Light plane crash at Ball Bay, north of Mackay Qld 24/12/2021

[FlyingVizsla]

From the ABC

Patients being assessed after light plane crash at Ball Bay, north of Mackay - ABC News

 

Emergency services are at the scene of a light plane crash on a beach in North Queensland. 

The Queensland Ambulance Service says the incident happened at about eight o'clock this morning at Ball Bay, north of Mackay.  

Two patients were being assessed but information about their conditions is not yet available. 

[Blueadventures]

Local media reporting passenger did not survive (best await further confirmation).  I don't recognise the aircraft as one that flys were I do.  Sad and condolence to family's involved.  There is a Jodel aircraft at Ball Bay hoping it is not that one.

[onetrack]

The 83 yr old passenger, a local resident, has been killed, and the pilot is in hospital in a critical condition with head injuries.

I can't see the rego, but it is a VH-registered aircraft, and the rudder has "Serpentine Field, W.A." written on it.

This is a terrible thing to have happen on Christmas Eve. My condolences to family and friends. Take care, everyone.

[KRviator]

VH-WBL, a Jodel D.11.

[rgmwa]

Sad news and condolences to family and friends. WBL had its first flight at Serpentine in 1977.

[reefer]

Unlicensed pilot was flying light plane that fatally crashed at Ball Bay on Christmas Eve......

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-11/ball-bay-christmas-eve-plane-crash-report-released/100823632

 

[onetrack]

Well, that whole episode looks like a lawyers picnic. I guess there's only so much you can do to enforce aviation regulations and laws. But as the Barry Hempel case showed, you can cheerfully fly in Australia without a pilots licence, and sporting major medical issues, that would ground anyone lesser, and no serious action is taken, if you have the right personality. 

[Blueadventures]

1 hour ago, reefer said:

Unlicensed pilot was flying light plane that fatally crashed at Ball Bay on Christmas Eve......

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-11/ball-bay-christmas-eve-plane-crash-report-released/100823632

 

ATSB report also states no maintenance for last 10 years and seat belts required replacement in 1990 (32 years ago) and that two attachment points let go on passengers side. I read ASTB discontinuing investigation, who follows up CASA or SAAA if aircraft was built under them?

Edited February 11, 2022 by Blueadventures

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, Blueadventures said:

ATSB report also states no maintenance for last 10 years and seat belts required replacement in 1990 (32 years ago) and that two attachment points let go on passengers side. I read ASTB discontinuing investigation, who follows up CASA or SAAA if aircraft was built under them?

Police first most likely

[kgwilson]

A crash waiting to happen & if did with fatal results. If the pilot has any money he will be relieved of most of it & may spend time courtesy of Corrections.

[onetrack]

Don't you just love the way CASA wash their hands of any further investigation or pursuit of aviation laws/regulations infringements - because of funding allocations?

It appears you need to have a pilots licence to be pursued by them, because they never stopped spending millions to ensure they nailed that major flying criminal, John Quadrio.

[Thruster88]

ATSB and CASA are separate organisations. Anyway the report was complete enough 15/80 one one cylinder and 55/80 on another. 

[turboplanner]

4 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Don't you just love the way CASA wash their hands of any further investigation or pursuit of aviation laws/regulations infringements - because of funding allocations?

It appears you need to have a pilots licence to be pursued by them, because they never stopped spending millions to ensure they nailed that major flying criminal, John Quadrio.

Well it was ATSB which has stood down, not CASA, and that's a standard policy which makes sense in some respects. I can remeber an aerobatics pilot being killed and ATSB made the same statement (Not for the same reasons as this. In his case it was straight forward, the aerobatics group would have worked out the cause). 

 

It's a VH Registration, but it may be that SAAA is the Self Administering Organisation which would investigate.

 

JQ is another story entirely - related in some ways to a multi-million dollar tourist industry.

[onetrack]

My apologies, a Saturday morning brainfart, confusing ATSB and CASA. 

[aro]

26 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

It's a VH Registration, but it may be that SAAA is the Self Administering Organisation which would investigate.

Licensing and maintenance are CASA functions - not something SAAA can enforce.

 

ATSB discontinuing investigations where there doesn't appear to be anything to be learned is probably a good thing - hopefully it helps concentrate resources where there might be something to learn. They sometimes seem to spend a lot of time investigating the obvious.

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, aro said:

Licensing and maintenance are CASA functions - not something SAAA can enforce.

Yes, I notice SAAA is listed separately to the Self Administering Organisations as "Other Industry Organisations"

 

12 minutes ago, aro said:

 

ATSB discontinuing investigations where there doesn't appear to be anything to be learned is probably a good thing - hopefully it helps concentrate resources where there might be something to learn. They sometimes seem to spend a lot of time investigating the obvious.

Yes, but a lot of people put pressure on to get closure on their relative's death; same with RAA we've had a lot of threads where RAA people want more than the Accident and Incident Reports.

 

[aro]

38 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Yes, I notice SAAA is listed separately to the Self Administering Organisations as "Other Industry Organisations"

Yes, SAAA is not a self administering organization as I understand it. But even if it were, what can they do? What can RAA do if someone is not a member of RAA but flies a RAA registered aircraft? Underneath it all are the rules enforced by CASA.

 

42 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

a lot of people put pressure on to get closure on their relative's death

That's not a function of the ATSB. I'm not sure it's really true though - most people believe that small aircraft are dangerous, so a crash isn't hard to understand.

Pilots like ATSB reports, but usually so they can find some reason to rationalize why "It wouldn't happen to me."

 

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, aro said:

What can RAA do if someone is not a member of RAA but flies a RAA registered aircraft? Underneath it all are the rules enforced by CASA.

I haven't studied the structure of SAAA, but RAA is a self administering organisation, so it has an obligation to build management structures and policies.

 

Some people might remember the guy who found it necessary to buzz water skiers repeatedly on Lake Eildon in something like a Drifter a few years ago then dropped into the water and had to be rescued. I can't remember if he had a licence, but the Drifter wasn't registered and had no old identification markings. There were were plenty of comments on the thread about that incident along the lines of "What can RAA do if he's not a member", "If it's not registered it's nothing to do with RAA" etc. CASA handled that one by an audit of all RAA aircraft which tied up a lot of people and took forever. CASA wouldn't tell us what was happening and RAA didn't seem to know so I obtained 187 Non Compliance Notices under FoI which showed a litany of faults and missing registration numbers. In some cases the aircraft shouldn't have been flying and judging by the member comments after, a lot of those non conforming aircraft were not flown again. Hopefully RAA realised they had a job to do and have been doing it since.

[aro]

I think it was a Sapphire, and you may be combining a few different incidents, but I know the one you are talking about.

 

But seriously, what can RAA do with those management structures and policies? They can't put you in jail, they can't fine you, if you're not a member they can't kick you out or suspend a pilot certificate - what are they supposed to do?

 

CAO 95.55 which underlies the whole RAA existence has exemptions from certain regulations e.g.

- the requirement to hold a pilot license

- various registration and airworthiness standards for aircraft

 

There are conditions attached, e.g. being a member of RAA, following the RAA operations manual, holding a RAA pilot certificate etc.

 

If you don't comply with those conditions the exemptions don't apply and suddenly you are violating all the regulations that apply to normal aircraft:

- flying without a license

- flying unregistered aircraft

- flying aircraft that haven't been certified or maintained under GA regulations etc.

 

These all put you straight back into the regime of CASA and Australian law - not RAA management and policies.

[facthunter]

IF there's no licence and the plane is not registered, how can RAAus or SAAA be responsible?  SAAA use VH licencing and that's common knowledge. They are too small to fund separate training etc. Anyhow it's what they choose & accept. RAAus is investigated by the State Police who MAY choose to seek advice from RAAus but don't have to. . In  respect of using resources in the most effective way, accidents to "Certain" types of operation ie some Aerobatics may  not be investigated..

   The Prime purpose of investigating aircraft Incidents/accidents is to benefit from the data gained by  accurately determining the CAUSES and where necessary implementing revised procedures.

  To facilitate more information there has from time to time, provision of anonymity of some information providers being made available but this kind of thing is pretty patchy. IF it's not done well, It's of limited value. The time element is important also. Nev

[djpacro]

I witnessed an accident where an unlicensed pilot was trying to take off in an unregistered aeroplane. He destroyed one aircraft and damaged another. Got his aeroplane trucked away within a few hours. I spoke to the guy who's aeroplane was destroyed. CASA took no interest because he did not break any of their rules, if it had lifted off the ground then it would've been a different matter. Neither did the police. Just one vehicle crashing into another on private property.

[peterg]

12 minutes ago, djpacro said:

CASA took no interest

 

13 minutes ago, djpacro said:

Neither did the police.

Nor should they - a waste of their time - a civil matter

 

That said, CASA should have and may well have issued a "watch out" warning

 

[turboplanner]

27 minutes ago, aro said:

But seriously, what can RAA do with those management structures and policies? They can't put you in jail, they can't fine you, if you're not a member they can't kick you out or suspend a pilot certificate - what are they supposed to do?

I had a decade's head start recreational aviators when the Associations Incorporations Act came into force in 1981 in Victoria.

Governments were paying out more and more for negligence in manufacturing and sporting activities which they controlled and they decided to get out. 

 

The Victorian Department of Labour and Industries was closed down in 24 hours, their inspectors had roamed the factories inspecting chains, cranes, electrical, tools etc and signing off tickets, taking responsibility, and had been inspecting our speedways on a regular basis, giving them certifications of approval or banning them from use, setting safety measurements etc, and suddenly they were gone. Pressure came on the governments to do something because we, the population didn't know what to do. Victoria and NSW decided they would put have the  Police audit speedways, and on the next Saturday night the old cop from Moulamein closed down the Swan Hill Meeting because someone was smoking in the pits. The spectators had to go home.

There was a meeting with Vic Police who told us they didn't want to run Speedway and wouldn't have the time to run meetings. The meetings came to a close and a statewide meeting was held in a motel in the seedy part of St Kilda. I was railroaded into being the person to go to the government and fix it.

I sat down with Tom Reynolds who was Minister for Sport and Recreation. I told him what the problems were and explained that we agreed with the Police that using them for . 

He leaned back and said "How would you (the 26 clubs and Associations)  like to run it?" I said "Yes" He said "Done".

We registered a State Incorporated Association, and set about trying to get copies of the track standards. I phoned the DLI and was told that all standards and specifications for Speedways had been removed; that we had to set our own.

I mention that as background to your comments.

CASA have done the same thing for the same reason. There would be no sensed in making Self Administering Organisations then handing control of operations to them but keeping responsibility for breaches of duty of care.

 

Even today, very few RAA people understand the generational change which occurred around Australia in 1981 and the nature of the change is you don't find out until someone sues you.

 

So in answer to your "What can RAA do with management structures and policies", most safety policies are in place.

People who work in Mining Companies and large Industrial Companies would recognise them

Compliance and Enforcement is a sub group which seems to be missing when viewed from outside RAA. This is testing standards of Pilots, standard training modules, standard training subjects, standards of build etc - a fairly extensive suite of policies to cover all operations. 

 

RAA is not expected to intefere with Police in criminal matters, so RAA doesn't have to run crimial cases which might result in prison terms

A volunteer organisation handling money is a nightmare at the nest of times, and while I don't think there is a bar to it, Associations don't have the structure and trained personnel.

 

However, once you have the rules and standards in place you can measure people against those standards and apply sanctions.

These might be suspension of Membership or Registration for a Month, Six months, A year up to Life.

There has to be a Natural Justice process attached to this.  The structure we had was penalties imposed by Chief Stewards, Appeals by Tribunal. I sat as a Tribunal Chairman for several years, and the system was accepted by the members and, I assume, still going.

 

If the person is not a member and does not have a licence, why would you be getting involved?

In the pre-1981 Prescriptive legislation days, someone would have chased after him and tried to slap him with a fine, but RAA is not a Prescriptive Association; Any lawsuits will go directly to him.

However, these people getting into trouble do make the headlines as "Ultralights" and bring the whole sport into disrepute. There are ways to hadle the situation but I won't spend time on it here.

 

 

 

27 minutes ago, aro said:

CAO 95.55 which underlies the whole RAA existence has exemptions from certain regulations e.g.

- the requirement to hold a pilot license

- various registration and airworthiness standards for aircraft

There are conditions attached, e.g. being a member of RAA, following the RAA operations manual, holding a RAA pilot certificate etc.

Agree

 

27 minutes ago, aro said:

If you don't comply with those conditions the exemptions don't apply and suddenly you are violating all the regulations that apply to normal aircraft:

- flying without a license

- flying unregistered aircraft

- flying aircraft that haven't been certified or maintained under GA regulations etc.

These all put you straight back into the regime of CASA and Australian law - not RAA management and policies.

You might be right; but I haven't looked at the SAO documents which might cover this. If there intent was to allow RAA aircraft to fly without incurring any liability I would be surprised if they haven't covered themselves, and there will be some cases where an aircraft may still have its registration numbers on it. Here again we are not talking about prescriptive control by RAA, whereas CASA airctraft are managed by prescription.

[aro]

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

However, once you have the rules and standards in place you can measure people against those standards and apply sanctions.

So what would you do if someone bought an old speedway car and drove it around the streets?

 

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

These might be suspension of Membership or Registration for a Month, Six months, A year up to Life.

No use if they are not a member and have no intention of joining.

 

[turboplanner]

43 minutes ago, aro said:

"However, once you have the rules and standards in place you can measure people against those standards and apply sanctions."

So what would you do if someone bought an old speedway car and drove it around the streets?

The measures and sanctions apply to members of the association.

RAA, Speedway etc are nor prescriptive legislation organisations; if someone buys an old speedway car and drives it around the streets it will be committing prescriptive offences administered by Police, but making a direct comparison of RAA with a Speedway Association, if the speedway car was unregistered and the driver was not a member, and it rolled over and injured a passenger, there would be no lawsuit chain back to the Speedway Association so no point running around after it and trying to penalise the driver.

 

However, sometimes actions like that, or rogue groups bring discredit to the sport and the Association may decide to work in conjunction with Police to fix the problem.

 

 

43 minutes ago, aro said:

"These might be suspension of Membership or Registration for a Month, Six months, A year up to Life."

No use if they are not a member and have no intention of joining.

Again, I was talking about, sanctions against Members. If someone loves his Jabiru but is continually flouting regulations there's a forseeable risk which the Association has to eliminate, so there's a potential lawsuit coming not only to the pilot but the Association. Giving him a month's holiday from his love is a good way to help him think a bit more. As I mentioned the driver's accept this because they always get a fair hearing.

 

For the people out there who from time to time declare quite openly that they are not members, or as one said "a third of us don't have licences", the current status is that if they injure or kill someone, the multi million dollar lawsuits go to them and sometimes the landowner if it is airstrip related. - user pays.

 

So, The claims are not going to the government, which is what the government wanted.

The claims are not going to the Association, and the Association doesn't have to chase every one of them down and make him correct his ways. The Association certainly does have to chase down wayward Members - that's Self Administration, but if it's set up correctly it has the motivational sanctions, and rather than "control" everything it can audit the members. (I've compressed maybe 10 pages of policy here but you get the idea.

 

JUST SO THAT NO ONE READING THIS THREAD GETS CONFUSED AND DRAWS THE WRONG CONCLUSIONS, THESE RECENT POSTS HAVE BEEN A GENERAL DISCUSSION ON ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT AND DO NOT RELATE TO THE BALL BAY CRASH IN ANY WAY.