Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?

Wikiposts
Search
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 - ?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 25th Feb 2015, 10:18
  #861 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,967
Received 92 Likes on 53 Posts
let's go over water and see if we can get visual'...
Ummm.. 'Twas SOP in a certain part of the world a long time ago...
Pinky the pilot is online now  
Old 25th Feb 2015, 21:38
  #862 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
An evening with the Senators

Senate Estimates 24th February 2015. A very pleasant evening with the Senators. I just caught up with the recordings - well worth a look. If you thought PelAir and CASA and ATSB was dead, think again. There is blood in the water, and plenty of curly questions were taken on notice.

The recordings are available at aph.gov.au
Watch Parliament ? Parliament of Australia

Also available on youtube

The order was re-scheduled for some reason.

CASA
CASA appeared in the afternoon session (i.e. part 2). CASA was the final department in the afternoon session - CASA starts at 4h16m into the recording (4:16 of part 2).
Nick X asked if the PelAir chief pilot had taken up a regulatory compliance position with CASA during the ATSB investigation. Skidmore didn’t know - plausible I guess given he is new. Farq helped him out to confirm He had indeed held such a position, but indicated he may have now left. CASA undertook to advise relevant dates if he has now left CASA. .

Nick X also asked what due diligence CASA undertook to ensure the PelAir regulatory deficits uncovered by the CASA special audit were not the responsibility of the then CP. NX continued on to suggest that if the CP had any responsibility for the PelAir regulatory deficits, then this could suggest he was not suitable for a regulatory compliance position at CASA. Long long pause. Skidmore then took this question on notice! We are all looking forward to that particular answer.


ATSB
ATSB appeared last, and Nick X led the charge. NX had been unavailable when ATSB was first called so ATSB was rescheduled. I had the feeling NX was doing a bit of last minute research before facing ATSB, and this may have been reason for rescheduling.

Dolan said ATSB had changed its view that the issues raised in CASA special audit had been addressed. ATSB was no longer of that view. "Will the Special audit and Chambers report be considered in new investigation?" Yes Senator.

Expect new investigation to be finished by Christmas 2015

Will get recorders ASAP, and believe data will still be recoverable

Investigation will be independent of initial investigation, with very minimal cross-over of staff. Other than ATSB reviewing ATSB of course.

Senate committee will get regular updates on progress during new investigation.

Joke of the night came from Heff, who innocently asked if the CP of PelAir at time of crash was working for CASA at time of ATSB investigation. Dolan stumbled and stuttered “I genuinely can’t recall Senator.” Someone at the back of the room apparently nodded his head in answer to Heff’s question, and Heff seemed happy with that. For now.


Plenty of warnings there would be additional QON for both CASA and ATSB. We didn’t get to hear what these were, and may have nothing to do with PelAir.
slats11 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2015, 23:29
  #863 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 52
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The senate, the DAS and a pumpkin

ATSB appeared last, and Nick X led the charge. NX had been unavailable when ATSB was first called so ATSB was rescheduled. I had the feeling NX was doing a bit of last minute research before facing ATSB, and this may have been reason for rescheduling.
That could well be the case. The very delightful and astute Hannah used to do much of Nicks work, and to be honest she would make a better investigator than Sangston and Co and she would be a better Commissioner than me me me Beaker, however Hannah is no longer in that role and a new girl is assisting Nick, she has big shoes to fill.

Anyway I think that CASA has an opportunity here to redeem itself somewhat if Skates is transparent and doesn't BS the senators. However the issue of having 3/4 of the ATSB Commissioners who are muppets remains, as well as the issue of the GWM who will not want to work with Skates, and then their is Pumpkin Head puppet mastering this three ring circus so it really beggars belief that anything other than an A380 smoking hole or an FAA downgrade will change things?

"Safe circus acts for all"
Soteria is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2015, 22:17
  #864 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
There does seem to be an orchestrated attack on the issue of the CP moving to CASA at that particular time. Bit of cat and mouse I think.

Loved NXs question to Skidmore re due diligence. Priceless. I suspect Skidmore will come clean as it was not on his watch, rather than be tainted by continuing the games.

And an almost casual in passing question re this to Dolan, warning him they were on to this and no more nonsense.
slats11 is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2015, 05:52
  #865 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CP's, asa, casa and atsb - Whereto PelAir

Well an interesting night at the senate, sorry not to take an earlier position.

However, MrDak put in his place, asa exposed, casa's new ceo has an odd take on ridding us of the CVD issue, crashed un-registered staib fire fighting machines and much more.

Power to the Senators!!
Up-into-the-air is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2015, 06:04
  #866 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was astonished that the CASA witnesses seemed not know whether 'that CP' was still employed by CASA.

Controversial issue known by CASA to be a matter being pursued by the Committee ... FOI population very small ... Executives on combined salaries over a million dollars PA ... and the answer is: "Gee. Dunno."

Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2015, 10:45
  #867 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 356
Received 115 Likes on 46 Posts
Four Corners has previously looked into the Norfolk Island ditching, however tomorrow night (23/03 at 8:30) the program investigates the impact on those involved, particularly the nurse.

From their website:
But if the worst happens and you crash, will the law comprehensively protect you for injuries if you survive?

The answer is no.

Shocked? So were the survivors of an air ambulance flight that went down in the waters off Norfolk Island. They quickly found that while they might get compensation for physical damage, they were entitled to nothing for the psychological impact of the crash.
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon spearheaded a scathing Senate inquiry into the flawed investigation of the Norfolk ditching.

Last edited by C441; 22nd Mar 2015 at 10:56. Reason: wrong link
C441 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 10:53
  #868 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Again the Pilot in Command fails to take responsibility for the events of that night.

"What's your alternate tonight?"

"We don't have one"
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 10:58
  #869 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,290
Received 169 Likes on 86 Posts
Without going back throug all the findings, did they need an alternate?
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 11:06
  #870 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I-Ron-Bar ch eerfully carry the party line, once again: but solely for my own advancement you understand. Collin in at a place near you, soon. Have your money ready.. Oh Bravo; mouthpiece of merde
Rose_Thorns is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 11:08
  #871 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Airwork, no..
Charter, yes.

During the post crash special audit, CAA interviewed PelAir line pilots. Several pilots indicated to CASA they didn't know if they were operating Airwork or Charter!

Last edited by slats11; 23rd Mar 2015 at 11:10. Reason: clarification
slats11 is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 11:19
  #872 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,466
Received 55 Likes on 38 Posts
I believe so Fathom. The cause of this accident was the failings of the whole system, not solely the crew. Hopefully the new ATSB investigation enable the recorders to be retrieved that might shed more light on what transpired.
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 12:44
  #873 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK, thanks Rose Thorns for that vaguely comprehensible contribution of, as you say, Merde.

A read of CAR 234 pretty much covers this. For both the pilot and the operator. "The pilot in command must not commence...." and "an operator must take reasonable steps to ensure..."

Sure, hold the operator to account for their failings. But those failings do not excuse the pilot in command for allowing the aircraft to be; circling an isolated aerodrome, at night, in the rain, with no fuel. Then ditching it (allegedly) without telling ANYONE where they were.

So so so lucky. Nothing more than that. (Lucky the Israelis build an enormously tough aeroplane too, Mazel tov!!)

It's not rocket science. PPL theory covers fuel planning.
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 20:37
  #874 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The crew was given a misleading impression of the weather forecast and conditions, having been given some incorrect information, and some correct information having not been given.

At the time the captain gave the answer "We don't have one", they weren't a thousand miles out. They were in a trap set by numerous (and obvious) systemic failures.

That's why the people handsomely rewarded for the quick 'hose down' of anything pointing to anyone other than the pilot have no interest in the retrieval of the CVR.

But people handsomely rewarded in those kinds of circumstances eventually pay dearly.

And Iron: PPLs also know what "aviate, navigate, communicate" means.

Enjoy your reward.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 21:35
  #875 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think at this stage we should leave the blame game and leave the accident reinvestigation to the current third enquiry

Lets start looking at the facts presented last night and attempt to come to grips with what was presented.

Clearly both the nurse and doctor were crew not a passenger on the aircraft and as crew I always understood that I was fully covered for all injuries I suffered while working for my employer. As I understood it, the Montreal Protocol only came into play if there was a ticket issued which constituted a contract. To have a valid contract there has to be a payment made to the supplier. In this case the payment was made in the form of wages to the employee so there was no supply contract.

So it now seems that crew are severley limited in what they can claim if they are injured in an aircraft accident and the only compensation that we can expect for mental damage is via your state workcover which given that Aviation is a Federal exercise seems more than a bit risky.

Wunwing
Wunwing is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 21:44
  #876 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Watched the show last night (and saw the 1st one as well). Absolutely tragic to see the physical & mental deterioration of Karen Casey and the devastating effect the aftermath has had on her & her family. Hopefully she can get some form of justice out of the court case but no amount of compensation is going to repair the damage done by the looks of it. Very much hope the new investigation is done properly this time, and those that were responsible for the original (disgraceful) effort get their right whack.
Just a side note :- how has the co-pilot managed to seemingly avoid any scrutiny or publicity..? Not sure what her role was in the whole thing but she's managed to keep a very low profile.
IFEZ is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 22:35
  #877 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah ok, so let's aviate (fly plane into the sea with no fuel). Navigate (around an island). But not communicate with the only people who has any chance of rescuing you. Are you really suggesting that's a justification?

Plan to an isolated airport (at any time or wx) without an alternate? Just not defendable.

Yes let's hope the CVR is recovered. Will make things much clearer.
Iron Bar is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2015, 22:59
  #878 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
IB.
Why are you second guessing the 3rd enquiry? The events leading up to the ditching come into 2 categories, what is not disputed ie the aircraft ditched and a number of events prior to the ditching which are again being re examined.

What has not even been examined is what went wrong once the aircraft hit the water. Why didnt the life raft stay in place and why wasnt it released? Why didnt the life jackets work? In any other accident invloving a ditching this seems to be a normal part of the investigation. CASA and the ATSB even have a cabin crew investigators. Where are they in this case?

The current discussion is on the ABC 4 Corners last night was about the treatment (or lack thereof) of the medical CREW.Why under the current rules are they limited to physical damages and what is the limit on physical damages (that was not discussed)?

One thing that I learnt last night is if you work in aviation or medical you would be really smart to belong to a good union.You may not like the day to day union stuff but noone else is there in these circumstances.

Karen Casey's situation is just as valid a PPRune discussion as the cause of the accident because she was a crew member and her treatment by the system is indicative of what everyone else can expect in an accident.

Wunwing
Wunwing is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2015, 00:15
  #879 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Something else very interesting ...

I picked up during the show last night that tragically the passenger Bernie Currall recently passed away suddenly and I offer my condolences to anyone effected by this terrible loss. Now I don't know if the following statement is true or not and I don't mean to offend anyone here however I did some simple research into this and as a result located the following quote from yesterday's Crikey Website :

Pel-Air shock, no trauma damages recourse for victims | Plane Talking

Ms Currall’s death earlier this month from unknown causes will be investigated by a coronial hearing.


I wonder that if (arising from the proposed coronial hearing) there is any identified relationship (or suggestion thereof) between Ms Currall's passing and the NGA accident this might just be sufficient to justify a coronial investigation into the circumstances surrounding the accident.

Stiky
Stikybeke is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2015, 01:23
  #880 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,253
Received 195 Likes on 90 Posts
It certainly seems that Karen Casey has been left in a legal limbo over what her status was on the night of the accident. Was she a passenger or an employee and who was the employer that was responsible for her well being? What was the status of the flight and does Aerial Work come under the coverage of the Montreal Convention? I'm not sure the reworked investigation is going to provide any clarity on the legal issues regarding her status and certainly ICAO won't be providing any guidance on the status of aeromedical personnel. I was surprised by Stikybekes quote, it had been reported on the other site by the moderator that it was a tragic case of suicide but those statements seem to have been withdrawn.

Just a side note :- how has the co-pilot managed to seemingly avoid any scrutiny or publicity..? Not sure what her role was in the whole thing but she's managed to keep a very low profile.
Good point IFEZ, the only reference I could ever find was in the preliminary report. I think it would be useful to know how the crew operated on that night and not just the PIC.
Lookleft is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.