Lockhart River Coroners Findings (Merged)
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight HC675
Tailwheel
You are correct.
When the circumstances of the inquiries into Monarch, Seaview and Whyalla are compared to flight HC675 at Lockhart River,
one can be excused for contemplating that something is not quite right.
When one digs deeper and investigates how this inquest has been stage managed,
the sheer co-incidence of counsel assisting with a vested commercial interest in things CASA,
with tentacles reaching into the upper echelons of CASA, conveniently recently retired, and other matters of public interest,
one cannot feel a little disturbed.
The accident and fatality rate in FNQ was and is out of proportion to the rest of Australia, despite an attempt by ATSB to dismiss that.
There is no doubt that the TL & CS CASA offices may have somehow failed,
not looking where they should have,
and looking and harassing where they shouldn't have.
Yes, there is no doubt that were human factors attributable to the crew that caused this tragedy.
What is overlooked is the lack of effective surveillance that created the climate that permitted the culture to grow and flourish.
The causes for the lack of effective surveillance result from several areas,
some similarities to Seaview with mates rates deals,
and the failure of the NQAO to conduct surveillance on another jurisdictions turf.
There is more substance for a Royal Commission into flight HC675 than there was for Seaview, but the wagons were circled early in the investigation.
There is no political will for an RC, the Federal Govt cannot afford the exposure in a lead up to an election.
We have all witnessed a whitewash of Watergate dimensions.
Its over, and swept under the carpet.
There have been further career casualties as a result, but they too have been kept relatively quiet.
What more can I say?
You are correct.
When the circumstances of the inquiries into Monarch, Seaview and Whyalla are compared to flight HC675 at Lockhart River,
one can be excused for contemplating that something is not quite right.
When one digs deeper and investigates how this inquest has been stage managed,
the sheer co-incidence of counsel assisting with a vested commercial interest in things CASA,
with tentacles reaching into the upper echelons of CASA, conveniently recently retired, and other matters of public interest,
one cannot feel a little disturbed.
The accident and fatality rate in FNQ was and is out of proportion to the rest of Australia, despite an attempt by ATSB to dismiss that.
There is no doubt that the TL & CS CASA offices may have somehow failed,
not looking where they should have,
and looking and harassing where they shouldn't have.
Yes, there is no doubt that were human factors attributable to the crew that caused this tragedy.
What is overlooked is the lack of effective surveillance that created the climate that permitted the culture to grow and flourish.
The causes for the lack of effective surveillance result from several areas,
some similarities to Seaview with mates rates deals,
and the failure of the NQAO to conduct surveillance on another jurisdictions turf.
There is more substance for a Royal Commission into flight HC675 than there was for Seaview, but the wagons were circled early in the investigation.
There is no political will for an RC, the Federal Govt cannot afford the exposure in a lead up to an election.
We have all witnessed a whitewash of Watergate dimensions.
Its over, and swept under the carpet.
There have been further career casualties as a result, but they too have been kept relatively quiet.
What more can I say?
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recommending charges against the operator may well have also necessitated the Coroner taking a far more detailed look at the role played by CASA staff?
Fifteen people needlessly die; no lessons to be learned to avoid similar disasters in the future; and justice has not seen to be done by the families who lost loved ones.
Fifteen people needlessly die; no lessons to be learned to avoid similar disasters in the future; and justice has not seen to be done by the families who lost loved ones.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly I dont give a STUFF whether the operator is charged or not. That won't make one iota of difference to safety.
How many more operators are there out there like this one? Could CASA answer that question? I think not. It would seem they have no idea.
How many more accidents like this have to happen before something is done to improve CASA? They appear to be toothless and useless as far as giving the travelling public any confidence at all in their safety.
Then we have a Coroners hearing in which counsel assisting has (seemingly) a close relationship with CASA. I was not in the least suprised by this outcome. Extremely disappointed - but not suprised.
I don't think the families will be letting it go at that though. Stay tuned!
Di
How many more operators are there out there like this one? Could CASA answer that question? I think not. It would seem they have no idea.
How many more accidents like this have to happen before something is done to improve CASA? They appear to be toothless and useless as far as giving the travelling public any confidence at all in their safety.
Then we have a Coroners hearing in which counsel assisting has (seemingly) a close relationship with CASA. I was not in the least suprised by this outcome. Extremely disappointed - but not suprised.
I don't think the families will be letting it go at that though. Stay tuned!
Di
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learned very early in my career not to "buck the system" nor will you ever "beat the establishment". There will always be too many aces held in the wrong palms.The beat goes on.
Moderator
Anger over crash ruling
Courier Mail
August 18 – 19, 2007.
Angry scenes erupted outside a Brisbane Courthouse yesterday after the State Coroner delivered his inquest findings into the Lockhart River plane crash in which 15 people died.
It was the nations worst air disaster in almost 40 years, the two man flight crew and their 13 passengers died when the Transair operated aircraft slammed into a hillside about 11 kms northwest of the Lockhart River aerodrome on May 7, 2005.
Among the dead were David Banks 55, Frank Billy 21, Fred Bowie 25, Mardie Bowie 30, Robert Brady 35, Edward Green 35, Kenneth Hurst 55, Gordon Kris 37, Noel lewis 48, Paul Norris 34, Arden Sonter 44, Sally Urquhart 28 and Helen Woosup 25.
During the delivery of his lengthy findings, State Coroner Michael Barnes upset some family members by saying he would not make anyone a scapegoat for the crash, despite identifying failings by Transair and levelling criticisms at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
“With all due respect to those families, the making of scape goats in that manner is not part of my function,” he said.
“I find that CASA could have done more to insist that Transair improve certain aspects of its operations but I do not believe the evidence supports a finding that they could reasonably have stopped it from operating or prevented the crash.”
Outside the court, Trad Thornton – the fiancée of Constable Sally Urquhart – said he thought the scapegoat comment was “absolutely ridiculous”.
“We’re looking for answers and were hoping that Mr Barnes would make numerous recommendations to stop something like this from happening again,” he said.
Constable Urquhart’s father, Shane, said that CASA had got away scott-free and described the inquest outcome asa “whole waste of time”.
Mr Barnes made four recommendations, including that CASA expedite the introduction of mandatory crew resource management training.
He also called for CASA to reconsider the introduction of measures to ensure the efficiency of training and checking organisations for air transport operations.
He also asked the Federal Minister for Transport address “a degree of animosity” between CASA abd the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Courier Mail
August 18 – 19, 2007.
Angry scenes erupted outside a Brisbane Courthouse yesterday after the State Coroner delivered his inquest findings into the Lockhart River plane crash in which 15 people died.
It was the nations worst air disaster in almost 40 years, the two man flight crew and their 13 passengers died when the Transair operated aircraft slammed into a hillside about 11 kms northwest of the Lockhart River aerodrome on May 7, 2005.
Among the dead were David Banks 55, Frank Billy 21, Fred Bowie 25, Mardie Bowie 30, Robert Brady 35, Edward Green 35, Kenneth Hurst 55, Gordon Kris 37, Noel lewis 48, Paul Norris 34, Arden Sonter 44, Sally Urquhart 28 and Helen Woosup 25.
During the delivery of his lengthy findings, State Coroner Michael Barnes upset some family members by saying he would not make anyone a scapegoat for the crash, despite identifying failings by Transair and levelling criticisms at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
“With all due respect to those families, the making of scape goats in that manner is not part of my function,” he said.
“I find that CASA could have done more to insist that Transair improve certain aspects of its operations but I do not believe the evidence supports a finding that they could reasonably have stopped it from operating or prevented the crash.”
Outside the court, Trad Thornton – the fiancée of Constable Sally Urquhart – said he thought the scapegoat comment was “absolutely ridiculous”.
“We’re looking for answers and were hoping that Mr Barnes would make numerous recommendations to stop something like this from happening again,” he said.
Constable Urquhart’s father, Shane, said that CASA had got away scott-free and described the inquest outcome asa “whole waste of time”.
Mr Barnes made four recommendations, including that CASA expedite the introduction of mandatory crew resource management training.
He also called for CASA to reconsider the introduction of measures to ensure the efficiency of training and checking organisations for air transport operations.
He also asked the Federal Minister for Transport address “a degree of animosity” between CASA abd the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: the land of Oz
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frustrating!!!!
So where to now?
The pilot was at fault, he is dead.
The operator is clearly negligent, he has disappeared overseas.
Don't blame him, if my loved ones had perished on that plane, I would hunt the bastard down and put him out of his fcken misery.
CASA were negligent, what the hell will they do now that will make a difference? I can tell you.....FCK ALL.
Attention Regulators. How about doing something that makes a
fcking difference. What will be done to ensure that this doesn't happen again? What have we learned from this that we can implement to improve the safety of the travelling public?
The weather at LHR was a factor. So why doesn't it have an AWIS with a ceiliometer?? Oh that's right because its expensive.
If you have tried this approach in a strong SE wind you will know about the horrendous turbulence. Is there a warning on the approach plate of this? Nah that would be to sensible, let the suckers find out for themselves.
What fcken idiot designed the approach in the first place? Probably the same one who penned the CKN NDB to go directly over the highest hill in the area. What the fck do you expect to happen??
A TRAGIC UNNECESSARY LOSS OF LIFE.
200
The pilot was at fault, he is dead.
The operator is clearly negligent, he has disappeared overseas.
Don't blame him, if my loved ones had perished on that plane, I would hunt the bastard down and put him out of his f
cken misery.CASA were negligent, what the hell will they do now that will make a difference? I can tell you.....F
CK ALL. Attention Regulators. How about doing something that makes a
f
cking difference. What will be done to ensure that this doesn't happen again? What have we learned from this that we can implement to improve the safety of the travelling public?The weather at LHR was a factor. So why doesn't it have an AWIS with a ceiliometer?? Oh that's right because its expensive.
If you have tried this approach in a strong SE wind you will know about the horrendous turbulence. Is there a warning on the approach plate of this? Nah that would be to sensible, let the suckers find out for themselves.
What f
cken idiot designed the approach in the first place? Probably the same one who penned the CKN NDB to go directly over the highest hill in the area. What the fck do you expect to happen??A TRAGIC UNNECESSARY LOSS OF LIFE.
200
Last edited by TwoHundred; 20th Aug 2007 at 11:19. Reason: typo
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Down South
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So True" TWO HUNDRED"
Fifteen lives can be lost and no one is made accountable,but If for some reason you ripped of the TAX office you would find yourself in Gaol very quickly.So the old rule applies that money is worth more than life.
Regards The Dog
Fifteen lives can be lost and no one is made accountable,but If for some reason you ripped of the TAX office you would find yourself in Gaol very quickly.So the old rule applies that money is worth more than life.
Regards The Dog
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRIKEY!!!
(from Crikey.com)
CASA couldn't stop Transair, so what good are they?
Date: Monday, 20 August 2007
Ben Sandilands writes:
It would have been appropriate for air sickness bags to have been handed out to the relatives of those killed in the Lockhart River air crash when Queensland coroner Michael Barnes reported his finding on the disaster on Friday afternoon.
Barnes blamed the deaths of 13 passengers and both pilots on 7 May 2005 on the actions of the senior pilot Brett Hotchin and the defunct regional carrier Transair.
An astonishing revelation really. Just as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau made clinically clear in its ferocious report into the accident published in April.
Also astonishing is the finding that CASA could not have prevented the crash.
If it couldn’t prevent even a tin pot airline serving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities from crashing, why is CASA being trusted with the safety regulation of big Australian airlines?
Can someone, perhaps the Minister of Transport Mark Vaile, discover at what threshold of air transport activity CASA becomes effective?
Before the Coroner sat, CASA had admitted knowing that Transair was deficient in key operational matters. It knew that pilot Brett Hotchins was dangerous.
Yet it told the public nothing about what it knew, knowledge that might have informed decisions about whether to fly on its services. Its oversight of its operations was so ineffective it let Transair masquerade as a safe airline and fly 13 unsuspecting passengers to their deaths.
What else isn’t CASA telling us? How many dead people will it take for the government to address the core issues of culture and competency and resources in air transport safety regulation for all Australians, black, white, outback, city, in large jets or small turbo-props?
Surely Ian Harvey QC, the counsel assisting the coroner must have tried his utmost to focus the inquest on issues that go to the core of public safety in the air?
After all, he came to the inquiry with impeccable credentials in terms of insights into aviation and CASA, having earned $475,436 from appearing for the safety regulator between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2006.
Di
(from Crikey.com)
CASA couldn't stop Transair, so what good are they?
Date: Monday, 20 August 2007
Ben Sandilands writes:
It would have been appropriate for air sickness bags to have been handed out to the relatives of those killed in the Lockhart River air crash when Queensland coroner Michael Barnes reported his finding on the disaster on Friday afternoon.
Barnes blamed the deaths of 13 passengers and both pilots on 7 May 2005 on the actions of the senior pilot Brett Hotchin and the defunct regional carrier Transair.
An astonishing revelation really. Just as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau made clinically clear in its ferocious report into the accident published in April.
Also astonishing is the finding that CASA could not have prevented the crash.
If it couldn’t prevent even a tin pot airline serving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities from crashing, why is CASA being trusted with the safety regulation of big Australian airlines?
Can someone, perhaps the Minister of Transport Mark Vaile, discover at what threshold of air transport activity CASA becomes effective?
Before the Coroner sat, CASA had admitted knowing that Transair was deficient in key operational matters. It knew that pilot Brett Hotchins was dangerous.
Yet it told the public nothing about what it knew, knowledge that might have informed decisions about whether to fly on its services. Its oversight of its operations was so ineffective it let Transair masquerade as a safe airline and fly 13 unsuspecting passengers to their deaths.
What else isn’t CASA telling us? How many dead people will it take for the government to address the core issues of culture and competency and resources in air transport safety regulation for all Australians, black, white, outback, city, in large jets or small turbo-props?
Surely Ian Harvey QC, the counsel assisting the coroner must have tried his utmost to focus the inquest on issues that go to the core of public safety in the air?
After all, he came to the inquiry with impeccable credentials in terms of insights into aviation and CASA, having earned $475,436 from appearing for the safety regulator between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2006.
Di
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Di
Maybe I am naive and out of the loop here, but does the last part of that story suggest......A CONFLICT OF INTEREST there?
If so that needs running up a flag pole!
SQ
Maybe I am naive and out of the loop here, but does the last part of that story suggest......A CONFLICT OF INTEREST there?
If so that needs running up a flag pole!
SQ
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squawk,
Spot on mate.
You too AA.
The coroner really should have had someone assisting who had no connection with any of the parties involved - just to remove any doubt.
Di
Spot on mate.
You too AA.
The coroner really should have had someone assisting who had no connection with any of the parties involved - just to remove any doubt.
Di
I actually went to the Brisbane Coroners Court for a number of days and watched procedings.
During my time there I only saw two others who were not involved as legal advisors, press ect.
One I understand was an ex Transair pilot viewing procedings from another room via video. That was on the day the Chief Pilot was in the box. The other, who knows.
I was impressed with the Coroner. His report was well written and reflected what I witnessed.
Its a pity that basically nobody from the industry bothered to attend.
During my time there I only saw two others who were not involved as legal advisors, press ect.
One I understand was an ex Transair pilot viewing procedings from another room via video. That was on the day the Chief Pilot was in the box. The other, who knows.
I was impressed with the Coroner. His report was well written and reflected what I witnessed.
Its a pity that basically nobody from the industry bothered to attend.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More from Crikey
Lest we forget,
17. Senate questions over CASA crash and burn
Ben Sandilands writes:
There is a very bad smell hanging over conduct of CASA in relation to safety oversight of Transair, the now defunct remote community airline that killed 15 people in the Lockhart River crash of 7 May 2005.
Crikey has examined more than 100 serious and detailed questions raised in the Senate by Senators Kerry O’Brien and Jan McLucas before and after the Australian Transport Safety Bureau released its scathing final report into the disaster on 4 April.
Every single one of them received a pro forma brush off response from Senator David Johnston representing the Minister for Transport, Mark Vaile, with each response including these paragraphs:
The accident is also currently being examined in an inquest by the Queensland Coroner's Office.
Both CASA and the ATSB are assisting the Coroner. The coronial inquest provides the most appropriate forum for detailed and objective consideration of CASA’s oversight of Transair.
Together, the ATSB report, the coronial proceedings, and the evidence CASA has provided to the Senate on several occasions, ensure that the public interest in the issues raised by the accident is fully addressed.
These formula answers were being churned out by Senator Johnston and put on the parliamentary record right up to day the Queensland Coroner, Michael Barnes, delivered his report on 17 August.
Clearly the Minister’s confidence in "detailed and objective" consideration is misplaced and he must be as disappointed in the Coroner as everyone else.
The Coroner, ably assisted by none other than Ian Harvey QC, who often represents the safety regulator in legal matters, scarcely touches upon voluminous matters of concern to the relatives of the victims.
Or the wider interests of air travellers exposed to CASA’s failings in relation to its safety obligations to remote and predominantly Aboriginal community air services which remain unresolved.
The Senate, in however much time it has left, is the only place in which these answers can be pursued.
Some of the questions are very pertinent and technical, and were clearly framed after receiving detailed advice about the specific actions and inactions that must have transpired between CASA and Transair over a period of time.
Is it all too hard for the Minister and the safety regulator to confront the truth, that between 1999 and the fatal day, all of the processes and checks the CASA claimed to have in place where sometimes not performed, or continually bungled?
Or is it a case that the airline and its victims are dead, and best forgotten?
17. Senate questions over CASA crash and burn
Ben Sandilands writes:
There is a very bad smell hanging over conduct of CASA in relation to safety oversight of Transair, the now defunct remote community airline that killed 15 people in the Lockhart River crash of 7 May 2005.
Crikey has examined more than 100 serious and detailed questions raised in the Senate by Senators Kerry O’Brien and Jan McLucas before and after the Australian Transport Safety Bureau released its scathing final report into the disaster on 4 April.
Every single one of them received a pro forma brush off response from Senator David Johnston representing the Minister for Transport, Mark Vaile, with each response including these paragraphs:
The accident is also currently being examined in an inquest by the Queensland Coroner's Office.
Both CASA and the ATSB are assisting the Coroner. The coronial inquest provides the most appropriate forum for detailed and objective consideration of CASA’s oversight of Transair.
Together, the ATSB report, the coronial proceedings, and the evidence CASA has provided to the Senate on several occasions, ensure that the public interest in the issues raised by the accident is fully addressed.
These formula answers were being churned out by Senator Johnston and put on the parliamentary record right up to day the Queensland Coroner, Michael Barnes, delivered his report on 17 August.
Clearly the Minister’s confidence in "detailed and objective" consideration is misplaced and he must be as disappointed in the Coroner as everyone else.
The Coroner, ably assisted by none other than Ian Harvey QC, who often represents the safety regulator in legal matters, scarcely touches upon voluminous matters of concern to the relatives of the victims.
Or the wider interests of air travellers exposed to CASA’s failings in relation to its safety obligations to remote and predominantly Aboriginal community air services which remain unresolved.
The Senate, in however much time it has left, is the only place in which these answers can be pursued.
Some of the questions are very pertinent and technical, and were clearly framed after receiving detailed advice about the specific actions and inactions that must have transpired between CASA and Transair over a period of time.
Is it all too hard for the Minister and the safety regulator to confront the truth, that between 1999 and the fatal day, all of the processes and checks the CASA claimed to have in place where sometimes not performed, or continually bungled?
Or is it a case that the airline and its victims are dead, and best forgotten?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockhart River Inquest lawyer replies
Date: Friday, 24 August 2007
Ian Harvey QC, counsel to the Coroner in the Lockhart River Inquest, writes:
The good fortune of Crikey’s readership in having the intrepid Ben Sandilands as its aviation writer has been demonstrated once more with his in-depth reporting of the recently concluded Lockhart River Inquest.
With more than 45 years in journalism, Ben Sandilands is an internationally respected travel writer who over the years has produced incisive articles on a range of aviation topics for "prominent media". He no doubt has earned 100’s of thousands of dollars over recent years writing for "syndication arms" and "leading newspapers" around the world.
Surely with such a wealth of experience in addition to pouring over transcripts of Parliamentary Committee proceedings, he must have tried his utmost to come to grips with almost 2000 pages of transcript, some 170 exhibits and an array of other documents produced at the inquest to inform himself on the core issues on aviation safety that were examined.
With these "impeccable credentials" in terms of insights into aviation and an understanding of the aetiology of accidents, I only wish that Ben Sandilands could apply those skills to all aviation matters in the passionate pursuit - that we all share - of ensuring public safety in aviation. Indeed one accident comes specifically to mind.
It is almost the 20th anniversary of a controlled flight into terrain accident by a Fokker F27 aircraft of Burma Airways on approach to Pagan. All 49 people on board the aircraft were killed. The reasons for the accident have never really been explained. A journalist colleague of Ben Sandilands was actually awaiting the arrival of the aircraft at Pagan.
Fate was kind to him but without the impeccable credentials of a Ben Sandilands I don’t think he conducted any kind of forensic investigation of why a perfectly good aircraft flew into a mountain. I mean, if getting information out of Australian aviation authorities is hard, imagine the frustrating difficulty of extracting anything from the Burmese government.
However, with the international reputation and respect that Mr Sandilands commands, I am sure he could get to the real reasons for that accident.
Oh, and why, I can hear Ben Sandilands ask, do I specifically mention a CFIT accident of twenty years ago? I suppose it’s just that my father and step-mother were two of four Australians on board that flight.
WHAT'S THIS ALL ABOUT? Surely this is not actually Ian Harvey writing this? What's he trying to say? You would think he might have taken the opportunity to defend his reputation rather than slagging off at the journalist?
Di
Date: Friday, 24 August 2007
Ian Harvey QC, counsel to the Coroner in the Lockhart River Inquest, writes:
The good fortune of Crikey’s readership in having the intrepid Ben Sandilands as its aviation writer has been demonstrated once more with his in-depth reporting of the recently concluded Lockhart River Inquest.
With more than 45 years in journalism, Ben Sandilands is an internationally respected travel writer who over the years has produced incisive articles on a range of aviation topics for "prominent media". He no doubt has earned 100’s of thousands of dollars over recent years writing for "syndication arms" and "leading newspapers" around the world.
Surely with such a wealth of experience in addition to pouring over transcripts of Parliamentary Committee proceedings, he must have tried his utmost to come to grips with almost 2000 pages of transcript, some 170 exhibits and an array of other documents produced at the inquest to inform himself on the core issues on aviation safety that were examined.
With these "impeccable credentials" in terms of insights into aviation and an understanding of the aetiology of accidents, I only wish that Ben Sandilands could apply those skills to all aviation matters in the passionate pursuit - that we all share - of ensuring public safety in aviation. Indeed one accident comes specifically to mind.
It is almost the 20th anniversary of a controlled flight into terrain accident by a Fokker F27 aircraft of Burma Airways on approach to Pagan. All 49 people on board the aircraft were killed. The reasons for the accident have never really been explained. A journalist colleague of Ben Sandilands was actually awaiting the arrival of the aircraft at Pagan.
Fate was kind to him but without the impeccable credentials of a Ben Sandilands I don’t think he conducted any kind of forensic investigation of why a perfectly good aircraft flew into a mountain. I mean, if getting information out of Australian aviation authorities is hard, imagine the frustrating difficulty of extracting anything from the Burmese government.
However, with the international reputation and respect that Mr Sandilands commands, I am sure he could get to the real reasons for that accident.
Oh, and why, I can hear Ben Sandilands ask, do I specifically mention a CFIT accident of twenty years ago? I suppose it’s just that my father and step-mother were two of four Australians on board that flight.
WHAT'S THIS ALL ABOUT? Surely this is not actually Ian Harvey writing this? What's he trying to say? You would think he might have taken the opportunity to defend his reputation rather than slagging off at the journalist?
Di
Di
Perhaps that's Ian's way of saying that he's the last person on the planet who has any interest in covering up the real causes of CFIT accidents (I use 'accidents' in the counter-intuitive, ICAO sense).
You did notice the bit about his father and step-mother having died in an as-yet unexplained CFIT accident, didn't you?
And won't the coroner be impressed at the insult to his intelligence! The truth was there to be discovered, but that tricky lawyer managed to cover it up.
Perhaps that's Ian's way of saying that he's the last person on the planet who has any interest in covering up the real causes of CFIT accidents (I use 'accidents' in the counter-intuitive, ICAO sense).
You did notice the bit about his father and step-mother having died in an as-yet unexplained CFIT accident, didn't you?
And won't the coroner be impressed at the insult to his intelligence! The truth was there to be discovered, but that tricky lawyer managed to cover it up.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockhart River Inquest
This is my last post on this subject.
Undisputed fact:
CFIT due to deviation from SOP’s (established from evidence).
i.e. not utilising stabilised approach, one crew member not qualified for the approach, both crew members not completed CRM course as per Ops Manual Sect C.
Substantiated history of non compliance in various areas.
OK, yes, Pilot Error, close the case.
Coroner’s duty:
Establish cause of death of victims.
Who was killed
When did it happen
Where did it happen
How did it happen
Why did it happen
Make recommendations to mitigate re- occurrence
Coroner’s duty completed.
But wait! What created the culture that it was ok to not comply?
Why was the operator reasonably sure that it was ok not to ensure it followed its Ops Manual?
Why was a pilot rostered for a flight without all the boxes in the C & T being ticked and signed off?
Shouldn’t the non compliances have been picked up in a normal everyday CASA audit?
Ben Sandilands merely pointed out the more than 100 questions asked in the Senate (and thus available on Hansard) about the diligence of the regulator,
and the evasive and possibly untruthful answers given as to the role of the regulator.
The senate was assured that not only had CASA conducted an audit on the operator,
CASA actually stated that it was a “Fulsome Audit”. (Hansard)
Subsequently ATSB established just how deficient that “fulsome audit” was, and listed the numerous deficient areas.
On the basis of Hansard and ATSB, there may be evidence to suggest that the regulator didn’t in fact regulate the particular operator in a diligent and impartial manner,
and thus maybe a contributory factor in the accident that had to happen, eventually happening.
The appointment of a CASA loyal Counsel Assisting caused consternation and objections were raised by families of the deceased.
Those objections were over ruled.
Outcome: Pilot Error, case closed on Australia’s worst aviation tragedy in 30 + years.
This tragedy eclipsed Seaview, Monarch and Whyalla, but was simply better stage managed.
The damage control was very effective, but it was noted that while there were some animosities between CASA and the ATSB, there were no contributory deficiencies.
Lest We Forget
Undisputed fact:
CFIT due to deviation from SOP’s (established from evidence).
i.e. not utilising stabilised approach, one crew member not qualified for the approach, both crew members not completed CRM course as per Ops Manual Sect C.
Substantiated history of non compliance in various areas.
OK, yes, Pilot Error, close the case.
Coroner’s duty:
Establish cause of death of victims.
Who was killed
When did it happen
Where did it happen
How did it happen
Why did it happen
Make recommendations to mitigate re- occurrence
Coroner’s duty completed.
But wait! What created the culture that it was ok to not comply?
Why was the operator reasonably sure that it was ok not to ensure it followed its Ops Manual?
Why was a pilot rostered for a flight without all the boxes in the C & T being ticked and signed off?
Shouldn’t the non compliances have been picked up in a normal everyday CASA audit?
Ben Sandilands merely pointed out the more than 100 questions asked in the Senate (and thus available on Hansard) about the diligence of the regulator,
and the evasive and possibly untruthful answers given as to the role of the regulator.
The senate was assured that not only had CASA conducted an audit on the operator,
CASA actually stated that it was a “Fulsome Audit”. (Hansard)
Subsequently ATSB established just how deficient that “fulsome audit” was, and listed the numerous deficient areas.
On the basis of Hansard and ATSB, there may be evidence to suggest that the regulator didn’t in fact regulate the particular operator in a diligent and impartial manner,
and thus maybe a contributory factor in the accident that had to happen, eventually happening.
The appointment of a CASA loyal Counsel Assisting caused consternation and objections were raised by families of the deceased.
Those objections were over ruled.
Outcome: Pilot Error, case closed on Australia’s worst aviation tragedy in 30 + years.
This tragedy eclipsed Seaview, Monarch and Whyalla, but was simply better stage managed.
The damage control was very effective, but it was noted that while there were some animosities between CASA and the ATSB, there were no contributory deficiencies.
Lest We Forget
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post Mainframe.
It is now highly likely that that is the end of the matter as far as aviation safety in Australia is concerned. Nothing will change. We must now wait for the next major accident, or perhaps another 2 or 3 - or 10 - before perhaps something is done to improve CASA's effectiveness.
The only other hope is action taken by the relatives left behind. This may take many forms, and may require assistance from our friends the lawyers and journalists - and may or may not have any effect.
Perhaps the fact that there is a looming federal election can be used to apply pressure?
At the end of the day it seems "Best We Forget" rather than "Lest We Forget".
Di
It is now highly likely that that is the end of the matter as far as aviation safety in Australia is concerned. Nothing will change. We must now wait for the next major accident, or perhaps another 2 or 3 - or 10 - before perhaps something is done to improve CASA's effectiveness.
The only other hope is action taken by the relatives left behind. This may take many forms, and may require assistance from our friends the lawyers and journalists - and may or may not have any effect.
Perhaps the fact that there is a looming federal election can be used to apply pressure?
At the end of the day it seems "Best We Forget" rather than "Lest We Forget".
Di