Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

C130 down NE Cooma

Old 2nd Mar 2020, 00:06
  #321 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 1,177
At one stage RFS wanted all aircraft to be operated in the Charter category.
Firebombing from 500 agl, hover exits at 500 ft agl?????
601 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 05:46
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 173
Can someone please explain to me why it is so bad ďflying with a tail windĒ? Genuine question and Iím happy to be educated.

are you targeting a ground speed for a drop?

or are we going to revisit the ďturning in a tail windĒ stuff...
flighthappens is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 07:55
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 79
Posts: 2,830
From 'Australian Aviation' today.....

https://australianaviation.com.au/20...fb34c6613498d7

Hope the link works OK.....
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 09:03
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by 601 View Post
I believe RFS contracts the aircraft from operators who hold an AOC.
The AOC holder would have the SMS.
The RFS should have no control over how that SMS is structured.
they dont have control ovrer the sms. Thats true. They have control on if there is an incident YOU MUST REPORT IT TO THE RFS 1ST THEY WILL CONSIDER IF IT IS FORWARD TO CASA. Rfs is state. Casa is federal yet they have control. Its black and white, you dont follow their rules you will NOT BE USED.
its that simple. You can argue your case but you clearly dont get it. The rfs do not want aircraft fighting fires. Thier proplem now is that joe public demand it and expext it.
we have to battle to get machines done in the middle of the night on the grass most night with the only support on what you have with you. If you dont and arnt ready by the morning you loose your spot. Done !
So how many of you have worked all night to get a machine done so it can fly. You dont even have an option to replace it with like to like.
you can all say what ever you like but if you not doing this work your arse is jealous of whats coming out of your mouth. You cant get it how bad it really is. I know of nearly 5 near misses just on that on fire, let alone the other fires this season. So how many have been reported to casa, not even mentioning radio calls etc.
Connedrod is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 09:28
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Duck Pilot View Post
The AOC holder is directly accountable to the ATSB and CASA with regards to the lodgement of incident and accident reports, not the client.

In most cases corporate clients will do their own independent investigation if they have the expertise within, however from my experience most of the client based investigations are conduct to identify contract compliance deficiencies which generally utilise different standards (mostly higher) than the CASA standards - rules. The corporate clients can do this as they are paying the big dollars for higher levels of safety.
mmm sorry your incorrect. Rfs report to casa while your under contract. The nsw rfs are a law untoo themselves and cannot be sued our made accountable for their actions. The camberra fires proved that. They lost the court case and a law was put in force and made retrospective and thats it. You done and dusted.
Connedrod is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 10:15
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Posts: 1,036
Ok I stand corrected! Iím somewhat surprised having recently spent 3 years with CASA, with 2 of those years in Canberra and itís the first Iíve heard of such an arrangement.

I didnít think the RFS had an operating certificate.
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 10:33
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,741
Originally Posted by Connedrod View Post
they dont have control ovrer the sms. Thats true. They have control on if there is an incident YOU MUST REPORT IT TO THE RFS 1ST THEY WILL CONSIDER IF IT IS FORWARD TO CASA. Rfs is state. Casa is federal yet they have control. Its black and white, you dont follow their rules you will NOT BE USED.
its that simple. You can argue your case but you clearly dont get it. The rfs do not want aircraft fighting fires. Thier proplem now is that joe public demand it and expext it.
we have to battle to get machines done in the middle of the night on the grass most night with the only support on what you have with you. If you dont and arnt ready by the morning you loose your spot. Done !
So how many of you have worked all night to get a machine done so it can fly. You dont even have an option to replace it with like to like.
you can all say what ever you like but if you not doing this work your arse is jealous of whats coming out of your mouth. You cant get it how bad it really is. I know of nearly 5 near misses just on that on fire, let alone the other fires this season. So how many have been reported to casa, not even mentioning radio calls etc.
So I take it that youíre so concerned that you have reported this to CASA?
morno is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 10:35
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,271
The TSI Act imposes direct reporting obligations on pilots, among other persons. Those statutory obligations cannot be negated by contract.

A pilotís statutory reporting obligations may be discharged if there is a reasonable belief that someone, like his or her employer, will make a report.

I donít see how itís reasonable for a pilot to believe that his or her employer will report something, if the report is against the employerís interests.

The fact that a purported constraint on reporting could openly be contained in a contract of employment shows the extent to which the system has deteriorated.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 13:01
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 817
mmm sorry your incorrect. Rfs report to casa while your under contract. The nsw rfs are a law untoo themselves and cannot be sued our made accountable for their actions. The camberra fires proved that. They lost the court case and a law was put in force and made retrospective and thats it. You done and dusted.
Nah, sorry Connedrod. I work for resource clients, some of whom could give the RFS lessons in arrogance.

As much as some with avaricious HSE management would like to interact with CASA on an equal footing as the aviation operator, without an AOC, CASA firstly doesn’t have the resources for such interaction and secondly treats non aviation companies as being more than members of the public.
industry insider is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 22:35
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by industry insider View Post
Nah, sorry Connedrod. I work for resource clients, some of whom could give the RFS lessons in arrogance.

As much as some with avaricious HSE management would like to interact with CASA on an equal footing as the aviation operator, without an AOC, CASA firstly doesnít have the resources for such interaction and secondly treats non aviation companies as being more than members of the public.

so lets just ask you a question here.
Have you done work for a client for use for the nsw rfs.
ill take the privilege to say know you have not so as such you have absolutely know idea what you are taking about.
the nsw is acting above federal law in regrads to aviation. The usual clown i see has made a mention as well but he also has not had any dealings with the rfs.
this accident is going to high light the goings on within the organization, and as yet i dont believe they have an aoc or any other approvals as yet with casa. When tthey get the black birds up and running they will have to unless they use so meone others aoc.
i find it strange that pople that have had no dealings in any shape or from can make statements on here to say what is what. The what is what is true out side the nsw rfs. I find it hard for you to understand they are a law within themselves.
They maintain a communist standing over the contractors flying for them, any wonder why they dont say anything when it could cost them so much if they not used.
head shaking.
Connedrod is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 22:43
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
The TSI Act imposes direct reporting obligations on pilots, among other persons. Those statutory obligations cannot be negated by contract.

A pilotís statutory reporting obligations may be discharged if there is a reasonable belief that someone, like his or her employer, will make a report.

I donít see how itís reasonable for a pilot to believe that his or her employer will report something, if the report is against the employerís interests.

The fact that a purported constraint on reporting could openly be contained in a contract of employment shows the extent to which the system has deteriorated.

clearly you have had no dealings with the nsw rfs !
if you had you would understand the contracts and what they have placed in that contract. Maybe you should purchase an aircraft and do some work for them then come back and let us know how your dealings and contract went and what was in that contract !
and yes i been there done that btw. Also i have dealings with current holders of such contracts. How about your selve !
or is it more just another acttact on me because of me being just me. Ie if i said the sky was blue you would say it was black. I know what the law states and what the repoerting has to be , but im telling you what the nsw rfs are doing.
so much so that an american on youtube is also asking wtf is on about the nsw rfs, if he is hearing what is going on why have not your self ? Just asking
Connedrod is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2020, 23:41
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 156
Originally Posted by Connedrod View Post
so lets just ask you a question here.
Have you done work for a client for use for the nsw rfs.
ill take the privilege to say know you have not so as such you have absolutely know idea what you are taking about.
the nsw is acting above federal law in regrads to aviation. The usual clown i see has made a mention as well but he also has not had any dealings with the rfs.
this accident is going to high light the goings on within the organization, and as yet i dont believe they have an aoc or any other approvals as yet with casa. When tthey get the black birds up and running they will have to unless they use so meone others aoc.
i find it strange that pople that have had no dealings in any shape or from can make statements on here to say what is what. The what is what is true out side the nsw rfs. I find it hard for you to understand they are a law within themselves.
They maintain a communist standing over the contractors flying for them, any wonder why they dont say anything when it could cost them so much if they not used.
head shaking.
Coulson does have their own CASA AOC, at least for the helicopter side of things. Not sure if they added fixed wing functions to that or not.

They bid their own contracts and not under a discreet AOC under the umbrella of another Australian operators AOC. Once again, thatís for the helicopter side of things, canít speak for their fixed wing arm.

Last edited by havick; 3rd Mar 2020 at 06:04.
havick is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2020, 01:08
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,741
Originally Posted by Connedrod View Post
clearly you have had no dealings with the nsw rfs !
if you had you would understand the contracts and what they have placed in that contract. Maybe you should purchase an aircraft and do some work for them then come back and let us know how your dealings and contract went and what was in that contract !
and yes i been there done that btw. Also i have dealings with current holders of such contracts. How about your selve !
or is it more just another acttact on me because of me being just me. Ie if i said the sky was blue you would say it was black. I know what the law states and what the repoerting has to be , but im telling you what the nsw rfs are doing.
so much so that an american on youtube is also asking wtf is on about the nsw rfs, if he is hearing what is going on why have not your self ? Just asking
So again, have you reported all this to CASA? Otherwise youíre no better than they are
morno is offline  
Old 3rd Mar 2020, 03:21
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,271
Originally Posted by Connedrod View Post
clearly you have had no dealings with the nsw rfs !
if you had you would understand the contracts and what they have placed in that contract. Maybe you should purchase an aircraft and do some work for them then come back and let us know how your dealings and contract went and what was in that contract !
and yes i been there done that btw. Also i have dealings with current holders of such contracts. How about your selve !
or is it more just another acttact on me because of me being just me. Ie if i said the sky was blue you would say it was black. I know what the law states and what the repoerting has to be , but im telling you what the nsw rfs are doing.
so much so that an american on youtube is also asking wtf is on about the nsw rfs, if he is hearing what is going on why have not your self ? Just asking
Errrm, I wasnít attacking you.

I was merely pointing out that a contract does not negate a statutory reporting obligation. A contractual obligation that purports to require someone to break the law is unenforceable.

Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 03:53
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: California
Posts: 17
Last few minutes of the flight path using the FlightAware data posted upstream. Too patchy to determine anything-


377 Pete is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2020, 04:07
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 960
ATSB has published their interim report.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577867...lBlsPZaBBEnSig
J.O. is online now  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 08:11
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 437
Some interesting information in the report. The conditions were that bad in the area with the wind and turbulence that the birddog pilot and 737 pilot were not going to accept the tasking. The other thing was the co-pilots flying experience. 20 years in the military but he only had a total of 1744 hours of which 1364 were on type. That doesn't seem like a lot of multi-engine flying even for a military career.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 09:52
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,023
Yes. Why were they even tasked when everyone else had called it?
currawong is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 16:13
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 57
Posts: 1,552
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
20 years in the military but he only had a total of 1744 hours of which 1364 were on type. That doesn't seem like a lot of multi-engine flying even for a military career.
I don't think he was a pilot for the entire 20 years, or even for the majority of it. Not every pilot begins their career as a pilot, nor do they all remain pilots for their entire career. I flew with a retired A-10 pilot who entered the Air Force as an enlisted aircraft mechanic. It sounds like this guy had a varied career, one article says:
" Hudson graduated from the Naval Academy in 1999 and spent the next 20 years serving in the United States Marine Corps in a number of positions, including a C-130 pilot"
A Squared is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2020, 16:22
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 57
Posts: 1,552
Originally Posted by Lookleft View Post
The conditions were that bad in the area with the wind and turbulence that the birddog pilot and 737 pilot were not going to accept the tasking.
Originally Posted by currawong View Post
Yes. Why were they even tasked when everyone else had called it?
The C130 was already tasked and airborne enroute when the 737 crew decided to not continue retardant runs over that fire. The C130 was retasked to a different fire than the fire that the Birddog pilot and the 737 had decided was too windy. It's not like they sent the C-130 to a fire that 2 other aircrews had already deemed too hazardous.
A Squared is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.