[Peetwo]

Rossair (AO-2017-057) final report addendum?? 

Trolling through the ATSB investigations for any recent updates etc..etc I noted that for some strange reason there had been an update to the Rossair final report. I am not sure whether this sets a new precedent (ie making ex post facto changes to a published final report) but with help from certain informed sources, I was pointed to an addendum to the final report:

(Ref page 19 of the final report - addendum in bold): "...Additionally, for Cessna 441 aircraft with the serial number 0173 onwards (not applicable to VH-XMJ) the POH, in reference to the ‘engine shutdown to simulate engine failure in takeoff
configuration’ procedure (second procedure), explicitly stated 

“This procedure must not be practiced at an altitude below 5,000 ft AGL”

Some of Rossair’s other Cessna 441 aircraft operated under this later POH, but the operators
manual did not note a difference between the two handbooks.

With respect to the change in the POH procedures applicable to serial number 0173 and onwards,
the aircraft manufacturer advised that:

• there was no material difference between the aircraft from serial numbers 0173 and onwards
and the earlier serial numbers (0172 and prior) that necessitated a different method of
simulating an engine failure in the take-off configuration
• the statements in the earlier POH procedure that referenced the demonstration of VMCA have
the same intent as the warning note in the POH for aircraft with serial numbers 0173 and
onwards, which states this procedure must not be practiced at an altitude below 5,000 feet
above ground level..."

Reading the addendum I wonder why this additional information, obviously from the manufacturer, was a) not captured during the original DIP review process; and why it is considered important enough to include an addendum to an already published final report? I can only surmise that Textron are trying to ensure that there is no legal liability blow back on them when consideration is made on the two differing versions (different a/c models) of the POH and the interpretations for the safe conduct of simulated engine failure in the T/O configuration (ie not to be conducted below 5000'agl) ?

On another point I find it disturbing that to date the (supposedly fully independent) ATSB have not publicly notified an amendment/addendum to the final report? It is also interesting that the addendum itself is not properly annotated with an explanatory footnote for the addendum?

These and other questions -

MTF? - Definitely!...P2