Hubris and a blind eye.
Reading through P2's Post - HERE - brings to mind the Bruce Rhodes tale of woe. The opening paragraphs of the ABC report - HERE – sum up the 'problems' Wyndham Aviation had after the event. Consider the stark differences in 'treatment' between that event and the Broome helicopter event. Bear in mind the Wyndham event attracted a 'systemic' ATSB investigation; Broome a 'defined' ATSB investigation; there is a marked difference between the two. Question One – Why???
Wyndham Aviation held an Air Operator Certificate; had been through the mill of CASA approval, surveillance, audit and operational scrutiny. Fully legal and operationally compliant. Their event involved a perfectly legitimate 'charter' under their approvals; pilot appropriately licenced, trained, experienced and current on type and operation. Aircraft and passengers insured, fully compliant maintenance records, weather suitable and all pre departure checks complete. A engine failed at a critical moment, without warning. ATSB have never determined the reason for this failure. The rest is in their report (FWIW) – HERE -. What followed was draconian, and shamed the CASA; Rhodes was hounded, vilified and accused of all manner of 'wrong doing'. Yet, in the final analysis; for some undetermined reason, a simple engine failed at a critical time, during a legitimate, approved, licensed CASA approved operation. This could be best defined as an 'accident' - there was no deliberate flaunting of any rule set, no intent to push on in the face of clear warning, and certainly no reason to fly an un- serviceable aircraft. No breach has ever been proven beyond doubt; or even on the balance of probability.
Now cast you eye over the P2 matrix and compare the CASA / ATSB response to the blatant liberties taken by Thomas in the Broome event, only lightly investigated to a 'defined' level. Let's add up the eyebrow raising events:-
Unauthorised use of an industrial site as a heliport. (take a look at the pictures of that area and the surrounds). Was CASA aware of the safety risks inherent? If not – why not?
“It would also need to be demonstrated that CASA safety standards would be met and noise regulations could be satisfied.”
If you know a Chopper pilot; ask how long would an “unusual vibration” through the rudder pedals be tolerated? (Aside) – unless it is an unfamiliar aircraft, Chopper pilots intimately know every small sound and feel of their aircraft; their lives depend on it – seriously, it really matters..Now this Broome bunch had “in the weeks preceding” noted this 'unusual' phenomenon. Was this mentioned on the aircraft's Maintenance Release (MR) or even Trip records/ flight logs? Did CASA or ATSB audit the paperwork for anomalies? If not why not?. Were the flight times logged compatible with the flights performed during the period of validity for the MR? I can find no reference to such detail being examined; of ATSB requesting that evidence or the Coroner questioning the 'serviceability' of the aircraft to be flying on that day – with passengers – at maximum gross weight. Why not?
Which brings us to the actual event. A good argument for borderline criminal intent could be shaped for this part. Consider the facts as presented:-
There existed, in fact, “for weeks” an 'unusual vibration' through the rudder bar/pedals.
Eventually 'licensed' engineers were called in. They requested and required a 'test flight' by the AMO pilot; to provide 'accurate' description and definition of the 'vibration'. From there some form of inspection and rectification could be determined.
“The AMO pilot elected not to hover or fly the helicopter in the industrial site as they felt that it was too confined and were concerned about foreign object damage if they hovered the helicopter.”
The Approved Maintenance Organisation (AMO) pilot declined (quite sensibly IMO) not to operate the aircraft within the crowded, cluttered confines of the 'yard'. If you wonder why, consider the requirements of the flight and the elevated 'risk' levels associated: a 'vertical' take off demands a 'high power' output. Any mechanical part creating the 'vibrations' would be under maximum loading. If anything was going to fail, this is exactly when it would quit. There was no viable escape path in this event. The subsequent accident clearly and graphically demonstrates this very point; in blood and body count.
“The next day Thomas, a private pilot who was unlicensed at the time, performed a high-powered vertical take-off from the industrial site in VH-NBY with three passengers on board.”
The AMO pilot would demanded a minimum fuel load (weight and fire) and as low an aircraft weight as possible (simple maths) and still declined to conduct the flight. - No prizes for guessing why.
![[Image: eca994918a66d5d22418c45d4b6ec03b]](https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/eca994918a66d5d22418c45d4b6ec03b)
“The confined area associated with the industrial property required the pilot of VH-NBY to conduct a near-vertical departure, within the avoid area of the height / velocity diagram, limiting the energy available in the helicopter to use in an emergency response,” the ATSB found.
Despite the many levels of protection afforded the minister for transport; it is the considered opinion of many that an open, complete full investigation of this tragic event be opened. Despite CASA abrogating responsibility for 'private' operations it is reasonable, given the 'facts' as presented, that commercial operations were being conducted under a very flimsy top cover, by a pilot without the required qualification or operational controls. The ATSB have defined their investigation as 'defined'. Considered 'qualified' expert opinion supports a clear argument for a 'systemic' investigation.
There are many 'other' facets to this event; and, many curious sidebars which would, in a honest world be examined, in detail, properly. Bruce Rhodes and Wyndham Aviation were torn to ribbons over an unexplained engine failure; the mob in WA/NT not only wander off practically unscathed, but with the smiles and thanks of the CASA board. Is this the 'safety' the nation pays for. I don't believe it is.
Toot – toot.
Reading through P2's Post - HERE - brings to mind the Bruce Rhodes tale of woe. The opening paragraphs of the ABC report - HERE – sum up the 'problems' Wyndham Aviation had after the event. Consider the stark differences in 'treatment' between that event and the Broome helicopter event. Bear in mind the Wyndham event attracted a 'systemic' ATSB investigation; Broome a 'defined' ATSB investigation; there is a marked difference between the two. Question One – Why???
Wyndham Aviation held an Air Operator Certificate; had been through the mill of CASA approval, surveillance, audit and operational scrutiny. Fully legal and operationally compliant. Their event involved a perfectly legitimate 'charter' under their approvals; pilot appropriately licenced, trained, experienced and current on type and operation. Aircraft and passengers insured, fully compliant maintenance records, weather suitable and all pre departure checks complete. A engine failed at a critical moment, without warning. ATSB have never determined the reason for this failure. The rest is in their report (FWIW) – HERE -. What followed was draconian, and shamed the CASA; Rhodes was hounded, vilified and accused of all manner of 'wrong doing'. Yet, in the final analysis; for some undetermined reason, a simple engine failed at a critical time, during a legitimate, approved, licensed CASA approved operation. This could be best defined as an 'accident' - there was no deliberate flaunting of any rule set, no intent to push on in the face of clear warning, and certainly no reason to fly an un- serviceable aircraft. No breach has ever been proven beyond doubt; or even on the balance of probability.
Now cast you eye over the P2 matrix and compare the CASA / ATSB response to the blatant liberties taken by Thomas in the Broome event, only lightly investigated to a 'defined' level. Let's add up the eyebrow raising events:-
Unauthorised use of an industrial site as a heliport. (take a look at the pictures of that area and the surrounds). Was CASA aware of the safety risks inherent? If not – why not?
“It would also need to be demonstrated that CASA safety standards would be met and noise regulations could be satisfied.”
If you know a Chopper pilot; ask how long would an “unusual vibration” through the rudder pedals be tolerated? (Aside) – unless it is an unfamiliar aircraft, Chopper pilots intimately know every small sound and feel of their aircraft; their lives depend on it – seriously, it really matters..Now this Broome bunch had “in the weeks preceding” noted this 'unusual' phenomenon. Was this mentioned on the aircraft's Maintenance Release (MR) or even Trip records/ flight logs? Did CASA or ATSB audit the paperwork for anomalies? If not why not?. Were the flight times logged compatible with the flights performed during the period of validity for the MR? I can find no reference to such detail being examined; of ATSB requesting that evidence or the Coroner questioning the 'serviceability' of the aircraft to be flying on that day – with passengers – at maximum gross weight. Why not?
Which brings us to the actual event. A good argument for borderline criminal intent could be shaped for this part. Consider the facts as presented:-
There existed, in fact, “for weeks” an 'unusual vibration' through the rudder bar/pedals.
Eventually 'licensed' engineers were called in. They requested and required a 'test flight' by the AMO pilot; to provide 'accurate' description and definition of the 'vibration'. From there some form of inspection and rectification could be determined.
“The AMO pilot elected not to hover or fly the helicopter in the industrial site as they felt that it was too confined and were concerned about foreign object damage if they hovered the helicopter.”
The Approved Maintenance Organisation (AMO) pilot declined (quite sensibly IMO) not to operate the aircraft within the crowded, cluttered confines of the 'yard'. If you wonder why, consider the requirements of the flight and the elevated 'risk' levels associated: a 'vertical' take off demands a 'high power' output. Any mechanical part creating the 'vibrations' would be under maximum loading. If anything was going to fail, this is exactly when it would quit. There was no viable escape path in this event. The subsequent accident clearly and graphically demonstrates this very point; in blood and body count.
“The next day Thomas, a private pilot who was unlicensed at the time, performed a high-powered vertical take-off from the industrial site in VH-NBY with three passengers on board.”
The AMO pilot would demanded a minimum fuel load (weight and fire) and as low an aircraft weight as possible (simple maths) and still declined to conduct the flight. - No prizes for guessing why.
“The confined area associated with the industrial property required the pilot of VH-NBY to conduct a near-vertical departure, within the avoid area of the height / velocity diagram, limiting the energy available in the helicopter to use in an emergency response,” the ATSB found.
Despite the many levels of protection afforded the minister for transport; it is the considered opinion of many that an open, complete full investigation of this tragic event be opened. Despite CASA abrogating responsibility for 'private' operations it is reasonable, given the 'facts' as presented, that commercial operations were being conducted under a very flimsy top cover, by a pilot without the required qualification or operational controls. The ATSB have defined their investigation as 'defined'. Considered 'qualified' expert opinion supports a clear argument for a 'systemic' investigation.
There are many 'other' facets to this event; and, many curious sidebars which would, in a honest world be examined, in detail, properly. Bruce Rhodes and Wyndham Aviation were torn to ribbons over an unexplained engine failure; the mob in WA/NT not only wander off practically unscathed, but with the smiles and thanks of the CASA board. Is this the 'safety' the nation pays for. I don't believe it is.
Toot – toot.