Rossair accident in 2017 - training and checking assessment
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'?
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'?
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.
Kiwis do lay down maximum periods in which to complete consolidation after initial training in various activities. Have a gander at their rules.
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.
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!!
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!!
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!!
It certainly was a mistake that the circumstance arose that I actually got to see it for about 30 seconds.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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/
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/
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.
Frankly - it wasn’t considered to be much fun. Or particularly safe.
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.
"Claimed" hours. No way of regulatory auditing especially if flown with foreign airlines
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spent some time working with the gent.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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.
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.
NTSB.
And because of minimum post length parameters: NTSB...
And because of minimum post length parameters: NTSB...
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Detai...n-control+seat