CASA Again!

[Sunfish]

Cloudee, is prosecution for illegal acts optional?

[Cloudee]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

Cloudee, is prosecution for illegal acts optional?

Yep, the DPP here is forever quoting something like "not in the public interest" or "lack of sufficient evidence" when they decide not to prosecute. Perhaps more civil action will be taken once the ATSB report is finalised. Perhaps CASA decided grounding them was enough punishment and it was not in the public interest to further prosecute. In our wonderful system of justice, prosecution isn't always necessary to get punished.

[Ethel the Aardvark]

Why did the Authority recommend landing on water? Why did the Authority not have the second aircraft thoroughly inspected after the alleged aerobatics? Well worth looking at abc website which documents all the correspondence with those who shall not be mentioned. I believe rather a bit embarrassing.
any takers on the next long overdue CASA name change.

[rutan around]

Any time you spin in it ain't going to be pretty...Even if it is from only 100 feet.

The pilot was between a rock and a hard place. IF he landed straight ahead almost certainly the plane would have flipped and all would drown. He elected to to do everything in his power to get the aircraft back to land. This probably saved 3 lives.

What would you say to negative G maneuvers that were of sufficient magnitude to result in a power interruption?

I would say that one tenth of a negative g will unport the fuel tank outlet and soon after the fuel bowl will empty to below the pickup and you'll be in a glider. There will be no stress on the airframe and once even one tenth of a g positive is established the engine will resume normal operations in 2 or 3 seconds. I have no idea why you mentioned 60 seconds. The only time I can imagine a restart taking that long is if an inattentive pilot let a fuel tank run out and then he stuffed around figuring out why the noise stopped and then lost more time finding a tank with some fuel still in it.

Originally Posted by kaz3g

I didn’t see any aerobatic manoeuvres in the video.

You didn’t look very hard then!

Unless the camera is on the dash it is really difficult to know what is happening especially if the camera is held in a wobbley hand.The other 2 clips looked pretty tame though not necessarily for PXs experiencing weightlessness for the first time.

[Squawk7700]

In the second video the camera is fixed and it would be approx 120 degrees from thte horizon based on my crude estimate.

[rutan around]

Jeez Squawk Team Prune is lucky to have such an expert on aircraft attitudes based on one camera in an unknown position. Were you the one that worked out the various supposedly dangerous attitudes of John Quadrio's helicopter? That turned out well didn't it?

[Squawk7700]

Originally Posted by rutan around

Jeez Squawk Team Prune is lucky to have such an expert on aircraft attitudes based on one camera in an unknown position. Were you the one that worked out the various supposedly dangerous attitudes of John Quadrio's helicopter? That turned out well didn't it?

You mean the camera that is held against the dash in a fixed position throughout the half-baked barrel roll or whatever it was?

My vague recollection of the Quadrio video was that it was hand-held and affected by the shape of th R44 windscreen divider.

Different kettle of fish completely.

[rutan around]

The voice just audible above the engine told everyone to hold cameras on the right window sill. I just selected camera on my (proper flash) mobile phone and watched the picture as I rocked it about 30* left and right. It nearly made me airsick and looked a lot like the the 3 clips without my feet leaving the floor.It did however make me thirsty. See ya.

[josephfeatherweight]

Rutan, I have often found you the voice of reason above the noise that often drowns out sensibility on PPRUNE. But seriously, if you can't see the EXTREME aerobatic attitudes in this:

Exhibit A

then, I'm afraid you are ignoring the obvious. This is very different to the Quadrio situation - no distortion, just how it is.
Unacceptable and worthy of some CASA action, IMHO.

[LeadSled]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

My vague recollection of the Quadrio video was that it was hand-held and affected by the shape of th R44 windscreen divider.

Squawk 7700,
What I would remind everyone of, is that the "Quadrio" video was a composite, not of a single flight, and in one part another pilot could be identified. This was established by a rather expensive accredited forensic lab in WA. One used by WA Police.

As for this case, and whatever definition of "aerobatic/acrobatic" you use, a wing over is a pretty harmless positive G manoeuver. Anybody remember the G.O.Ds of Sunday morning club flying, and streamer cutting competitions, the "CASA" of the day had no problem with that, including the manoeuvers involved.

What disturbs me most about this is CASA abrogating the legal rights and duties of the pilot in command, by deciding, in arrears that he should have done something different once the emergency occurred ---- but, or course, this is not the first time CASA has done this ---- "knowing better".

In the coming Part 91, those ICAO mandated rights of the pilot in command have been so watered down that Australia will have to (or should) notify ICAO of yet another (to add to the 4000 or so) difference to ICAO standards.

Tootle pip!!

[aroa]

Sunny...Yep . With CAsA prosecutions are optional. Depends on the target, and their vulnerabilty, financial well-being and status.
As for any criminal actions by CAsA persons...prosecution gets very quickly wiped off the white board.
Top place to work..a dopey code of conduct with any 'criminality provisions' chopped off. Why so? they claim to be federal 'public sector workers' but with this Law to Itself Free range 'agency'
Anything criminal by their folks is called a 'code breach', which is a constructive fraud and perverts the course of justice.
A crime is a crime and must be dealt with under the criminal codes.
CAsA wont have a bar of that.!
Their claim of a "just culture" is just ar$e...BS Supreme polished to a mirror finish by the tongues of specific legal wizards in LSG.

[megan]

Why did the Authority recommend landing on water?

Because on the face of things they are bereft of competent folk who do have a clue. I need go no further than cite their decree that GA aircraft are not permitted to fly in temps above 40 degrees C. When questioned on the matter, no reply was the firm non answer. I don't assume it was the tea lady who made the decision, as I'm sure she would be more forthcoming with her level of knowledge, or lack thereof. A report was given to CASA prior to the introduction of REPCON, in fact the particular report may well have been the one that brought about REPCON, and the person to whom it was sent hadn't replied after a month so a phone call was made. His reply was "send it to XXXX, but don't say you've previously sent it to me". The reporter was invited to discuss with the FOI, but his only interest was in talking about mutually known individuals in the industry. The report made involved matters such as flying with no alternates when they were required, IMC at 300' when technically it was a VFR operation, and a general lack of compliance with the ops manual. It was all the "Normalisation of Deviance" that Prof. Vaughan introduced into the lexicon. Trouble was, the company was a LARGE multinational and had the capacity to bring any government to heel. The outcome? No idea, the reporter had left prior to submitting the report, but not before trying to get management to address matters, but to no avail. Leaving their employ was seen as the only means by which matters may be addressed. Sunfish is well aware of the company and the means by which it did business.

[tartare]

That video Joseph posted looks like a full stall and recovery - followed by some kind of weird wingover - the strut being the airframe point of reference.
I certainly wouldn't do either with pax in the back of a 172..

[jonkster]

or a split s? (the first attempt aborted and the second carried through but comes out off line)?

If it was a split s, seems a tad ambitious for a 172 with 4POB...

[1a sound asleep]

As of today the Final ATSB report is NOT complete or published

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2017-005/

[josephfeatherweight]

That video Joseph posted looks like a full stall and recovery

Please note, I simply reposted the video that KRaviator linked above - I have taken it that it is video of the discussed company/operator, but personally don’t know that to be fact.
Regardless, not a good idea in a 172!

[KRviator]

From the ABC article:

Originally Posted by Mr Rhodes

Mr Rhoades said passengers enjoyed "rock and roll flights" but they weren't aerobatic and before each flight passengers were asked to fill in a form if they wanted a flight which included a demonstration of a light aircraft's ability within "normal" procedures.

Someone might want to re-read the rulebook...And do we see functioning dual-controls there in contravention of CAR 155?

Originally Posted by CAR 1988

...manoeuvres intentionally performed by an aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed.

Originally Posted by The FAA

For the purposes of this section, aerobatic flight means an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

[Sunfish]

If these actions were illegal, a safety threat to the public and known to CASA, why wasn’t the operator prosecuted years ago?

What is the explanation? Lack of staff? Inefficiency? Incompetence? Or worse; laziness, capriciousness, corruption, cowardice. Given CASAs mission, isn’t this accident a damning example of failure to protect the public? Shouldn’t the operators and pilots have been publicly hanged by CASA after the detection of the first bunt?

What are we paying CASA for if not safety?

[aroa]

Your explanations are right. All those things, rolled into one for a total flustercluck.
Consistency in prosecution for reg breaches ....pass me the bucket.!
Helicopter pilot busts it, flies it, alterations to MR and illegal entries..blames others.
In the collapsed legal wash up, many innocent folk are 10s of thousands of $$s out of pocket.
And the instigator of all this mayhem...gets off scott free.
When asked by one of the financial victims why was he not prosecuted for all the serious reg breaches, the astounding answer was .."Oh, dont you think he has been hurt enough, he's lost his helicopter." !!
Comments of bribery relating to this event spring to mind.
No good calling Houston...Cantberra , we have a problem.!
CAsA is one sick puppy...like the RSPCA, I believe it should be put down.

[Cloudee]

Clearly the low level of the Cessna when the engine failed contributed to the sad outcome that precipitated this discussion. The reason given for the low level pass was to do a precautionary search of the proposed landing area. I may well be wrong, but it was my understanding that the aircraft was taking people to an island camp and that there were staff members on the ground. If this was the case why could those staff members not patrol the landing area/beach, negating the need to do the low pass? The ground inspection would have been far more thorough and far safer, or was the low level pass just part of the thrill of the ride?