As the aerodrome is uncertified, there are no requirements for the aerodrome to meet standards outlined in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). As such, the REPCON was not forwarded to CASA.

The ATSB received the following comment from one of the Reporters: “The fact is there were instances that no handover was present when the controllers returned from the industrial action.  Management had not organised a verbal handover and ushered everyone out of the room except one person, it was their decision to conduct the process this way. To say it is like an evacuation, gives management the right to break any rules that are in place.”

Whilst not necessary, the operator provided significant detail regarding the circumstances of the resignation of pilots from the organisation. The circumstances surrounding one pilot states “On [Date], [Operator] Safety received an email from the pilot raising safety concerns of that are of a similar nature to those in the REPCON”.  The ATSB does not usually make any comment on the origin of REPCON reports; however, it is pertinent to advise that none of the REPCON …

The ATSB replied to CASA’s response requesting further detail on the surveillance event. CASA provided the following response: The next surveillance of [Provider] is scheduled for the week starting 29 October 2018. The circumstance regarding [Provider’s] non-delivery / late delivery of their document Revisions will be examined at that forthcoming surveillance event and if appropriate, a safety finding can be made. The lack of a response from [Provider] to the ATSB REPCON will be a discussion point between CASA’s surveillance team and [Provider’s] accountable manager, at the forthcoming…