[Peetwo]

Aviation safety and the rule of three?

Quoted extracts from THIS (must read) Clinton McKenzie post off the UP:

...There’s an irony here: My ‘day job’ is administrative law and, accordingly, AAT and other other administrative law proceedings are mundane for me. I also have some insight into the detail of the aviation law. But it is because of my expertise and experience that I find dealing with Avmed’s bullshit so stressful. It’s like entering a parallel universe in which objective evidence, objective risk, disinterested decision-making and legal principle go out the window, simply through invocation of “the safety of air navigation”...

...It is bad enough that millions continue to be wasted on the never-ending aviation regulatory ‘reform’ dog’s breakfast that produces ever more complexity with little-to-no positively causal improvement in aviation safety in return for the cost. But millions are also now wasted on the peddling of dangerous operational folklore as well as what I consider to be the safety-inimical activities of Avmed. 


It’s broken. I hope against hope that it won’t take a disaster for it to be fixed...

 
Hmm...perhaps we - the BRB, the IOS, Senator Fawcett etc..etc - have all got it wrong and the 'safety loop' has already been closed by the aviation safety bureaucracy; closed to any and all outside contribution or involvement in the risk mitigation of identified significant/critical safety issues?       

Speaking of closed loops (or if you prefer Hangman's nooses) we have a perfect parallel between the real world of international aviation safety and the ticking time bomb fantasy world of Iron Ring enforced aviation safety.

To begin let's set the scene with these references courtesy of the '2019 and the Election thread'  :

...I wonder, will any of our potential Ministerial wanabee’s deeply embroiled in attempting to be elected take the time to consider the accident in Moscow and draw the comparisons. If they do happen to notice it, perhaps the message from this event should be taken to heart and something done about the Australian situation. Our Rescue and Firefighting (RFFS) experts have been warning the government that through ASA’s efforts to pay for the One-Sky monster, the parsimony and KPI driven result is placing lives at risk.  A rare event in Moscow; but, not the first this decade, nor is it likely to be the last. It happens, it’s real and people die.

"Concerns were also raised about the length of time taken for fire crews to appear on the scene, with experts describing the response at Moscow’s largest airport as “extraordinarily poor”

There may well be several good reasons why the Moscow RFFS turned out late – we need to wait for the report; but one thing is certain sure, it was not the local fire brigade who had to wade through 10 K of city traffic to get to the accident.

"Veteran aviation commentator Neil Hansford said once a mayday was called, as in this instance, firefighters should have been mobilised. “It looks like they hadn’t even left the fire station when the plane touched down,” he said.

Here again – we need the report -

“although some Russian reports blamed a lightning strike for disabling radio communications and prompting the return to Sheremetyevo.”

Too much to speculate on – however, the salutary lesson for government is a simple reality fix:-

“It took 45-minutes for the fire to be extinguished, not helped by the large amount of fuel on board for the 2½ hour-flight to Murmansk.”

How much longer can the Halfwit’s luck hold out and who will be in the ministerial hot seat when Australia looses one at Mildura, in the fog, with no RFFS on site until 15 minutes after the fireball. Food for thought ain’t it.

P2 addition: via https://simpleflying.com/aeroflot-crash/  

...One thing that strikes as surprising is that the fire crew seem to have a fairly long response time to reach the aircraft. Given that the aircraft was squawking 7700 prior to landing, one would assume that the fire crew would already have been en route to respond in a ‘just in case’ capacity. This is often the case when an aircraft lands after declaring an emergency. Instead, all the footage shows that at least 60 seconds after the aircraft came to a halt, the fire service was still not in attendance...

Ref: RFFS Inquiry Update - BrisVegas Hancox opening statement etc. 

The Devil’s Advocate –

In defence of the Moscow RFFS; more in hope that ‘the media’ may take a more balanced, intelligent look at aircraft accidents. Why? – Well grounded media reports could greatly assist the Australian governments see the need to listen to; and, act on the expert advice our own excellent RFFS offer. The following paragraph being a good example of the ‘short fall’ which IMO trivialises the enormous difficulties of ‘saving lives’ after an event has occurred.

“As a result, the main landing gear collapsed and the fuel tanks ruptured, leaving the aeroplane to careen off the runway on its nose gear and engines, resulting in a massive fire.”

The optimum time to ‘save lives’ was as soon as possible after the fire started – if not before. Had the aircraft simply ‘collapsed in a smoking heap on the runway – before the fire took hold – it is a good bet that the survival rate would have been 100%. This did not happen – what we see is a very heavy machine, at speed careering along the ground – ‘on fire’. There is not anywhere on this planet a RFFS service which could do anything – at all – to assist. As the aircraft slowed (ground) to a halt, the optimum time for saving life was reduced by a considerable margin; the situation as dangerous to rescue crew as to the passengers.

When an aircraft has a ‘problem’ which requires a return to land – a.s.a.p. the flight crew have options – “Mayday” requires no explanation: a PAN call whilst serious triggers a less intense response – maybe even the question from the ground – ‘do you require services’ if the crew have not requested the services required (routine SOP). Watch any of the video of aircraft in trouble and you will see the first response RFFS lined up ready to do their jobs once the aircraft comes to rest; they even ‘chase’ the aircraft to the end of the ground roll, so as to get busy at the first opportunity.  Provided the RFFS is on site and fit for purpose – any purpose necessary. This cannot happen if the required men (and women) are not ‘on-deck’ and trained. This cannot happen if those men and women do not have the equipment to do their dangerous, life saving work.

Air Services Australia (ASA) are required to ensure that these services are available. ASA are a monopoly, they make a profit. The top layers have KPI and bonus; there is no incentive to reinvest in the service – by turning a profit (and bonus) into a loss and seeking additional funds to properly acquit their responsibility.

The Moscow scenario could happen at any aerodrome in Australia any tick of the clock; think Mildura fog. What if one of those aircraft had a main gear collapse? What if one of those aircraft had a heavy landing and ran off the runway? Who would be there to assist? The short answer is no one – no one to dog the aircraft until it was safely off the runway. The Australian travelling public are travelling on pure luck once they leave a major airport for a regional centre. The RFFS services have been warning the government about the situation. – Perhaps, it’s time the government listened to the experts, not the Halfwits who work on ‘statistics’ instead of counting the ultimate cost in flesh and blood burning to death in fire.

It would be great if a journalist could do an expose on the warnings issued to a string of ministers; the lack of equipment and the ‘system’ in place for RFFS at regional destinations; said Journalist could even throw in the lip service paid to and the obfuscation of the obligations Australia has under the ICAO agreement.

And now courtesy of Byron Bailey, via the Oz today: 

 

Pilot skills go missing in modern flight-mares

In days of yore when men actually manually flew aircraft, a term called piloting, a common phrase was “there is no substitute for experience”.

Just like in the shipping arena, a captain had to earn his stripes.

Enter automation, which has now reduced the pilot’s role to flight deck manager.

This is fine when things work as advertised, and modern aircraft are exceedingly safe, or so we thought until Boeing literally dropped the ball with the 737 MAX 8.

The pilot’s role has so diminished and manual flying skills and knowledge have been so reduced that pilots with only several hundred hours total flying experience can now occupy a control seat.

As long as they can program the flight management computer that is deemed satisfactory, especially to the bean counters that run airlines. But what happens in the rare cases where an abnormal problem occurs and the crew have to rely on old-fashioned flying skills?

Three very recent accidents are cases in point.

The Aeroflot Sukhoi Superjet-100 landing crash in Moscow was a very disturbing illustration of a pilot not handling the situation.

This modern aircraft had a problem but flew for 27 minutes. This obviously was not a time-critical situation, so the crew should have assessed the situation, run checklists, dumped fuel, notified air traffic control so RFF (rescue fire facilities) were on standby and then proceeded with as normal an approach and landing as possible.

Instead, the almost panicked crew had to go around off the first approach because they turned in too tight on a runway base turn. On the second attempt the video shows they were way too fast and slammed the aircraft on to the runway and bounced. The second hard impact caused the landing gear to collapse and puncture the wing fuel tanks. The resulting conflagration of 14,000 litres consumed the rear fuselage such that 40 of the 73 passengers on board plus one of the five crew died. More may have managed to escape except that some passengers took time to retrieve large baggage from the overhead lockers. The International Civil Aviation Organisation and International Air Transportation Association urgently need to address this problem.

Last week a B737-800, operated by a Miami charter company on a military contract, had a landing overrun by 1200 feet into a shallow lake. All survived. This was not only an example of very poor manual flying skills but stupidity as well.

This particular B737 had one thrust reverser unserviceable but was permitted to operate under a MEL (minimum equipment list) for a certain number of flights. The pilots therefore were aware of an effect on landing distance.

The pilots chose to land on the shorter 8000-feet runway when there was a 9000-feet runway available that was more into the wind. They touched down at an IAS (indicated airspeed) of 163 knots (about 20 knots too fast) and, with a tailwind of 15 knots, that meant a groundspeed of 178 knots. What the hell were they thinking? The flight envelope limit is 10 knots tailwind on landing, so they should have aborted the landing.

The 178 knots kinetic energy, with probable considerable float due to the excessive speed, meant the brakes had no chance to pull the aircraft up before running off the runway. This was a major RPE (resume producing event). It is well known that charter operators use pilots gaining experience before being employed by the major airlines.

The third accident is the disappearance of a large Challenger private jet out of Las Vegas for Mexico while avoiding thunderstorms. I have been flying a Challenger for the past nine years. To operate, they are just like an airliner with good weather radar and solid safe flying characteristics. Suggests to me perhaps inexperience in use of the weather radar.

The industry is at a tipping point. When I learnt to fly in the air force the two major subjects were aerodynamics and airmanship. These appear to have been replaced by psychobabble subjects and computer knowledge. Flight deck etiquette should not be more important than the ability to fly the aircraft and make correct rational decisions.

With all of the above in mind, spot the disconnected dots with the Iron Ring's version of Alice in Wonderland...

...Starting with Robyn Ironside, via the Oz:

Airports to trial new time-saving emergency response system


Airservices Australia is about to trial a new way of alerting airport firefighters to aircraft in trouble, in an effort to reduce response times to under three minutes.

In a week when emergency response times to aircraft disasters has been in the spotlight as a result of the Aeroflot tragedy in Moscow, Airservices has revealed it is working to improve on the two to three-minute “best practice” industry benchmark.

Melbourne and Launceston airports will be the first to trial the system, whereby the air traffic control tower directly dispatches fire crews to emergencies.

Airservices executive general manager of aviation rescue and fire fighting, Rob Porter, said the current process involved an exchange of information between the air traffic controller and fire control centre operator that could use up valuable seconds.

“Either the controller contacts the fire control centre operator and explains what the situation is, or the operator sees an incident and contacts the tower to get more information,” Mr Porter said.

“We’re looking at a way to improve our response times by (firefighters) being directly responded by the tower.”

He said the new system being trialled would not increase the responsibilities of the air traffic controller or undermine the authority of the fire control centre operator.

“(ATC) is already passing information on to us, so the task is the same,” Mr Porter said.

“But I have to emphasise this is a trial, this is something we believe will improve our response times.”

United Firefighters Union Australia aviation branch secretary Mark von Nida said he had no objections to ATC having the ability to dispatch fire crews to runway emergencies.

But he was concerned about anything that downgraded the role of the fire control centre operator who was trained to look for potential risks to safety.

“Every second counts in aviation rescue, that’s the whole concept of the fire control centre guy watching every take-off and landing with a pair of binoculars,” Mr von Nida said.

“He can see any sort of problem — if there’s a bit of smoke on landing, he can follow that all the way back into the apron to make sure it doesn’t catch on fire.

“Up to about 30 minutes after an aeroplane lands, heat can still be building up so it’s not just a matter of when it touches down.”

However, Mr Porter said responding to aircraft incidents was only one of the tasks the fire control centre operator had. “They are at the core of the operational communications for that fire ­station, so they’ve got other functions they need to do: monitoring fire alarms, taking phone calls, responding to first aid responses,” he said.

“They have a very important role and this (trial) is not a cost-saving measure, it’s actually an ­efficiency measure.”

Mr von Nida also raised concerns about the new fire station at Brisbane Airport having no direct line of sight to the new parallel runway.

He said the site chosen for the station seemed completely unsuitable for the role firefighters were expected to perform. Mr Porter said CCTV cameras would address those issues, allowing firefighters to see all the runway ­activity.

The provision of rescue, firefighting and emergency response at Australian airports was under examination by the Senate Committee for Rural and Regional ­Affairs and Transport prior to the federal election being called.

It is expected to resume after the next government is installed later this month.

The trial of the new emergency response alert system at Melbourne and Launceston airports would begin later this month, Mr Porter said.

Hmm...and from Senate Estimates :

CHAIR: How long do you think it was yourselves? The alarm went off out in the tea room. We've hit the number. We're now obliged, or prescriptively obliged, to go ahead and stand up the service. From that day until you turn the lights on, how long do you think it is?

Mr Harfield : Off the top of my head I think the period that we've got is about three years.

CHAIR: Does that not seem to you to be a long time to do that?

Senator PATRICK: Particularly when safety's the name of the game. We always hear people talking about safety. We've now got an airport with a fairly significant number of passenger movements but no fire services.

Mr Harfield : I need to outlay the alternative work on not just building the fire station but the work that we've done with the local fire brigade and the work that we've done ensuring that we try to manage—

CHAIR: I think we can all imagine what needs to happen. I mean it's not an easy thing. You have got to design a building and find a space at the airport. It's got to meet all the criteria. You've got to find expert people to go and occupy it—we get all of that, and no-one's suggesting that you can blow it out on Tuesday over the weekend.

Senator PATRICK: But it's reasonable to assume, Chair, that they would have done it before. It's not new to them.

CHAIR: That's right. You haven't been caught short, but three years? That seems to me to be an inordinately long period of time, particularly for Proserpine. It's not as if you're building the Taj Mahal to house 100 trucks or something. And I come from this world: I know how long it takes from an idea until you go and get some approvals, build a building and buy a truck and park it in there with a competent driver. I'll leave it up to Senator Patrick to pursue it, and I don't know whether I speak for the committee but you need to go and have a real reflection on this. This is too long in my view.

Senator PATRICK: Can you also look back at the previous, say, two or three fire stations that you set up. I just want to get a comparison of what you've done previously. Because I'll tell you: it was put to us that there was a review underway about what that number should be—whether or not it should go to 500,000—before the trigger commenced; I'm pretty sure that was right, wasn't it?

Mr Harfield : There was talk about going to 500,000 as risk based.

Senator PATRICK: That's right, and so I just wonder how much people held off for the fact that we might just wait for this review to kick in and that maybe we don't have to do it.

Mr Harfield : I can say that that's not the case because the regulations were 350,000.

Senator PATRICK: No, and I made the point at the hearing: you don't have a choice—you don't get to sit and say, 'I've heard the speed limit might be going down to whatever, therefore I'll drive at this speed.'

Mr Harfield : Correct. We have to deal with the rules and regulations that are in front of us.

Senator PATRICK: But there are times when government can act really quickly and times when government can act quite slowly. Can you provide a comparison of the previous three fire stations that you stood up; when it hit the trigger; and how long it took to stand up the service.

CHAIR: Do you agree with the observations, Mr Harfield, because right now I don't get a sense from the three of you as to whether you think that we're being unreasonable with this reflection on three years. And if you go away from here thinking, 'Oh, they just don't understand. It's tough, and it'll always be three years,' that doesn't help. We're asking you to defend the three years if you want to. You must know what's involved. You must know what takes that long. You've done it frequently enough. Or give us some positive indication that: 'We might go and look at this. We may have to change our task register so we start to get some things done at the one time.' Do you find three years an inordinate amount of time?

Mr Harfield : Senator, yes I do. The point you just made is that we'll go back and look at the safety case that we submitted and was approved by CASA which outlined the time frames of putting in this particular service. We'll have a look to see whether we can make it—

Or in pictures from about 6 minutes:

Hmmm...on the bona fides of the pencil headed Mr Porter - remember this?

 
And from about the following (quoted Hansard - HERE - point) recorded from the BrisVegas RFFS Senate Inquiry public hearing:

...Senator O'SULLIVAN: I'm testing their level of happiness or unhappiness. I'm asking you: within your scope of knowledge, was it the case during this consultation process that the men and women who have to discharge the duties associated with this were unhappy about the site location?

Mr Porter : All I can say is that the location has to meet the regulatory requirements. I can't gauge whether—

CHAIR: Don't do it to him!

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I'll tell you what, we don't have to pull the shades down, because we can sit here until it goes dark outside. Mr Porter, let me put the question to you one more time, slowly: within your scope of knowledge, was it the case that the men and women representing the professionals in the consultation process you referred to indicated that they did not agree with the selected location for the establishment, the construction, of this new station?

Mr Porter : I think it's fair to say that there were some who were happy and there were some who weren't happy...

---

&..

..Mr Porter : I'm not sure on the air traffic controller roles at all.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: This is probably one of the most important functions that you have in your roles and responsibilities. I recommend you pay them a visit soon to answer these questions. Imagine this now: I'm governing this plane in the air until it lands, but my companion here, who's off getting a cup of coffee, is responsible for observing it from a safety point of view. That's what I want to know. You can take that question on notice. I'll be surprised, Mr Porter, if it's not the same individual. When it lands, I know that Observer Sterle has now got control of that aircraft; if I see it burst into flames, I don't have to worry about it, because I know Sterle's going to notify, 'Mayday, mayday, mayday'. Is that your understanding of it?

Mr Porter : That would be my understanding, but, again, I'll take it on notice.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: You seriously need to have a look at this in your position...

 
Hmm...notice how Mr Porter takes a lot of things on notice?



Do you reckon he'll taking it on notice if (God forbid) something like the above occurs at Proserpine or Essendon in say the next twelve months?
 

MTF...P2