The LIZZI FIVE RWY 34 VICTOR ARRIVAL required a 3.5° descent profile after passing the SHEED waypoint for visual approach to runway 34 at Melbourne, increasing the risk of an unstable approach.
Unlike other Australian standard arrival routes that included a visual segment, the visual approach to runway 34 at Melbourne via the SHEED waypoint could be issued to super or heavy jet aircraft operated by foreign operators, despite there being more occurrences involving the SHEED waypoint than other comparable approaches.
Air traffic control did not, and was not required to provide traffic information to aircraft using adjacent runways and abeam each other during independent visual approach procedures at Sydney.
The Virgin Australia procedures did not require its flight crews to, whenever practicable, announce flight mode changes.
Over the past 26 years, investigations into 41 collisions between trading ships and small vessels on the Australian coast have identified that not maintaining a proper lookout and taking early avoiding action, in accordance with the collision regulations, has been a consistent and continuing contributor to such collisions.
Brisbane Marine Pilots’ standard passage plan and master-pilot exchange did not ensure that a ship’s bridge team is provided adequate information with respect to local traffic and areas where attention must be paid to other vessels, including small craft.
Kota Wajar’s safety management system procedures with regard to posting a dedicated lookout were not effectively implemented.
The presentation of the runway 34 visual approach in the operator's Route and Airport Information Manual increased the risk of the runway threshold crossing altitude being entered into the runway extension waypoint.
Qantas provided limited guidance on the conduct of a visual approach and the associated briefing required to enable the flight crew to have a shared understanding of the intended approach.
The ARTC communication protocols did not provide the NCO adequate guidance with respect to standardised phraseology to ensure messages are clear and unambiguous.
The procedures in the ARTC CoP for the use and verification of a conditional proceed authority were ineffective in mitigating the risk to the effectiveness of that authority arising from human error.
SBR’s fatigue-management processes were ineffective in identifying the fatigue impairment experienced by the driver leading up to, and at the time of the occurrence.
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 United States regulatory arrangements are not sufficient to ensure all R44 operators and owners comply with the manufacturer's Service Bulletin SB-78B and fit these tanks to improve resistance to post-impact fuel leaks.
Many of the existing civil helicopter fleet are not fitted with a crash-resistant fuel system, or do not have an equivalent level of safety associated with post-impact fire prevention.
Although certification requirements for helicopters to include a crash-resistant fuel system (CRFS) were introduced in 1994, several helicopter types certified before these requirements became applicable are still being manufactured without a CRFS.
There was no Track Stability Management Plan in place for the section of track where the buckle developed – as was required by the ARTC’s CoP.
V/Line’s organisational processes for responding to and rectifying rail creep defects did not ensure that all such defects were addressed in a timely way.
An equivalent, alternative arrangement to the safety pin had not been provided to prevent inadvertent tripping of the freefall lifeboat’s on-load release during routine operations, such as inspections and maintenance.
The manufacturer’s calculations did not take into account the shock load imposed on the simulation wires or the lifeboat and launching frame mounting points.
While the design of the on-load release system allowed the reset position of the hook to be visually confirmed, it did not allow for visual confirmation that the release segment and mechanism had been correctly reset. Consequently, the hook device could appear to be properly reset when it was not.
