Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
After all this time we will all be following the media to find out what is going on.
The strange thing is that for all the delays and inefficiency of the legal system, it may prove better at getting to the bottom of things than CASA or ATSB.
The strange thing is that for all the delays and inefficiency of the legal system, it may prove better at getting to the bottom of things than CASA or ATSB.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of things Pelair, REX and CASA
Indeed, what CASA office was responsible for the regulatory surveillance of the Westwind operations of PelAir during the 2006/7/8/9 period?
'Corrupt skies for all'
[F]rom memory that would be the illustrious Sydney office that oversighted/surveilled the little Westwind operation. Because Pelair is part of the REX Group the Sydney office, not Bankstown, held that portfolio. ...
According to his public LinkedIn page, left CASA way back in 2007.
Member - with aviation expertise
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
April 2013 – Present (1 year 10 months)Sydney
Director
Aviation Aerospace Australia
January 2012 – 2014 (2 years)Melbourne Area, Australia
Independent Director
Group General Manager Safety, Compliance and Operational Risk
Qantas
July 2007 – April 2009 (1 year 10 months)Sydney, Australia
Overall responsibility for all safety (operational safety and OH&S) and regulatory compliance for Qantas Airways Limited Air Operators' Certificate
Manager Airline Operations
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
March 1996 – June 2007 (11 years 4 months)Sydney Area, Australia
Regulatory and safety oversight of all airline AOCs and MROs based in Sydney including Qantas Airways, Regional Express, QantasLink
Member - with aviation expertise
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
April 2013 – Present (1 year 10 months)Sydney
Director
Aviation Aerospace Australia
January 2012 – 2014 (2 years)Melbourne Area, Australia
Independent Director
Group General Manager Safety, Compliance and Operational Risk
Qantas
July 2007 – April 2009 (1 year 10 months)Sydney, Australia
Overall responsibility for all safety (operational safety and OH&S) and regulatory compliance for Qantas Airways Limited Air Operators' Certificate
Manager Airline Operations
Civil Aviation Safety Authority
March 1996 – June 2007 (11 years 4 months)Sydney Area, Australia
Regulatory and safety oversight of all airline AOCs and MROs based in Sydney including Qantas Airways, Regional Express, QantasLink
Seems to me that some significant rot had developed during the time Mr Bartsch was ostensibly responsible for "regulatory and safety oversight" of Rex. According to Slat's summary timeline:
Were the identified deficiencies confined to the PelAir/Westwind aspects of the operation?
It seems very odd to me that, notwithstanding 6 months or so of advance warning, there were still such ostensibly serious deficiencies left to be discovered by the regulator during the audit. If accurate, it would suggest to me that the operator was out of its depth, or unperturbed by the prospect of the regulator finding serious deficiencies during an audit, or a mixture of both. If Slat's summary timeline is reasonably accurate, these regulatory interactions seem to me to have been almost entirely ineffective:
It seems to me to be little more than a pantomime - both sides going through the motions of finding and addressing the same deficiencies, over and over again.
1. There was a routine CASA audit of PelAir scheduled for October 2007. This had to be re-scheduled as the organisation could not provide sufficient paperwork to allow this 2007 audit to proceed.
2. The re-scheduled audit took place in March 2008. This audit was damning, finding multiple defects. Among the most serious was that the training records of 20 pilots were seriously deficient (for example, 80% of these records contained no evidence of training in emergency procedures). There were numerous other deficiencies - the full report is in the public domain. Most seriously of all, the company conceded its pilots had not been trained in fatigue management as required - this caused CASA to issue an immediate “Safety Alert” requiring the company to immediately cease operating under its existing fatigue management policy until this training was undertaken....
2. The re-scheduled audit took place in March 2008. This audit was damning, finding multiple defects. Among the most serious was that the training records of 20 pilots were seriously deficient (for example, 80% of these records contained no evidence of training in emergency procedures). There were numerous other deficiencies - the full report is in the public domain. Most seriously of all, the company conceded its pilots had not been trained in fatigue management as required - this caused CASA to issue an immediate “Safety Alert” requiring the company to immediately cease operating under its existing fatigue management policy until this training was undertaken....
It seems very odd to me that, notwithstanding 6 months or so of advance warning, there were still such ostensibly serious deficiencies left to be discovered by the regulator during the audit. If accurate, it would suggest to me that the operator was out of its depth, or unperturbed by the prospect of the regulator finding serious deficiencies during an audit, or a mixture of both. If Slat's summary timeline is reasonably accurate, these regulatory interactions seem to me to have been almost entirely ineffective:
5. Following the crash, CASA conducted a special audit in November - December 2009. This was much more in depth than the routine March 2008 audit. What had been wrong in March 2008 was still wrong. Furthermore, additional serious problems came to light.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found a SMH piece about the court case
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/norfolk-is...17-104fpy.html
Seems they are reporting Ms Casey agrees with the ATSB, very strange indeed
But Ms Casey says the airline and its pilots knew or ought to have known that Norfolk Island was notorious for sudden and extreme weather variations, and had the crew checked the revised forecast earlier into the flight, they could have diverted the plane to New Zealand or New Caledonia.She also says the pilots failed to activate an emergency locator transmitter or personal locator beacons and failed to deploy the liferaft prior to abandoning the plane.
Seems they are reporting Ms Casey agrees with the ATSB, very strange indeed
So why did the regulator and operator permit such an ostensibly poorly-prepared pilot (and copilot) to fly in those circumstances, especially given the substance of the issues apparently discovered during audits before the incident?
If you understand the Reason model and the 'Swiss Cheese' metaphor - as I strongly suspect you do - you'll understand why your leading question speaks volumes about your bias.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodness, me biased - never.
But be that as it may, ATSB investigators would not have expected so much interest to be paid to an Airwork accident, it's not a heavy into the mythical smoking hole is it?
The senate should have done more than thrash around in the bathtub, lots of noise and action, no progress. That process got bogged down in personalities, and people at the back of the room.
And I noted no recommendation for compensation.
CASA and ATSB stand in poor light over the Pel AIr report, but I suspect for reasons other than those pursued in the Senate.
I read that one of the Pilots had to take various tests for CASA to keep his ratings, and was able to pass first time, perhaps this means his skill set was as required for an ATPL.
But be that as it may, ATSB investigators would not have expected so much interest to be paid to an Airwork accident, it's not a heavy into the mythical smoking hole is it?
The senate should have done more than thrash around in the bathtub, lots of noise and action, no progress. That process got bogged down in personalities, and people at the back of the room.
And I noted no recommendation for compensation.
CASA and ATSB stand in poor light over the Pel AIr report, but I suspect for reasons other than those pursued in the Senate.
I read that one of the Pilots had to take various tests for CASA to keep his ratings, and was able to pass first time, perhaps this means his skill set was as required for an ATPL.
Last edited by Eddie Dean; 31st Jan 2015 at 23:11. Reason: too many definitives
The assertion that it was an "Airwork" accident merely begs one of the questions the answer to which goes to the chronic corporate incompetence of the regulator and accident investigator.
Who decided that the classification of the operation in which NGA was engaged at the time was "airwork"? Was it a Court? If not, it's just someone's untested opinion.
A competent accident accident investigator would have tested that opinion.
Perhaps an operation involving fare paying passengers and no emergency is charter? Of course, all of this will become clear in 1998, with new, clear and concise classification of operations rules.
A competent accident accident investigator would have tested that opinion.
Perhaps an operation involving fare paying passengers and no emergency is charter? Of course, all of this will become clear in 1998, with new, clear and concise classification of operations rules.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my limited understanding, the type of operation is in 206 or there abouts. so who wrote the regs? Are they Law? Open to interpretation?
You make a very good point, one that was not pursued by the Senate, this would be one of the reason holes that would have put the aircraft in a higher operational category and perhaps prevent the occurrence
You make a very good point, one that was not pursued by the Senate, this would be one of the reason holes that would have put the aircraft in a higher operational category and perhaps prevent the occurrence
Last edited by Eddie Dean; 31st Jan 2015 at 23:22. Reason: spelling, added Law and interpretation comment, mea culpa creampuff
"Limited understanding"?
A search of your posts suggests your ignorance is feigned.
And you edited your post above by adding content, not correcting spelling.
A search of your posts suggests your ignorance is feigned.
And you edited your post above by adding content, not correcting spelling.