WHAT INSERTIGATIONS ARE Determined
In the incident involving the flight, it was discovered that Heston MRO, the airport’s contracted architectural firm in Brisbane, had not yet developed” an acceptable accounting system for tooling and equipment prior to aircraft pushback.”
Also, the legal risk controls that were in place for the removal of the pitot probe covers were circumvented when the licensed aircraft maintenance engineer certified for their removal in the professional log and removed a pertinent warning placard from the flight deck without graphically or orally confirming that they had been removed, according to ATSB chief commissioner Angus Mitchell.  ,
Additionally, the engineer or microphone operator failed to perform the last walk-around check on the aircraft to make sure it was properly set up for flight with all doors and panels closed and covers removed.
This event demonstrates how assumptions and legal omissions can create uncomfortable conditions, such as the possibility for an aircraft to get off with erroneous or missing airspeed indications, according to Mr. Mitchell.
The engineer even pointed out that following the COVID- 19 crisis, his workload in his two roles as an aircraft maintenance engineer and local manager had become” significantly more challenging.”
For exhaustion calculations, Mr. Mitchell claimed that Heston MRO did never track the work-related hours of employees who had two roles in this incident.
” This meant there was an increased chance of a exhaustion- related tragedy with these personnel”, he added.
However, it was unable to fully build that fatigue was to blame for what transpired.
Additionally, it was discovered that the aircraft’s pitot probe covers were about 3 meters above the eye level and had comparatively little streamers that were not clearly visible. Streamers , are banners or bows attached to pitot sheets and are intended to call personnel of their appearance.