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

Rossair accident in 2017 - training and checking assessment

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Rossair accident in 2017 - training and checking assessment

Old 23rd Jul 2018, 20:19
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
One more question.....

Assuming the six training flights were conducted in 'the proper way' as mentioned by Mach E Avelli, and I quote "The proper way this is done is to have the would-be instructor/check pilot receive either dual or simulator in which various exercises are practiced until better than simply proficient - i.e. extremely proficient". What timeframe would be considered 'recent'?
ChoppaGirl is offline  
Old 23rd Jul 2018, 22:26
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,702
30 days from completion of initial training to test. Then a 90 day recency requirement. No legislation in Oz that I am aware of, but common sense.
Kiwis do lay down maximum periods in which to complete consolidation after initial training in various activities. Have a gander at their rules.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2018, 02:52
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,935
Originally Posted by ChoppaGirl View Post

It is my understanding that the reason Rossair were unable to operate under their own AOC was due to CASA flatly refusing to approve any Chief Pilot put forward by them. I can only assume that CASA had identified systemic cultural issues within the company and used their power in this way to ensure Rossair remained grounded.
ChoppaGirl,
No, you can't assume that.
It is distressingly common for CASA to decide they are going to put somebody out of business, usually because the company has had an incident or accident that has embarrassed CASA, or otherwise got up the nose of somebody in CASA.
If we went back to the time of the Moore St, office in Canberra, I would even be able to point out to you the office where you would find the white board where companies/persons listed for the chop could be found
The one assumption you cannot make, is that all CASA actions are in the interests of air safety.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2018, 06:49
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Equatorial
Age: 46
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
ChoppaGirl,
No, you can't assume that.
It is distressingly common for CASA to decide they are going to put somebody out of business, usually because the company has had an incident or accident that has embarrassed CASA, or otherwise got up the nose of somebody in CASA.
If we went back to the time of the Moore St, office in Canberra, I would even be able to point out to you the office where you would find the white board where companies/persons listed for the chop could be found
The one assumption you cannot make, is that all CASA actions are in the interests of air safety.
Tootle pip!!
I would have liked to have seen that whiteboard in the mid to late 2000’s...
Global Aviator is online now  
Old 24th Jul 2018, 08:42
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,935
Originally Posted by Global Aviator View Post
I would have liked to have seen that whiteboard in the mid to late 2000’s...
And, predictably, whether an individual or a company, they are, with very few exceptions, gone.
It certainly was a mistake that the circumstance arose that I actually got to see it for about 30 seconds.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 24th Jul 2018, 15:05
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 2
Having now read many interesting posts are there really any simple answers to the following questions?Should EFATO training be undertaken when there is an inductee pilot in the left seat and the pilot in the right seat is undergoing assessment by an FOI to become a check and training captain i.e. the guy in the right seat is not at that stage qualified for the C&T role?Should EFATO training be conducted at a safer altitude? One post suggests that there may now be a minimum altitude of 1000feet in Australia whilst another suggests that certain manufacturers recommend a safe altitude of 5000feet. So what is really considered to be a safe altitude in an aging twin turboprop airplane?Should EFATO training always be conducted at or at least in the vicinity of an airfield where there are emergency services available?Should all commercial aircraft, irrespective of weight and capacity, have CVR? After all, the cost of installing CVR cannot be prohibitive for small commercial operators (as would probably be the case with FDR).If CVR had been fitted, and it is my understanding that this a recommendation of the NTSB for all commercial aircraft of 6 seats or more in the US, would investigators have a better understanding as to what went wrong on this tragic flight?
Joe2017 is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 12:11
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 512
Originally Posted by Centaurus View Post
Finally, it is worth studying the ATSB report on the 2003 accident at Camden NSW to a Duchess where the instructor cut the mixture at lift off during a touch and go.
That aircraft crashed and caught fire and the instructor lost his life. Both pilots were highly experienced former airline pilots. See:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair200300224/
PIC 40000+ hours. Makes you think......
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 14:09
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 326
PIC 40000+ hours. Makes you think......
"Claimed" hours. No way of regulatory auditing especially if flown with foreign airlines
Judd is offline  
Old 28th Jul 2018, 22:30
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dirty South
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
So, would this be required under the FAA requirements?
It used to be for a Part 135 SIC check. And part 121. I’ve done it in a Lear 23 & Jetstream 32. Neither of which had the Level D Simulator that was required to negate the maneuvers being done in the airplane. This was prior to the current FAA full PIC type rating requirements for F.O.

Frankly - it wasn’t considered to be much fun. Or particularly safe.
JPJP is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2018, 00:57
  #70 (permalink)  
FOI
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Aust
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by JPJP View Post


It used to be for a Part 135 SIC check. And part 121. I’ve done it in a Lear 23 & Jetstream 32. Neither of which had the Level D Simulator that was required to negate the maneuvers being done in the airplane. This was prior to the current FAA full PIC type rating requirements for F.O.

Frankly - it wasn’t considered to be much fun. Or particularly safe.
Thanks JP. Would FAA Inspectorate insist on having a Check Pilot under assessment conduct a check on a real candidate (ie. Pilot out of proficiency) with FAA Inspector sitting in row 1 observing?
FOI is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2018, 02:22
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,822
"Claimed" hours. No way of regulatory auditing especially if flown with foreign airlines
No idea how many hours he had, but he virtually lived in a PIC seat, and would have done more hours than the average bear. Gave up flying 707 for Asian airline on the London run to attend uni studying medicine, uni went by the way side very quickly as he was working as chief pilot for two separate company's, one RW, one FW, before going to 737 domestic. Flew anything with wings or rotor, spent some time working with the gent.
megan is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2018, 21:05
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dirty South
Posts: 372
Originally Posted by FOI View Post


Thanks JP. Would FAA Inspectorate insist on having a Check Pilot under assessment conduct a check on a real candidate (ie. Pilot out of proficiency) with FAA Inspector sitting in row 1 observing?
I don’t definitively know the answer. My guess is no. In fact they’d probably insist that it wasn’t . Here’s why - If the flight had been successful, how could the Chief Pilot, and now Check Airmen sign off the student ? At the time of the check, the Chief Pilot wasn’t qualified to assess the student. He wasn’t a Check Airmen until they landed and an FOI signed him off. On the other hand; given the dynamics of a small company, and humans being human. I’m not shocked that it occurred.

The logical choice for the person in the left seat was the FOI. That negates the ‘qualified pilot is too easy’ excuse, and is the safest choice (on paper). Using a real student in the left seat sounds more like an experiment, or an attempt to throw randomness into what should be a well defined process of assessment.

I assume that the FOIs justification was thus - he’d assess them both at the same time. He was qualified to assess both the inductee pilot, and the Chief Pilot for their new qualifications. As someone mentioned earlier, this would have halved the cost to the company.
JPJP is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2018, 23:35
  #73 (permalink)  
FOI
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Aust
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by JPJP View Post


I don’t definitively know the answer. My guess is no. In fact they’d probably insist that it wasn’t . Here’s why - If the flight had been successful, how could the Chief Pilot, and now Check Airmen sign off the student ? At the time of the check, the Chief Pilot wasn’t qualified to assess the student. He wasn’t a Check Airmen until they landed and an FOI signed him off. On the other hand; given the dynamics of a small company, and humans being human. I’m not shocked that it occurred.

The logical choice for the person in the left seat was the FOI. That negates the ‘qualified pilot is too easy’ excuse, and is the safest choice (on paper). Using a real student in the left seat sounds more like an experiment, or an attempt to throw randomness into what should be a well defined process of assessment.

I assume that the FOIs justification was thus - he’d assess them both at the same time. He was qualified to assess both the inductee pilot, and the Chief Pilot for their new qualifications. As someone mentioned earlier, this would have halved the cost to the company.
JPJP Thanks for the insight. I agree entirely with your sentiments; the oversight of the conduct of the assessment requires formal investigation. This investigation should be separate from the ATSB.
FOI is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2018, 00:10
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,406
Leadsled, check your PM.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2018, 03:36
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,160
spent some time working with the gent.
Me, too. I was his instructor in the RAAF after he graduated with 210 hours circa 1960. Excellent pilot and very knowledgeable. If numbers quoted are correct he claimed 40,000 hours in 43 years of flying including RAAF Service. Pretty incredible.
Tee Emm is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 13:54
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by FOI View Post


JPJP Thanks for the insight. I agree entirely with your sentiments; the oversight of the conduct of the assessment requires formal investigation. This investigation should be separate from the ATSB.
I also agree with both of you, and obviously this has already been brought up with CASA by me. They concluded that they themselves perform the investigation into themselves. Well, that's a load of rubbish. I also agree that ATSB should not be investigating the conduct of the assessment (both being government departments and having been proven to collude with each other in the past), however who would be best placed to investigate? Any ideas??? I'm thinking 4 Corners personally....
ChoppaGirl is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2018, 23:08
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,702
4 Corners or similar would be great if you could lay down the rules for the program, which I doubt very much.
The interviewer would need to ask intelligent questions - always tricky finding journos who can be intelligent about aviation. Then the interviewees need to be credible. That rules out the usual ex international airline show ponies, consultants and assorted PPL experts. You would need them to interview pilots actively engaged in checking and training with knowledge of the aircraft type and its potential hazards ,benefits of simulators etc and the FAA approach to training vs CASA. Somehow you’d need to have all this woven into the story in such a way that the great unwashed public would get the idea that CASA is not blameless in this or many other accidents, that they still have rogue FOIs in their ranks, lack FOI induction training, don’t keep FOI’s competent to occupy control seats to conduct tests, have no proper standardisation across offices etc.
Good luck putting all that together.
Re independent investigation, maybe talk to AUSALPA. They may have a couple of qualified accident investigators on their books.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 00:24
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,777
NTSB.

And because of minimum post length parameters: NTSB...
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 06:40
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
I think any investigative TV show would put it into the NGAF bin.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2018, 12:36
  #80 (permalink)  
FOI
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Aust
Posts: 31
Originally Posted by FOI View Post
How:
1. Can a situation be tolerated where neither pilot operating in a control seat be qualified (as in deemed proficient) for the activity being undertaken?
Why:
1. Would you not for the purposes of assessment, have a qualified Examiner operating as pseudo student.
Uncanny, the timing of this most recent of exemptions...

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Detai...n-control+seat
FOI is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.