Just suppose :-
“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
Just for a moment, imagine you are 'the' character involved in the following story.
The tourist: annual holiday, kids in the back of the SUV off to see the wonders of the great Australian outback. The kids see a sign for scenic flight over a natural wonder; the Missus declines; so you and the kids front up, pay up and climb inboard for the once in a life time 'Chopper' ride. Off you go – BANG – Lights out. The wife is in town getting her hair done when the police lob in with the sad, tragic tale.
About now many people will be wondering 'what happened and why'. Fair questions; questions which demand honest, open answers as speedily as they can be provided.
What happened is a simple enough puzzle; there was a failure of a critical component, the pilot was deprived of 'control' resulting in a violent collision with terrain. End of chapter 1.
Now the 'why' of it is a much more complex matter. In the world as presented, the major 'safety' systems swing into action. The ATSB will investigate and define and, in the fullness of time, present a report. This 'report' is a critical element, a document of exceeding import; much depends on how and to what 'level' the report is provided. There are differences, critical differences in the methodology used, resources allocated, investigator qualifications and, importantly, the final 'editing' of the final document. Much depends on this production; Coroner, police, insurance companies, CASA and, by extension the DoiT and their minister. So you can guess that the framework selected for the report is crucial. _.HERE_.
Intermission – quick costume change.
Now, suppose you owned half a dozen aircraft; and, these were 'available' for hire or lease. ABC charters need to lease (hire) a helicopter from you, for the busy tourism season – say for three months. As a business person, owning the asset you would need, as a matter of aviation, commercial and common law and insurance demands, to ensure that all the 'boxes' were ticked and the 'asset' was in operational and legal safe hands. Not only that; on a commercial level, aircraft operating 'costs' are usually defined on a 'per operating hour' basis. For example; $X per month 'standing charge + $Y per operational hour utilised. The 'per hour' is a critical number; maintenance, scheduled, mandatory and 'unexpected' costs rely on this number. If, in say 20 flight hours a major component is due for replacement; that cost must be met and the maintenance carried out and certified. A clearly defined record must be maintained, much depends on this unimpeachable safety oriented system.
BUT – what if? Lets pretend that the operator leasing your aircraft 'shaves' a few minutes off every operating hour; call it 6::60 x 10 = 1 free hour every 10. So instead of a service at 100 hours, the aircraft is actually running 110; take that over a six month period; time critical major components are now 'on-the-wing' far beyond their mandated maintenance requirement; in short they have become an operational, insurance and legal liability.
There exists a legally binding framework in place designed to prevent this type of 'scam'; serious criminal penalties attached for those who get 'rumbled'. So, as the 'owner' it would be a good thing to keep a careful, watchful eye over the asset. It would also be prudent to keep a careful watch on flight times, type of operation and the stipulated, mandatory maintenance requirements. Only makes commercial sense to do so. Loss of hull, negated insurance due to compliance failure – major financial loss – not much chance of recovery; the operator has been closed down by the Authorities. In short, you are buggered and probably likely to be sued, if not prosecuted. Or so the 'theory' goes anyway......
Aye well; back to the stark reality of the Broome fatal helicopter crash. The whole event demands some serious attention and must not be swept under the ministerial carpet. There are some serious questions relating directly back to 'official' involvement which IMO (and many others) that require unequivocal answers; answers the minister for transport should be demanding – now, in short order.
For example: flight time logged by pilots against the hours presented of Maintenance Release (MR) documents, company 'trip records' and the last pilot's log book. There needs to be a clear picture of the 'fit for purpose' state of the aircraft involved in a fatal event.
For example: This was a fatal accident; there are clearly defined 'systematic' aberrations preceding the event; a history of 'cowboy' operations and some close calls. These have all been slipped through 'loop-holes' and; in an open, full bottle 'investigation' could well be defined as contributory to the event.
For example: Did CASA or ATSB inspect, survey or monitor the owners records to define the probity of scheduled maintenance or operational events; such as 'an invoiced 'medivac' between 'home' and a boat back to home again; or, why the 'patient' was not taken to a medical facility – by the private pilot, operating without an AOC, training, supervision, or any form of 'operational' approval to protect the 'patient'?
For example: why was a clearly 'systemic' investigation downgraded to a 'defined' investigation; and, at who's behest was that?
A young life was lost in this event; that stand alone should be enough for our best efforts to ensure it should not happen ever again; not under the circumstance surrounding. When a family pay for a 'scenic' it is in good faith that CASA have done their job properly; on site. That ATSB will, to the best of their ability make certain that all; warts and and all, 'facts' are brought into focus. That steps are taken at the highest levels to ensure, as far as possible, that this type of travesty is reduced to a minimum. That is why the public pays the big bucks.
That's it – rant over; but this one was so very, very avoidable, it makes me cranky – (just a bit)...
Toot – toot...
“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
Just for a moment, imagine you are 'the' character involved in the following story.
The tourist: annual holiday, kids in the back of the SUV off to see the wonders of the great Australian outback. The kids see a sign for scenic flight over a natural wonder; the Missus declines; so you and the kids front up, pay up and climb inboard for the once in a life time 'Chopper' ride. Off you go – BANG – Lights out. The wife is in town getting her hair done when the police lob in with the sad, tragic tale.
About now many people will be wondering 'what happened and why'. Fair questions; questions which demand honest, open answers as speedily as they can be provided.
What happened is a simple enough puzzle; there was a failure of a critical component, the pilot was deprived of 'control' resulting in a violent collision with terrain. End of chapter 1.
Now the 'why' of it is a much more complex matter. In the world as presented, the major 'safety' systems swing into action. The ATSB will investigate and define and, in the fullness of time, present a report. This 'report' is a critical element, a document of exceeding import; much depends on how and to what 'level' the report is provided. There are differences, critical differences in the methodology used, resources allocated, investigator qualifications and, importantly, the final 'editing' of the final document. Much depends on this production; Coroner, police, insurance companies, CASA and, by extension the DoiT and their minister. So you can guess that the framework selected for the report is crucial. _.HERE_.
Intermission – quick costume change.
Now, suppose you owned half a dozen aircraft; and, these were 'available' for hire or lease. ABC charters need to lease (hire) a helicopter from you, for the busy tourism season – say for three months. As a business person, owning the asset you would need, as a matter of aviation, commercial and common law and insurance demands, to ensure that all the 'boxes' were ticked and the 'asset' was in operational and legal safe hands. Not only that; on a commercial level, aircraft operating 'costs' are usually defined on a 'per operating hour' basis. For example; $X per month 'standing charge + $Y per operational hour utilised. The 'per hour' is a critical number; maintenance, scheduled, mandatory and 'unexpected' costs rely on this number. If, in say 20 flight hours a major component is due for replacement; that cost must be met and the maintenance carried out and certified. A clearly defined record must be maintained, much depends on this unimpeachable safety oriented system.
BUT – what if? Lets pretend that the operator leasing your aircraft 'shaves' a few minutes off every operating hour; call it 6::60 x 10 = 1 free hour every 10. So instead of a service at 100 hours, the aircraft is actually running 110; take that over a six month period; time critical major components are now 'on-the-wing' far beyond their mandated maintenance requirement; in short they have become an operational, insurance and legal liability.
There exists a legally binding framework in place designed to prevent this type of 'scam'; serious criminal penalties attached for those who get 'rumbled'. So, as the 'owner' it would be a good thing to keep a careful, watchful eye over the asset. It would also be prudent to keep a careful watch on flight times, type of operation and the stipulated, mandatory maintenance requirements. Only makes commercial sense to do so. Loss of hull, negated insurance due to compliance failure – major financial loss – not much chance of recovery; the operator has been closed down by the Authorities. In short, you are buggered and probably likely to be sued, if not prosecuted. Or so the 'theory' goes anyway......
Aye well; back to the stark reality of the Broome fatal helicopter crash. The whole event demands some serious attention and must not be swept under the ministerial carpet. There are some serious questions relating directly back to 'official' involvement which IMO (and many others) that require unequivocal answers; answers the minister for transport should be demanding – now, in short order.
For example: flight time logged by pilots against the hours presented of Maintenance Release (MR) documents, company 'trip records' and the last pilot's log book. There needs to be a clear picture of the 'fit for purpose' state of the aircraft involved in a fatal event.
For example: This was a fatal accident; there are clearly defined 'systematic' aberrations preceding the event; a history of 'cowboy' operations and some close calls. These have all been slipped through 'loop-holes' and; in an open, full bottle 'investigation' could well be defined as contributory to the event.
For example: Did CASA or ATSB inspect, survey or monitor the owners records to define the probity of scheduled maintenance or operational events; such as 'an invoiced 'medivac' between 'home' and a boat back to home again; or, why the 'patient' was not taken to a medical facility – by the private pilot, operating without an AOC, training, supervision, or any form of 'operational' approval to protect the 'patient'?
For example: why was a clearly 'systemic' investigation downgraded to a 'defined' investigation; and, at who's behest was that?
A young life was lost in this event; that stand alone should be enough for our best efforts to ensure it should not happen ever again; not under the circumstance surrounding. When a family pay for a 'scenic' it is in good faith that CASA have done their job properly; on site. That ATSB will, to the best of their ability make certain that all; warts and and all, 'facts' are brought into focus. That steps are taken at the highest levels to ensure, as far as possible, that this type of travesty is reduced to a minimum. That is why the public pays the big bucks.
That's it – rant over; but this one was so very, very avoidable, it makes me cranky – (just a bit)...
Toot – toot...