Popinjay issues an Occurrence Brief for GA-8 Airvan Operators?? -
Via Social media:
Apparently this is what the ATSB define an OB as:
The disconnections??
This is the 2010 CASA AD referred to: https://services.casa.gov.au/airworth/ai...A8-003.pdf
So despite the above AD information being freely available via a 10 second Google search, Popinjay (or one of his minions) decides not to investigate but instead issues a notification (via social media) of an OB 83 days after the incident occurred. Yet according to the OB (ref: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/occ...april-2023 ) the actual brief was created nearly two weeks ago??
MTF...P2
PS: Strangely there is no words of wisdom, in what is now a Popinjay SOP media release, from whoever is this week's DTS??
Via Social media:
Quote:
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
The ATSB has published an occurrence brief after the rear cabin door of a GippsAero GA8 Airvan separated and fell from the aircraft during a scenic flight at Fraser Island, Queensland.
Apparently this is what the ATSB define an OB as:
Quote:Occurrence Briefs are concise reports that detail the facts surrounding a transport safety occurrence, as received in the initial notification and any follow-up enquiries. They provide an opportunity to share safety messages in the absence of an investigation.
The disconnections??
Quote:About this report
Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.
This is the 2010 CASA AD referred to: https://services.casa.gov.au/airworth/ai...A8-003.pdf
Quote:Background: Inspections have revealed cases of excessive wear in the forward slide of the cargo door. Excessive wear in the door slide may result in the door becoming detached from the aircraft in flight, with potentially catastrophic results. Following a recent in-flight door separation, this amendment is issued to update the service bulletin to remove any ambiguities that could have existed in the previous revision to the referenced service bulletin. It also provides an improved inspection method and a minor design change to the cargo door slide (inclusion of slide backing plate, castellated nut and spilt pin).
So despite the above AD information being freely available via a 10 second Google search, Popinjay (or one of his minions) decides not to investigate but instead issues a notification (via social media) of an OB 83 days after the incident occurred. Yet according to the OB (ref: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/occ...april-2023 ) the actual brief was created nearly two weeks ago??
MTF...P2
PS: Strangely there is no words of wisdom, in what is now a Popinjay SOP media release, from whoever is this week's DTS??