[Peetwo]

ATR Crash landing.

It’s a rare thing these days to read some old fashioned ‘straight talk’ on the UP, particularly in relation to aircraft operating. But, every now and again, someone who knows what they are about speaks up. Bravo Di Vosh; hear, hear.

"I don't know if you've ever flown a large Turboprop. If you have, you should know that reducing the power levers to "near flight idle" at 107' AGL is going to guarantee you a heavy landing unless you re-apply most or all of that power as soon as your speed gets back to your desired range."

I'm just surprised no one was seriously hurt.

Toot - toot.

My turn on UP duty and I must admit to rapidly becoming a fan of Di Vosh as well...

scifi


I didn't miss it. If every time there was a heavy landing due..

"..turbulence and changing wind conditions.."

..the worlds fleet of airliners would be grounded weekly.

As I've said (more than once) I've flown that approach a few times. There is ALWAYS "turbulence and changing wind conditions" on approach to Canberra, even on a day with light and variable winds. I can guarantee that a 16 knot NE wind will give a crew plenty of work on final, but it's not that unusual.

The METAR winds of the day do not support your theory of a 22 knot wind change, and I would suggest to you that if that kind of wind set was active in Canberra at the time (and it does) there would be NOTAMS for moderate/severe turbulence below 8000', and there would be turbulence and/or undershoot/overshoot shear advices on the ATIS, none of which appeared to be present on the day.

Have you flown a heavy turboprop? Are you aware of what happens to aircraft performance when the power levers are placed "near flight idle"? (God forbid when in the landing configuration)

The report states that the FO reacted to the increased airspeed and reduced the power levers to "near flight idle" approximately 9 seconds before landing and then didn't touch them for over five seconds.

That is a recipe for disaster!

DIVOSH!

---

&..

There's obviously a second theme running here, as evidenced by people who appear to be VARA pilots posting about possible "issues" within their own C&T system.


Fair enough.

I would like to put my P.O.V. re: Cadets vs. experienced pilots in the RHS.

I spent around 25 years in the Army. Mainly reserves, but also went on the odd operational deployment. I've been staff on countless training courses, ranging from recruit courses, through to training Ares and ARA soldiers in all kinds of Green army and SF courses. My last deployment was being part of a team where we trained Coalition forces (U.S. and Iraqi) in various aspects of Counter Insurgency warfare.

There is a saying in the military:

"There is no such thing as a bad soldier. There are only bad trainers, NCO's and officers."

What that means is that a pilot in an airline is a product of his or her C&T system. There is NO REASON why a 300 hour pilot shouldn't be in the RHS of an ATR, Dash, 737 or A320. Provided that they are trained correctly.

This happens all around the world, particularly in places like Europe and Asia where there isn't a GA industry to supply large volumes of high time applicants.

If the training that a pilot receives at VARA focusses more on procedures, being "word perfect" in checklist responses, etc. rather than on FLYING THE AIRCRAFT you will continue to see incidents and accidents like this happen.

My 2c.

DIVOSH!

 
Well said that man!


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Second the Choc Frog motion.

DV – “What that means is that a pilot in an airline is a product of his or her C&T system.”

This is not the place for an in depth look at the statement above, which is IMO 70% correct. Other underlying factors which demand analysis comprise the remaining 30%. Beginning with the ‘official’ dictates at flight school level where the basic building blocks of multi engine operations are taught – some of the tales from that field are truly scary. Then there is the tortured ‘approval’ process for a C&T system, which has produced some bizarre results, cast in stone and ‘black letter’ compliance. Then there is the HR element of pilot ‘selection’ which perpetuates and compounds the system flaws.

Back in the day – to convert a pilot to a new aircraft type, it was a matter of introducing the systems, peculiarity’s and ‘differences’ of the aircraft which would be added to the existing basic skills. In recent times as much time again and often more is needed to bring the basic flying skills to an acceptable level – before applying those skills to a new aircraft type.  

DV – “There is NO REASON why a 300 hour pilot shouldn't be in the RHS of an ATR, Dash, 737 or A320. Provided that they are trained correctly.”

Agreed; and, provided both elements of the raw material are up to specification. – The small skills, like maintaining speed control all the way to the touch down point and the training skills to recognize a potential ‘hole’ in the knitting, before it becomes a tangle of machinery and tarmac.

Big topic, but Bravo Di Vosh for having the grit to even attempt to raise it. No good discussing it here though – just wasting wind - preaching to the converted.

Toot – toot.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

From the ABC...

Sydney Seaplane crash pilot's actions were 'totally inexplicable', says boss

The boss of Sydney Seaplanes has described the actions of a highly experienced pilot during New Year's Eve's deadly crash as "totally inexplicable".

Key points:
Six people died when the seaplane crashed on New Year's Eve
The ATSB has begun its investigation into the incident
Sydney Seaplanes has since resumed flights
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau today released an interim report into the crash, which killed six people north of Sydney last month.

The report has found the plane was still climbing out of the Cottage Bay area when it banked 80 to 90 degrees to the right before diving into 13-metre-deep waters killing pilot Gareth Morgan and five passengers onboard.

Sydney Planes chief executive Aaron Shaw said that was "inexplicable".

"The key question arising from the report is why the plane crashed, approximately halfway down Jerusalem Bay, which is surrounded by steep terrain and has no exit," he said.

"It is not a route we authorise in our Landing and Take-off Register and the plane simply should not have been where it was.

"Further, the aircraft is then reported to have entered into an 80 to 90 degree bank angle turn.

"A turn of this nature at low altitude by a pilot with Gareth's skill, experience and intimate knowledge of the location is totally inexplicable."

Pilot was 1km off course: report

The Sydney Seaplanes' standard flight path out of the Cottage Point area is to climb north into Jerusalem Bay before turning right towards Cowan Creek and into the body of the Hawkesbury River before high enough altitude is gained to fly over the surrounding bushland.

According to the report, the path Mr Morgan took was about 1 kilometre off that standard course.

Witnesses report that the plane flew to the left of Jerusalem Bay before taking an 80-90 degree turn and diving into the water.

Richard Cousins, 58, his two sons, Edward, 23, and William, 25, his 48-year-old fiancee Emma Bowden and her 11-year-old daughter Heather Bowden-Page, all from Britain, were killed in the crash.

Mr Cousins, who was chief executive of Compass Group, had recently been recognised by the Harvard Business Review for his work as chief executive of the multinational catering company.

Ms Bowden was the art editor at British publication OK! Magazine where she worked for 15 years.

The main body of the 55-year-old de Haviland DHC-2 Beaver, including the engine, the propeller, the floats and the tail, were recovered from Jerusalem Bay earlier this year.

All parts of the plane were taken to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in Canberra for analysis.

Earlier it was revealed in a report from the ATSB that the craft was "destroyed" in a fatal accident 20 years ago.

The plane was once a crop duster that was involved in a serious crash near Armidale in November 1996, killing the pilot.

A final report is expected early next year.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Preliminary report here..

[Peetwo]

From the ABC...

Sydney Seaplane crash pilot's actions were 'totally inexplicable', says boss

The boss of Sydney Seaplanes has described the actions of a highly experienced pilot during New Year's Eve's deadly crash as "totally inexplicable".

Key points:
Six people died when the seaplane crashed on New Year's Eve
The ATSB has begun its investigation into the incident
Sydney Seaplanes has since resumed flights
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau today released an interim report into the crash, which killed six people north of Sydney last month.

The report has found the plane was still climbing out of the Cottage Bay area when it banked 80 to 90 degrees to the right before diving into 13-metre-deep waters killing pilot Gareth Morgan and five passengers onboard.

Sydney Planes chief executive Aaron Shaw said that was "inexplicable".

"The key question arising from the report is why the plane crashed, approximately halfway down Jerusalem Bay, which is surrounded by steep terrain and has no exit," he said.

"It is not a route we authorise in our Landing and Take-off Register and the plane simply should not have been where it was.

"Further, the aircraft is then reported to have entered into an 80 to 90 degree bank angle turn.

"A turn of this nature at low altitude by a pilot with Gareth's skill, experience and intimate knowledge of the location is totally inexplicable."

Pilot was 1km off course: report

The Sydney Seaplanes' standard flight path out of the Cottage Point area is to climb north into Jerusalem Bay before turning right towards Cowan Creek and into the body of the Hawkesbury River before high enough altitude is gained to fly over the surrounding bushland.

According to the report, the path Mr Morgan took was about 1 kilometre off that standard course.

Witnesses report that the plane flew to the left of Jerusalem Bay before taking an 80-90 degree turn and diving into the water.

Richard Cousins, 58, his two sons, Edward, 23, and William, 25, his 48-year-old fiancee Emma Bowden and her 11-year-old daughter Heather Bowden-Page, all from Britain, were killed in the crash.

Mr Cousins, who was chief executive of Compass Group, had recently been recognised by the Harvard Business Review for his work as chief executive of the multinational catering company.

Ms Bowden was the art editor at British publication OK! Magazine where she worked for 15 years.

The main body of the 55-year-old de Haviland DHC-2 Beaver, including the engine, the propeller, the floats and the tail, were recovered from Jerusalem Bay earlier this year.

All parts of the plane were taken to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in Canberra for analysis.

Earlier it was revealed in a report from the ATSB that the craft was "destroyed" in a fatal accident 20 years ago.

The plane was once a crop duster that was involved in a serious crash near Armidale in November 1996, killing the pilot.

A final report is expected early next year.

WOW! - Must be a slow news day??

---

Report sheds light on seaplane's final moments
Highly Cited NEWS.com.au 4h ago



Sydney Seaplane crash pilot's actions were 'totally inexplicable', says boss
ABC Local 4h ago



Seaplane took wrong turn before NYE crash
PerthNow 2h ago



Local SourceSeaplane crash: inquiry looks to flight path clue
The Australian 2h ago



More ArticlesSydney seaplane crash: Sharp turn 'inexplicable', operator says
BBC News 1h ago



Sydney Seaplane veered off course before crash
9news.com.au 4h ago



Seaplane that crashed in Sydney killing Compass Group exec was off course - investigator
Yahoo7 News 1h ago



Sydney seaplane location 'totally inexplicable' before crash, operator says
The Guardian 4h ago



Sydney seaplane crash: Experienced pilot's actions were 'totally inexplicable'
The Argus 59m ago



Seaplane in horror fatal crash 'should not have been where it was'
Yahoo7 News 3h ago



Sydney seaplane not on expected flight path before fatal crash – report
East Lothian Courier 3h ago



Owner of crashed Sydney seaplane says route not authorized
ABC News 3h ago



Report details final moments of seaplane that crashed on New Year's Eve
International Business Times AU 2h ago



Sydney seaplane was not on standard flight path when it crashed
Sky News 5h ago



Australia seaplane 'inexplicably' off course before deadly crash: investigators
The Straits Times 2h ago



Seaplane not damaged but off course just before deadly crash
myGC.com.au 1h ago



---

& off the ATSB website:

Preliminary report published: 31 January 2018

Sequence of events

On 31 December 2017, at about 1500[1] Eastern Daylight-saving Time,[2] the pilot and five passengers of a de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver floatplane, registered VH-NOO and operated by Sydney Seaplanes, departed Cottage Point on a charter flight to Rose Bay, New South Wales.

The operator reported that the aircraft’s expected and standard flight path[3] after departing Cottage Point was to climb initially to the north then turn right along Cowan Creek toward the main body of the Hawkesbury River, until sufficient altitude was gained to fly above terrain and return to Rose Bay (Figure 1). While the exact take-off path from Cottage Point has yet to be established, the aircraft was observed by witnesses to enter Jerusalem Bay (Figure 1). The aircraft was observed to enter the bay at an altitude below the height of the surrounding terrain (Figure 2). Several witnesses also reported hearing the aircraft’s engine and stated that the sound was constant and appeared normal.

Shortly after entering Jerusalem Bay, numerous witnesses reported seeing the aircraft suddenly enter a steep[4] right turn and the aircraft’s nose suddenly drop before the aircraft collided with the water in a near vertical position. The aircraft came to rest inverted and with the cabin submerged. Witnesses reported the entire tail section and parts of both floats were initially above the waterline. The aircraft took over 10 minutes to completely submerge. A quantity of fuel was also observed in the water. A number of witnesses who heard or observed the impact responded to render assistance. All six occupants received fatal injuries.

Figure 1: Cottage Point area, standard flight path and accident location

Source: Google earth, modified by the ATSB

Figure 2: Cottage Point area with Jerusalem Bay entry viewed from Cowan Creek

Source: Camtas International Pty Ltd

Pilot information

The pilot held a current Commercial Pilot (Aeroplane) Licence that was last reissued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on 21 March 2017 following a flight review and proficiency check. He also held a Republic of Maldives Airline Transport Pilot Licence. The pilot held a Class 1 Aviation Medical Certificate valid until 6 March 2018 and he was reported to have a high standard of health.

A copy of the pilot’s CASA licence provided by the operator indicated that he held single-engine and multi-engine aeroplane class ratings, and floatplane, manual propeller pitch control, and retractable undercarriage design feature endorsements.

The pilot’s last ratings (flight review and proficiency check) were issued on 11 March 2017. The ratings comprised a multi‑engine aircraft flight review and instrument proficiency check (valid until 31 March 2019 and 31 March 2018 respectively). The pilot’s logbook also indicated that he had completed a gas turbine engine design feature endorsement on 16 June 2017 and conducted a single-engine aircraft flight review on 29 June 2017 (valid until 30 June 2019). Information provided by the operator indicated that the pilot had a total flying experience of more than 10,000 hours, of which about 9,000 hours were on floatplanes.

The pilot had been employed by Sydney Seaplanes from 2011 to 2014 and then relocated overseas. On return to Australia in May 2017, the operator’s records indicated that the pilot had completed the following checks and training:

• pilot induction training
  
• a DHC-2 engineering, data and performance questionnaire
  
• a Cessna 208 Caravan (C-208) amphibian endorsement systems questionnaire
  
• an aircraft proficiency check on the DHC-2 and C-208
  
• a low-level manoeuvring check on the DHC-2 and C-208
  
• an authorised landing area check flight in the DHC-2 and C-208, which included Cottage Point
  
• Civil Aviation Order 20.11 emergency procedures training on the DHC-2 and C-208
  
• a flight crew dangerous goods and non-dangerous goods acceptance course
  
• CASA alcohol and other drugs ‘managing risk’ training module
  
• non-technical skills training in communication, situational awareness, decision making and workload management as part of the operator’s safety management system
  
• fuel barge training
  
• a C-208 compressor/turbine water wash course.
  

Aircraft information

The float-equipped DHC-2 Beaver is a predominately all-metal high-wing aircraft designed to carry one pilot and seven passengers. VH-NOO was manufactured in 1963 and first registered in Australia in 1964 (Figure 3). Viking Air (Canada) has been the type certificate holder since 2006. The aircraft was powered by a Pratt & Whitney ‘Wasp Junior’ R-985 nine‑cylinder, single‑row, air-cooled radial engine, which drove a Hartzell HC-B3R30-4B three‑blade propeller. The aircraft was operated in the charter category.

A periodic inspection of the aircraft was completed on 6 November 2017 and a new maintenance release was issued. A scheduled engine change was also carried out at this time. The installed engine had recently been inspected and test run by a maintenance organisation in the United States and had about 95 hours’ time-in-service at fitment.

Figure 3: de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver floatplane, registered VH-NOO

Source: Sydney Seaplanes

Previous accident

The ATSB investigated a fatal accident involving the same aircraft, then configured for aerial agriculture operations including a fixed undercarriage, which occurred on 15 November 1996, resulting in the fatality of the sole occupant. The aircraft was subsequently repaired, issued with a Certificate of Airworthiness and re-entered service, registered as VH-NOO, in 2000. Sydney Seaplanes acquired the aircraft in 2006.

Environmental information

The nearest Bureau of Meteorology automatic weather station (AWS) was located at Terrey Hills, about 11 km south-south-east of Jerusalem Bay. Another AWS was located at Gosford about 22 km north-north-east of Jerusalem Bay. At 1500 on the day of the accident, the Terrey Hills AWS recorded the wind at 13 km/h (about 7 kt) from the north-east. The Gosford station recorded the wind at 20 km/h (about 11 kt) from the east-north-east. Witnesses positioned in Jerusalem Bay generally indicated that the wind was directly into the bay at various strengths,[5] which would have resulted in the aircraft experiencing a tailwind at the time the aircraft entered Jerusalem Bay.

The water depth at the wreckage location was 14.5 m. Bureau of Meteorology tidal recordings at the Ku-ring-gai Yacht Club (near Cottage Point), stated that it was low tide at 1400 indicating that the tide was in-coming at the time of the accident.

Wreckage recovery and examination

On 4 January 2018, the aircraft was recovered from the water, where it was established that both wings and floats had become separated from the fuselage (Figure 4). The aircraft was retrieved during three ‘secure and lift’ operations undertaken by the New South Wales Police Force Diving Unit and a barge operated crane crew. These were:

• the main sections of both aircraft floats and the right wing
  
• the main fuselage including the engine, propeller and tail section
  
• the left wing.
  

The Police conducted further diving operations to retrieve the remaining aircraft debris and items on-board at the time of impact.

The aircraft was transported to secure facilities for further examination. Initial examination of the aircraft wreckage indicated:

• all major sections of the aircraft structures were recovered
  
• no evidence of a birdstrike or collision with an object prior to take-off or in-flight
  
• no evidence of an in-flight break-up or pre-impact structural damage
  
• the front of the aircraft and float tips had been significantly damaged
  
• both the wings and floats had separated from the fuselage during the impact sequence
  
• damage to wings was consistent with the aircraft being banked to the right at the time of impact
  
• flight control continuity throughout, indicating no evidence of flight control issues[6]
  
• the flaps were in the ‘climb’ position of 15 ± 1 degrees
  
• there was no cockpit voice or flight data recorder (nor was there a regulatory requirement for an aircraft this size to be fitted with one)
  
• there was no commercial video recording equipment fitted to the aircraft.
  

The engine, propeller and a number of aircraft components have been retained by the ATSB for further examination.

Figure 4: VH-NOO recovery from Jerusalem Bay

Source: ATSB

Fuel testing

Fuel samples were collected by the New South Wales Police Force from the operator’s refuelling point at Rose Bay. The fuel was tested by the ATSB for the presence of water, with nil indications found. A visual inspection did not identify any particle matter in the fuel. In addition, there were no reports of fuel quality concerns with the operator’s other DHC-2 aircraft utilising the same fuel source. The remainder of the fuel samples have been retained by the ATSB for further testing if required.

Sydney Seaplanes safety action

Whether or not the ATSB identifies safety issues in the course of an investigation, relevant organisations may proactively initiate safety action in order to reduce their safety risk. The ATSB has been advised of the following proactive safety action taken by Sydney Seaplanes in response to this accident.

• Immediately following the accident, Sydney Seaplanes suspended operations. They resumed operations in their C-208 amphibious aircraft on 15 January 2018, with an interim provision of having two crew on board.
  
• The maintenance status of all aircraft has been reviewed, with all maintenance actions found to have been carried out as required.
  
• All pilots and operations personnel completed threat and error management training.
  
• All pilots completed ground training on low-level flying and wind shear.
  
• Prior to commencing charter flights, all pilots will be re-checked in accordance with the operator’s proficiency standards. This will include additional low-level and stall training.
  

Ongoing investigation

The ATSB investigation is continuing and will include consideration of the following:

• engine, propeller and aircraft component examinations
  
• flight and engine control positions
  
• aircraft maintenance history
  
• obtaining and evaluating witness information
  
• pilot qualifications, experience and medical information
  
• impact sequence
  
• survivability
  
• aircraft performance and handling characteristics
  
• aircraft weight and balance
  
• operator policies and procedures
  
• stall warning systems
  
• nature of seaplane operations
  
• environmental influences
  
• sources of recorded information
  
• similar occurrences in Australia and internationally.
  

The ATSB will continue to consult the engine and airframe type certificate holders, and utilise the expertise of the Seaplane Pilots Association of Australia. Accredited representatives from the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada and the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) have been appointed to participate in the investigation. A representative from the United Kingdom (UK) Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) has been appointed as an expert to the investigation team under the same provisions. The AAIB will provide liaison with the passenger’s next-of-kin, citizen’s in the UK.

Acknowledgements

The ATSB acknowledges the support of the New South Wales (NSW) Police Force, Marine Area Command and Police Diving Unit; NSW Fire and Rescue, specialised operations and firefighting units from Metropolitan East 2; NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service; Sydney Metro Airports and those involved with the recovery of VH-NOO.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Idle speculation.

"Sydney Seaplane crash pilot's actions were 'totally inexplicable', says boss.'

It is probably happening, but it would be nice if the media could add an extra appeal to anyone who has video footage of the take off to provide it to the NSW police or, even the ATSB. This is going to be a tough nut for the ATSB to crack, unless they find a clear cut answer during the investigation and 'video' may be a great help.

One of the habits beaten into a pilot's head, from day one, is to check the correct sense and function of all control surfaces before take off. A sea-plane take off involves much use of ‘rudder’ and elevator, but not too much in the way of aileron - in the low speed ranges. In trying to understand why the aircraft turned so far into Jerusalem Bay one of the possible theories discussed (speculation) is a control ‘lock-up’ or, partial failure of either the water rudder/ rudder or the aileron circuit. Please note - this is only idle speculation at the moment; and, as the ATSB will carefully examine the control circuits as part of their investigation, the discussion is only ‘one theory’  -  related to the aileron control; a notion explored, if you will.

That said, you can easily find on You-Tube recorded demonstration of DHC 2 water take off. The sequence of events is routine and standard – the power is increased to the take-off setting as the speed increases to ‘rotate’ (take off speed) you will note a momentary, full aileron control input, to either the left or the right, followed by a return of the control to neutral. This is a deliberate action, to ‘unstick’ the float from the water surface, which allows the aircraft to become ‘airborne’. Had the aileron not returned to neutral, but ‘hung up’ and created an unscheduled left turn? Did this lead to a heavy right turn input (to prevent further penetration of Jerusalem Bay) which ‘unstuck’ the left aileron – suddenly and rapidly, producing a steep turn to the right?

No one knows at the moment, but there is a need to discover why an experienced pilot would enter that Bay. The flaw is ‘if’ there was a control problem, then why not just land straight ahead? To which the response is, if there was a control problem, he was safer ‘airborne’ than try to land on one float, without aileron control. So it goes, round and round the table; but, FWIW, that is the current, BRB best guess speculation.

Toot- toot.

[Peetwo]

Almost O&O'd investigation AO-2015-045.

Not quite O&O'd but nonetheless for what appears to be a fairly straight forward occurrence investigation one wonders what on earth was the delay...

Via the ATSB twitter minion today:

 [email=ATSB‏@atsbinfo]ATSB[/email]‏@atsbinfo

ATSB report into the activation of a Bombardier DHC-8’s obstacle proximity warning. This report shows the importance of identifying the mode of auto-flight systems after an incorrect selection led to the aircraft descending too fast and too low.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inve...-2015-045/



10:40 AM - 5 Feb 2018

---

Obstacle proximity warning involving Bombardier DHC-8, VH-TQM near Adelaide Airport, South Australia, on 24 April 2015

Investigation number: AO-2015-045
Investigation status: Completed

• Tab - Final Report
  

Final Report

Download final report

[ Download PDF: 1.58MB]

Alternate: [ Download DOCX: 946KB]

What happened

On 24 April 2015, a Bombardier DHC-8 aircraft, registered VH-TQM, was operating QantasLink flight QF2274 from Port Lincoln to Adelaide, South Australia.

During the approach to runway 30, in instrument meteorological conditions and with vertical navigation (VNAV) flight director mode engaged, the airspeed reduced. As the flight crew responded, an uncommanded disengagement of the aircraft’s flight director occurred. The flight crew re‑engaged the flight director and selected vertical speed mode. That mode resulted in the aircraft descending below the approach profile and 100 ft below a segment minimum safe altitude.

As the aircraft drew nearer to the runway, the flight crew received an obstacle proximity warning, since their projected approach path would bring them too close to a tower. In response, the crew conducted a missed approach and instead landed the aircraft on runway 05. No damage or injuries were sustained.

What the ATSB found

Flight director dropouts had occurred previously – including on that aircraft and on that day. On those occasions the flight director had automatically re-engaged in the same mode it had dropped out in. As the flight crew expected this would happen again, they continued the approach. The reason for the uncommanded disengagement of the aircraft's flight director was not established. The previous flight director dropouts had not been reported by company flight crew, affecting the operator's ability to resolve the issue and to educate flight crew about it.

The manual re-engagement of the flight director was done during a period of high workload and focus on other tasks and the flight crew did not identify the incorrect active mode. The captured vertical speed resulted in the aircraft descending too fast for the approach profile. Without the protection provided by VNAV mode, the aircraft descended below a segment minimum safe altitude. The altitude and vertical speed resulted in the activation of an obstacle proximity warning.

The elevation of the tower was incorrect on the published approach chart and in the terrain database, and there had been previous occurrences of obstacle warnings on that approach.

There were also deficiencies in the induction and route information provided to flight crew about the instrument approach.

What has been done as a result

Following this occurrence, QantasLink immediately prohibited use of the GNSS RWY 30 approach and has since undertaken a range of education, training and operational safety actions.

Airservices Australia amended the approach chart with the correct height of the tower. While safe obstacle clearance existed on the approach profile, they also amended the approach procedure to increase the clearance above the obstacle, with the aim of eliminating proximity alerts to aircraft on the approach profile.

Safety message

This incident highlights the importance of auto-flight system mode awareness and the adverse effects of flight crew expectation and high workload. It also demonstrates the value of operators conducting a thorough risk assessment and making flight crew aware of hazards associated with airport approaches.

Reporting of technical faults, even those that occur momentarily and resolve quickly, is important as it enables the operator to resolve the issue and educate flight crew.

Hmm...interesting report? - err...George handing over, your aircraft!...  


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

P2 – “Not quite O&O'd but nonetheless for what appears to be a fairly straight forward occurrence investigation one wonders what on earth was the delay.”

Well, that’s fairly obvious; the subtext clearly defines the mad scramble to sort out the systemic errors – across the board. Alternatively the report was released early as some Muppet at ATSB thought Feb 1 was April 1.

Bit early for April 1 gags yet – ain’t it? This report is a joke surely, it must be. Some parts are absolutely hilarious, particularly the parts scribed by a person who’s first language ain’t English.

Of course the underlying ‘safety issues’ are not mentioned; which is very PC and extraordinarily PR, but no matter; I’m just glad they followed company SOP and had their Hi-Viz vests handy – real safety at work eh? Well done ASA though – how very decent of them to acknowledge and eventually correct a normalized deviance; so nice not to have to cancel an obstacle warning every time the approach is flown.

The good thing is this report has provided a perfectly valid reason to never, not ever, read another ATSB report – life is too short.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

First anniversary of YMEN DFO accident -  

Via the ABC's Radio Australia:

Pilot's widow thanks aviation community on anniversary of fiery Essendon DFO plane crash
Updated 21 February 2018, 8:10 AEDT
By Karen Percy

The wife of a pilot killed in last year's Essendon plane crash thanks the aviation community for its support on the anniversary of her husband's death, as an expert calls for a review of commercial development at airports following the tragedy that claimed five lives.

Pilot Max Quartermain's widow says her thoughts are with the families of everyone who died. (Credit: ABC) 

The wife of a pilot killed in last year's Essendon plane crash has thanked the aviation community for its support on the anniversary of her husband's death, as an expert calls for a review of commercial development at airports.

Four American tourists and pilot Max Quartermain died when the Beechcraft King Air B200 aircraft clipped a building at the end of the runway in Melbourne's north, bursting into flames.

Workers at Essendon Fields will pause for a minute's silence at 9:00am today.

"At this time of immense sadness, my thoughts are with the families of everyone who died on the Beechcraft King Air flight 12 months ago," Mr Quartermain's widow Cilla Quartermain said in a statement.

"My only consolation during this period of grieving has been a strong belief that Max died doing what he loved the most and I know his greatest priority on the day as a pilot would have been the welfare of his passengers.

[size=undefined]
"I would like to deeply thank all those who have provided support during the past year, from many people in the aviation industry, to many more I didn't know when they made contact."

Since the fatal crash, questions have been asked about the appropriateness of built-up commercial spaces and residential developments near airports.

Essendon Fields is home to the light aircraft airport as well as retail operations, including a 140-store factory outlet complex.
[/size]

"At this stage it's still quite a mystery as to why the aircraft was not able to maintain height and to continue to climb," aviation specialist Ron Bartsch of AvLaw Consulting said.

[size=undefined]
"You can ask any pilot if they would prefer to attempt a forced landing on a grassed area or on a commercial development, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

"If you haven't got clear land around airports during the approach and departure phase then that obviously adds a hazard to the safety of air navigation.

"I think what's required is more detail and more comprehensive safety risk analysis ... of whether it's appropriate to have increased commercial developments on and near airports."

The approval process for this building was initially part of the Australian Transport and Safety Board's (ATSB) investigation, but has since been separated out.

"Due to the specialist nature of the approval process and airspace issues attached to the retail centre development — and to not delay the final report into the accident — the ATSB has decided to investigate this matter separately," an ATSB spokesman told the ABC.

A preliminary finding into the cause of the crash in March last year determined there was no evidence engine failure was responsible.

The investigation is now complete and the final report is expected by the end of March.
The ATSB has not specified when the land development investigation will be completed.

Safety versus profit

Linfox and Beck Corporation signed a joint venture privatisation agreement with the Federal Government in 2001 to lease and operate the Essendon Airport and surrounding land.

The building of the retail centre on Bulla Rd, Essendon, was approved by the Federal Government in 2004.

Since then it has passed two certifications by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

"Every development which occurs on the airport involves CASA, Air Services (Australia) and the department (of Infrastructure and Regional Development) and goes through a very rigorous and extensive process," Essendon Fields CEO Chris Cowan said.

"Safety is at the forefront of everything we do at the airport and those processes are rigorous. They're applied across the world and we apply those here."

But aviation consultant Ron Bartsch said there was a potential conflict between the competing interests of the owners and operators.

"They're responsible for safety on the one hand as operators or the airports, [and] they're responsible for maximising on behalf of their shareholders.

"We can never ever compromise safety over commercial interests — detailed risk assessments of land use around airports will make sure that won't happen in the future."

[/size]

---

[size=undefined]& from Nine news:

Essendon plane crash widow pens emotional letter of thanks to people of Melbourne
[/size]
By Natalie Cornish 11 hours ago





The widow of an American tourist killed when the small plane he was travelling on crashed in to a Melbourne shopping centre moments after take off has broken her silence to thank the city one year on.


John Washburn from Austin, Texas was one of four American friends flying from Essendon Airport to King Island to play golf on February 21st 2017 when their plane fell from the sky, hitting DFO Essendon and bursting in to flames.


Pilot Max Quartermain was killed alongside 67-year-old Mr Washburn, Glenn Garland, Russell Munsch and Greg DeHaven. 



John Washburn, Glenn Garland, Russell Munsch and Greg DeHaven in New Zealand. Picture: Facebook


Mr Washburn's wife Denni was also in Melbourne that day.


She had joined her husband and three other couples from Texas on a "trip of a lifetime", heading to the Great Ocean Road with the women while the men played golf.

Yesterday, she shared a heartfelt letter to the Victorians who "took care of me during the most difficult few days of my life".


In the note — shared in full on the Herald Sun's website — Mrs Washburn said she was unsure about making a public statement on the anniversary of her husband's death but changed her mind "because I would like to say something to the people of Melbourne".

"Thank you", she wrote.




Emergency services personnel at the scene of the plane crash in Essendon, Victoria, Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2017. Photo: AAP


"While to be sure many of the emotions I’ve felt over the last year have not always been pleasant, the only emotion I have ever felt toward the people of Melbourne is gratitude."

She went on to share her thanks to those who laid flowers at the site of the accident.

She also expressed her gratitude to the staff of the Park Hyatt Melbourne ("particularly the bellman who asked if he could give me a hug") and those who held her hand at St Patrick's Cathedral in the days after the crash.

Her biggest acknowledgement went to Detective Inspector Stephen Cooper of the Victoria Police who, she said, spent "countless hours helping guide a grieving family through a horrible time — often at the expense of time with his own. Thank you, Coop.

You are a gentleman of the highest order, and I can never repay the debt".

[size=undefined]The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's preliminary report has ruled out engine failure. The final report is yet to be released. The crash remains Victoria's worst civil aviation incident in 30 years.[/size]

 
Not sure what IronBar's involvement is in all this but you can bet his ultimate motive will be something to do with money and some sort of dodgy deal or cover-up -

MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

Ducks: blooming ducks; everywhere.

"Due to the specialist nature of the approval process and airspace issues attached to the retail centre development — and to not delay the final report into the accident — the ATSB has decided to investigate this matter separately," an ATSB spokesman told the ABC.

“BOLLOCKS” shouted the IOS team.

“The investigation is now complete and the final report is expected by the end of March.
The ATSB has not specified when the land development investigation will be completed.”

“BOLLOCKS” shouted the IOS team.

"They're responsible for safety on the one hand as operators or the airports, [and] they're responsible for maximizing (what, exactly) on behalf of their shareholders.

“BOLLOCKS” shouted the IOS team.

In short, apart from a very genuine, heart felt statement from the widow; it’s all BOLLOCKS.

Rumour - “There was a runway excursion to the left, having entered from the right on a 45 metre wide runway in this class of aircraft is eyebrow raising in itself,  (I wonder why this is a puzzle?) - there were at least two propeller strikes, (two runway lights down 60 metres apart), yet the takeoff was continued. Upon becoming airborne there was no attempt to fly the aircraft, the gear was not retracted, the engine was not shutdown and the propeller was not feathered. The pilot transmitted mayday for 5 of the 9 seconds of airborne time.”

Clearly – something went wrong, provided the above is totally ‘Kosher’. The fateful last precious seconds of the lives lost, each demand forensic, physical and educated examination. But; even so – the question, ‘was the building a hazard’ – demands investigation as part of the accident report. A separate, after the report investigation into buildings in ‘close’ proximity to active runways does deserves special attention. But ATSB cannot possibly, not  in good conscience, ‘eliminate’ it from their report – not without a bloody good, believable explanation of ‘why’ it was not a factor – and why so many NOTAMS have been generated regarding the ‘runways’ at Essendon.

“Waiter: (smile) you know the drill – fast type – yes, now: now. Vinaka, vinaka vaka levu.

[ventus45]

Splitting the report into two is a direct fudge, and a dangerous one, which we can not accept.

The DFO was THE PRIME FACTOR in the pilot's DECISION TO CONTINUE the takeoff.
If it was not there, he would not have, and the accident would have been minor and non fatal.

I explained all this long ago - here.

[Kharon]

More questions than answers:-

I managed to catch up with a couple of our ‘expert’ analysts, to gain some perspective on the separation of the ‘buildings’ question from the ‘accident’ investigation. It seems that if the building did not jump up and bite the aircraft in the ass, then it becomes part of the survivability matrix. The building still begs questions which demand answers, however once the survivability box is ticked off, that’s it insofar as the accident investigation is concerned. Fair enough, the lack of transparency as to why there is to be a separate investigation is concerning, but seen in the light of reason – it makes sense. Probably a very good idea; enough.

I read the P7 ‘rumour’ with some interest and it’s worth a second thought or two, the time lapse is intriguing:-

Rumour - “There was a runway excursion to the left, having entered from the right on a 45 metre wide runway in this class of aircraft is eyebrow raising in itself,”

Can’t quite see why this would ‘raise eyebrows’, why should it matter which entry point the aircraft took – provided it lined up on the centreline. We don’t know the path the aircraft took and unless the pilot was taking off ‘across' the runway, then it’s a safer bet that he, like most of us, lined up on the white lines. So, checks complete, power up and off we go.

“[there] were at least two propeller strikes, (two runway lights down 60 meters apart),

The aircraft in the tale above seems not to have gotten very far. Once again no hard data to work with, for instance prop tip clearance and RWY light height. But lets, justfor sake of discussion say it takes (give or take) ::10 seconds to accelerate to rotate speed; the first runway light must have been struck (under carriage or prop?) at some low speed point during that time. I think most of us at any speed below say 80 KIAS, striking a runway light would be enough to haul off the coals, get the reverse power going and jump on the brakes.  

“[yet] the takeoff was continued.

And, cleaned up a second runway light; anyone know how far from the runway edge those lights are? Two propeller strikes ? Or– was it the same prop; or, was it one on each; or the landing gear? If the strikes were on one prop, was the aircraft travelling in a straight line; or, heading back to the runway proper? Whichever way you look at it; something went very wrong during the initial few seconds of the acceleration period. It begs the question, why was the take off not abandoned at the first strike? I reckon hitting a runway light would be a thing you’d notice.

“Upon becoming airborne there was no attempt to fly the aircraft, the gear was not retracted, the engine was not shutdown and the propeller was not feathered. The pilot transmitted mayday for 5 of the 9 seconds of airborne time.”

I’m wondering if this was a premature ‘lift off’, i.e. dragged off before a safe speed after clipping the lights, leading major prop damage; or, even FOD injestion? But then I’m left wondering if the pilot was actually medically capable of flying the aircraft. Building or not; freeway or not – there was time to put the brakes on and room enough  to come to at least a slow, survivable speed before hitting anything solid.  

We just don’t have enough information; but if the ATSB are ‘releasing’ the buildings to separate inquiry then maybe there’s a chance of some hard data in the near future. So much for speculating on rumours and speculation on that speculating. That’s it.

Toot-toot.

[Peetwo]

Skippers force lands Conquest on HWY near Broome -  

Via the ABC News:

---

Light plane makes emergency landing on remote WA's Great Northern Highway
Updated about 9 hours ago

[b]VIDEO:[/b] Motorists surprised as Skippers Aviation plane en route to Broome lands on highway (ABC News)

A light plane has made an emergency landing on the Great Northern Highway near Broome, in Western Australia's Kimberley region.

The ABC has been told there were 10 people onboard the Skippers Aviation plane when it encountered trouble after leaving Halls Creek at 3:00pm on Friday.
The aircraft was en route to Broome via Fitzroy Crossing at the time.

A passenger on board reported hearing an alarm sound and said they believed one of the plane's engines failed and the other engine was having troubles.
The plane then reportedly glided towards the highway.

[b]PHOTO:[/b] The plane remained stranded on the highway on Friday night. (ABC News: Erin Parke)

No injuries were reported.

Broome Police Sergeant Kevin Hall said the pilot made a Mayday call to Broome Airport before landing on the highway near Roebuck Plains

"For himself and the nine passengers he's put the plane down on the road and made a safe landing," he said.

"I'm very relieved that we're not dealing with something a lot more serious."

The ABC has been told one woman on the plane, fearing the worst, texted family members saying she loved them.

[b]PHOTO:[/b] The plane's passengers were uninjured and appeared relieved after the incident. (Supplied: Emma Tierney)

Oli Knoth, who drove past the scene, said it was a rare sight.
"We just thought it was a major accident at first but everyone was outside, so we assumed they were OK," Mr Knoth said.

"You don't see it every day."

The passengers were transported by bus to Broome Airport.
Engineers are working to determine the cause of the engine problems.

---

&.. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=206948

---

Now there's a sight you don't see every day...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

ATSB to investigate Skippers Conquest double engine failure -  

Via the ATSB website: AO-2018-019

Summary

The ATSB is investigating a dual engine failure and forced landing involving a Cessna 441, VH-LBY, at 39 km East of Broome Airport, Western Australia, on 2 March 2018.

During descent into Broome Airport, the right then left engines began to surge. The pilot shut down the right engine and made a mayday call. Shortly after, the left engine failed and the pilot conducted a forced landing on the Great Northern Highway. There was no reported damage to the aircraft. The pilot and passengers were not injured.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the pilot and obtain engineering information.

Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify those affected and seek safety action to address the issue. A final report will be released at the conclusion of the investigation.


General details

Date: 02 March 2018  
Investigation status: Active  

Time: 16:20 WST  
Investigation phase: Evidence-Collection  

Location   (show map): Great Northern Hwy, 39 km East of Broome  
Investigation type: Occurrence Investigation  

State: Western Australia  
Occurrence type: Engine failure or malfunction  

 
Occurrence class: Operational  

Report status: Pending  
Occurrence category: Serious Incident  

Expected completion: 4th Quarter 2018  
Highest injury level: None  

Aircraft details

Aircraft manufacturer: Cessna Aircraft Company  

Aircraft model: 441  

Aircraft registration: VH-LBY  

Serial number: 4410023  

Operator: Skippers Aviation  

Type of operation: Air Transport Low Capacity  

Sector: Turboprop  

Damage to aircraft: Nil  

Departure point: Fitzroy Crossing, NT

Destination: Broome, WA



Last update 06 March 2018

& via the West Oz:

Emergency landing probe centres on engine failure
Glenn Cordingley and Jakeb Waddell | Broome Advertiser
Monday, 5 March 2018 6:02PM
The aircraft made an emergency landing on Friday afternoon on Great Northern Highway.Picture:Broome Police

Air safety experts are investigating why both engines on an aircraft carrying nine passengers failed and forced an emergency landing on Great Northern Highway on Friday afternoon, about 39km east of Broome International Airport.

The Skippers Aviation Cessna Conquest left Halls Creek about 3pm and the pilot later made a mayday call to the tower at BIA, reporting engine problems.

The plane touched down safely on the national highway and police later closed the road from Sandfire to Roebuck Plains Roadhouse.

No one was injured and there was no reported damage to the aircraft.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau today confirmed it was investigating a dual engine failure and forced landing of the Cessna 441, VH-LBY.

An ATSB spokesman said during descent into Broome airport, the right then left engines began to surge.

“The pilot shut down the right engine and made a mayday call. Shortly after, the left engine failed and the pilot conducted a forced landing on the Great Northern Highway,” the spokesman said.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the pilot and obtain engineering information.

Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify those affected and seek safety action to address the issue.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority confirmed it was also in the process of gathering detailed information.

“We will certainly be having a good in depth look at why it happened and any actions that may need to be taken to prevent this type of incident happening again,” CASA said.
Click here for a gallery of images from the emergency landing.

Hmm..fuel contamination or fuel starvation perhaps -  


MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

HVH farms out airline safety investigations to the red rat - WTD?

Other than fornicating at the feet of the Sky Gods, I'm still trying to get my head around what it is that HVH and his minions are trying to achieve with the following expose of a Qantas internal occurrence investigation...

---

Qantas takes steps to improve safety

Qantas has issued a safety information notice to its pilots after an accident left two cabin crew members injured.


On 13 March, 2017, a Qantas Airways Boeing 737 was travelling to Canberra on a scheduled passenger flight from Perth Airport, Western Australia. There were two flight crew, five cabin crew, and 177 passengers on board.

As the aircraft began descending towards Canberra Airport, it encountered increasing turbulence, and the flight crew switched on the ‘Fasten Seat Belt Sign’, calling for cabin crew members to be seated within one minute of the announcement. The crew began to move towards their seats, securing the cabin as they went.

At 22,000 feet, an abrupt change in the direction of the wind resulted in the aircraft airspeed increasing towards the maximum allowable operating speed.

To prevent an overspeed, the pilot flying applied backpressure on the control column, so as to override the autopilot. This was a common practice for B737 flight crews at Qantas, and the first officer recalled that this was part of initial training for the B737. The expected outcome was that the autopilot would revert to a different mode and raise the aircraft’s nose.

A cabin crew member who had not yet reached her seat felt the cabin floor drop and then quickly come up.

In this case, however, the autopilot disengaged, and the aircraft moved abruptly. A cabin crew member who had not yet reached her seat felt the cabin floor drop and then quickly come up. The force of the aircraft’s movement resulted in her fracturing her leg, while a second cabin crew member fell and hit her head on a trolley.

The injured crew member was given first aid and the aircraft landed without further incident. Paramedics met the aircraft to attend to the two injured cabin crew.

The method of intervention by the pilot was understandable, and consistent with previous responses of other flight crew in similar situation. Modification of the autopilot, however, had inadvertently left the aircraft vulnerable to this type of scenario.

Qantas has taken steps to address the dangers that this manoeuvre can create. They have issued a safety information notice, warning of the potential dangers of that approach.

The report also highlights the manufacturer’s preferred use of speedbrakes to prevent overspeed. Boeing has advised that they are considering a revision to the overspeed guidance in the 737 flight crew training manual.

“It’s encouraging to see organisations taking steps to address problems as they emerge,” said Nat Nagy, the ATSB’s Executive Director, Transport Safety. “This method of intervention to prevent overspeed had been used 20 times in the past six years, but this occurrence and the resulting investigation has provided an opportunity to make transport even safer.”

Read the final report: AO-2017-030: Flight path management occurrence involving Boeing 737, VH-VZZ, near Canberra Airport, ACT, on 13 March 2017
 



Last update 14 March 2018 

---

Hmm...maybe HVH could farm out all aviation accident and incident investigations to the QF safety department, couldn't possibly be any worse than the current PC world of ATSB accident investigation reporting...


MTF...P2

“K” comment: the temptation to tear this happy, clappy, PR guff and puff apart borders on the irresistible, however, the bucket will suffice. Who writes this fluffy stuff; the PR lady from Qantas? Its not even technically correct - retch.

[Peetwo]

Fatal Whitsundays helicopter crash -

Via the Courier Mail:

---

Two dead in helicopter crash at Hardy Reef North Queensland
Chris Clarke, Kate Kyriacou, Sophie Chirgwin with AAP, The Courier-Mail
10 minutes ago

TWO people have died in a helicopter crash off Queensland’s Whitsunday Islands, the company that owns the stricken vehilce has confirmed.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority says five people were aboard the Eurocopter 120 which went down near Hardy Reef pontoon at about 4.30pm on Wednesday. One person is in a serious condition while the two others have escaped with minor injuries.

In a statement, the company that owns the helicopter, Whitsunday Air Services, confirmed the fatalities.

“Whitsunday Air Services can confirm that a tragic accident involving a Whitsunday Air Services helicopter carrying four passengers and one crew member has occurred at Hardy Reef today,” the statement said.

“The accident occurred while the helicopter was on final approach for a landing at it’s Hardy Reef Heliport and resulted in two fatalities and two passengers sustaining minor injuries.

“We are extremely saddened by this incident and our deepest condolences are with the families of all of the passengers. Whitsunday Air Services is continuing to work with the Queensland Police, the ATSB and CASA to assist with their investigations.

“Whitsunday Air Services will be suspending all operations while a full review process is undertaken. Further information will be released in due course.”



Hardy Reef site of helicopter crash

The helicopter went down about 250m from Hardy Reef pontoon, a structure used as a base for scuba divers and snorkellers, which is located about 65 kilometres northeast of Hamilton Island.

The helicopter was fully submerged after hitting the water but it is understood all five on board – the pilot and four passengers – were able to escape or were pulled from the wreckage.

Queensland Ambulance Service paramedics were expected to arrive via helicopter at about 6pm but provided witnesses with instructions on how to perform CPR over the phone before their arrival.

Police are en route, with a team of detectives travelling to the pontoon via ferry and water police via the QPV Damian Leeding.

ATSB
✔
@atsbinfo

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau will be investigating the collision with water of a single-engine EC120B helicopter which occurred in the vicinity of Hardy Reef, north-west of Hook Island, Whitsunday Islands, Queensland this afternoon. Read More: https://www.facebook.com/atsbgovau/photo...=3&theater …

7:44 PM - Mar 21, 2018

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said investigators would soon travel to the scene to collect evidence.

“There, investigators will interview witnesses, examine any available recorded data, review operational records and technical documentation amongst other activities,” a statement read.

“The evidence collection phase will also define the size and scope of the investigation and determine the expected timeframe for the completion of a final report. No further information is available at this time.



The helicopter crashed at Hardy Reef, 65km northeast of the Whitsundays. FILE PICTURE

“Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant parties.”

It’s unclear at this stage if the flight was a private charter to the popular tourist destination but at least one helicopter tour operator in the region operates the type of aircraft involved in the accident.

Councillor Ron Petterson at Whitsunday Regional Council took to Facebook expressing his sympathies for those involved.

“I ask that we all keep our thoughts and prayers tonight with those involved in today’s tragic accident out at Hardy Reef. A sad heartbreaking day...” he said.

---

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Update: Dissension in the ranks...

From HVH's social media minion last night:

The ATSB has NOT confirmed the condition of anyone involved in the helicopter accident in the vicinity of Hardy Reef, north-west of Hook Island, Whitsundays, Queensland this afternoon. Media please amend your stories immediately to reflect this. Read more: https://www.facebook.com/atsbgovau/photos/a.1655527014665323.1073741829.1638364093048282/2049598225258198/?type=3&theater …



8:59 PM - 21 Mar 2018
 

From Facebook link...
...Media, please amend your stories immediately to reflect this.

The ATSB has only confirmed, via Facebook, that the Bureau will be investigating this accident.


Journalists are encouraged to contact the Queensland Police Service or the Queensland Ambulance Service for comment on the condition of those who were on board....

And from the ABC today (note part in bold):

---

Helicopter crash off Whitsundays leaves two dead, three injured
Updated about 7 hours agoWed 21 Mar 2018, 11:05pm

 
Photo: The helicopter pontoon at Hardy Reef, where a chopper crashed on Wednesday afternoon. (cqplanespotting.blogspot.com.au - file image)

Two people were killed when a helicopter crashed on a remote Barrier Reef pontoon off the Whitsunday islands in North Queensland, police have confirmed.

Five people were aboard the helicopter when it crashed at the Hardy Reef pontoon.

"Three other people, including the male pilot and a male and female passenger, also believed to be from overseas, will be transported by sea for medical attention for non-life threating injuries," a police statement said.

"All passengers were recovered from the helicopter.

"Police will continue to assist the Australian Transport Safety Bureau with the investigation and recovery of the aircraft."

The crash site is about 65 kilometres north-east of the Whitsunday islands.

The police boat Damien Leeding and several other boats were dispatched to the site with police and other emergency services.

A Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) spokesperson said they received a call about the accident around 4:15pm.

The spokesperson said paramedics had provided crash witnesses with instructions on how to perform CPR over the phone.

Photo: The ATSB said a Eurocopter EC120B like this one crashed near Hardy Reef. (Supplied: cqplanespotting - file image)

Earlier on Wednesday, there were conflicting reports from Australian aviation authorities about the deaths.

A Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) media spokesman told the ABC the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) had confirmed that two people were killed.

The ATSB issued a statement to say it would be investigating the crash, but just before 8:00pm on Wednesday it issued another statement denying it had confirmed any fatalities.

The ATSB said the helicopter was a single-engine Eurocopter EC120B.

"A team of transport safety investigators will soon travel to the accident location to commence the evidence collection phase of the investigation," the ATSB said.

"There, investigators will interview witnesses, examine any available recorded data, review operational records and technical documentation amongst other activities."

---

MTF...P2

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Full "story" here..

I put the word story in quotes, because it really is a piece of shoddy journalism.  The only facts are the pilot walked away, and it was at Bankstown.

Woman escapes from plane crash near Bankstown Airport in 'Easter miracle'

A woman has walked away from a light plane crash in what authorities have described as an "Easter miracle".

The aircraft had been doing circuit training at Bankstown Airport when it began falling from about 300 metres before coming down next to a creek near the airport about 11:20am.

NSW Ambulance Inspector Andrew Keshwan said the woman, aged in her 50s, had been assessed by paramedics and complained of a sore back, but did not want to be transported to hospital.

"Obviously falling from 1,000 feet is a harrowing experience and she was shook up but quite stable," he said.

"It's an Easter miracle because not every day you fall out of the sky at 1,000 feet and walk away."

Inspector Keshwan said the woman had some minor cuts and bruises from walking through thick bushes near the creek.

"But nothing on impact so I was very, very surprised with the minimal injuries she sustained," he said.

The left wing of the plane sheared off in the crash and both wings were perforated, spilling 400 litres of fuel into the creek, NSW Fire and Rescue duty commander Drew Wilson said.

He said the woman was "pretty lucky " to have walked away from the crash, considering the damage to the six-seater plane.

"The aircraft is pretty well damaged but the pilot's compartment was pretty well in order so she's managed to just open the door and get out as far as I can tell," Commander Wilson said.

He said the spilt fuel had been contained in the creek and was unlikely to affect the Georges River, which is about 500 metres away.

NSW Police are working with investigators from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the plane will later be assessed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

[P7_TOM]

BOLLOCKS, BULLSHIT and WRONG.

“[at] Bankstown Airport-fact.

“[when] it began falling – BOLLOCKS.

“[from] about 300 metres” factual – ish.

“[before] coming “down” - BOLLOCKS.

“[next0 to a creek – BOLLOCKS (ditch - important fact).

“[near] the airport about 11:20am". Bollocks on a ‘reclaimed’ part of the developers claim.

What a total, complete and utter load of BOLLOCKS this ‘report’ is. Let’s try to look at the possible ‘facts’.

For a start – perhaps the aircraft engine was being supplied from the left tank – that ran dry – then lets suppose the fuel selector malfunctioned – engine silence. Or; perhaps for some yet to be explained reason the engine ceased to function – it don’t matter – it becomes a ‘farced’ landing. An exercise which is covered very, very early in a pilot’s training. Aircraft of all makes and marks – by and large will ‘glide’ – the mechanics of flight do not alter without engine power - . In days gone by every ‘landing’ was conducted as a ‘glide approach’ i.e. sans engine – to ensure that even without the ‘power’ vector the aircraft could be safely controlled and guided (limited by altitude) to a suitable paddock. Since aviation began, the forced landing, without engine power – the glide approach has been taught, drilled, rehearsed and where required, beaten into student pilots heads.

The lady did not ‘plummet’ 1000 feet; the lady was not; or, should not be in ‘grave and imminent danger’ within the circuit area of the aerodrome – glide approach = piece of cake, to even the most neo of neophytes.

We here have always held the ABC in good regard – but; points were lost today – many, many points. For presenting a G Thomas worthy load of old cobblers to the unsuspecting – now, ill informed public.

Crass crap well below the standard we expect – in fact there is a rather good story to be made from this incident – if the idiot who penned it had the brain to see it – alas….

[Sandy Reith]

Also question “400 litres” because most of those Piper models only carry about 200 total.
Another point, if the north/ south strip at Bankstown had not been scrubbed in favour of inappropriate development (clearly against the leasehold requirements) would the pilot have had a better alternative landing area?