The increased capability of helicopters and rescue winches enabled the conduct of complex winch rescues beyond the current level of winch training and procedural support associated with the traditional special casualty access team clinical access role, leading to an increased risk that hazards associated with complex rescues were not identified.
Ambulance rescue crewmen did not conduct any night winching recency training, resulting in an increased risk of unfamiliarity with night winching procedures and their associated hazards.
The accepted use of procedural adaptation by special casualty access team paramedics, and the past success of rescues that involved adapted techniques, probably led to the retrieval procedure that was used on the night.
A significant number of R44 helicopters, including VH-COK, were not fitted with bladder-type fuel tanks and the other modifications detailed in the manufacturer's Service Bulletin, SB-78 to improve resistance to post?impact fuel leaks and fire.
Accidents involving Robinson R44 helicopters without bladder-type tanks fitted result in a significantly higher proportion of post-impact fires than for other similar helicopter types. In addition, the existing Australian regulatory arrangements were not sufficient to ensure all R44 operators and owners complied with the manufacturer's Service Bulletin SB-78B and fitted these tanks to improve resistance to post-impact fuel leaks.
There was no requirement for a systematic risk assessment to be conducted and documented when the planned amount of training for a controller was reduced.
A significant number of DHC-8-100, -200 and -300 series aircraft did not have a means of preventing inadvertent or intentional movement of power levers below the flight idle gate in flight, or a means to prevent such movement resulting in a loss of propeller speed control.
Many DHC-8 pilots were not made aware of the sound of the beta warning horn during their training.
The first 39 manufactured DHC-8-100 aircraft had a design problem such that, if the friction control was wound to the full out (friction off) position, the flight idle gate was ineffective in reducing the likelihood of pilots inadvertently moving the power levers below flight idle in flight.
The Cairns air traffic control procedures that defined a minimum spacing of 5 NM to be established when there were no departures (when the cloud base is less than 1,000 ft and/or visibility is less than 2,000 m) were inadequate to assure separation during a missed approach event and may result in future loss of separation occurrences.
The missed approach procedure note on the Cairns runway 15 instrument landing system (ILS) or localiser (LOC) approach chart may inadvertently influence a pilot to commence a turn on the missed approach procedure prior to the published missed approach point.
The Cairns air traffic control procedures on the management of missed approaches and the management of successive arriving aircraft were unclear in intent and function, increasing the risk of their incorrect application.
Section 4 of Civil Aviation Advisory Publication (CAAP) 5.23-2(0), Multi engine Aeroplane Operations and Training of July 2007 did not contain sufficient guidance material to support the flight standard in Appendix A subsection 1.2 of the CAAP relating to Engine Failure in the Cruise.
Wear of the interlocking shrouds of the intermediate-pressure turbine blades had the potential to reduce the dampening effects of the feature, and may have led to the development of conditions suitable for fatigue cracking of the IP turbine blades.
The inconsistent application of the operator’s safety management system to the identification and rectification of database anomalies, and intermittent notification of these anomalies to crews increased the risk of inadvertent flight crew non compliance with published instrument approach procedures.
The operator’s lack of awareness of the data providers’ assumption that the operator was complying with DO-200A Standards for Processing Aeronautical Data, which was not mandated in Australia, meant that the quality of the data was not assured.
The operator had limited controls in place to manage the fatigue risk associated with early starts.
Paint application to the main rotor gearbox, gear carrier did not effectively protect the part from corrosion resulting from gearbox water ingress.
Differences in the traffic alert phraseology between the Manual of Air Traffic Services and Aeronautical Information Publication increased the risk of non-standard advice being provided by the controller to the pilot of the G-IV during the compromised separation recovery.
The aircraft's centre of gravity varied significantly with hopper weight and could exceed both the forward and aft limits at different times during a flight.
