[Kharon]

Warning – Crankygram follows:-

But; Curious and Curiouser.

May need some 'expert' help to put a name to the subject matter of this wee ramble; but, the 'notion' stands the test of WTD. Best I step it through to assist with not only a definition; but an explanation.

Much attention is being given to the 'Croc – idiot' saga; that is (IMO) a distraction away from the deeply seated, underpinning 'safety' narrative. The events in Broome, WA define an under laying 'ethos' (for wont of better) of Cavalier attitude and some disinterested 'surveillance' of operational data, incident and 'accident'. The 'tale' which kicked off this line of 'examination' is to satisfy the ever present curiosity bump.

This is next is 'paraphrased'. No doubt the actual story can be found within the mountain of 'data' surrounding the Broome and Croc saga. Plenty of that to go around. One tale grabbed my attention; an exemplar, if you will. It seems our 'hero' in Broome, a private pilot with no AOC answered a 'med i-vac' call out; an elderly lady, on a boat was 'unwell' and in need of medical treatment. Urgent enough to warrant being air lifted - from the boat to land based 'medical assistance'.

Now, any medical transfer of patients is usually highly coordinated; pilot and nurse as a minimum; ambulance or 'patient transfer' on tap, ready to meet the flight and take the patient to the medical assistance required. Always. Even the transport of ambulatory patients is carefully 'managed' and coordinated from the initial 'call-out' to  hand off. Watch any 'you-tube' RFDS video and see how carefully the operation is managed.

So, back to 'old mate' sat at Broome; somehow – wind of the need to 'transport' an elderly lady off the boat to medical assistance reaches his ears. Our Private pilot launches on a 'rescue mission' – finds the boat. Lands on the pad, puts our sick lady into his chopper and departs the fix. Not too much later out pilot lands at his home and ensconces the 'patient' in his lounge room, to wait for further transport to wherever she felt assistance could be provided. Then, an invoice was sent (and paid) for this 'service'. No folks, not making any of this up at all.

But, put this event aside; just for a moment, and consider how, in any operational or 'legal' way this event did not have the safety 'watch-dogs' howling at the fence? Crazy stuff right enough; but there is a more sinister side to this event. What on earth prompted (supported) the belief this man had that he could actually not only conduct this operation, get away with doing it and charge the 'patient' for the service?

It begs many questions of our 'Safety-watchdogs' and those who draft the reports relating to fatal or serious events. Untrammelled Hubris perhaps? A protected species? Or, just feeling safe and secure due to the appalling lack of CASA 'scrutiny' surveillance, operational 'savvy' and disinterest in a few 'cowboys' playing at silly buggers? Or, perhaps there existed a pervasive 'culture' – one based on a certain knowledge that 'operational' surveillance, over-sight, and 'control' had been ceded to the 'operator'. A culture which fooled a disinterested, reluctant oversight agency to wriggle out of any responsibility under the umbrella of AWK and 'specialised operation, conducted under a SMS which 'satisfied' while being completely and permanently parked on a dusty shelf after 'approval'. ATSB fail to mention CASA audit, surveillance or even 'advice' after the issue of the 'certificate'. The knock effect of this 'disregard' for the 'authority' and their happy acceptance of the get out of jail paperwork - they approved; created an atmosphere of complete 'safety' from any form of 'operational restraint', continued oversight, or even operational sanity; being convinced that now; approved (accepted)  they were 'untouchable'.

The ultimate responsibility for the fatal event in Broome rests solely with the CASA; the clearly enunciated warnings were there; writ large and bold. Firearms, drugs, crazy operational approvals, disregard for a DAS edict prohibiting the use of the R44. Long, long list of the inevitable odds on. This is reflected, clearly and demonstrably in the death of two lives, one an innocent, wide eyed young lady; in Broome; despite engineering uncertainty of an aircraft's serviceability. Reckless - just a bit.....

But, for mine the 'kicker' is the take off profile for the R44: take a look – the 'dope-on-the-rope' needs to be able to run; with a rope attached and gear and a large loaded gun strapped on, at 5 knots to keep the chopper performance 'legal' at 10 feet – check the flight manual graph.

ATSB and CASA complicit in arguably the biggest load of 'Bollocks' ever foisted on the public purse. It is the knock-on effect of terminal hubris; and operational approvals issued due to a legal sleight of hand,  manipulating the disinterested Authorities arse covering antics into 'approval' and ATSB willingness to compound that complete failure.

The tale of the old lady airlifted by a private pilot, from a boat at sea, transported back to his house to await uncoordinated, unknown carrier transport to medical care and invoiced as a charter, without any form of 'operational' control, CASA approval, or legal accountability beggars belief. Great to see our much publicised 'safety watch dog' in action; using the blind eye and deaf ear technique so favoured in the third world. Bravo; well done. Surveillance? WTD is that supposed to be?