Sea World Helicopters' documented procedures for communication between inbound and outbound helicopters were not specific to their usual operation and location, and permitted a reactive model of separation, increasing the likelihood that an outbound pilot would not form awareness of relevant traffic. While some company pilots made proactive calls during final approach, this was not a standard practice.
Response by Sea World Helicopters
The operator disagreed with this safety issue. It stated:
Reopening the Park Pad in March 2022 created an increased risk of collision with traffic operating from the existing heliport. The conflict point was placed at a location where:
Sea World Helicopters' passenger safety briefing system, comprising of a passenger safety briefing video supplemented by safety cards and ground crew advice had limited, inconsistent and incorrect information about correct fitment of seatbelts, location and emergency operation of the EC130 doors, and the emergency brace position.
Sea World Helicopters did not have documented procedures or guidance on the correct fitment of aircraft seatbelts in conjunction with constant wear lifejackets. As a result, on the job training provided to ground crew included incorrect fitting practices, leading to passengers being routinely incorrectly restrained. This increased the risk of injury to passengers in the event of an accident.
Alliance Airlines flight crews were regularly changing the speed selector knob setting during the take‑off run. This was contrary to Embraer's guidance, and Alliance Airline’s own standard operating procedures manual. This increased the risk of distraction during a critical phase of flight.
Consistent with Embraer’sairplane operations manual, the Alliance Airline's pre-flight procedure required flight crew to unnecessarily initially set the speed knob to ‘manual’. This increased the risk of the aircraft departing with the incorrect speed mode selected.
Embraer's airplane operations manual was inconsistent with its standard operating procedures manual in relation to speed mode selection. This increased the risk of flight crews departing with the manual speed mode unintentionally selected.
Experience Co did not ensure sport parachutists received essential safety information about emergency exits, restraints and brace position, prior to take-off.
The South Australian Passenger Transport Authority approved a package of inspection and test plan procedures that did not specify any requirement for tests to verify and validate the safety integrity of the altered level crossing control circuits. The effectiveness of inspection and test plan procedure to control risk and provide assurance the signalling system functioned safety for trains operating on the ARTC network relied solely on the methodology adopted by the subcontracted signal team on the day.
Documentation supporting the training and competency assessment of launch coxswains was limited in detail and training records were incomplete.
The safety management system for Corsair did not include detailed guidance and reference material for the safe navigation of Port Phillip Heads, the effective use of launch navigational equipment and the role of the launch deckhand in supporting safe navigation.
The ship's managers' (CMA CGM) safety management system procedures and guidance for steering gear operation across its fleet were ambiguous and did not clarify the different terminology to those commonly used by the industry. This increased the risk of incorrect configuration of the steering gear, which occurred on board CMA CGM Puccini.
Maritime Safety Queensland and Poseidon Sea Pilots did not have a process to jointly and effectively identify and risk assess the hazards to shipping and pilotage that were outside normal environmental conditions.
The Pilbara Ports Authority's port user guidelines and procedures did not reflect the best practice escort towage guidance detailed in the port's draft escort towage strategy and business continuity plan. The detail of these improved towage practices, designed to reduce the risk of channel blockages, were also not integrated into the Port Hedland Pilots' safety management system and were consequently, inconsistently applied by pilots.
Although Hagen Oldendorff’s steering and rudder angle indicator systems complied with the applicable rules and regulations, neither the SOLAS regulations, nor the rules of the ship’s responsible classification society, Lloyd’s Register, mandated protection of the ship's rudder angle indication systems against a single point of failure in power supply, nor did they require installation of audible or visual alerts to notify the bridge team of a power failure affecting the indicators.
Response by the Liberia Maritime Authority
Although Hagen Oldendorff’s steering and rudder angle indicator systems complied with the applicable rules and regulations, neither the SOLAS regulations, nor the rules of the ship’s responsible classification society, Lloyd’s Register, mandated protection of the ship's rudder angle indication systems against a single point of failure in power supply, nor did they require installation of audible or visual alerts to notify the bridge team of a power failure affecting the indicators.
Response by Australian Maritime Safety Authority
Although Hagen Oldendorff’s steering and rudder angle indicator systems complied with the applicable rules and regulations, neither the SOLAS regulations, nor the rules of the ship’s responsible classification society, Lloyd’s Register, mandated protection of the ship's rudder angle indication systems against a single point of failure in power supply, nor did they require installation of audible or visual alerts to notify the bridge team of a power failure affecting the indicators.
Response by Lloyd’s Register
The Pilbara Ports Authority's port user guidelines and procedures did not reflect the best practice escort towage guidance detailed in the port's draft escort towage strategy and business continuity plan. The details of these improved towage practices, designed to reduce the risk of channel blockages, were also not integrated into the Port Hedland Pilots' safety management system and were, consequently, inconsistently applied by pilots.
Regional Express did not provide flight crew or ground crew recurrent training to review the hand signals required to communicate with each other, including those used in an emergency.
Rex did not ensure its flight crews received training in the differences between passenger and freight‑configured Saab 340 aircraft, prior to being scheduled to fly freight operations.
