Side bars and dustbins.
Usually, when P2 is rummaging in the bins, we haul him out by the scruff, hose him off and sift through the 'finds'; alas, he ain't done yet. But, we can see where the search is heading - HERE - with more to follow.
From amongst the rubble the shade of Bruce Rhodes appears, dragging along the Middle Island accident; reeking of flawed system and little in the way of sound advice to prevent recurrence (or reoccurrence even).
There are a couple (or three) elements in the ATSB report which subtly influence the opinion of the reader; for example the coy use of the term 'semi-aerobatic' manoeuvres. That there is no such thing exemplifies the desire to shift both focus and blame away from the radical flaws. It implies a willingness on Rhodes part to flout the statutory rules, the tenets of good operational sense and the experience of other operators performing similar work.
Semi aerobatic - is a nonsense. A manoeuvre either is a recognised, named, legitimate, deliberate, calculated aerobatic act; or it it not. If not then the manoeuvre falls within the ambit of 'normal' operations and quite legitimate. Find me a pilot who has not 'tossed' the airframe about 'a bit' just for fun; steep turns, a wing over, a little negative 'g' after positive 'g'. Harmless diversion - unless essential. There is no technical comparison between the 'g' forces experienced during aerobatics and the 'routine' in flight 'bit of fun' Rhodes and Co. performed. The forces experienced by the passengers were nowhere near those you would get on say a ride on a Big Dipper - in the region of 3.5 positive - 0.5 negative. So why the slur and false implication that somehow a 'bit of fun' equates to a poor safety culture and used as the foundation for the implication of a 'cowboy' operation?
![[Image: 220px-Load_factor_and_the_g-force_in_turn.svg.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Load_factor_and_the_g-force_in_turn.svg/220px-Load_factor_and_the_g-force_in_turn.svg.png)
Secundus: The same deceptive 'methodology' has been applied to the 'Operations Manual'. IF any part was thought to be substandard - at the acceptance stage; then surely the CASA inspector would have pointed the deficiency out, in writing, and delayed the issue of certification until those concerns were addressed. So what happened? P7 and I sat down and took a look at the Rhodes operation - it took about 45 minutes to produce a page and a half 'procedure' which would have eliminated 90% of the clearly defined 'danger' areas; simple enough stuff which would have covered the operators arse in the rare event of and engine failure at a critical point - despite the astronomically high odds against it - the bet was covered. So why was the deficiency not brought to the operators attention; and, why was a certificate issued against a potential risk? Where was the much mentioned superior CASA safety oversight?
There, got that off my chest; back into my box I go.
Toot - toot...
Usually, when P2 is rummaging in the bins, we haul him out by the scruff, hose him off and sift through the 'finds'; alas, he ain't done yet. But, we can see where the search is heading - HERE - with more to follow.
From amongst the rubble the shade of Bruce Rhodes appears, dragging along the Middle Island accident; reeking of flawed system and little in the way of sound advice to prevent recurrence (or reoccurrence even).
There are a couple (or three) elements in the ATSB report which subtly influence the opinion of the reader; for example the coy use of the term 'semi-aerobatic' manoeuvres. That there is no such thing exemplifies the desire to shift both focus and blame away from the radical flaws. It implies a willingness on Rhodes part to flout the statutory rules, the tenets of good operational sense and the experience of other operators performing similar work.
Semi aerobatic - is a nonsense. A manoeuvre either is a recognised, named, legitimate, deliberate, calculated aerobatic act; or it it not. If not then the manoeuvre falls within the ambit of 'normal' operations and quite legitimate. Find me a pilot who has not 'tossed' the airframe about 'a bit' just for fun; steep turns, a wing over, a little negative 'g' after positive 'g'. Harmless diversion - unless essential. There is no technical comparison between the 'g' forces experienced during aerobatics and the 'routine' in flight 'bit of fun' Rhodes and Co. performed. The forces experienced by the passengers were nowhere near those you would get on say a ride on a Big Dipper - in the region of 3.5 positive - 0.5 negative. So why the slur and false implication that somehow a 'bit of fun' equates to a poor safety culture and used as the foundation for the implication of a 'cowboy' operation?
Secundus: The same deceptive 'methodology' has been applied to the 'Operations Manual'. IF any part was thought to be substandard - at the acceptance stage; then surely the CASA inspector would have pointed the deficiency out, in writing, and delayed the issue of certification until those concerns were addressed. So what happened? P7 and I sat down and took a look at the Rhodes operation - it took about 45 minutes to produce a page and a half 'procedure' which would have eliminated 90% of the clearly defined 'danger' areas; simple enough stuff which would have covered the operators arse in the rare event of and engine failure at a critical point - despite the astronomically high odds against it - the bet was covered. So why was the deficiency not brought to the operators attention; and, why was a certificate issued against a potential risk? Where was the much mentioned superior CASA safety oversight?
There, got that off my chest; back into my box I go.
Toot - toot...