[Peetwo]

Sad day for RMIT Point Cook flight training school:

Collision with terrain involving Cessna 172, VH-ZEW, near Millbrook, Victoria on 8 September 2015

 
Investigation number: AO-2015-105
Investigation status: Active
 

• Summary
  

Summary

The ATSB is investigating a fatal aircraft accident involving a Cessna 172, near Millbrook, Victoria on 8 September 2015. The aircraft collided with the ground and the pilot died in the accident.

The ATSB has deployed two investigators, with specialisations in aircraft operations and engineering, to the accident site. They are expected to be on site for two to three days.

As part of the investigation, the team will:

• assess the accident site
  
• examine the aircraft wreckage
  
• interview any witnesses
  
• review aircraft documentation and maintenance records.
  
  

Witnesses are asked to call the ATSB on 1800 020 616.
More information will be made available as it comes to hand.

A recently updated media report:

Plane crash at Millbrook: Woman dead after light aircraft crashes near Ballarat  
by: Paddy Naughtin, Andrea Hamblin

From: Herald Sun
September 09, 2015 2:00PM

UPDATE: THE father of an RMIT student pilot who died when she crashed near Ballarat on a solo flight has met with university chiefs as investigations continue.  


Investigators were on Wednesday scouring the site of a plane crash for clues on what caused the plane to drop from the sky, killing the student..

The female RMIT student was flying solo near Millbrook when her Cessna plunged into the side of a hill on a rural property about 3.20pm, and died at the scene.

Two Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigators specialising in aircraft operations and engineering were at the scene on Wednesday morning.

They will examine the plane wreckage and are expected to remain at the site for up to three days, ATSB pokesman Marc Kelaart said.
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/news/victoria/plane-crash-at-millbrook-woman-dead-after-light-aircraft-crashes-near-ballarat/story-fni0fit3-1227518159496?t_product=HeraldSun&t_template=s3/chronicle-component/relatedstories/templates/index[/img]
He said the investigation would also review the aircraft documentation and maintenance records, as well as interview any witnesses.

The bureau will refer any information relating to immediate safety concerns to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The university said it had halted all flight operations at Point Cook “until further notice”
RMIT University vice-chancellor Martin Bean said in a statement that the death had “devastated” the university community.

He confirmed the aviation student was on a solo training flight from RMIT’s Point Cook aviation training site when the crash occurred.

“This morning, I met the student’s father at RMIT’s Point Cook flight training centre.

“On behalf of the University, I extended my heartfelt condolences to him.

“As a father, I can only begin to imagine the pain he is feeling at this time.”

Mr Bean said he had gathered at Point Cook with aviation staff and students “to share their grief and their memories”.

He said RMIT’s trained counsellors had offered support to students and staff.
He said the university continues to assist the Air Transport Safety Bureau, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and emergency services.

Paramedics and firefighters rushed to the crash site, off Old Melbourne Rd in an area known as Black Hill, but the pilot could not be saved.
andrea.hamblin@news.com.au

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Expensive plough??

Speaking of OUCH! This one is a little embarrassing and could also end up being quite an expensive excursion :

Crashed plane believed to be from Yulgilbar Station


Leah White | 26th Sep 2015 5:00 AM

 




PLOUGH: A small jet overshot the Lismore Airport runway on Friday afternoon, coming to a halt at the Caniaba Road end of the airstrip. Photo: Cathy Adams


TWO pilots have walked away from a Lismore plane crash after their passenger jet overshot the runway and ploughed into the ground.

The Cessna Citation 550, believed to be registered to Yulgilbar Station, narrowly missed the Bruxner Hwy, coming to stop about 50m short. A pilot who witnessed the crash said he saw the aircraft taxi down the runway and fail to gain enough speed.

"I was standing at the hanger, at the threshold of the runway, and I saw the citation taxi out to the runway and then I saw him taxi down the runway to take off," Charles Mollison, a member of the Gympie Aero Club, said.

"About half way down the runway I could see he wasn't going fast enough to get off the ground and then he was out of my sight.

"The next thing I know there's an ambulance going down the runway."

Mr Mollison said the plane had been at the Lismore airport for a couple of days.

"He's very lucky, it could have been lots lots worse," he said. "Could have been complications if he'd come through the fence.

"The nose wheels have collapsed of course but the soft ground at the end of the runway would have helped stop the aeroplane before it got to the fence."

Another witness, Jess Jervis, said she was driving past the airport when she saw the plane crash.

"I was just driving past and I seen the aeroplane just a bit too close to the road and next minute it's just bouncing along the ground," she said.

"I thought it was just going to go straight out onto the road and end badly but it managed to stop in the paddock.

"It was pretty scary but luckily everyone's alright."

Leearne Noyes, who also witnessed the crash, said the plane just "ploughed and ploughed and ploughed."

"I could see this plane just coming and it was almost like, surreal, we didn't know where it would go, what would happen," she said. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) confirmed the crash was the result of the Cessna overrunning the airstrip.

A spokesperson said it appeared something went wrong during take-off.

He said both the pilot and co-pilot were unharmed, however there was damage to the nose gear in the aircraft. The Australian Safety Transport Bureau will continue gathering information to determine whether or not an investigation will go ahead.

From the ATSB website:

Aviation safety investigations & reports


Investigation title
Aircraft control issue and runway excursion involving a Cessna 550, VH-FGK, at Lismore Airport, New South Wales, on 25 September 2015
 
Investigation number: AO-2015-114
Investigation status: Active
 

• Summary
  
  

Summary
The ATSB is investigating an aircraft control issue and runway excursion involving a Cessna 550, VH-FGK, at Lismore Airport, New South Wales, on 25 September 2015.
During the take-off run, the flight crew detected a control issue and rejected the take-off.
The aircraft subsequently veered off the runway. No one was injured and the aircraft sustained minor damage.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the flight crew, obtain an engineering report and gather additional information.

A report will be released within several months.

Why bother the CASA ALIU has already got it sorted apparently..    

"..The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) confirmed the crash was the result of the Cessna overrunning the airstrip.."  - Good to see the CASA ALIU (run by the other Wodger) is up to their usual standard of factual accident investigation.. 

MTF..P2  

[Gobbledock]

"..The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) confirmed the crash was the result of the Cessna overrunning the airstrip.."  - Good to see the CASA ALIU (run by the other Wodger) is up to their usual standard of factual accident investigation..  

Will the bling wearing naturist from Brisbane, White Richard, be involved as the 'conduit' between Fort Fumble and the ATSBeaker?? Perhaps he will take the open top car for a spin down to Lismore? Its good weather for it and it will help his tan!!

Beaker will have to return early from his safety pilgrimage to the Haij!! 

[Peetwo]

Well; ain’t that a world class discovery – “Uhm, the aircraft ran off the runway”.  No shit Sherlock – Stellar investigation.

Now, what’s next – oh yeah; pilot error, quick word to the ATSB.  All good.

Ducking brilliant.

 Point of difference - CAR 301 notices to the ATSB?

I know it is early days yet but the ridiculous, flippant comment from CASA (in the above article) would seem to indicate that Fort Fumble is not remotely interested in this incident.

Turning back time some 20 months to another incident occurring during the take off sequence, at Kununurra Airport WA, 22 January 2013 - AO-2013-023:  

On 22 January 2013, the pilot of a Cessna 182R aircraft registered VH-OWZ (OWZ), took off from Kununurra Airport, Western Australia on a charter flight with one passenger. When at about 100 ft above ground level, with insufficient runway distance remaining to abort the takeoff, the pilot retracted the landing gear. Immediately after, the engine failed.


Due to the low altitude, the pilot confirmed that the engine controls were in the full forward position and that the fuel tank selector was on ‘both’. The pilot then looked for a suitable place to land and saw a suitable field to the north.

After extending the landing gear and selecting full flap, the main landing gear touched down in long grass and the aircraft decelerated rapidly. When the nose gear touched down, it dug into boggy ground and the aircraft flipped over, coming to rest inverted. The pilot and passenger received minor injuries and the aircraft sustained substantial damage.

An examination of the aircraft was carried out by an independent Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME). No contaminants, including water, were found in the fuel or filters. An engine tear down was not performed and the reason for the engine failure could not be determined.

As a result of this occurrence, the aircraft operator has advised the ATSB that they are taking the following safety actions:

• Fuel contamination procedures: They will create a log for all company aircraft that will contain details of any water contamination found in fuel drains. In addition, after heavy rain is experienced, all aircraft fuel tanks will be tested for water contamination.
  
• Emergency response equipment: Equipping a vehicle with an ‘accident kit’, which includes fire extinguishers, a fire suit, and first aid kit for use in an on-airport emergency.
  
  

This accident highlights the benefits of conducting a self-briefing before takeoff and ensuring that emergency procedures, particularly those related to critical phases of flight, are clear and familiar. This assists pilots with responding to an abnormal or emergency situation promptly and ensuring the best possible outcome can be achieved. Generally speaking, if you self-brief your plan of action just before flight, you have more chance of ‘staying ahead’ of the aircraft and being able to concentrate on flying.
 
Aviation Short Investigation Bulletin - Issue 18

Okay all good, we end up with yet another wishy-washy desktop investigation & short investigation bulletin report from the ATSB...

However what perked my interest with this incident, was the apparent disassociation with the ATSB/LAME findings & safety message and the apparently unprompted safety actions by the operator:

Aircraft operator

As a result of this occurrence, the aircraft operator has advised the ATSB that they are taking the following safety actions:

• Fuel contamination procedures: They will create a log for all company aircraft that will contain details of any water contamination found in fuel drains. In addition, after heavy rain is experienced, all aircraft fuel tanks will be tested for water contamination.

• Emergency response equipment: Equipping a vehicle with an ‘accident kit’, which includes fire extinguishers, a fire suit, and first aid kit for use in an on-airport emergency.

Hmm..passing strange? To me those actions smack of other external influences (i.e. the micro-managing big "R" regulator).

And then I happened upon a recent ATSB FOI request release: FOI 14-15(12) - Disclosure Log Documents_Redacted

Q/ First question is why would anyone want to request this information?

Q/ Why would CASA be even remotely interested in this incident?

Q/ From the ATSB responses to the CASA CAR 301 'demand', it would appear that it is an accepted SOP for CASA to issue such a demand. So is this normal procedure for CASA? It seems very OTT and also seems to be impinging on the independence of the ATSB and in direct conflict with certain principles as outlined in the TSI Act?

Anyway that's my Sundy OBS & QON - Gobbles..anyone


MTF..P2

[Kharon]

What a passing strange report and an even queerer result.

On 22 January 2013, the pilot of a Cessna 182R aircraft registered VH-OWZ (OWZ), took off from Kununurra Airport, Western Australia on a charter flight with one passenger.

So far sanity rules – then we have the flat statement – “the engine failed”.  OK, the reason for it’s failure is of some interest; so we read on.

The pilot has run a trouble check (good man) except a mag check is not reported, but, credit where due, the pilot only had 100 feet to play with; landed and walked away.  There could, I expect be some discussion about the benefit of the ‘wheels down’, but the AFM will trump that; so enough said about the pilot actions.

The LAME gets a go next; all good, no fuel contamination and………Nope, that’s it, there was no engine ‘tear down’, which indicates that (a) the fault was identified without the need of major surgery; or, (b) the engine miraculously cured itself due to being inverted in a paddock.   Which leaves questions, which are non of our business unanswered; but it is reasonable to assume the damage and fault(s) were repaired, as per.  So, all good.

Then we come to the strange: (i) a log of contaminated fuel samples will be kept; and, (ii) after heavy rain all aircraft fuel tanks will be tested – why is any more than routine SOP being promulgated?  There was allegedly no contaminated fuel found in the incident aircraft; so why the OTT measures?

This is followed by the remarkable – why would an operator be obliged to ‘equip’ a vehicle with ‘emergency’ equipment – and “accident kit”?  How many aircraft are expected to have engine failure at 100’ and land in a convenient, accessible paddock, where whoever is ‘manning’ the ‘rescue vehicle can see and hear all, leap into action and race out on an unpaid, uninsured rescue mission; park, change into the ‘Superman’ outfit, grab an extinguisher and rush in to save the bacon.  Bollocks.  Even if happened overhead and the blessed thing landed square in the middle of the airfield, how is our non fire proof ‘vehicle’ supposed to get close enough to a burning aircraft and deploy the untrained staff.  More bollocks.

Then it gets quite bizarre – CASA ‘demand’ under Reg 301 to be involved, engine failure exploration, flight path map and a copy of the pilot ‘interview’.  Now I would have thought that until the ATSB called foul, CASA would stay out of it, confidentiality and all that;  

Confidentiality - Subsection 60(3) Where access to restricted information is received under section 62 of the Act it is an offence for the recipient to make a record of or disclose 'restricted information'. The penalty is imprisonment.

Exceptions are mainly for the purpose of carrying out functions under the Act. [Note: 'restricted information' is information collected in the course of an investigation under the Act. It may include statements, medical information, personal information, vehicle movements, and other evidence.]

Form F32-1 - The ATSB conducts investigations solely for the purpose of enhancing transport safety. The object of an investigation is to determine the circumstances of the occurrence and to prevent similar event occurring in the future. It is not the object of an investigation to determine blame or liability. In this context, you are required to attend an interview and/or produce relevant material under section 32 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. The reason that this request is made under section 32 is to ensure that the information or material that you provide is protected as restricted information under the Act.

Form F32-1 - Section 47-Self-incrimination no excuse You cannot refuse to answer a question or produce evidence in accordance with a requirement under the Act on the ground that it might incriminate you. However, if you are an individual, information that results from the answer or evidence cannot be used against you in civil or criminal proceedings.

Form: F62-1 Authorisation under Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 - Section 62 Section 62 of the Act allows the ATSB to authorise a non-staff member to have access to information that is classified as 'restricted information' while requiring the non-staff member to adhere to confidentiality requirements of the Act. Description of restricted information which access is being given to:

There are 53 pages of redacted ‘paper-work’ in the file - HERE -; I wonder what the CASA was so fired up about – a C 182, EFATO, is this a witch hunt for dodgy engineering or a fishing expedition to settle an old score?  Who would know.

But for mine, the ‘biggy’ is how often do CASA bully and intimidate the ATSB into coughing up “all” details, under 301 and slither around the ‘confidentiality’ despite the promises.  As non of this happened on the Skidmore watch, I expect nothing will be done to ‘discourage’ the enthusiastic protectors of safety.  Long live the AILU.

Toot (slightly puzzled) toot?

[Gobbledock]

Peetwo, for you;

Q/ First question is why would anyone want to request this information?
Part (a) Someone who is actually proactive at CAsA may have picked up a scent with this operator and be doing a deeper dig. It's not likely, however it is possible. Part (b) Then again CAsA may have one of those 'unofficial' files on the operator in question and they are lining up the firing squad! That is the more likely scenario. Generally as a rule of thumb CAsA are too lazy too get involved in these lower level matters, and quite frankly couldn't give a shit anyway. They usually only get involved for political reasons - to save face or to punish somebody.

Q/ Why would CASA be even remotely interested in this incident?
Please see Part (b) of question 1.

Q/ From the ATSB responses to the CASA CAR 301 'demand', it would appear that it is an accepted SOP for CASA to issue such a demand. So is this normal procedure for CASA? It seems very OTT and also seems to be impinging on the independence of the ATSB and in direct conflict with certain principles as outlined in the TSI Act?
Yes an yes. Part (a) of your question P2 -  It's not uncommon these days for CAsA to issue a demand under CAR 301. (Their spiffy enforcement manual outlines this in more detail). They do so on occasion to cover their own asses, but also to extract information that can be stored in their 'unofficial operator dirt file'. As Sunny would say, to put that another way, the operator could be a shonk and CAsA may be lubing up the pineapples, or CAsA could be looking for an excuse to payback the operator for something else from the past, who knows. The other thing, to be fair to CAsA, the best opportunity for them to take a close look at an operator is during an audit or the time of an incident, so they may be acting smart and using the opportunity to take a closer peek under the bed sheets. Part (b) -
Is this a direct conflict with certain principles as outlined in the TSI Act? I would answer yes to that question P2. But remember, many elements of the rules, regulations and the aviation Act as well as the TSI act are purposefully written in a manner that is subjective and loaded with 'intent'. In other words it is pretty hard to nail CAsA or any bureaucracy when they are structured with loads of wriggle room and multi meaning wording. Sneaky sneaky naughty Governments.

P2, to cut through my waffle it goes like this - if I were the operator in this 'incident' after considering Fort Fumbles involvement I would be watching my back. Safety first and all that.

[Gobbledock]

Ha!! Nice work K. We must have been writing at the same time. Great minds think alike?

[P7_TOM]

Good post GD, nicely done and informative. (Yeah, CF quality) but it do beg a question or two.

Now if CASA was a trusted, honest operator we could all say ‘on ya’ for looking a little deeper into a ‘suspect’ operation.  In fact we would applaud the action, there’s our trusty CASA making sure everything is according to Hoyle.  But in this case, instead of taking a little look under their own banner, they have chosen to play with the very flexible rules and get the low down from the supposedly independent ATSB.  CASA can, at the drop of a hat ‘investigate’, so why the long, sneaky way around?  Only ask as it has me puzzled.

The other item that causes concern is the almost casual way the ‘confidentiality’ of a report and investigation by the autonomous ATSB can be ‘stepped around’.  If the CASA have ‘suspicions’, why can’t they just saddle up and go kick some arse, under their own ‘flexible’, powerful remit?

Must be a question of budgets and OH&S considerations, can’t be that they are just too bone idle and have the confidentiality system kicked into a cocked hat.  Nah.

Perhaps I’m just too old, cynical and have seen too much of CASA safety pantomimes.

[thorn bird]

"Perhaps I’m just too old, cynical and have seen too much of CASA safety pantomimes."???

err..YUP!

Nothing wrong with that, same same! I just look at these things then go practice my earnest

"I can't recall", "Slipped my mind","ME!!, your joking" responses in the bathroom mirror.

Timely reminder perhaps talking to the ATSB is fraught with danger, as K says can't trust em!

[Kharon]

Response;  to 'Dave In Perth'.  HERE 

Dave: no mate and I apologise if through my clumsiness, you have mistaken my purpose.  Risk mitigation is ‘measurable’.   Safety is not; for it is both emotive and subjective.  For example, there is now one Australian carrier I will not, categorically, fly with.  The first time I realised the aircraft was, basically, out of control, I discarded the notion; some new FO got out of sync with the profile, an experienced Capt. to sort it out, no wukkers, until it dawned that it was, in fact the Capt. who make the mess.  I know,– it happens; but the last 100’ of that “landing” technically, scared the crap out of me; and I have been around aircraft and pilots since the grand old age of seven.

Now then, we have all stuffed up the finer points of touchdown and made a ‘rough’, but safe landing.  Even so; when it occurred on the next three landings, with the same company at the same aerodrome, even then I thought it was a SOP ‘thing’ and they would, eventually, solve the problem.  But the last one, travelling with that company was the end.  The aircraft was, effectively out of control for 15 maybe 16 miles; the landing – technically – dangerous.  I was surprised to see the aircraft waddle out, 40 minutes later – to see it still serviceable – after ‘that’ touch-down, with the same crew was of grave concern and resulted in my refusal to ever travel with that company again.  

You see, we are all now governed by the ‘tick and flick’ very PC method of training and checking, courtesy of an individual in CASA who’s sole claim to fame is being an ‘instructor’ for many, many years and having a vocabulary larger than Webster’s.  Under CASR part 61, provided the paper, rear end is covered – all is well.  If all is ‘not well’ then there is always, under criminal law and strict liability, someone to blame.  Not the rotten system, not the weak kneed ATSB, not the moribund CASA; just the poor tired sod (driver airframe) who ‘legally’ cocked it up.  

Great system, get used to it.  We have tried, very hard to get the system changed – instead, we got Skidmore, gabfests and not too much else; apart from about 400 additional criminal charges, for free.  Except it has cost the tax payer about 300 million to reach the current situation, no sign of reform and where no one, except the pilot in command is responsible.  Unless you want to examine the endless, mindless bull which drains a company’s ability to meet anything but the minimum, prescriptive, criminally liable regulations which govern aviation.  Me? – FFS I just drive ‘em and try to stay legal, without incurring anyone’s wrath, ending up in court or jail and trying to make a living by doing so..

Talk to W Truss DPM, he seems to have all the answers, supplied by the ‘depart-mental’ heads.  All good; just ask ‘em.   FIGJAM rules OK.

[Peetwo]

Continued from Planetalking comments:

[*]33
DaveinPerth
Posted October 3, 2015 at 3:20 am | Permalink

Fred.

Check the act.

12AA (1) (e) reporting publicly on those investigations;
Can’t see anything in the act about covering up information that might scare the peasants. ( I’m going to guess that you don’t actually think the manifest was ommitted from the internal ATSB report. )

[*]34
Fred
Posted October 3, 2015 at 8:30 am | Permalink

Dave.
Perhaps you should write to the ATSB and inform them of your concerns. While you’re at it, you might also like to write to ICAO, for it is they who set the standards and procedures for accident and incident investigation that are used by signatories to the Chicago Convention, including Australia.

Good luck.

[*]35
PAIN_P2
Posted October 3, 2015 at 10:00 am |
@Fred “..also like to write to ICAO, for it is they who set the standards and procedures for accident and incident investigation that are used by signatories to the Chicago Convention, including Australia..”

That might be so Fred but if you refer to pages 80-85 of our outrageous & embarrassing notified differences to ICAO SARPs..

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip...15-h30.pdf

..you will see that the ATSB are so far removed from the ICAO established standards that it is debatable whether the bureau, CASA or even the Minister are on the same page as ICAO to (as you say)..

“..The aim of an incident or accident investigation is to find out what happened and why, and to make recommendations to prevent it happening again..”

A classic example was with this recent, initially unreported, serious incident: http://auntypru.com/forum/-Skimore-Corne...89#pid2089

For Ben’s benefit refer H30-15 pg 84, Ch7 ADREP reporting, para 7.2 – might explain the discrepancy with recent delayed incidents, potentially embarrassing, not having prelim reports issued. ‘Less Complex’ gives the bureau a lot of latitude?

And para 8.2? Well as a pilot if you have an accident & survive you might as well hand in your licence and give yourself up to the authorities..FCOL!

Cheers P2

[*]36
Fred
Posted October 3, 2015 at 10:54 am | Permalink
P2:
Many countries have notified differences from ICAO SARPS – the US AIP has over 100 pages of them. Are they outrageous, embarrassing and unsafe too?
You said the Hotham incident is a “classic example”. A classic example of what exactly?

[*]37
PAIN_P2
Posted October 3, 2015 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

Fred good point that you make, from the 2013 US (FAA) AIP GEN 1.7 is indeed 111 pages, ref pdf page 43 here:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publicat...dition.pdf ..versus 105 pages for Oz.

However your US example is somewhat misleading as many of the reference pages contain some additional pages for extrapolated information or state when there are no differences, for example. Also the US generally set the benchmark for standards, hence the reason the FAA audit on behalf of ICAO. So you will find that generally over time ICAO will eventually amend the SARPs to match the FAA standards. Not so in Australia where we seem to be marching to the beat of a very different drum??

However since we are primarily talking about Annex 13 (& somewhat about Annex 19) the US reference is on pdf page 126 & the Australian on page 80 (A19 Oz pg 104-105, US there is none listed in 2013).

I think you will find the difference of intent & duty of care to the Annex 13 principles is quite obvious and we are on the wrong side of the ledger.

The Hotham incident is a classic example of how ineffective the ATSB has become in their primary objective of mitigating safety risk issues or as you say..

“..The aim of an investigation is to prevent a recurrence..” & “..to make recommendations to prevent it happening again..”

However if you think the YHOT incident is not indicative of a systemic problem with the Oz SSP please refer from about here:

http://auntypru.com/forum/-The-search-fo...12#pid2012

[*]
MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Continued from Planetalking comments:

37
PAIN_P2
Posted October 3, 2015 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

 ..& again good stuff...

[*]38
Fred
Posted October 4, 2015 at 11:23 am | Permalink
P2 – Most of Australia’s notified differences to ICAO SARPS are minor and relate to variations in the definitions of certain terms under Australian law, or differences that are required by Australian legislation such as privacy law. The US and other countries file variations for the same reasons.

Other differences, such as those in Chapt 5, reflect the reality that the ATSB simply doesn’t have the resources to investigate every accident or serious incident. Annex 13 stipulates that the state of occurrence “shall” institute an investigation into the circumstances of an accident, and “should” do the same for a serious incident. The Australian differences state that the decision to proceed with an investigation depends on “resources and the likely benefit to future safety”. The ATSB would no doubt love to have a bottomless pit of money to investigate each and every report that comes their way, but what’s the alternative when that’s not the case?

The ATSB is not perfect, by any means, but the notion that Australia is “marching to the beat of a very different drum” and that we are on the “wrong side of the ledger” when it comes to the intent of Annex 13 is stretching things a bit far, in my opinion.

Regarding the Hotham incident, is it the investigation that’s a problem, or the fact that the incident occurred at all? If it’s the former, my understanding is that the investigation is ongoing and a report has not yet been released. If it’s the latter, I would suggest that the ATSB’s role is to investigate and make recommendations, but they have no power to force change. That power lies with the regulator and the responsible Minister.

[*]39
Ben Sandilands
Posted October 4, 2015 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
The term ‘responsible Minister’ has been problematical in the administration of air safety issues in this country for a very long time.

Ministers in Australia take advice from the administrations that are failing to serve the public good.

It’s a dangerous closed loop, and it will given enough lack of political will, cause huge grief and anger at some time in the future.

[*]40
Fred
Posted October 4, 2015 at 12:20 pm | Permalink
I agree. My comments relate to the ATSB, which has no power to do anything other than investigate and write a report.

[*]41
Fred
Posted October 4, 2015 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
I should also add that CASA’s adversarial approach to safety regulation doesn’t help either!

[*]42
Sam Jackson
Posted October 5, 2015 at 8:07 am | Permalink
Mild disagreement here Fred with your #40. Look at the exemplar NTSB, they can and do issue Safety Recommendations, serious ones and they make them stick. They are a force to reckoned with and FAA don’t mess with ‘em. Then compare the ATSB performance and, if you can stomach it; study some of the ‘reports’ handed down; start with Pel-Air.

Then have a look at what has been recommended, what has happened to those very few recommendations. Then, if you can manage it, look back at the BASI approach.

ATSB do have the legal ‘clout’ to affect changes; but, they simply defer to CASA, bend over for the AILU both of whom run things as best pleases them, in the name of strictly no liability. Not just my opinion; the evidence is all there, just need to do your homework. It’s a sad indictment of a once great agency.

[*]43
Fred
Posted October 5, 2015 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

Sam,
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with some of your comments in #42 above. Under Australian law, the ATSB can compel parties to respond to its safety recommendations, but it cannot force those parties to accept and act upon them. The relevant party only needs to state the reasons why it does not accept the ATSB’s recommendations. The USA’s NTSB is similar, in that it has no power to regulate the aviation industry in that country. That said, the NTSB does have enormous resources and a wealth of experience, and its recommendations are normally acted upon, as you stated.

I make no apologies for the performance of the ATSB. The Pel-Air investigation was woeful and Transport Canada’s subsequent review highlighted a number of problems with the ATSB’s investigation. Nevertheless, Transport Canada’s review also stated that the methodologies and processes used by Australia ‘are generally considered to meet or exceed the intent and spirit of the Standards and Recommended Practices in Annex 13’.

I previously stated that ‘the aim of an incident or accident investigation is to find out what happened and why, and to make recommendations to prevent it happening again’. I still firmly believe that to be the case. Whether the ATSB does it effectively or not is another matter entirely.

[*]44
Sam Jackson
Posted October 5, 2015 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

Fred
Rushing out, I phrased my point very badly. I agree with your analysis of what ATSB can do; “legal clout” was inaccurate, my apologies. Just get so disappointed when glaringly obvious recommendations from investigation are ‘rolled’; cranky when an investigation report is ‘massaged’ after an unseemly delay, even more so when SR are not issued when needed and ‘argued out’ – as the NTSB do, regularly. Seen some very good results from the ‘natural tension’ between FAA and NTSB where a good result is ‘hammered’ out – and better risk mitigation is produced. I do firmly believe that a strong, independent ATSB is, as a risk mitigation tool, much better than enforced, prescriptive, complex regulation used to over ride expert, impartial, independent ‘analysis’. But, something is terribly wrong with the system, perhaps the ‘balance’ needs some attention. Anyway – it’s a deep, complex subject, best discussed with suitable lubrication.

[*]45
Fred
Posted October 5, 2015 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
I’ll drink to that!

[*]46
PAIN_P2
Posted October 7, 2015 at 8:40 pm | Permalink

@Fred enjoying this discussion & debate, it seems a pity to let it stop there, so again with Ben’s indulgence I thought I would continue this with a slight change of tack.

To begin here is a P9 post which I don’t think he has included here?

“…Only my own opinion; a notion or ramble may be a more fitting description – but the deep, systematic flaws in the ‘training’ programs seem to be appearing on a regular basis. We have quite a long list from the last couple of years; Mildura, Mooranbah, Melbourne, Sydney, etc. Newcastle being the exemplar where the crew were rescued from landing on the coal loading dock by an alert ATCO.

My mind keeps picking at what I can only call – ‘disconnection’. The modern aircraft, particularly the Airbus are so ‘automated’ that it is quite possible for the crew to feel ‘remote’ from the operational reality. When you have a control column’ in one hand and the power levers in the other, the aircraft is ‘with you’, firmly between your feet on the rudder pedals. The flight path, profile and speed – controlled by you. Reality. It is quite a surreal experience to be playing with automatic systems, remotely asking a computer to sort out the task at hand. Is it possible that crew are becoming more focussed on the ‘keyboard’ and connected to the computer; rather than cognisant of the external factors? It’s academic; but clearly something is going wrong, regularly, and if the ATSB can’t or won’t provide a solution, we need to examine the basic tenets.

Then there is the simulator syndrome; in the ‘sim’ the event being discussed here could have been stopped; a discussion held while the ‘aircraft’ patiently waited at 1000 feet until the point of the exercise was understood; then, reversed back to where the initial problem occurred and- it’s off to the races, problem solved. Is this ‘attitude’ endemic? the reality of a 50 ton aircraft at 135 KIAS on final approach is that it will not patiently park at 1000’ while the mysteries are unravelled, it’s real. It’s dynamic and it is no place for a crew to be disconnected from the task at hand.

Please note; not knocking or denigrating anyone or anything; just trying (struggling) to understand the radical causes. Thinking out loud if you like…”

Okay to which I have replied on Aunty Pru today:

“..To begin excellent thought provoking post by the Ferryman..

..’Disconnection’ is indeed the key word here and it is not solely in the cockpit where this ‘disconnection’ is occurring. The investigator – & to a certain extent the regulator – seems to be failing to join the dots, although maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel..

…Moving on from the Sydney Jetstar approach dust-up incident and back to more familiar ground with Melbourne approach incidents…

..Noticed that the ATSB today have just released their latest Bulletin of aviation short investigations – Issue 43.

Hidden in the SIB – within the Jet aircraft section – there was this incident – Flight below minimum altitude involving a Boeing 777, A6-ECO, near Melbourne Airport, Vic on 18 July 2014 – http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inve...4-128.aspx

To see more of this post go to:- http://auntypru.com/forum/-The-search-fo...23#pid2323

Cheers

P2

[*]47
Seth Knoepler
Posted October 8, 2015 at 2:29 am | Permalink

Pain:
In suggesting what the simulator version of this “teachable moment” might look like you’ve led me to speculate about why the Jetstar captain might have acted as he did. Going back to Ben’s original post, I see that he intriguingly referred to what the captain did as a “partially unauthorized” exercise, and included this sentence:

“A referee pilot suggests that ‘discussion’ in the ATSB report was a euphemism for what was really going on in the cockpit between the tough school training captain who disagreed with the Jetstar company rules for this sort of exercise.”

As you suggest, the trainee could have been (and presumably had, in fact, been) confronted with the same challenge in a simulator. However, Ben’s reference to the Jetstar pilot as a “tough school” training captain makes me wonder whether he was convinced that any trainee who had never been forced to confront such a challenge thousands of feet above terra ferma would not be adequately prepared to deal with such a situation if he were ever forced to do so without an experienced trainer looking over his shoulder.

Now that our flying machines can “think” to an unprecedented degree we are certainly in uncharted territory with respect to how this may affect the behavior of the humans who remain (at least for now) the machines’ commanding officers. However, in this case I wonder whether the Jetstar training captain may have been pushed towards being overly skeptical about whether a relatively “disconnected” simulator experience would adequately prepare a pilot to deal with the same situation during a revenue flight.

[*]48
Fred
Posted October 8, 2015 at 11:33 am | Permalink

P2,
Interesting points you raise – that sense of ‘disconnection’ has been with us for some time and is getting worse as our world becomes increasingly automated. In the past, pilots would rely on their previous experience and fall back to basics to get them through when things went wrong. Nowadays, we have become so dependent on automation that many of the traditional piloting skills are fading through lack of practice. Our training systems have not kept pace with the changing world, leaving pilots poorly equipped to deal with the challenges they face.

I believe the two biggest challenges for safety management amongst pilots (and others!) are decreasing experience levels and fatigue. A new generation of pilots is being trained to move directly into the right hand seat of advanced airliners. Those pilots have not had the opportunity to develop their skills in GA or the military and have no past experience to fall back upon if something goes horribly wrong. Fatigue is also becoming a problem, as airlines push their crews for more productivity. The buffers are being eroded as pilots are pushed to operate continuously at the legal limits, often at the ‘back of the clock’ and across multiple time zones. The combination of low experience and fatigue is, in my opinion, a disaster in the making.

It was good to read about the investigation into B777 incident at Melbourne. Some great input by all concerned, valuable lessons learnt and useful recommendations to prevent a recurrence.

Seth,
I tend to think that the Jetstar training captain was motivated by a desire to get more training value out of the autoland exercise, but not necessarily due to the sense of ‘disconnection’ experienced in the simulator. An autoland in the aircraft, once it is setup and configured, is essentially a ‘non-event’. The pilots only have to sit back and monitor the automation and watch while the aircraft does its thing. It’s essentially a ‘box ticking’ exercise required by the regulator and doesn’t have a lot of training value. I think the training captain tried to increase the value of the exercise by simulating failures to reinforce the training already done in the simulator.

[*]49
Dan Dair
Posted October 8, 2015 at 7:33 pm | Permalink
If there is a disconnect between the flight-systems & pilots getting a ‘feel’ for what the aircraft is really doing
and
an element of ‘unreality’ about the training methods in a simulator,
surely these are matters which the regulators AND the unions should be discussing amongst themselves and raising with airlines & Government, to ensure that this situation changes for the better.?

IMO, whatever the best intentions of that particular training captain,
final approach and with a whole bunch of passengers sat behind them is not the correct place to ‘spring’ a non-standard training ‘scenario’ on an unsuspecting novice first officer.?

[*]50
Sam Jackson
Posted October 8, 2015 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

Seth, Dan, Fred et al.
I don’t believe any of us here can, not in half brief page solve the puzzle. Given the time, money and resources of the ATSB, a substantive, credible, report of value could be provided by industry. It is very much in ‘our interests to do so. There is indeed a world wide pattern emerging, which, even to the most jaundiced, commercially focused eye can be clearly seen as detrimental to vested interests. However, we do pay, handsomely, for an independent safety investigator and we may, quite rightfully expect that they, as an independent arbiter and ‘expert’ could provide a study into these complex matters. At very least, each incident could be holistically examined and reported with the ‘trend’ identified and even some suggestions for a fix. For an airline to undertake such a study would be pointless, for practical purposes, except for their own SOP.

The ‘thing’ that most annoys is the simple plain fact that there are identified problems with the MEL arrivals system; the facts are all there, yet has any constructive move been made to identify a pattern, a system, or even a waypoint which could be identified as a potential threat? No, except for the overseas carriers (who did their own heavy lifting). But there a string of incidents associated. Take SHEED, that waypoint could easily be relocated to provide a ‘stable’ approach gradient; but that would involve relocating the strobes, that would cost money, hard cash; and someone would be blamed. Whereas soft, PC reports delayed analysis and ‘company fixes’ are all used to dilute the impact, defray the pattern and diffuse the clear picture.

This before we even begin to contemplate the strange and wonderful mystery of pilot automatics dependency; slavish behaviour to the computer Captain; loss of ‘stick and rudder skills, let alone what that does to situational awareness, confidence and fatigue. The incident discussed here is deep and complex just on those matters stand alone, before we even begin delve into the more esoteric issues.

This is an enjoyable discussion and in the spirit of ‘discussion’ I will pose one question. Both engines ‘suddenly’ go back to flight idle and the auto throttle disconnects; what is your first instinct? – bump the taps back to where they should be and do the necessary; or, grab a book for ‘instructions’ then use a key board to ask the computer what is wrong, then, ask the computer to fix it for you? N.B. Not situationally specific, but in ‘general’ terms. Now, I’ll just go quietly back to my knitting and beer, wishing I said nothing.



[/url] [url=http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2015/09/29/what-happened-when-a-jetstar-captain-and-trainee-locked-horns-approaching-sydney/?comment_page=1/#comments]1 2

• 51
  Sam Jackson
  Posted October 9, 2015 at 12:02 am | Permalink
  Addendum
  I might add, that I can well understand the Captains ‘fury’ and the FO’s confusion and defensive anger; what I fail to grasp is ‘why’ the loss of ‘situational awareness, until the computer chimed in? As stated; it’s complicated. Now where did I leave that beer?
  

[*]
MTF?- Hopefully

[Gobbledock]

"Ben Sandilands
Posted October 4, 2015 at 12:03 pm 

The term ‘responsible Minister’ has been problematical in the administration of air safety issues in this country for a very long time.
Ministers in Australia take advice from the administrations that are failing to serve the public good".

Well said Ben. Ironic ain't it. If you're an airline, and CAsA audits you, and the CEO is completely disconnected and has NFI what's going on and isn't in control of his airlines culture, safety standards or executive operational people or those people are feeding him wrong advice then CAsA will pineapple said airline (not QF or VA of course) until the incompetent CEO or his henchman are gone. But of course Politicians are different. Or are they? It's equal in risk, danger and outcome that a Minister has NFI and is blindly relying on advice from complete morons starting with pumpkin head, then Beaker, Skid'Mark and that nauseating individual Harfield. Supporting all three buffoons are Boards that also contain either complete dipshits or those that aren't dipshits but are sitting as quietly as a 13 year old boy with his first Penthouse magazine.

Dear Minister, how about you and your departments lead by example? If you had credibility you might gain respect, with respect comes partnership where two or more parties can mutually work together for the benefit of a greater cause - in our case it's aviation safety, and achieve it! You might wake up to that one day, but I doubt it as only a giant smoking hole will shake you clowns from your slumber and throw you ass first into the world of reality. Closing your eyes and tapping your glass slippers won't work on that particular day my friend.

TICK TOCK dipshits 

[Peetwo]

Sad day for RMIT Point Cook flight training school:

Collision with terrain involving Cessna 172, VH-ZEW, near Millbrook, Victoria on 8 September 2015

 
Investigation number: AO-2015-105
Investigation status: Active
 

• Summary
  

Summary

The ATSB is investigating a fatal aircraft accident involving a Cessna 172, near Millbrook, Victoria on 8 September 2015. The aircraft collided with the ground and the pilot died in the accident.

The ATSB has deployed two investigators, with specialisations in aircraft operations and engineering, to the accident site. They are expected to be on site for two to three days.

As part of the investigation, the team will:

• assess the accident site
  
• examine the aircraft wreckage
  
• interview any witnesses
  
• review aircraft documentation and maintenance records.
  
  

Witnesses are asked to call the ATSB on 1800 020 616.
More information will be made available as it comes to hand.

A recently updated media report:

Plane crash at Millbrook: Woman dead after light aircraft crashes near Ballarat  
by: Paddy Naughtin, Andrea Hamblin

From: Herald Sun
September 09, 2015 2:00PM

UPDATE: THE father of an RMIT student pilot who died when she crashed near Ballarat on a solo flight has met with university chiefs as investigations continue.  


Investigators were on Wednesday scouring the site of a plane crash for clues on what caused the plane to drop from the sky, killing the student..

The female RMIT student was flying solo near Millbrook when her Cessna plunged into the side of a hill on a rural property about 3.20pm, and died at the scene.

Two Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigators specialising in aircraft operations and engineering were at the scene on Wednesday morning.

They will examine the plane wreckage and are expected to remain at the site for up to three days, ATSB pokesman Marc Kelaart said.
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/news/victoria/plane-crash-at-millbrook-woman-dead-after-light-aircraft-crashes-near-ballarat/story-fni0fit3-1227518159496?t_product=HeraldSun&t_template=s3/chronicle-component/relatedstories/templates/index[/img]
He said the investigation would also review the aircraft documentation and maintenance records, as well as interview any witnesses.

The bureau will refer any information relating to immediate safety concerns to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

The university said it had halted all flight operations at Point Cook “until further notice”
RMIT University vice-chancellor Martin Bean said in a statement that the death had “devastated” the university community.

He confirmed the aviation student was on a solo training flight from RMIT’s Point Cook aviation training site when the crash occurred.

“This morning, I met the student’s father at RMIT’s Point Cook flight training centre.

“On behalf of the University, I extended my heartfelt condolences to him.

“As a father, I can only begin to imagine the pain he is feeling at this time.”

Mr Bean said he had gathered at Point Cook with aviation staff and students “to share their grief and their memories”.

He said RMIT’s trained counsellors had offered support to students and staff.
He said the university continues to assist the Air Transport Safety Bureau, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and emergency services.

Paramedics and firefighters rushed to the crash site, off Old Melbourne Rd in an area known as Black Hill, but the pilot could not be saved.
andrea.hamblin@news.com.au

Prelim report release:

Collision with terrain involving Cessna 172, VH-ZEW, near Millbrook, Victoria on 8 September 2015

 
Investigation number: AO-2015-105
Investigation status: Active
 

• Summary
  
• Photo
  

Summary

Updated: 13 October 2015

At about 1410 Eastern Standard Time[1] on 8 September 2015, the pilot of a Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP, registered VH-ZEW, departed Point Cook Airport on a return solo navigational training flight via Ballarat, Victoria.

Witnesses stated that at about 1542 they observed the aircraft approaching Black Hill, near Millbrook, about 14 NM (26 km) east-south-east of Ballarat Airport. A number of witnesses reported seeing the aircraft flying ‘very low’ and hearing an increase in power prior to the aircraft cresting the hill. Engine power was reported by witnesses to have changed a few times before the aircraft disappeared from sight. No witnesses reported seeing the aircraft collide with terrain (Figure 1). The pilot sustained fatal injuries and the aircraft was destroyed.

Figure 1: Accident site and wreckage of Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP, VH-ZEW


Source: ATSB

Wreckage examination

Site and wreckage examination indicated that the aircraft impacted terrain on a 20° upslope. The aircraft came to rest about 60 m from the initial impact point (Figure 2). There was no fire.

Figure 2: Accident site, showing the initial point of impact and wreckage trail


Source: ATSB

The aircraft’s structure was significantly disrupted during the impact sequence. The propeller separated from the engine and showed signs of rotational damage.
The aircraft was fitted with an integrated flight control system that was capable of recording data such as flight and engine parameters. The integrated flight data log memory card from this system was located in the wreckage trail.

Aircraft components examination
A number of aircraft items and components, including the integrated flight data log memory card, were recovered for examination at the ATSB’s technical facility in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

The integrated flight data log memory card was successfully downloaded, showing flight and engine parameters at 1-second intervals up to about 10 seconds before the impact with terrain. The premature termination of the recording was attributed to power supply disconnection due to impact forces, rather than normal system shut down.

The investigation is continuing and will include examination of:

• data from the aircraft’s global positioning system equipment
  
• the aircraft’s maintenance documents
  
• the pilot’s flying and training records
  
• the meteorological information affecting the flight
  
• relevant organisational information.
  

___________________________

The information contained in this web update is released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and is derived from the initial investigation of the occurrence. Readers are cautioned that new evidence will become available as the investigation progresses that will enhance the ATSB's understanding of the accident as outlined in this web update. As such, no analysis or findings are included in this update.
 

__________

1. Eastern Standard Time (EST) was Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) +10 hours.
   

 

Photo
Download
Download
 

To download an image click the download link then right-click the image and select save image as.
 
General details

Date: 08 Sep 2015
 
Investigation status: Active
 
Time: 15:42 EST
 
Investigation type: Occurrence Investigation
 
Location   (show map): near Millbrook
 
Occurrence type: Collision with terrain
 
State: VIC 

Release date:13 Oct 2015
 
Occurrence category: Accident
 
Report status: Pending
 
Highest injury level: Fatal
 
Expected completion: Sep 2016 
 
Aircraft details

Aircraft manufacturer: Cessna Aircraft Company
 
Aircraft model: 172S
 
Aircraft registration: VH-ZEW
 
Serial number: 172S11079
 
Type of operation: Flying Training
 
Sector: Piston
 
Damage to aircraft: Destroyed
 
Departure point: Point Cook, Vic
Departure time: 1410 EST
Destination: Point Cook, Vic
 

 




Last update 13 October 2015

MTF...P2

[crankybastards]

Not much being said re Richard Green EC-135 Helicopter missing presumed near end of the flight around Terry Hills. What is being said doesn't sound too good.

[P7_TOM]

Sad news indeed..

Not too much to say Cranky; other than Godspeed and our sincere condolences to family and friends.

The wreckage of a helicopter that went missing from Breeza in northern New South Wales carrying three people has been found in the Hunter region, with no survivors.

AMSA said weather conditions were severe in the Hunter region on Saturday, with localised thunderstorms and rain.

From the ABC - HERE.

[Peetwo]

CASA shows it's true colours..  

Absolutely disgusting - Less than 24hrs after the tragic discovery of the fatal accident site and already the MSM - aided & abetted by CASA - is dragging Richard Green's past infractions with the regulator to the surface.

Helicopter crash: No survivors as wreckage found in Watagans National Park

Neil Keene, Richard Noone and Ian Walker - The Daily Telegraph


The bodies of three people have been found with the wreckage of a missing helicopter south of Cessnock, NSW.[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/news/content/v1/origin:video_integrator.5wNTZxeDpAkGmGxnmjmKrfmMbBDX4X2j?t_product=video&t_template=../video/player[/img]

• Dick Smith’s sadness at loss of adventurer friends
  

Millionaire pilot Richard Green, who died with his wife Carolyn and friend John Davis when their helicopter crashed in the NSW Hunter Valley had a history of close calls and run-ins with aviation authorities.

Mr Green, whose Eurocopter EC-135 went missing somewhere between Breeza, near Tamworth, and Sydney late Saturday, lost his licence for six months in 2013 after four dangerous flying incidents in the space of 11 days in May, 2012.

Adventure Photographer and helicopter pilot, Richard Green and wife Carolyn / Picture: Supplied

In November, 2012, Mr Green struck powerlines with his helicopter, causing “significant damage”, before taking off again in contravention of civil aviation laws.

And he was counselled by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in 2007 after his helicopter’s rotor blades struck a tree while landing and he undertook unauthorised repairs on the machine.

RECOVERY HINDERED BY TERRAIN

A LARGE contingent of police including a mobile forensic services command post have arrived to recover the bodies of Mr Green, his wife Carolyn and filmmaker friend John Davis.

A convoy of police vehicles arrived at Crumps Retreat Fire Trail in the Watagan State Forest at 11.45am to begin the grim task and to secure the crash site.

Vision of the helicopter crash site that killed millionaire photographer Richard Green, his wife Carolyn and friend John Davis. Picture: Channel 7

The debris is scattered over a large area of dense bush, which has been quarantined by a protection order issued by the Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB) effectively making the entire site a federal crime scene.

PolAir has returned to the area, hovering above as officers from the police rescue squad unload equipment in preparation for ATSB investigators to begin piecing together how the privately owned chopper met its grisly demise early Saturday evening.

A Police Forensics team is pictured as they arrive to the location of the helicopter crash site that killed millionaire photographer Richard Green, his wife Carolyn. Picture: Peter Lorimer

A nearby property owner said it had been drizzling with rain from about 4pm with the helicopter expected to land at the couple’s Terrey Hills home at 5:30pm.

Police say the rough terrain is hindering the retrieval process

“It is a fairly rugged location and inaccessible. We are putting rescue police in there,” Superintendent Craig Jackson told reporters in Cessnock on Tuesday.

The area in Watagans National Park, near Cessnock, where the aircraft of Richard and Carolyn Green's helicopter went down over the weekend.

“Once we have conducted a scientific examination of the site, we will then carry out the bodies,” he said.

Rescuers hope to retrieve the bodies in the next few hours.

“The site is accessible but obviously we have to take certain equipment in there to get our job done. It is proving a challenge. I am told we are not far off now,” Supt Jackson said.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau’s Greg Madden said three investigators would attend the crash site.

“Investigators will carefully examine the helicopter wreckage (and) conduct a thorough investigation of the accident site ... particularly to see if there are any ground marks or other evidence that may assist us in determining what may have occurred.”

NEVER MADE IT HOME

The trio were last seen at the Harvest Festival mine protest in Breeza, south of Tamworth, on Saturday before taking off in the helicopter with Mr Green at the controls about 3pm.

The flight from the rural community to the Greens’ luxury Terrey Hills home in northern Sydney should have taken just two hours.

No mayday calls or emergency beacon signals were detected from their flight and they weren’t reported missing until 6am yesterday when Mr Davis’ wife contacted authorities.

The search was also delayed because Mr Green failed to file what is known as an SAR time alert — a nominated time of arrival, after which a search is automatically triggered.

Film maker John Davis died when the helicopter he was travelling on crashed in the Hunter Valley.Adventure photographer and helicopter pilot Richard Green and his wife Carolyn / Picture: Supplied

An airport or aerodrome would usually report the failure of a helicopter to arrive, but the Greens’ park their aircraft in a private hangar attached to their home.

Breeza Station owner and festival host Andrew Pursehouse said the helicopter arrived at his adjoining Ridge Station shortly before 11am on Saturday and departed shortly after keynote speakers addressed the protest against a proposed Shenhua’s coal mine in the region about 3pm.

Carolyn Green / Picture: SuppliedRichard Green and his wife Carolyn / Picture: SuppliedThe helicopter took off from Breeza headed for the northern beaches.

A fleet of aircraft yesterday undertook an extensive aerial search covering rugged bush and mountains on their suspected flight path before zeroing in on the crash site last night.

One of 10 helicopters involved found the wreckage in dense vegetation about 7pm.

A paramedic was winched down to confirm it was the missing aircraft.

Mr Green, who described his aircraft as his “pride and joy”, lost his licence for six months in 2013 after a spate of dangerous flying incidents.

ABOUT THE VICTIMS

Mr Green graduated from London’s Brunel University with a degree in applied physics and computer science.

He started an IT conference business in 1970 and in the late 80s the company employed more than 120 staff across three countries, with offices in London, New York and Singapore, according to a biography on the photographer.

In an interview with Seven’s Sunday Night in 2013, Mr Green said he started working as a physicist but didn’t like being confined to a lab.

Photograph taken of a campsite in the Outback for Richard and Carolyn Green’s book, Remote & Wild: Seeing the Unknown Australia.A weathered outback tree from Richard and Carolyn Green.Photograph taken of a campsite in the Outback. Picture: Richard GreenMr Green had become a renowned nature photographer and had published a book of photographs of remote locations.

When he sold his business in the late 1980s he moved to Australia where he met his wife Caroline, a graphic artist.

Mr Green used the proceeds of the sale of his business to buy a helicopter and the pair embarked on an adventure across the country that would span two decades.

Referring to the chopper as their ‘flying campervan’, the Greens would visit the most remote and pristine parts of Australia, landing the helicopter and capturing the beauty of the untouched landscape.

The couple hoped their work would convince people that our country was worthy of protecting.

“We make a special point of going to places where there’s unlikely to be people so if there’s a track within 30 or 40 kilometres — even just a dirt track — we’re not going to go there,” Mr Green told Sunday Night.

Richard and Carolyn Green took Sunday Night on their 'flying campervan'

“I’m hoping that bringing these photographs back and putting them on my website and in my book and in galleries we might be able to persuade the general public and, more importantly, our politicians that our environment is really beautiful and worth protecting.”

Mr Davis, who was travelling with the pair when the helicopter crashed, was a former chemical engineer, teacher, ABC producer and documentary filmmaker.

He was an environmentalist and championed for the use of renewable energy.

While at the ABC for eight years he worked on children’s news program Behind The News before leaving to start his own business making science and technology videos to be used in classrooms.

He wrote in a biography on his website that his company had sold more than a million videos to 20,000 schools and TV stations across the company’s 21 years.

The photographer sold his business in the late 80s, moved to Sydney and met his wife.

    
From the Oz:

NSW chopper crash pilot suspended in 2013  

• by: By Matt Coughlan
  
• From: AAP
  
• November 10, 2015 3:31PM
  

THE NSW pilot/owner of a helicopter that crashed and killed three people, including himself, had previously lost his licence for dangerous flying.  

THE bodies of photographer Richard Green, his wife and graphic artist Carolyn, and documentary maker John Davis, were discovered in wreckage found on mountainous terrain in the NSW Watagans National Park, near Cessnock, on Tuesday.

In 2013 Mr Green had his licence suspended for six months after four incidents when his helicopter was at risk of colliding with other aircraft and another when he struck overhead powerlines.

The powerlines tore off part of his helicopter, but after landing and inspecting the damage Mr Green took off again, according to an Administrative Appeal Tribunal judgment.

Mr Green unsuccessfully appealed the decision on grounds it was made with "malice" and the transgressions were not serious.

A Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman said on Tuesday Mr Green was required to demonstrate his aeronautical knowledge and proficiency before the suspension was lifted in March last year.

The trio, all aged in their 70s, had spent Saturday at an anti-mining event at Breeza near Tamworth, protesting the controversial Chinese state-owned Shenhua and Caroona coal mines on the Liverpool Plains, before taking off on their final flight.

No mayday calls or emergency beacons were detected on Saturday, when severe storms hit the Hunter region.

The wreckage was discovered on Monday night and rescuers on Tuesday were working to recover the bodies of Mr Green, 74, Mrs Green, 71, and Mr Davis, 72, as tributes flowed for the committed environmentalists.

Family members became concerned at the weekend when the trio failed to return to Sydney.

Close friend and aviator Dick Smith searched for them in his own helicopter after a call from Mr Davis' wife Felicity.

Mr and Mrs Davis were both Greens candidates for the adjoining northern Sydney beaches electorates Davidson and Pittwater in the recent state elections.

NSW Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham said the trio spent their lives defending Australia's environment.

Former independent MP Tony Windsor said he was interviewed at the Breeza event by Mr Davis about an hour before the fateful helicopter flight took off.

"It sort of leaves a real hollow feeling that, you know, these people were up there being interested in things that were of a concern to us and others and the tragedy occurs on the way home," he told ABC News Breakfast.

Mr Green, once Europe's leading expert in computer graphics, reportedly "made a motza" when he sold his company Online Conferences on the UK stock exchange more than 20 years ago.

Together with his wife, the couple relocated to Sydney's northern beaches, and had spent hours on their beloved EC135 helicopter, travelling to remote areas throughout Australia photographing the landscape.

"Being able to fly our own helicopter provides an opportunity to get to the most inaccessible places," Mr Green wrote on his website.

"The EC135, which we have operated since 1999, is my pride and joy."

Also Dick Smith's close relationship with the trio:

How Dick Smith helped with rescue efforts for missing helicopter

November 10, 2015 12:00am
Ian WalkerThe Daily Telegraph
Aviator and businessman Dick Smith / Picture: Peter Lorimer

AVIATOR Dick Smith took to the skies in his helicopter in the hope of finding his three close friends who perished in yesterday’s helicopter crash tragedy.

The 71-year-old said he first met filmmaker John Davis 50 years ago when both the adventurers aged 21 separately took on climbing sea stack Balls Pyramid — “Australia’s Mount Everest” — in the 1960s.

Separately he went on to befriend Richard and Carolyn through their shared love of helicopters with both men parking their choppers at Terrey Hills since 1980.

“Felicity, John’s wife, rang me and said John’s missing with the Green’s in their helicopter and I said ‘how come John is in the helicopter’ and she said ‘they gave him a lift back’ and that’s when I said ‘we’ll get in the air and look locally’,” Mr Smith said.

“We flew around the valleys in Terrey Hills for half an hour because we were low on fuel then AMSA said they had information that the plane was in the Cessnock area.

“We searched around just in case it had been forced down and they had camping equipment on board, we thought there’s a chance they’ve been forced down, battery’s gone flat and they’re camping so we just flew around.

“We went to their helipad at the request of the search people to check it wasn’t in the hangar.”


Mr Davis was the first person to conquer the imposing Balls Pyramid south of Lord Howe Island in January 1965 after Smith’s unsuccessful attempt just a month earlier in December 1964.

Smith later went back in 1980 and made it to the top.

“So there was always a bit of competition between us because he succeeded and I failed but then I went back and climbed it,” Mr Smith said.

“The very sad thing is I just finished a book on Balls Pyramid, the book is coming out next month and the major person in the book is John Davis.

“For 50 years we’ve been friends and we only had a reunion this year, we had this celebration of his climb in January so it’s a very sad story.

“He had only been working on the proofreading on my book a month ago. It’s too late (it has been printed), it would’ve been in tribute to John Davis.”

When Mr Green moved to Australia he immediately wanted to fly a helicopter to explore the country and he came to Smith for advice.

Dick Smith has just finished a book on Balls Pyramid, which stands proudly off Lord Howe Island.

“When he found I had my helicopter here at Terrey Hills he said ‘is it possible to get approval’ and I said ‘it’s best to get a plot of land so your approach doesn’t annoy anyone’ and he bought a block of land a kilometre from me,” Mr Smith said.

“He just absolutely loved, they loved the outdoors. The three of them were together at that mine site and they were all ultimate greenies and loved the wilderness and even though they were quite separate they all loved the outdoors. It’s so sad they were doing what they loved.”

RIP  -  P2

[P7_TOM]

Not a shadow of proof to support this; but, there is a story floating about that the chopper was parked for forty minutes waiting a storm out; which seems like prudent airmanship, before departing behind.  It seems (although again from the fuel truck) that it was shortly after this the troubles started.   While it does not close the door on a ‘fool-hardy’ errand it does open the window of heart attack, critical part failure or backlash from the storm.  

Anyway – just saying character assassination may be considered as good sport in some circles, but wise folk will wait for more information before rushing to put the boot in.  Whilst I am curious about the motive for the media attack, I am much more interested in what really happened.

[Peetwo]

Not a shadow of proof to support this; but, there is a story floating about that the chopper was parked for forty minutes waiting a storm out; which seems like prudent airmanship, before departing behind.  It seems (although again from the fuel truck) that it was shortly after this the troubles started.   While it does not close the door on a ‘fool-hardy’ errand it does open the window of heart attack, critical part failure or backlash from the storm.  

Anyway – just saying character assassination may be considered as good sport in some circles, but wise folk will wait for more information before rushing to put the boot in.  Whilst I am curious about the motive for the media attack, I am much more interested in what really happened.

 Ol'Tom I believe that rumour would very much compare to the witness statement in the SMH article:

..A witness, Jim Bloomfield, said he saw the helicopter fly into a valley near his Hunter Valley home as a severe storm rolled in on Saturday evening. He said the helicopter landed but then took off again and looked in trouble...

  There was also this small snippet of video footage -  Helicopter footage before crash


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Not a shadow of proof to support this; but, there is a story floating about that the chopper was parked for forty minutes waiting a storm out; which seems like prudent airmanship, before departing behind.  It seems (although again from the fuel truck) that it was shortly after this the troubles started.   While it does not close the door on a ‘fool-hardy’ errand it does open the window of heart attack, critical part failure or backlash from the storm.  

Anyway – just saying character assassination may be considered as good sport in some circles, but wise folk will wait for more information before rushing to put the boot in.  Whilst I am curious about the motive for the media attack, I am much more interested in what really happened.

 Ol'Tom I believe that rumour would very much compare to the witness statement in the SMH article:

..A witness, Jim Bloomfield, said he saw the helicopter fly into a valley near his Hunter Valley home as a severe storm rolled in on Saturday evening. He said the helicopter landed but then took off again and looked in trouble...

  There was also this small snippet of video footage -  Helicopter footage before crash

Update: via Daily Telegraph

Helicopter crash: Experts collect the pieces of a tragic puzzle

November 13, 2015 12:00am

Richard Noone - The Daily Telegraph

THERE was no chance. One side of he helicopter was ripped open, a seat thrown 3m from the cabin.


The tail boom was snapped off and came to rest several metres away while a camping mattress was found in a tree 2m above the ground.

The Daily Telegraph was yesterday given exclusive access to the site of the helicopter crash which killed millionaire photographer Richard Green, his wife Carolyn and their filmmaker friend John Davis at the weekend. Investigators are gathering evidence to determine how the modified Eurocopter EC-135 came down.

These pictures reveal for the first time the extent of the damage, with debris spread over more than 30sqm — indicating the chopper essentially disintegrated after it clipped towering gum trees.

The pages of a flight manual strewn under some lantana flicker as a soft breeze blows through the site.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau­ senior aviation investigator Rob Chopin said it was like trying to piece together a three-dimensional puzzle: “It’s about going back to ­basics, keeping an open mind and going through the evidence.”

VIDEO: THE CHOPPER MOMENTS BEFORE IT CRASHED

NO SURVIVORS: HELICOPTER WRECKAGE FOUND

Senior Transport Safety Investigator in Charge, Rob Chopin, at the helicopter crash site in the Watagan State Forest / Picture: Peter Lorimer

Sadly the tragic scene is not unfamiliar to Mr Chopin, who also led the investigation when an ABC helicopter crashed while on assignment covering Lake Eyre in flood in ­August, 2011, killing reporter Paul Lockyer, cinematographer John Bean, and pilot Gary Ticehurst.
The findings from that investigation led to a tightening of rules for flying at night after the crash was put down to “spatial disorientation” — flying blind the pilot simply couldn’t see where he was going and ended up in a fatal tail spin from which he could not recover. “That was a very sad situation,” Mr Chopin said.

The mangled cabin of the chopper / Picture: Peter Lorimer

The veteran investigator said it was still too early to rule anything “in or out” in this latest crash, despite reports on piloting web forums claiming the 74-year-old photographer had landed to avoid bad weather before resuming the two-hour flight from a mining protest at Breeza south west of Tamworth to the couple’s Terrey Hills home on Saturday.

“Information and footage, already shown to police, suggests that the helicopter landed about 6km from the crash site, was on the ground for 40 minutes or so, and then took off again heading east in bad weather,” someone posted on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network.

Mr Chopin, however, said weather was just one piece of a much larger puzzle that would be examined over the coming weeks.


A preliminary report is expected in about 30 days.

“We don’t want a story, we don’t mind if we can’t find out what happened — obviously we’d like to — but if we can’t we’ll say that. It’s all about improving aircraft ­safety,” he said.

One of the helicopter seats was thrown from the cabin / Picture: Peter LorimerThe chopper came crashing down through tall timber in the Watagan State Forest / Picture: Peter Lorimer

MTF..P2