Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smoking hole, blackhole, a#shole......
Good work SARCS. I have one question however - "Does this mean that the legendary Blackhole, TRIM, does actually work and files can be retrieved?
gobbles there are some real pearlers in this lot if you care to look (hint check the additional information section, it's like a who's who of pony pooh)
: Senate Committees – Parliament of Australia
By the way check out the insipid submission from Pelair it's almost like their saying..."Phew we dodged a bullet with that one!"
: Senate Committees – Parliament of AustraliaBy the way check out the insipid submission from Pelair it's almost like their saying..."Phew we dodged a bullet with that one!"
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hansard - better than Google?
Jamair# 525 - Would not the 'silence' have been negated by recovery of the CVR and FDR? Be REAL interesting to hear what was on those - oh wait, apparently the cost of recovery (two scuba divers with a screwdriver for twenty minutes) made it unviable.... so a USV was sent down instead.
CHAIR: Mr Dolan, who made the decision not to recover the black box?
Mr Dolan: I did, Senator.
Senator XENOPHON: There is a briefing note on points for consideration in relation to ATSB recovery of aircraft flight recorders for the Westwind aircraft, VH-NGA—and it goes through various things. It talks about an overview of flight crew, recovery options, issues, risks, decision points, the costs and the benefits.
It talks about the ATSB's reputation of being seen as acting seriously when appropriate and fulfilling its share of the commitment associated with the considerable costs of installing and maintaining black boxes. It said 'present indications show a likelihood of strong safety measures in both normal and abnormal flight conditions based on existing data'.
Then it talked about the benefits and costs, risks and ATSB's reputation for being relevant on risks. It says, 'Next year's budget was reduced because of this year's underspend. We cannot assess the accuracy of the pilot's perceptions.' Following the EMT, it advised the approved deployment of the investigation team in Norfolk Island to conduct a search for the aircraft using a ping locator.
They also approved funding of up to $20,000 to recover the recorders and were open to discussions on further expenditure if required. So there clearly was a detailed discussion. The conclusion early on seemed to be to recover the cockpit voice recorder, but it was not recovered. We are all mystified—or I am. I think my colleagues are also mystified as to why we did not recover it.
Mr Dolan: At the initial stages, we understood the aircraft was in comparatively shallow water and that access to the recorders would be reasonably achievable by a diver or other mechanisms without too much difficulty.
That brief was to convince me to make the necessary allocation of resources to retrieve the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. Upon investigation, it became clear that the depth at which the aircraft was in the water, its location at a remote island, Norfolk Island, and the work health and safety standards applying to diving to those depths meant that there would have been a substantial cost of recovery.
The requirement was effectively that there be a decompression chamber, none of which was available on Norfolk Island, for the full time of the retrieval because of the depth at which the divers would be operating. When we got a reasonable and first approximation assessment of that, in the knowledge that, from our point of view, the key information we had about flight decision making would not have been recorded on the cockpit voice recorder which only had a two-hour time on it—
Senator XENOPHON: So let us not labour the point. That was an earlier assessment and subsequent assessment said that it was going to cost a lot more?
Mr Dolan: Correct.
CHAIR: Even though someone offered to do it for $500.
Senator EDWARDS: Is that right?
CHAIR: Yes.
Senator XENOPHON: But it would not have been on, on health and safety. Chair, to be fair to the ATSB, there is no way—
Mr Dolan: I would be unable to countenance that in terms of my responsibility.
CHAIR: As for your occupational health and safety background I am not allowed to climb up on my bloody bulk tanker, which I have been climbing on for 40 years, to put a hose in the top of it because it is not safe to climb up the side on a ladder on a fuel tank.
Mr Dolan: Falls from heights are a substantial cause of injury—
CHAIR: Yes, mate, but I have been doing it for 50 years and everyone else has been doing it. But there you go. All right and okay and we are grateful for your evidence.
Mr Dolan: I did, Senator.
Senator XENOPHON: There is a briefing note on points for consideration in relation to ATSB recovery of aircraft flight recorders for the Westwind aircraft, VH-NGA—and it goes through various things. It talks about an overview of flight crew, recovery options, issues, risks, decision points, the costs and the benefits.
It talks about the ATSB's reputation of being seen as acting seriously when appropriate and fulfilling its share of the commitment associated with the considerable costs of installing and maintaining black boxes. It said 'present indications show a likelihood of strong safety measures in both normal and abnormal flight conditions based on existing data'.
Then it talked about the benefits and costs, risks and ATSB's reputation for being relevant on risks. It says, 'Next year's budget was reduced because of this year's underspend. We cannot assess the accuracy of the pilot's perceptions.' Following the EMT, it advised the approved deployment of the investigation team in Norfolk Island to conduct a search for the aircraft using a ping locator.
They also approved funding of up to $20,000 to recover the recorders and were open to discussions on further expenditure if required. So there clearly was a detailed discussion. The conclusion early on seemed to be to recover the cockpit voice recorder, but it was not recovered. We are all mystified—or I am. I think my colleagues are also mystified as to why we did not recover it.
Mr Dolan: At the initial stages, we understood the aircraft was in comparatively shallow water and that access to the recorders would be reasonably achievable by a diver or other mechanisms without too much difficulty.
That brief was to convince me to make the necessary allocation of resources to retrieve the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorder. Upon investigation, it became clear that the depth at which the aircraft was in the water, its location at a remote island, Norfolk Island, and the work health and safety standards applying to diving to those depths meant that there would have been a substantial cost of recovery.
The requirement was effectively that there be a decompression chamber, none of which was available on Norfolk Island, for the full time of the retrieval because of the depth at which the divers would be operating. When we got a reasonable and first approximation assessment of that, in the knowledge that, from our point of view, the key information we had about flight decision making would not have been recorded on the cockpit voice recorder which only had a two-hour time on it—
Senator XENOPHON: So let us not labour the point. That was an earlier assessment and subsequent assessment said that it was going to cost a lot more?
Mr Dolan: Correct.
CHAIR: Even though someone offered to do it for $500.
Senator EDWARDS: Is that right?
CHAIR: Yes.
Senator XENOPHON: But it would not have been on, on health and safety. Chair, to be fair to the ATSB, there is no way—
Mr Dolan: I would be unable to countenance that in terms of my responsibility.
CHAIR: As for your occupational health and safety background I am not allowed to climb up on my bloody bulk tanker, which I have been climbing on for 40 years, to put a hose in the top of it because it is not safe to climb up the side on a ladder on a fuel tank.
Mr Dolan: Falls from heights are a substantial cause of injury—
CHAIR: Yes, mate, but I have been doing it for 50 years and everyone else has been doing it. But there you go. All right and okay and we are grateful for your evidence.
CHAIR: We may go into camera on that. You know I have never sent an email in my life, and it is quite evident every day why you should not.
There is an email here from a senior CASA official to senior CASA officers in which they talk about this matter. They get to you in this email: 'The ATSB are apparently'—this is the division of opinion which we got out of them this morning—'inclined to a mandated solution for a range of in-flight decision-making issues and are likely to press that line. Clearly, you may be heading to a difference of opinion here.' Are you?
Mr Dolan: As I was discussing earlier, we specified what we saw at the early stages of the investigation as a potentially critical issue. We drew it to the attention of CASA, and CASA considered it and responded that, having had regard to what we had drawn to their attention, they preferred an outcome which addressed the issue through training and procedural information rather than a regulatory mandate
There is an email here from a senior CASA official to senior CASA officers in which they talk about this matter. They get to you in this email: 'The ATSB are apparently'—this is the division of opinion which we got out of them this morning—'inclined to a mandated solution for a range of in-flight decision-making issues and are likely to press that line. Clearly, you may be heading to a difference of opinion here.' Are you?
Mr Dolan: As I was discussing earlier, we specified what we saw at the early stages of the investigation as a potentially critical issue. We drew it to the attention of CASA, and CASA considered it and responded that, having had regard to what we had drawn to their attention, they preferred an outcome which addressed the issue through training and procedural information rather than a regulatory mandate
I notice the NTSB decided in the St Croix ditching that the aircraft had four hours and 35 minutes of fuel available and ran out after four hours 34 minutes. They decided that the last hour of the flight was the 'important' bit. Hmmm.
Last edited by Kharon; 2nd Nov 2012 at 21:55. Reason: Formatting and font should be a universal standard - that's why.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There are plenty of professional salvage divers in this country more than capable of doing that task.
I know two of them, one was best man at our wedding!
I bet there are pro diving guys on Norfolk who could do it for not much more than $500 also.
The senator should just whip out his credit card and make it happen, turn up on Dolans doorstep with them......after having had the NTSB retrieve the data. Can't trust the ATSB not to screw it up!
I know two of them, one was best man at our wedding!
I bet there are pro diving guys on Norfolk who could do it for not much more than $500 also.
The senator should just whip out his credit card and make it happen, turn up on Dolans doorstep with them......after having had the NTSB retrieve the data. Can't trust the ATSB not to screw it up!
If you are talking about JW, it most certainly is true.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA never cease to amaze me.
A person who should have set the tone and standards and has demonstrated he cant, I assume is now running around and judging other operators. I suppose you could argue that he at least knows what an operator should not do... what he did!
Why on earth would CASA open themselves to having their own judgement questioned like this.
A person who should have set the tone and standards and has demonstrated he cant, I assume is now running around and judging other operators. I suppose you could argue that he at least knows what an operator should not do... what he did!
Why on earth would CASA open themselves to having their own judgement questioned like this.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pride and Prejudice.
Anyone read it? – that Mr. Whickham features a lot; I reckon Heffernan has the hots for both Chambers and Whickham. Easily made sacrifices on the CASA chess board, but will that satisfy the blood lust of the "Chair". Blood and fur everywhere I hope.
If any of the PAIN mob are monitoring today, how about use that 'share' thingummy, wuzzit, to put up a Hansard download for the troops; save a lot of copy and paste time. Just give 'em a page number then. I know, knitting, right.
Hansard page 33 on
CHAIR: The evidence we have received is that the person who did that was not actually qualified to do it. Is that wrong?
Mr McCormick: That the CASA officer was not qualified to investigate? That would be incorrect.
Senator STERLE: That is not what we took, Chair. I think you wanted to take your questions to the chief pilot.
CHAIR: Yes, I will come to the chief pilot. Regarding the man who did the audit at Bankstown, what is his name?
Mr McCormick: There were 16—
CHAIR: But there would have been someone—
Mr McCormick: inspectors put on that audit. The lead was Mr Roger Chambers, who was the acting manager at Bankstown.
CHAIR: What is his role now, at this minute?
Mr McCormick: He is the acting manager of the Sydney office—the combined office of Mascot and Bankstown.
CHAIR: When did he conclude that audit?
Mr McCormick: It is on the actual audit itself. It says 8 January 2009; it should say 8 January 2010.
CHAIR: The commencement date and the finishing date are probably what we are after.
Mr McCormick: It completed on 8 January 2010.
CHAIR: And started?
Mr McCormick: It started on 26 November and ran on site from 26 November 2009 to 15 December 2009.
CHAIR: And when did Mr Wickham come on board CASA?
Senator NASH: Sorry to interrupt, but can you read out those dates again?
Mr McCormick: The audit dates on site were 26 November 2009 to 15 December 2009.
CHAIR: When did graciously Mr Wickham, who was mentioned as having, as chief pilot of Pel-Air, responsibility for some of the things that the CASA audit came up with, actually switch over to CASA? The man at the back of the room is intrigued by this.
Mr McCormick: 28 February 2011.
CHAIR: So how long after?
Mr McCormick: That is two years.
Senator XENOPHON: No, a year. It's a bit over a year.
Mr McCormick: Sorry, a bit over. It was January 2010. He came on board 28 February 2011 and he was quarantined from any activities with Pel-Air for 12 months since his employment
CHAIR: Don't take the bait! Shouldn't he have borne, as the chief pilot, some of the responsibilities for the shortcomings found by the CASA audit and the suitability of these types of aircraft to fly that sort of mission? Surely it has got to get cleared and you have got to get busy, but you cannot just walk away and say, 'I work for CASA now. ****, I got out of that.'
Mr McCormick: I do not know whether Mr Wickham has walked away. I am saying that what we have here is a case of the chief pilot. I agree the chief pilot is responsible. He is the chief pilot—that is why he has got the title.
Say a chief pilot said, 'Fly from A to B,' and the pilot who was going to do the trip worked out how much fuel he needed and it exceeded the amount of fuel he could fit on the aeroplane—assuming he actually worked out how much fuel he needed rather than guessed it—so he said, 'No, I can't do A to B.' In that situation, every single chief pilot in Australia—and I will say this without even canvassing them—would say, 'Well, then, you have to go via somewhere else and get fuel.'
Senator NASH: Are you saying the chief pilot does not have a responsibility to initially know that information, that the chief pilot does not have a responsibility, which is what the chair is asking, to know the capability of the aircraft in those circumstances?
Senator STERLE: Sure. That makes sense. There is a view with some on the committee that, while some of Pel-Air's operations certainly were not up to the expectations of CASA, Mr Wickham was the chief pilot at the time of the ditching and now he is off, and it looks like he has been congratulated, rewarded or promoted—not within CASA. Who takes ultimate responsibility? It seems to be a buck-passing, which is from the information we have received today.
CHAIR: The evidence we have received is that the person who did that was not actually qualified to do it. Is that wrong?
Mr McCormick: That the CASA officer was not qualified to investigate? That would be incorrect.
Senator STERLE: That is not what we took, Chair. I think you wanted to take your questions to the chief pilot.
CHAIR: Yes, I will come to the chief pilot. Regarding the man who did the audit at Bankstown, what is his name?
Mr McCormick: There were 16—
CHAIR: But there would have been someone—
Mr McCormick: inspectors put on that audit. The lead was Mr Roger Chambers, who was the acting manager at Bankstown.
CHAIR: What is his role now, at this minute?
Mr McCormick: He is the acting manager of the Sydney office—the combined office of Mascot and Bankstown.
CHAIR: When did he conclude that audit?
Mr McCormick: It is on the actual audit itself. It says 8 January 2009; it should say 8 January 2010.
CHAIR: The commencement date and the finishing date are probably what we are after.
Mr McCormick: It completed on 8 January 2010.
CHAIR: And started?
Mr McCormick: It started on 26 November and ran on site from 26 November 2009 to 15 December 2009.
CHAIR: And when did Mr Wickham come on board CASA?
Senator NASH: Sorry to interrupt, but can you read out those dates again?
Mr McCormick: The audit dates on site were 26 November 2009 to 15 December 2009.
CHAIR: When did graciously Mr Wickham, who was mentioned as having, as chief pilot of Pel-Air, responsibility for some of the things that the CASA audit came up with, actually switch over to CASA? The man at the back of the room is intrigued by this.
Mr McCormick: 28 February 2011.
CHAIR: So how long after?
Mr McCormick: That is two years.
Senator XENOPHON: No, a year. It's a bit over a year.
Mr McCormick: Sorry, a bit over. It was January 2010. He came on board 28 February 2011 and he was quarantined from any activities with Pel-Air for 12 months since his employment
CHAIR: Don't take the bait! Shouldn't he have borne, as the chief pilot, some of the responsibilities for the shortcomings found by the CASA audit and the suitability of these types of aircraft to fly that sort of mission? Surely it has got to get cleared and you have got to get busy, but you cannot just walk away and say, 'I work for CASA now. ****, I got out of that.'
Mr McCormick: I do not know whether Mr Wickham has walked away. I am saying that what we have here is a case of the chief pilot. I agree the chief pilot is responsible. He is the chief pilot—that is why he has got the title.
Say a chief pilot said, 'Fly from A to B,' and the pilot who was going to do the trip worked out how much fuel he needed and it exceeded the amount of fuel he could fit on the aeroplane—assuming he actually worked out how much fuel he needed rather than guessed it—so he said, 'No, I can't do A to B.' In that situation, every single chief pilot in Australia—and I will say this without even canvassing them—would say, 'Well, then, you have to go via somewhere else and get fuel.'
Senator NASH: Are you saying the chief pilot does not have a responsibility to initially know that information, that the chief pilot does not have a responsibility, which is what the chair is asking, to know the capability of the aircraft in those circumstances?
Senator STERLE: Sure. That makes sense. There is a view with some on the committee that, while some of Pel-Air's operations certainly were not up to the expectations of CASA, Mr Wickham was the chief pilot at the time of the ditching and now he is off, and it looks like he has been congratulated, rewarded or promoted—not within CASA. Who takes ultimate responsibility? It seems to be a buck-passing, which is from the information we have received today.
Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Nov 2012 at 01:20. Reason: Not bolded - Lunch is ready - Snags yum yum.
Rudder asked:
The most logical answer Rudder seems to be that the arrogant clowns who are presently in charge of CASA didn't think that they'd ever be called on to explain what happened. 
CASA judgement, or innocent bureaucratic blunder? Whatever, both are oxymorons.
Why on earth would CASA open themselves to having their own judgement questioned like this.
CASA judgement, or innocent bureaucratic blunder? Whatever, both are oxymorons.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noblesse oblige
This link : Hansard – Norfolk ditching should work.
P7 – a.k.a. T.O.M. (don't ask).
Here's a bit of RAF humour that somehow seems appropriate.
Look at this carefully............it is brilliant, and a true example of British Humour!!
The British government has scrapped the Harrier fleet and on their farewell formation flypast over the houses of Parliament they gave the government a message.
Lean back a bit from your computer monitor and squint. Seriously.. push your chair back a couple of feet. My hats off to lad that was leading this.
P7 – a.k.a. T.O.M. (don't ask).
Here's a bit of RAF humour that somehow seems appropriate.
Look at this carefully............it is brilliant, and a true example of British Humour!!
The British government has scrapped the Harrier fleet and on their farewell formation flypast over the houses of Parliament they gave the government a message.
Lean back a bit from your computer monitor and squint. Seriously.. push your chair back a couple of feet. My hats off to lad that was leading this.
Last edited by PAIN_NET; 3rd Nov 2012 at 02:25.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So there you go Rudder it's official that CASA Official's were officially
'delighted' about Mr Wickham's official appointment!
'delighted' about Mr Wickham's official appointment!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Achtung
Kharon's post #532 hits the nail on the head. Only a half brained bureaucrat would stop the most important part of an aircraft investigation - Retrieval of the black box, from taking place on the basis of saving a couple of thousand dollars. And this guy is the chief of the ATSB? Good god.
AF 47 comes to mind. Millions spent looking for the boxes. Why? Not just to get to the cause of the accident but to learn from the accidents parameters and improve the overall system.
Beaker wouldn't even sign off on a retrieval cost of up to 20k. Hell, he would spend that on just one trip to Montreal or some other irrelevant non-descript pony pooh exercise without blinking (or memememememe-ing).
You reap what you sew and Australia is reaping an inept, unsafe and truth covering ASA, ATSB and CASA. The Politicians responsible for allowing this ludicrous mess to occur in the first place and then continually support the hiring of bureaucrats, suckholes, nupties and bulls#it artists to mismanage these portfolios is now so laughable it hurts!
"Unsafe skies for all"
Beaker and The Screaming Skull
AF 47 comes to mind. Millions spent looking for the boxes. Why? Not just to get to the cause of the accident but to learn from the accidents parameters and improve the overall system.
Beaker wouldn't even sign off on a retrieval cost of up to 20k. Hell, he would spend that on just one trip to Montreal or some other irrelevant non-descript pony pooh exercise without blinking (or memememememe-ing).
You reap what you sew and Australia is reaping an inept, unsafe and truth covering ASA, ATSB and CASA. The Politicians responsible for allowing this ludicrous mess to occur in the first place and then continually support the hiring of bureaucrats, suckholes, nupties and bulls#it artists to mismanage these portfolios is now so laughable it hurts!
"Unsafe skies for all"
Beaker and The Screaming Skull
Last edited by gobbledock; 3rd Nov 2012 at 11:30. Reason: Trying to avoid the biggest god damn elephant in the room I have ever seen
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unbeleivable
Been a bit preoccupied with other things for a while, but a return to this and other subjects aviation suggests it's actually got a whole lot worse, than I could possibly have imagined.
Caught the 4Corners show and thought I must be in a parallel universe and were they discussing the same accident?
And why weren't the FDR CVR recovered. I've recently put another Part 25 aircraft on the Australian register, simply not possible without an FDR even for private ops, when it is only required for charter/rpt in the US. Basically disqualified a significant %age of available private aircraft in the market.
It is a "safety" issue with which I have no truck. We are supposed to or did have the worlds toughest safety standards until the late eighties. This is now shrouded in myth.
FDR is a requirement for type of operations in Australia.
So if Oz has a thing about FDRs for "safety" purposes why was the FDR not recovered, both recorders would have and may still provide some fascinating insights. I have somewhere seen video of the largely intact components of the wreckage, it cant have been that hard to recover the boxes.
Smells to high heaven.
I see/hear echoes of Seaview and Monarch and don't even get me started on Lockhart, this one is IMHO plus ca change.
When I were a lad apart from the regs, there was a thing called CDF
I fear the charge towards proscriptive COMs whilst being a bit like the parsons, egg also strips away and/or gives the pilot a place to hide from actually being personally responsible and liable to exercise CDF. He can get away with plain dumbosity because he is not specifically prevented from doing so.
Been a bit preoccupied with other things for a while, but a return to this and other subjects aviation suggests it's actually got a whole lot worse, than I could possibly have imagined.
Caught the 4Corners show and thought I must be in a parallel universe and were they discussing the same accident?
And why weren't the FDR CVR recovered. I've recently put another Part 25 aircraft on the Australian register, simply not possible without an FDR even for private ops, when it is only required for charter/rpt in the US. Basically disqualified a significant %age of available private aircraft in the market.
It is a "safety" issue with which I have no truck. We are supposed to or did have the worlds toughest safety standards until the late eighties. This is now shrouded in myth.
FDR is a requirement for type of operations in Australia.
So if Oz has a thing about FDRs for "safety" purposes why was the FDR not recovered, both recorders would have and may still provide some fascinating insights. I have somewhere seen video of the largely intact components of the wreckage, it cant have been that hard to recover the boxes.
Smells to high heaven.
I see/hear echoes of Seaview and Monarch and don't even get me started on Lockhart, this one is IMHO plus ca change.
When I were a lad apart from the regs, there was a thing called CDF
I fear the charge towards proscriptive COMs whilst being a bit like the parsons, egg also strips away and/or gives the pilot a place to hide from actually being personally responsible and liable to exercise CDF. He can get away with plain dumbosity because he is not specifically prevented from doing so.
Last edited by gaunty; 3rd Nov 2012 at 14:34.
Flight nurse nails it!
Noticed this comment on Ben's piece yesterday which I think puts a human face to the hurt that these numbnuts are inflicting, go KC there are people out there that feel your anguish!
Karen Casey
Posted November 4, 2012 at 3:49 am | Permalink
When will truth trump cover-ups that are laced with selfish intent to save ones posterior? How ridiculous to have so many broken rules in an- audit, yet almost get away with it. There is a reason for the truth that is emerging, it’s for air safety & the failure of our regulator & investigative bodies results. It has been the survivors that have been the seekers of the real deal. What a disgrace. With both our Chief Commissioners under the microscope now, the amplification of this ordeal is finally happening.
CASA & ATSB have a lot to answer for, dragging this on for selfish intent is criminal & at the least cruel to all on board. The coverup is surfacing and all will be revealed about the incompetencies of all parties involved.
How unprofessional this has all been. How disappointing in the treatment of the people who have experienced hell from impact till now with our own government bodies involved. Does our government have enough integrity to investigate the individuals involved and actually DO something about this rather than just go around in circles. To add insult, let’s just throw in the fact that the ex-Pel-Air chief pilot at the time of the incident now works as an investigator for CASA…please!
Just stop the B.S & tell the truth.
Karen Casey
Posted November 4, 2012 at 3:49 am | Permalink
When will truth trump cover-ups that are laced with selfish intent to save ones posterior? How ridiculous to have so many broken rules in an- audit, yet almost get away with it. There is a reason for the truth that is emerging, it’s for air safety & the failure of our regulator & investigative bodies results. It has been the survivors that have been the seekers of the real deal. What a disgrace. With both our Chief Commissioners under the microscope now, the amplification of this ordeal is finally happening.
CASA & ATSB have a lot to answer for, dragging this on for selfish intent is criminal & at the least cruel to all on board. The coverup is surfacing and all will be revealed about the incompetencies of all parties involved.
How unprofessional this has all been. How disappointing in the treatment of the people who have experienced hell from impact till now with our own government bodies involved. Does our government have enough integrity to investigate the individuals involved and actually DO something about this rather than just go around in circles. To add insult, let’s just throw in the fact that the ex-Pel-Air chief pilot at the time of the incident now works as an investigator for CASA…please!
Just stop the B.S & tell the truth.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The revelations just keep getting worse as every rock is turned over. You have a CP that has overseen the accident, that has presided over the company for quite sometime when it gets a damning audit report and CASA reward him with a job. They feel he was doing a good job... hate to see a bad one.
I would bet that he had limited experience in the aircraft and I believe no check and training on either the Lear or the Westwind so I don't know how he improved things at Nowra because he fundamentally had nothing to do with it. He certainly didn't improve it by leadership.
Just amazing the whole debacle. Instead of CASA holding themselves above it all, they open themselves up to this. The trouble with that is that there are some great and capable people in CASA who do good work and yet they are tainted by these events and decisions. It is just a bad decision to employ him and it just throws all their actions and decisions into doubt.
It would be really interesting to know how others in CASA view the individual and his employment. How do you take anything he says as creditable.
I would bet that he had limited experience in the aircraft and I believe no check and training on either the Lear or the Westwind so I don't know how he improved things at Nowra because he fundamentally had nothing to do with it. He certainly didn't improve it by leadership.
Just amazing the whole debacle. Instead of CASA holding themselves above it all, they open themselves up to this. The trouble with that is that there are some great and capable people in CASA who do good work and yet they are tainted by these events and decisions. It is just a bad decision to employ him and it just throws all their actions and decisions into doubt.
It would be really interesting to know how others in CASA view the individual and his employment. How do you take anything he says as creditable.
To add insult, let’s just throw in the fact that the ex-Pel-Air chief pilot at the time of the incident now works as an investigator for CASA…please!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Special audits, hidden reports, spin, bollocks and pony pooh
I posted this elsewhere but thought it was applicable here -
Ok, so now might be the time to further apply the blowtorch:
Pel Air aren't the only 'outfit' to undergo a 'special audit', or as the good Senators would say, 'hidden report'. There was also one of these reports done 'post Lockhart River/Aerotropics', yes Australia's worst accident, and the 'hidden report' is critical of CASA and it's role in the accident. It would also be alleged that the same person(s) that authored the Pel Air 'special audit' commissioned the Lockhart River/Aerotropics 'special audit'.
Question is this - Why is somebody at CASA apparently doing robust work and slicing through the pony pooh yet the rest of CASA and the ATSB couldn't investigate a bad case of herpes?
The time has well and truly passed to pull down this house of cards. It is a joke. People have died, asses get covered and the families of innocent dead people get to live out their days knowing that circumstances pertaining to their loved ones deaths aren't as things seem.
A royal commission is now warranted, the whole dirty story needs to be laid out for all to see. One can only hope that those who are championing this cause, average joe's who actually care about lives, plus a handful of smart Senators, a pissed off industry and some top notch Journalists can push hard enough to get it over the line.
Perhaps the Senators would like to 'request' a copy of that report to peruse?
Pel Air aren't the only 'outfit' to undergo a 'special audit', or as the good Senators would say, 'hidden report'. There was also one of these reports done 'post Lockhart River/Aerotropics', yes Australia's worst accident, and the 'hidden report' is critical of CASA and it's role in the accident. It would also be alleged that the same person(s) that authored the Pel Air 'special audit' commissioned the Lockhart River/Aerotropics 'special audit'.
Question is this - Why is somebody at CASA apparently doing robust work and slicing through the pony pooh yet the rest of CASA and the ATSB couldn't investigate a bad case of herpes?
The time has well and truly passed to pull down this house of cards. It is a joke. People have died, asses get covered and the families of innocent dead people get to live out their days knowing that circumstances pertaining to their loved ones deaths aren't as things seem.
A royal commission is now warranted, the whole dirty story needs to be laid out for all to see. One can only hope that those who are championing this cause, average joe's who actually care about lives, plus a handful of smart Senators, a pissed off industry and some top notch Journalists can push hard enough to get it over the line.
Perhaps the Senators would like to 'request' a copy of that report to peruse?
Last edited by gobbledock; 4th Nov 2012 at 08:53.
No, not Australia's worst by a long chalk. Lockhart River in 2005 , the toll was 15.
14 Jun 43 Bakers Creek near Mackay, QLD. USAAF B-17 Flying Fortress #40-2072, "Miss Every Morning Fix'n", 40 killed
19 Dec 43 30 miles north of Rockhampton near Rossmoya Rd, Canal Creek area USAAF C-47 Dakota VH-CHR, #43-30742?, 31 killed
10 Jun 60 Into the sea near Mackay, QLD. Trans Australian Airlines F-27 Fokker Friendship VH-TFB, "Abel Tasman", 29 killed
26 Jun 50 York, WA. Australian National Airways Pty Ltd Douglas DC-4 VH-ANA (c/n 42910), "Amana", crashed at night half an hour after takeoff from Perth for Adelaide. 28 killed in crash, 1 other died 2 days later. Total 29 killed.
7 Aug 43 Into Cleveland Bay, Townsville, QLD. USAAF C-47 Dakota #41-7733, 27 killed
31 Dec 68 near Port Hedland: Robertson-Miller Airlines Vickers Viscount 720 VH-RMQ. In-flight separation of the right wing. 26 killed.
10 Mar 46 Frederick Henry Bay, Tasmania. Australian National Airways. Douglas DC-3 (C-47-DL) VH-AET (c/n 6013), Crashed minutes after takeoff from Cambridge, (Hobart) at 8.55 pm. May have been caused by pilot engaging autopilot in mistake for fuel crossfeed. Captain (Spence) diabetic, undisclosed. 25 killed
22 Sep 66 On Nadjayamba Station approx.12 miles west of Winton, QLD. Ansett/ANA Vickers 832 Viscount VH-RMI. Fire in No.2 cabin air Rootes blower. Spread to a fuel tank where upper boom of main spar was heated until it failed. 24 killed
27 Mar 45 Cooktown - Finschhafen USAAF C-47A-90-DL Dakota #43-16011, c/n 20477, 24 killed
27 Mar 43 near Archerfield, Brisbane RAAF C-47 Dakota VH-CTB, A65-2 (A30-16), 23 killed