The tale of the opening batsman -
Dancing about the Daises may be good fun on a balmy evening – but: when folks are killed in an aircraft crash; the pan pipes and the dancing have to stop. For the Ross Air loss of control of a Conquest; claiming three lives – the serious questions demand answers.
Been poking about a bit and there are some questions which – IMO – are germane to the investigation. For instance:-
The manufacturer of the aircraft has never; as far as I can detect, issued in the AFM a written 'Zero Thrust' setting. This has been passed down through the generations and become an accepted 'norm'. All well and good except I cannot find test flight data or any other 'official' data which provides this setting for use in simulating an engine emergency procedure. Perhaps there is one – love to see it – but damned if I can find it. A serious normalised deviance – why?
Then, a clear written instruction in the AFM prohibiting 'engine shut down' below 5000 feet. That is a fairly serious piece of 'advice. But, is it enforceable? Here we enter the bizarre world of 'acceptance' of flight manuals – and boy, is the legislation confused. The FAA have their way of interpreting the AFM – Limitations mandatory – the rest under advisement – but; they come down hard on any light and loose liberties taken with the spirit and intent of the AFM. Not so with CASA; their views (multiple) of the way an AFM is 'binding appears to be subjective – in the extreme – even to different FOI whim. But 'we' need to know what is 'black letter' in an AFM and what is not. Blessed if I can find clear, concise policy. If there is then I wish they'd publish the bloody thing. Nearly done:
Last – an item which has sparked some serious debate – unresolved to date. It would be an understatement, bordering oblivion, to say what and what is not a CASA 'directive'. For instance several flight tests require (read demand) an engine failure scenario for various phases of flight – after take off for example. CASA demand this box be ticked. CASA approves almost every page of an in house Check and Training system – every one of 'em – down to spelling errors. Yet in this case we have a clear 'directive' from a manufacturer that 'engine shutdown' etc must not be contemplated below 5000 feet. Ross Air whittled that down to 3000 feet – approved by CASA – then wrote that 'simulated' engine failure was not be conducted below 400' AGL – approved by CASA there was even a time when 300' was considered and approved as acceptable.
Now, using a manufacturer promulgated; tested during certification – zero thrust setting; below 5000' in lieu of that determination is righteous and proper. But in the absence of such data and approval – a 'made up' ZTS, used to satisfy a CASA directive to comply with their 'testing' paperwork requirements; leaves many questions to be answered. Men died that day – unnecessarily IMO. So how, and at who's direction and approval of the CT system did that situation develop?
I know – zero thrust is an acceptable, normal procedure – until the legal fellahin get a hold of it, in a court – when there's blood and money on the table – not to mention liability.
Don't shoot the messenger – I only turned up for a quiet Ale and walked into the discussion – Cheers..............
Dancing about the Daises may be good fun on a balmy evening – but: when folks are killed in an aircraft crash; the pan pipes and the dancing have to stop. For the Ross Air loss of control of a Conquest; claiming three lives – the serious questions demand answers.
Been poking about a bit and there are some questions which – IMO – are germane to the investigation. For instance:-
The manufacturer of the aircraft has never; as far as I can detect, issued in the AFM a written 'Zero Thrust' setting. This has been passed down through the generations and become an accepted 'norm'. All well and good except I cannot find test flight data or any other 'official' data which provides this setting for use in simulating an engine emergency procedure. Perhaps there is one – love to see it – but damned if I can find it. A serious normalised deviance – why?
Then, a clear written instruction in the AFM prohibiting 'engine shut down' below 5000 feet. That is a fairly serious piece of 'advice. But, is it enforceable? Here we enter the bizarre world of 'acceptance' of flight manuals – and boy, is the legislation confused. The FAA have their way of interpreting the AFM – Limitations mandatory – the rest under advisement – but; they come down hard on any light and loose liberties taken with the spirit and intent of the AFM. Not so with CASA; their views (multiple) of the way an AFM is 'binding appears to be subjective – in the extreme – even to different FOI whim. But 'we' need to know what is 'black letter' in an AFM and what is not. Blessed if I can find clear, concise policy. If there is then I wish they'd publish the bloody thing. Nearly done:
Last – an item which has sparked some serious debate – unresolved to date. It would be an understatement, bordering oblivion, to say what and what is not a CASA 'directive'. For instance several flight tests require (read demand) an engine failure scenario for various phases of flight – after take off for example. CASA demand this box be ticked. CASA approves almost every page of an in house Check and Training system – every one of 'em – down to spelling errors. Yet in this case we have a clear 'directive' from a manufacturer that 'engine shutdown' etc must not be contemplated below 5000 feet. Ross Air whittled that down to 3000 feet – approved by CASA – then wrote that 'simulated' engine failure was not be conducted below 400' AGL – approved by CASA there was even a time when 300' was considered and approved as acceptable.
Now, using a manufacturer promulgated; tested during certification – zero thrust setting; below 5000' in lieu of that determination is righteous and proper. But in the absence of such data and approval – a 'made up' ZTS, used to satisfy a CASA directive to comply with their 'testing' paperwork requirements; leaves many questions to be answered. Men died that day – unnecessarily IMO. So how, and at who's direction and approval of the CT system did that situation develop?
I know – zero thrust is an acceptable, normal procedure – until the legal fellahin get a hold of it, in a court – when there's blood and money on the table – not to mention liability.
Don't shoot the messenger – I only turned up for a quiet Ale and walked into the discussion – Cheers..............