Rush

I operated an aircraft across WA intrastate boundaries 2 days ago. Flying into Jandakot, when you declare you are inbound they ask you over the radio where you departed from. If it’s across border lines, they send out the police air wing to your parking location. That’s after you contact them on the ground, and you get clearance to taxi of course. Then come grab you as you exit the aircraft. The police are actually really good about it, this flight was a maintenance repositioning flight so there was zero issues. If I was out blasting around that’s something different they said. But they just take your details and let you get on with life. You just need a reason that isn’t ‘I felt like it’

At this point, we are speaking the same language. Different words. And we all want the same thing, so I can understand the frustration. We have something similar in aviation. Developed years ago, we don’t call it CoR but Safety Management System (SMS). The whole system is designed to put everyone, from the bottom to CEO under a system where everyone is responsible for safe outcomes. CASA tried legislating that everyone with an AOC needs a SMS maybe 5 years ago. The general aviation and small charter companies all jumped up and down and collectively said they couldn’t afford it. Didn’t want it, and it would cause undue pressure on their business.........it’s almost like the people that own these companies didn’t want a system where they could be responsible or liable...... Casa went backwards and required it for only for RPT operators. However for everyone else it was optional but recommendation (for other AOC holders). There are many places that have half an SMS, or just copy paste the standard SMS so they look like they have one. I would hazard a guess and say the vast majority of SMS’s in GA are poorly implemented or ignored. The culture here is SMS is useless and a waste of money and effort. ICAO don’t agree, and I think they might know a thing or two about aviation. Airlines don’t agree, they live and breath SMS now. And it’s working, people from the cleaner to the CEO are responsible, liable and have a voice to report safety issues.

In principle, you are right. CAR Reg 224 states literally everything you are saying. However what happens in practice? Have a look at literally every ATSB report on incidents like this. What does the final conclusion typically say? "Pilot Error" "Pilot flew into worsening conditions" "Operating Error" "Over weight" CAR Reg 224 is a double edged sword. It can be used as cause for a pilot to cancel a flight. But also is the exact regulation the ATSB, CASA and business points at when a pilot makes a mistake. You cant have it both ways. Either the law protects the pilot to make command decisions or the law is used against them when they make an error. There is no follow up law. There is no protection as an employed pilot if you enact Reg 224 due to operational concerns. CAR Reg 224 is the final rung on the ladder. It literally is, and more times than not in aviation that is where the blame is pushed down to. Either unwittingly or intentionally.

I agree with everything you say in principle. However its orders of magnitute easier to negotiate a commercial deal in an office as a manager without the operating pressure. In GA the pilot it not the one doing the negotiations, or setting up the job. The pilot is left with making the operational decision to go, after someone else has agreed to the flight. Now sure its the pilots job to decide if operationally the flight can be done. Weather at minima? Cool plan an alternate. Carry extra fuel. In theory the risk is managed in a legal sense. There is no legal protection or guidance when weather is marginal. So guess what happens? Pilots launch, to "see if they can poke their nose in". There is always my alternate and extra fuel. One of the best test pilots I ever learnt from, had a saying. "Before i get in any aircraft, I assume my IQ will half when the engine starts". He is not saying he is dumb. He is saying his ability to make good decisions in a timely matter go out the door. Imagine trying to make a decision in hard IMC, getting smashed by the weather, 3rd approach, distracted trying to make a decision while flying the plane on missed. Opps. missed that partial loss of power on the geared engine as there was no real engine note change. Opps below blue line. OOps Vmca in IMC. The ability to make sound decisions deminishes right when we need it the most simply because we are human. You're right. Dont fly the mission. But the closest legal argument you could have is if the alternate you file is also below minima. If your alternate is below westher minimums, you are NOT legally allowed to fly (unless you have holding fuel to last out the weather). So that leaves us in a position; If its legal you are obliged to make the flight. Its your job. Its why the boss hired you. They dont care about your personal minimums. The business have their own. Aviation in small in Australia, you get a name for not completing flights because of the weather? No one will hire you. We live in the grey area of the law here, because thats the only way the industry has stayed alive. 99% of flights dont end in accidents, even flights that depart over weight, outside legal rules, outside personal minimums, in aircraft under maintained. We only turn on the microscope after the accident. The thing is, what is legal and what is safe are NOT INTERCHANGEABLE in aviation. Sometimes operating under legal rules is whats safe. Other times doing what is legal is unsafe. And then there is doing illegal things that are actually safe. (4th One is doing illegal things that are unsafe). I am sure you could think of a huge list of items that are technically illegal but are safe or safer to do. So thats the fundamental hole in aviation law. What is legal is not nessisarily safe. So following the rules alone, is not enough to build safety. But if the only LEGAL protection we have as professionals IS the law, we have no protection to argue. Like you said in your post. Absolutely we have the abilty to argue. Say no. But if our only reference point is "its my personal minimum" you will get laughed at and told to "show me in the regulations why you cant fly".

I agree. Everyone wants to write off accidents off as "Ah yes, just pilot error. I would have just turned around". People that say that completely miss the commercial pressure, I think they even misunderstand what commercial pressure is. Maybe a better word would be "External Pressures". Speaking hypothetical, because we have no knowledge of the flight or conditions. But hypothetically this or ANY pilot for that matter could be under commercial pressure. Perhaps this pilot was paid pretty typically, which is per flight hour or nautical mile flown. BUT only on a successful trip. Cool, I am only going to get paid this week if I get in to this airport in shitty weather, and I have already left. I have a wife and kid at home...... What else? Well the boss is going to be real mad I just spent 1500 dollars in fuel for no income. Maybe the pilot is worried he would lose the job because he just cost the business 1500 and lost time on the aircraft. Maybe the pilot is new, trying to impress the owner by 'getting stuff done'. Maybe the pilot hasnt shot an NDB approach in real hard IFR conditions before? Or perhaps just isnt as current as they would like, but there is a job to do and money to be made. Perhaps they had planned to collect barrel fuel at Lockhart that was pre purchased, so the pilot accepted going up on minimum fuel. The pilot probably had done this a few times and never had any issues.....(Normalization of Deviance) but on this flight ran out of options. Commercial pressure is not just "I have a job", but it can be internal professional or personal pressures. If anyone says that commercial pressure doesn't exist in Australian general aviation has never worked in Australian general aviation. Our crash reports are littered with the background rumblings of commercial/external pressures. Here is one of those reports, https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24353/aair200105618_001.pdf . Young/new pilot flying a King Air, training was conducted by the operator. Pilot was taught to fly the aircraft off the ground at 90, no where near Vmca, and well below even the recommended rotation speed in the manual. But if the boss/owner/however tells you this is what we do, well you go ahead and do it. Its your job. They are paying to train you. You dont ask questions. Engine failure right at the incorrect rotation speed, no runway to stop, no room to accelerate. Just confusion and 20 seconds to live. Having a job in Australia is hard. Having an aviation job is Australia is even harder. No one is talking about that. Nothing in the ATSB reports. Nothing from CASA. The occasional corona's report points the finger the right direction, but that information is never in the factual ATSB reports. The systemic problems are the cause for the majority of these incidents, its just how far you zoom out on the incident. By the time CASA got to this case, the operator just ceased operations. Just stopped. No safety action required, business doesnt exist any more. No changes, regulations or protections for pilots to stand up to commercial pressures, no incentives. Pilot and passengers die, and the owner operator is free to close and reopen under a new name. The people on the ground have a chance to learn/change/cover-up from the mistakes, but only AFTER the mistakes have been made. The trick that ICAO investigators use, is keep asking WHY until there are no more answers. WHY was there pilot error. WHY were there commercial pressures. WHY do those pressures exist. Dismissing an incident as pilot error is just laziness. No pilot wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror and says "You know what? Im going to fly into bad weather and crash today!". Why did they take off. Why did they continue the flight. The answer is not pilot error.