Scan, scan, scan.......set the attitude that gives the required airspeed and cross reference with the ASI and VSI.......relying on the A/H alone or holding arbitrary attitudes on the A/H without confirming its effect is just lining up the holes in the swiss cheese.

Years ago training for NVFR, on rotation to the south of YMEN (Rwy 17?) AH toppled upside down. Not much of a problem after all these years of night and IF flying but back then it was a bit of a scare. Fast forward to 2009, C210 IFR Wet Season Darwin same thing, partial AH topple but in cloud & rain at 1200ft. A/P won't engage as it relied on the AH. Scan, Scan, Scan with limited turns to get back, then I see the airport thru a break in the cloud. Oh well no big drama.
Read in the local Paper that the poor pilot was X-hired from BA to CA to do the flight as CA were short of drivers that night. The things we do to chase those illusive night hours for ATPL.
R.I.P Jamie. Chin up TB Your doing a great job.

From The Australian, some three or four days ago:

Sounds to me like someone was telling porkies when this all happened. The owner of the AOC being used was not BA by the sound of this ?...........IMHO that is a callous attempt to divert the lime light, even if only by inference, shameful if that is the case.

No, I do not work for BA.

Josh, I am refering to what the Mgr of BA was quoted in the NT News. I know this has been done in the past as I was one that was used like that.
Then again the Australian is quoted as saying "a 5-seater plane" when we all know the 310 is a 6-seater.

It's a 5 seater, you can't count the pilot seat - it's non revenue!

I.E you don't call a Metro a 21 seater, you call it a 19 seat commuter etc etc.

Josh Cox are you serious?

Yes, why, what is it you do not understand about my questions ?.

Who's AOC etc etc are very real questions with very real outcomes on the horizon (coronial enquiry etc etc ).

For example, who has a lease contract on the aircraft, i.e. BA or CA ?:

CASA Search -- CASA Aircraft Register

Josh could have a very good point. CASA may be about to go to town on this one if there are some irregularities.

While the pilot was from BA, he was operating what appears to be a Chartair flight. Had he signed the Chartair operations manual? Had he conducted a base check by Chartair? Was he subject to Chartair flight and duty, or Barrier flight and duty?

A tragic accident none the less and brought a few tingles to the spine, knowing that he was simply following the path of many before him (myself included).

Rest In Peace buddy, I'm sure you made many proud getting as far as you did.

morno

Guys, I think you'll find that it's a fairly regular event in Darwin (and some other places too) to have one company sub-contract out a charter or part of a charter to another company.

ie; Company A picks up a charter for 4 aircraft to Timbuktu but only has 2 aircraft available. They then decide to call company B and ask if they can make up the shortfall with two aircraft.

As far as company B is concerned they are being hired to conduct a charter in their own right. It just so happens that they are being paid for that charter by another operator. The charter is conducted in their own aircraft and under their own AOC.

Hope I explained that well enough.... it's getting late and the brain isn't working too well tonight.

Nose Wheel First,

You are 100% correct in what you are saying, however may not be the case in this scenario.

What they are questioning is if the aircraft belonged to CA or BA? If it belonged to BA then its fair game, however if it was a CA aircraft with a BA pilot operating it, I think CA will be recieving a visit from CASA, because then the BA pilot wouldnt be operating under the BA AOC, and instead the CA AOC. Then the questions morno is asking are very fair questions.

That aircraft is leased out to companys to operate - and it used to belong to MPA in Maningrida. So the big question is which company was leasing this aircraft when it sadly went down?

I am not aware of an AOC being required to employ a pilot and then hire or lend said pilot to another organisation.

Not aware of any restriction on pilots working for more than one operator ( CP excluded from that statement ).

I am however certain that, operating an aircraft on a charter does require an AOC.

Has BA ever operated XGX ?.

Sure is, I did my fair share of airport tarting around Darwin a decade ago.

Where it got (gets?) really murky though, is when as a charter pilot with a charter maintained aircraft with a charter AOC only you get subcontracted in to do the RPT run to YBTI....

Josh.

Charter aircraft are not specified by S/N and Rego on an AOC, although RPT are. The questions about who is doing what, with which and to whom for how much will be clear enough from the facts of the case.

If the pilot was "lent" to the other company, he should have been checked out in accordance with that company's Ops Manual C&T manual and subject to their SOPs etc.

If the charter was sub-contracted to the pilot's employer, then he is operating under his employer's AOC, C&T system, SOPs.



CS,

That's not murky - there is a paragraph or 20 in the CAO's about charter substitution on RPT and the requirement that it be approved by CASA.

The rule book is quite clear on it. Dodgy - perhaps. Murky - no :suspect:

Yes, quite aware of that.

Who is the operator of the aircraft is the question, in my link above, neither BA or CA is listed as the aircrafts operator, so:

* Who has a written contract with the owner of the aircraft ( and pays the owner money every month ? ) ?, and,

* Who is invoicing the football club, or whoever is paying for the Charter ?.

A written contract to use the aircraft? Is that mandatory?
You could also ask who was the HAAMC for the aircraft

Gents,

I can see nothing in the last half dozen or so posts that would be causal to the accident - rather, just the appearance of blame shifting.

Sadly, I think that we might find that the root cause of this accident will be something like somatogravic effects causing spatial disorientation, or if the engine failure theory is found to have merit, then an inability to maintain control of the aircraft subsequent to that (a difficult ask, but given the likely AUW, certainly do-able from a performance standpoint). Alternatively, perhaps an AI failure of some description which would be disorienting in the extreme (anyone having done this in the sim would, I hope, agree that hand flying an aircraft in a flight critical sequence (ie take-off) with a misleading attitude reference and no external cues would be amongst the most demanding flying tasks...). I'll wait for the ATSB on all this.

Who owns the aircraft is irrelevant from a flight safety standpoint. Who the charter operator was is irrelevant from a flight safety standpoint. These questions may ultimately become relevant from a legal / liability perspective though, and I will be interested to see where this aspect goes in the fullness of time - but it doesn't really produce positive energy at this time.

However, no one here seems to have raised the issue of pilot training and recency. If I know my charter companies, some have CAR 217 organisations (ie somewhat more stringent proficiency checking requirements IAW CAO) but many do not. This, to me, is one of the biggest bugbears facing GA. Training is expensive, but is the best insurance an operator can have - particularly when their often inexperienced drivers are flogging around on pitch black nights in venerable machinery maintained on a budget. CPs and CEOs set the tone / culture for this.

I, for one, would like to know whether pilots in these companies are receiving regular training (not just checking) and some form of professional development, or whether they simply get a minimalistic instrument rating renewal and three circuits with the CP once a year, because company apathy is "who cares - they'll be off somewhere else soon enough...". This, I reckon, is a major issue at hand here and the sooner all charter operators are mandated to have at least a CAR 217 the better. Pass the costs off to the clients.

No disrepect to the pilot involved, but what tools, development and recency was he provided with to go out that night and maximise his chances of dealing with whatever went wrong?

^^ great post flying bear

glad I hit refresh as I was just typing out my own essay along the same lines (but much more poorly written)

many operators start off small and seem to think that as their organisations grow the same number of training staff and infrastructure will suffice. In my previous life I fought hand over fist for more help in training not just myself for checks. Unfortunately some operators will only add costs if legislation requires even in light of increases in safety, confidence and efficiences.

We can only hope flying bear.

To those who do "take the extra effort" hats off keep it up. For the others perhaps a little cost could help this from happening, and ultimately the largest cost your company could face.

Cheers
R

Bear / Excel - correct but

As long as there are no mandated C217 requirements for all companies operating below 5,700 kgs nothing will change.

The market place generally will not support the operators going the extra mile at an extra cost.

Sad but true.

Apologies for the drift, does anyone know if there will be a service for JS down in Perth, haven't seen anything mentioned as of yet and as I am out of town would appreciate if anyone has details please PM.

Thanks from a former colleague.

Josh Cox
 

I think you'll find the aircraft and pilot come from BA.

CA & BA do switch aircraft sometimes but only a certain regos due to insurance. CA have the charter booking and hire BA pilot & aircraft to provide extra aircraft. On the few occasions BA don't have an aircraft (U/S or busy) the CA aircraft are crosshired from the owner (not CA) and allowed to be used by both operators.