The Broome Cup (a race to the bottom).
Oh, my giddy Aunt! - the article published by 'The Australian' – HERE – should be an embarrassment to the editors and publishers. Delicately bland, carefully avoiding any semblance of outrage or even condemnation. There is a mega story within which demands (insists even) a serious deep look at the background to what is, potentially a horror story. I shall, in my muddled way attempt to elaborate that, in the hope of the traveling, fare paying, tax paying, voting public realise just how they are at risk and being not only deceived but ripped off.
Let us start with the ATSB and their 'report'. Read it through if you must, but find the 'Findings' section and join the dots. Those 'findings' should provoke a shout of outrage. Why? Let me explain.
ATSB - “A CASA spokesman said the regulator was “reviewing the ATSB report in detail with a view to applying any relevant safety lessons”.
A classic 'taking the piss' response from CASA. Anyone who has paid attention has sat through multiple 'inquiries' investigations and Senate Estimates sessions will instantly translate that response to a great shout of BOLLOCKS!. Did even a multi million dollar 'inquiry' into the Pel Air ditching off Norfolk Island with almost 70 serious 'recommendations' change anything? - NO - not one Iota. So what chance do you reckon on the ATSB entry 'Lettuce Leaf' in the Broome Cup? I'll give you 100:: 1 and take your money. But wait; there's more..
Sandy “Another change of the regulations which will include a number of new procedures that will be documented and incorporated into the CASA approved operator manuals following some years of careful study should suffice.”
If only that were true; alas. CASA 'accept' an Ops Manual; but not 'approve'. Provided the 'format' and legal liability (blame) boxes are ticked; CASA is off the hook. BUT – a big one: they do approve the HOFO (and other key crew). Provided the 'training and checking' parts of the manual tick the boxes all is well and CASA escapes the 'responsibility' hook again, with the bonus of 'Easy Prosecution' priced at 50::1 in the Broome Cup. That there is no investigation of the company 'practices' and no prosecution of the Operator or HOFO raises some doubts that 'Easy Prosecution' will enter the Broome Cup. The course side speculation is that 'Liability Backfire' may enter the race could be causing some concern to the 'Easy Prosecution' connections. A caution here punters; both entries may be withdrawn; keep your slips.
By now, the reader is probably wondering where my marbles are; they're safe enough. Indulge me, I shall explain. The ATSB investigation remarks in the 'Finding' section individually indicate 'something' being out of square. That two CASA investigations 'ignored' the core issues and despite that, the whole circus was allowed, by CASA, to keep functioning begs but one question – WHY?
The 'background' of the junior pilots involved don't signify; some may hold a multi engine rating' others may not. It matters not; they are 'line pilots' licensed and qualified to fly the public for hire and reward. It is almost certain that they have little 'operational' experience in a commercial operation. That takes not only time, but guidance, patience and someone to talk to about the days work. Their mates need not apply; it has to be a 'senior' or better. This is 'important' as early mistakes can become normalised 'in silence'. In short, they need a 'confessor' and guidance. Now, the transition from a single engine aircraft the a multi engine aircraft is not difficult; BUT it must be 'managed' correctly particularly for the neophyte warrior. Habits of a lifetime can be formed during this phase – good and bad – and this is where 'proper' training and supervision enters the race. No one would put a loaded shot gun in the hands of a child; so why would you turn an 'aeronautical child' loose with a 2o86 kg aircraft, with up to five passengers and 133 + gallons (500 liters) of high octane fuel on board? Of course not...
So what would be a 'sensible' training and checking regime for the 'new' to type junior. Bear in mind this takes two pilots out of the system, it is a direct cost to the operator and could mean a charter flight lost – so potentially expensive and 'annoying'. Not our problem is it. But lets sketch out a minimalist, practical approach, a compromise to spare the operator unnecessary expense.
Day `1 – Provide candidate pilot a set of 'Pilot Operating Notes' (POH) and a copy of a typical 'Flight Manual' (FM) and a copy of the Company Operating Manual; send him away to do the homework. Allow a week or even 10 days for a 'working' pilot; or, roster the pilot to charters with 'long' waiting times between departure and return.
Briefing 1 – Company requirements and obligations. (two coffees)
Briefing 2 – Training program detail and expectations on completion. (One beer).
Briefing 3 – Systems operation; performance data extraction and calculations; flight and fuel planning. (Long day + two beers).
Briefing 4 – Company examination and debrief – paperwork complete.
Briefing 5 – Daily inspection, fuel uplift; flight details; check lists and finally; flying; soup to nuts. Satisfactory =sign off. Or, remedial training as required. ICUS time would be the perfect topping; couple of runs at least. (Not really optional).
Or, whatever the 'company' check training manual/ approvals decide is 'enough' training along with company type operating policy (fuel/oil/ temps. Etc) should be 'set in stone' – in the manual; and that is 'approved' by CASA as part of the C&T delegation. Pilots who ignore the Company mandates (SOP) then do so at their own peril; right along side of the company.
Poor company ethos; poor maintenance; poor training; poor SOP and poor directions on the management of a fuel system, one which demands careful management all led to the C 310 event. BUT the road which nearly ended in fire and coffins was clearly defined; early in the piece.
Ain't it great that CASA has deigned to accept a 'new' manual; that'll fix it all up; for certain sure. (Certain Sure @ 120:1 on my tote board). Wonder what the response would have been; had the DAS decided on another jolly in the C310?
“Broome Aviation updated its operations manual to the new format exposition in response to Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) findings during a level 1 surveillance audit. It now outlines an in‑flight fuel management procedure.:” ATSB.
Stellar; fantastically proactive; bloody marvelous - and the Angels wept (5::1 odds on).
Toot – weary -toot...
Oh, my giddy Aunt! - the article published by 'The Australian' – HERE – should be an embarrassment to the editors and publishers. Delicately bland, carefully avoiding any semblance of outrage or even condemnation. There is a mega story within which demands (insists even) a serious deep look at the background to what is, potentially a horror story. I shall, in my muddled way attempt to elaborate that, in the hope of the traveling, fare paying, tax paying, voting public realise just how they are at risk and being not only deceived but ripped off.
Let us start with the ATSB and their 'report'. Read it through if you must, but find the 'Findings' section and join the dots. Those 'findings' should provoke a shout of outrage. Why? Let me explain.
ATSB - “A CASA spokesman said the regulator was “reviewing the ATSB report in detail with a view to applying any relevant safety lessons”.
A classic 'taking the piss' response from CASA. Anyone who has paid attention has sat through multiple 'inquiries' investigations and Senate Estimates sessions will instantly translate that response to a great shout of BOLLOCKS!. Did even a multi million dollar 'inquiry' into the Pel Air ditching off Norfolk Island with almost 70 serious 'recommendations' change anything? - NO - not one Iota. So what chance do you reckon on the ATSB entry 'Lettuce Leaf' in the Broome Cup? I'll give you 100:: 1 and take your money. But wait; there's more..
Sandy “Another change of the regulations which will include a number of new procedures that will be documented and incorporated into the CASA approved operator manuals following some years of careful study should suffice.”
If only that were true; alas. CASA 'accept' an Ops Manual; but not 'approve'. Provided the 'format' and legal liability (blame) boxes are ticked; CASA is off the hook. BUT – a big one: they do approve the HOFO (and other key crew). Provided the 'training and checking' parts of the manual tick the boxes all is well and CASA escapes the 'responsibility' hook again, with the bonus of 'Easy Prosecution' priced at 50::1 in the Broome Cup. That there is no investigation of the company 'practices' and no prosecution of the Operator or HOFO raises some doubts that 'Easy Prosecution' will enter the Broome Cup. The course side speculation is that 'Liability Backfire' may enter the race could be causing some concern to the 'Easy Prosecution' connections. A caution here punters; both entries may be withdrawn; keep your slips.
By now, the reader is probably wondering where my marbles are; they're safe enough. Indulge me, I shall explain. The ATSB investigation remarks in the 'Finding' section individually indicate 'something' being out of square. That two CASA investigations 'ignored' the core issues and despite that, the whole circus was allowed, by CASA, to keep functioning begs but one question – WHY?
The 'background' of the junior pilots involved don't signify; some may hold a multi engine rating' others may not. It matters not; they are 'line pilots' licensed and qualified to fly the public for hire and reward. It is almost certain that they have little 'operational' experience in a commercial operation. That takes not only time, but guidance, patience and someone to talk to about the days work. Their mates need not apply; it has to be a 'senior' or better. This is 'important' as early mistakes can become normalised 'in silence'. In short, they need a 'confessor' and guidance. Now, the transition from a single engine aircraft the a multi engine aircraft is not difficult; BUT it must be 'managed' correctly particularly for the neophyte warrior. Habits of a lifetime can be formed during this phase – good and bad – and this is where 'proper' training and supervision enters the race. No one would put a loaded shot gun in the hands of a child; so why would you turn an 'aeronautical child' loose with a 2o86 kg aircraft, with up to five passengers and 133 + gallons (500 liters) of high octane fuel on board? Of course not...
So what would be a 'sensible' training and checking regime for the 'new' to type junior. Bear in mind this takes two pilots out of the system, it is a direct cost to the operator and could mean a charter flight lost – so potentially expensive and 'annoying'. Not our problem is it. But lets sketch out a minimalist, practical approach, a compromise to spare the operator unnecessary expense.
Day `1 – Provide candidate pilot a set of 'Pilot Operating Notes' (POH) and a copy of a typical 'Flight Manual' (FM) and a copy of the Company Operating Manual; send him away to do the homework. Allow a week or even 10 days for a 'working' pilot; or, roster the pilot to charters with 'long' waiting times between departure and return.
Briefing 1 – Company requirements and obligations. (two coffees)
Briefing 2 – Training program detail and expectations on completion. (One beer).
Briefing 3 – Systems operation; performance data extraction and calculations; flight and fuel planning. (Long day + two beers).
Briefing 4 – Company examination and debrief – paperwork complete.
Briefing 5 – Daily inspection, fuel uplift; flight details; check lists and finally; flying; soup to nuts. Satisfactory =sign off. Or, remedial training as required. ICUS time would be the perfect topping; couple of runs at least. (Not really optional).
Or, whatever the 'company' check training manual/ approvals decide is 'enough' training along with company type operating policy (fuel/oil/ temps. Etc) should be 'set in stone' – in the manual; and that is 'approved' by CASA as part of the C&T delegation. Pilots who ignore the Company mandates (SOP) then do so at their own peril; right along side of the company.
Poor company ethos; poor maintenance; poor training; poor SOP and poor directions on the management of a fuel system, one which demands careful management all led to the C 310 event. BUT the road which nearly ended in fire and coffins was clearly defined; early in the piece.
Ain't it great that CASA has deigned to accept a 'new' manual; that'll fix it all up; for certain sure. (Certain Sure @ 120:1 on my tote board). Wonder what the response would have been; had the DAS decided on another jolly in the C310?
“Broome Aviation updated its operations manual to the new format exposition in response to Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) findings during a level 1 surveillance audit. It now outlines an in‑flight fuel management procedure.:” ATSB.
Stellar; fantastically proactive; bloody marvelous - and the Angels wept (5::1 odds on).
Toot – weary -toot...