Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There's five police officers in my immediate family. Superintendent, Senior Sgt, two Snr Constables, and a Sgt Detective.

Geez I hope you weren’t a speeder!

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One Track, you tell me to Google it and now you say that your family police people are the source. I don't think that is very convincing frankly. IF there's enough reason including death or public outcry, the USUAL CASA authorised people investigate as was the case with the Ferris wheel incident and Airline and GA situations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the “Control agency” is the local police. They then allow other agencies work on the scene and then gather information as appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facthunter, I didn't advise you to Google anything. You're confusing someone elses posts, with mine.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One Track, you tell me to Google it and now you say that your family police people are the source. I don't think that is very convincing frankly. IF there's enough reason including death or public outcry, the USUAL CASA authorised people investigate as was the case with the Ferris wheel incident and Airline and GA situations

 

Twas me that told you to have a Google. There are news articles which state it, but go and have a read/review of Coroners Reports, Sport Pilot articles, Enews, ATSB website, etc. as a start. Cheers

Edited by NotSoSuperSonic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police involvement is based on two issues

A) Anything that does or may involve the coroner’s court (the “may” part is the grey area requiring consideration especially when injuries are involved often involving investigations just in case)

B) Any criminal act or suspected criminal act

 

In the absence of a or b the matter is left to the “relevant” authority.

Edited by frank marriott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My assertion is that the RAAus don't have much authority at all, in this matter. ATSB can decide not to investigate which is often the case with only one on board and things like practicing aerobatics (even legally) are involved. The decision to NOT investigate is based on funding limitations. Funding is directed where the most benefit (to aviation and the public) is obtained . That is why WE don't get enough info about incidents. RAAUS gets involved at the coroner's level as the specific knowledge relating to our operations is in RAAus area of expertise and our presence is REQUIRED generally in those circumstances. Nev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My assertion is that the RAAus don't have much authority at all, in this matter. ATSB can decide not to investigate which is often the case with only one on board and things like practicing aerobatics (even legally) are involved. The decision to NOT investigate is based on funding limitations. Funding is directed where the most benefit (to aviation and the public) is obtained . That is why WE don't get enough info about incidents. RAAUS gets involved at the coroner's level as the specific knowledge relating to our operations is in RAAus area of expertise and our presence is REQUIRED generally in those circumstances. Nev.

 

There are a couple of fundamental flaws in the RAAus safety system:

 

1. Those responsible for the development of procedures, training syllabus and other facets related to producing a safe operating system are also the same people who investigate incidents. This has the potential to bias the investigation process / findings. I’m not suggesting any deliberate manipulation of findings, but they’re may be blind to the deficiencies in their systems. There needs to be an independent set of fresh eyes looking into incidents.

 

2. There is no apparent analysis of incident data, directing people to review the incident data base and come to their own conclusions as to how to they might avoid having the same issue is wrong. There is no need to publsh individual incident reports for all and sundry to see. Proper analysis of data will reveal problem areas in operations. This information can then be used to develop appropriate training to reduce incident rates.

 

People don’t go flying with the intention of hurting themselves, it’s generally the result of a lack of awareness or poor skills - these can be corrected with proper training.

 

I recently saw the logbook of a pilot who had just passed his RPC flight test. His whole 20 odd hours training consisted circuits according to the entries in his logbook! RAAus should publish a syllabus of training, at present there is a table of competencies but not a syllabus. Student need to be aware of what their training path looks like and be actively involved in planning it, this is a basic adult learning principle. A lot of information is hidden in a CFI portal. This should be shared with all pilots rather than the old “knowledge is power” approach, that went out years ago thank goodness.

  • Like 4
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes . The RAAus system is flawed and inadequate. Cost they say is the problem and I agree with that . We would bear the cost for more info on crashes etc of our fleet, but without GPS data or good video evidence guessed at and general non specific comments are not much use in a fatal. ATSB is Independent of CASA yes, but it cover s ALL forms of Transport and they don't often get involved with us. . More regulation is not the answer. Training is always a better way to achieve results. EFFECTIVE training that is . Nev

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes . The RAAus system is flawed and inadequate. Cost they say is the problem and I agree with that . We would bear the cost for more info on crashes etc of our fleet, but without GPS data or good video evidence guessed at and general non specific comments are not much use in a fatal. ATSB is Independent of CASA yes, but it cover s ALL forms of Transport and they don't often get involved with us. . More regulation is not the answer. Training is always a better way to achieve results. EFFECTIVE training that is . Nev

Accident investigation may be limited by financial constraints The data analysis and training are a matter of lack of expertise or willingness to accept offers of assistance from those with the exerpience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be soon after the event too to be valid .. I don't think they GET the training bit at our level. Competence based is a tick which is often a formality. . You've passed is all most are interested in. It's YOUR life Ralph.. Nev

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Drew McKinnie's submission to the Forsyth inquiry:

In April 2013 I was selected to perform an investigation into a fatal mid-air

collision at Carrick NSW, near Goulburn, between a landing sailplane and a

training glider launching behind a winch. I undertook that investigation after

telephone advice from the then GFA Chairman of the Operations Panel, that

“ATSB had declined to conduct an investigation and requested GFA lead in

assisting NSW Police and Coroner.” At that time, I was therefore performing

this function in lieu of ATSB, but as if I were an ATSB officer or delegate.

I understand that ATSB has the power to use CASA officers as delegated

officers or special investigators to perform certain investigations.

The Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, Part 7, para 63B subsection (4),

sub-paras © and (d) apply to Commonwealth employee delegates (such as

CASA) and special investigators respectively, and subsection (5) then states

that a power that is exercised by a person under a delegation under

subsection(4) is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have been exercised

by the ATSB. Subsection 63E spells out provisions for special investigators.

Those persons then have protection under subsection 64 Immunity, where “A

person is not subject to any liability, action, claim or demand for anything

done or omitted to be done in good faith in connection with the exercise of

powers under this Act.” Under subsection 65 ATSB also has the power to

provide certification of involvement in investigations.

The irony is that the NSW police report was never submitted to the Coroner.

Council assisting the Coroner, in his final submission said:

Counsel assisting the coroner, Peter Aitken put it bluntly in his final submission.

“There was an extraordinary lining up of all the holes in the Swiss cheese to create the tragedy that unfolded,” he said.

Mr Aitken contended there was no single cause but multiple factors at play. These included system and human failures at the airfield.

He attributed this to a degree of “complacency” about safety procedures, which Gliding Federation of Australia, Drew McKinney had also highlighted in his investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From Drew McKinnie's submission to the Forsyth inquiry:

In April 2013 I was selected to perform an investigation into a fatal mid-air

collision at Carrick NSW, near Goulburn, between a landing sailplane and a

training glider launching behind a winch. I undertook that investigation after

telephone advice from the then GFA Chairman of the Operations Panel, that

“ATSB had declined to conduct an investigation and requested GFA lead in

assisting NSW Police and Coroner.” At that time, I was therefore performing

this function in lieu of ATSB, but as if I were an ATSB officer or delegate.

I understand that ATSB has the power to use CASA officers as delegated

officers or special investigators to perform certain investigations.

The Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, Part 7, para 63B subsection (4),

sub-paras © and (d) apply to Commonwealth employee delegates (such as

CASA) and special investigators respectively, and subsection (5) then states

that a power that is exercised by a person under a delegation under

subsection(4) is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have been exercised

by the ATSB. Subsection 63E spells out provisions for special investigators.

Those persons then have protection under subsection 64 Immunity, where “A

person is not subject to any liability, action, claim or demand for anything

done or omitted to be done in good faith in connection with the exercise of

powers under this Act.” Under subsection 65 ATSB also has the power to

provide certification of involvement in investigations.

The irony is that the NSW police report was never submitted to the Coroner.

Council assisting the Coroner, in his final submission said:

Counsel assisting the coroner, Peter Aitken put it bluntly in his final submission.

“There was an extraordinary lining up of all the holes in the Swiss cheese to create the tragedy that unfolded,” he said.

Mr Aitken contended there was no single cause but multiple factors at play. These included system and human failures at the airfield.

He attributed this to a degree of “complacency” about safety procedures, which Gliding Federation of Australia, Drew McKinney had also highlighted in his investigation.

A good friend and former work colleague of mine was killed in that accident. He was a very diligent commercial pilot under instruction. The problem with gliders preparing to takeoff being you cannot see directly behind and rely on hand signals from persons outside the cockpit and radio transmissions from other traffic to establish you are clear of traffic when launching. The pilot’s wife tells me the other glider’s radio was U/S and the signal given said all clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×