Broome events and the reasonable man.
1850 EDST. I have just consigned nine pages and a dozen 'links' to AP posts to the archives. They were generated by some very strong reactions (fury) to P2's post – HERE – presenting the CASA 'approach' to a series of events in Broome WA which ended with the demise of two 'innocents' in a helicopter crash.
Standing alone; the 'final event' was bad enough; a salutary lesson to those who, through ego, profit motive or sheer arrogance, believe they are 'untouchable' and using 'past exploits' in support of that belief, aided and abetted by ego. Got away with it a dozen times; never had a whisper of anyone like CASA looking under the trailing skirts of potential disaster. What could possibly spoil such a party?:
Of course, the man was correct. Take a half hour to read through the CASA blurb provided; one can soon understand why the 'nose was thumbed' at 'authority'. But, despite the unbeatable, sanctified legal 'safeguards' the 'man-in-the-street' could be forgiven in believing that there was a moral obligation to public safety, which CASA simply sweep away, all legal and tidy, to protect the public.
Consider; had this un-serviceable helicopter departed from its 'illegal' backyard base, the rotor wash flicking some rubbish onto a kid on a bike; then rattled its crippled way over the built up area; failed and landed (out of control) in a public area. What then?
CASA were fully aware of this operation, there is a litany of smashed up machines, boats damaged, illegal charter, dangerous operations etc. All documented (up the Wazoo) and reported on; even the local council knew the backyard 'helipad' was illegal under their own rules. Mathematically; a 'fatal' event was sure to happen; sure bet; odds on....
Now, there was two CASA fellahin supposedly 'supervising' operations in that neck of the woods. The closely related 'Croc Egg' idiots being part of their remit. In so remote an area, the entire aviation community knew the stories and the 'episodes' – any Pub in town with two pilots having an Ale would not only 'know' what was going on; but the locals could probably add detailed information. Yet safely covered by their 'legislation' related to (ahem) 'private' operations; the safety baby never got near enough to the bath water to be tossed out. Neither of the CASA delegates (IMO) wanted to be there; the egocentric Crawford and the unmentionable Martin; both had visions of and ambitions to better, more sybaritic positions.
Laws were broken, noses were thumbed at authority; aircraft were damaged, maintenance was, judging the ATSB report a loosely regarded as a 'flexible' requirement. Oh, there's lots more, friends and connections have spent hours and written much in relation to these 'events'; any honest investigator would have the same response as mine. Horrified; and ask - where was our much vaunted safety watchdog'?
Safely hidden behind a wall of weasel worded get out of goal briefs, words and, importantly, attitude.
Was the first man that leap'd; cried Hell is empty, And all the devils are here.”
Shirley, for the public money invested in 'aviation safety' we can do better than that 'safety' being slanted, by law, to let CASA glibly say “Oh, that's outside of our remit'.
BOLLOCKS it is.! (expletives deleted.)
Difficult to refine 10 pages of 'fury' to a short post; but no where near as difficult to break down the self protecting legal battlements CASA have built; which, in it's turn, is nowhere remotely close to a politician or minister ringing in the changes and actually stop paying the 'protection' money CASA demand to keep their sorry nether regions out of the muck, mire and shite. Rant over; the Bard summed it all up in a few words.
“I understand a fury in your words; But not your words.”
There is a long list of 'Links' all related to these shameful episodes; perhaps one day a journalist, with a backbone will read 'em – there is hell of a true life story begging to be told. No takers – Alas....No matter – without links; some comments posted below.
“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.....”
"Last straw ? This helicopter in WA for example. The thing has shaken itself to pieces, airborne and claimed two lives – fact. It has taken two years and nine months for the investigation to be published. That, stand alone is cause for great concern, particularly given the three year statute for filing claim and case to answer; but that will keep for another day. The ‘big’ question is could this event have been avoided? The short answer is a resounding Yes. The bigger and more important question is why it was not prevented. There was ample warning – there was ample information relating to ‘vibration’ and the procedure for determining and eliminating the mechanical fault. There are laws which demand compliance; there is a huge official ‘safety’ watch dog and attendant satellite agencies; there are trained pilots, trained engineers and a raft of common sense lore which should have prevented the aircraft from operating until the ‘problem’ was fixed. Yet no part of the expensive, extensive, complex ‘safety’ system stepped in early and prevented the event."
CASA :-under FOI.
1.21 Because private pilots do not conduct operations under the control and oversight of an organisation authorised to conduct those operations (that is, an AOC holder), they are not subject to the regular scheduled surveillance regime to which commercial operators (and the pilots they engage) are subject. Neither are the same continuing airworthiness requirements to which aircraft operated for commercial passenger transport are subject applicable to aircraft flown by (if not necessarily owned by or registered to) a private pilot.
1.24 Third-party reports from passengers, members of the public other operators and the sources identified in paragraph 1.18 above, about individual private pilots and the aircraft they operate can invite responsive inquiries, investigations by CASA, where there are clear, and credible allegations of safety-related misconduct or shortcomings of a sufficiently serious and significant nature. Where necessary, such investigations may lead to appropriate enforcement action by CASA
2.4 Please note that it is a requirement under the CASR that the holder of any flight crew licence must also hold a current and valid medical certificate, and have successfully completed any required periodic flight reviews, when exercising the privileges of their licence. Mr Thomas did not hold a current and valid medical certificate at the time of the accident flight, nor does it appear that he had completed a required flight review in the aircraft type he was flying at the time of the accident. In these circumstances, Mr Thomas could not lawfully exercise the
privileges of his PPL at the time of the accident. Thus, while he was not unlicensed for the purpose of conducting a private operation, he was not legally authorised to conduct that flight in the absence of a current and valid medical certificate or without having completed the required flight review.
3.1 On the basis of the considerations discussed in our response to question 1 above, the implications of the classification of the accident flight as a private operation bear accordingly on the stringency of the regulatory requirements with which the pilot was required to comply and the level of scrutiny by CASA to which the pilot, the aircraft and the operation in which VH-NBY would have been subject.
CASA has not commenced, and does not intend to commence, an investigation into the accident, because CASA is not authorised to conduct investigations into aircraft accidents per se.
3.2 As discussed above, CASA’s regulatory and safety-related functions are specified with particularity in subsections 9(1) and (2) of the CA Act. The conduct of accident investigations is not a specified function of CASA.
3.3 Under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act), one of the primary functions of the ATSB is to ‘independently investigate’ accidents of the kind in which VH-NBY was involved, and the ATSB duly conducted a comprehensive investigation into the accident
There's more – see P2' post – HERE -.
That is it; desperately needed smoke and a cold Ale await my undivided attention.
Selah-.-
1850 EDST. I have just consigned nine pages and a dozen 'links' to AP posts to the archives. They were generated by some very strong reactions (fury) to P2's post – HERE – presenting the CASA 'approach' to a series of events in Broome WA which ended with the demise of two 'innocents' in a helicopter crash.
Standing alone; the 'final event' was bad enough; a salutary lesson to those who, through ego, profit motive or sheer arrogance, believe they are 'untouchable' and using 'past exploits' in support of that belief, aided and abetted by ego. Got away with it a dozen times; never had a whisper of anyone like CASA looking under the trailing skirts of potential disaster. What could possibly spoil such a party?:
Of course, the man was correct. Take a half hour to read through the CASA blurb provided; one can soon understand why the 'nose was thumbed' at 'authority'. But, despite the unbeatable, sanctified legal 'safeguards' the 'man-in-the-street' could be forgiven in believing that there was a moral obligation to public safety, which CASA simply sweep away, all legal and tidy, to protect the public.
Consider; had this un-serviceable helicopter departed from its 'illegal' backyard base, the rotor wash flicking some rubbish onto a kid on a bike; then rattled its crippled way over the built up area; failed and landed (out of control) in a public area. What then?
CASA were fully aware of this operation, there is a litany of smashed up machines, boats damaged, illegal charter, dangerous operations etc. All documented (up the Wazoo) and reported on; even the local council knew the backyard 'helipad' was illegal under their own rules. Mathematically; a 'fatal' event was sure to happen; sure bet; odds on....
Now, there was two CASA fellahin supposedly 'supervising' operations in that neck of the woods. The closely related 'Croc Egg' idiots being part of their remit. In so remote an area, the entire aviation community knew the stories and the 'episodes' – any Pub in town with two pilots having an Ale would not only 'know' what was going on; but the locals could probably add detailed information. Yet safely covered by their 'legislation' related to (ahem) 'private' operations; the safety baby never got near enough to the bath water to be tossed out. Neither of the CASA delegates (IMO) wanted to be there; the egocentric Crawford and the unmentionable Martin; both had visions of and ambitions to better, more sybaritic positions.
Laws were broken, noses were thumbed at authority; aircraft were damaged, maintenance was, judging the ATSB report a loosely regarded as a 'flexible' requirement. Oh, there's lots more, friends and connections have spent hours and written much in relation to these 'events'; any honest investigator would have the same response as mine. Horrified; and ask - where was our much vaunted safety watchdog'?
Safely hidden behind a wall of weasel worded get out of goal briefs, words and, importantly, attitude.
Was the first man that leap'd; cried Hell is empty, And all the devils are here.”
Shirley, for the public money invested in 'aviation safety' we can do better than that 'safety' being slanted, by law, to let CASA glibly say “Oh, that's outside of our remit'.
BOLLOCKS it is.! (expletives deleted.)
Difficult to refine 10 pages of 'fury' to a short post; but no where near as difficult to break down the self protecting legal battlements CASA have built; which, in it's turn, is nowhere remotely close to a politician or minister ringing in the changes and actually stop paying the 'protection' money CASA demand to keep their sorry nether regions out of the muck, mire and shite. Rant over; the Bard summed it all up in a few words.
“I understand a fury in your words; But not your words.”
There is a long list of 'Links' all related to these shameful episodes; perhaps one day a journalist, with a backbone will read 'em – there is hell of a true life story begging to be told. No takers – Alas....No matter – without links; some comments posted below.
“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.....”
"Last straw ? This helicopter in WA for example. The thing has shaken itself to pieces, airborne and claimed two lives – fact. It has taken two years and nine months for the investigation to be published. That, stand alone is cause for great concern, particularly given the three year statute for filing claim and case to answer; but that will keep for another day. The ‘big’ question is could this event have been avoided? The short answer is a resounding Yes. The bigger and more important question is why it was not prevented. There was ample warning – there was ample information relating to ‘vibration’ and the procedure for determining and eliminating the mechanical fault. There are laws which demand compliance; there is a huge official ‘safety’ watch dog and attendant satellite agencies; there are trained pilots, trained engineers and a raft of common sense lore which should have prevented the aircraft from operating until the ‘problem’ was fixed. Yet no part of the expensive, extensive, complex ‘safety’ system stepped in early and prevented the event."
CASA :-under FOI.
1.21 Because private pilots do not conduct operations under the control and oversight of an organisation authorised to conduct those operations (that is, an AOC holder), they are not subject to the regular scheduled surveillance regime to which commercial operators (and the pilots they engage) are subject. Neither are the same continuing airworthiness requirements to which aircraft operated for commercial passenger transport are subject applicable to aircraft flown by (if not necessarily owned by or registered to) a private pilot.
1.24 Third-party reports from passengers, members of the public other operators and the sources identified in paragraph 1.18 above, about individual private pilots and the aircraft they operate can invite responsive inquiries, investigations by CASA, where there are clear, and credible allegations of safety-related misconduct or shortcomings of a sufficiently serious and significant nature. Where necessary, such investigations may lead to appropriate enforcement action by CASA
2.4 Please note that it is a requirement under the CASR that the holder of any flight crew licence must also hold a current and valid medical certificate, and have successfully completed any required periodic flight reviews, when exercising the privileges of their licence. Mr Thomas did not hold a current and valid medical certificate at the time of the accident flight, nor does it appear that he had completed a required flight review in the aircraft type he was flying at the time of the accident. In these circumstances, Mr Thomas could not lawfully exercise the
privileges of his PPL at the time of the accident. Thus, while he was not unlicensed for the purpose of conducting a private operation, he was not legally authorised to conduct that flight in the absence of a current and valid medical certificate or without having completed the required flight review.
3.1 On the basis of the considerations discussed in our response to question 1 above, the implications of the classification of the accident flight as a private operation bear accordingly on the stringency of the regulatory requirements with which the pilot was required to comply and the level of scrutiny by CASA to which the pilot, the aircraft and the operation in which VH-NBY would have been subject.
CASA has not commenced, and does not intend to commence, an investigation into the accident, because CASA is not authorised to conduct investigations into aircraft accidents per se.
3.2 As discussed above, CASA’s regulatory and safety-related functions are specified with particularity in subsections 9(1) and (2) of the CA Act. The conduct of accident investigations is not a specified function of CASA.
3.3 Under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act), one of the primary functions of the ATSB is to ‘independently investigate’ accidents of the kind in which VH-NBY was involved, and the ATSB duly conducted a comprehensive investigation into the accident
There's more – see P2' post – HERE -.
That is it; desperately needed smoke and a cold Ale await my undivided attention.
Selah-.-