Merged: Milne Bay Crash
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Mach E, how ya doing
I doubt too many could seriously throw rocks at you for taking that position. One that most rational thinking folk would take.
I guess the culture in one of his other operations may have been influenced that way as well. Certainly had a similar but worse outcome. Casual factors perhaps.
Very sad set of circumstances.
Damning report indeed. What concerns me is that the co-pilot at no time during the descent demanded a proper brief on what the approach was going to be, at what the go/no go points would be. There was a clear case of mustgettheritis and this was apparent pretty early on.
Scud running in a jet on a short grass/dirt/gravel runway that is clearly going to be wet and slippery as a butchers block, not long enough unless dry and into wind (nil tailwind), must have looked scary long before they were across the beach let alone the threshold. And at that point could have demanded go around and done so himself before it was too late.
If Wiz had not had his back turned to the cockpit (seating wise) or had been in the RHS it is a fair bet the approach would have been discontinued long before. 20/20 hindsight of course.
Simply amazing.............
I doubt too many could seriously throw rocks at you for taking that position. One that most rational thinking folk would take.
I guess the culture in one of his other operations may have been influenced that way as well. Certainly had a similar but worse outcome. Casual factors perhaps.
Very sad set of circumstances.
Damning report indeed. What concerns me is that the co-pilot at no time during the descent demanded a proper brief on what the approach was going to be, at what the go/no go points would be. There was a clear case of mustgettheritis and this was apparent pretty early on.
Scud running in a jet on a short grass/dirt/gravel runway that is clearly going to be wet and slippery as a butchers block, not long enough unless dry and into wind (nil tailwind), must have looked scary long before they were across the beach let alone the threshold. And at that point could have demanded go around and done so himself before it was too late.
If Wiz had not had his back turned to the cockpit (seating wise) or had been in the RHS it is a fair bet the approach would have been discontinued long before. 20/20 hindsight of course.
Simply amazing.............
Not long after this accident I went into Misima in a King Air. The strip was not fit for that aircraft; it was slippery and boggy. Cleaning all the mud out of the intakes and wheel wells was quite a task and I certainly would not go back there after rain unless the recommended work had been done to the runway meantime. Probably not....?
That a Citation with no reversers would have gone there on a regular basis is surprising, to put it mildly. Not that you would be able to use more than idle reverse with all that mud flying around, but any is better than none. And not that reversers would have made any difference to the outcome on this occasion, given the approach and landing.
That a Citation with no reversers would have gone there on a regular basis is surprising, to put it mildly. Not that you would be able to use more than idle reverse with all that mud flying around, but any is better than none. And not that reversers would have made any difference to the outcome on this occasion, given the approach and landing.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 5th Jan 2013 at 03:20.
Guest
Posts: n/a
What an awful report (content).
I had to read it a few times. Scud running in a jet, not visual on final at 400'.... for some reason I can hear my old bosses (ex Bushies) words on a route check about our RPT op into Cooktown some years back:
'what are you trying to achieve? Bodies from A to B. If you don't get in, is it a big deal? Take the fuel and come on home'.
The irony is they were shutdown in oz by the regulator and their PNG op took down (quite literally RIP) a CAA FOI in it's demise.
Very sad. Does their C208 operation still exist in PNG? I am out of the loop.
I had to read it a few times. Scud running in a jet, not visual on final at 400'.... for some reason I can hear my old bosses (ex Bushies) words on a route check about our RPT op into Cooktown some years back:
'what are you trying to achieve? Bodies from A to B. If you don't get in, is it a big deal? Take the fuel and come on home'.
The irony is they were shutdown in oz by the regulator and their PNG op took down (quite literally RIP) a CAA FOI in it's demise.
Very sad. Does their C208 operation still exist in PNG? I am out of the loop.
Last edited by beaver_rotate; 5th Jan 2013 at 03:31.
Very disheartening to read such a report, in fact it's the worst I have ever read and from my sources it's accurate truthful.
Now lets get to the meat in the sandwich, how the f$ck did CASA PNG allow Les to have anything to do with an aviation business in PNG given his previous track record in Australia? From the report the Chief Pilot at the time had absolutely no control over Les in the cockpit. The Chief Pilot was stuck in between a rock and a hard place, Les owned the jet and was a part owner in the company and the Chief Pilot was an employee, not an ideal situation to be in. Someone from CASA PNG or CASA Australia should have stepped in and got heavy handed before this disaster happened. Whilst we all need to take ownership of our responsibilities, we also must help one another out and in this case no one was prepared to help the company out to get this issue rectified, apart from maybe Wiz who was in the bloody back. I have no doubt that Wiz was fully aware of the situation with Les and the company and his ultimate goal was to provide CASA PNG with some positive operational oversight of the operation to get things on the right track.
Now lets get to the meat in the sandwich, how the f$ck did CASA PNG allow Les to have anything to do with an aviation business in PNG given his previous track record in Australia? From the report the Chief Pilot at the time had absolutely no control over Les in the cockpit. The Chief Pilot was stuck in between a rock and a hard place, Les owned the jet and was a part owner in the company and the Chief Pilot was an employee, not an ideal situation to be in. Someone from CASA PNG or CASA Australia should have stepped in and got heavy handed before this disaster happened. Whilst we all need to take ownership of our responsibilities, we also must help one another out and in this case no one was prepared to help the company out to get this issue rectified, apart from maybe Wiz who was in the bloody back. I have no doubt that Wiz was fully aware of the situation with Les and the company and his ultimate goal was to provide CASA PNG with some positive operational oversight of the operation to get things on the right track.
Some very valid points WW. Wherever you have an AOC postholder who is also an owner or person with a major financial stake in the organisation you have the potential equivalent of a pedophile running a primary school.
Regulators need to ensure that owners/shareholders are distanced from operational decisions. Chief pilots and chief engineers must be given far more direct control over standards etc than is currently the case. This means that they should have a measure of direct budgetary control and absolute power to hire, fire and assign to duty. Although the CEO is also a postholder, it should be absolutely clear that his/her function is to provide the funds and the facilities for the technical people to properly discharge their responsibilities. A CEO in a small outfit could fly the line to keep abreast of operations, but allowing a CEO to wear the Chief Pilot hat or a Flight Standards hat in any company which operates more than one or two small aircraft is just asking for rules to be broken, short cuts to be taken.
Until this happens we will continue to see accidents caused by commercial pressures.
Regulators need to ensure that owners/shareholders are distanced from operational decisions. Chief pilots and chief engineers must be given far more direct control over standards etc than is currently the case. This means that they should have a measure of direct budgetary control and absolute power to hire, fire and assign to duty. Although the CEO is also a postholder, it should be absolutely clear that his/her function is to provide the funds and the facilities for the technical people to properly discharge their responsibilities. A CEO in a small outfit could fly the line to keep abreast of operations, but allowing a CEO to wear the Chief Pilot hat or a Flight Standards hat in any company which operates more than one or two small aircraft is just asking for rules to be broken, short cuts to be taken.
Until this happens we will continue to see accidents caused by commercial pressures.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 5th Jan 2013 at 21:29.
There really needs to be some kind of rule introduced to safeguard against possible company stakeholders having strong influences over operational matters.
A good effective SMS should be able to nip these issues in the butt before they get out of hand, however in the Transair case SMS wasn't a regulatory requirement at the time and the whole SMS philosophy would have been in it's infancy stage in PNG me thinks. Is SMS now a mandatory certification requirement for all AOC holders in PNG now?
A good effective SMS should be able to nip these issues in the butt before they get out of hand, however in the Transair case SMS wasn't a regulatory requirement at the time and the whole SMS philosophy would have been in it's infancy stage in PNG me thinks. Is SMS now a mandatory certification requirement for all AOC holders in PNG now?
It has been my unfortunate experience to find SMS in small companies is basically a lip service only.
Nice manuals are written with motherhood statements about how everyone from the CEO down to the cleaner is responsible for safety. A computerised tracking system is set up to report, investigate and acquit anything and everything that is seen as a potential risk.
Quarterly meetings are sometimes held and minutes taken so that the CASA auditors can get a warm, fuzzy feeling that all is sweetness and light.
But somehow only pissant stuff like the occasional duty time bust or coffee spill in the galley finds its way into the SMS.
If something really serious crops up, it is buried. In a former airline (now defunct) we had a major flight control issue with a jet transport aircraft that resulted in a classic rudder hardover event. It was certainly due to dodgy maintenance and exacerbated by the way in which test flights were conducted. The crew did all the right things in reporting it, but the so-called Safety & Security Manager in cahoots with the Chief Operating Officer and a cardboard cut-out non-flying Chief Pilot somehow buried it.
I could give other examples.
Exposed to this culture, pilots eventually treat internal company SMS with contempt.
CRM is similarly treated with contempt by some hardcore old-school types - as evidenced in the CVR pulled from the Misima crash. A pilot may do the course and maybe attempt to incorporate good CRM for a while - for as long as all is going well in their world. Then, when the pressure is on, they revert. CRM training does not necessarily modify one's core personality.
Nice manuals are written with motherhood statements about how everyone from the CEO down to the cleaner is responsible for safety. A computerised tracking system is set up to report, investigate and acquit anything and everything that is seen as a potential risk.
Quarterly meetings are sometimes held and minutes taken so that the CASA auditors can get a warm, fuzzy feeling that all is sweetness and light.
But somehow only pissant stuff like the occasional duty time bust or coffee spill in the galley finds its way into the SMS.
If something really serious crops up, it is buried. In a former airline (now defunct) we had a major flight control issue with a jet transport aircraft that resulted in a classic rudder hardover event. It was certainly due to dodgy maintenance and exacerbated by the way in which test flights were conducted. The crew did all the right things in reporting it, but the so-called Safety & Security Manager in cahoots with the Chief Operating Officer and a cardboard cut-out non-flying Chief Pilot somehow buried it.
I could give other examples.
Exposed to this culture, pilots eventually treat internal company SMS with contempt.
CRM is similarly treated with contempt by some hardcore old-school types - as evidenced in the CVR pulled from the Misima crash. A pilot may do the course and maybe attempt to incorporate good CRM for a while - for as long as all is going well in their world. Then, when the pressure is on, they revert. CRM training does not necessarily modify one's core personality.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 6th Jan 2013 at 02:12.
By the "big one" are you referring to Lockhart River? If so, is the ex CASA guy the one still out there? The one who wrote all his independent ATO privileges before he left?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the process of checking that I had the correct date I came across the last few posts. Most of you will be aware that I hold only a PPL not CPL but even with my limited knowledge I am horrified at what would appear to be mistakes in basic good practice and the apparent "I'm a god, do as I say" attitude. From the little information available I too feel sorry for the co-pilot and fear that his feeling that anything he said would be ignored is probably correct. What a pointless waste of human life. RIP Darren & Co.
Why? If he is as guilty as it would appear then it is perfectly understandable. Whilst not quite on the same scale, you don't hear anyone complaining about the bad press given to Hitler and his like.
Stallie - I agree.
One possible good thing I learned from the co-pilot's account was that there was no movement from the others in the aircraft when he managed to escape for which I thank God as it would appear that a previous report may have been incorrect.
Standing by for incoming flack for speaking so ill of the deceased.
Stallie - I agree.
One possible good thing I learned from the co-pilot's account was that there was no movement from the others in the aircraft when he managed to escape for which I thank God as it would appear that a previous report may have been incorrect.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: At the Dero
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merged: Milne Bay Crash
3 years today.
It only seems like yesterday that I was being audited by one of the most approachable level headed FOI's that I had come across.
RIP Mate
It only seems like yesterday that I was being audited by one of the most approachable level headed FOI's that I had come across.
RIP Mate
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owners kept away from management????
Mach and Others,
With respect guys there are owners of aviation companies who do an excellent job with safety related matters resulting in well run safe organisations. Stop for one moment and think how a company might start and grow to be something big if it did not commence with a hands on owner?
No owner = No company = No jobs.
In my experience we have seen the guys who are shonks go right through their career doing the wrong thing and nothing ever happens, with reference to the regulator, until there is a serious accident or worse still a fatality. We, the industry, know who they are but if we say anything or pass information to CASA we are the worst type of people in the eyes of our peers and for that reason we keep our mouths shut in public. There are bad eggs in every industry and in my view the common thread here is that the regulator fails to do anything even though they are aware of the situation, e.g. Hempel. Why is that?
Groggy
With respect guys there are owners of aviation companies who do an excellent job with safety related matters resulting in well run safe organisations. Stop for one moment and think how a company might start and grow to be something big if it did not commence with a hands on owner?
No owner = No company = No jobs.
In my experience we have seen the guys who are shonks go right through their career doing the wrong thing and nothing ever happens, with reference to the regulator, until there is a serious accident or worse still a fatality. We, the industry, know who they are but if we say anything or pass information to CASA we are the worst type of people in the eyes of our peers and for that reason we keep our mouths shut in public. There are bad eggs in every industry and in my view the common thread here is that the regulator fails to do anything even though they are aware of the situation, e.g. Hempel. Why is that?
Groggy
