[Peetwo]

Here's the culprit(s), note where the knife is positioned??

Sharpy corrects the bollocks on REX prop incident -

I note today that REX deputy chair and former Transport miniscule John Sharp, has taken to task the half-arsed attempt at aviation investigative journalism on the REX prop incident. Which was published last Friday (30 March) in the Oz by creepy Cleary (with embellishments from Byron Bailey):

Engine crisis as prop dropped
12:00amPAUL CLEARY
A plane came close to catastrophe when pilots began shutting down an overheating engine ­before the propeller fell off.

..A source who has spoken to the crew says the pilots noticed that the engine temperature was rising, most likely because of problems with the gearbox, and they were shutting it down when the propeller came off.


Veteran pilot and industry ­expert Byron Bailey said the ­propeller would have almost ­certainly hit the fuselage had it been spinning at normal speed.

This was the second Rex flight to return to base this month with engine problems, while a third ­returned after the crew noticed noise from the ground communications hatch.

Industry experts say the root cause of these problems is the age of the Rex fleet, which at 23 years is the oldest of any public airline in Australia.

Rex compares poorly with other smaller airlines such as ­Virgin Regional, Airnorth and Cobham, which have a fleet age of 15 to 18 years. Its planes are three times older than those of Qantas and Virgin Australia. The Saab 340B that lost the propeller was one of Rex’s oldest planes.

Mr Bailey said the short distances flown by Rex’s 50 fleet of Saab 340Bs had “very high utilisation” from the higher incidence or takeoffs and landings, making their effective life even shorter...

 



This was John Sharp's retort in the Oz today:

Passengers, industry full of praise for Rex crew after mishaps

• John Sharp
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM April 7, 2017
  

I have been associated with Regional Express (Rex) since its launch in 2004 and would like to respond to some of the claims made in this section last week.

Rex has an excellent safety record, having flown a million hours without a single flight-related injury. Rex’s aircraft are much more reliable than all other regional operations of the major carriers in Australia. This is demonstrated in its on-time performance being the best for more than a decade.

Further, with proper maintenance, age is not a root cause for safety incidents. The only other recorded similar event to that of Flight ZL768 (when the propeller separated) was in 1991, when US carrier Comair’s aircraft also landed safely after a separation of its propeller. The Comair aircraft was only two years old. Similarly, the Qantas A380 involved in a near catastrophic accident in 2010 was only two years old.

In last week’s article, (‘‘Rex pilots narrowly avoided air disaster’’, 31/3), Byron Bailey said “the pilots took quick action to shut down an overheating engine”. Mr Bailey said the crew was shutting down the engine because gearbox problems were causing the temperature to rise.

Rex can confirm the engine was not overheating at any stage. Nor was its gearbox its “weak link”, as Mr Bailey said. This allegation is the view of an individual who is not a subject matter expert. There are no statistics to support such a view.

The allegation about the engine overcoming the drag inside the gearbox is also a figment of imagination. The General Electric engine fitted to the Saab 340 is a free power turbine and, as such, the engine and gearbox have no mechanical connection.

Further, I challenge Mr Bailey’s statement that, had the pilots not taken action to shut it down, the propeller would have “been spinning faster and it could have impacted the fuselage”. This allegation is emotive and unfounded. The propeller separated only when the first officer selected fuel off, which also feathers the propeller.

We wish to set the record straight on allegations on the industrial relations with the crew. Rex pilots are paid in accordance with an enterprise agreement and are rostered in accordance with Civil Aviation Order flight and duty time limitations. Overnight allowances have always been paid to Rex pilots in accordance with the EA.

Finally, Rex did not suffer three incidents during March. Rex experienced two unrelated events. The first was the propeller separation on Flight ZL768 on March 17. The second was engine failure on Flight ZL821 on March 23. In the third incident, the crew initiated an air return because they believed they could hear an air noise associated with the ground communications hatch. The flight did not have any other apparent issues.

Engineers carried out a thorough inspection including ground runs and no fault was found. The aircraft returned to service.

In summary, every carrier in Australia and in the world suffers from similar safety events occasionally as this is an inevitable part of flying, no different from driving. What is important is the in-built redundancy of the aircraft, which allows safe operations despite component failures. These safety features have resulted in flying being much safer than driving in terms of injuries per kilometre travelled.

The Saab 340 is designed to be able to climb, cruise and land safely on only one of its two engines. This was demonstrated in the events cited in the article to the extent that many passengers said they did not feel any difference when the aircraft landed uneventfully after the propeller separation.

The other important contributor to flight safety is crew flying standards. The two events demonstrate the high quality of training of Rex crew such that normal landings are achieved even under rare and challenging circumstances. Rex has received universal praise from the aviation world for the calm, professional and effective actions of the crew after the separation of the propeller.

Now I can fully understand Sharpy's intervention here, because even with such kindergarten grade journalism on display the Oz article still has the potential to negatively affect business for REX airlines.

However I do find it somewhat ironic that over 7 years ago Sharp, who was then Chairman of REX subsidiary PelAir, made a similar statement in regards to the pilots who ditched VH-NGA off the coast of Norfolk Island: http://www.smh.com.au/national/pilot-sav...-inrr.html

Pel-Air Aviation chairman John Sharp said he was very proud of the captain and first officer.

"Their professionalism stood out on the day and made a substantial difference to the outcome," he said.

"They executed what would have to be described as a perfect landing on water," Mr Sharp told reporters in Sydney.

"The pilots ensured that the aircraft landed close to the coast, close to rescue.

"They landed at night, approximately we think about 9.30 local time and as a result of the skill of the pilots the aircraft landed in the water and none of the passengers were injured."

  
And when that all turned to custard, Sharpy was the intermediary between CASA, the ATSB and the government. Therefore he was very firmly implicated by association in the PelAir cover-up fiasco, including more than likely facilitating the highest REX political donation (250K) to a normally less than sympathetic Labor government...  



References: Cost of Albo's silence?? & Masters of the GCT (Grand Can'tberra Trough)

Just saying -


MTF...P2