Sea World Helicopters' passenger safety briefing system, comprising of a passenger safety briefing video supplemented by safety cards and ground crew advice had limited, inconsistent and incorrect information about correct fitment of seatbelts, location and emergency operation of the EC130 doors, and the emergency brace position.
Reopening the Park Pad in March 2022 created an increased risk of collision with traffic operating from the existing heliport. The conflict point was placed at a location where:
Sea World Helicopters did not have documented procedures or guidance on the correct fitment of aircraft seatbelts in conjunction with constant wear lifejackets. As a result, on the job training provided to ground crew included incorrect fitting practices, leading to passengers being routinely incorrectly restrained. This increased the risk of injury to passengers in the event of an accident.
Sea World Helicopters' implementation of their SMS did not effectively manage aviation safety risk in the context of the operator's primary business. Additionally, their objectives were non-specific, and the focus of safety management was primarily ground handling and WHS issues. This limited the operator's ability to ensure that aviation safety risk was as low as reasonably practicable.
Response by Sea World Helicopters
The operator disagreed with this safety issue. It stated:
At the time of park pad assessment, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's guidance documents for establishment of helipads did not prompt assessment of flight path interaction with other already established traffic.
Sea World Helicopters' standard inbound call from Porpoise Point was not a reliable alert for a pilot on the ground while boarding and interacting with passengers. Where collision risk on departure existed, a pilot on the ground would highly likely be focused on cabin preparation at the time of that inbound call.
Sea World Helicopters' procedure did not require ground crew to monitor the airspace up to the time of the helicopter departing the helipad. As the presence of hazards behind the helicopter could change significantly within a short space of time, helicopters routinely departed without current hazard information from ground crew.
Sea World Helicopters was reliant on CTAF calls, ground crew advice, and pilot visual detection of aircraft to ensure separation in VH‑XH9 and VH‑XKQ. Available additional controls for enhancing alerted see-and-avoid and reducing the risk of collision were not implemented.
Response by Sea World Helicopters
Sea World Helicopters provided the following response:
SWH state that additional controls for alerted See and Avoid were available.
Alliance Airlines flight crews were regularly changing the speed selector knob setting during the take‑off run. This was contrary to Embraer's guidance, and Alliance Airline’s own standard operating procedures manual. This increased the risk of distraction during a critical phase of flight.
Consistent with Embraer’sairplane operations manual, the Alliance Airline's pre-flight procedure required flight crew to unnecessarily initially set the speed knob to ‘manual’. This increased the risk of the aircraft departing with the incorrect speed mode selected.
Embraer's airplane operations manual was inconsistent with its standard operating procedures manual in relation to speed mode selection. This increased the risk of flight crews departing with the manual speed mode unintentionally selected.
Experience Co did not ensure sport parachutists received essential safety information about emergency exits, restraints and brace position, prior to take-off.
Regional Express did not provide flight crew or ground crew recurrent training to review the hand signals required to communicate with each other, including those used in an emergency.
Rex did not ensure its flight crews received training in the differences between passenger and freight‑configured Saab 340 aircraft, prior to being scheduled to fly freight operations.
The Pel-Air and Rex Saab 340 flight crew operating manuals did not include reference to the location and operation of the cross-valve handle or smoke curtain.
Saab did not include the smoke curtain fitment in pre-flight documentation for the cargo‑configured Saab 340 aircraft to inform flight crew of this difference from the passenger‑configured version.
Australian states and territories that engage in Large Air Tanker (LAT) operations have developed their own separate standard operating procedures (SOPs) for LATs and aerial supervision assets. This can result in safety requirements being omitted or misunderstood by the different tasking agencies, such as a minimum drop height, resulting in inconsistencies in the development and application of LAT SOPs.
The Coulson Aviation crew resource management practice of limiting the pilot monitoring (PM) announcements to deviations outside the target retardant drop parameter tolerances increased the risk of the aircraft entering an unrecoverable state before the PM would alert the pilot flying.
Coulson Aviation and the relevant Western Australian Government Departments had not published a minimum retardant drop height in their respective operating procedures for large airtankers. Consequently, the co-pilot (pilot monitoring), who did not believe there was a minimum drop height, did not alert the aircraft captain (pilot flying) to a drop height deviation prior to the collision.
Coulson Aviation and the relevant Western Australian Government Departments had not published a minimum retardant drop height in their respective operating procedures for large airtankers. Consequently, the co-pilot (pilot monitoring), who did not believe there was a minimum drop height, did not alert the aircraft captain (pilot flying) to a drop height deviation prior to the collision.
