Skippers Aviation Cessna Conquest makes forced landing on highway
Here's a thought:
THere's about 40 Conquests working in Australia at the moment and we (industry, the people directly responsible for the safety of the travelling public) have had no guidance from ATSB about what might have caused Renmark or Broome (although we have plenty of theories).
There's about 100 KingAirs (90, 100, 200, 300) working in Australia and we, the industry directly responsible for the safety of the travelling public, are still none the wiser about likely causes of the Essendon accident, although we all have a pet theory.
Is this really acceptable?
THere's about 40 Conquests working in Australia at the moment and we (industry, the people directly responsible for the safety of the travelling public) have had no guidance from ATSB about what might have caused Renmark or Broome (although we have plenty of theories).
There's about 100 KingAirs (90, 100, 200, 300) working in Australia and we, the industry directly responsible for the safety of the travelling public, are still none the wiser about likely causes of the Essendon accident, although we all have a pet theory.
Is this really acceptable?
Is this acceptable? Not in first-world aviation nation.
But this is Australia.
But this is Australia.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But this is Australia.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2015-018/
Other than that, I agree with you. Especially the part about ‘at the same time’
Is this really acceptable?
When a report does finally emerge, we get all this "fluff" to pad out the report instead of highlighting the bleeding obivious.
Exactly. The ATSB report into that stuffed up visual approach is not worth the paper it was printed on. Three years and no analysis of the root cause of the problems.
But that should be the subject of another thread.
But that should be the subject of another thread.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be ICAO compliant a State requires effective regulatory and investigative organisations. These require effective management, suitably trained personnel and suitable funding.
Australia has the poorly managed, underfunded CASA and ATSB, to create the illusion of compliance, nothing more. Ultimately it’s the ministers fault, but it will take a smoking hole in the ground filled with a HC Jet before change will occur
Australia has the poorly managed, underfunded CASA and ATSB, to create the illusion of compliance, nothing more. Ultimately it’s the ministers fault, but it will take a smoking hole in the ground filled with a HC Jet before change will occur
It is reported that a Mayday was called and an Emergency Landing was carried out in this low capacity RPT aircraft.
That clearly warrants an investigation.
But what is baffling is that at the time of the incident 4.20pm on a Friday afternoon, who gave permission to touch or work on the aircraft?
Also would be interesting is to know what the current data that must of been on hand, says in relation to maintenance required after engine surge and subsequent inflight shut down - no doubt the MR will have the I.A.W references to chapters written in.
Then there would be most likely company procedures approved by CASA in relation to requirements after an incident or emergency for both aircraft and crew.
Even charter aircraft I have had to wait hours before I got the go ahead to touch the aircraft after an emergency landing.
-----underfunded CASA
You speak in jest, of course.
Have a looks at the size of the CASA payroll versus the extent of aviation in Australia, versus almost any other reasonable like for like comparison, and you will find that CASA is a huge organisation, pro-rata, that has had significant expansion in numbers (of very well paid) and $$$$, as the aviation industry (outside HCRPT Operations) shrinks.
And you want to us to believe it is underfunded?? Gimmee a break!!
Tootle pip!!
It is allowable to move the aircraft if it poses a danger to person/s or animals, but removing the aircraft is not mentioned.
However it seems by the evidence that it was possible to detour around the aircraft.
I will guess that a few people will get the please explain letter/s.
Are you saying that is what "did" happen, or what "probably" happened??
I agree with those suggesting that the general gist of the cause of this should be shared with other operators, lest there be something operators should know about...
But, if it just ran out of juice, well, that's pretty cut and dry!
I agree with those suggesting that the general gist of the cause of this should be shared with other operators, lest there be something operators should know about...
But, if it just ran out of juice, well, that's pretty cut and dry!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead sled, I must apologise. I should have said fiscally mismanaged. All the money is spent on legal drafters, and bull**** middle management positions who filter the flow of information.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know who actually does the legal drafting for CASA?Are there private companies that do the drafting? In the same fashion as manual writers? I mean, what a money spinner!! Employ your own company to do the drafting, then drag the RRP out for twenty years so your drafting company is set for life!!!!
Out of curiosity, does anyone know who actually does the legal drafting for CASA?Are there private companies that do the drafting? In the same fashion as manual writers? I mean, what a money spinner!! Employ your own company to do the drafting, then drag the RRP out for twenty years so your drafting company is set for life!!!!
I can't imagine that he'd have sat there for any length of time to definitively say that it didn't happen.
I doubt that a Conquest would block that section of road for a Tojo off a station.
Are there private companies that do the drafting?
Last time I noticed, all legal drafting was done by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, to the VERY, VERY DETAILED instructions of the client, CASA, including that everything is criminal (not civil) law and with rare exceptions, strict liability and 50 penalty points.
Tootle pip!!
AWI Larard, (retd) suggested to me that if I had a problem with the regs I should write to John Howard, PM at the time. !! WTF would he know ???
Another casa person told me on the phone..." I bet you dont know who writes the regulations.."
'I have some idea...but do fill me in.'
"The Governor General " says he. That really cracked me up !
Yes, yes, I can see it !
On a very cold winter's night in Canberra, sitting close to the fire with glass of port in hand and a quill in the other busy scribbling and scratching away with much legalese and contradictory convolution, old white haired GG doing his bit of the Commonwealth.
Top stuff.
Or when Aleck, Anustasi, LSD, Uncle Tom Cobbley and CASA have finished editing, re-writing and expanding it all for him, ( for 'safety' reasons) what we actually have is a top stuff up.
Another casa person told me on the phone..." I bet you dont know who writes the regulations.."
'I have some idea...but do fill me in.'
"The Governor General " says he. That really cracked me up !
Yes, yes, I can see it !
On a very cold winter's night in Canberra, sitting close to the fire with glass of port in hand and a quill in the other busy scribbling and scratching away with much legalese and contradictory convolution, old white haired GG doing his bit of the Commonwealth.
Top stuff.
Or when Aleck, Anustasi, LSD, Uncle Tom Cobbley and CASA have finished editing, re-writing and expanding it all for him, ( for 'safety' reasons) what we actually have is a top stuff up.