Penalties totalling $US10 million ($A11.02 million) filed by the US safety regulator the FAA against United and US Airways overnight are a sharp reminder of how derelict Australian regulators are when it comes to comparable breaches by Qantas and REX.
Neither Qantas nor REX have been prosecuted or fined over gross violations of the safety rules and the prospect of any action being taken against any large Australian carrier until there is a disaster involving them is zero.
US Airways faces a $5.4 million penalty for operating 1647 flights over three months in breach of safety directives and its own safety procedures, which are incorporated in its operating licence.
United’s proposed fine of $3.8 million is for using towels instead of protective caps while working on one engine on one Boeing 737, which it then flew in an unairworthy condition for 200 flights.
But in Australia, Qantas flew a sub fleet of 737-400 jets for five years in breach of compulsory airworthiness directives to repair their forward pressure bulkheads, by not completing the work.
Qantas denied that the failure to complete the work compromised safety, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) denied that it had any obligation to ensure that Qantas complied with such directives.
This was the moment as reported in Plane Talking in February that made aviation regulation in Australia look comparable to the failed nation status it enjoys in Nigeria.
Our major flag carrier actually claimed that an airworthiness directive was not about air safety and the government and CASA did nothing, apart from Minister Anthony Albanese making another Qantas-is-great statement in Parliament.
By US standards, Qantas would have been hauled up into account and fined a considerable sum. CASA should also have been asked to explain why it nearly grounded Ansett in April 2001 for failing to carry out compulsory airworthiness directives on aged 767s yet took no action against Qantas.
Similarly the air safety investigator, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, refused late in 2007 to investigate the filling of emergency oxygen packs with pure nitrogen by Qantas maintenance workers, an incident that could have destroyed a plane in the event of a cabin depressurisation in which pilots would have resorted to the masks and passed out, and highlighted serious incompetence in Qantas maintenance procedures.
In November 2007, REX, which is the world’s second largest operator of the aging SAAB 340 turbo-prop, deliberately flew one of them from just beyond Wagga Wagga to Sydney on a single engine with 33 passengers on board after the other engine failed.
This incident, which was in complete contravention of Civil Aviation Orders Part 20.6, involved the flight failing to land at the nearest available airport, and made a crash a certainty in the event of the other engine failing. It was a gamble by REX. It broke a cast-iron safety regulation. The ATSB refused to investigate, CASA failed in its duty to enforce the law, and the incident festers on as a disgraceful reflection on the airline, the two regulators, and the Department of Transport under the previous government.
US safety administration is far from perfect, and is currently under intense scrutiny over several other issues. But how much more imperfect, incompetent and ethically corrupt is the regulation and government oversight of air safety in Australia?
Aviation safety regulation in this country is incompetent and ethically corrupt, and significant ministerial oversight hasn’t existed for at least 50 years.
Some of those examples you gave are extraordinary and quite terrifying. Wtf were REX thinking? and why in hell are the authorities not taking action!
If Ben’s comments are factually correct in all significant respects, it is simply disgusting and scandalous that the federal government (including CASA & ATSB) can stand by and do nothing, gazing mindlessly at the potential disasters, like Daisy the cow.
Downright scary stuff Ben.
There’s a ghastly sense of inevitability about when, and not if, we’ll be confronted with a major tragedy.
It seems inconceivable that a (supposedly) savvy minister like Albanese, can’t sense what a major disaster would do to his own political career.
Let’s just hope he reads Crikey . 🙁
I understand the Rex pilot made a decision available to him/her pursuant to the Civil Aviation Orders. Subsection 3.2 states:
3.2 The pilot in command of a multi-engine aircraft in which 1 engine fails or the
rotation thereof is stopped, may proceed to an aerodrome of his or her selection
instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome if, upon consideration of all relevant
factors, he or she deems such action to be safe and operationally acceptable.
These factors shall include the following:
(a) nature of the malfunctioning and the possible mechanical difficulties
which may be encountered if the flight is continued;
(b) availability of the inoperative engine to be used;
(c) altitude, aircraft weight, and usable fuel at the time of engine stoppage;
(d) distance to be flown coupled with the performance availability should
another engine fail;
(e) relative characteristics of aerodromes available for landing;
(f) weather conditions en route and at possible landing points;
(g) air traffic congestion;
(h) type of terrain;
(i) familiarity of the pilot with the aerodrome to be used.
You may not agree with decision made but it was within discretion. CASA could not reasonably do more than seek an explanation.
PaulG
I discussed the situation with REX prior to publication of the earlier Crikey story. That person, with operational control, said the pilot took some persuading to continue the flight. He said Canberra like Wagga Wagga was also experiencing bad weather at the time but when I suggested that Goulburn, Albury Wodonga, Griffith, and at least one other airport on the western side of the divide were all available and well within the reach of the turbo-prop the conversation ended. This was a gamble, and the consequences of the other engine cutting out low over the southern highlands would have been a crash.
Nothing less than a full examination of a situation where an airliner flew for 55 minutes or more in breach of CAR 20.6 with passengers on board is required.
Just how shabby is the administration of air safety in this country? Just how long do you think this situation will last?