Q, but no A : ala Estimates.
In short, no mate. Lots of reasons for that, but mostly because happily, no one else apart from the SFA, got hurt, which means there is no inquiry platform available, so no answers. Apart from that, both ATR and VARA have some very competent folk and I am certain that the ‘questions’ have been properly addressed; and, whatever measures they have put in place to reduce the risk of a reoccurrence are properly promulgated and executed. ‘Experts’ such as these have little use for the ATSB ‘conclusions’ or, indeed the time to waste waiting for ‘the’ report. Which leaves ATSB with only the public and the politicians to deal with. QED – ‘the’ official report is published with the absolute certainty that few will actually read it and even fewer again will understand half of it, let alone question it.
But yes, it would be ‘bumpy’ coming into Sydney that day – but not too bad, the crew had a speed reduction on which seems sensible and proper, everyone strapped in by 10,000 is prudent. But there are gaps in the Met analysis, I note that the 16 runways were in use, but cannot find the TAF or better the ATIS for the time which would provide some clues; was there an inversion?, was there a shear line? Had other crews reported speed excursions? I get the impression from the ATSB that the aircraft was in ‘smooth’ conditions when the ‘speed’ event occurred. I’ve had this happen a number of times, it’s spooky, the aircraft gets a wriggle on without an immediately apparent reason. Happens around thunderstorms, wind shear lines, at the top of an inversion, when there is an air-frame problem (twice), when there has been a trim overrun or runaway (four off); and, just once, when an AP went rogue. All dealt with as per; and never, ever, not once, did I need to use 67daN pull or push force to correct a 15-20 KIAS non scheduled speed increase. Put it to a physical test; try at the gym, sitting; the math is simple enough, load the weights on then see just how much physical effort is required. Try generating the published rudder loading against a torque meter: have your Weetbix, then try it, then, while recovering - wonder at just WTF was going on.
Jumping past a few other interesting points, we arrive at the claim of things being ‘heavy’; this implies a force opposing the movement of both control and trim. How would you address a speed excursion in normal conditions? Perhaps a squeeze of power off, a small suggestion of back stick and a handful of trim – job done; repeat as necessary.
Perhaps the above is all a bit vague, but then I don’t have to draft a report for my lords, masters and peers. Something bent a serviceable aircraft, a tough, proven reliable air-frame. Fact, there was a speed excursion – a minor one; fact, that excursion could not be corrected by normal means; fact, we have no idea why these events occurred, not really, and most certainly not from the ATSB rambling, conflicted dissemination they dare call a report. Thank the gods that the real expertise resides firmly with industry; can you imagine the unholy mess we’d be in if all we had to rely on was the ATSB overdue and obfuscated reports.
We must either save the dollars and rely solely on industry; or get the ATSB back to taws; or contract the work to another agency. Why? Well I’ll tell you, this incident was investigated because of an accident – the SFA busted undercarriage – why, how and what remedy has the ATSB suggested? No “V”, no CF for guessing the answer; far too easy.
Aye well, that’s it from me on this subject, it makes me both sad and angry every time I read the wretched report thing. So the great sobriquet ALT-FILE-DELETE is used, not satisfactory I know, but it’s not a fight I can win. Out, out, brief candle!
Toot toot.
Quote:“V” - PS: Is "K" going to publish his 4 page list of questions?
In short, no mate. Lots of reasons for that, but mostly because happily, no one else apart from the SFA, got hurt, which means there is no inquiry platform available, so no answers. Apart from that, both ATR and VARA have some very competent folk and I am certain that the ‘questions’ have been properly addressed; and, whatever measures they have put in place to reduce the risk of a reoccurrence are properly promulgated and executed. ‘Experts’ such as these have little use for the ATSB ‘conclusions’ or, indeed the time to waste waiting for ‘the’ report. Which leaves ATSB with only the public and the politicians to deal with. QED – ‘the’ official report is published with the absolute certainty that few will actually read it and even fewer again will understand half of it, let alone question it.
But yes, it would be ‘bumpy’ coming into Sydney that day – but not too bad, the crew had a speed reduction on which seems sensible and proper, everyone strapped in by 10,000 is prudent. But there are gaps in the Met analysis, I note that the 16 runways were in use, but cannot find the TAF or better the ATIS for the time which would provide some clues; was there an inversion?, was there a shear line? Had other crews reported speed excursions? I get the impression from the ATSB that the aircraft was in ‘smooth’ conditions when the ‘speed’ event occurred. I’ve had this happen a number of times, it’s spooky, the aircraft gets a wriggle on without an immediately apparent reason. Happens around thunderstorms, wind shear lines, at the top of an inversion, when there is an air-frame problem (twice), when there has been a trim overrun or runaway (four off); and, just once, when an AP went rogue. All dealt with as per; and never, ever, not once, did I need to use 67daN pull or push force to correct a 15-20 KIAS non scheduled speed increase. Put it to a physical test; try at the gym, sitting; the math is simple enough, load the weights on then see just how much physical effort is required. Try generating the published rudder loading against a torque meter: have your Weetbix, then try it, then, while recovering - wonder at just WTF was going on.
Jumping past a few other interesting points, we arrive at the claim of things being ‘heavy’; this implies a force opposing the movement of both control and trim. How would you address a speed excursion in normal conditions? Perhaps a squeeze of power off, a small suggestion of back stick and a handful of trim – job done; repeat as necessary.
Perhaps the above is all a bit vague, but then I don’t have to draft a report for my lords, masters and peers. Something bent a serviceable aircraft, a tough, proven reliable air-frame. Fact, there was a speed excursion – a minor one; fact, that excursion could not be corrected by normal means; fact, we have no idea why these events occurred, not really, and most certainly not from the ATSB rambling, conflicted dissemination they dare call a report. Thank the gods that the real expertise resides firmly with industry; can you imagine the unholy mess we’d be in if all we had to rely on was the ATSB overdue and obfuscated reports.
We must either save the dollars and rely solely on industry; or get the ATSB back to taws; or contract the work to another agency. Why? Well I’ll tell you, this incident was investigated because of an accident – the SFA busted undercarriage – why, how and what remedy has the ATSB suggested? No “V”, no CF for guessing the answer; far too easy.
Aye well, that’s it from me on this subject, it makes me both sad and angry every time I read the wretched report thing. So the great sobriquet ALT-FILE-DELETE is used, not satisfactory I know, but it’s not a fight I can win. Out, out, brief candle!
Toot toot.