aro

There was a ground crew, and they did indicate to the pilot that the airspace was clear behind them (the helicopters took off backwards then turned around, is my understanding). The report concludes that the second helicopter was too far away to be visible when they checked.

I'm just trying to figure out what else you want to add. The only thing they didn't have was controlled airspace. To me, it seems like the root cause was the take off and landing flight paths from the different pads crossed. That's an accident waiting to happen. That was figured out way back when the standard circuit pattern was developed.

I think charges against the organization become irrelevant. But RAA pilots and aircraft would be grounded, so that's the worst case scenario. If I only had a RAA license, I would be applying for a RPL ASAP.

If a negligence case goes ahead, it is against the organization. The referral to the DPP could be for an individual, but I think the organization can also be charged. I think in a case like this they actually prefer to charge the organization, because they are then seen to do something when charging an individual might seem overly harsh.

They had radio, they had TCAS, they had ADSB-in that announced traffic in their headsets (although some functions were inhibited as they were too close to the ground). They basically had everything available - the next step is controlled airspace. What more do you suggest? The comment was that they received too many traffic notifications with the equipment that they had. I am very skeptical about the radio not working. They go to a lot of trouble to show that the faults in the antenna were pre-existing, and not a result of the crash. But that means it must have been a problem a long time before the crash. How long can you operate in that environment without someone noticing that your radio isn't transmitting? More likely the radio call was over-transmitted, or just so routine that people couldn't specifically remember it.

The problem with sacking the board is that it doesn't make the legal action go away. So then you have to find volunteers to eat someone else's shit sandwich.

No minimum to solo, but that is strictly supervised by the instructor. From RPC through to ATPL, there are minimum hour requirements - it's not just skill and passing the test.

His skill isn't the issue. The requirements for a license/certificate have 2 components: skill, measured through the test, and experience, measured as a number of hours. I've never seen a suggestion that the required hours should or could be waived for a particularly skilful pilot.

It might, but even then the presumption of innocence is required from the judge and the jury. Anyone else is free to draw their own conclusions. From the Coroner's report: I am compelled to conclude that RAAus engaged in a deliberate strategy to hide these key issues from the Court. Ms Bailey gave evidence which was false in material respects, which also served to hide these key issues. There's no reason to presume that to be untrue.

Presumption of innocence only exists in the context of a criminal trial and applies to judge and jury. Outside of that people are free to hold opinions and express them within the limits of libel/slander etc.

The airspace you're flying through now requires more attention than the airspace you're planning to fly through in 2 minutes. Pilots tend to worry more about ATC but that is a mistake. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate - ATC comes last in that list. But I think really, if The Oaks has more than very occasional traffic it is unsuitable as an approach point. Maybe when it was originally designated it was very quiet, but if traffic patterns change, airspace and procedures need to change.

That is not true. Camden is a towered airfield, so the Camden frequency is for communication with ATC, not between pilots. Camden tower do not want The Oaks users on their frequency. Aircraft in the vicinity of The Oaks are well outside Camden airspace, they should be monitoring The Oaks frequency if they could be in conflict with circuit traffic. Melbourne ATC also does not want Penfield & Riddells Ck traffic transmitting on their frequency, unless they are transiting CTA. In the unlikely event that an A380 was OCTA and passing through the Riddells Ck circuit, yes they should announce it on the Riddells Ck frequency.

There's an instrument approach, if I read it correctly it's about 2250' in the vicinity of The Oaks, depending how far from the field you measure it. I assume aircraft flying the approach should be talking to ATC who can hopefully see traffic at The Oaks if they have a transponder.

Most aircraft operating at Camden have ailerons. Somewhere in that 6.8 miles they could include a turn. 6.8 miles is a loooooong final - stretching the definition a bit.

From the chart, it looks like they could go 8 miles north to Mayfield or 6 miles south to Picton. Get rid of The Oaks as an approach point.