4 Down. - Panties in a bunch?
Life's a beach. Seems to me CASA have gotten their collective knickers in a knot because of the ‘adrenalin’ element touted in the ‘come-on’ ads for the punters and tried very hard to parlay this into an operational ‘danger’. This implies the company and pilots were involved, somehow, in illegal activities. If you think about it all, for just a moment, it becomes clear that without tangible evidence, CASA have, yet again, made themselves appear the amateurish outfit we all know and love.
Adrenalin sells; Bungee jumping, parachuting, hang gliding, white water rafting, mountain bikes, base jumping, racing motor vehicles; etc. There is a long, long, long list of ways for folk to obtain both a vicarious and real life ‘thrill’. Hells bells – go to Luna park or Disney Land they queue up for hours to take a ‘thrill’ ride; aerobatics and even ‘fast jet’ rides. All freely available to the thrill seeker. So why should some gentle manoeuvres in a C 172 be viewed any differently. ‘Bit of Rock and Roll’ on the way to spend a day on a beach seems, to my mind, a fairly mild form of ‘thrill’.
The real ‘adrenalin’ would emerge when the noise stopped; the pilot would be as much part of this as anyone. Low, slow, engine failure, with limited options – a nightmare. The ‘beach inspection’ demands ‘low and slow’. The percentage chances of something dangerous on the beach are a lot higher than those of a serviceable engine failing at a critical time. – I can’t even begin to calculate the odds against that. I appears that the majority of ‘risk mitigation’ protocols were observed, in order of magnitude. You’d place an engine failure very low down that risk analysis list; and, a complete failure at the point it actually occurred even lower.
And yet, almost before the ATSB has had a chance to get ‘on site’ let alone complete their work CASA are hurling accusations of gross negligence, dangerous practices and all manner of ‘charges’ at a couple of pilots; one physically and mentally damaged, ‘tuther in deep shock. Traumatised is an overly worked word; but, outside of a battle field, I’d say these two guys were as close to the definition as is possible.
Next we have the bizarre stories of ‘deals’ and secret agreements. Without first hand knowledge, speculation is off the table. But the whole thing of pulling the second pilot’s licence and offering some form of indemnity to the other is all ‘passing strange’. It smacks of CASA suddenly realising they had a cluster-duck on their hands and trying, desperately, to get out from under without the world and it’s wife knowing they’d shot themselves in the arse.
In typical CASA fashion, once anything vaguely resembling the ‘facts’ starts doing the rounds; or, their ‘investigative’ integrity is challenged- out come the big legal guns and blood curdling threats are issued. Non of which improve either the quality of safety analysis or improve the CASA image to it’s peers and betters. P7 – HERE – is on the right track; in the beginning, the engine failed; why? What options did the pilot have? Has anyone recreated the event in a simulator? Etc. There is, you’d admit, scope for exploring whether there was indeed any pilot error; or did the pilot make the best of a very bad hand? I’d like to know before I started flinging accusations about the place; wouldn’t you?
This is just another log on the fire that CASA themselves lit. Some say they set their own feet to fire – just to keep their hands warm Whatever; it all simply adds fuel to flames of a full inquiry into CASA methodology, integrity and lack of knowledge on how a regulator should conduct their business. Reformed regulation, without reform of the regulator has cost over 300,000,000. Time to stop the haemorrhaging – before the patient dies.
Another disgraceful chapter, writ in blood, of the never ending story of the Australian aviation safety regulator. Disgusting behaviour.
Toot – toot.
Life's a beach. Seems to me CASA have gotten their collective knickers in a knot because of the ‘adrenalin’ element touted in the ‘come-on’ ads for the punters and tried very hard to parlay this into an operational ‘danger’. This implies the company and pilots were involved, somehow, in illegal activities. If you think about it all, for just a moment, it becomes clear that without tangible evidence, CASA have, yet again, made themselves appear the amateurish outfit we all know and love.
Adrenalin sells; Bungee jumping, parachuting, hang gliding, white water rafting, mountain bikes, base jumping, racing motor vehicles; etc. There is a long, long, long list of ways for folk to obtain both a vicarious and real life ‘thrill’. Hells bells – go to Luna park or Disney Land they queue up for hours to take a ‘thrill’ ride; aerobatics and even ‘fast jet’ rides. All freely available to the thrill seeker. So why should some gentle manoeuvres in a C 172 be viewed any differently. ‘Bit of Rock and Roll’ on the way to spend a day on a beach seems, to my mind, a fairly mild form of ‘thrill’.
The real ‘adrenalin’ would emerge when the noise stopped; the pilot would be as much part of this as anyone. Low, slow, engine failure, with limited options – a nightmare. The ‘beach inspection’ demands ‘low and slow’. The percentage chances of something dangerous on the beach are a lot higher than those of a serviceable engine failing at a critical time. – I can’t even begin to calculate the odds against that. I appears that the majority of ‘risk mitigation’ protocols were observed, in order of magnitude. You’d place an engine failure very low down that risk analysis list; and, a complete failure at the point it actually occurred even lower.
And yet, almost before the ATSB has had a chance to get ‘on site’ let alone complete their work CASA are hurling accusations of gross negligence, dangerous practices and all manner of ‘charges’ at a couple of pilots; one physically and mentally damaged, ‘tuther in deep shock. Traumatised is an overly worked word; but, outside of a battle field, I’d say these two guys were as close to the definition as is possible.
Next we have the bizarre stories of ‘deals’ and secret agreements. Without first hand knowledge, speculation is off the table. But the whole thing of pulling the second pilot’s licence and offering some form of indemnity to the other is all ‘passing strange’. It smacks of CASA suddenly realising they had a cluster-duck on their hands and trying, desperately, to get out from under without the world and it’s wife knowing they’d shot themselves in the arse.
In typical CASA fashion, once anything vaguely resembling the ‘facts’ starts doing the rounds; or, their ‘investigative’ integrity is challenged- out come the big legal guns and blood curdling threats are issued. Non of which improve either the quality of safety analysis or improve the CASA image to it’s peers and betters. P7 – HERE – is on the right track; in the beginning, the engine failed; why? What options did the pilot have? Has anyone recreated the event in a simulator? Etc. There is, you’d admit, scope for exploring whether there was indeed any pilot error; or did the pilot make the best of a very bad hand? I’d like to know before I started flinging accusations about the place; wouldn’t you?
This is just another log on the fire that CASA themselves lit. Some say they set their own feet to fire – just to keep their hands warm Whatever; it all simply adds fuel to flames of a full inquiry into CASA methodology, integrity and lack of knowledge on how a regulator should conduct their business. Reformed regulation, without reform of the regulator has cost over 300,000,000. Time to stop the haemorrhaging – before the patient dies.
Another disgraceful chapter, writ in blood, of the never ending story of the Australian aviation safety regulator. Disgusting behaviour.
Toot – toot.