Opinion - For discussion only..
Reading through Sen. Smith's questions at Estimates and the CASA responses, in particular the ones - HERE - leave me wondering about the level of 'operational control', the lines of 'operational authority' and maintenance control required for 'commercial operations' as scripted. I believe a deeper examination and explanation is warranted because, like it or not, Scenic flights are a commercial operation, as are Aerial work applications and there are rules which define and govern, under CASA approvals/acceptance.
Without getting bogged in the detail, it is quite a process to draft and have approved an operations manual section covering the 'cross-hire' and/or leasing of an airframe. Lots of hoops to jump through and many ducks to line up; in short it is not a 'tick-a-box' event.
“The CASA documents detail that the helicopters involved in these events were part of a “small satellite operation” – operating under several Air Operator’s Certificates – etc.
Interesting statement that one. To say it is somewhat light in detail would be an understatement. Much depends on how you read it. A 'small satellite operation' is what? Is it a company which owns the air frames and operates flights under different (multiple) Air Operators Certificates (AOC); or does it 'own' the air-frames and lease/ hire out those to various operators who may need an aircraft for a day or a week? You can see the 'control', operational and conflict resolution problems whichever way it works. It would be reasonable for Sen Smith to request a detailed analysis of how this 'system' works and was approved by CASA. Not only was it a mechanical failure which caused the fatal accident; it was a known, noted and examined mechanical fault which demanded serious further examination, attention and rectification before returning to service. Under a 'commercial' AOC there would be guidelines and systems in place to prevent a 'return to service'; under the system presented there were none.
“Aircraft registration records show that helicopters involved belonged to Thomas’s company Avanova, which operated five helicopters for private, business and commercial purposes for his tourism ventures.”
So, did 'Avanova' hold an AOC, chief pilot and maintenance controller? Not clear. It is one thing to own a chopper and 'lease' it to an approved, licensed operating company. Quite another to be involved, let alone conduct the operations mentioned without; The above statement alludes to this. Confusing? Deliberately so? I wonder...
Sen. Dean-Smith has every right, on behalf of the family to demand of CASA a full detailed explanation of the statements made; and, the CASA operational oversight; and, make a careful examination of the Spence obfuscation: and, how was it that qualified engineering advice was simply ignored and then overridden. This failure is a known killer.
Tragic as the death of a young person is, it would IMO be a travesty if the elements which led up to that moment ever be repeated; yet, that potential still exists. Complex regulation allows complex loop-holes; enforced rubbish leads to disrespect and once the 'law' and those who enforce it are disrespected and actively circumvented - ….......well..But (IMO) it will take something more than a CASA backside covering 'investigation' into proving it had nothing to do with them and their peerless 'system' and a confounded Senator to unravel this episode; a lot more. The truth perhaps would be a good place to begin.
Reading through Sen. Smith's questions at Estimates and the CASA responses, in particular the ones - HERE - leave me wondering about the level of 'operational control', the lines of 'operational authority' and maintenance control required for 'commercial operations' as scripted. I believe a deeper examination and explanation is warranted because, like it or not, Scenic flights are a commercial operation, as are Aerial work applications and there are rules which define and govern, under CASA approvals/acceptance.
Without getting bogged in the detail, it is quite a process to draft and have approved an operations manual section covering the 'cross-hire' and/or leasing of an airframe. Lots of hoops to jump through and many ducks to line up; in short it is not a 'tick-a-box' event.
“The CASA documents detail that the helicopters involved in these events were part of a “small satellite operation” – operating under several Air Operator’s Certificates – etc.
Interesting statement that one. To say it is somewhat light in detail would be an understatement. Much depends on how you read it. A 'small satellite operation' is what? Is it a company which owns the air frames and operates flights under different (multiple) Air Operators Certificates (AOC); or does it 'own' the air-frames and lease/ hire out those to various operators who may need an aircraft for a day or a week? You can see the 'control', operational and conflict resolution problems whichever way it works. It would be reasonable for Sen Smith to request a detailed analysis of how this 'system' works and was approved by CASA. Not only was it a mechanical failure which caused the fatal accident; it was a known, noted and examined mechanical fault which demanded serious further examination, attention and rectification before returning to service. Under a 'commercial' AOC there would be guidelines and systems in place to prevent a 'return to service'; under the system presented there were none.
“Aircraft registration records show that helicopters involved belonged to Thomas’s company Avanova, which operated five helicopters for private, business and commercial purposes for his tourism ventures.”
So, did 'Avanova' hold an AOC, chief pilot and maintenance controller? Not clear. It is one thing to own a chopper and 'lease' it to an approved, licensed operating company. Quite another to be involved, let alone conduct the operations mentioned without; The above statement alludes to this. Confusing? Deliberately so? I wonder...
Sen. Dean-Smith has every right, on behalf of the family to demand of CASA a full detailed explanation of the statements made; and, the CASA operational oversight; and, make a careful examination of the Spence obfuscation: and, how was it that qualified engineering advice was simply ignored and then overridden. This failure is a known killer.
Tragic as the death of a young person is, it would IMO be a travesty if the elements which led up to that moment ever be repeated; yet, that potential still exists. Complex regulation allows complex loop-holes; enforced rubbish leads to disrespect and once the 'law' and those who enforce it are disrespected and actively circumvented - ….......well..But (IMO) it will take something more than a CASA backside covering 'investigation' into proving it had nothing to do with them and their peerless 'system' and a confounded Senator to unravel this episode; a lot more. The truth perhaps would be a good place to begin.