The mills of the gods grind slow; etc.
The truth contained within the rest of that line is questionable; much depends on just how 'fine' the end product is, and is it fit for purpose? The glib, rather slippery article from the ABC – HERE – exposes some fairly ugly facts; easily read and soon forgotten. Just another quick glance, head shake and back to the funny pages or the form guide. How can it be that the nation, particularly those who actually run the joint, just accept the facts presented without the roof coming off the building. How?
“What I seek to accomplish is simply to serve with my feeble capacity truth and justice, at the risk of pleasing no one.”
To begin at the very end; there is a man dead, another seriously injured and a hull written off to scrap and salvage. The 'operation' whilst at a slightly elevated 'risk' level should, properly managed, been much less risk to life than the razor grass cuts, snake bites and cranky crocodiles, pissed off with nest invasion. It begs a personal question; would I be the 'dope on the rope'? Probably not; but not because of any perceived 'aeronautical' risk. I don't like hot, sweaty condition, insect bites, razor grass, or even glorious mud; hate it all. But, in a tolerable environment; sure why not: BUT. I would want to see the scripted risk mitigation; the operations manual, the approvals and pilot qualification training program, recent flight check report and experience. Then a look at aircraft maintenance records, before checking out the aircraft myself – to be sure. It would be interesting to see if a 'sling load' qualification was valid. Then I would need to address such matters as airborne rappelling; and, possibly even fast rope from a helicopter. In short; there is a small mountain of 'safety' related maintenance, pilot and 'rope-man' training and qualifications which, even if not strictly 'mandatory' should be given some serious consideration and be, at least in part nodded to – risk acknowledged? . For example:-
Sling Endorsement.
“This rating is a requirement for helicopter pilots working in the areas of fire fighting, search and rescue, and mining and logging. Sling load operations are one of the most technically difficult skills to master and require a high level of concentration, so completing this training is guaranteed to increase your flying ability and career prospects. We have highly-experienced instructors available to train you for Long Line and Short Line Sling endorsements. Minimum flight time required for this rating is determined by your instructor and dependent on the time it takes you to become proficient in the operation.”
Or: Before 'rappelling' from a helicopter – see – HERE – and note the 'boxed' rider at the end of the blurb.
“A story has no beginning or end: arbitrarily one chooses that moment of experience from which to look back or from which to look ahead.”
The whole Crock o' Crap matter is now the subject of endless 'legal' wrangling; trained legal minds at 10 paces; banging away at each other, scoring high blown 'points'; blocking attack, defending their paying clients and so on and so forth. But will they ever get down in the weeds and trace this almost (99%) preventable death to the radical cause. The initial approvals issued by CASA and the ongoing monitoring of company adherence with those approvals. Were the maintenance logs checked against flight times; were the defects recorded and corrected; was there a rigid fuel policy? All good solid operational oversight stuff; - but what of the 'sub culture' : the company attitude toward real 'risk mitigation'. How many 'normalised deviance' items were investigated related to aircraft fitness for role? Clearly, no questions were ever raised; it was deemed to be an operation so squeaky clean that it was completely acceptable for the CASA Board to visit and toddle off for scenic flight. Ye gods, had the 'inspectors' been doing their jobs; in Broome and in the bush – perhaps (sans intent) this and other tragedies could have been prevented. Perhaps the whiff of police operations played a part; or not, just another intriguing 'curiosity' in this saga.
“Wise men have interpreted dreams, and the gods have laughed.”
Aye; there's blame 'aplenty to share around; but IMO, CASA failed in the beginning, failed in the middle and at the end are doing what they always do best – pass the responsibility off through legal verbiage and denial. Why not, they have all their get out of jail cards, neatly scripted and carefully tucked up their sleeves. Failed to perform design operational function, but brilliant in defense of the indefensible. Bloody marvelous...Stellar etc.....
Toot - toot.
The truth contained within the rest of that line is questionable; much depends on just how 'fine' the end product is, and is it fit for purpose? The glib, rather slippery article from the ABC – HERE – exposes some fairly ugly facts; easily read and soon forgotten. Just another quick glance, head shake and back to the funny pages or the form guide. How can it be that the nation, particularly those who actually run the joint, just accept the facts presented without the roof coming off the building. How?
“What I seek to accomplish is simply to serve with my feeble capacity truth and justice, at the risk of pleasing no one.”
To begin at the very end; there is a man dead, another seriously injured and a hull written off to scrap and salvage. The 'operation' whilst at a slightly elevated 'risk' level should, properly managed, been much less risk to life than the razor grass cuts, snake bites and cranky crocodiles, pissed off with nest invasion. It begs a personal question; would I be the 'dope on the rope'? Probably not; but not because of any perceived 'aeronautical' risk. I don't like hot, sweaty condition, insect bites, razor grass, or even glorious mud; hate it all. But, in a tolerable environment; sure why not: BUT. I would want to see the scripted risk mitigation; the operations manual, the approvals and pilot qualification training program, recent flight check report and experience. Then a look at aircraft maintenance records, before checking out the aircraft myself – to be sure. It would be interesting to see if a 'sling load' qualification was valid. Then I would need to address such matters as airborne rappelling; and, possibly even fast rope from a helicopter. In short; there is a small mountain of 'safety' related maintenance, pilot and 'rope-man' training and qualifications which, even if not strictly 'mandatory' should be given some serious consideration and be, at least in part nodded to – risk acknowledged? . For example:-
Sling Endorsement.
“This rating is a requirement for helicopter pilots working in the areas of fire fighting, search and rescue, and mining and logging. Sling load operations are one of the most technically difficult skills to master and require a high level of concentration, so completing this training is guaranteed to increase your flying ability and career prospects. We have highly-experienced instructors available to train you for Long Line and Short Line Sling endorsements. Minimum flight time required for this rating is determined by your instructor and dependent on the time it takes you to become proficient in the operation.”
Or: Before 'rappelling' from a helicopter – see – HERE – and note the 'boxed' rider at the end of the blurb.
“A story has no beginning or end: arbitrarily one chooses that moment of experience from which to look back or from which to look ahead.”
The whole Crock o' Crap matter is now the subject of endless 'legal' wrangling; trained legal minds at 10 paces; banging away at each other, scoring high blown 'points'; blocking attack, defending their paying clients and so on and so forth. But will they ever get down in the weeds and trace this almost (99%) preventable death to the radical cause. The initial approvals issued by CASA and the ongoing monitoring of company adherence with those approvals. Were the maintenance logs checked against flight times; were the defects recorded and corrected; was there a rigid fuel policy? All good solid operational oversight stuff; - but what of the 'sub culture' : the company attitude toward real 'risk mitigation'. How many 'normalised deviance' items were investigated related to aircraft fitness for role? Clearly, no questions were ever raised; it was deemed to be an operation so squeaky clean that it was completely acceptable for the CASA Board to visit and toddle off for scenic flight. Ye gods, had the 'inspectors' been doing their jobs; in Broome and in the bush – perhaps (sans intent) this and other tragedies could have been prevented. Perhaps the whiff of police operations played a part; or not, just another intriguing 'curiosity' in this saga.
“Wise men have interpreted dreams, and the gods have laughed.”
Aye; there's blame 'aplenty to share around; but IMO, CASA failed in the beginning, failed in the middle and at the end are doing what they always do best – pass the responsibility off through legal verbiage and denial. Why not, they have all their get out of jail cards, neatly scripted and carefully tucked up their sleeves. Failed to perform design operational function, but brilliant in defense of the indefensible. Bloody marvelous...Stellar etc.....
Toot - toot.