Aircraft incident at Brampton Island
 

A Piper Aztec from Mackay ran off the runway at Brampton Island yesterday, ending up severely bogged and about a foot from going over the edge of the strip onto the beach.

Eyewitnesses on Brampton watched the aircraft land with 10knots of downwind on an already shortened strip, landing very long and fast.

The pilot allegedly claimed her brakes failed, however after being towed out of the bog she flew back to Mackay without the aircraft being checked by an engineer for the 'apparent brake failure'.

On arrival in Mackay she was met by CASA airworthiness, subsequent inspection showed no faults with the braking system.
This is at least the fourth such incident for this Mackay operator and it’s principals.

The same pilot and operator previously wrote off a Cherokee at Keswick Island, an Auster on the beach in Mackay and gutsed a Baron in Townsville.

The same operator was also the first one to violate the new airspace on the first day of introduction.

I guess having an ex CASA FOI from the local office as a business partner appears to make them exempt from the same minute scrutiny that other NQ operators are forced to tolerate!

Surely CASA should look hard and deep into this operation, or is there an element of “protection” involved? :yuk:

I can't believe there would be any conflicts of interest, incompetence, impropriatory or corruption with CASA staff in FNQ!

It's all a FNQ myth about CASA staff family flying overloaded, FOI having an interest in a local operator, FOI running short of fuel in a C310, and victimisation of certain operators who are perceived not to toe the line.

:E

hmmmmm
 

just wondering how someone from CASA allegedly got to MK so quick from TL? Methinks thats a crock...

How do you know they weren't already there? :E

i know they weren't there, and natbanger(he wishes) is full of it...

Torres, just like there could not be anything to do with seat belts either;)

tipsy

Pretty defamatory stuff Natbanger.

Wouldn't be a neighbour would you ;)

Now this is the edit.

A quick look at the BOM site, backed up by AIMS sensors on the reef indicate the '10 kt tailwind' is an absolute fabrication!!!!

At best a 5 kt X-wind, bumpy past the hill, but that is all.

'Ran off the runway end while landing long' also seems to be a complete fabrication. A RELIABLE eyewitness states 'the aircraft was turning round and one wheel went off the runway' (not necessarily off the end).

I could go on, but I would have expected Torres to be a little more learned. After all, the most unfortunate part of our industry is MARGINAL OPERATORS having a go at sucessful ones ON THE SAME AIRPORT through an incompetent regulator and via backstabbing, bullsh!t and rumour.

And as for '"number" of incidents", pot this is kettle...out!!!!

Pull yer head in natbanger.

Max

Maximus B

If there is any verifiable evidence of the Townsville Office not being totally above board, nor a model litigant, then no, it is not defammatory, but possibly inflammatory.

There are a number of myths that warrant exposing or putting to bed with this office, the astute historian would naturally agree.

That this office may have established a unique culture is possibly just another myth.

You would be well advised to look below the surface and find out what is mythical, legendary, commendable or otherwise about this office.

You may well be surprised at what diligent research may uncover.

That this office could cleanly endure an independant inquiry or Royal Commission may be worth thinking about.

That would certainly clear their slate and establish them as the fairest and most impartial office in CASA.

It is ridiculous to suggest that there may be any thing untoward in the conduct of this office, surely it stands on it's unblemished record of fairness and impartiality.

Just ask any operator under their jurisdiction, they will assure you that all is well.

Mainframe

I personally think the Townsville Office (and its norther subsidiary) are a BIG problem.

We can see the circumstantial evidence in the number of operators thrown out of business for what amounts, in my view, to little more than personality clashes. yes Tvl and Cns CASA need a thorough reaming.

However this DOES NOT excuse natbanger's defamatory posting against a competitor. It is unfortunate that those who can't run a sucessful aviation business, use rumour and the evil regulator to 'level the playing field' and it is incumbent upon all of us to pour scorn on these losers until they stop it, roll over and die.

Max

I suspect the point being made is the differing standards applied by the CASA FNQ office. For example, in three recent cases of alleged aircraft being bogged:[list=1][*]An aircraft with a politician on board was bogged late October at a Cape York airstrip when the pilot taxied outside the cone markers. No CASA action.
[*]An aircraft was bogged at another remote Cape York airstrip, after receiving a satisfactory strip report. Incident contributed to suspension of RPT AOC.
[*]Incident of aircraft being bogged at Brampton following alleged brake failure. Aircraft departed without LAME check. Appears no CASA action.[/list=1]

Getting bogged at a remote, unsealed airstrip, in tropical northern Australia during the wet season would not appear to be a particularly onerous “crime”. Departing after an alleged brake failure, without a LAME check (I wonder what was entered on the MR?) should warrant the fullest investigation.

The inconsistent standards in these “incidents” applied by CASA in FNQ (over a number of years) should be a point of grave concern.

Maximus

I appreciate your concern, however you will note the post by natbanger which initiated this thread contains:

[Last edited by Woomera on 17th December 2004 at 13:01]

I removed the thread at the time, as originally published and made certain amendments after obtaining advice. I am now satisfied the amended original post by natbanger complies with the posting rules of PPRuNe and is of interest to other PPRuNe users and viewers.

My action as a Moderator was required due solely to certain allegations in the original post. I am now satisfied the amended post complies with our posting rules.

I make no judgement or comment on the veracity or accuracy of the post content.

Woomera

Max, if I read your post correctly, the following two statements appear to be contradictory:
and
I think you’re trying to “play the person” rather than “playing the ball”?

I believe the allegations I made above to be accurate, if a tad flippant!

I really have no interest – there is a better life after aviation – both for me and the CASA FNQ staff!!! :ok:

Torres

I did not mean to imply that any operation you were part of was marginal in any way, if my disjointed paragraphs suggested that I am sorry.

Rather I meant to imply that you, of all people, would know very well the implication of unchecked rumour used to stifle competition because you have been a victim of it.

As for CASA Tvl, go for it, they are in my view compromised and need a thorough overhaul.

Max

Cplane, do you know where the infamous BJ is now?

Maximus B

Rumour has it that the Townsville office does have problems and that Bruce Byron and John Anderson are aware of the problems and the offenders.

A Royal Commission into this Office and CASA generally in how they conduct their role in putting operators out of business at their whim would indeed prove interesting.
( Ord Air Charter, Yanda Airlines, UZU Airlines, Whyalla Airlines, Sea View Airlines, Kackeroo Aviation, Ansett Airlines , Schutt Aviation and others too numerous to mention, additionally the malicious and vindictive attempts on Midstate, Cape York and others still happening?)

However, such is wishful thinking.

However, the industry at large do communicate with each other and there are serious concerns with the Townsville office and it's conduct towards industry.

There is a new manager installed by Byron, but he will be meet the same fate as his predecessors and be shafted from below.

Unless of course he is particularly astute and if Byron has empowered him to fix the problems.

At least the industry has seen some fairness displayed by this office, rumour has it that three of it's own staff were bastardised just as severely by the offender just as have some selected operators been bastardised by the offender.

An allegedly "independant" report has been concluded, guess what the outcome was ? sorry, no prizes.


Then again, maybe all this is myth and rumour.

Max. In my 30 plus successful, challenging, very rewarding and mostly very enjoyable years in the aviation industry in the Pacific, Asia and Australia, it was always the same, everywhere - rumour and innuendo used in an attempt to destroy competition. Your comments don’t offend me in the least; I've had competing operators dump cr@p on me by the truck load - it's all water off a duck’s back! :E

I've taken advice and direction from the regulator’s competent professional employees to the betterment of the operation I managed at that time. I've also taken on the regulator’s vindictive and incompetent employees and won, on more than one occasion.

I do not have any knowledge of the incident posted by natbanger, however natbanger appears to have first hand evidence of possible collusion or corruption and on the balance of probabilities – and my knowledge of CASA FNQ office culture – is more than likely correct. The CASA system and culture protects and promotes the less competent CASA staff, whilst generally demoralising and isolating the competent and skilled CASA professional employee. If I’m reading the current CASA picture correctly, the Group Captain’s Club is being revived within CASA and will protect it’s members.

“Stress leave” seems to be endemic in CASA FNQ staff. I recall on one occasion a reply to my very detailed response to a ludicrous, flawed and vindictive Show Cause was delayed as one of the FOI’s was on “stress leave” – although I was able to locate him painting his block of units. I now find two CASA Townsville FOI’s are on “stress leave”. There have been a number of other incidents of “stress leave” being granted to CASA FNQ staff. If a CASA FOI is unfit for work due to stress, I suspect he/she is medically unfit to hold a commercial pilots license, thus medically unfit for employment as an FOI.

I suspect if a private sector commercial pilot were required to take “stress leave” his license medical may well be suspended and difficult to restore, however I remember one CASA FNQ FOI who flew commercially whilst on stress leave.

There is no accountability in CASA generally, nor can one expect any changes in the Townsville or Cairns office vindictive and discriminatory culture and credibility whilst the present manager remains.

10000

I think you may have hit the nail on the head with the observation that there appears to be inconsistency in the level of regulatory and enforcement action exercised by this office.

Two operators under this office have occasioned multiple passenger fatalities and appear to be having a rails run.

Two other operators who not only haven't killed any passengers but who have long records of safe operation have been under seige for prolonged periods and subject to harassment, vindictiveness, maliciousness, obstructionism and every form of commercial harm that these public salaried incompetents can think up.

No, the concept of a level playing field is alien to these malevolents.

There must be an inquiry, and not by the usual "independant" known as "The Whitewash", who just happens to be associated with one of CASA's contracted legal teams.

If Byron is really serious about "Natural Justice", "Fair and Impartial Treatment", "Innocent until Proven Guilty" and such other rhetoric as is released, he could do no better than start with the Townsville Office.

That there is a rogue element in CASA is an established fact.

The names are known by the industry, the names are known within CASA, but until they are brought into line, or preferably sent off as parking policemen to the Sydney CBD, Byron cannot achieve reform.

Byron has started the culling process, having recently sacked one of the known rogue element at the top.

There are still more hiding in Canberra, protecting the ones in area offices.

Townsville is a known rogue office, as is Archerfield.

A recent post to this thread suggested that the description of Townsville misconduct fitted YMMB, are there more rogue offices out there?

If you know of a rogue office, please name it on this thread, but under no circumstances should you name the offenders.

The eventual inquiry will find out all the necessary details.

Byron's sackings must continue downward until he cleans out the maggots sufficiently for them to understand that their behaviour is embarrassing to CASA.

TORRES

You are right about Stress leave. This public service perk is not really applicable to CASA FOI's.

A few points here.

If you are on stress leave, you have a medical condition that precludes you from flying.

If you have a medical condition that precludes you from flying for more than seven days, you must notify the Director of Aviation Medicine.

If you have a repetitive history of this medical problem, your licence maybe should be suspended as you have in fact a chronic medical problem.

That this problem is psychiatric in nature raises serious concerns regarding whether or not you are a fit and proper person to exercise the priviledge of a licence or to continue to hold one.

The inability to effectively deal with stress should be cause to not hold a CPL or higher licence.

An engine failure in heavy weather can be stressfull.

But the pilot can't handle stress ! ?

Would a search of Aviation Medicine reveal a pattern of compliance by CASA FOI's chronically taking Stress leave, or have they simply forgotten to inform Aviation Medicine?

Will enforcement action result from their managers for this breach?

Sorry, it's "Do as I say, not do as I do!".

I am aware of at least one instance of a CASA FOI who flew a twin engine aircraft, commercially, whilst on extended stress leave.

I'm sure there are probably other instances considering how common "stress leave" appears to be within CASA ranks.

TORRES

Ok, but the point I raised was that more than 7 days it is a notifiable condition.

Are CASA FOI's consistently breaching the regulations in not notifying Aviation Medicine?

If they have breached, who is going to initiate regulatory and enforcement action with regard to the offender?

Likewise, flying with a known medical condition is an offence under Section 20 and reckless operation of an aircraft.

Nothing will change whilst the lunatics are running the Asylum.