Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ?
Originally Posted by thorn bird
There was no regulatory requirement to allow for these under Australian law.
Originally Posted by thorn bird
pacific island destinations communications can and do prove problematic ... can't get a phone call out. Sorry patient, you'll just have to die here because I cannot obtain current weather
Originally Posted by thorn bird
this is the middle of the Pacific ocean, all coms are via HF.
Originally Posted by thorn bird
the ATSB report it indicated the aircraft was held at FL270 for a period because of traffic in RVSM airspace. I have never flown a Westwind but those that have have told me they are a bit of a lead slug trying to get altitude when heavy and hot.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay Check board, I accede to your obviously superior analytical expertise and experience. The pilot Dunnit.
A question comes to mind though.
In your opinion,obviously CAsA has been derelict in their duty not to charge the pilot with breaches of CAR 234 (3) and CAR 220, both of which carry substantial penalties and a criminal record which would have ensured he never flew again.
What were CAsA thinking?
A quick show trial, where a pilot is required to prove himself not guilty, rather than the other way round. A guilty verdict, under strict liability is almost guaranteed as no mitigation is allowed.
By sheeting home the entire blame to the pilot they would have saved themselves and the ATsB a lot of embarrassment, not to mention considerable angst for the minister at the time, with an added benefit of saving the taxpayer what I would imagine are millions of dollars in obviously unnecessary investigations and reports. The company involved would also have benefited as a political bribe, sorry, donation would have been entirely unnecessary as well.
A question comes to mind though.
In your opinion,obviously CAsA has been derelict in their duty not to charge the pilot with breaches of CAR 234 (3) and CAR 220, both of which carry substantial penalties and a criminal record which would have ensured he never flew again.
What were CAsA thinking?
A quick show trial, where a pilot is required to prove himself not guilty, rather than the other way round. A guilty verdict, under strict liability is almost guaranteed as no mitigation is allowed.
By sheeting home the entire blame to the pilot they would have saved themselves and the ATsB a lot of embarrassment, not to mention considerable angst for the minister at the time, with an added benefit of saving the taxpayer what I would imagine are millions of dollars in obviously unnecessary investigations and reports. The company involved would also have benefited as a political bribe, sorry, donation would have been entirely unnecessary as well.
I don't know the pilot, never met him, and I don't wish bad things on people - but that option is still open for the CAA.
If you asked a representative sample of Qantas, Turboprop and GA piston pilots today to calculate an inflight Off-track PNR and CP ... how many would be capable of doing so in any amount of time, much less 5 minutes or so?
The ATPL exam requires such accuracy from the performance manual based tables, that ATPL methods aren't cockpit friendly.
If you asked a representative sample of Qantas, Turboprop and GA piston pilots today to calculate an inflight Off-track PNR and CP ... how many would be capable of doing so in any amount of time, much less 5 minutes or so?
The ATPL exam requires such accuracy from the performance manual based tables, that ATPL methods aren't cockpit friendly.
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.
I can't imagine either the operator or regulator were keen to go to court with a presumption of innocence until proved guilty, being forced to testify and produce documentation, and with the court deciding what evidence was relevant and admissible.
This 2nd report seems comprehensive and fair. The pilot made his share of mistakes, sure. But there were many latent risks that were the responsibility of the operator and regulator.
Directly interested parties will always want a bit more from any independent review. That is human nature. Perhaps this disappointment (after 8 years of feeling he has been unfairly scapegoated) is the reason for the pilots recent "spray" in the media. I don't think many would agree with some of his recent comments. It is not clear that any other pilot would have got into the final desperate situation he faced, And full fuel would have permitted a diversion (or a long hold while waiting for weather to clear).
However I suspect most independent people will conclude this report is fundamentally fair, and the pilot will have to come to terms with significant criticism of his actions that night, and try and move on. Chester Nimitz (US Navy admiral) who played a large part in winning the Pacific war and for whom an entire class of aircraft carriers is named in his honour started his navy career running a ship aground and being court-martialled. He learned and moved on.
It is very concerning that the ATSB has made clear that CASA has made little progress getting its house in order.
And, I am curious about the reluctance to get the CVR when ATSB must have always known it contained 2 hours (and not 30 minutes) if information. How could that 2 hours ever have been irrelevant? Even the last 30 minutes provided valuable insights into what can happen under great stress in a very rare situation.
This 2nd report seems comprehensive and fair. The pilot made his share of mistakes, sure. But there were many latent risks that were the responsibility of the operator and regulator.
Directly interested parties will always want a bit more from any independent review. That is human nature. Perhaps this disappointment (after 8 years of feeling he has been unfairly scapegoated) is the reason for the pilots recent "spray" in the media. I don't think many would agree with some of his recent comments. It is not clear that any other pilot would have got into the final desperate situation he faced, And full fuel would have permitted a diversion (or a long hold while waiting for weather to clear).
However I suspect most independent people will conclude this report is fundamentally fair, and the pilot will have to come to terms with significant criticism of his actions that night, and try and move on. Chester Nimitz (US Navy admiral) who played a large part in winning the Pacific war and for whom an entire class of aircraft carriers is named in his honour started his navy career running a ship aground and being court-martialled. He learned and moved on.
It is very concerning that the ATSB has made clear that CASA has made little progress getting its house in order.
And, I am curious about the reluctance to get the CVR when ATSB must have always known it contained 2 hours (and not 30 minutes) if information. How could that 2 hours ever have been irrelevant? Even the last 30 minutes provided valuable insights into what can happen under great stress in a very rare situation.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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".
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".
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A corporation has personality under the common law so there would need to be a specific bit of legislation to cancel that.
Kaz
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.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Eddie...where would that be written down and what particular Australian Regulations?
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.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts