PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   Lockhart River May 7, 2005....9 years ago (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/538811-lockhart-river-may-7-2005-9-years-ago.html)

Iron Bar 15th Nov 2014 00:27

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?

Frank Arouet 15th Nov 2014 02:08

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.

Iron Bar 15th Nov 2014 02:18

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.

PLovett 15th Nov 2014 02:51

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.

Lookleft 15th Nov 2014 05:46

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.:ok:

snoop doggy dog 15th Nov 2014 10:40

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 :ugh:

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 :ugh:

Frank Arouet 15th Nov 2014 21:09

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.

Iron Bar 16th Nov 2014 04:26

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.

Paragraph377 16th Nov 2014 10:34

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.

Lookleft 16th Nov 2014 10:55

many of your posts indicate your dislike for Ppruners with 'online multiple personalities'.
You got that right 004, err MOIE, err whoever you are today. Are you being Frank's mother today? Frank has on plenty of occasions got personal with others so why is he so special? As far as Lockhart is concerned I'm afraid the whole conspiracy theory rubbish doesn't wash. The ATSB gave CASA a bollocking for their oversight of Transair which led the Qld Coroner to recommend the MOU between the two agencies and therein lies a whole 'nother thread(s).

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.

Eddie Dean 16th Nov 2014 19:01

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?

Paragraph377 16th Nov 2014 19:32

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.

Kharon 16th Nov 2014 19:33

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.

Iron Bar 17th Nov 2014 02:01

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.

Paragraph377 17th Nov 2014 04:31

Like I said, if you lot are so convinced there is a conspiracy, then get off PPRuNe and do something about it.
You are way to slow old mate. Plenty has been done behind the scenes, more than you could possibly ever fathom. As for conspiracies, I work with facts. How about you go back to VA/JQ/QF bashing like you do best. Or maybe ANZ needs a bagging? I'd be happy about that one :ok:

Iron Bar 17th Nov 2014 05:04

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.

Paragraph377 17th Nov 2014 05:36

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.

Iron Bar 17th Nov 2014 05:54

What, sticks and stones now?

Lookleft 17th Nov 2014 06:05

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.
Funny how one's words can come back to haunt one.:=

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:54.

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.