The Genesee and Wyoming Australia safety management system procedures did not provide supervising and trainee drivers with sufficient guidance or direction as to the extent of their supervisory or permitted driving roles.
The Cayman Islands requirements in relation to a yacht’s compliance with the Large Commercial Yacht Code and other relevant legislation are determined by the yacht’s mode of operation. As a result, a commercially operated yacht in excess of 24 m in length must comply with the requirements of the Code while a similar sized privately operated yacht that poses the same risks to safety of life at sea and the environment does not.
Calliope’s safety management system (SMS) did not provide the crew with adequate guidance regarding passage planning, training and familiarisation. Individual crew familiarisation records and risk assessment forms were not retained on board the yacht and there was no system of auditing or checking to ensure the adequacy of the SMS or the effectiveness of its implementation.
Calliope was not required to carry a pilot during Sydney Harbour voyages because the yacht was considered to be a recreational vessel, even though the risks it posed to the port were the same as those posed by similarly sized commercially operated vessels.
The examples of non-compliance with the requirements of Whyalla Launch Services’ safety management system indicate that the system was not fully and effectively implemented on board Switcher.
Atlantic Princess’s safety management system provided no guidance relating to actions that should be taken when persons less experienced than a pilot used a pilot ladder to board or disembark the ship.
Whyalla Launch Services’ safety management system did not provide effective guidance in relation to assessing a passenger’s ability to climb a pilot ladder or positioning of pilot launches while passengers were climbing and descending ladders. The system also referenced superseded SOLAS regulations and IMO resolutions relating to pilot ladders.
There were no facilities on board the Floating Offshore Transfer Barge Spencer Gulf that could be used to provide a safe means of access for personnel transfers between the barge and the ship. Furthermore, the barge operator’s procedures prohibited such personnel transfers.
The manufacture of, and the processes used to certify and register the Morgan Aero Works Cheetah Sierra 200 aircraft, resulted in an increased risk to persons entering the recreational aviation community and using the aircraft for flight training, and also to the general public.
The training provided to the pilot did not afford him the opportunity to develop the competencies required to exercise the privileges of the Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated private pilot certificate.
The approach to the management of risk at the Old Bar Beach Festival, particularly specifically in relation to aviation activities, was ineffective and resulted in a high level of unmanaged risk that had the potential to impact on the objectives of the festival.
The pilotage company’s procedures did not require pilots to inform launch crews whether manropes would or would not be deployed in advance of the transfer.
The ship’s pilot transfer procedures had not been revised to incorporate the most recent SOLAS requirements that manropes be secured at the rope end to a ring plate fixed to the deck.
The pilotage company’s procedures for positive communication of readiness between the pilot and the launch crew were adequate. However, it was common for employees to vary these communication protocols, leaving perceptions of readiness open to error and misinterpretation.
The pilotage company’s procedures did not explicitly require the pilot to check the pilot ladder and manrope arrangements before disembarking the ship.
The ship’s pilot transfer procedures did not specify a requirement for additional crew members to assist the supervising officer. As a result, the supervising officer was actively involved in deploying the pilot ladder and manropes, and transferring the pilot’s belongings to the launch, and could not focus his efforts on properly checking the arrangements and supervising the transfer.
The operator’s procedures did not require the flight crew to specifically check the active auto-flight mode during descent, and allowed the crew to select the Vertical Intercept Point altitude when cleared for the approach by air traffic control. This combination of procedures provided limited protection against descent through an instrument approach procedure’s segment minimum safe altitudes.
The ATSB investigation was unable to substantiate the reported observations of the train crew without having an independent source of data, such as forward facing video on train 5BM7.
The condensate drainage pots fitted to Nireas’ main air receivers were not fit for purpose as they were not capable of withstanding the internal pressures that were likely to accumulate in service.
Airservices Australia’s processes for reviewing and testing contingency plans did not effectively ensure that all documented contingency plan details were current and that its contingency plans could be successfully implemented at short notice.
