C172 Down on Middle Island
Interesting theory, BP.
Any regulatory reference to support your opinion that a punter can walk off the street and be transformed into “operating crew” qualified to manipulate the controls of a training aircraft?
Any regulatory reference to support your opinion that a punter can walk off the street and be transformed into “operating crew” qualified to manipulate the controls of a training aircraft?
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can the same punter as a passenger on a charter flight sit in a control seat and operate the controls? **** no!
"qualified" and "authorised" are pretty distinct terms.
So it’s ok if the person doesn’t have an ASIC/AVID and doesn’t have a medical certificate?
I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just wanting regulatory references.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just wanting regulatory references.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll have to wait for reg. References, I'm on my mobile sorry.
Can the same punter as a passenger on a charter flight sit in a control seat and operate the controls?
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(g) under Subdivision 61.A.3.1 (Student pilots), to approve a
person to pilot an aircraft, including for a solo flight;
61.112 Flying as a student pilot
(1) Subject to regulations 61.113 to 61.115, a person who does not
hold a pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft if:
(a) the pilot in command of the aircraft is a flight instructor and
the flight is for the purpose of the person receiving flight
training; or
(b) the flight is for a flight test for a pilot licence, or a rating or
endorsement on a pilot licence, for the person; or
(c) the flight is:
(i) approved by, and conducted under the supervision of, a
flight instructor authorised by a Part 141 or 142 operator
to conduct the supervision; and
(ii) conducted under the VFR; and
(iii) conducted in accordance with the flight instructor’s
approval.
Regulation 61.113
(3) For subparagraphs (1)(c)(i) and (2)(c)(i), a flight is conducted
under the supervision of a flight instructor if the instructor:
(a) provides guidance to the person in relation to the flight; and
(b) during the flight:
(i) is on board the aircraft; or
(ii) is at the aerodrome from which the flight began; or
(iii) is flying within 15 nautical miles of the aerodrome
reference point for the aerodrome from which the flight
began; and
(c) can be contacted during the flight by radio or other electronic
means.
(4) For regulations 61.405 to 61.415 (which are about medical
requirements), piloting an aircraft in accordance with
subregulation (3) does not constitute the exercise of the privileges
of a pilot licence.
Note:
A person authorised to pilot an aircraft by this regulation is a student
pilot: see Part 1 of the Dictionary.
Re ASIC/AVID: there is no longer a student pilot licence, so students will not hold a licence:
CASR 61.117
(1) CASA may, by written notice given to a student pilot, require the
student pilot to provide evidence of his or her identity in
accordance with paragraph 6.57(1)(a) of the Aviation Transport
Security Regulations 2005.
(2) The student pilot commits an offence if:
(a) CASA has not told the student pilot, in writing, that he or she
has complied with the requirement; and
(b) the student pilots an aircraft.
(ie you don't have to have an identity document but must provide one if they write to you and you don't show them and fly as a student)
61.118 Production of medical certificates etc. and identification—
student pilots
1) CASA may direct a student pilot to produce any or all of the
following documents for inspection by CASA:.
(a) unless the student pilot holds a medical exemption to conduct
a solo flight—the student pilot’s medical certificate or
recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate;
(b) a document that includes a photograph of the student pilot
showing the student’s full face and his or her head and
shoulders:
(i) that was issued within the previous 10 years by the
government, or a government authority, of:
(A) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or
(B) a foreign country, or a state or province
(however described) of a foreign country; and
(ii) that has not expired or been cancelled.
.2) The student pilot commits an offence if:
(a) CASA directs the student pilot to produce a document under
subregulation (1); and
(b) the student pilot does not produce the document before the
earlier of the following:
(i) when the student pilot next conducts a solo flight;
(ii) within 7 days after the direction is given.
The identification could be a driver's licence, passport etc - doesn't have to be an AVID or ASIC and only needs to be provided if CASA asks for it, it is not mandatory to be carried.
Thanks cloudee and jonkster. I generally avoid reading Part 61.
And now one of the surviving passengers is attempting to sue CAsA. I don't think she'll succeed but it might shed some light onto the failings going on at Fort Fumble...
Originally Posted by The ABC
UK student who suffered a traumatic brain injury in a light plane crash that killed another passenger has launched a multi-million-dollar negligence lawsuit against Australia's civil aviation watchdog.
Hannah O'Dowd was 21 and studying abroad in Melbourne when the four-seater Cessna 172M charter flight she boarded in Agnes Water came down on a beach on Middle Island, south of Gladstone, on January 10, 2017.
The crash claimed the life of a 29-year-old British backpacker, while three others, including the pilot and Ms O'Dowd, suffered serious injuries.
Almost three years after being brought out of an induced coma, Ms O'Dowd and her parents have launched a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in the Supreme Court of Queensland, accusing it of negligence.
Among the allegations are that the watchdog failed "to put in place reasonable steps to prevent or regulate the flight being conducted in a dangerous, unconventional, unreasonable and unsafe manner".An investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), released last year, found the pilot was inspecting the beach for landing when the aircraft's engine suddenly, and totally, lost power at approximately 60ft (18 metres).
"Under significant time pressure, the pilot elected to conduct a significant left turn to the beach at a very low height. Although he believed it to be the safest option under the circumstances, it was inconsistent with standard training and guidance to land within 30 (degrees) either side of straight ahead following an engine failure at a low height," the report said. "During the continued left turn toward the beach, the aircraft did not have sufficient performance to avoid a collision with terrain, and it impacted terrain with little or no control and a significant descent rate."
Though the ATSB was unable to pinpoint the reason behind the power loss, it did find the operator's "procedures and practices for conducting airborne inspections" didn't effectively manage such risk when flying at a low height.
The O'Dowd family alleges the crash happened as a result of the "unconventional and unsafe manner the aircraft was operated". "(CASA) owed a duty to members of the public (including Ms O'Dowd) to take all reasonable care to ensure that Wyndham Aviation conducted its operations in compliance with the Act," the statement of claim said.
They also said CASA had received "numerous complaints" to do with "near-aerobatic manoeuvres" on Wyndham Aviation flights and did site inspections in 2011 and 2015. But CASA failed to conduct a detailed examination into these manoeuvres "in circumstances where it knew, or ought to have known, of such conduct," the statement of claim alleged.
In its final report, the ATSB said Wyndham Aviation had previously advertised that their flights involved some manoeuvres to give passengers "thrills or excitement" — with consent forms provided — but both the chief pilot and the pilot from the accident believed none were aerobatic and were instead within the limits. The investigating body reviewed the video footage from the accident flight and found one of the turns could have briefly been classified as an aerobatic manoeuvre.
Ultimately, the performance of near-aerobatic (and potential aerobatic) manoeuvres on the accident flight occurred a significant time before the engine power loss," the report said. "Although these manoeuvres may have unported one of the fuel tanks during the en-route phase, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that they contributed to the subsequent engine power loss during the airborne ALA inspection."
A 7.30/Fairfax report in 2018 also said the pilot who was flying the plane that crashed had no incidents on his record and they understood he was allowed to reapply for his pilot's licence following the CASA investigation as part of a confidential settlement.
The ATSB also recommended that CASA improve its procedures and guidance for "scoping surveillance events".
Ms O'Dowd is seeking approximately $3 million, including about $174,000 in general damages and more than $2 million for future economic loss. She claimed she suffered injuries including fractures, a traumatic brain injury, and a minor stroke from the crash, spent about 10 days in an induced coma, and underwent numerous surgeries.
The statement of claim said her ongoing cognitive difficulties will impair her ability at work. According to the court claim, Ms O'Dowd's parents are also each seeking damages — not less than $750,000 — for the nervous shock and personal injuries they say they've suffered since being told their daughter had been involved in a plane crash.
The now-24-year-old has blogged extensively before about her recovery, including how as an adult she never expected to re-live "firsts" — such as "first steps, first words, first day at university".
In one blog post in December 2017, she paid tribute to her friend, Joss, who didn't survive the crash.
She said they met each other while travelling. "She has made me appreciate all the good things about this world so much more," she wrote. "I could spend hours and hours considering what if things had been different. She didn't sit around and wait to think back 'what if'. She was the type of person who knew what she wanted and wasn't afraid to go and get it.
"I'm so glad that for the time we spent together. I will endeavour to do her proud. She had so much life left to live."
In another post, she revealed that soon after she was allowed to return to the UK with her parents, her mother found out she had breast cancer. "My Mum was treated in the same hospital as me, just a different building," she wrote.
"The porters and ambulance drivers there were rather confused as we were each driven one day as a patient, and another day as a visitor/guardian.
"My Dad had the impossible task of supporting a daughter through half a year of hospitalisation and a wife through breast cancer treatment. But my Dad made the impossible, possible." Ms O'Dowd went on to write a play, titled Unknown, about the trauma her friends and family went through in the wake of her accident.
It was performed at the University of Exeter's Drama Festival in 2018, as well as last year's Edinburgh Festival Fringe.
CASA is yet to file a defence and has declined to comment on the lawsuit
Source
Key points:
- A 29-year-old British backpacker was killed in the 2017 crash
- One of the survivors is suing CASA for not ensuring the company's operations were safe
- The lawsuit alleges CASA had received complaints about the operator doing "near-aerobatic manoeuvres"
Hannah O'Dowd was 21 and studying abroad in Melbourne when the four-seater Cessna 172M charter flight she boarded in Agnes Water came down on a beach on Middle Island, south of Gladstone, on January 10, 2017.
The crash claimed the life of a 29-year-old British backpacker, while three others, including the pilot and Ms O'Dowd, suffered serious injuries.
Almost three years after being brought out of an induced coma, Ms O'Dowd and her parents have launched a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in the Supreme Court of Queensland, accusing it of negligence.
Among the allegations are that the watchdog failed "to put in place reasonable steps to prevent or regulate the flight being conducted in a dangerous, unconventional, unreasonable and unsafe manner".An investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), released last year, found the pilot was inspecting the beach for landing when the aircraft's engine suddenly, and totally, lost power at approximately 60ft (18 metres).
"Under significant time pressure, the pilot elected to conduct a significant left turn to the beach at a very low height. Although he believed it to be the safest option under the circumstances, it was inconsistent with standard training and guidance to land within 30 (degrees) either side of straight ahead following an engine failure at a low height," the report said. "During the continued left turn toward the beach, the aircraft did not have sufficient performance to avoid a collision with terrain, and it impacted terrain with little or no control and a significant descent rate."
Though the ATSB was unable to pinpoint the reason behind the power loss, it did find the operator's "procedures and practices for conducting airborne inspections" didn't effectively manage such risk when flying at a low height.
The O'Dowd family alleges the crash happened as a result of the "unconventional and unsafe manner the aircraft was operated". "(CASA) owed a duty to members of the public (including Ms O'Dowd) to take all reasonable care to ensure that Wyndham Aviation conducted its operations in compliance with the Act," the statement of claim said.
They also said CASA had received "numerous complaints" to do with "near-aerobatic manoeuvres" on Wyndham Aviation flights and did site inspections in 2011 and 2015. But CASA failed to conduct a detailed examination into these manoeuvres "in circumstances where it knew, or ought to have known, of such conduct," the statement of claim alleged.
In its final report, the ATSB said Wyndham Aviation had previously advertised that their flights involved some manoeuvres to give passengers "thrills or excitement" — with consent forms provided — but both the chief pilot and the pilot from the accident believed none were aerobatic and were instead within the limits. The investigating body reviewed the video footage from the accident flight and found one of the turns could have briefly been classified as an aerobatic manoeuvre.
Ultimately, the performance of near-aerobatic (and potential aerobatic) manoeuvres on the accident flight occurred a significant time before the engine power loss," the report said. "Although these manoeuvres may have unported one of the fuel tanks during the en-route phase, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that they contributed to the subsequent engine power loss during the airborne ALA inspection."
A 7.30/Fairfax report in 2018 also said the pilot who was flying the plane that crashed had no incidents on his record and they understood he was allowed to reapply for his pilot's licence following the CASA investigation as part of a confidential settlement.
The ATSB also recommended that CASA improve its procedures and guidance for "scoping surveillance events".
Blog detailed Hannah's road to recovery
Ms O'Dowd is seeking approximately $3 million, including about $174,000 in general damages and more than $2 million for future economic loss. She claimed she suffered injuries including fractures, a traumatic brain injury, and a minor stroke from the crash, spent about 10 days in an induced coma, and underwent numerous surgeries.
The statement of claim said her ongoing cognitive difficulties will impair her ability at work. According to the court claim, Ms O'Dowd's parents are also each seeking damages — not less than $750,000 — for the nervous shock and personal injuries they say they've suffered since being told their daughter had been involved in a plane crash.
The now-24-year-old has blogged extensively before about her recovery, including how as an adult she never expected to re-live "firsts" — such as "first steps, first words, first day at university".
In one blog post in December 2017, she paid tribute to her friend, Joss, who didn't survive the crash.
She said they met each other while travelling. "She has made me appreciate all the good things about this world so much more," she wrote. "I could spend hours and hours considering what if things had been different. She didn't sit around and wait to think back 'what if'. She was the type of person who knew what she wanted and wasn't afraid to go and get it.
"I'm so glad that for the time we spent together. I will endeavour to do her proud. She had so much life left to live."
In another post, she revealed that soon after she was allowed to return to the UK with her parents, her mother found out she had breast cancer. "My Mum was treated in the same hospital as me, just a different building," she wrote.
"The porters and ambulance drivers there were rather confused as we were each driven one day as a patient, and another day as a visitor/guardian.
"My Dad had the impossible task of supporting a daughter through half a year of hospitalisation and a wife through breast cancer treatment. But my Dad made the impossible, possible." Ms O'Dowd went on to write a play, titled Unknown, about the trauma her friends and family went through in the wake of her accident.
It was performed at the University of Exeter's Drama Festival in 2018, as well as last year's Edinburgh Festival Fringe.
CASA is yet to file a defence and has declined to comment on the lawsuit
Source
Originally Posted by vag227
....and what would have been the reaction if CASA had shut them down?
So CASA shuts down Glen Buckley’s APTA while leaving Sore aviation and this mob untouched? barring absolute and total incompetence on the part of the regulator, The simplest explanation is that money is changing hands, but of course that wouldn’t happen in Australia would it? How many other “incomprehensible” decisions are there where old mate gets the benefit of the doubt while the quadrios and Jameses are publicly crucified.
The rules of Weberian (prussian) bureaucracy as modified by Westminster ,were enacted just to stop this ****ty behavior.
Can the Auditor general/ ICAC or whatever please rule this out?
The rules of Weberian (prussian) bureaucracy as modified by Westminster ,were enacted just to stop this ****ty behavior.
Can the Auditor general/ ICAC or whatever please rule this out?
Last edited by Sunfish; 18th Jan 2020 at 01:52.
There is no Federal ICAC. The fact that there is bi-partisan resistance to the establishment of one demonstrates why it’s required.
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
The fact that there is bi-partisan resistance to the establishment of one demonstrates why it’s required.
And therein lies the problem...OUR PROBLEM. NO FEDERAL ICAC. Nobody with TEETH to turn to when you do suffer closure on a whim, (abuse of power), or by askance of a competitor company (cronyism and corruption).
And when you have CAsA engaging in serious illegalities to protect their staff who have commited crimes, proven under the Crimes Act 1914 by the AFP ...where do you go.?
The State police are shy, disinterested, suffering from institutional sloth or whatever, so that goes nowhere
The Ombudsman can 'reccomend' and CAsA can give the finger.
The AAT is a WOFTAM. And 99% of Pollywafflers have NOT the faintest knowlege of , or interest in GA
Which means that the CAsA Soviet, the free-range chook of an 'agency' (sic- very sick) that has no Miniscule control, no oversighting body and thus is a Law unto Itself.
And is headed up by liars, perjurers, perverters of the course of justice and good old plain bull****ters eg the Corporate Spinmiester.. Anything goes with these people.
And when you have CAsA engaging in serious illegalities to protect their staff who have commited crimes, proven under the Crimes Act 1914 by the AFP ...where do you go.?
The State police are shy, disinterested, suffering from institutional sloth or whatever, so that goes nowhere
The Ombudsman can 'reccomend' and CAsA can give the finger.
The AAT is a WOFTAM. And 99% of Pollywafflers have NOT the faintest knowlege of , or interest in GA
Which means that the CAsA Soviet, the free-range chook of an 'agency' (sic- very sick) that has no Miniscule control, no oversighting body and thus is a Law unto Itself.
And is headed up by liars, perjurers, perverters of the course of justice and good old plain bull****ters eg the Corporate Spinmiester.. Anything goes with these people.
https://www.4ro.com.au/news/local-ne...sh-agnes-water
Detectives from Gladstone Criminal Investigation Branch have charged the pilot of a plane that crashed near Agnes Water in 2017, resulting in the death a female passenger.
The incident involving a private aircraft happened at around 11am on January 10 on the eastern side of Middle Island.
A 29-year-old woman from the United Kingdom was pronounced deceased at the scene.
A 21-year-old female Irish national sustained critical injuries and a 13-year-old male passenger was transported to Rockhampton Hospital with minor injuries.
The 67-year-old male pilot was also seriously injured.
Ongoing investigations by Gladstone CIB, with the assistance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, led to the arrest today of the 67-year-old man.
He has been charged with one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death and one count of grievous bodily harm and is due to appear in Bundaberg Magistrates Court on May 11.
Detectives from Gladstone Criminal Investigation Branch have charged the pilot of a plane that crashed near Agnes Water in 2017, resulting in the death a female passenger.
The incident involving a private aircraft happened at around 11am on January 10 on the eastern side of Middle Island.
A 29-year-old woman from the United Kingdom was pronounced deceased at the scene.
A 21-year-old female Irish national sustained critical injuries and a 13-year-old male passenger was transported to Rockhampton Hospital with minor injuries.
The 67-year-old male pilot was also seriously injured.
Ongoing investigations by Gladstone CIB, with the assistance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, led to the arrest today of the 67-year-old man.
He has been charged with one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death and one count of grievous bodily harm and is due to appear in Bundaberg Magistrates Court on May 11.
Here's one that doesn't require a subscription:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld-pilot-...3641--spt.html
https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld-pilot-...3641--spt.html
Wonderful.
Simply wonderful.
I wonder which of the objects of the criminal law will be served by this prosecution.
Simply wonderful.
I wonder which of the objects of the criminal law will be served by this prosecution.