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 25th Nov 2017, 23:35
  #1081 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
To answer Thornbirds question,there is no prosecution of the pilot because the operator would be in the dock too and a competent defence would put CASA in there with the pair of them as well.
Are you aware that an entity cannot be cited under Australian Regulations, it has to be the responsible person? I understand that the PIC has already to the AAT over his license issue.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2017, 04:08
  #1082 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,185
Can you find a 'responsible person' in CAsA...???
aroa is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2017, 05:11
  #1083 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by aroa View Post
Can you find a 'responsible person' in CAsA...???
Fair point.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2017, 21:17
  #1084 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Do we know if Dominic has had his ATPL issued yet?
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2017, 21:28
  #1085 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Lower North Shore
Posts: 147
Originally Posted by Eddie Dean View Post
Do we know if Dominic has had his ATPL issued yet?
I believe so. I heard he is back flying Jets on Aeromed operations out of Sydney?
Brakerider is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2017, 23:14
  #1086 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,472
If so, he's probably the safest pilot you can get now. 8 years of CAA training and proving he can do a PNR...
Checkboard is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 05:29
  #1087 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,383
"8 years of CAA training"

Surely you jest?

But I'm glad you left the S out of CAsA acronym. About the only "training" the pilot received from CAsA was what a pineapple feels like inserted multiple times in the nether region.

He has had the suspension lifted on his ATPL, it was never cancelled. CAsA cannot fail to issue, if all parameters were met, which they were. But another road block has been erected. An impossibly expensive flight test, which because CAsA FOI's are prevented by their union from doing checks in an aircraft must be conducted in a simulator which happens to reside in the USA. Now lets see, business class for the FOI, 5 star hotel, away from home allowances, cost of the sim with a sim operator, cost of getting the victim there, Zoo class of course. I wouldn't think there would be much change out of fifty grand or so, and the chances are very likely given CAsA's probity in these matters, it would be a chop ride anyway. I could go on about the competence level of the FOI to conduct such a check, but suffice to say its minimal.

Incidentally the aircraft he was hoping to operate has far superior range than the Westwind , is equipped with dual FMS, modern HF with selcal, SAT phone, Plus an inflight Text function via satellite as backup.

The operator has a robust fuel policy, utilises a world leading flight planning, flight following company, available 24/7 via internet, telephone or if push came to shove HF. They will compute multi stage off track PNR's till they come out your K.....

In addition there are qualified people in the operator available 24/7 for advice or assistance.

NONE of these were available to him at his previous company, he was out there on his own.

So I would agree with you, he is a far safer pilot today than he was eight years ago and probably a hell of a lot wiser, but CAsA had nothing to do with that.

Perhaps a salutary warning to every pilot in Australia. You talk to the regulator or the ATSB at your peril, without a lawyer present. The law may say you have to answer, but there's the old Polliwaffle fallback "I don't recall".
thorn bird is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 06:32
  #1088 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 705
Originally Posted by Eddie Dean View Post
Are you aware that an entity cannot be cited under Australian Regulations, it has to be the responsible person? I understand that the PIC has already to the AAT over his license issue.
Sorry Eddie...where would that be written down and what particular Australian Regulations?

A corporation has personality under the common law so there would need to be a specific bit of legislation to cancel that.

Kaz
kaz3g is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 07:47
  #1089 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Eddie Dean View Post
The PIC did a thing that was out of character for him and for all of the Pelair pilots. You tell me how any person or organisation can mitigate for such a gross error? One that no one else, including himself had done before.
What a very convenient spin.

The PIC just had an out of character brain fart on this one flight. In all other respects the system within which he was operating was fine and could not practicably have predicted or prevented a one-off, out of character brain fart.

The problem with that spin is that it is not consistent with CASA’s ongoing punishment of the PIC. CASA’s ongoing punishment is justified on the basis of a chronic defect in the PIC’s airmanship.

The positions are irreconcileable. Everybody knows why.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 10:17
  #1090 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,775
No one can take CASA seriously, their edict that FAR 23 aircraft are grounded if temp exceeds 40°C is more proof than you need for that deduction.
megan is online now  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 11:16
  #1091 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Sorry Eddie...where would that be written down and what particular Australian Regulations?
It was brought about when CAA discovered they could not take regulatory action against ESSO many years ago. Think about why an organisation holding an AoC must have a person responsible for overall control of the AoC.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 19:26
  #1092 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Eddie Dean View Post
It was brought about when CAA discovered they could not take regulatory action against ESSO many years ago. Think about why an organisation holding an AoC must have a person responsible for overall control of the AoC.
Nonsense.

An “organisation holding an AOC” is a person, natural or unnatural. Otherwise, an AOC could not be issued to the “organisation” in the first place.

Qantas Airways Limited is a person. CASA is a person.

Persons can be sued and prosecuted.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 19:29
  #1093 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
Nonsense.

An “organisation holding an AOC” is a person, natural or unnatural. Otherwise, an AOC could not be issued to the “organisation” in the first place.

Qantas Airways Limited is a person. CASA is a person.

Persons can be sued and prosecuted.
Are you positive?
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 21:18
  #1094 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,298
Then why wasn't Gary Twoomey prosecuted after Ansett lost its AOC?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 21:48
  #1095 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Richmond
Age: 65
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Then why wasn't Gary Twoomey prosecuted after Ansett lost its AOC?
And what would the offence be? Mismanaging a company is not necessarily illegal.
JamieMaree is online now  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 21:53
  #1096 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Ansett was never run by a person by the name of Gary Twoomey and secondly Ansett never lost its AOC.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2017, 23:44
  #1097 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,775
Although Esso had its own CASA approved check and training section, it never held an AOC, and they fought tooth and nail against it when CASA tried to make them hold an AOC. Don't know who won, but I'd put my money on Esso with their phalanx of silk.
megan is online now  
Old 28th Nov 2017, 01:29
  #1098 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,706
I’m only guessing, but perhaps Esso’s operation was properly characterised as ‘private’ under the classification of operations scheme.

There is nothing preventing a private operator from choosing to have a check and training organisation (although I’m scratching my head wondering why it would need or be able to get CASA approval).
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2017, 02:43
  #1099 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,861
Although Esso had its own CASA approved check and training section, it never held an AOC, and they fought tooth and nail against it when CASA tried to make them hold an AOC.
AAAAHHH!!! That brings back some memories (nightmares) of the early 2000s, when a then Assistant Director of CASA decided there was going to be a "Private Operations AOC", with all the trappings of a full on AOC, plus a few wrinkles of his own.

"Traditional" Private Operations was to be limited to "the immediate family of the owner of the aircraft" ---- which immediately precluded a PPL hiring an aircraft, unless it was operated by a holder of a said "POAOC".

It was intended to bring ALL corporate operations, and most traditional private operations in Australia under an AOC. Also Limited Cat. C.of A aircraft.

The ABAA were smart enough to see off the proposal, not so AWAL.

In a wonderful example of gross over-regulation of non-existent problems (about 15 years of satisfactory and safe operations without it) Part 132 came about, no "safety" problem to mitigate, no benefit/cost analysis, it happened. But all the usual downsides, cost, complexity, and in this case, a few category unique problems.

A not so isolated example of how hard it is to kill a bad idea in CASA, once it takes root.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2017, 03:12
  #1100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,775
I’m scratching my head wondering why it would need or be able to get CASA approval
CASA FOI would renew the C & T ratings as required eg instrument, and the C & T would subsequently renew line pilot rating as required eg instrument. CASA approval must be part of the deal some where surely, despite no AOC.
megan is online now  

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.