Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

Old 10th Sep 2012, 07:37
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,185
lexicon and etc...

The 4Cs showed that the Westwind guy had another job , and the coie does too.
Which is good. Free to carry on a career. After a night to remember.

At least they weren't "Qadrio-ed" No job, no income, no licence, no career.

J Quadrio did NOT drop a Robbo into the water and did NOT nearly wipe out 6 people... saved by the Pelair bell were the others? Or the effluxion of CASA and ATSB. Do I detect a certain aroma here?? Or is it just plain old CYA 101?

JQs treatment should now be in the lexicon..

A quadrio. n..ie name of the act, to sh*t on someone, used by the regulator, without due process. ie do a quadrio on someone, a wrongful act without due process.

Quadrio-ed vb. The act of sh*tting on a person, by the regulator, without due process. ie he's been quadrioed... thus becoming the shattee.

Will be most interesting to see how these 2 diverse occurences finally play out.
Maybe the PelAir is over already.
aroa is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2012, 21:37
  #282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Cheers Wally – it's not only the 'shambles' of a report that gets me. There have been a whole series of reports (Jetstar, Air North, Whyalla, Airtex etc. etc) which are effectively useless for industry practical intent and purpose.

They work fine for the CASA and the Minister and for at least one of the insurance companies; but, as far as being of any value in accident prevention, defining preventable accident or cause, producing cohesive guidelines, they are a none event. Think it was Sarcs a page or so back compared the BASI report on Seaview to the Air North Braz. Chalk and cheese.

The fix went in after Staunton (Seaview) to protect the minister, since then in a very legal way, through the Miller report and the MOU, the reports just mirror whatever the party line is at the time. Compare Jetstar reports to Tiger reports and you will see. Perhaps someone can put a link or four up.

I hear the Canley Vale report is due soon, betcha a choccy frog the report is skewed to the max; it will have to be; to protect and enshrine the CASA line taken during the rape of Airtex. Now the differences between PA and Airtex have to be justified and excused. Can't wait, then there will be the Coroners court. Happy days !.

One of these cases will come back and haunt them all, comparable situations, comparable alleged breaches, vastly different AOC outcome, different treatment of Check Training, different treatment of pilots; and, very, very different ATSB reports. Tick tock.
Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2012, 22:00
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
There is a real difference between the JQ case and the Norfolk guy.
The first was just a poor country lad.
The latter came from a wealthy background.
A good lawyer could argue the guy breached no rules, lacking experience
and being a tad foolish is not a crime.
His licence was suspended by the Bankstown Ex RAAF baggage handler, but later reinstated so I heard. That wasnt because a well funded lawsuite was in the offering was it?
thorn bird is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2012, 22:15
  #284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Happy days

Don't know why, but it makes me smile - a lot.

Kharon is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2012, 23:45
  #285 (permalink)  
bdcer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Kharon, that's a work of art!
 
Old 10th Sep 2012, 23:48
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 690
Was that an investigator's course?

I reckon the chick with the lawn rake had to be ATSB

Last edited by flying-spike; 10th Sep 2012 at 23:49.
flying-spike is offline  
Old 10th Sep 2012, 23:59
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Compare Jetstar reports to Tiger reports and you will see. Perhaps someone can put a link or four up.
YWIMC (your wish is my command): Should be in this lot for Airbus 320s,330s with the right regos and minus the BOS, Airprox and onboard events (well some of them!)...

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-136.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-089.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-039.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-037.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-021.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/aair/ao-2007-044.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-020.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-035.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-073.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-011.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-031.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-049.aspx

Fill your boots with that lot, can't promise you'll learn anything but it is a good comparison and probably shows 'Regulatory Capture' and the MOU in all its glory!

Oh and here is a quote from the Braz training accident in Darwin...

Contributing safety factors

• The pilot in command initiated a simulated left engine failure just after becoming airborne and at a speed that did not allow adequate margin for error.
• The pilot in command simulated a failure of the left engine by selecting flight idle instead of zero thrust, thereby simulating a simultaneous failure of the left engine and its propeller autofeather system, instead of a failure of the engine alone.
• The pilot under check operated the aircraft at a speed and attitude (bank angle) that when uncorrected, resulted in a loss of control.
• The pilot under check increased his workload by increasing torque on the right engine and selecting the yaw damper.
• The pilot in command probably became preoccupied and did not abandon the simulated engine failure after the heading and speed tolerance for the manoeuvre were exceeded and before control of the aircraft was lost.

Other key findings

• Shortly after the accident, when an Australian aviation training facility operating an EMB-120 simulator and its staff were approved to undertake the operator’s training requirements, the operator transitioned the majority of its EMB-120 proficiency checking, including asymmetric flight sequences, to ground-based training at that facility.


http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3546615/ao-2010-019.pdf

I could do the same for Seaview but I don't believe the mods would appreciate it as the same section of that report holds about half a gig of conclusionary and safety action (SRs)...well worth a read though!

http://atsb.com.au/media/24362/aair199402804_001.pdf

Here's a couple more Airbus events for 2012:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-116.aspx

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-103.aspx

Last edited by Sarcs; 11th Sep 2012 at 05:23.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 00:49
  #288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 637
Norfolk Island FIS Responsibility

Ref post #313
The ATSB report then goes on to say that “Nadi ATC did not, and was not required by any international agreement to, proactively provide the 0803 amended Norfolk Island TAF to the flight crew”. Why is this not a “finding” of the report then? If a TAF is amended and it fundamentally impacts the safety of an aircraft in flight, why wouldn’t it be a requirement to let the Captain know about it? This seems insane! If this is true, the laws need changing and therefore it is a systemic problem and should have been a finding.
It is a requirement to let the Captain know about an amended TAF and there are international standards covering how delivery responsibility is allocated to the ATS units, however the question in this incident is whose responsibility was it to direct the information to the incident aircraft; Airservices Australia or Airways NZ?

One thing for sure it is not a Nadi ATC responsibility as Norfolk Island is located in the Auckland Oceanic FIR so, under normal circumstances, the responsibility should rest with Airways NZ. However, the NZ AIP (Gen 3.3) specifically excludes Norfolk Island as an Airways ATS responsibility because Norfolk Island is administered by Australia and, therefore, by implication the NZ AIP assumes it is an Airservices Australia responsibility to pass amended TAFs to aircraft operating or intending to operate at Norfolk Island. This was certainly the case when there was an Airservices' Flight Service Unit (FSU) located at Norfolk Island who had the FIS responsibility and flight plans were addressed to the FSU to assist them in their directed FIS delivery function.

When the FSU was decommissioned in the early 1990s and MBZ procedures were established at Norfolk Island, the ATS (including FIS) responsibility should have been transferred to the Brisbane FSC and, in my view, the NZ AIP wording appears to reflect this arrangement. However, in order for Airservices to provide a FIS, the Brisbane FSC would require access to all Norfolk Island flight plans including all those not transiting an Australian FIR. Were the relevant aircraft flight plans redirected to the Brisbane FSC once the Norfolk Island FSU was decommissioned? The alternative was to transfer the FIS responsibility to Airways NZ seeing Norfolk Island was in the Auckland Oceanic FIR, which was obviously not done.

To further complicate matters, Airservices' Flight Service function was subsequently amalgamated with the ATC function and, without access to the required flight plans (particularly those for Apia-Norfolk Island, Auckland-Norfolk Island, Nadi-Norfolk Island which do not go through any Australian FIR) Airservices would not have had the necessary data to provide a directed FIS for Norfolk Island. Furthermore, Airservices Australia then changed FIS responsibility from one where ATC provided a directed FIS service to placing responsibility on a pilot on an "on request" or "self help" basis using Flightwatch.

With all these changes over time, combined with the confusion caused by an Australian territory located in a foreign FIR but operating under Australian regulations and standards, I suspect Norfolk Island FIS delivery responsibility probably "fell through the cracks" between Australia and NZ when the FSU was decommissioned in the early 1990s, which may be another contributing reason why the Pel-Air pilot was not aware of the amended TAF on Norfolk Island; notwithstanding the pilot's own flight plan and in-flight update failings.

So the big question now is:

"DID ANYONE IN CASA OR AIRSERVICES ALERT THE CAA OF NZ OR AIRWAYS NZ OF THE CONTINUED NEED FOR AIRCRAFT FLIGHT PLANS TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE BRISBANE FSC ONCE THE NORFOLK ISLAND FSU WAS DECOMISSIONED IN THE 1990s ? AND FURTHERMORE DID ANYONE IN CASA OR AIRSERVICES COORDINATE WITH THEIR NZ COUNTERPARTS TO ALERT THEM TO THE OPERATIONAL IMPACT THAT THE CHANGE BY AIRSERVICES FROM A DIRECTED FIS TO AN ON REQUEST FLIGHTWATCH FIS MAY HAVE ON THE DELIVERY OF FIS AT NORFOLK ISLAND SO THAT THE NZ AGENCIES COULD REVIEW THEIR AIP AND ATS ARRANGEMENTS? I suspect not.

This issue needs to be resolved for the safety of future operations.

Last edited by QSK?; 11th Sep 2012 at 04:20.
QSK? is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 01:23
  #289 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,502
Oh and here is a quote from the Braz training accident in Darwin...

I think that says it all for the specifics of the prang.

What didn't impress me was the Report's lack of detail on contributory operator shortcomings which, I presume, existed ...
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 07:16
  #290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Now - I love Tuesday.

A 'friend' emailed me a confidential report earlier today, wanted my thoughts on it before sending it off to wherever 'they' want to send it. (Thanks mate, I resisted editing it). It's some 20 pages long and deals with a fatal air accident. Got me thinking (not a usual Tuesday occupation).

OK. For the coveted 'Choccy Frog' which accident does it refer to??.

Many areas of 'operational' and legal significance have not, in our opinion been satisfactorily addressed or presented. These important, directly related elements, whilst technical are relatively straight forward; and, may be readily comprehended by 'the man in the street'. We believe that this information properly presented could have greatly assisted the Coroner formulate a decision with greater clarity.

From an industry point of view, it appears that the inquiry was ruthlessly driven to an almost forgone conclusion. Primarily by the omission of what is believed to be important information for the Coroner to consider; the inability of the court to interview essential witnesses and examine that testimony. Some of the Coroners remarks seem to reflect this.

One shortcoming, in our view of the ATSB is, that, unlike the USA National Transport Safety Bureau (NTSB), ATSB does not find a “most probable cause” of an accident, or present 'ranked' contributory causes.
Your Choccy Frog awaits.

Last edited by Kharon; 11th Sep 2012 at 07:25. Reason: It NEEDED editing - curse you Papa.
Kharon is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 07:24
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,861
by the Bankstown Ex RAAF baggage handler,
Thorn Bird,
Give him a break, he was an RAAF Loadmaster ---- he gave the orders to the baggage handlers, pas comme ca. Credit where credit is due, and all that sort of thing.
Tootle pip!!

LeadSled is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 07:25
  #292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Down Under
Posts: 21
Kharon,

Could it be in the SA region?

joe

Last edited by joe_bloggs; 11th Sep 2012 at 07:26.
joe_bloggs is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 08:22
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Nope,

Sorry Joe, but you will admit - it could have been. It all sounds so familiar, ne cest pas.

LS started it; Continental, so we get to amble along behind this Tuesday.

Last edited by Kharon; 11th Sep 2012 at 08:33. Reason: forgot my to to ????
Kharon is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 16:22
  #294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,471
ATPL Flight Planning Exam -
  1. Asks the questions that were relevant to this flight.
  2. time allowed for the exam (ie "planning") 3 hours
  3. candidates, who have studied for months on this particular exam, with short cuts and prior notice of most of the questions, who complete the exam in the time allotted - about 80%?

Does that prepare anyone who actually has to manually plan jet ops in the real world?
Checkboard is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 21:04
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
OK. For the coveted 'Choccy Frog' which accident does it refer to??.
Although it could be any number of 'fatal prangs' in say the last thirty years, there are some pretty strong indicators in the passage of text that would place it within the last ten years but before the initiation of the ATSB/CASA MOU.

So my bet is with Lockhart River, as the tactics employed (back then) by CASA legal were very much like those mentioned in that passage i.e. three words obfuscation, obfuscation and obfuscation!

These days the 'obfuscation' is very much simplified by the MOU, as they now no longer have to convince the bureau anymore...hmm just like the AAT CASA legal have also got the state coroner's court system sussed!

So do I get my Freddo??
Sarcs is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 22:42
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Ah, well, yes but.

(Bad German accent) – Zo, Herr Sarcs: you vish the chocolate frog, to claim. Ziz is OK but; zere is ze matter of ze finen printen.

Now, you must find three uzzers to support your claim; unt, zey must be able, through zer teeth, to tell ze porky pies. Zis vay – ze prize you vill vin.
Kharon is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2012, 23:49
  #297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Oh where is Saur Kraut when you need him? Ok drum roll....or this

Can anyone help me out here??...I promise you half a frog head! Or is it going to be a case of..

Don't like my chances "K" but we were over due a Nazi reference!

Last edited by Sarcs; 11th Sep 2012 at 23:51.
Sarcs is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2012, 00:23
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
Bugger Sarcs beat me to it, now I'm totally stumpted.
Leadie I stand corrected and apologise profusly to the ex RAAF
baggage orderer...which of course makes him eminently qualified
to assess all things aviation and preside as prosecuter, judge, jury and executioner.Heard he was rather proud of the number of people he'd managed to throw out of work.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2012, 10:47
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: S.H.
Posts: 171
Wink Who and Where video

Kharon...

Priceless!

Is Dolan the one who gets hit in the balls at 0:21?
chainsaw is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2012, 11:09
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 767
Originally Posted by Checkboard View Post
ATPL Flight Planning Exam -
  1. Asks the questions that were relevant to this flight.
  2. time allowed for the exam (ie "planning") 3 hours
  3. candidates, who have studied for months on this particular exam, with short cuts and prior notice of most of the questions, who complete the exam in the time allotted - about 80%?

Does that prepare anyone who actually has to manually plan jet ops in the real world?
ATPL Flight planning exam has been pulled until further notice!!

Any connection??

More to Follow

The Kelpie
The Kelpie is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.