Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been a while since I've read the previous report, but this is the first that I've heard about the pilot not having a valid medical. If that's the case then how much actual oversight did the operator have of it's operations? If the operator had the pilot's medical expiry date in their crewing system, then the pilot should not have been asked to do the flight.
I know it was a multi crew aircraft and that the Captain is ultimately responsible, but I don't think that the first officers roles and actions were covered in enough detail for this accident.
As much as the Captain is responsible, it seems that there may have been many Swiss cheese holes aligning in this operation and this accident is the result.
I know it was a multi crew aircraft and that the Captain is ultimately responsible, but I don't think that the first officers roles and actions were covered in enough detail for this accident.
As much as the Captain is responsible, it seems that there may have been many Swiss cheese holes aligning in this operation and this accident is the result.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been a while since I've read the previous report, but this is the first that I've heard about the pilot not having a valid medical. If that's the case then how much actual oversight did the operator have of it's operations? If the operator had the pilot's medical expiry date in their crewing system, then the pilot should not have been asked to do the flight.
I know it was a multi crew aircraft and that the Captain is ultimately responsible, but I don't think that the first officers roles and actions were covered in enough detail for this accident.
As much as the Captain is responsible, it seems that there may have been many Swiss cheese holes aligning in this operation and this accident is the result.
I know it was a multi crew aircraft and that the Captain is ultimately responsible, but I don't think that the first officers roles and actions were covered in enough detail for this accident.
As much as the Captain is responsible, it seems that there may have been many Swiss cheese holes aligning in this operation and this accident is the result.
You are quite right about the first officer's role. There was next to nothing about it in the first report and I will be interested to see whether there is any detail in the second report.
PLovett you have it exactly correct.
My post #941 took Vref+5 to task for suggesting the Seaview was a ditching, of course it was a crash into the ocean
Then Vref+5 says that it is the Operators fault that all the points I made took place. Clearly rubbish.
Then FDG135 presumably reckons I’ve got it wrong and says that the Seaview bloke needed to do the flight or he would spend a long time as an unemployable pilot. Maybe, but why would you employ a pilot with such a casual approach to exercising the rights and obligations of a commercial pilot.
Then Thorn Bird goes right off the conversation writing as though my words were about NFI ditching..
Then Rammel follows the theme.
My post #941 took Vref+5 to task for suggesting the Seaview was a ditching, of course it was a crash into the ocean
Then Vref+5 says that it is the Operators fault that all the points I made took place. Clearly rubbish.
Then FDG135 presumably reckons I’ve got it wrong and says that the Seaview bloke needed to do the flight or he would spend a long time as an unemployable pilot. Maybe, but why would you employ a pilot with such a casual approach to exercising the rights and obligations of a commercial pilot.
Then Thorn Bird goes right off the conversation writing as though my words were about NFI ditching..
Then Rammel follows the theme.
If we assume the pilot’s medical certificate had expired, the outcome is that the pilot was not lawfully permitted to exercise the privileges of his licence. That’s not the same as the pilot’s licence being invalid.
Nor is it the same as the pilot being medically unfit. Are you saying, JM, that the expiry of a medical certificae automatically results in the certificate holder being unfit?
Nor is it the same as the pilot being medically unfit. Are you saying, JM, that the expiry of a medical certificae automatically results in the certificate holder being unfit?
If we assume the pilot’s medical certificate had expired, the outcome is that the pilot was not lawfully permitted to exercise the privileges of his licence. That’s not the same as the pilot’s licence being invalid.
Noit the same as the pilot being medically unfit. Are you saying, JM, that the expiry of a medical certificae automatically results in the certificate holder being unfit?
Noit the same as the pilot being medically unfit. Are you saying, JM, that the expiry of a medical certificae automatically results in the certificate holder being unfit?
To demonstrate the point:
In an airline that I know, if a pilot crew member has slipped through the cracks and is discovered to not have a current medical , the flight may ultimately be delayed, 400 pax inconvenienced and put up at company expense in hotels until a pilot in the rank with a current medical can be found. The company had systems in place, but it was not totally idiot proof in that when someone wasn’t paying attention ( the pilot) and someone wasn’t doing their job (the system) , and the system caught up, there were consequences and one was that the flight didn’t proceed with a pilot who was not properly licensed.
In an airline that I know, if a pilot crew member has slipped through the cracks and is discovered to not have a current medical , the flight may ultimately be delayed, 400 pax inconvenienced and put up at company expense in hotels until a pilot in the rank with a current medical can be found. The company had systems in place, but it was not totally idiot proof in that when someone wasn’t paying attention ( the pilot) and someone wasn’t doing their job (the system) , and the system caught up, there were consequences and one was that the flight didn’t proceed with a pilot who was not properly licensed.
I'm talking about Norfolk Island - Jamiemaree doesn't seem to want to understand that the accident was caused by a systemic failure. There is no single cause. A combination of circumstances trapped the pilot.
The obvious desire of the real culprits to escape blame was the reason for the punishment of the pilot. That is why the original report is a crock. That is also why the new report will be a whitewash. That is why CASA and ATSB are held in low repute and that is why the industry is deteriorating.
The obvious desire of the real culprits to escape blame was the reason for the punishment of the pilot. That is why the original report is a crock. That is also why the new report will be a whitewash. That is why CASA and ATSB are held in low repute and that is why the industry is deteriorating.
I'm talking about Norfolk Island - Jamiemaree doesn't seem to want to understand that the accident was caused by a systemic failure. There is no single cause. A combination of circumstances trapped the pilot.
The obvious desire of the real culprits to escape blame was the reason for the punishment of the pilot. That is why the original report is a crock. That is also why the new report will be a whitewash. That is why CASA and ATSB are held in low repute and that is why the industry is deteriorating.
The obvious desire of the real culprits to escape blame was the reason for the punishment of the pilot. That is why the original report is a crock. That is also why the new report will be a whitewash. That is why CASA and ATSB are held in low repute and that is why the industry is deteriorating.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EIGHT LONG YEARS
It has been 8 years next month since this ditching occurred.
One is left to wonder what lessons could be learned after all this time.
All parties involved have long since moved on with their lives, some doing not so well as others.
Should it eventuate that the PIC was an innocent party to the incident, what if any recourse would he have?
One is left to wonder what lessons could be learned after all this time.
All parties involved have long since moved on with their lives, some doing not so well as others.
Should it eventuate that the PIC was an innocent party to the incident, what if any recourse would he have?
The delay in producing a report - eight years - makes a mockery of the ATSB, their investigators, and diminishes any conclusions...oh but that was 8 years ago. Regs and SOPS have been amended accordingly.
It is a joke, an embarrassment, and shameful. The fact that the bloated bureaucrats involved are still, STILL, procrastinating about this convinces me that this report is going to be the biggest arse covering exercise ever.
It is a joke, an embarrassment, and shameful. The fact that the bloated bureaucrats involved are still, STILL, procrastinating about this convinces me that this report is going to be the biggest arse covering exercise ever.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it funny how the final report was delayed again, at the same time ICAO advised CASA of an audit? I mean, it wouldn't be very nice having a nasty ATSB report criticising the regulator lying around, distracting the ICAO auditors from doing their job. Best to delay it to avoid any distractions (read - giving them any leads!!!) and let them finish the well rehearsed procedure. Now that the audit has finished I'm sure it will be released very soon which means CASA has about 10 years to bury it.
Just to be clear, that is sarcasm!!!
Just to be clear, that is sarcasm!!!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it funny how the final report was delayed again, at the same time ICAO advised CASA of an audit? I mean, it wouldn't be very nice having a nasty ATSB report criticising the regulator lying around, distracting the ICAO auditors from doing their job. Best to delay it to avoid any distractions (read - giving them any leads!!!) and let them finish the well rehearsed procedure. Now that the audit has finished I'm sure it will be released very soon which means CASA has about 10 years to bury it.
Just to be clear, that is sarcasm!!!
Just to be clear, that is sarcasm!!!
