There was no requirement for operators of passenger transport flights in aircraft with six or less seats to provide passengers with a verbal briefing, or written briefing material, on the brace position for an emergency landing or ditching, even for aircraft without upper torso restraints fitted to all passenger seats.
Upper torso restraints (UTRs) were not required for all passenger seats for small aeroplanes manufactured before December 1986 and helicopters manufactured before September 1992, including for passenger transport operations. Although options for retrofitting UTRs are available for many models of small aircraft, many of these aircraft manufactured before the applicable dates that are being used for passenger transport have not yet been retrofitted.
There were a significant number and variety of problems associated with the operator’s activities that increased safety risk, and the operator’s chief pilot held all the key positions within the operator’s organisation and conducted most of the operator’s flights. Overall, there were no effective mechanisms in place to regularly and independently review the suitability of the operator’s activities, which enabled flight operations to deviate from relevant standards.
The operator’s pilots routinely conducted near-aerobatic manoeuvres during passenger charter flights. However, procedures for these manoeuvres were not specified in the operator’s Operations Manual, and there were limited controls in place to manage the risk of these manoeuvres.
Although the operator’s procedures required that baggage and cargo be secured during flight, this procedure was routinely not followed, and the aircraft were not equipped with cargo nets or other means for securing loads in the baggage compartment.
Although the operator’s procedures required that actual weights be used for passengers, baggage and other cargo, this procedure was routinely not followed, and pilots relied on estimated weights when calculating an aircraft’s weight and balance.
The operator normally conducted airborne inspections of the Middle Island aeroplane landing area at about 50–100 ft while flying at normal cruise speed towards an area of water, and its procedures did not ensure the effective management of the risk of an engine failure or power loss when at a low height.
The wiring error was not detected by Metro Trains Melbourne’s verification program.
V/Line did not have a documented detailed process for inhibiting and reinstating level crossing protection equipment.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority did not have a system to differentiate between community service flights and other private operations, which limited its ability to identify risks. This hindered the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's ability to manage risks associated with community service flights.
There were limited opportunities for Angel Flight to be made aware of any safety related information involving flights conducted on its behalf.
Angel Flight had insufficient controls in place, and provided inadequate guidance to pilots to address the additional operational risks associated with community service flights.
Angel Flight did not consider the safety benefits of commercial passenger flights when suitable flights were available.
Lookout Working (LOW) was implemented in an area deemed unsuitable for LOW on the Sydney Trains Worksite Protection Hazardous Locations Register (WPHLR). This is likely due to the WPHLR not being clearly stated as a reference with specific requirements that must be adhered to.
Warning lights were utilised at Tempe to overcome sighting hazards and justify the use of Lookout Working (LOW). Warning lights rely on lookouts maintaining continuous observation and their use were not specifically referenced in the LOW Network Rules.
A variety of techniques to indicate and record rail stress at specific locations are available, however, Aurizon had not used any of these techniques in some locations with elevated risk of rail stress, such as tangent track on steep grades. As a result, Aurizon could not readily determine the presence or absence of compressive rail stress at these locations.
When planning track disturbing work, Aurizon’s normal practice was to use its Hazard Location Register as a record of past occurrences at a specific location. Aurizon did not use the Hazard Location Register as a resource to consider the situational characteristics of a location that may increase risk, such as continuous welded rail, track gradient and proximity to fixed points such as turnouts or level crossings.
