Lets get a little crazy here; just for fun....?
Just for a moment (indulge me). At the tag end of this post – HERE – we find an ATSB 'report' into a recent event. A C210 appears to have run out of 'motion lotion'
“An ATSB investigation determined the aircraft departed Maitland with sufficient fuel to complete the intended flight, but it was likely the amount of fuel reduced to a level that, in combination with unbalanced flight approaching Bankstown, resulted in the engine being starved of fuel”.
Really? .Who investigates this stuff – the local knitter of sweaters for cats? The local basket weaver's fraternity? What happened to 'investigation'? On balance; given the one simple, sensible statement above, blind Freddy could make a very accurate assessment of the 'facts' before he broke wind first thing AM, based on facts, which should lead to the CASA realising that because the volume of regulation, waffle and the work of wordsmiths, there are some gaping holes in their knitting. Those holes are allowing some shocking displays of piss poor airmanship, common sense and attention to 'situational awareness', proactive flight management and, (IMO) a lack of depth in the actual 'training' of pilots. Ayup, big call I know: but, examine the current spate of inconsequential 'incidents'. All there, writ large, clear as day. ATSB just roll out some half arsed dribble, late as usual, which is of little practical value, let alone intrinsic. Let's take a punt at what really happened and see if there are not some lessons (not bloody learnings) from this latest ATSB publication.
“An ATSB investigation determined the aircraft departed Maitland with sufficient fuel to complete the intended flight,”
Great – where was that fuel load? Now a C210 cruises at (about) 160 kts; it burns 15 US gph (60 lts per hour - for ease of reference). OK, so lets trim those numbers – on a short flight < 100 nms – (taxi, take off, climb, cruise, descent, approach and landing – knock off what?– 15 knots to obtain an average (start up to shut down) no wind flight time; what? Call it 130 kts;(for a number); sensible planning would budget a hour (call it 60 liters) fuel burn off. Call the journey 100 nms @ 130 ≈46 minutes – but lets' budget 60 minutes all up. The standard air frame carries 90 USG – (340 lts) or ::170 per tank. Keeping it easy; with reserves, how about a minimum fuel load of 2 hours – 120 lts. One tank = 170 lts @ 60 per hour ≈2 hours at cruise + a safe 45 minutes (give or take).
You could almost write the dialogue for this event; Charlie's aircraft needs maintenance,
“the ferry flight was conducted under a CASA special flight permit, requiring only essential operating crew be carried,”
Read that statement again – then wonder why the ATSB was very careful not to reveal why a 'special' was issued. Clearly there was an 'airworthiness' matter which demanded attention; bald tire or engine overhaul? – Maybe a fuel flow problem; who knows – Hell, it may just have had an expired MR. Not mentioned; wonder why? Then ask why there was a 'need' “to carry non-essential crew on a ferry flight for maintenance that placed an additional occupant at unnecessary risk of injury” Why indeed..???.....
This report is 'junk' mail. Indeed, the more I read through it, the more 'flawed' it becomes; some of the fatuous statements within the report 'scream' a blatant disregard for the basic tenets the ATSB and its predecessors defined. It is a worthless, glib, slippery non investigation of a right royal example of a failing 'safety culture' – one won the hard way, in blood and and experience, being watered down to a thirty second read. Wrong! on all counts.
This 'pilot' completely buggered it up. Who, in the seven Hell's would be configured 'clean' withing 5 miles of YSBK? Or, any airport for that matter – approach flap, speed stable – gear down – landing checks complete. You see children, by completing the checks; the 'gear' not cooperating could, with time in hand, could have been extended using the manual system; if not then there would be time to alert the excellent ATCO's at BK that there was a 'problem'. There was even enough fuel (ATSB numbers) to hold off and await fire and ambulance. Who was the pilot and why is he /she still holding a valid brief?
ATSB - “During the approach to Bankstown, the engine stopped.”
No kidding - but Why?
ATSB - “The pilot identified a taxiway on the airport as a suitable place for a forced landing and elected to leave the flap retracted and the gear up in order to reduce drag and maximise glide range,”
WTD + Why?
“An ATSB investigation determined the aircraft departed Maitland with sufficient fuel to complete the intended flight, but it was likely the amount of fuel reduced to a level that, in combination with unbalanced flight approaching Bankstown, resulted in the engine being starved of fuel.”
Why? (and BOLLOCKS). Perhaps the fuel load should/could have been 'balanced' through rudder trim (ball in the center - wings level etc. (Remember that?)
I'd bet serious beers that the truth is far simpler than the ATSB cobblers (borderline perfidious) report presents. Fuel is at a premium; there was possibly one nearly full and one nearly empty tank – imbalance indicated. Owner unhappy with the expense of ferry and a pilot willing to accept the imbalance. Fair enough, was the 'fuller' tank dipped? Was the fuel in the lower tank exhausted (during the cruise) before the 'fuller' tank was brought on line? Why were the gear and flap not utilsed during the approach, as per the manufacturers check list? Why was the approach not delayed untill the emergency gear extension drill was performed - ?
Look, I could bang on all night about this event; so many holes in the ATSB cheese as to beggar belief. It was a straight forward stuff up; one which begs answer to many serious breaches of 'sound' operational management, a failure of operational diligence, discipline; and, like many other 'accidents'; shows a complete disregard for airmanship, training, produced by the current system which supports the CASA/ ATSB 'laissez faire' and the work rounds which allow such shoddy workmanship from the ATSB. It is Pony Pooh of the first water; expensive and completely counter productive to 'safety' and can only lead down one road. The road to perdition.
There all better now; that's off my chest; I won't read that particular load of dribble again; not ever. Shameful – Kim Bliss would have the roof off the building – enough said.
That's it; read through P2's recent posts i(without a bucket handy) if you can; then dream of sanity, respect and dare I say probity returning to the management of 'matters aeronautical', rescued from the abyss, brought back to a rational, reasonable state; Hell's bells, we might even try for ICAO compliance – but enough...My twiddles don't matter a damn, but someone, somewhere, sometime, has to set matters to rights. Gods alone know what our peers would make of this rubbish from the ATSB; but, I do have an inkling (76 furious emails) all asking WTD? - As if I could answer that....
Selah.......
Just for a moment (indulge me). At the tag end of this post – HERE – we find an ATSB 'report' into a recent event. A C210 appears to have run out of 'motion lotion'
“An ATSB investigation determined the aircraft departed Maitland with sufficient fuel to complete the intended flight, but it was likely the amount of fuel reduced to a level that, in combination with unbalanced flight approaching Bankstown, resulted in the engine being starved of fuel”.
Really? .Who investigates this stuff – the local knitter of sweaters for cats? The local basket weaver's fraternity? What happened to 'investigation'? On balance; given the one simple, sensible statement above, blind Freddy could make a very accurate assessment of the 'facts' before he broke wind first thing AM, based on facts, which should lead to the CASA realising that because the volume of regulation, waffle and the work of wordsmiths, there are some gaping holes in their knitting. Those holes are allowing some shocking displays of piss poor airmanship, common sense and attention to 'situational awareness', proactive flight management and, (IMO) a lack of depth in the actual 'training' of pilots. Ayup, big call I know: but, examine the current spate of inconsequential 'incidents'. All there, writ large, clear as day. ATSB just roll out some half arsed dribble, late as usual, which is of little practical value, let alone intrinsic. Let's take a punt at what really happened and see if there are not some lessons (not bloody learnings) from this latest ATSB publication.
“An ATSB investigation determined the aircraft departed Maitland with sufficient fuel to complete the intended flight,”
Great – where was that fuel load? Now a C210 cruises at (about) 160 kts; it burns 15 US gph (60 lts per hour - for ease of reference). OK, so lets trim those numbers – on a short flight < 100 nms – (taxi, take off, climb, cruise, descent, approach and landing – knock off what?– 15 knots to obtain an average (start up to shut down) no wind flight time; what? Call it 130 kts;(for a number); sensible planning would budget a hour (call it 60 liters) fuel burn off. Call the journey 100 nms @ 130 ≈46 minutes – but lets' budget 60 minutes all up. The standard air frame carries 90 USG – (340 lts) or ::170 per tank. Keeping it easy; with reserves, how about a minimum fuel load of 2 hours – 120 lts. One tank = 170 lts @ 60 per hour ≈2 hours at cruise + a safe 45 minutes (give or take).
You could almost write the dialogue for this event; Charlie's aircraft needs maintenance,
“the ferry flight was conducted under a CASA special flight permit, requiring only essential operating crew be carried,”
Read that statement again – then wonder why the ATSB was very careful not to reveal why a 'special' was issued. Clearly there was an 'airworthiness' matter which demanded attention; bald tire or engine overhaul? – Maybe a fuel flow problem; who knows – Hell, it may just have had an expired MR. Not mentioned; wonder why? Then ask why there was a 'need' “to carry non-essential crew on a ferry flight for maintenance that placed an additional occupant at unnecessary risk of injury” Why indeed..???.....
This report is 'junk' mail. Indeed, the more I read through it, the more 'flawed' it becomes; some of the fatuous statements within the report 'scream' a blatant disregard for the basic tenets the ATSB and its predecessors defined. It is a worthless, glib, slippery non investigation of a right royal example of a failing 'safety culture' – one won the hard way, in blood and and experience, being watered down to a thirty second read. Wrong! on all counts.
This 'pilot' completely buggered it up. Who, in the seven Hell's would be configured 'clean' withing 5 miles of YSBK? Or, any airport for that matter – approach flap, speed stable – gear down – landing checks complete. You see children, by completing the checks; the 'gear' not cooperating could, with time in hand, could have been extended using the manual system; if not then there would be time to alert the excellent ATCO's at BK that there was a 'problem'. There was even enough fuel (ATSB numbers) to hold off and await fire and ambulance. Who was the pilot and why is he /she still holding a valid brief?
ATSB - “During the approach to Bankstown, the engine stopped.”
No kidding - but Why?
ATSB - “The pilot identified a taxiway on the airport as a suitable place for a forced landing and elected to leave the flap retracted and the gear up in order to reduce drag and maximise glide range,”
WTD + Why?
“An ATSB investigation determined the aircraft departed Maitland with sufficient fuel to complete the intended flight, but it was likely the amount of fuel reduced to a level that, in combination with unbalanced flight approaching Bankstown, resulted in the engine being starved of fuel.”
Why? (and BOLLOCKS). Perhaps the fuel load should/could have been 'balanced' through rudder trim (ball in the center - wings level etc. (Remember that?)
I'd bet serious beers that the truth is far simpler than the ATSB cobblers (borderline perfidious) report presents. Fuel is at a premium; there was possibly one nearly full and one nearly empty tank – imbalance indicated. Owner unhappy with the expense of ferry and a pilot willing to accept the imbalance. Fair enough, was the 'fuller' tank dipped? Was the fuel in the lower tank exhausted (during the cruise) before the 'fuller' tank was brought on line? Why were the gear and flap not utilsed during the approach, as per the manufacturers check list? Why was the approach not delayed untill the emergency gear extension drill was performed - ?
Look, I could bang on all night about this event; so many holes in the ATSB cheese as to beggar belief. It was a straight forward stuff up; one which begs answer to many serious breaches of 'sound' operational management, a failure of operational diligence, discipline; and, like many other 'accidents'; shows a complete disregard for airmanship, training, produced by the current system which supports the CASA/ ATSB 'laissez faire' and the work rounds which allow such shoddy workmanship from the ATSB. It is Pony Pooh of the first water; expensive and completely counter productive to 'safety' and can only lead down one road. The road to perdition.
There all better now; that's off my chest; I won't read that particular load of dribble again; not ever. Shameful – Kim Bliss would have the roof off the building – enough said.
That's it; read through P2's recent posts i(without a bucket handy) if you can; then dream of sanity, respect and dare I say probity returning to the management of 'matters aeronautical', rescued from the abyss, brought back to a rational, reasonable state; Hell's bells, we might even try for ICAO compliance – but enough...My twiddles don't matter a damn, but someone, somewhere, sometime, has to set matters to rights. Gods alone know what our peers would make of this rubbish from the ATSB; but, I do have an inkling (76 furious emails) all asking WTD? - As if I could answer that....
Selah.......