Sandy – “To me that’s a bridge too far, they (AF) didn’t allow this accident to happen,”
That’s not what TOM meant, taken out of context. What was meant, and I agree with it, is that by not anticipating the worst case scenario and having a ‘robust’ defence for the organisation in place, the opening for the accident investigation to be turned around leading to a more restrictive operational regime than routine PVT operation was presented.
For instance, a clear policy and AF rules for flight planning under the VFR, keeping schedule and clear cut guidelines for what to do when conditions are marginal (or below). ATSB have repeatedly brought ‘pressure’ into play; but have only done the math on the sectors carrying passengers. Double jeopardy for AF and dirty Pool opportunity right there.
In the real world, when there is a complex schedule to keep, the pressure begins when the pilot gets out of bed in the morning. The clock rules. Now the night before a sensible bloke would (should if made SOP) check the weather forecast; then while having a coffee, log into NAIPS and see how the weather looked for the day ahead. This is when Go/No Go decisions need to be made; early.
The weather forecast for the accident day was ‘not good’. Below IFR/VFR minimums for the arrival time and likely to remain marginal for the morning – not too good for ‘schedule’. So, what does the AF Bible say? What is the SOP for this type situation? What are the AF rules for delaying a departure? Was the pilot aware of these rules and had he signed a paper, proving that he was aware? If he had, then AF is off the hook – the defences hold. The politics go away, life resumes as normal. Sound operational practice must be in place and seen to be effective - lest CASA write them for you, in strict liability terms.
A frame work which protects the operation is essential, you can bet on ATSB and CASA having a framework which will protect them against political pressure and awkward questions. Once questions are asked of the regulator “how did you allow this to happen?” they have a rock solid defence made to order. The second fatal AF accident caught them with their pants down, knee jerk response to follow.
My two bob’s worth.
That’s not what TOM meant, taken out of context. What was meant, and I agree with it, is that by not anticipating the worst case scenario and having a ‘robust’ defence for the organisation in place, the opening for the accident investigation to be turned around leading to a more restrictive operational regime than routine PVT operation was presented.
For instance, a clear policy and AF rules for flight planning under the VFR, keeping schedule and clear cut guidelines for what to do when conditions are marginal (or below). ATSB have repeatedly brought ‘pressure’ into play; but have only done the math on the sectors carrying passengers. Double jeopardy for AF and dirty Pool opportunity right there.
In the real world, when there is a complex schedule to keep, the pressure begins when the pilot gets out of bed in the morning. The clock rules. Now the night before a sensible bloke would (should if made SOP) check the weather forecast; then while having a coffee, log into NAIPS and see how the weather looked for the day ahead. This is when Go/No Go decisions need to be made; early.
The weather forecast for the accident day was ‘not good’. Below IFR/VFR minimums for the arrival time and likely to remain marginal for the morning – not too good for ‘schedule’. So, what does the AF Bible say? What is the SOP for this type situation? What are the AF rules for delaying a departure? Was the pilot aware of these rules and had he signed a paper, proving that he was aware? If he had, then AF is off the hook – the defences hold. The politics go away, life resumes as normal. Sound operational practice must be in place and seen to be effective - lest CASA write them for you, in strict liability terms.
A frame work which protects the operation is essential, you can bet on ATSB and CASA having a framework which will protect them against political pressure and awkward questions. Once questions are asked of the regulator “how did you allow this to happen?” they have a rock solid defence made to order. The second fatal AF accident caught them with their pants down, knee jerk response to follow.
My two bob’s worth.