than a Collins Class Submarine,"
Childish, stupid pseudonym and nothing to smile about. Do you have the balls to call Rob by name? That may become personal.
Like I said, if you lot are so convinced there is a conspiracy, then get off PPrune and do something about it.
"He had an ego bigger than a Collins Class Submarine,
"Childish, stupid pseudonym and nothing to smile about. Do you have the balls to call Rob by name? That may become personal.
Like I said, if you lot are so convinced there is a conspiracy, then get off PPrune and do something about it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said, if you lot are so convinced there is a conspiracy, then get off PPRuNe and do something about it.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very well, go on then and take your facts and knock yourself out. You will need some cojones and a good lawyer. If more than I could fathom has already been carried out, I'll wait to read about it in the paper. I think I'll be waiting a long time. (Torres news doesn't cut it).
Your clumsy CASA/Aero-Tropics/Trans-Air bashing ain't so hot.
Your clumsy CASA/Aero-Tropics/Trans-Air bashing ain't so hot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that your pprune membership commenced May 2005, interesting month in Australian aviation. That combined with your love of CASA and the fateful airline in question is most interesting. Perhaps you used to clean Transair's and CASA FNQ's offices, hence the affection?
Good times great days.
Good times great days.
Perhaps you used to clean Transair's and CASA FNQ's offices, hence the affection?
standard childish retort one comes to expect on Pprune. Thank you for not disappointing us.
