[Kharon]

A straight in approach.

What a great notion for all manner of 'government' Quangos. There is (another)  'classic' demonstration (as if we need another) of how the CASA is adept in the 'non answer Tango'. The 'question' asked of CASA – HERE – seems to be 'fair and reasonable'. The aerodrome procedures in question is located in an 'awkward' place, to 'local' pilots familiar with the place it is just another day in the office; however; for those unfamiliar, then the ERSA published advice is applicable, as writ. Seems reasonable, well at least until the CASA, lawyers and insurers get involved. From an operational, legal and general 'safety' perspective CM's questions demand the as requested “Yes” or “No'' response. Alas.  The latitude gifted to CASA within the regulations and application provides an almost 'Carte Blanche' ambit of 'application' to interpret the 'law' as suits 'em best and have the dollars to back that 'ruling' into their win. I wish Master CM the very best of luck in obtaining any definitive answer, particularly a straight Yes/ No.

“My supplementary question arising from that answer was: “Is CASA's answer to my question a 'yes' or a 'no'?” CM..

Perhaps its just the 'trend' of CASA abrogating much of their responsibility or duty to aviation and, by extension to unsuspecting public; or the insipid response to inquiry at Estimates and the lack of unambiguous reply to the simplest of questions; but; and only my opinion, the 'standards' of non airline flight operations seems to be slipping down hill at a rate.  That is not to say that 95% of the 'non CASA' pilots are not first class and pay operating in the air due respect; I'm sure they do. However, this ATSB report – HERE – seems to shine a light on what may be the tip of the iceberg.

ATSB - “The aircraft entered an accelerated aerodynamic stall while in a steep turn at a low speed and height from which it was too low to recover (about 220 ft above ground level). The pilot had a reported history of conducting steep turns at low heights, and on occasions at low speeds, and had low flying hours in the aircraft and no transition training. Therefore, it was likely that the pilot was not aware of the stall characteristics of the aircraft and that it might depart controlled flight in an abrupt and unexpected manner.”

That opening statement begs so many questions it would take at least two pages to even frame and table them. One immediately springs to mind

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

ATSB “The pilot’s history also included several counselling sessions they had received from members of the local aviation community in response to risky flying activities. However, no official reports were submitted to authorities and therefore no follow-up action was ever initiated.”

Once may be forgiven, but 'several' 'tea and biccys' sessions; time to bring in the heavy mob methinks. It may (just) be acceptable to kill oneself at being stupid; but the notion of innocent folks being allowed to be killed or maimed is a definite non starter.

ATSB - “The pilot was operating a VH registered aircraft with a Recreational Pilot Licence (RPL), issued by CASA in recognition of the pilot holding a Recreational Pilot Certificate (RPC), issued by Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus).”

Were the 'several' counselling sessions 'on-file' : if so, then did a CASA flight examiner cast a jaundiced eye over the supporting documentation? If not why not?  - Oh! After the fact we get:-

ATSB “A review of the pilot’s examination history revealed several errors about aerodynamic stalling in exams conducted during 2024 and it was concluded that the pilot likely had inadequate knowledge of the relationship between angle of bank, load factor and stall speed.” 



ATSB - “After the accident, RAAus issued another SRS against the AFT graduates for potential knowledge deficiencies. However, when CASA were advised of this action, they did not follow-up to verify if any of those graduates also held a CASA licence granted based on holding an RAAus RPC which had been suspended. It was subsequently found that 2 members held a CASA issued licence, granted based on their suspended RPCs.”



“Chaos was the law of nature; Order was the dream of man.”

This is not the first time the RAAus system has been found wanting; see the Coroners court report from last year. The real tragedy is that CASA have artfully dodged a bullet and what should be a good system for many who just want to fly as a recreation may just catch that bullet as litigation begins and insurers close the doors. 

Aye well - Only my take on a messy, probably preventable event which, regrettably, claimed three lives.

“Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect”. — Captain A. G. Lamplugh,

That's it – holidays over, time to shake the dust off the workbench and pay attention to the world and its ways.

Selah.