On 26 October 1999, a major airworthiness audit of Whyalla Airlines was performed by CASA, a number of ‘minor deficiencies’ were identified and rectified; By April 2000, CASA’s attitude towards Kym Brougham had changed. On a couple of occasions they had approved his application to act as Chief Pilot in the absence of Mr Usher until, on 10 April 2000, CASA approved his appointment as Chief Pilot ‘during notified absences of the substantive chief pilot’. Exhibit C97 notes: ‘CASA was satisfied that, from all of its observations and involvement with the Manager (Kym Brougham), he had the motivation, ability and intention to avoid the circumstances that led to his chief pilot cancellation and the threat to the company’s AOC.’ (Exhibit C97, p95); On 12 April 2000, the employment of Mr David Usher was terminated. Mr Usher had worked at Whyalla Airlines since its inception in 1990. Upon his termination, Mr Brougham resumed his position as Chief Pilot; Exhibit C97 further notes: ‘CASA had advised the airline of its intention to conduct an annual periodic inspection in May 2000. However, other urgent tasks diverted staff resources within CASA and the inspection had not occurred by the time of the accident on 31 May 2000. (Only three of the seven CASA FOI positions in Adelaide were staffed at that time).’ (Exhibit C97, p95) Following the accident on 31 May 2000, CASA received ‘some anonymous reports’ which caused them to undertake a ‘special audit’ of Whyalla Airlines between 6 and 13 June 2000. The Managing Director, Mr Chris Brougham, had already decided to suspend all flight operations on 1 June 2000, the day after the accident (see Exhibit C74a, page 2). Following the audit, CASA concluded that there were a number of issues which required further investigation: maintenance of accurate flight and duty records; compliance with the flight and duty provisions applicable to the company; company safety culture; keeping of fuel records, charter manifests; and flight crew instrument recency. (Exhibit C97, page 96)
smell an ‘electrical burning smell’ in the cabin. He became so concerned that he looked under the seat for a lifejacket (T1911), but of course the aircraft was not equipped with them. Dr Parkinson also noticed that the engines were ‘surging’ a lot during the latter third of the flight. This also made Dr Parkinson ‘quite anxious’ (T1912). He accepted that this noise might have been due to the engines not being completely synchronised. Dr Parkinson said that after the flight, he saw Mr Kym Brougham looking intently at the tail of the aircraft. Mr Brougham said he had no memory of having done so (T2346). Mrs Margaret Morgan also noticed a ‘burning smell’ in the aircraft. She said that there was no mention of it in the aircraft, and she noticed nothing else that was amiss during the flight (Exhibit C200a, page 1). Mr Kym Brougham denied allegations by Drs Durairaj and Chisholm that he and Mr Mackiewicz had an argument at Adelaide Airport about being late (T2882-3). He pointed out that the flight was not late (T2542). He said that Mr Mackiewicz did not mention any problems with the aircraft to him that night (T2346). Issues, Discussion and Conclusions Did the right engine of MZK sustain damage on 30 May 2000 when operated lean of peak by Mr Ben Auld on a journey from Port Lincoln to Whyalla? It is not possible to form a conclusion as to whether MZK sustained any damage during the flight on 30 May 2000 when piloted by Mr Auld. There is no reliable evidence of any engine malfunction in MZK after that flight, and Mr Kym Brougham was monitoring the engine carefully, looking for any sign of a problem. It is possible that some damage was caused during that flight, but this can not be demonstrated on the evidence. Witnesses on the charter flight noticed that an engine was ‘revving’ louder than usual, and was surging. A witness also noticed an engine surging during Flight 903, and two witnesses also noticed a burning smell during that flight. Does this evidence