Has anyone noticed..
CO poisoning is getting some traction – the local rags have been (Hawksbury Pole Vaulters Journal) and the like has been claiming that CO from the DHC2 exhaust was to blame for the crash, citing ATSB 'results'. (huh?) - CASA have been subtly promoting the notion and, although the big gun newspapers have let it slide – there is a small groundswell of acceptance of the blatant BOLLOCKS being pushed by the ATSB. It is a lovely little get out of jail card to hold; casts lots of smoke to bamboozle and confound. But is it remotely believable?
CO in the pungent exhaust fumes is a serious hazard; no doubt about that, non at all. It is certainly not a thing you want wafting into the cabin. Now, strangely enough; our stalwart, long suffering 'ginger beers' are aware of this. Aircraft manufacturers are also equally aware of the dangers presented. They have even have 'maintenance schedules' and inspections which go to some trouble to determine if there is any 'leakage' from the exhaust system – it is part of ongoing maintenance and airworthiness and carries criminal penalty for non compliance. So the CASA 'deep and meaningful' advice and direction to 'check' becomes utterly superfluous window dressing.
The known facts are getting lost in the spin: let's recap. The BRB 'buzz-word' this week has been – 'elevated'. ATSB come out with 'pilot and passengers had 'elevated' CO levels. But compared to what? The TSBC provided a good report on a CO event; tracked down the leak and stated the CO levels 17% for the Skipper – (from memory). The word 'elevated' is not mentioned, the level was quantified and presented. So what were the 'elevated levels' of the Jerusalem Bay accident?
You see the problem – passengers exposed for what – call it 40 minutes before landing and shuffling off to lunch for a couple of hours; presumably in an atmosphere far removed from CO gas. The pilot took off again and worked for a few more sectors in the aircraft.
The estimated time between passengers re boarding and the accident was what – call it seven minutes. So the comparison between the passengers 'elevated' CO count and the pilot's CO count should reflect a marked difference in toxicology - n'est ces pas? So where are the numbers? Where is the clinical dissection of the percentage difference?
IF and it is possible, the ATSB cannot nicely define the cause of the accident; then that should be stated. There's no shame in it “we explored and investigated all reasonable scenario, but are unable to definitively determine – etc” The CO may have played a part – it may not have. 'Elevated' and minor newspaper articles do not make for a clear cut case of anything - except for Pony-Pooh, evenly spread between the smoke and mirrors.
The poor old Coroner has his work cut out - once again; let's all hope he can do a 'time-line' comparing passenger exposure to the alleged CO intake and the alleged 'pilot intake' and do the maths. That is of course presuming that the 'exhaust leak' was of significant proportion. Was that tested as part of the initial investigation? No. Didn't think so, but why-ever not remains a penny pinching mystery.
Toot – toot.
CO poisoning is getting some traction – the local rags have been (Hawksbury Pole Vaulters Journal) and the like has been claiming that CO from the DHC2 exhaust was to blame for the crash, citing ATSB 'results'. (huh?) - CASA have been subtly promoting the notion and, although the big gun newspapers have let it slide – there is a small groundswell of acceptance of the blatant BOLLOCKS being pushed by the ATSB. It is a lovely little get out of jail card to hold; casts lots of smoke to bamboozle and confound. But is it remotely believable?
CO in the pungent exhaust fumes is a serious hazard; no doubt about that, non at all. It is certainly not a thing you want wafting into the cabin. Now, strangely enough; our stalwart, long suffering 'ginger beers' are aware of this. Aircraft manufacturers are also equally aware of the dangers presented. They have even have 'maintenance schedules' and inspections which go to some trouble to determine if there is any 'leakage' from the exhaust system – it is part of ongoing maintenance and airworthiness and carries criminal penalty for non compliance. So the CASA 'deep and meaningful' advice and direction to 'check' becomes utterly superfluous window dressing.
The known facts are getting lost in the spin: let's recap. The BRB 'buzz-word' this week has been – 'elevated'. ATSB come out with 'pilot and passengers had 'elevated' CO levels. But compared to what? The TSBC provided a good report on a CO event; tracked down the leak and stated the CO levels 17% for the Skipper – (from memory). The word 'elevated' is not mentioned, the level was quantified and presented. So what were the 'elevated levels' of the Jerusalem Bay accident?
You see the problem – passengers exposed for what – call it 40 minutes before landing and shuffling off to lunch for a couple of hours; presumably in an atmosphere far removed from CO gas. The pilot took off again and worked for a few more sectors in the aircraft.
The estimated time between passengers re boarding and the accident was what – call it seven minutes. So the comparison between the passengers 'elevated' CO count and the pilot's CO count should reflect a marked difference in toxicology - n'est ces pas? So where are the numbers? Where is the clinical dissection of the percentage difference?
IF and it is possible, the ATSB cannot nicely define the cause of the accident; then that should be stated. There's no shame in it “we explored and investigated all reasonable scenario, but are unable to definitively determine – etc” The CO may have played a part – it may not have. 'Elevated' and minor newspaper articles do not make for a clear cut case of anything - except for Pony-Pooh, evenly spread between the smoke and mirrors.
The poor old Coroner has his work cut out - once again; let's all hope he can do a 'time-line' comparing passenger exposure to the alleged CO intake and the alleged 'pilot intake' and do the maths. That is of course presuming that the 'exhaust leak' was of significant proportion. Was that tested as part of the initial investigation? No. Didn't think so, but why-ever not remains a penny pinching mystery.
Toot – toot.