Times up for Pel_air MkII
#21

ATSB go mute on Essendon crash prelim report - Dodgy

While we continue to wait for the 2nd version of the PelAir cover-up investigation, here is an update to ATSB Essendon B200 crash investigation, 1st via 6D thread:
(03-28-2017, 08:21 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Chair Barry O'Braces extends inquiry reporting date - Huh

Reference:
(03-26-2017, 06:17 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Airports Amendment Bill 2016

CASA says..."Nothing to do with us, Your Honour!"

AIPA says..."While your there Senators??"


Committee recommendation:
Quote:Recommendation 1

1.20 The committee recommends that the Senate grant an extension of time

for the committee to report to the first sitting day of March 2018.

Senator Barry O'Sullivan

Chair
 
And the reason why there is a committee request for extension?

Quote:
Quote:Airports Amendment Bill 2016 [Provisions]
28 March 2017
© Commonwealth of Australia 2017
ISBN 978-1-76010-539-6
View the report as a single document - (PDF 549KB)


Recent aviation incidents


1.12 On 21 February, soon after the initiation of this inquiry, a Beechcraft B200

Super King Air VH-ZCR crashed at Essendon Airport. The aircraft impacted the DFO

shopping centre alongside the airport resulting in a major fire. An Australian pilot and

four American tourists on board died in the crash.

1.13 These tragic events brought into stark relief the importance of appropriate

airport planning regulation and processes.

1.14 Evidence received by the committee at Additional Estimates on 27 February

detailed the accident investigations currently underway by the Australian Transport

Safety Bureau. In addition, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional

Development (the Department) noted that it was examining 'development approval

processes involved in the land-use planning at the airport'.11 Departmental Secretary,

Mr Mike Mrdak informed the committee that the Department had provided advice to

the Minister on the accident investigation process as well as the development approval

process for buildings allocated at the DFO site.12

1.15 The committee was also advised that the National Airports Safeguarding

Advisory Group (NASAG) was considering the adoption of draft national guidelines,

regarding runway public safety zones around airports, and runway end safety zones.

Queensland is currently the only Australian jurisdiction to have public safety zone

legislation.13

1.16 On 2 March, correspondence was received from Minister Chester requesting

that the committee consider extending its inquiry in light of the tragic accident and

subsequent investigations underway (at Appendix 1).

Quote:[Image: Untitled_Clipping_032817_084017_PM.jpg]


1.17 The committee recognises that the findings and recommendations of the

investigations into this tragedy, and the work of NASAG, may have implications for

the bill. It takes the view that sufficient time should be provided to allow the

investigations to proceed and for the committee to then properly consider their

findings.

1.18 Therefore, the committee recommends that its inquiry on the bill be extended

to allow consideration of the investigations and any other relevant aviation regulation

developments.

1.19 Submissions already received and published by the committee (at Appendix

2) will be considered as part of the inquiry following the outcome of the

investigations.

Huh  Q/ Are Barry O, Senator NX and the committee seriously considering deferring the inquiry until such time as the ATSB have completed their investigation into the tragic Essendon B200 accident?

If so then IMO the last bastion of aviation safety sanity and administrative review has been lost to self-serving political and bureaucratic obfuscation - please tell me this is not so Huh

And from the Herald Sun this evening Wink :

Quote:Experts look to ATSB to answer key questions about Essendon crash
March 28, 2017 9:50pm
Robyn Ironside

[Image: external?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent6.video...z9c5xuj3mc]
As e-banking technology has improved, the number of bank branches is expected to fall by a third in the next decade. But rather than get rid of branches altogether, banks are trying to give them makeovers to get customers to still come in.
  • 28 March 2017
  • 1 month
  • /video/video.news.com.au/News/
AUSTRALIA’s aviation community will be looking for answers to three key questions when the preliminary report on February’s fiery Essendon crash is released today.

Would pilot Max Quartermain have been able to turn his B200 King Air around safely and land the plane after an engine failed — if the DFO building had not been there?

Did he react appropriately when the engine failed?

And why did the engine fail in the first place?

They are the quandaries facing investigators as they pour over the grim details of the February 21 crash at Essendon Airport, which claimed the lives of all five people on board.

RELATED: US officials help with investigation into Essendon plane deaths

[Image: 664874f6796c8c0b607dd8fef44ad6ce]The ATSB investigation into the February 21 plane crash at Essendon is focusing heavily on the actions of pilot Max Quartermain.

Aviation experts share the view that the B200 King Air is an aircraft that can operate well on one engine but a number of other factors came into play in the tragedy.

Firstly the plane was climbing — possibly at “reduced thrust” which meant it was not at full power.

Using reduced thrust for takeoff is a standard operating procedure, considered desirable because it cuts down wear and tear on an aircraft.

When the engine failed during the climb, Mr Quartermain may have failed to push the thrust forward to provide the momentum needed.

As he tried to turn back towards the airfield, the aircraft lost altitude due to the increased G-loading on the wings, leaving him with a lack of power to avoid the DFO building.

If it had not been there, it is possible the plane would have made it back to the airfield and landed safely on one engine.

In the words of aviation safety consultant Trevor Jensen, “there is a lot of fate in accidents”.

[Image: f69f60cdbea54bcacd824da4700d3fc9]Is the existing development too close to Essendon Airport. Picture: Jordan Fouracre

Incredibly the crash happened 37-years to the day of another Super King Air tragedy with striking similarities.

Just as the Essendon crash occurred moments after take off, the 1980 disaster happened 106-seconds after the King Air took off from Sydney Airport’s runway 25 on a flight to Temora.

No cause was ever established by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau but a report said “the most likely explanation was the aircraft was operated in a reduced power configuration … which rendered its single engine performance critical in respect to aircraft handling”.

Mr Jensen is of the opinion the approval of buildings around Essendon Airport were within Civil Aviation Safety Authority guidelines and therefore assessed to be not a serious hazard to aircraft.

AvLaw chairman Ron Bartsch said they would still be looked at closely by investigators.

“Incompatibility of land use and zoning around airports at all three levels of government is a long standing major issue,” Mr Bartsch said.

[Image: 95248ec41e185d6c76513877021ab1ba]The plane explodes at it hits the shopping complex near Essendon Airport. Picture: Team2j / Dashcam

Assisting the ATSB in its investigation are US regulatory bodies the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as engine manufacturer Pratt and Whitney Canada.

Mr Bartsch said it was not unusual for the NTSB to assist with an investigation that involved a US-made aircraft, and four American victims.

Director of Communications for Pratt and Whitney Canada, Marc Duchesne said they were fully co-operating with the authorities and would not comment while the incident was under investigation.

“Our thoughts are with all those involved with this incident,” said Mr Duchesne.

"..AUSTRALIA’s aviation community will be looking for answers to three key questions when the preliminary report on February’s fiery Essendon crash is released today..."

A recent view of the ATSB investigation page shows no update or preliminary report, so maybe a bit optimistic by Robyn Ironside... Rolleyes  Plus I am not sure if News Corp will be obtaining the answers to their three (expert OP) QON anytime soon?? - try about March 2020 for an update... Dodgy    

 
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#22

Probity arrives.

“Assisting the ATSB in its investigation are US regulatory bodies the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration, as well as engine manufacturer Pratt and Whitney Canada.”

I believe it would be hard to question the integrity or expertise of the Australian ‘investigators’, they are world class. The disconnect has always been between the investigators ‘reality’ and the commissioners reporting of that reality; Pel-Air being a classic living, breathing example of bastardy. The NTSB/FAA will not put up with it, it is alien to their ethos, culture, creed and integrity.

There may be a wait for the official report, it is after all a complex, difficult investigation and CASA will be snapping at the ATSB investigators heels, but they will not dare tackle the NTSB and FAA. So, maybe, just this once, we get to see our investigators unfettered report and recommendations into a tragic accident and, for once, something of meaningful value will be gained from the investigators efforts. I can stand the wait, it may be worth it this time.

Toot toot.
Reply
#23

Update 29/03/17: Still waiting for prelim report - Huh

P9:"..There may be a wait for the official report, it is after all a complex, difficult investigation and CASA will be snapping at the ATSB investigators heels, but they will not dare tackle the NTSB and FAA. So, maybe, just this once, we get to see our investigators unfettered report and recommendations into a tragic accident and, for once, something of meaningful value will be gained from the investigators efforts. I can stand the wait, it may be worth it this time..."

Good point you make "K" and I suspect you are probably correct.. Wink

However given the ATSB's less than stellar track record with lack of transparency and delay with other higher profile investigations; like the Mildura fog duck-up; the yet to be completed VARA ATR broken tail investigation; and even the MH370 cock-up/cover-up; you must admit the ATSB is not off to a good start, when even the preliminary report has been delayed by over a week... Dodgy

The following article is further to the previous News Corp article:     
Quote:Widow of Texan golfer John Washburn killed in Essendon plane crash overwhelmed by support

Staff writers, News Corp Australia Network
March 29, 2017 12:00am

EXCLUSIVE
A MEMORIAL service for the last of four Texan golfers killed in the Essendon air disaster was held on the eve of the release of a report into how they died.

Retired businessman John Washburn was farewelled by hundreds who gathered on Tuesday for a “celebration of life” in a Dallas art gallery.

Among the mourners were the widows of Washburn’s good friends, retired lawyer Russell Munsch, former FBI agent Greg De Haven and former energy CEO Glenn Garland.

RELATED: The three key questions Essendon plane crash report has to answer

[Image: ac745369d4c88be51a76e7680de15b6f?width=650]John Washburn, who was on a golfing holiday with his friends and partners, was farewelled at a family in Dallas.

The four golfing buddies were killed along with pilot Max Quartermain when the Beechcraft King Air they had chartered to a Tasmanian golf course crashed into Essendon’s DFO shopping centre on February 21.

One friend said Mr Washburn’s wife Denni had been “overwhelmed” by the support she and the other widows had received in Australia, where they had joined their husbands on the “holiday of a lifetime”.

The women were reportedly on their way to go shopping together when they learned of the crash that killed their husbands.

“Denni was just really blown away by how lovely the Australians were. She said that if it weren’t for what had happened she would happily spend a lot more time there,” the friend said.

RELATED: Tributes flow for pilot Max Quartermain

[Image: 91d9552e796023deb999682dc0e4ef82?width=650]American golfers (from left) John Washburn, Glenn Garland, Russell Munsch and Greg DeHaven at Cape Kidnappers golf course in New Zealand.

[Image: a88d6ae24016f5c89c09190c62e5e2ca?width=650]Pilot Max Quartermain, 63, died along with four other passengers when his aircraft crashed in to the DFO building near Essendon Airport.

[Image: 4d2d10e9f3b5045e68677d0655529c98?width=650]Four passengers and a pilot died when a Super King Air plane crashed into the DFO shopping complex near Essendon Airport.

None of the widows have spoken publicly about the loss of their husbands but they are leaning heavily on each other for support, according to a staffer at the gated Austin golf community where three of the couples lived.

“They have gone together to all the memorials. They are helping each other through this,” the worker said.

Organisers of yesterday’s memorial, which was closed to the media, said they had been overwhelmed by interest in the service for Mr Washburn, who had moved from Dallas to Austin on his retirement.

“Initially we planned for a hundred or so to come but now we are going to have more than double that,” one said.

Dozens of valet parking attendants and several police officers were on hand to direct traffic and control the crowd.

[Image: 3a891e02cbfc1784d323e4b194fda9c6?width=650]Friends and family arrive at the Celebration of Life ceremony for John Washburn at the Valley House Gallery and Sculpture Garden in Dallas Texas. Picture: Alex Towle

The friend said the families yesterday didn’t want to focus on the cause of the crash.

However, earlier, one relative expressed frustration at the delayed release of the initial ATSB report, which had been due last week.

“We are just waiting. It’s hard because they said they were going to release it and they just put it off,” said Fran Garland, the sister in law of Glenn Garland, last week.

The February crash was Victoria’s worst aviation accident for 30 years.

Mr Quartermain, a veteran pilot, reportedly made two mayday calls shortly after takeoff from nearby Essendon Airport. The plane then careened into the DFO and adjoining JB Hi Fi store, both of which were closed.

"..However, earlier, one relative expressed frustration at the delayed release of the initial ATSB report, which had been due last week.

“We are just waiting. It’s hard because they said they were going to release it and they just put it off,” said Fran Garland, the sister in law of Glenn Garland, last week..."

Good to see the MMSM is keeping the pressure up... Wink



MTF...P2 Angel
Reply
#24

From under the rocks they crawl

I have no problems with the Yanks providing some adhoc assistance with the investigation, although I do wonder why? The ATsB has some top notch investigators (the ones that haven't been made redundant), but I do still wonder why we need the USA involvement? Maybe Hoody just likes a bit of 'variety'?

I also see the 'experts' are coming out of the woodworks - Big TJ angry man Jensen has popped up. Fair bit of experience has Big Trev, but a temper that equals the Screaming Skull McComic. And now we have I'ron'bar cashing in, of course. Oh well, he would know all about the intricacies of CAsA personnel and operator relationships when it comes to activities as well as accidents. I'm just waiting for his mate Collins Submarine to also start sprouting his thoughts, perhaps even flogging a new book in the process of providing 'input'?

Personally these Consultants should just f#ck off and mind their own business. Go spend time with Geoffery Thomas, 'not so Cleary' and Steve Creepy playing paintball with live 50mm rounds.....just sayin.

Tick 'Miniscule' Tock
Reply
#25

Further update: ATSB presser & prelim report.

Finally via the ATSB website:

Quote:Update: Essendon accident
Update of ATSB’s investigation into the collision with retail facility involving B200 King Air VH-ZCR at Essendon Airport, Victoria on 21 February 2017.

The ATSB has today released an update into the tragic accident involving a B200 King Air aircraft that collided with a retail facility at Essendon Airport on 21 February this year. Sadly all four passengers and the pilot died in the accident.

ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood said ATSB investigators have done an extensive amount of work to date.

“Investigators have gathered and assessed a large volume of evidence such as CCTV footage and witness statements. The team has also inspected the engines in close consultation with the manufacturer,” Mr Hood said.

“The aircraft’s fire-damaged CVR was retrieved and transported to the ATSB’s technical facilities in Canberra for examination and download.

“While the CVR was successfully downloaded, no audio from the accident flight was recorded. All the recovered audio was from a previous flight on 3 January 2017. The ATSB is examining the reasons for this.”

Mr Hood said that while the team is diligently assessing the physical and digital evidence, the considerable damage to the aircraft is presenting challenges.

“The extensive damage caused by the collision and post-impact fire has meant investigators are yet to determine a clear picture of the causal factors behind the accident and loss of life,” Mr Hood said.

“I offer my deepest sympathies to the families and loved ones of those on board the aircraft. Every effort is being made to determine the cause of this tragic accident.”

This update does not contain findings. The ATSB will present the findings of its investigation in the final report, due out in around 12 months. Further updates will be provided if significant information comes to hand.

If the ATSB identifies any safety issues during the course of the investigation, it will immediately bring them to the attention of relevant operators and authorities for safety action.

Read the Preliminary report AO-2017-024.
 

[Image: share.png][Image: feedback.png]

Last update 29 March 2017 



Preliminary report: 29 March 2017

The occurrence

On 21 February 2017, the pilot of a Beechcraft King Air B200, registered VH-ZCR, was conducting a flight from Essendon Airport, Victoria to King Island, Tasmania. On board were the pilot and four passengers. The weather was fine with a recorded wind speed of 5 kt (9 km/h) from the north‑north‑west and a temperature of 12 °C.

Witnesses familiar with the aircraft type reported that the take-off roll along runway 17[1] was longer than normal. After becoming airborne, the aircraft was observed to yaw[2] left.

The aircraft performed a shallow climbing left turn while maintaining a relatively level pitch[3] and roll[4] attitude. Airservices Australia Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) data[5] indicated the aircraft reached a maximum height of approximately 160 ft above ground level while tracking in an arc to the left of the runway centreline (Figure 1). The aircraft subsequently collided with a building in the Essendon Airport retail precinct.

The pilot and passengers were fatally injured and the aircraft destroyed. Additionally, a number of people on the ground received minor injuries.

Figure 1: Aircraft track from Airservices Australia ADS-B data. All heights above ground level
[Image: ao2017024_figure-1.png]
Source: Google earth, modified by the ATSB

Wreckage and impact information

The aircraft collided with the roof of the building and associated concrete parapet before coming to rest in the building’s rear car park (Figures 2 and 3). Examination of the significantly fire- and impact‑damaged wreckage determined that, at impact the:
  • aircraft was configured with 10° of flap
  • landing gear was in the extended and locked position.
Examination of the building roof showed evidence of propeller slash marks and nose and main gear tyre marks (Figure 3). Those marks were consistent with the aircraft having significant left yaw and a slight left roll at initial impact.

Figure 2: Accident site overview
[Image: ao2017024_figure-2.png]
Source: Metropolitan Fire Brigade (Melbourne), modified by the ATSB

On-site examination of the wreckage did not identify any pre-existing faults with the aircraft that could have contributed to the accident.

The left and right engines separated from their mounts during the impact sequence. Both engines had varying degrees of fire and impact damage. The engines were removed from the accident site to a secure facility where they were disassembled and inspected by the ATSB with assistance from the engine manufacturer. That examination found that the cores of both engines were rotating and that there was no evidence of pre-impact failure of either engine’s internal components. However, a number of engine components were retained for further examination and testing.

The propellers separated from the engines during the impact sequence. Both propellers exhibited evidence of rotation and have been retained by the ATSB for detailed examination. The ATSB also retained several airframe components, documents and electronic devices for further examination.

Figure 3: Accident site building roof overview[Image: ao2017024_figure-3.png]
Source: Metropolitan Fire Brigade (Melbourne), modified by the ATSB

Recorded information

Cockpit voice recorder

A Fairchild model A100S cockpit voice recorder (CVR), part number S100-0080-00 and serial number 01211, was fitted to the aircraft. This model of recorder uses solid-state memory to record cockpit audio and has a recording duration of 30 minutes. CVRs are designed on an ‘endless loop’ principle, where the oldest audio is continuously overwritten by the most recent audio. Apart from pilot speech and radio transmissions, CVRs can record control movements (for example flap and gear levers), switch activations, aural warnings and background sounds such as propeller and engine noise.

The aircraft’s fire‑damaged CVR was recovered from the accident site and transported to the ATSB’s technical facility in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory on 23 February 2017 for examination and download (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Comparison of an undamaged Fairchild model A100S CVR (top) with the CVR from VH-ZCR (bottom)
[Image: ao2017024_figure-4.png?width=348px&height=444px]
Source: ATSB

The CVR from VH-ZCR was disassembled and the memory board was removed from inside the crash-protected memory module. The memory board was undamaged (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Memory board (removed from inside the crash-protected module)
[Image: ao2017024_fig5.png?width=344px&height=334px]
Source: ATSB

The CVR was successfully downloaded however, no audio from the accident flight was recorded. All the recovered audio was from a previous flight on 3 January 2017. The ATSB is examining the reasons for the failure of the CVR to operate on the accident flight.

Air traffic control audio

Examination of the recorded air traffic control radio calls for Essendon Tower on 21 February 2017 revealed that, shortly after take-off, the pilot broadcast a MAYDAY call.[6] The pilot repeated the word ‘MAYDAY’ seven times within that transmission. No additional information regarding the nature of the emergency was broadcast.

Further investigation

The investigation is continuing and will include:
  • examination of both propellers to determine the blade angles at impact, their pre-impact condition and to assess the impact damage
  • further examination of a number of retained engine and airframe components
  • further interviews with a number of witnesses and involved parties
  • further analysis of numerous witness reports
  • review of the aircraft’s maintenance and operational records
  • review of the meteorological conditions at the time
  • review of the approval process for the building that was struck by the aircraft
  • analysis of aircraft performance and other operational factors
  • review of the pilot’s medical and flying history
  • review of the operating processes and approvals
  • determining the reasons for the failure of the CVR to record during the accident flight
  • further analysis of recorded information, including:
    - Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast data
    - dash camera and other video footage provided by witnesses
    - closed-circuit television video footage
    - air traffic control audio recordings.
Identification of safety issues

Should any significant safety issues be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately bring those issues to the attention of the relevant authorities or organisations. This will allow those parties to develop safety action to address the safety issues. Details of such safety issues, and any safety action in response, will be published on the ATSB website at www.atsb.gov.au.


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#26

[Image: 1171__MG_0672.jpg]
Here's the culprit(s), note where the knife is positioned??

Sharpy corrects the bollocks on REX prop incident - Confused

I note today that REX deputy chair and former Transport miniscule John Sharp, has taken to task the half-arsed attempt at aviation investigative journalism on the REX prop incident. Which was published last Friday (30 March) in the Oz by creepy Cleary (with embellishments from Byron Bailey):
Quote:Engine crisis as prop dropped
[Image: 23666f73a81f1b166d94c865634f8fcc]12:00amPAUL CLEARY
A plane came close to catastrophe when pilots began shutting down an overheating engine ­before the propeller fell off.
Quote:..A source who has spoken to the crew says the pilots noticed that the engine temperature was rising, most likely because of problems with the gearbox, and they were shutting it down when the propeller came off.


Veteran pilot and industry ­expert Byron Bailey said the ­propeller would have almost ­certainly hit the fuselage had it been spinning at normal speed.

This was the second Rex flight to return to base this month with engine problems, while a third ­returned after the crew noticed noise from the ground communications hatch.

Industry experts say the root cause of these problems is the age of the Rex fleet, which at 23 years is the oldest of any public airline in Australia.

Rex compares poorly with other smaller airlines such as ­Virgin Regional, Airnorth and Cobham, which have a fleet age of 15 to 18 years. Its planes are three times older than those of Qantas and Virgin Australia. The Saab 340B that lost the propeller was one of Rex’s oldest planes.

Mr Bailey said the short distances flown by Rex’s 50 fleet of Saab 340Bs had “very high utilisation” from the higher incidence or takeoffs and landings, making their effective life even shorter...
 
[Image: Untitled_Clipping_061615_033800_PM.jpg]


This was John Sharp's retort in the Oz today:
Quote:Passengers, industry full of praise for Rex crew after mishaps
  • John Sharp
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM April 7, 2017
I have been associated with Regional Express (Rex) since its launch in 2004 and would like to respond to some of the claims made in this section last week.

Rex has an excellent safety record, having flown a million hours without a single flight-related injury. Rex’s aircraft are much more reliable than all other regional operations of the major carriers in Australia. This is demonstrated in its on-time performance being the best for more than a decade.

Further, with proper maintenance, age is not a root cause for safety incidents. The only other recorded similar event to that of Flight ZL768 (when the propeller separated) was in 1991, when US carrier Comair’s aircraft also landed safely after a separation of its propeller. The Comair aircraft was only two years old. Similarly, the Qantas A380 involved in a near catastrophic accident in 2010 was only two years old.

In last week’s article, (‘‘Rex pilots narrowly avoided air disaster’’, 31/3), Byron Bailey said “the pilots took quick action to shut down an overheating engine”. Mr Bailey said the crew was shutting down the engine because gearbox problems were causing the temperature to rise.

Rex can confirm the engine was not overheating at any stage. Nor was its gearbox its “weak link”, as Mr Bailey said. This allegation is the view of an individual who is not a subject matter expert. There are no statistics to support such a view.

The allegation about the engine overcoming the drag inside the gearbox is also a figment of imagination. The General Electric engine fitted to the Saab 340 is a free power turbine and, as such, the engine and gearbox have no mechanical connection.

Further, I challenge Mr Bailey’s statement that, had the pilots not taken action to shut it down, the propeller would have “been spinning faster and it could have impacted the fuselage”. This allegation is emotive and unfounded. The propeller separated only when the first officer selected fuel off, which also feathers the propeller.

We wish to set the record straight on allegations on the industrial relations with the crew. Rex pilots are paid in accordance with an enterprise agreement and are rostered in accordance with Civil Aviation Order flight and duty time limitations. Overnight allowances have always been paid to Rex pilots in accordance with the EA.

Finally, Rex did not suffer three incidents during March. Rex experienced two unrelated events. The first was the propeller separation on Flight ZL768 on March 17. The second was engine failure on Flight ZL821 on March 23. In the third incident, the crew initiated an air return because they believed they could hear an air noise associated with the ground communications hatch. The flight did not have any other apparent issues.

Engineers carried out a thorough inspection including ground runs and no fault was found. The aircraft returned to service.

In summary, every carrier in Australia and in the world suffers from similar safety events occasionally as this is an inevitable part of flying, no different from driving. What is important is the in-built redundancy of the aircraft, which allows safe operations despite component failures. These safety features have resulted in flying being much safer than driving in terms of injuries per kilometre travelled.

The Saab 340 is designed to be able to climb, cruise and land safely on only one of its two engines. This was demonstrated in the events cited in the article to the extent that many passengers said they did not feel any difference when the aircraft landed uneventfully after the propeller separation.

The other important contributor to flight safety is crew flying standards. The two events demonstrate the high quality of training of Rex crew such that normal landings are achieved even under rare and challenging circumstances. Rex has received universal praise from the aviation world for the calm, professional and effective actions of the crew after the separation of the propeller.

Now I can fully understand Sharpy's intervention here, because even with such kindergarten grade journalism on display the Oz article still has the potential to negatively affect business for REX airlines.

However I do find it somewhat ironic that over 7 years ago Sharp, who was then Chairman of REX subsidiary PelAir, made a similar statement in regards to the pilots who ditched VH-NGA off the coast of Norfolk Island: http://www.smh.com.au/national/pilot-sav...-inrr.html
Quote:Pel-Air Aviation chairman John Sharp said he was very proud of the captain and first officer.

"Their professionalism stood out on the day and made a substantial difference to the outcome," he said.

"They executed what would have to be described as a perfect landing on water," Mr Sharp told reporters in Sydney.

"The pilots ensured that the aircraft landed close to the coast, close to rescue.

"They landed at night, approximately we think about 9.30 local time and as a result of the skill of the pilots the aircraft landed in the water and none of the passengers were injured."
  
And when that all turned to custard, Sharpy was the intermediary between CASA, the ATSB and the government. Therefore he was very firmly implicated by association in the PelAir cover-up fiasco, including more than likely facilitating the highest REX political donation (250K) to a normally less than sympathetic Labor government... Dodgy  

[Image: 11.jpg]

References: Cost of Albo's silence?? & Masters of the GCT (Grand Can'tberra Trough)

Just saying - Rolleyes


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#27

It's ironic how Sharp is suddenly so passionate and vocal about 'matters aviation', even referencing 'root cause' and other such phrases, especially considering that during his tenure as a Miniscule he would have preferred to 'swim up a river of shit with his mouth wide open' rather than vocalise a safety thought......Tool.

"It's all fun until someone gets hurt"

Tick Tock
Reply
#28

Update 08/04/17: For & on behalf of Sandy.. Wink  

(04-07-2017, 01:13 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  [Image: 1171__MG_0672.jpg]
Here's the culprit(s), note where the knife is positioned??

Sharpy corrects the bollocks on REX prop incident - Confused

I note today that REX deputy chair and former Transport miniscule John Sharp, has taken to task the half-arsed attempt at aviation investigative journalism on the REX prop incident. Which was published last Friday (30 March) in the Oz by creepy Cleary (with embellishments from Byron Bailey):
Quote:Engine crisis as prop dropped
[Image: 23666f73a81f1b166d94c865634f8fcc]12:00amPAUL CLEARY
A plane came close to catastrophe when pilots began shutting down an overheating engine ­before the propeller fell off.
Quote:..A source who has spoken to the crew says the pilots noticed that the engine temperature was rising, most likely because of problems with the gearbox, and they were shutting it down when the propeller came off.


Veteran pilot and industry ­expert Byron Bailey said the ­propeller would have almost ­certainly hit the fuselage had it been spinning at normal speed.

This was the second Rex flight to return to base this month with engine problems, while a third ­returned after the crew noticed noise from the ground communications hatch.

Industry experts say the root cause of these problems is the age of the Rex fleet, which at 23 years is the oldest of any public airline in Australia.

Rex compares poorly with other smaller airlines such as ­Virgin Regional, Airnorth and Cobham, which have a fleet age of 15 to 18 years. Its planes are three times older than those of Qantas and Virgin Australia. The Saab 340B that lost the propeller was one of Rex’s oldest planes.

Mr Bailey said the short distances flown by Rex’s 50 fleet of Saab 340Bs had “very high utilisation” from the higher incidence or takeoffs and landings, making their effective life even shorter...
 
This was John Sharp's retort in the Oz today:
Quote:Passengers, industry full of praise for Rex crew after mishaps
  • John Sharp
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM April 7, 2017

Now I can fully understand Sharpy's intervention here, because even with such kindergarten grade journalism on display the Oz article still has the potential to negatively affect business for REX airlines.

However I do find it somewhat ironic that over 7 years ago Sharp, who was then Chairman of REX subsidiary PelAir, made a similar statement in regards to the pilots who ditched VH-NGA off the coast of Norfolk Island: http://www.smh.com.au/national/pilot-sav...-inrr.html
Quote:Pel-Air Aviation chairman John Sharp said he was very proud of the captain and first officer.

"Their professionalism stood out on the day and made a substantial difference to the outcome," he said.

"They executed what would have to be described as a perfect landing on water," Mr Sharp told reporters in Sydney.

"The pilots ensured that the aircraft landed close to the coast, close to rescue.

"They landed at night, approximately we think about 9.30 local time and as a result of the skill of the pilots the aircraft landed in the water and none of the passengers were injured."
  
And when that all turned to custard, Sharpy was the intermediary between CASA, the ATSB and the government. Therefore he was very firmly implicated by association in the PelAir cover-up fiasco, including more than likely facilitating the highest REX political donation (250K) to a normally less than sympathetic Labor government... Dodgy  

[Image: 11.jpg]

References: Cost of Albo's silence?? & Masters of the GCT (Grand Can'tberra Trough)

Sandy in response to Sharpy's article:
Quote: Alexander: Rex does have a very good record but not quite as good as Mr Sharp makes out. In 2009 a Medivac flight operated by a subsidiary of Rex, Pelair, had to ditch in the sea off Norfolk Island at night in bad weather. Luckily owing to the skill of the pilot all survived but there were injuries. Rex seemed happy enough to go along with the first Transport Safety Bureau report, engineered in cahoots with Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which neatly scapegoated the pilot. CASA, true to form, came on the unfortunate pilot (hero) like a ton of bricks. Pelair's arguably deficient operating procedures had been approved by CASA. A Senate Committee, smelling a rat, ordered a second investigation two years ago, we are still waiting. Rex has at times made very substantial donations to political parties. 

It is acknowledged by a Government report that CASA, the architect of the severe decline in General Aviation, resulting in thousands of job losses, is not trusted by the GA industry.

Turning to John Sharp's defense of old aircraft, well that is rich. During his term as Minister CASA was in the habit of causing all sorts of grief to GA in regards to "aging" aircraft. With Ministerial approval CASA instituted a plethora of extreme maintenance requirements that are still killing General Aviation while airlines are left, in the main, to follow manufacturer's procedures.



&..
...Rex Deputy Chairman and Director of Rex Mr Sharp opens his defence of Rex with the modest statement that he's been "associated " with Rex for some time. 

I believe President Trump is revisiting the question of retiring Government officials getting work with those private companies that were previously in the officer's area of jurisdiction. Personally I think they should not because there's no doubt its a grey area and our democracy should, like justice, be seen to be fair.
Not to mention the passing strange coincidences of political favours being associated with dodgy political donations. Excerpt from post #97 of the Karen Casey thread:
Quote:Coming back to the bizarre REX 250K donation to the federal ALP, when REX repeatedly made claims of a deep loathing of the Labor party and it's former miniscule for non-aviation Albanese, I came across another interesting tit-bit some 6 months after the VH-NGA ditching at Norfolk Island. In reference to this link - HERE - of the official opening of the REX affiliated AAPA (Australian Airline Pilot Academy) on the 27 May 2010...

[Image: 4.jpg]

...All very interesting, totally smacks of cronyism but are REX simply doing what most successful businesses would do in their position, i.e. seeking political favour? 

Hmm...I suddenly remembered why that date rings a bell... [Image: undecided.gif]

From the 2nd supplementary submission by CASA to the Senate PelAir cover-up inquiry, Albo's anointed one, McComic attempted to throw the Murky handpicked Muppet Beaker under the bus (note the date): 


[Image: McComic-Dolan-under-bus.jpg]

Coincidence maybe but what would the chances be that Albo & Sharpie, the very next day, would not have discussed the potential PR disaster if the so called independent ATSB were to point out systemic failures from both the operator & the regulator in their final report?? Dodgy

Two years later REX was to give the highest political donation in their history (250K), not to the Nationals but to the ALP??  Yeah right - BOLLOCKS! [Image: angry.gif]

Hmm...no comment.. Rolleyes


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#29

TSI Act: A wet lettuce with Pelair & a red herring on MH370 -  Dodgy

Reference from the AA&MH370 thread:
(04-17-2017, 09:58 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  Captain's Log 17.04.17: Hoody plays the TSI card on MH370 - Dodgy  

Well I'll be?? Hoody threatening sanctions on those considering leaking/whistleblowing on MH370... Undecided

Via the Oz today:
Quote:FOI plea on MH370 scotched

[Image: 4e7b45f04896cbf572b71dbea240cda8]12:00amEAN HIGGINS

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material on its hunt.

Quote:The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has invoked draconian legislation in refusing to release material about its search for missing Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, warning that any bureau ­employee who provides such ­information to the public or a court could face two years in jail.

ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood has used the statute to reject a plea from the families of the Chinese passengers who died on MH370 that he grant a Freedom of Information request from The Australian, with the families claiming failure to do so makes Australia complicit with a cover-up by the Malaysian government.

Some ATSB officers are having second thoughts about the agency’s official line that MH370’s ­pilots were unconscious or dead at the end of the flight.

Mr Hood has declared the Transport Safety Investigation Act covers the FOI request for critical documents the ATSB claims support its “ghost flight” and “death dive” scenario, which holds the Boeing 777 went down in an unpiloted crash.

The theory has been rejected by many commercial pilots and international air crash investi­gators who believe captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah hijacked his own aircraft and flew it to the end.

The documents sought are the opinions of international experts, including from the US and British air crash agencies, Boeing, aerospace group Thales, and British satellite group Inmarsat, about satellite data that automatically tracked the course of MH370.

The ATSB says the satellite data shows MH370 was in a rapid unpiloted dive at the end, but experts such as former US captain and crash investigator John Cox have said the data is not good enough to reach that conclusion.

ATSB general manager for strategic capability Colin McNamara in February refused The Australian’s original FOI ­request, claiming release of the ­information could “cause damage to the international relations of the commonwealth”.

The association representing the families of the 153 Chinese ­victims who died when the plane went down on March 8, 2014, ­issued a statement after The Australian reported Mr McNamara’s decision, saying “we react with extreme displeasure and ­annoyance”.

“Is avoiding offending the ­Malaysian authorities more important than discovering the truth?” the families asked in the statement.

Mr Hood, in an internal ­review of Mr McNamara’s decision, also refused to release the documents. “The activities of the ATSB with respect to assisting the Malaysian investigation are covered by the TSI Act,” Mr Hood wrote in his decision.

He advised that the act holds that if a serving or former ATSB staffer or consultant “discloses ­information to any person or to a court; and the information is ­restricted” they have breached the act, which stipulates a penalty of two years in prison.

In response to an earlier ­inquiry, Mr Hood would not say whether he would allow any ATSB staff who no longer agree with the “ghost flight” and “death dive” theory to publicly express their views.

MH370 disappeared on a scheduled flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 people on board, with its radar transponder turned off and radio communication cut after about 40 minutes.

Military radar and the satellite tracking data shows the aircraft deviated back over Malaysia to the Andaman Sea, before a long track south to the southern Indian Ocean. A $200 million search directed by the ATSB based on its “unresponsive pilots” theory failed to find the aircraft’s wreckage and was suspended in January.

When last year it was revealed the FBI had discovered Zaharie had plotted a course quite close to that track on his home computer flight simulator, the ATSB joined the Malaysian government and Malaysia Airlines to hose down suggestions this pointed to the “rogue pilot” hijack theory.
   
UDB! Dodgy

Here is some recent comments that reflect the general disbelief of the average ATP in respect of the bizarre Hood statement (above):
Quote:Walter
9 hours ago

If the ATSB are merely concerned with protecting Australian relations with Malaysia, then they must be concealing something that would cause Malaysia some problems.
It will come out in the end. This Government must release all relevant information.

Tim
1 hour ago


Perhaps the ATSB should actually be concerned about their relationship,with their employers ie the citizens of this country and not so much behaving like an " alphabet agency" normally associated with the murky world of international intelligence gathering .


William
3 hours ago

This is absolutely disgraceful.

Everybody could see from an early stage that the Malaysians lost the plane 'easily', weren't all that fussed about finding it and then rushed to the exits when the search was 'completed'.

The constant head in the sand stuff from the ATSB is the most disappointing. Weren't they meant to be neutral and objective?

Australia is making itself complicit in Malaysia's cover up and I think our government needs to be told that Australian tax payers expect more.



Peter
2 hours ago


How much of our money as the taxpayer has this agency spent in this search?

What an absolute disgrace and abuse of power.

All should note that the ATSB has powers granted by statute which are extremely draconian, such as preventing individuals from releasing information/ opinion even to a court / judge!

Still shaking my head and trying to fathom the rationale behind that unbelievable statement from Hood?

Kind of ironic when you consider that the last time the TSI Act penalties were threatened to be invoked, were in the recommendations & wash up of the PelAir cover-up Senate inquiry. The irony here lies in Hood's inescapable involvement at the time, as the designated decision-maker, with the McCormick endorsed black-letter embuggerance campaign of Dom James.


(03-22-2017, 09:38 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Recently in the course of BRB debate/discussion, on one of the PAIN email chains, someone re-hashed what IMO was one of the more powerful submissions to the Senate PelAir Inquiry:
Quote:22 Mr Dominic James (PDF 38KB) 


Quote:Submission- Inquiry into Aviation Accident Investigations (Pel-Air)

Dear Committee members,

As the release of the report draws near, I thought I would share a few things with the Committee that have been worrying me for some time. I have left the details alone and sought to frame the bigger picture, as ultimately this is what really matters.

Section 24 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act was written to prevent any person - regardless of who they are - from interfering with the ATSB's process of investigation. If one was to inhabit the mind of the author of Section 24 and the scenario they wished to prevent, then the events surrounding the investigation of the Norfolk Island accident would almost certainly be what they had in mind. Therefore, in order to respect the purpose of Section 24, it is vital that action be taken when it becomes evident it has been breached. Anything less will make Section 24 abstract and impotent and the integrity of the ATSB will cease to exist.

Consider the following: if it became known that I had taken my training records and other similar documents from Pel-Air and hidden them from the ATSB in fear of criticisms contained within them, then I would have been subject to the provisions of Section 24 and more than likely been charged. The present reality is however far more serious than the hiding of records by one individual. This seriousness stems from the number of persons involved, the self interest driving their actions and most importantly the way their behaviour has diminished aviation safety in Australia. It is therefore only reasonable that this conduct not be overlooked and a fair application of law applied regardless of who is involved.

My other concern is for what may occur if no one is held accountable for the misconduct that has taken place. If this does indeed happen, I fear that employees of CASA and the ATSB would regard those who have been involved in this misconduct as 'rock stars' worthy of admiration and emulation. These employees would then quite rightly regard themselves as above the law and without fear of it, discharging their responsibilities with little care or professionalism. They would take comfort knowing that even if they had to appear in before the Senate that they would emerge almost certainly unscathed. This would have grave consequences for the aviation industry, as it would demonstrate that safety is a secondary imperative after personal reputation. For the sake of the flying public this must never be allowed to occur.

I appreciate the scope of the Senate's powers and I'm not asking for the Senate to reach beyond them. All I ask is that this matter be referred to the appropriate authority so that evidence can be given under oath and the facts be examined in the appropriate forum.

Regards,

Dom James
 
  As history will show the Senate committee referral to the AFP for investigation under S24 of the TSI Act 2004, eventually fizzled into a 'nothing' - Huh

However IMO and in light of the turn of events since that time, the Dom James submission 22 is now more relevant than ever, especially if motivated elected representatives had the mind to ask for a judicial review into the circumstances and suspected illegalities surrounding the still puzzling ATSB VH-NGA cover-up investigation... Undecided

Here is a reminder, from documents released under a previous CASA FOI request, on just how firmly entrenched, in the middle of the PelAir cover-up, one Mr Greg Hood truly was...  Confused   DJ CASA FOI docs redacted

E.g.
Quote:[Image: Untitled_Clipping_041817_010040_PM-1.jpg]

Hmm...kind of makes you wonder about the appointment of Hoody as Chief Commissioner to the ATSB?? Dodgy

Finally, coming back to the bizarre veiled threat from Hood, perhaps he is feeling just a little bit anxious with ICAO Thor wandering the halls of ATSB HQ - just a thought... Rolleyes

Reference: PAIN/IOS WTD ATSB QRH -
Quote:...Just getting warmed up but there's a small selection of reading material for Herr Thor that IMO truly qualifies as independent and expert opinion of the ATSB. However if he wants a very informed, pragmatic and qualified take on the real issues with the current version of the ATSB, IMO Thor couldn't go past the inestimable Senator David Fawcett... [Image: wink.gif]


 

Of course Thor will not do any of that because he will be required to strictly adhere to some warm & fluffy agreed ToR... [Image: dodgy.gif]

However I wouldn't have thought that would stop certain elected parliamentary representatives from dropping Herr Thor a line to find out what exactly it is he is scoped to look into... Rolleyes

MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#30

Hoody has proved to be exactly what we all knew he was - another government footstool moulded from a Beaker die cast. By doing what he has just done and closing rank around his beloved puppet masters and protecting the Malaysians, he has openly shown that he fully intends to protect despicable Governments rather than provide answers to the suffering MH370 families.

Hoody has also signed his career death sentence. If the day ever comes, sooner rather than later, and the truth about MH370 spills out old mate Hoody will walk the green mile. The perfect patsy for the Government of the day. Nothing will save him, especially after the extreme level of obsfucation, bending and weaving and ducking and dodging he has been complicit in to save face and protect the arse of the Malaysians.

Tick Tock alright. The smell of pony pooh emanating from the ATSBeaker is nauseating.
Reply
#31

Conflict resolution, resolved?

There was a need to be careful counting the votes on one BRB Easter bash topic. The discussion was ‘interesting’ enough; but the conclusion was so unanimous, I determined that a full count was required before bringing the matter to Aunt Pru’s attention.

The question was simple enough – ‘Should Hood step aside until his part in the Pel-Air debacle is fully examined’? The massive perceived conflict of interest has been artistically glossed over; even the Estimates committee accepted Hood’s ‘statement’ relating to that, without demur. Given that Hood was the ‘decision maker’ and had to be fully aware of the entire spectrum of the Pel Air Norfolk investigation (if not, why not) to be able to make fair, reasoned, legal ‘decisions’. This, potentially at least, makes him appear, reasonably so, to at least be in the ‘perceived of conflicted interest’ arena – as head sherang ATSB.

Now, it seems passing strange that Hood is the ATSB boss and is in a position to ‘influence’ – directly or by inference his part in the shambles which emerged as a result of the Senate Norfolk Inquiry. Simply stating that ‘he is not involved’ in the long overdue Pel-Air report is not really good enough; is it?

A rock solid 87% call for resignation was not too much of a surprise (all things considered); but 100% support for Hood to step down during further, forensic investigation of the matter demanded a recount. No error: the deep distrust of the ATSB created as a result of not only Norfolk and Pel Air but of ‘other’ suspect reports during the period Hood was with CASA have created a vote of no confidence. Tragic really; but there it is.

The call to dismantle CASA and rehabilitate the ATSB is neither loud nor vocal; which is, once again, tragic as industry simply shrugs and says “what can you do?”

Aye, that’s just the way things are done. Clarity, probity ? Never heard of ‘em.

Toot toot.
Reply
#32

For me, the most interesting part of the ‘Hood’ question was only briefly, if hotly, discussed. Experience on task. You see the pitiful ‘excuse’ for not utilising Smith as DAS was – too little experience of ‘corporate governance’. It seems Boyd and his bored crew, those who seem never to available for comment or response; deems this ‘experience’ to be significant to running an aviation safety agency. Smith can and importantly has managed ‘reformation’ and compliance programs as well as  'other' aviation governance things – all directly associated with doing ‘the job’. Any MBA can manage the corporate stuff, competent legal counsel can see to that end of business and I sure MM has a competent ‘advisor’ or two which could be loaned to assist with government matters. The only part of the job which cannot be ‘hired-in’ is the actual ability to ‘do’ the job required.

So how come Hoody is suddenly deemed sufficiently ‘corporately experienced’ enough to manage a whole department; his background suggests he has never been top dog in a big crew match; he sure as hell ain’t a qualified accident investigator. So how come one top job is gifted to one so wholly unqualified and inexperienced; yet a qualified, experienced man is told, IMO very rudely, DCM?

This whole pantomime is a classic cross between black humour and a French farce. A minister who can’t tie his own boot laces; a fat cat mandarin running CASA; two totally useless ‘boards’, an inexperienced, unqualified accident investigation top dog; and some kind of retard in charge of air traffic. Airports flogged off for pennies and billions wasted trying stave off an ICAO markdown. Please ICAO; downgrade this shambles; maybe then someone will actually get of their arse and get the right people, into the right jobs and sort this bloody mess out.

Thank you my dear; yes, we shall have another round and probably another after that; maybe then we can find a funny side to this. Right now, all that is wanted is a nose to punch on behalf of Mike Smith, who deserves an apology for shabby treatment. Actually, as I’m just now reminded, make that three deserving noses. Now Shoo and fetch the ale; my friends are indeed thirsty.
Reply
#33

[Image: OlTom.jpg]

Smokescreens, Muppets & props - Part I  Dodgy  

Just to help fill a few gaps and join the dots on a some historical references, to hopefully help those with some form of memory loss, on why Ol'Tom, "K" and the BRB were unanimous in their response to the Hooded question. 

From the PAIN archives:
Quote:Dear Mr James

Please refer to attached letter providing notice of your licence
suspension pending examinations.

If you have any queries pertaining to this notification, please contact
Roger Chambers, CASA's Bankstown Manager or Mal Campbell Bankstown's
Team Leader Flying Operations in the first instance.


Regards

Greg


Greg Hood
Executive Manager
Operations Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Letter to Mr Dominic John ~ NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF COMMERCIAL PILOT (AEROPLANE) LICENCE dated 24 December 2009

& from a P9 'STEAM ON' post that had the Ferryman so incensed that he blogged it:
Quote:Steam On –

24Nov

90% Steam GD.

@ Post #414 the segment ‘Drones & Pel Air’ from 4:12 – Hoody gabbles and fluffs his way through a desperate attempt to shore up the notion that while he does have a significant conflict of interest in regard to the ATSB investigating the ATSB and his CASA position during the initial Norfolk Island ditching (a ’hem) ‘investigation’ he is well distanced and has his arse legally covered. He even tries to flog the notion that now the ATSB is ‘independent’, he too, by association, is independent, squeaky clean and that the ‘invisible Manning’ is not only unimpeachable, but is capable of dissecting the machinations of both CASA and ATSB during the initial investigation. We are expected to believe this of course, without question.  I call Bollocks.
 
[Image: 4.jpg]

Anyway; that aside Hood eventually brings the invisible manning to the microphone at 5:46.  The opening statement indicates that “a significant update” went on record – coincidentally – just the day before the Estimates hearing.  While Manning was waffling on; I did a quick check and, indeed there is ‘an update’ whether it can be deemed ‘significant’ or not, I’ll leave to your judgement. FWIW –  HERE.

“The ATSB recognises the importance of being able to demonstrate that the reopened investigation addresses identified areas for improvement with the original investigation. Given the size of the report and the complexity of many of the issues, it is difficult to predict how long the draft review and final report processes will take, although it is likely to extend beyond those typical of more routine investigations/reports. After the draft report review process is complete, the ATSB should have a better understanding of a more specific likely timing for the release of the final report.”

I have reached a point with this debacle where I can believe absolutely nothing. It is time to start calling for a judicial inquiry, with the AFP investigating the actions of all CASA and ATSB personnel involved; top to bottom, no hold barred.  That the initial investigation was grossly flawed has, to any reasonable person, been established beyond doubt. We know this – knew it in the beginning, the Senate inquiry confirmed it, the ASRR gave proof positive. Now after another three years have drifted by – we are to wait; again, for a rehash of the incident, while those who were deeply involved in the ‘aberration’ live happily in well paid, secure positions, with the best legal top cover money can buy.  Dom James can’t find a job, Karen Casey cannot work; the Doctor is facing a life of pain, Bernie Currall is dead and her husband a broken man.

I ask just what good is this shamelessly delayed second report is to provide; and, to whom? What benefit will it provide?  I say there is a screaming need for a criminal investigation, not more fluff, window dressing and snake oil salesmen peddling their dubious wares to an innocent public.

Aye, you can turn it down now GD; just wasting fuel going nowhere fast towards Perfidious Australis.

Toot – toot.
 
Still trolling the archives but you begin to get the picture on why the BRB is so suspect and overwhelmingly believe that the Hood position as Chief Commissioner of the ATSB, just like the Beaker re-appointment, is yet another politically motivated, cynical Muppet appointment.

MTF...P2

Ps Noting that Hoody is obliged to at least acknowledge the Ministerial SOE, the following is quoted from the Truss 2015 SOE:
Quote:•Implement the agreed recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada review of the ATSB in an effective and timely manner;

And from the TSBC recommendations:
Quote:Recommendation #9: The ATSB should modify the Commission report review process so that the Commission sees the report at a point in the investigation when deficiencies can be addressed, and the Commission's feedback is clearly communicated to staff and systematically addressed.

Hmm...wonder if the implied threat in Hood's review report of the Australian's FOI request is Hoody's attempt at complying with the bold part of recommendation #9...

Quote:Recommendation #10: The ATSB should undertake a review of the structure, role, and responsibilities of its Commission with a view to ensuring clearer accountability for timely and effective oversight of the ATSB's investigations and reports.
Hmm...R10 - How's that working out for you Greg?? Just saying.
Reply
#34

(04-27-2017, 11:47 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  [Image: OlTom.jpg]

Smokescreens, Muppets & props - Part I  Dodgy  

Just to help fill a few gaps and join the dots on a some historical references, to hopefully help those with some form of memory loss, on why Ol'Tom, "K" and the BRB were unanimous in their response to the Hooded question. 

From the PAIN archives:
Quote:Dear Mr James

Please refer to attached letter providing notice of your licence
suspension pending examinations.

If you have any queries pertaining to this notification, please contact
Roger Chambers, CASA's Bankstown Manager or Mal Campbell Bankstown's
Team Leader Flying Operations in the first instance.


Regards

Greg


Greg Hood
Executive Manager
Operations Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Letter to Mr Dominic John ~ NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF COMMERCIAL PILOT (AEROPLANE) LICENCE dated 24 December 2009

& from a P9 'STEAM ON' post that had the Ferryman so incensed that he blogged it:
Quote:Steam On –

24Nov

90% Steam GD.

@ Post #414 the segment ‘Drones & Pel Air’ from 4:12 – Hoody gabbles and fluffs his way through a desperate attempt to shore up the notion that while he does have a significant conflict of interest in regard to the ATSB investigating the ATSB and his CASA position during the initial Norfolk Island ditching (a ’hem) ‘investigation’ he is well distanced and has his arse legally covered. He even tries to flog the notion that now the ATSB is ‘independent’, he too, by association, is independent, squeaky clean and that the ‘invisible Manning’ is not only unimpeachable, but is capable of dissecting the machinations of both CASA and ATSB during the initial investigation. We are expected to believe this of course, without question.  I call Bollocks.
 
[Image: 4.jpg]

Anyway; that aside Hood eventually brings the invisible manning to the microphone at 5:46.  The opening statement indicates that “a significant update” went on record – coincidentally – just the day before the Estimates hearing.  While Manning was waffling on; I did a quick check and, indeed there is ‘an update’ whether it can be deemed ‘significant’ or not, I’ll leave to your judgement. FWIW –  HERE.

“The ATSB recognises the importance of being able to demonstrate that the reopened investigation addresses identified areas for improvement with the original investigation. Given the size of the report and the complexity of many of the issues, it is difficult to predict how long the draft review and final report processes will take, although it is likely to extend beyond those typical of more routine investigations/reports. After the draft report review process is complete, the ATSB should have a better understanding of a more specific likely timing for the release of the final report.”

I have reached a point with this debacle where I can believe absolutely nothing. It is time to start calling for a judicial inquiry, with the AFP investigating the actions of all CASA and ATSB personnel involved; top to bottom, no hold barred.  That the initial investigation was grossly flawed has, to any reasonable person, been established beyond doubt. We know this – knew it in the beginning, the Senate inquiry confirmed it, the ASRR gave proof positive. Now after another three years have drifted by – we are to wait; again, for a rehash of the incident, while those who were deeply involved in the ‘aberration’ live happily in well paid, secure positions, with the best legal top cover money can buy.  Dom James can’t find a job, Karen Casey cannot work; the Doctor is facing a life of pain, Bernie Currall is dead and her husband a broken man.

I ask just what good is this shamelessly delayed second report is to provide; and, to whom? What benefit will it provide?  I say there is a screaming need for a criminal investigation, not more fluff, window dressing and snake oil salesmen peddling their dubious wares to an innocent public.

Aye, you can turn it down now GD; just wasting fuel going nowhere fast towards Perfidious Australis.

Toot – toot.
 
Still trolling the archives but you begin to get the picture on why the BRB is so suspect and overwhelmingly believe that the Hood position as Chief Commissioner of the ATSB, just like the Beaker re-appointment, is yet another politically motivated, cynical Muppet appointment.

MTF...P2

Ps Noting that Hoody is obliged to at least acknowledge the Ministerial SOE, the following is quoted from the Truss 2015 SOE:
Quote:•Implement the agreed recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada review of the ATSB in an effective and timely manner;

And from the TSBC recommendations:
Quote:Recommendation #9: The ATSB should modify the Commission report review process so that the Commission sees the report at a point in the investigation when deficiencies can be addressed, and the Commission's feedback is clearly communicated to staff and systematically addressed.

Hmm...wonder if the implied threat in Hood's review report of the Australian's FOI request is Hoody's attempt at complying with the bold part of recommendation #9...

Quote:Recommendation #10: The ATSB should undertake a review of the structure, role, and responsibilities of its Commission with a view to ensuring clearer accountability for timely and effective oversight of the ATSB's investigations and reports.
Hmm...R10 - How's that working out for you Greg?? Just saying.

Pps Almost forgot, just another couple of props for the Hooded one... Big Grin

(04-27-2017, 06:50 AM)kharon Wrote:  Lead Balloon on the UP; puts a crisp, concise full stop to another silly line of fuzzy logic.

[Image: saab340_prop.jpg]

"How many similar pictures have you seen published by ATSB, jonkster?

Post one link to one picture with ATSB staff holding a piece of aircraft, which piece may be related to an incident, published by the ATSB.

Just one link.

If those pictures were taken and made available to someone by the ATSB, you don't have to bother with 'conspiracy theories'. The organisation would, in that case, evidently be a complete basket case."

I liked it – FWTW. Choc frog.

&...

Quote:Aviation legend donates historic propeller

Australian aviation legend Peter Lloyd AC OBE MID today donated the propeller from a Supermarine Walrus aircraft to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood accepted the donation on behalf of the ATSB, saying it was a significant piece of Australian aviation history.

[Image: peterllyod_greghood.jpg?width=500&height...7777777777]
“The Supermarine Walrus was a British single-engine amphibious biplane reconnaissance aircraft first flown in 1933,” Mr Hood said.

“It was operated by the Fleet Air Arm and also served with the Royal Air Force (RAF), Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) and Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF).

“It was the first British squadron-service aircraft to incorporate in one airframe a fully retractable main undercarriage, completely enclosed crew accommodation and all-metal fuselage.

Designed for use as a fleet spotter to be catapult launched from cruisers or battleships, the Walrus was later employed in a variety of other roles, most notably as a rescue aircraft for downed aircrew. It continued in service throughout the Second World War.”

Mr Hood said Peter Lloyd was a champion of aviation safety nationally and internationally for more than a half a century.

“He has made an indelible contribution to aviation safety through his position as President Emeritus and Life Member of Safeskies Australia,” Mr Hood said.

“I’d to thank Peter for his frank and fearless advice to myself and to successive Ministers and Governments on many occasions, and for his generosity in donating this significant piece of Australian aviation history.”

 [Image: peterlloyd_propeller.jpg?width=500&heigh...6784260514]

Perhaps Hoody could add to his wall collection the REX SAAB prop - after the investigation is complete of course... Rolleyes
Reply
#35

P2:

Hoody could add to his wall collection the REX SAAB prop - after the investigation is complete of course...

And maybe donate his impeccably clean green hi-vis shirt? Just don't DNA swab it. He could also donate his toga and perhaps 'correct the record' while he is at it, and donate the firmly padded footstool that he uses for kneeling on when paying homage to his lord and master Mr 6D Chester? Tosser

P9 - Addendum: Hood do seem to have a predilection for ‘tokens’, being delighted by ‘badges’ and those silly ‘courage’ wrist straps he insisted the ASA troops wear. Must be the thespian in him; can’t ‘play’ a part without the props, the costume, lights and grease paint. Whilst it may be mildly amusing to watch these personal quirks in private, I cannot help but think what the real accident investigation crowd think of it all. Make a comparison between the calm, quietly confident, professional, knowledgeable behaviour of the AMSA during  the highly suspect ‘hand-over’ of the 370 ‘search’; against the insecure drama of the Hood ‘wind-swept and interesting’ photo taken on the deck of the returned search vessel being an example. I bet he gets sea sick floating on an airbed on the heated indoor pool. Big Grin
Reply
#36

Quote:The Fawcett factor on closing airport safety loops... [Image: huh.gif]
Peetwo Wrote: Wrote:Murky & Comardy thumb noses at RRAT airport QON  [Image: dodgy.gif]

[Image: r78_49_1301_724_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]


"..Dear Senator Burston...nothing to see here, move along...L&Ks M&M.."

ATCB & FASA beyond redemption on Pelair cover-up

(ATCB - Australian Top Cover Bureau; & FASA - Fake Aviation Safety Authority)

In conjunction with the current disturbing tale (above) of apparent CASA disassociation on matters of public safety with airports, the following P7 quote & P9 post perfectly summarises the dire state of affairs within aviation safety administration in this country... Confused   
Quote:[Image: OlTom.jpg]
&..

Beauty - through rose tinted glasses.

This obscene tale of self-serving bureaucratic obfuscation, malfeasance, industry embuggerance and expensive trough gorging in aviation safety administration, is like a  $500+ million broken record relentlessly replaying the same track over and over again.. Sad   

However maybe there is a slight glimmer of hope, that is if a certain aviation savvy Senator Fawcett, with the support of the non-partisan Senate committee, has anything to say about it... Rolleyes    

Fawcett factor Part II

Remember this?



Australian Transport Safety Bureau Hansard 19/10/2015. 

Quote:Senator FAWCETT: There are a couple of points that come out of this. There is one about the trust of industry in the organisations that are supposed to be having an oversight around safety and regulation, but the other is a very real impact on people. At the time, the committee were concerned about what we saw as a breakdown in the relationship between you and CASA and the inadequacies of the report. Subsequent to the Canadian peer review, which was quite scathing about the fact that there were very clear systemic issues which were not addressed, people who have been affected by this accident—being the pilot involved and potentially the nurse—have sought some remedy for the situation they find themselves in as a result of this report. In the pilot's case, correspondence I have seen from him has indicated that that report has essentially finished his aviation career. My understanding is that even after the Canadian report, when he has sought an act of grace payment from the Department of Finance, ATSB's recommendation is: 'Don't pay it. It was his fault.' Can you confirm that was the case?

Mr Dolan : I recall that there was some information sought from the Department of Finance in relation to an act-of-grace payment. We provided the facts as we understood them. It is not a purpose of our organisation to assign blame, and we would not have said that to the Department of Finance.

Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide the advice that Senator Fawcett has asked you for?

Mr Dolan : I beg your pardon?

Senator XENOPHON: Can you table that advice?

Mr Dolan : I cannot see any reason why we should not, so I will obtain it and table it for the committee.

Good to his word (but not much else) Beaker did table the ATSB 'don't pay him' advice to the Dept of Finance. Unfortunately I missed it at the time because the tabling was buried at the tale end of the 82 page 08ATSB AQON document (which included a 60 page MH370 tender attachment)... Dodgy

Quote:[Image: Beaker-1.jpg][Image: Beaker-2.jpg]

Fair question by Senator X:
Quote:Senator XENOPHON: Mr Dolan, do you think it is inappropriate that you provide any opinion as to the appropriateness of an act-of-grace payment to the pilot involved, given your involvement in this particular matter, that there might be an issue of apprehended bias on your part and on the part of the ATSB, and that it really should be a matter that the ATSB either needs to get someone independent to comment on or not comment on it at all?
 
Given the DJ 'Act of Grace' application predated the October 2015 Supp Estimates hearing by  2 years, I always wondered why it was that Senator Fawcett chose that Estimates hearing to bring the matter up, recently I discovered why?

Copy of correspondence from Senator Fawcett to Senator Mathias Cormann, Minister for Finance 10 September 2014:
Quote:[Image: DF-1.jpg][Image: DF-2.jpg]

This correspondence was followed by another from DF in reply to correspondence from another useless, NFI Nationals MP and former Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Minister Michael McCormack, who Mathias had handballed the matter to:
Quote:[Image: DF-3.jpg]
    
Which brings me to the advice of CASA, which in hindsight truly justifies Senator Fawcett's concerns and some.. Angry 

Much like the ATSB advice, bizarrely the CASA advice was not provided by the legal services division but by another conflicted (read NX Hansard text above) senior executive officer of CASA... Confused :

Quote:[Image: JA-1.jpg]

&.. last page:

[Image: JA-2.jpg]

{Note: 1) Dr A has sent the letter officially from the DAS office and that he was at the time apparently the 'Acting' DAS?? 
2) Dr A acknowledges that the Finance Dept request was sent nearly two months before.
3) 12 December 2014 - Correspondence from manager legal branch Joe Rule indicates that the CASA submission would be forwarded by him within the next week. Yet the submission was ultimately addressed by Dr A - err why?}     

Good to see the good Dr has moved on from the embarrassment of the diabolical PelAir cover-up inquiry - NOT... Dodgy

See HERE for the full text of one of the most vindictive, nasty documents from IMO the true centre of evil and instigator of FASA embuggerances... Angry

Finally (for now) the evil Dr, not happy with dancing all over and rejecting the DJ 'Act of Grace' payment, takes offence and attempts to 'correct the record' on an incorrect inference in the former Parliamentary Secretary's rejection letter:  
Quote:[Image: JA-3.jpg]
  
Nasty ducker isn't he - UDB! Dodgy

Do we need any further proof on who still controls the halls of Fort Fumble?? - all in the name of good aviation safety practice of course... Rolleyes

MTF I'm sure...P2 Tongue
Reply
#37

P2;

Nasty ducker isn't he - UDB!

He is a piece of shit. Always has been and always will be.

Hey doc, grow a set of balls and come out from the comfort of your protective cocoon and go meet one of the hundreds of people you have screwed over the years mate and see what happens. You will have the intellect kicked out of you and spilt on the street.

Tick Tock you gutless weasel
Reply
#38

The time has come, the Walrus said..

There are 50 documents contained within the FOI bundle returned to DJ which provide overwhelming evidence supporting the need for a judicial inquiry into the actions of CASA officers; and not only in relation to the Norfolk ditching. IMO the entire Sydney regional office should be openly investigated, without fear of favour allowing court standard evidence to decide whether or not criminal charges should be brought against several officers and those who directed those officers, sanctioned their actions and assisted in confounding a Senate committee during an inquiry.

Until the aberrations of Pel-Air, Airtex and Sky Master have been holistically examined and reparation for the untold damage done by the Sydney office is made, there can be no hope of forward progress for the GA sector. Everyone, from the tea lady to the top dogs “Know”, categorically, exactly, what occurred, who did what, to whom and why. Those same folk have been obliged to kow-tow to the requirements of the small group who, quite literally, hold the power of the life or death over their business. This ethos spreads downward from the top layers a CASA management, fully supported by a regulatory system which CASA have refused, for more than three decades to ‘reform’ in any meaningful way, there is no need to question why. This rule set, in the hands of people like McCormick, Aleck, Hood, Campbell and Chambers is a licence to do anything that pleases and manipulate any situation into one of their choosing – the Norfolk Island ditching event being a small, but classic, example of total power being totally, wilfully abused.

The Senate committee inquiring into that particular event must have realised this; as did the Senate committee which inquired into the Lockhart River event. The difference being that with Lockhart, the committee may have suspected the corruption of the ATSB, the Norfolk committee witnessed and proved that corruption – and were powerless to do anything about it. Aleck could have saved a lot of time and money by simply writing one of his famous letters stating “Yeah- and your Mother too Senator Fawcett”.

A Judicial inquiry allowing individual cases to be examined would not have to extend very far past perhaps five cases. In fact, looking at the PAIN archives, only three would suffice and, based on past experience, I’d say the total time required would amount to 10 working days. It would be reasonable to expect the results to trigger a real reform of the CASA, based on the rule of law, rather than individual preference, policy and manipulation of the same; always within the rules – as writ – by CASA.

Until the disgusting insidious elements who dare, with impunity to interfere with due process, manipulate the extremes of law and use ‘system’ to obtain predetermined outcome; there can be little hope of CASA being an asset to the aviation industry, who pay dearly for this 'servicing'.

The heartbreak is there for all to see; as is the anathema, the waste and the corruption; but, I say these are as nothing compared to the real shame; government power usurped, undermined and disregarded by a department charged with the safety of ‘aviation’. I don’t know how many more ministers, politicians and government inquiries it will take to prove Einstein’s theory on insanity totally correct.  

A gauntlet, thrown down in challenge. Let the current Senate committee (RRAT) select a panel of four; allocate two full working days and offer to accept and hear ‘in camera’ sworn statements relating to CASA officers. If that panel can walk away from that hearing and not move heaven and earth to ensure such aberrations never, ever occur again; then we are all doomed.

Your time and attention is demanded gentlemen, in the interests of the Australian tax paying public who fund not only your good selves but this corrupt edifice purporting to be the ‘watchdog’ of aviation safety. It is time this canker was lanced.

Selah
Reply
#39

In one of the most famous orations of the Cold War period, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill condemns the Soviet Union’s policies in Europe and declares, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.”

"Nasty ducker isn't he - UDB!"

Gobbles old mate, he was after all a founding father of the infamous "Iron Ring" so its to be expected he'd be somewhat bent. The parallels to Winston's famous speech are obvious, the whole world ignored his warnings and the cold war began, our industry is now engaged in a "Cold War" with a capricious, self serving bureaucracy, our very survival in jeopardy, when one thinks how long the cold war ran before the "Iron Curtain" came down I fear our industry will be gone, dead and buried. Perhaps we need a "Trump" with the slogan "Lets make aviation great again" and the courage to put CAsA in its place.

I have always found it passing strange that given the ten's of thousands of regulations all carrying a criminal record, not one could be found to prosecute DJ. Even a panel of the "Experts" couldn't agree on a single breach to stitch him up with. One would think somewhere in the myriad of confusion we call regulations you'd think there was something, for sure farting on the flight deck just has to be in there somewhere. But no, nothing, and anyone who imagines, if there was, Smart Aleck and his cohorts wouldn't have jumped on it are dreaming.

McComic wanted a scalp and there is ample evidence that the so called independent ATSB was manipulated to provide him with that scalp. After that it was fairly simple to enlist his infamous expert attack dog "Wodger Wabbit" to compile and enforce an embuggerance regime. A career ending judgement inflicted with no evidence, no oversight and no right of appeal.

DJ was required to resit the ATPL theory exams, buggered if I know why, I don't think in thirty years of International long haul operations I ever used anything I learnt for ATPL in anger. A real expert from industry ascertained that DJ's fuel calculations, done on the fly, were fairly accurate, as opposed to the cock up made by a CASA expert. Maybe in the interests of safety the CASA "expert" should have been required to resit the exams as well.

DJ doggedly completed all Wodgers embuggerances up to the point where big bucks were required, which he didn't have, and of course Wodger knew full well he didn't. The suspension of his licence was cunningly lifted, with a catch 22, just in case DJ found the money to go to the federal court, he still couldn't use the licence without spending a small fortune, but Smart Aleck could put his hand on his heart if it did go to court and say "But Millud, we gave it back to him".
The AAT is a furfey, given CASA's reputation of being a far from model litigant, the costs are pretty much the same to front the AAT where evidence can be ignored and hearsay accepted, against the federal court where the rule of law applies, evidence MUST be examined and hearsay excluded.

DJ was hung out to dry because McComic demanded it, why? One can only surmise, but "Political donations" puts a whiff of suspicion on the whole process.

DJ perhaps was foolish, but he did nothing that hadn't been done by others, his own chief pilot included, The same CP who vanished under the protective wing of mother hen CASA after the event. Was that another initiative by Smart Aleck to close off potential embarrassment for CAsA?
Wiser and more experienced heads would probably have ignored commercial pressure and waited in Samoa, got proper rest, then proceeded in daylight, the patient was non critical so there was no imperative to proceed.
But all the holes in the Swiss cheese slotted into alignment, from commercial pressure, lack of oversight, poor recourses and dodgy forecasts until DJ found himself in the unenviable position of having no back door and a decision required to either divert to an alternate and arrive with no fuel, or proceed to destination with at least enough for multiple approaches.
He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, one thing is for sure, there is no way he'd make that mistake again and regardless of CASA's punitive embuggerance he'd be a safer pilot today than he was then.
Norfolk can be a bitch of a place at times, its caught a lot of pilots out. They were lucky and got away with it, but they all learnt a valuable lesson but missed out on a midnight swim. There but for the grace of god go I.
Reply
#40

Of ditchings, doctors and dross

I agree with Thornys sentiments entirely.
DJ, with all due respect, did make a mistake. In fact the bloke humbly admits that. But as Thorny said, all the holes lined up on the day.There were numerous causal factors, all conveniently ignored and for good reasons;

Simply put, the fallout from the ditching was always going to be political. It's the nature of the beast. So McComic HAD to find and offer up a sacrifice that ensured the Government remained clear of the train wreck. That sacrifice was DJ. DJ's trial and execution ensured the Pilot was to blame, and the innocent Government and it's responsible regulatory entity, CAsA, were as innocent as a 10 year old child bride.

People like the Witchdoctor are there for a reason. It's not by chance that he has held such a high position for a quarter of a century. It's no accident. It's no mistake. A heavily remunerated Government appointed intellect who can make sure that the Government is never brought in to question, never held responsible, never held to account, never determined to be complicit in a tragedy or travesty. You saw it, Dr Voodoo kyboshed a $1.5m payout to DJ at the stroke of a pen. No moral compass, no compassion, no conscience and no problem! With the click of a manipulated finger he saved his precious Government a lot of money! And that's just one example. There are others, many many others.

Aleck, the Sith Lord will retire very rich with a massive super fund while doing the overpaid talk circuit. His apprentice Anustasi, aka Flyingfiend, will take over the batten. Groomed, nurtured and trained to do the exact same thing - protect the Government at all cost. That is his role, his function, his position description.

The crooked and rigged Westminster system has been manipulated, styled and crafted over a century into what it is today. It didn't happen overnight. Democracy my ass. Try taking on CAsA or the ATO and then see who has the bigger dick. It's a no-brainer with a gaurenteed outcome - ours will always be the smallest. The system is rigged, the cards are stacked and the outcome always predetermined.

We are wasting our time boys, nothing will change. All we can do is keep smiling and have a little fun along the road to perdition.

Tick Tock
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)