PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)
-   -   C130 down NE Cooma (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/629086-c130-down-ne-cooma.html)

601 1st Mar 2020 23:06

At one stage RFS wanted all aircraft to be operated in the Charter category.
Firebombing from 500 agl, hover exits at 500 ft agl?????

flighthappens 2nd Mar 2020 04:46

Can someone please explain to me why it is so bad “flying with a tail wind”? Genuine question and I’m happy to be educated.

are you targeting a ground speed for a drop?

or are we going to revisit the “turning in a tail wind” stuff...

Ex FSO GRIFFO 2nd Mar 2020 06:55

From 'Australian Aviation' today.....

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

Hope the link works OK.....

Connedrod 2nd Mar 2020 08:03


Originally Posted by 601 (Post 10699751)
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 2nd Mar 2020 08:28


Originally Posted by Duck Pilot (Post 10699990)
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.

Duck Pilot 2nd Mar 2020 09:15

Ok I stand corrected! I’m somewhat surprised having recently spent 3 years with CASA, with 2 of those years in Canberra and it’s the first I’ve heard of such an arrangement.

I didn’t think the RFS had an operating certificate.

morno 2nd Mar 2020 09:33


Originally Posted by Connedrod (Post 10700372)
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 you’re so concerned that you have reported this to CASA?

Lead Balloon 2nd Mar 2020 09:35

The TSI Act imposes direct reporting obligations on pilots, among other persons. Those statutory obligations cannot be negated by contract.

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

I don’t see how it’s reasonable for a pilot to believe that his or her employer will report something, if the report is against the employer’s 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.

industry insider 2nd Mar 2020 12:01


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.

Connedrod 2nd Mar 2020 21:35


Originally Posted by industry insider (Post 10700539)
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.


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 2nd Mar 2020 21:43


Originally Posted by Lead Balloon (Post 10700435)
The TSI Act imposes direct reporting obligations on pilots, among other persons. Those statutory obligations cannot be negated by contract.

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

I don’t see how it’s reasonable for a pilot to believe that his or her employer will report something, if the report is against the employer’s 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

havick 2nd Mar 2020 22:41


Originally Posted by Connedrod (Post 10700986)
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, that’s for the helicopter side of things, can’t speak for their fixed wing arm.

morno 3rd Mar 2020 00:08


Originally Posted by Connedrod (Post 10700991)
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 you’re no better than they are

Lead Balloon 3rd Mar 2020 02:21


Originally Posted by Connedrod (Post 10700991)
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 wasn’t 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.


377 Pete 7th Mar 2020 02:53

Last few minutes of the flight path using the FlightAware data posted upstream. Too patchy to determine anything-

https://i.imgur.com/xiIn1fp.png

J.O. 24th Sep 2020 03:07

ATSB has published their interim report.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577867...lBlsPZaBBEnSig

Lookleft 25th Sep 2020 07:11

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.

currawong 25th Sep 2020 08:52

Yes. Why were they even tasked when everyone else had called it?

A Squared 25th Sep 2020 15:13


Originally Posted by Lookleft (Post 10892043)
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 25th Sep 2020 15:22


Originally Posted by Lookleft (Post 10892043)
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 (Post 10892107)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:15.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.