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 9th Feb 2015, 23:20
  #741 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
Sarcs its easy to see why Norfolk wasn't included- there were no lessons to be learnt from it even though in most of the instances quoted it was seemingly the pilot's fault. Like the Chieftain out of Albury, it was a company requirement to do the run-ups on the outer tanks to see if the pumps were working! (Just in case its not obvious F8 sarcasm button has been pressed therefore I am agreeing with Sarc's post.)
Lookleft is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2015, 00:03
  #742 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I'm guessing the prelim report is the 'green paper' while the final report is the 'white paper'. This being the case the final report may have omitted some facts when it became the official 'story'?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2015, 00:15
  #743 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
A close analogy Frank but the only difference that should occur between any prelim and the Final is the Final includes analysis of the event,additional facts as they come to light during the investigation(such as CASA audits), any recommendations and contributing factors. Any facts that are stated in the prelim are still the facts unless any actual evidence proves otherwise. So the facts about who was flying at what time should not change. Given what happened over the course of producing the Final report I would suggest the prelim is the more accurate in presenting the facts.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2015, 06:02
  #744 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
I think I can redefine affordable safety.

Disband the ATSB and CASA, let ASA run the ATC environment, have CTA and OCTA. Let everyone do the best they can by modelling themselves on the US operations.

Save the industry untold millions. Safety not likely to be affected much at all. Less stress = better performance anyway. A more prosperous industry may actually be a safer one.

We are not getting value for money in terms of safety promotion and regulation so why bother.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2015, 08:15
  #745 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 78
Posts: 2,718
Why not Jab,

And, with the savings of the 'untold millions', we could have a service for those who operate OCTA and provide them with an inflight
'Flight Information Service'......Wouldn't cost 'that much', then EVERYBODY is 'HAPPY again'....(???)

'Cept Dick of course.......
p.s. Thanks again for de redundo......

Cheers
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2015, 11:50
  #746 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 388
Having recently filed an incident report (near collision), and gone through the interview process I was very surprised with the errors in the preliminary report - the supposed tracks made no sense, particularly in relation to times and distances, and the relative positions and performance capabilities of each aircraft. I spoke to the pilot of the other aircraft after seeing the report and he also commented that the flight tracks didn't make any sense and some statements were attributed to him he didn't make. Some 'facts' in the preliminary report that were based on my testimony were just wrong - maybe I didn't communicate well enough.

Whilst the final report was a vast improvement over the original, there were still inconsistencies. If neither of the two pilots involved had formally responded to the preliminary report, the final report would have been a worthless. As a post note, both myself and the other pilot had pretty much worked out what had happened when we first discussed incident.

The process was interesting, and it has certainly got a lot of the local pilots and operators thinking.
werbil is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2015, 22:50
  #747 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 51
Posts: 6,879
The process was interesting, and it has certainly got a lot of the local pilots and operators thinking.
That is the whole point. Pity the ATSB report was not written by you two guys so that others could stop think and learn from it.

After dissecting a few really bad ones myself, you start to wonder what to make of the others you read but do not have the subject matter knowledge to know if you are being told porkies. You soon question and doubt everything else.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2015, 23:04
  #748 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: THE BLUEBIRD CAFE
Posts: 60
Little wonder JQ was immersed in BS , and worse, from day one
Fantome is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 00:39
  #749 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
Did Australia mislead ICAO over the Pel-Air crash?

This story keeps getting more and more murky.

Plane talking today:

Did Australia mislead ICAO over the Pel-Air crash? | Plane Talking


ICAO Third Meeting of the Asia Pacific Regional Aviation Safety Team (APRAST/3)

Appendix B (starts page 32) lists occurrences from 2002 - 2011.
No mention of PelAir at Norfolk Island

http://www.icao.int/APAC/Meetings/20...G%20Report.pdf





The following document sets out the responsibilities of ICAO member states

http://www.airsafety.com.au/trinvbil/C619icao.pdf



This is the 2001 edition, which was in force at the time of the 2009 crash. The current edition (2010) is the same with regard to reporting responsibilities.

Page 7-2
Incidents to aircraft over 5 700 kg
7.7 If a State conducts an investigation into an incident to an aircraft of a maximum mass of over 5 700 kg, that State shall send, as soon as is practicable after the investigation, the Incident Data Report to the International Civil Aviation Organization.


Perhaps it would be best if ICAO simply asked the Canadian TSB for a copy of their review.
slats11 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 01:51
  #750 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Perhaps the NGA ditching didn’t rate a mention in the report because there was no fatality? Or perhaps because of the classification of the operation?

Lots of useful smoke and mirrors in the various definitions of ‘accident’ and ‘incident’, and the classification of operations rules in Australia.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 03:07
  #751 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
I don't think the severity is the explanation. Australian incidents reported to ICAO included gear collapse with no injuries. Based on this, a ditching with hull loss and significant injuries should meet the reporting threshold.

There may be some gamesmanship regarding class of operation.

However the intent of the ICAO seems pretty clear.

From what I have heard, a very senior ICAO person is surprised to be unaware of Norfolk.


Even more oddly, there are some incidents that were reported to ICAO for which there is no ATSB report (or at least, the ATSB report can not be found on the ATSB site). For example, the following PelAir / Rex incidents.

25/11/2004 VH-EEX Metro. Port gear collapsed on landing at Rockhampton ATSB reference 200404619 (I eventually found the ATSB record so ATSB know of incident, but could not locate the actual report).

3/4/2007 VH-KDO Metro Can’t find anything at all about this.

Probably not major incidents but odd that they have been reported to ICAO and we can't find any ATSB report.
slats11 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 05:20
  #752 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
a very senior ICAO person is surprised to be unaware of Norfolk.
But what will they do about it? Given the Royal raspberry that was given to the Senate and the Canadians, ICAO will be hardly worth AFITGD. Look at Australia's nomination for Secretary, there is a powerful message being sent to the Senate and ICAO by just having his name put forward.

If ICAO are unaware of the whole PelAir affair it also goes to show just how little attention they pay to aviation south of the equator. A simple subscription to Curt Lewis would keep them informed.

And of course there was the world wide interest that kept the Senate thread going until dark and evil forces demanded its termination. Why weren't ICAO monitoring that?
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 06:22
  #753 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
Chinese Air-Safety Veteran Set to Lead UN Agency

Chinese Air-Safety Veteran Set to Lead UN Agency
ANDY PASZTOR
4 HOURS AGO
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL NEWS INDUSTRIES AVIATION ECONOMY CHINA

A decision which if true will have the broad support of the Aust aviation community.
slats11 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 07:38
  #754 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Any links?
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 07:53
  #755 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
https://www.businessspectator.com.au...lead-un-agency


@PlaneTalking: The Australian candidate appears to have run into some accident reporting compliance problems. The Pel-Air curse continues
slats11 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 09:24
  #756 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
C'mon slats, you should know that there is no such thing as a certainty in aviation. I would agree that it is quite likely but I'll wait until there is an official announcement before I start going "ding dong the witch is dead".
Lookleft is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 10:01
  #757 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 56
Posts: 356
Indeed LL.

Does read like a formal leak. However have to wait and see.

Who knows. Formal notice may take the form of a Friday arvo fax.
slats11 is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2015, 03:56
  #758 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 47
Posts: 177
CASA - they're on a mission from God!

Some big hitters dining from the ICAO trough in 2015 (page 2, including Herr Skull);
http://www.icao.int/Meetings/HLSC201...egates_No1.pdf

Skulls inclusion reminds me of Jake and Elwood putting the band back together!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4yECgXi3Y_8

At the end of the day ICAO is just another mob of pontificating disconnected human beings living on cloud 9, and wouldn't know shit from clay. Of course they were either duped by the Pel Air report or they hadn't heard of it. They spend so much time working minimal hours, having their heads under water while bobbing from fully funded troughs or spend so much time with their heads lodged up their own asses that they simply wouldn't be aware of what went on, down under, 5 years ago
The mere fact that the Skull was nominated and ICAO accepted the Australian Governments nomination proves that ICAO is an outdated geriatric political movement. Folly folly folly.
Soteria is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2015, 04:52
  #759 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
I don't see my name there. Come to think about it, neither is 'Eric the eel'. Looks like Alejandro Madiba Valle got the gig for Equatorial Guinea. That makes me sleep better at night.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2015, 11:55
  #760 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Originally Posted by Frank Arouet
That makes me sleep better at night.
MCCORMICK John ADV Australian candidate for ICAO Secretary General
Me too!!
Hempy 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.