All’s well that ends well.
There, for mine. is the rub. The Mildura episode, happily ended with not even a scuffed tyre or a band aid on a passenger. It is a classic example of superior skill being required:
But the underlying implications are not considered by the ATSB non report; both aircraft should have had the infrastructure and approval to allow the use of low visibility training and equipment. Had those elements been available, it would have been just a ‘routine’, albeit rare day where a low visibility landing was needed. However that facility was denied, so off they sail to Mildura to meet the daemon fog with even less fuel and less facilities, so it’s now a shit or bust situation, which ended well. The ATSB do their thing and all is well, no one to blame, just a series of unfortunate holes in the cheese.
Had the unthinkable happened; even a runway overrun, the airframe damaged, and passengers hurt do you think the ATSB report would have been so benign? You know damn well it would not;
This ATSB report is quite Freudian in the way it exonerates each and every point of liability for the various ‘agencies’, BoM off the hook, CASA off the hook, airport off the hook, ATC off the hook, company off the hook etc. even the flight crew escaped. But had there been a different outcome; then all but the flight crew would have wriggled away, off the hook.
IMO, when something as vital and as relied on as a weather forecast has a 70% chance of being inaccurate, the responsibility must be a joint one, blame shared between those who make the rules, offer the forecast, provide the infrastructure and pass timely advice to flight crew. Had the crews involved been advised at any point during the holding time or before divert time, that Mildura was socked in there would be no need of this ATSB report. Had Adelaide provided first world facilities, same again. Had CASA approved low visibility as a routine practice for all, same applies.
Broad strokes I know, but the point is this incident carries a shared, joint responsibility for all involved. It ended well, but had it not only the flight crew would be hung out to dry, even the FO has some wriggle room, but for PIC the full weight of agency self protection and the law would have been against. I don’t reckon that is either fair or reasonable.
Aside, that 2006 report is a cracker, Watson on song. I wonder what NX or Fawcett would have made of it; had both Watson and it been made available for the Pel-Air pantomime.
Aye, Hoody has his work cut out for him, let’s hope his first act is to acquire a sharp axe. He knows which heads must roll, but will he swing it? That boys and girls is the first and only question which matters.
Toot toot.
There, for mine. is the rub. The Mildura episode, happily ended with not even a scuffed tyre or a band aid on a passenger. It is a classic example of superior skill being required:
Quote:“A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations that would require the use of his superior skills."
But the underlying implications are not considered by the ATSB non report; both aircraft should have had the infrastructure and approval to allow the use of low visibility training and equipment. Had those elements been available, it would have been just a ‘routine’, albeit rare day where a low visibility landing was needed. However that facility was denied, so off they sail to Mildura to meet the daemon fog with even less fuel and less facilities, so it’s now a shit or bust situation, which ended well. The ATSB do their thing and all is well, no one to blame, just a series of unfortunate holes in the cheese.
Had the unthinkable happened; even a runway overrun, the airframe damaged, and passengers hurt do you think the ATSB report would have been so benign? You know damn well it would not;
Quote:Cover page - First safety message. Pilots are reminded of their responsibility for collecting all relevant information to support inflight decision making...
This ATSB report is quite Freudian in the way it exonerates each and every point of liability for the various ‘agencies’, BoM off the hook, CASA off the hook, airport off the hook, ATC off the hook, company off the hook etc. even the flight crew escaped. But had there been a different outcome; then all but the flight crew would have wriggled away, off the hook.
IMO, when something as vital and as relied on as a weather forecast has a 70% chance of being inaccurate, the responsibility must be a joint one, blame shared between those who make the rules, offer the forecast, provide the infrastructure and pass timely advice to flight crew. Had the crews involved been advised at any point during the holding time or before divert time, that Mildura was socked in there would be no need of this ATSB report. Had Adelaide provided first world facilities, same again. Had CASA approved low visibility as a routine practice for all, same applies.
Broad strokes I know, but the point is this incident carries a shared, joint responsibility for all involved. It ended well, but had it not only the flight crew would be hung out to dry, even the FO has some wriggle room, but for PIC the full weight of agency self protection and the law would have been against. I don’t reckon that is either fair or reasonable.
Quote:BS – “The full report is another matter. It will no doubt cause controversy in pilot ranks and more than a little concern as to whether Australia is actually capable of dealing with serious issues in air safety regulation and investigations at all, but it doesn’t on first reading on the other side of the world, do anything more offensive than trying to bury them from coming to the attention of inquiring minds.”
Aside, that 2006 report is a cracker, Watson on song. I wonder what NX or Fawcett would have made of it; had both Watson and it been made available for the Pel-Air pantomime.
Aye, Hoody has his work cut out for him, let’s hope his first act is to acquire a sharp axe. He knows which heads must roll, but will he swing it? That boys and girls is the first and only question which matters.
Toot toot.