PPRuNe Forums - Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)

- - Norfolk Island Ditching ATSB Report - ? (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/468378-norfolk-island-ditching-atsb-report.html)

Lookleft, play the ball - not the man.

Some of the crap here is not worthy of those who continue to suffer as a result of serious longstanding deficiencies by those authorities who were charged with the responsibility of providing appropriate regulatory oversight.

Lack of regulatory oversight is what happened with PelAir. It has happened before PelAir. And it will happen again unless things change. That should of concern to all of us.

Slats

Slats you and I are in furious agreement. It goes a long way back, Young, Seaview, Lockhart River. Why the accident at Lockhart River didn't shake the tree goes to the heart of your post, we should all be concerned. Twice as many people killed as Seaview and all we get is a Coronial Inquiry. It has been stated many times that the only real change is when our TV screens are filled with images such as those of Air Asia, but with the Opera House as a backdrop.

Did someone mention hypocrisy? How about condescension ?

And that has what to do with the Norfolk Island accident Fantome?:ugh:

Lookleft, it appears people are annoyed that their oleo won't extend and the vac pump is broken and they can't find the paragraph

We still need to find out exactly where (if anywhere) Senator Xenophon's Matter of Privilege goes. Haven't heard anything about it recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W01ogdgcfFQ

Slatts11, it would appear that Nick got his 15 minutes of fame over the senate inquiry and has now moved on to bigger and better things. More the pity as I had hopes of him persuing the matter further

Yeah me also. It seemed fairly dramatic when the issue broke, but I would have expected it to have progressed by now.

Quote:

Slatts11, it would appear that Nick got his 15 minutes of fame over the senate inquiry and has now moved on to bigger and better things.

Eddie I'm not so sure about that, have a look here:

Quote:

Senator Xenophon queries political donations by regional airline Rex

INDEPENDENT senator Nick Xenophon has called large political donations by listed regional airline Rex “incredibly baffling” and said he would be buying shares in the company so he could press board members on why the donations were made.

Mr Xenophon, who led a Senate committee inquiry into much criticised government investigation into the crash of a Rex-owned passenger plane off Norfolk Island, said the airline had an “obligation” to disclose why the donations were made.

Between July and November 2012 — amid a three-year inquiry into the Norfolk Island crash — Rex made a $250,000 donation to the ALP, $95,700 to the federal Nationals and $40,000 to the Liberal Party. This made the small airline one of the biggest political donors in the country.

“Rex is a public company and it had an obligation to explain whether even one (word) regarding the crash was spoken with any of the political parties,” Mr Xenophon told The Australian.

“This largesse to political parties is inexplicably baffling and I will be buying some shares in Rex and asking them to explain it.”

Rex spokeswoman Alicia Chapple has declined to respond to repeated questions from The Australian this week regarding the donations and other matters, saying that the airline did “not see the need to devote additional resources to this matter”.

The airline had earlier incorrectly claimed it had made no donations to the LNP; however, when shown otherwise, Ms Chapple said the airline had meant it had made no donations to the Queensland LNP.

Of particular interest was Rex’s $250,000 donation to the federal ALP given the airline was a highly vocal critic of the Labor government.

In 2013 Rex publicly said the ALP was “hellbent” on destroying regional aviation and “along with it pretty much the rest of the economy”.

Mr Xenophon said it appeared to defy reason why Rex would donate heavily to a government it would shortly afterwards describe as “destroying its industry”.

“Perhaps Rex had a case of Stockholm syndrome?” he said.

In 2009 a Rex aeroplane — operated under the group’s Pel-Air brand — ditched into the ocean with six passengers on board, badly injuring one.
A lengthy Australian Transport Safety Board investigation blamed the Pel-Air pilot involved in the crash but failed to mention 57 breaches or “serious deficiencies” at Pel-Air.

Mr Xenophon headed a Senate committee inquiry into that botched investigation, which led to the federal government last month calling on the ATSB to reopen the investigation.

Rex has also come under the spotlight after it was last year awarded a series of key Queensland government contracts which had previously been held by Cairns-based rival Skytrans.

And here yesterday also from the Oz: Lawyer and senator back engineers in aircraft maintenance dispute

Quote:

Officials from the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association have briefed politicians from all parties on the issue and received initial support from independent senator Nick Xenophon for a disallowance motion aimed at reversing Civil Aviation Safety Authority amendments to maintenance regulations.

Senator Xenophon filed a notice of motion on December 4 for disallowance of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 145 Manual of Standards amendments relating to specialist maintenance workers.

And as slats said there is the small matter of an outstanding MoP yet to be resolved - Possible imposition of a penalty on a witness before the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee or a person providing information to the committee

....& the final washout of the forensic examination of the performance of ASA

Certainly doesn't appear to me that Senator X has lost interest in matters of an aviation safety nature...:rolleyes:

I agree with Lookleft. All this PAIN melodrama looks to me like pompous posturing.

And I'd suggest everyone read, very carefully, between the lines of Eddie Dean's posts. S/he's not here to help the cause of the victims of NGA's ditching and its regulatory aftermath.

Some interesting events in The Supreme Court last week, even reference to PPRune posts. Man on the scene said it didn't go all Pel-Air way. Enough concessions to give both flight nurse and doctor some optimism.

Also, reading between creampuff lines points me to certain lawyer with past history with 'firies' and credit cards. Townsville refueller's mates daughters uncle, reports someone has some sworn written dynamite to chuck around with this one too.

Senator Xenophon has not lost interest.

Finally as an observation, perhaps a rumour, and off topic but germane to the big picture, watch Truss and The nationals fit into the current media ignited beatup in Canberra. I understand Truss nor The Nationals will wear Turnbull. As a coalition it needs readdressing if there is any leadership change. The future aviation portfolio is now vague and up in the air at this time.

Thanks for the link sarcs, not much coverage out in the bush.

Frank maybe hope for the Dr and Nurse to get a decent recompense.

Double spaced to assist Creampuff to read between the lines

Shouldn't the nurse and doctor be suing Careflight, their employer?

It remains unclear to me, despite (or perhaps because of) reading all the voluminous tomes from the multiple investigations and associated inquiries, how this was considered an Airwork flight.

It is my understanding that the medical / travel insurer who paid for the flight for the patient, did not ring Pel-Air, they rang Careflight. Careflight then CHARTERED the aircraft and crew from Pel-Air. If Pel-Air were not the provider of the air ambulance service but only the aircraft and crew, then it was a CHARTER and the Airwork provisions for alternates do not apply. Can anyone clarify this?

The classification of these kinds of operations is a pustulent regulatory sore that's been running for decades. It's one of the many inconvenient and embarrassing aspects of the NGA ditching. But I do note that it seems to me that, on any analysis, the flight nurse and doctor were crew, not passengers, and that complicates things. A lot ...

But don't worry: It will all become crystal clear with the new, simple, outcomes-based classification of operations rules in 1998.

(On the proper defendant question, I would have thought the employer, the AOC holder, the PIC and CASA would, at least, have all been named or joined as defendants.)

I always found it difficult to understand Transair being given the sword over Lockhart River when it was an Aero-Tropics flight, where pax carried Aero-Tropics Tickets, sold via Aero-Tropics Travel Agent, flown in an aircraft with Aero-Tropics written all over it, flown on Aero-Tropics RPT route.
I can see why the Westwind Pel-Air Careflight matter would cause confusion.

Yes we need more regulations. Not clearer regulations. We most likely need another 'Truss Review' to take over from where the last one left off.

Seems as though Carry on is rolling out a few trolls of his own and stealing material from, how does he refer to it, ah yes the "unspeakable PPrune" or UPP.

Quote:

Quote:

"Unfortunately accident investigation is being driven by organisational theory and bureaucrats with the end result being sub-standard reports like Pel-Air."

Good point; and, in a normal world, it would be a legitimate topic for civilised peer discussion. But for Pel-Air at least I reckon it could stand a little expansion.

For the record that quote from P9 is one I made on the Senate Thread. He can't have it both ways, on the one hand calling me a troll and on the other starting his blog with an unattributed quote from me. You might want to check the dictionaryagain for the meaning of the word hypocrisy TB.

Quote:

Thanks Sidebar. Just reading the review however sort of backs up what is wrong with HF, its all good theory but doesn't really provide solutions.

Quote:
His conclusion is disturbing. This accident happened because, or perhaps in spite of everyone behaving just the way we would expect them to behave, just the way theory would predict. The shootdown was a normal accident in a highly reliable organization.
and then this from a reviewer at MIT:

Quote:
The book is a model of organizational analysis and application of theory at multiple levels, including an ability to reveal the gaps in theory without undermining the theoretical analysis."
The ATSB HF experts are all very clever and can show you what led to the end result but it doesn't offer a practical solution. As an example QF1 went into all sort of details about flap25 and carbon brakes etc but overlooked the simple fact that if the go-around was conducted according to the manual (pressing the TOGA buttons) then it probably would not have happened.

Unfortunately accident investigation is being driven by organisational theory and bureaucrats with the end result being sub-standard reports like Pel-Air.

Sarcs I know you are keen on references and accuracy. The above is at #2656 on the Senate thread.

This is part of the reponse at #2661:

Quote:

Good point Lefty and in a normal world, it would be a legitimate topic for civilised peer discussion. But for Pel-Air at least I reckon it could stand a little expansion.

So not only is Carry on getting his blogs from Aunty Pru slipped into Pprune but he is also lifting his postings from a closed thread into his blogs onto Aunty Pru and not even the complete posting! I think he has learnt a few shonky techniques from CASA on how to
manipulate documents to present "new" material.

PalAir and the Supreme Court

Sorry to miss you all, but was thread banned on the MH-370. Must have been something I ate!!

Anyway, my reading has got better and there is information popping up about the Supreme Court hearing:

Karen Casey, David Helm and CareFlight vs. Pelair Pty Ltd

What happened in the Supreme Court

There is more to follow.

Interesting reading, thank you.

Guys please leave out the personal stuff and stick to the topic.

The PelAir Supreme Court story

The PelAir Supreme Court story is a complex one and the following was written by a person who was in the Supreme Court last week.

Quote:

What was behind the PelAir accident??

Karen Casey and David Helm are the human faces behind the PelAir ditching, where all six occupants of the Westwind jet on that dark 2009 November evening, ended up in the 2.5metres seas surrounding Norfolk Island. All the occupants, were “lucky” to be found by the observant Norfolk Island rescue group, finding the small group by only a flashing torch held by pilot Dominic James. [Pel Air – Behind the action]

Karen Casey during the time she was in the ocean, supported the patient, who only had a part inflated lifejacket. This is where Karen’s injuries largely occurred.

Unfortunately, in the well known Lockhart River tragedy, we never met the people in real-life.

Karen Casey and David Helm were suvivors, wheras Sally Urqhart – the face of Lockhart River – was not.

Karen Casey, David Helm and CareFlight in the NSW Supreme Court