CASA investigates
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon my iggerence, what is the rule in Aus regarding minimum altitudes when in remote areas? The US system (which I am using now) would not make low flying itself illegal. The rule allows for a minimum of 500 feet except over open water or sparsely populated areas, which this first video of the airplane flying down the creek bed seems to be. Does Aus have other rules?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or if your AOC has a Low Flying/level approval. Even then you can only operate to the directions/restrictions in the approval.
Schedule 1 Extent of exemption
The exemption extends only to the directions under subregulation 150 (2) of
CAR 1988 that are contained in paragraph 4.5 of CAO 29.5.
Schedule 2 Conditions
1 The operator must ensure that dropping operations are conducted in
accordance with the operator's operations manual and the Australian Maritime
Safety Authority (AMSA) manual of Search and Rescue Standards and
Procedures.
2 The dropping operations may only be carried out for emergency relief, search
and rescue or for training associated with search and rescue operations.
3 The operator must include a copy of this instrument in the operator's
operations manual.
4 The operator and pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the operator
must ensure that no persons or livestock are in the drop site intended for the
alighting of dropped stores.
5 Despite clause 4, lightweight trail lines may alight outside of the drop site.
6 The operator must ensure, with the exception of the approval, permission and
exemption, all other requirements of CAO 29.5 are be complied with.
7 The operator must ensure that if a flight below 500 feet AGL is required, it
must be conducted in accordance with the ********** Pty Limited Low Flying
Approval and the operator's operations manual current at the time of this
instrument and as revised from time to time.
8 The operator must ensure that for every dropping operation, 1 of the following
aircraft systems is operational:
(a) Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS);
(b) Auto Dependent Surveillance Broadcast System (ADSB).
9 The operator must ensure that appropriate radio broadcasts on both the area
and CTAF frequencies are made if dropping is within a lane of entry or within
5 miles of an aerodrome.
10 The operator must obtain the approval of Air Traffic Control before any
dropping operation is carried out in a control zone.
11 The pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must ensure that adequate
separation is maintained if air traffic is identified in the area of a dropping
operation.
12 The operator and the pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must ensure
that the aircraft is not flown directly over any building during the approach
and departure from the drop site.
13 The pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must remain wings level on
the approach run to the drop site.
14 The operator and pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the operator
must ensure that only persons required for the dropping operation are carried
in the aircraft.
Instrument number CASA EX25/11 Page 2 of 3 pages
The exemption extends only to the directions under subregulation 150 (2) of
CAR 1988 that are contained in paragraph 4.5 of CAO 29.5.
Schedule 2 Conditions
1 The operator must ensure that dropping operations are conducted in
accordance with the operator's operations manual and the Australian Maritime
Safety Authority (AMSA) manual of Search and Rescue Standards and
Procedures.
2 The dropping operations may only be carried out for emergency relief, search
and rescue or for training associated with search and rescue operations.
3 The operator must include a copy of this instrument in the operator's
operations manual.
4 The operator and pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the operator
must ensure that no persons or livestock are in the drop site intended for the
alighting of dropped stores.
5 Despite clause 4, lightweight trail lines may alight outside of the drop site.
6 The operator must ensure, with the exception of the approval, permission and
exemption, all other requirements of CAO 29.5 are be complied with.
7 The operator must ensure that if a flight below 500 feet AGL is required, it
must be conducted in accordance with the ********** Pty Limited Low Flying
Approval and the operator's operations manual current at the time of this
instrument and as revised from time to time.
8 The operator must ensure that for every dropping operation, 1 of the following
aircraft systems is operational:
(a) Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS);
(b) Auto Dependent Surveillance Broadcast System (ADSB).
9 The operator must ensure that appropriate radio broadcasts on both the area
and CTAF frequencies are made if dropping is within a lane of entry or within
5 miles of an aerodrome.
10 The operator must obtain the approval of Air Traffic Control before any
dropping operation is carried out in a control zone.
11 The pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must ensure that adequate
separation is maintained if air traffic is identified in the area of a dropping
operation.
12 The operator and the pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must ensure
that the aircraft is not flown directly over any building during the approach
and departure from the drop site.
13 The pilot in command of the operator's aircraft must remain wings level on
the approach run to the drop site.
14 The operator and pilot in command of an aircraft operated by the operator
must ensure that only persons required for the dropping operation are carried
in the aircraft.
Instrument number CASA EX25/11 Page 2 of 3 pages
2 The dropping operations may only be carried out for emergency relief, search
and rescue or for training associated with search and rescue operations.
and rescue or for training associated with search and rescue operations.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This on a previous thread says it all I'm afraid, although I believe Tony Kern's book would end up in the bin with this 'individual'!
Sounds like you have a "Bud Holland" as the HOFO maybe someone should put a copy of Tony Kerns book "Darker Shades of Blue" on his desk.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the crew at work noticed this thread with the HOFO TEST FLIGHT vid, which is good because the other one on JB got shafted! Still got issues at work but hopefully the regulator is on to it.
betaman (if your out there), this was your quote again:
. I have to thank you for your insight as I finally got a chance to read Industry CRM Developers - Situational Awareness Management Course Outline . You nailed "our Buzz" to a tee, fortunately though I think he may have been pulled up by the short and curlys.
Having said that he is still in the position with all his approvals intact, go figure!
cs&bs pp
betaman (if your out there), this was your quote again:
Sounds like you have a "Bud Holland" as the HOFO maybe someone should put a copy of Tony Kerns book "Darker Shades of Blue" on his desk.
Having said that he is still in the position with all his approvals intact, go figure!
cs&bs pp
So what ever happened to the 'Jone's' investigation?
Is it still pending or has it been shelved in the 'too hard' basket? Can't see how when the footage was on national TV!
However if you go by the copy of a REPCON report originally posted in Jetblast:
Then one would think that it is possible to get away with nearly anything, as I understand that the person behind most of these incidents continues to operate with impunity!
However there is a marked difference between the two investigations. Jonesy and his brethren have probably been doing similar things with their Robos for years! If the truth be known similar activities are probably happening in a remote outback station right now. The only difference being that there isn't any footage on national TV and the regulator is therefore none the wiser.
This other operator is however a purely commercial venture, that is contracted to the Federal Government. Therefore they are also ultimately answerable to the taxpayer!
Is it still pending or has it been shelved in the 'too hard' basket? Can't see how when the footage was on national TV!However if you go by the copy of a REPCON report originally posted in Jetblast:
Report narrative:
The reporters expressed a safety concern regarding the length of time it was taking for CASA to conduct their investigation into safety breaches at **********. The reporter has stated that CASA have been informed about a number of serious safety breaches which have occurred in ********** aircraft over the last eighteen months to two years.
The reporter states that ********** has a history of not reporting incidents to the ATSB or CASA. An example of this is CASA Airworthiness Inspector who was told (discretely) of numerous torque rollbacks occurring across the fleet which had not been reported. He subsequently brought in an order that all torque rollbacks be reported. The order was in place for 3 months and there was 64 torque rollbacks reported across the fleet. This is the link to the former CASA instrument http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...09/casa437.pdf
The following is a list of some of the incidents which have occurred but have not been reporter to the ATSB apart from the last dot point:
• On 28th April 2011, a “stick shaker” event that was finally recovered at 260 feet above sea level during a search and rescue flight from Mackay. A crew member on board the aircraft had to request that the captain recover from the situation. The captain applied full power and raised the nose of the aircraft but was not able to prevent the aircraft sinking further before climbing and accelerating.
• A test flight conducted at low level through the Kakadu gorges NT. This was after the aircraft had come out of heavy maintenance and was conducted contrary to the operator's Low Level approval and low level company SOPs and checklists. There was also an inadvertent activation of the EGPWS with no corrective action taken.
• After completing upper air work the captain took control of the aircraft. He then asked the crew if they had seen a Stuka dive, the aircraft then pitched up steeply and commenced a wingover to the left. Upon rolling out of the manoeuvre the pilot noticed the aircraft was pointed directly at a large tourist boat crowded with people. The captain continued the dive to within approximately 300 meters and 200 feet above the vessel before breaking off and flying alongside. The aircraft then proceeded a few miles west of the vessel at 200 ft, the captain handed control back to the pilot and instructed them to commence a stick shaker climb from 200 feet back to altitude for the return flight.
• An emergency descent was conducted while crew members were un-restrained.
• The aircraft took off with full fuel which meant that they were 150 kg over the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW). The aircraft then returned from the flight with less than the statutory fuel minimums. The aircraft landed with 290 kg where 300kg is the minimum. The landing weight was 10.2 tonnes which is 500 kg less than the zero fuel weight (10.7 tonnes)
• On a flight where the crew members were unrestrained, they were thrown around the cabin due to moderate to severe turbulence. The pilot in command continued to fly the aircraft at close to the maximum cruise speed instead of slowing to the turbulence penetration speed. The aircraft was not inspected after landing and the tech log was not endorsed.
• The aircraft was climbed on the stickshaker from 600 ft to cruise altitude. During the cruise the captain then feathered the propeller for a few minutes. Later in the flight, the aircraft was descended to 200 ft above water and the captain commanded the pilot flying to follow the boundary of the reef, which meant they had to consistently maintain a bank angle in excess of 45 degrees. This type of manoeuvring is in contravention of the company’s Standard Operating Procedures. On completion of these manoeuvres the aircraft was climbed to a safe altitude where extreme unusual attitudes were conducted, i.e., at one stage the pilot looked at the instruments and the aircraft had an extremely high nose attitude, a bank angle approaching 90 degrees and a low airspeed.
• A runway overrun where all of the main wheel brakes had to be replaced.
• A near stall at low level (100-200 ft agl) while conducting SAR drop training.
• The nose wheel steering safety pin left in, resulting in the landing gear being unable to retract.
• A departure where the hot battery bus was disconnected and the flight continued with a multitude of EICAS messages and warnings.
• During instrument renewal tests, unusual attitudes and steep turns are conducted at low levels.
• A Dornier 328 nose wheel tow hitch was found close to the holding point of an active runway after the aircraft had departed.
Response/s received:
REPCON supplied CASA with the de-identified report. The following is a version of the response that CASA provided:
CASA is aware of the matters raised in the above REPCONs. Although CASA is not able to disclose actions being planned or undertaken against the Operator, it can
confirm that these matters are being taken very seriously. CASA is working to ensure the Operator meets its safety obligations.
Note: The above texts may have been altered to protect any personal information contained in them.
Please note that this report and any responses might be published in safety related publications like the ATSB section of the CASA safety awareness magazine ‘Flight Safety Australia’. However, no person or operator will be identified in the article.
Personal information about the reporter and any person referred to in the report is required by legislation to be kept confidential. If you believe it would be necessary to act on information about an individual referred to in your report then you should consider reporting this directly to CASA. CASA’s confidential hotline number is 1800 074 737.
If you wish to make comment on the above text please do so by the COB 18 August 2011. If no further comments are received through this process then the REPCON will be closed and all your personal details and your original report will be deleted.
Regards
The reporters expressed a safety concern regarding the length of time it was taking for CASA to conduct their investigation into safety breaches at **********. The reporter has stated that CASA have been informed about a number of serious safety breaches which have occurred in ********** aircraft over the last eighteen months to two years.
The reporter states that ********** has a history of not reporting incidents to the ATSB or CASA. An example of this is CASA Airworthiness Inspector who was told (discretely) of numerous torque rollbacks occurring across the fleet which had not been reported. He subsequently brought in an order that all torque rollbacks be reported. The order was in place for 3 months and there was 64 torque rollbacks reported across the fleet. This is the link to the former CASA instrument http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...09/casa437.pdf
The following is a list of some of the incidents which have occurred but have not been reporter to the ATSB apart from the last dot point:
• On 28th April 2011, a “stick shaker” event that was finally recovered at 260 feet above sea level during a search and rescue flight from Mackay. A crew member on board the aircraft had to request that the captain recover from the situation. The captain applied full power and raised the nose of the aircraft but was not able to prevent the aircraft sinking further before climbing and accelerating.
• A test flight conducted at low level through the Kakadu gorges NT. This was after the aircraft had come out of heavy maintenance and was conducted contrary to the operator's Low Level approval and low level company SOPs and checklists. There was also an inadvertent activation of the EGPWS with no corrective action taken.
• After completing upper air work the captain took control of the aircraft. He then asked the crew if they had seen a Stuka dive, the aircraft then pitched up steeply and commenced a wingover to the left. Upon rolling out of the manoeuvre the pilot noticed the aircraft was pointed directly at a large tourist boat crowded with people. The captain continued the dive to within approximately 300 meters and 200 feet above the vessel before breaking off and flying alongside. The aircraft then proceeded a few miles west of the vessel at 200 ft, the captain handed control back to the pilot and instructed them to commence a stick shaker climb from 200 feet back to altitude for the return flight.
• An emergency descent was conducted while crew members were un-restrained.
• The aircraft took off with full fuel which meant that they were 150 kg over the Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW). The aircraft then returned from the flight with less than the statutory fuel minimums. The aircraft landed with 290 kg where 300kg is the minimum. The landing weight was 10.2 tonnes which is 500 kg less than the zero fuel weight (10.7 tonnes)
• On a flight where the crew members were unrestrained, they were thrown around the cabin due to moderate to severe turbulence. The pilot in command continued to fly the aircraft at close to the maximum cruise speed instead of slowing to the turbulence penetration speed. The aircraft was not inspected after landing and the tech log was not endorsed.
• The aircraft was climbed on the stickshaker from 600 ft to cruise altitude. During the cruise the captain then feathered the propeller for a few minutes. Later in the flight, the aircraft was descended to 200 ft above water and the captain commanded the pilot flying to follow the boundary of the reef, which meant they had to consistently maintain a bank angle in excess of 45 degrees. This type of manoeuvring is in contravention of the company’s Standard Operating Procedures. On completion of these manoeuvres the aircraft was climbed to a safe altitude where extreme unusual attitudes were conducted, i.e., at one stage the pilot looked at the instruments and the aircraft had an extremely high nose attitude, a bank angle approaching 90 degrees and a low airspeed.
• A runway overrun where all of the main wheel brakes had to be replaced.
• A near stall at low level (100-200 ft agl) while conducting SAR drop training.
• The nose wheel steering safety pin left in, resulting in the landing gear being unable to retract.
• A departure where the hot battery bus was disconnected and the flight continued with a multitude of EICAS messages and warnings.
• During instrument renewal tests, unusual attitudes and steep turns are conducted at low levels.
• A Dornier 328 nose wheel tow hitch was found close to the holding point of an active runway after the aircraft had departed.
Response/s received:
REPCON supplied CASA with the de-identified report. The following is a version of the response that CASA provided:
CASA is aware of the matters raised in the above REPCONs. Although CASA is not able to disclose actions being planned or undertaken against the Operator, it can
confirm that these matters are being taken very seriously. CASA is working to ensure the Operator meets its safety obligations.
Note: The above texts may have been altered to protect any personal information contained in them.
Please note that this report and any responses might be published in safety related publications like the ATSB section of the CASA safety awareness magazine ‘Flight Safety Australia’. However, no person or operator will be identified in the article.
Personal information about the reporter and any person referred to in the report is required by legislation to be kept confidential. If you believe it would be necessary to act on information about an individual referred to in your report then you should consider reporting this directly to CASA. CASA’s confidential hotline number is 1800 074 737.
If you wish to make comment on the above text please do so by the COB 18 August 2011. If no further comments are received through this process then the REPCON will be closed and all your personal details and your original report will be deleted.
Regards
However there is a marked difference between the two investigations. Jonesy and his brethren have probably been doing similar things with their Robos for years! If the truth be known similar activities are probably happening in a remote outback station right now. The only difference being that there isn't any footage on national TV and the regulator is therefore none the wiser.
This other operator is however a purely commercial venture, that is contracted to the Federal Government. Therefore they are also ultimately answerable to the taxpayer!
Last edited by Sarcs; 8th Oct 2011 at 02:32.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therefore they are also ultimately answerable to the taxpayer!
There is also this: Air rescue group gave to Coalition | The Australian. Although I have no idea their influence over the present government, maybe the Minister and Nick are good neighbours in Mosman (Sydney)?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the latest from this dictatorial regime has the HOFO making an example of some poor bugger in a check by throwing 'multiple unrelated emergency/abnormal ops' to trip the poor bastard up!
This practise is totally contrary to the latest ATOM manual and given that it was all totally unbriefed, it would appear this poor individual is being set up for a fall.
Not to mention that the 'Checker' doesn't deserve to have a license, let alone a check pilot approval. Yet this drongoe continues to operate with impunity, go figure! CASA when will you be happy, maybe when he kills some poor bugger??
This practise is totally contrary to the latest ATOM manual and given that it was all totally unbriefed, it would appear this poor individual is being set up for a fall.
Not to mention that the 'Checker' doesn't deserve to have a license, let alone a check pilot approval. Yet this drongoe continues to operate with impunity, go figure! CASA when will you be happy, maybe when he kills some poor bugger??
Saw on TV today where a new series of Keeping Up With The Joneses will go to air soon.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Downunda
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This quote was taken from the Supplementary Senate estimates for Rural Affairs and Transport hearing held yesterday (18/10/2011).
I wonder who the good Senator is referring to??
and 
This is a general question to AMSA. How many aircraft operators do you use for surveillance of the coastline? Is it one or two operators, or three or four?
Mr Kinley: We do not do surveillance of the coastline. We use aircraft to undertake search and rescue.
Senator XENOPHON: Not surveillance. So how many operators are there in terms of search and rescue around the country?
Mr Young: One dedicated operator provides five fixed wing aircraft around the country, dedicated search and rescue aircraft. I do not have the immediate figure but it is in the order of 55 other operators that we will use from time to time. They range from state and territory provided emergency medical services helicopters, for example Safcare is on our list as an aircraft we would use and we have a number of other fixed wing operators around the country that we can use from time to time as need be. All up, I think there are around 60 and I can get you an accurate number on those.
Senator XENOPHON: So a significant number of operators. In general terms, what protocols and safeguards are there to ensure that those operators have appropriate standards of pilots training and of safety so that you know that the rescuers in a sense will not need to be rescued? Are there particular requirements that are set for those operators in terms of minimum standards?
Mr Young: Yes, there are. Firstly, we contract commercial operators. They obviously need to have an air operating certificate approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. We provide specialist search and rescue pilot training. That is about flying at lower altitudes, bad weather and special requirements for search and rescue operations. We run an audit program through which we go out with aircraft and watch their specialist operations.
Senator XENOPHON: I might place some of my questions on notice. Essentially, if they have the air operator certificate, that gives you comfort, because in order to get that you need to satisfy CASA. So you quite justifiably rely on that. In addition to those minimum requirements for an AOC you undertake your own audits.
Mr Young: We undertake our own audits of the search and rescue operation not flight operation.
Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps on notice you can give me some information on the extent of those audits.
Mr Young: Certainly.
Senator XENOPHON: And whether there been any issues with respect to any of those audits.
Mr Young: Yes.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you say whether there have been any concerns or outcomes as a result of those audits with respect to any of your operators? Are you able to answer that now, or do you want to take that on notice?
Mr Young: I would prefer to take that on notice, thanks.
Senator XENOPHON: That is fine. I would be grateful if you could
Mr Kinley: We do not do surveillance of the coastline. We use aircraft to undertake search and rescue.
Senator XENOPHON: Not surveillance. So how many operators are there in terms of search and rescue around the country?
Mr Young: One dedicated operator provides five fixed wing aircraft around the country, dedicated search and rescue aircraft. I do not have the immediate figure but it is in the order of 55 other operators that we will use from time to time. They range from state and territory provided emergency medical services helicopters, for example Safcare is on our list as an aircraft we would use and we have a number of other fixed wing operators around the country that we can use from time to time as need be. All up, I think there are around 60 and I can get you an accurate number on those.
Senator XENOPHON: So a significant number of operators. In general terms, what protocols and safeguards are there to ensure that those operators have appropriate standards of pilots training and of safety so that you know that the rescuers in a sense will not need to be rescued? Are there particular requirements that are set for those operators in terms of minimum standards?
Mr Young: Yes, there are. Firstly, we contract commercial operators. They obviously need to have an air operating certificate approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. We provide specialist search and rescue pilot training. That is about flying at lower altitudes, bad weather and special requirements for search and rescue operations. We run an audit program through which we go out with aircraft and watch their specialist operations.
Senator XENOPHON: I might place some of my questions on notice. Essentially, if they have the air operator certificate, that gives you comfort, because in order to get that you need to satisfy CASA. So you quite justifiably rely on that. In addition to those minimum requirements for an AOC you undertake your own audits.
Mr Young: We undertake our own audits of the search and rescue operation not flight operation.
Senator XENOPHON: Perhaps on notice you can give me some information on the extent of those audits.
Mr Young: Certainly.
Senator XENOPHON: And whether there been any issues with respect to any of those audits.
Mr Young: Yes.
Senator XENOPHON: Can you say whether there have been any concerns or outcomes as a result of those audits with respect to any of your operators? Are you able to answer that now, or do you want to take that on notice?
Mr Young: I would prefer to take that on notice, thanks.
Senator XENOPHON: That is fine. I would be grateful if you could
and
Saw on TV today where a new series of Keeping Up With The Joneses will go to air soon.
DF.
Watched Keeping up with the Joneses last night. I was of the understanding that once an aircraft crashed it became the property of the insurance company, & as such couldn't be moved without their say so. However in last night's episode it showed Jonesy going out & retrieving (winched out by another helo) the remains of a downed robbo (HYE) the day after it crashed into a heavily timbered area. He even gave his verdict on why it crashed - it ran out of power!
DF.
DF.