CASA’s responses to 7.30’s questions CASA suspended Mr Bruce Rhoades pilots licence more than a week after the crash but a day after another light plane crash in Perth. Did this event put extra pressure on or influence the organization to act? No. CASA takes regulatory action based on the evidence relating to the specific events and issues. A careful assessment of the relevant information and evidence in Mr Rhoades’s case led CASA to take appropriate regulatory action in the interests of aviation safety and the travelling public. Although the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has not yet completed its investigation into the accident in Perth on 26 January 2017, that occurrence involved unrelated facts and circumstances. When did this Perth pilot get his licence? No comment, this matter is under investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. In written correspondence to Mr Bruce Rhoades, CASA recommend the Cessna 172 should have landed in the water? Why? CASA did not recommend the aircraft involved in the accident at Middle Island in Queensland in January 2017 should have attempted a landing in the water. CASA’s position is that the accident aircraft was not operated safely with the levels of airmanship required by the civil aviation regulations. Based on available evidence, CASA’s position is that the pilot had a preferable option available and should not have attempted to perform a 180 degree turn back to the beach at the point in the flight when the alleged engine failure occurred. [7.30 has information which contradicts this statement] Is it not the case that a water landing can result in a plane of this kind flipping over? The matter at hand is not about the potential risks involved in a water landing, but rather about the safest way to manage an aircraft in an emergency situation to avoid an aerodynamic stall. (Additional statement) Following the reported loss of engine power CASA is of the view there would have been an increased likelihood of a successful forced landing if the aircraft was maintained in controlled flight, landing with the wings level at a normal rate of descent. Footage taken after the accident (shot from the aircraft piloted by Mr Rhoades) identifies there was an area of exposed sand not more than approximately 15 degrees to the left of the direction of flight of the aircraft at the time it was claimed the engine failed in the aircraft that had the accident. This is consistent with our correspondence to Mr Rhoades that “…rather maintain airspeed and control of the aircraft with a view to landing the aircraft within a 30 degree arc left or right of the direction of flight”. Why did CASA say the plane was overloaded? Is CASA aware police evidence does not match photo evidence collected at the scene? [For example, documents show there were four backpacks on board each weighing exactly 5kg but there are photos of two and they are both under this weight]. The evidence indicated that no weight and balance check for the aircraft was conducted before the flight as required under the safety regulations. Passengers reported that they were not weighed or asked for their weights prior to the flight, which is important in small aircraft to establish the aircraft load. It is vital to ensure the weight and balance of an aircraft is within the correct limits. Evidence available to CASA indicates that the aircraft was above the applicable maximum take-off weight. [7.30 has information which contradicts this statement] Does CASA believe it is unusual that fuel was collected in a used coca cola bottle days after the accident? The collection of evidence in relation to the accident was a matter for attending police and the use of such evidence in the accident investigation is a matter for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Did CASA have any pervious issue with or concerns about Mr Bruce Rhoades’ conduct as a pilot? We understand he was grounded for a year in 2008 but was allowed to fly again. We have also been told he allowed a passenger to pose for a photo holding the controls and was warned over this. Mr Rhoades’ pilot licences were suspended in December 2007 and he was directed to undertake theory and flight examinations to demonstrate that he had the necessary knowledge and skill to continue to hold those licences. Mr Rhoades was prosecuted by the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions and pleaded guilty to four charges in July 2009: (i) unauthorised commercial operations in breach of subsection 27(2) of the Civil Aviation Act; (ii) failing to record details of a flight in personal log book in breach of subregulation 5.21(1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations; (iii) failing to record total time in service on maintenance release in breach of subregulation 43B(1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations; and (iv) performing a duty for which a rating is required without holding that rating in breach of subregulation 282(1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations. There is evidence of Wyndham Aviation’s joy flights online. More than 30,000 people took flights with the company. If CASA believed Mr Rhoades was a serious risk to air safety why was no action taken until after the January 10, 2017 fatality? As soon as CASA had evidence of Mr Rhoades’s unsafe activities CASA took appropriate action in relation to his pilot licences and the company’s Air Operator’s Certificate. This had the effect of preventing Mr Rhoades or his company from conducting any further flights. Is it CASA’s role to investigate plane fatalities in Australia? No. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigates accidents to determine the causal factors and make recommendations to improve safety. Is it CASA’s role to issue a report making findings in relation to an aircraft accident before an investigation by the ATSB, police and a coronial inquiry? No. CASA’s job is to conduct the regulation of Australian air operations with a view to maintaining and improving air safety. This means CASA may need to take enforcement action to address identified safety deficiencies. The safety interests of the public are at the forefront of CASA’s decision making. Do CASA believe the pilots did aerobatics in the planes? Based upon the available evidence, CASA considers that both Mr Rhoades and the pilot of the accident aircraft did on occasion engage in unauthorised aerobatic manoeuvres. These manoeuvres are not authorised as part of a normal charter flight carrying fare paying passengers. Was the second Cessna 172 (which did not crash) ever inspected by CASA? CASA conducted a visual inspection of the aircrsft (sic). Why was the second Cessna 172 allowed to be sold? There was no legal or safety-related reason to prevent this from occurring. Have any safety measures been introduced since the plane accident? If so, please specify. If not, please explain why not. CASA took action to ensure identified risks to aviation safety were addressed by suspending flight crew licences and the company’s Air Operator’s Certificate. When the Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation of the accident is completed CASA will carefully assess if any other safety factors can and should be addressed. CASA actively and continuously monitors the safety performance of Australian aviation to identify emerging risks or issues that should be addressed. CASA has alleged both pilots did illegal aerobatics but it also said there was “no safety-related reasons” to prevent the second Cessna 172 from being sold to another person. Is CASA saying that an aircraft’s history of illegal aerobatics does not present a safety risk? CASA had no evidence to take any action in relation to the aircraft. CASA said it conducted a visual inspection of the second Cessna 172. What is a visual inspection? Did a mechanic look at the plane? If not, why not? A CASA airworthiness inspector examined the aircraft visually and reviewed aircraft documentation. CASA said passengers were not weighed before the flight. We have differing evidence. Do you have any evidence to back up this statement? CASA was told that passengers, baggage and cargo were not weighed prior to the flight. In addition, passengers on the flight piloted by Mr Rhoades on the day of the accident stated they were not weighed or asked of their weight prior to their flight. [7.30 has information which contradicts this statement] Additional statement to ABC/Fairfax re Wyndham Aviation accident CASA is sorry to learn of Mr Rhoades’s illness, but is satisfied that the actions we have taken in relation to Mr Rhoades, Wyndham Aviation’s Air Operator’s Certificate and Mr Woodall were reasonable and appropriate. There was no “settlement” with Mr Woodall. [7.30 has information which contradicts this statement] Mr Woodall’s private and commercial pilot licences were cancelled by CASA on 21 March 2018 and remain cancelled. On 26 April 2018, Mr Woodall lodged an application with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of CASA’s decision to cancel his pilot licences. Following CASA’s and Mr Woodall’s participation in the Tribunal’s dispute resolution process, CASA received notification from the Tribunal that Mr Woodall had withdrawn his appeal to the AAT. As a consequence, CASA’s decision to cancel, and reasons for cancelling, Mr Woodall’s licences remain undisturbed. With appropriate retraining, flight testing and assessment, Mr Woodall may, at some time in the future, apply for a new pilot licence. If he elects to do so, CASA would assess his application at that time on the merits, in accordance with the applicable regulations, taking all relevant considerations into account. The characterisation of these matters in the 29 October 2018 Sydney Morning Herald article by Adele Ferguson and Chris Gillett (‘Pilot accuses air safety agency of flawed crash investigation’) is incorrect and misleading. Another issue which was portrayed inaccurately was the collection of fuel from the accident site (see photo’s: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-26/fuel-collected-in-a-used-cocacola-bottle-and-presented-as-evid/10403884). CASA has no involvement in accident scene investigations, which was made clear to the ABC/Fairfax. The accident is subject to ATSB and coronial investigations which will seek to determine causal and contributing factors. CASA appropriately reviewed the safety and regulatory issues relating to the accident and took decisions in the best interests of the safety of the public. Where unacceptable safety risks are identified it is CASA’s role to determine the appropriate course of action. It should be noted decisions such as these can be appealed to the relevant courts and tribunals.