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 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.
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.
Airservices Australia’s processes for selecting and preparing personnel for the Contingency Response Manager role did not ensure they could effectively perform that role.
Airservices Australia did not have a defined process for recording the actual hours worked by its Air Traffic Control Line Managers and therefore could not accurately monitor the potential fatigue of those personnel when they were performing operational roles such as a Shift Manager or Contingency Response Manager.
Airservices Australia’s processes for managing a Temporary Restricted Area did not effectively ensure that all aircraft operating in the Temporary Restricted Area were known to air traffic services.
The two JRA-776-1 fuselage lateral tie rods fitted to de Havilland DH82A Tiger Moth, registered VH-TSG, had significant, pre-existing fatigue cracks in the threaded sections. The parts’ service life was significantly less than the published retirement life for DH82A tie rods of 2,000 flight hours or 18 years).
The pilot was assigned to a task for which he most likely lacked experience on both the helicopter type and the nature of the flying.
The minimal clearance from obstructions, unfavourable surface conditions and a lack of appropriate wind indication at the helicopter landing site (HLS) increased the risk associated with operations to the HLS, particularly for a pilot unfamiliar with the site.
At the time of the occurrence there was limited advisory material available to owners, operators and maintenance personnel to alert them to the possibility of MS21042 nut failure and to assist with appropriately detailed inspections aimed at identifying affected items.
The nut manufacturer’s production control and quality control processes failed to prevent the release of one or more lots of MS21042L-4 nuts that remained in a partially-embrittled state after cadmium electroplating.
Though airborne search and rescue service providers were regularly tasked to provide assistance to pilots in distress, there was limited specific guidance on the conduct of such assistance.
The Manual of Air Traffic Services differed from the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 172 Manual of Standards concerning the requirements for issuing a night visual approach to an instrument flight rules aircraft, increasing the risk of ambiguity in the application of these requirements by controllers.
The Tiger Airways Australia Pty Ltd documentation and training package relating to the Avalon airspace structure and night visual approach guidance contained incorrect material and omissions that increased the risk of confusion and misunderstanding by flight crews.
There was no documented procedure for assuring the separation of aircraft departing from Sydney with parachute operations at Richmond, increasing the likelihood that Sydney Terminal Control Unit controllers would have differing expectations as to their control and coordination requirements in respect of these operations.
Local and national air traffic control procedures did not prescribe the means for controllers to indicate in the air traffic control system that a parachute drop clearance had been issued.
Aerial work and private flights were permitted under the visual flight rules in dark night conditions, which are effectively the same as instrument meteorological conditions, but without sufficient requirements for proficiency checks and recent experience to enable flight solely by reference to the flight instruments.
Aerial work and private flights were permitted under the visual flight rules in dark night conditions, which are effectively the same as instrument meteorological conditions, but without sufficient requirements for proficiency checks and recent experience to enable flight solely by reference to the flight instruments.
Helicopter flights were permitted under the visual flight rules in dark night conditions, which are effectively the same as instrument meteorological conditions, but without the same requirements for autopilots and similar systems that are in place for conducting flights under the instrument flight rules.
Although some of the operator’s risk controls for the conduct of night visual flight rules flights were in excess of the regulatory requirements, the operator did not effectively manage the risk associated with operations in dark night conditions.
