[Kharon]

More Bollocks.

Was it a controlled flight into terrain – or; a non controlled collision with a building, ATSB?

It will, rest assured, be a long time before I venture onto the UP after an accident. The last straw – some brainless halfwit declaiming the ‘certified’ (FAR 23) performance of the venerable Be20.

Can’t be bothered to crib the post – Thanks P2 -

“My first few engine failures in a Kingair sim came after 31 years of flying - and they were a bloody handful. I now have the technique tuned, but I needed to be exposed to it. Pulling a throttle back in flight to simulate an engine failure does NOT replicate a full V1 cut in the sim, it never will.”

“A ‘dead cut’ @ V1 is an absolute bastard to manage”.  Bollocks – there is more drag at closed throttle (power lever) which is why, in the real world – when the EFATO procedure is correctly complete a Checky will ‘set’ zero thrust’ to simulate the ‘feathered’ condition. A dead cut will trigger auto feather and the ‘drag’ is gone; training benefit lost, right there. The philosophy supporting decades of multi engine training wisdom practice is simple; at training weights the additional drag assists in simulating the aircraft performance at a full load. The return to ‘zero thrust’ demonstrates the value of correctly performed actions and checks. End of.

Anyway - since when in this good world, was ‘V1’ ever, ever a consideration in the performance manual or even the approved certification data for the type? Never is the correct answer. Then the ‘expert’ fails to mention that the Auto feather would kick in and that saves valuable seconds at the ‘imaginary’ V1 cut; remember, V1 is but a fleeting second of time – a heartbeat. If you are using a ‘tight’ field length it is prudent to manage the T/Off speed schedule to make damn sure that you can either safely stop or safely go. This means a schedule which gets the aircraft as quickly as possible – to a ‘safe’ speed; preferably above single engine climb speeds. Why? Well if you ‘loose’ one below that speed, it is a sods job to accelerate and gain the additional speed needed for climb; but if you have obtained a better speed than minimum when you ‘loose’ it; even if the aircraft decelerates, then climb is still possible, even probable. There is that wonderful moment when the ‘Speedo’ ticks through to climb speed and the climb indicator shows a positive ‘UP’. Aside, you do realise there is a CASA mutt knocking about who even tries to insist that a reduction from a happy V2+10 to the scheduled V2 is the only ‘right’ way to manage a single engine climb.  

Yet here’s this UP mutt, who probably could not even define a ‘suitable’ range of V1 (not the sensible pilot selected ‘stop-go’ speed) for the type telling us that V1 is a ‘big deal’. It ain’t – full stop - it don’t exist.  Now ‘in the sim’ he claims to have used a V1 as the ‘dead cut point and how he battled, but eventually mastered the beast off the runway from V1 and won; and, has now mastered the art – through the simulator. Maybe the Microsoft one; at home after a couple of ales – but the real aircraft? Never, not in a million. Trust me, I do know the aircraft fairly well. Even the very complex relationship between ‘rudder boost’ and ‘yaw damper’ (wait for it – there ain’t one, but don’t say a word) except there is -$-%-&/. ‘V1’ in a Be20 is what I decide it will be;

You may, on a whim, develop a series of weight related ‘pseudo’ V1 and V2 numbers – as a guide; but the really important speed (legally) is TOSS – Take off Safety Speed – why? Well look it up.

(TOSS XX knots only provides a prescribed margin over Vmca, and does not {cannot} imply climb performance).

Do you see – the aircraft can be ‘flown’ (floated) off a short field at about 80 knots; loose one then and there is a no option other than a tree top height sleigh ride to gain the speed needed. But if you manage to gain say 90/95 on the runway and fly off gently the ‘acceleration’ period is very short; even on one. You must either have speed or room to accelerate preferably both – and a plan – Take off briefing ring any bells?

And yet some muppet wants V1, Vr, V2 etc. for an aircraft which was not certified for such things. Another duckin’ expert FCOL. What is it about accidents that brings ‘em out, barking at the moon; got me buggered. Perhaps he has it confused with Vsse – safe single engine. Now a smart ‘educator’ will not fail a power unit before this speed – why? Well, it is, as it’s name implies, the ‘certified’ minimum ‘safe’ speed ‘recommended’ for simulating an engine failure. There is one more, small but salient point to be made – who – sane, would be trying to make a FAR 23 aircraft fly like a FAR 25 aircraft. Can’t happen. Won’t happen, well not with any semblance of a defense – in law – criminal code – strict liability – “I continued from V1 M’lud”  - “Oh aye” say’s the prosecutor, sharpening the knife while looking for the best place to stick it.

Anyway; a to claim that failure at V1 in a Be20 is a ‘bastard’ becomes risible. No such animal exists, except on Microsoft. Or; unless the aircraft is operated to the FAR 25 specs, i.e. weight limited and the 'rider' that 'full compliance with FAR 25 is not implied'.  For RPT a speed/weight schedule may be used with CASA approval; but it's not a happy legal area at all. Read the fine print...

That’s it – calm restored, rant over, time to focus on the ‘real’ issues which led to this tragedy. My apologies to the purists; but simple, direct pictures are occasionally needed.

Toot-toot.

P7 (edit) - I thought the endless 'Mallard' rubbish would have been enough; but, your head of steam tempted me to look. Justifiable anger boy; now, we have mans work to do. BRB indaba - next week after estimates - we could start then. Ale with you Sir - later.

[Gobbledock]

ADSBollocks

Always a laugh when bureaucrats give their biased opinions, opinions which are normally based upon lies and bullshit fed to them, by the truckload, from their Silo operating minions.

"Mr Hamilton was responding to an article in The Australian last month in which CASA chief executive Shane Carmody said ADS-B would vastly improve air safety".

So, do we believe the 35 year respected veteran, Mr Hamilton, an experienced pilot and operator of the big jets? Or do we believe the career bureaucrat and Ministerial footstool Wingnut Carmody? A no-brainer really. But that's ok Minister NFI, you just keep believing your shoe shiners mate because one day it will be a 777 into a Melbourne suburb, or an A320 into Can'tberras shrine of remembrance. And that will quickly wipe that dopey look of your immaculately maintained face!

Tick Tock Minister

[Peetwo]

Update 24/02/17: YMEN VH-ZCR CFIT fatal accident.

We get confirmation that the gear remained down, plus Hoody comes under fire in the latest from the Weekend Oz   :

Pilots’ anger as facts lost amid plane crash fallout

Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood speaks to the media about the fatal plane crash at a Melbourne shopping centre that claimed the lives of five men.
The plane, with landing gear down, about to crash.
[/url][url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/pilots-anger-as-facts-lost-amid-plane-crash-fallout/news-story/1854dd07d237faeb2e0d40ccd2b948d5#]

• 1
  
• 2
  

• Rick Morton, Simone Fox Koob
  

[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/cbd838094c278f870442ad76e8fc0bae/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
The most important detail about the doomed flight VH-ZCR, which plunged into a Melbourne shopping centre this week killing all five onboard, is the one not ­disclosed by the chief commissioner of the body charged with investigating the crash.

That detail changes the course of the story so far: when the Beechcraft B200 Super King Air lost power in one engine — ­almost certainly the left — its landing gear was down.

When the relatively new chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Greg Hood, fronted media the day after the accident, he declined to mention this fact, even though a subsequent statement cast doubt over the pilot, Max Quartermain.

“Certainly, modern aircraft with two engines are designed to climb away on one,” he said on Wednesday.

That, according to pilots and a well-placed air safety source, is only part of the story.
Stephen Thompson, a retired pilot with the Royal Flying Doctor Service in Queensland, is only alive today, he says, because when the engine on his Beechcraft C90 failed on take-off near Mount Isa in 1997, he had just retracted the landing gear. “There is not a pilot in the world who could have climbed that aircraft away,” Thompson says. The gear creates drag and slows the aircraft.

Quartermain — who was ferrying American golf buddies Greg DeHaven, John Washburn, Glenn Garland and Russell Munsch to King Island — would have taken off close to “blue-line speed”, the critical momentum that allows the plane to climb away, but disaster appears to have struck almost ­immediately after the wheels left runway one-seven at Essendon Airport.

“It is normal for the pilot to ­accelerate to close to the blue-line speed and, when the aircraft lifts off, he looks at the panel of instruments to see if the aircraft is climbing properly,” Thompson says. “If that is the case, he lifts the gear up. That usually takes about three to four seconds. It could be up to six seconds before the aircraft gets into a clean configuration.”

An engine failure in those critical seconds denies an opportunity for the pilot to climb away.

In the crucial final moments of the flight, just before it smashed into the DFO shopping centre, ­vision shows the wheels of the Super King Air extended.

A slim chance of survival is ­offered on a longer runway, potentially allowing the pilot to land again, but the north-south runway one-seven at Essendon is much shorter than the east-west runway. Beyond it is the Tullamarine Freeway and many houses.

In any case, Quartermain did not have flaps deployed in a landing configuration. By all accounts, he appears to have allowed the plane to twist to the left, or deliberately steered it away from buildings and a packed freeway.

Many pilots feel the comments by ATSB boss Hood were unfair. “Watching the ATSB press conference and hearing this was a little off-putting — it does seem like a hugely broad ... statement,” one wrote in an online forum.

Another wrote: “Pretty broad statement there. Better off keeping your mouth shut unless you are going to fully explain.”

An air safety source familiar with the incident — though not part of the investigating team — said the engine appeared to have failed “at the worst possible ­moment”. “What Greg (Hood) said is right, providing the (landing) gear is up, the propeller of the dead ­engine is feathered (positioned to create less drag) and you’ve kicked in the opposite rudder,” he said. “If you manage to do all of this in less than a second, because that is all the time you’ve got, then you stand a chance.”

A spokesman for the ATSB clarified Hood’s comments following questions from this newspaper.

“The intent of Mr Hood’s comment in the media conference was a general statement about how single-engine power loss in a twin-engine aircraft does not automatically mean the plane can’t fly, necessitating a forced landing,” he said. “We don’t yet know what the pilot was facing or what cues he was getting to help manage what was a complex situation.

“Mr Hood was not speculating on any of these factors when making his statement.”
The ATSB issued an update yesterday. “A number of components, including the aircraft’s ­engines and propellers, have been recovered for detailed examination at Essendon Airport. This will take place into next week,” the statement says.

Quartermain’s daughter Melissa spoke for the first time yesterday in a video released on behalf of her mother, Cilla, and brother Max. “I’d firstly like to ­acknowledge the pain everyone affected by this tragedy is experiencing. Our hearts go out to all, ­especially the families of the people who died in this tragedy.

“Secondly, we extend our ­utmost gratitude for the love and support from our friends and family. It’s been a tremendous comfort. The support provided to us through official channels has been outstanding. It’s made us so proud of this country,” she said.

“Our dad meant so much to a lot of people. To us, he was our hero, our inspiration and our rock. We will miss his generosity, his energy and his passion for his work.”

Quartermain hired the plane from the former directors of MyJet, who retained ownership of the aircraft despite transferring the air operator certificate to Australian Corporate Jet Centres. The paperwork had been ­approved but was sitting in the CASA system and ACJC was not aware its operator status had taken effect.

Former pilot Craig Zilko, who lost a friend in a similar accident in the 1970s, said it was that short but critical moment when the engine failed on take-off that was “every pilot’s worst nightmare”. “That split second to diagnose, then to try to rectify and, failing that, successfully execute a Plan B,” he said.

In the first instance, it is not clear what caused the engine to fail or even whether the second engine also faltered. Investigators will have other incidents to inform their work.

In 2014, a carbon-copy crash ­occurred in Wichita, Kansas. A pilot of a B200 plane experienced ­left-engine failure, also with the landing gear extended, failed to make it above 120ft, banked left and crashed into a building. Investigators concluded the “pilot did not follow the emergency procedures for an engine failure during take-off, which included retracting the landing gear’’.

A component in the hydraulic landing gear of the B200 involved in the Essendon crash was replaced about two months ago.

In late December, former Victorian pilot Darren Wilton watched Quartermain take off smoothly in the same B200 plane at Murray Bridge in South Australia. “I suspect what will be found (in the crash investigation) was he ­realised it wasn’t going to make it over the building. If he had gone for the freeway, that’s 100 litres of jet fuel. When that hits the ground at 100 miles an hours, it explodes. I tend to think he made that choice.”

P2 comment - Despite the obvious high profile nature of this tragic accident, it did strike me as odd that Greg Hood was front, centre and flapping his gums un-aided by the one person who should hold the primacy and control in the investigation - i.e. the IIC?? Unless of course Hoody is the designated IIC...


MTF...P2

Ps - IIC & relevant Annex 13 references:

Investigator-in-charge — Designation

5.5 The State conducting the investigation shall designate the investigator-in-charge of the investigation and shall initiate the investigation immediately.

Investigator-in-charge — Access and control

5.6 The investigator-in-charge shall have unhampered access to the wreckage and all relevant material, including flight recorders and ATS records, and shall have unrestricted control over it to ensure that a detailed examination can be made without delay by authorized personnel participating in the investigation.

---

Non-disclosure of records

5.12 The State conducting the investigation of an accident or incident shall not make the following records available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact such action may have on that or any future investigations:

a) all statements taken from persons by the investigation authorities in the course of their investigation;

b) all communications between persons having been involved in the operation of the aircraft;

c) medical or private information regarding persons involved in the accident or incident;

d) cockpit voice recordings and transcripts from such recordings; and

e) opinions expressed in the analysis of information, including flight recorder information.

[Gobbledock]

P2;

P2 comment - Despite the obvious high profile nature of this tragic accident, it did strike me as odd that Greg Hood was front, centre and flapping his gums un-aided by the one person who should hold the primacy and control in the investigation - i.e. the IIC?? Unless of course Hoody is the designated IIC...

Can I also add a comment here. Just because 'Hoody has spoken' it doesn't make him right. Hoody was an ATCO, holds a PPL and worked for CAsA. Although not daft when it comes to matters of aviation, Hoody is not a 30 + year accident investigator, nor a long term career commercial pilot. He is a bureaucrat, albeit one a little more skilled than that fool Dolan. In the words of Sunfish, 'to put that another way'; don't listen to everything Hood says as it doesn't mean he is correct. Just sayin...........

[Peetwo]

Out loud thinking.

I have now watched the video of the Mallard crash several times; you can, in a simulator recreate the scenario, with pretty much the same results. Low and slow, power down and a desperate, last gasp attempt to align with a runway. Even in the sim it is a dreadful feeling as the aircraft just slips away, controls ineffective, the crash inevitable. The last seconds of life must have been horrendous for the crew.  

“Now cracks a noble heart. Good-night, sweet prince;
And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest. ”

It makes me sad, but also angry – I want to know why this happened. I fully understand the aerodynamics and the factual stuff; in spades. But non of that explains why the aircraft was placed in an untenable situation. I can fully understand the motivation – get the job done; but I fail to understand why a competent, experienced pilot would try to ‘screw’ the aircraft through the eye of a very fine mathematical needle.

IMO, one of the important messages to be drummed into a pilot’s mind is selection of priority – staying alive being the primary, in fact the only message which matters, when trumps turn to shite.  Instinct (natural or learned) should have been screaming – ‘go around’, let's drag our collectives arses out of this aerodynamic sling. What reason could trump the organisms self preservation instinct? What could overrule the basic tenets of aerodynamic law, taught to the neophyte from day one?

In my fuzzy way, I keep coming back one reason – the ‘box’. An artificial, strictly enforced imaginary barrier which, should you stray out of its confines, carries penalties. Aerobat pilots understand these barriers, very well indeed and spend literally many, many hours perfecting the skill needed to execute ‘ragged edge’ manoeuvres within the specified dimensions; for to stray could cost them the completion. Same – same for the ‘air-show’ crews; any impingement on ‘the box’ is likely to end with ‘approval’ suspended or even revoked; so the ‘box’ matters.

A little adrenalin, a little excitement, a little distraction, a little ‘get it done’, a little anticipation of cold drinks, Australia Day BBQ and the applause of the crowd could that, possibly, influence even the most experienced, disciplined of minds?

Aye well, I don’t know the answers. But I do know that ‘bugger the box’ and damn the consequences would have been high on my priority list; following survival. Anyway, ‘tis a sad thing, particularly for those close, left behind with every Australia day a painful reminder. Let’s just hope some good comes from this tragedy and we find the right answers to prevent a repeat.

Selah

P2 - "K" just a bit more information to cogitate on, via news.com.au:

Plane crash pilot shared concerned texts with friend hours before fatal plunge[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/089ebbe48e43bd45508edcf2e0e4d645?esi=true&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storyheader/index&t_product=CourierMail&td_device=desktop[/img]

From Additional Senate Estimates 27 February 2017: Senator Back questions Comardy on Swan River Mallard accident, via Senate & Youtube:

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Second coffee speculative.

“When Hansard do their thing we will take a closer look at just who is responsible for what; but CASA have made it clear they are, so far as they are concerned – off the hook.”

Can anyone spot the pattern emerging?  The CASA has identified one of the very real causal chain links and are moving the spotlight away from that area. Senator Back (bless) has very nearly tumbled to it; close but, no cigar.

Carmody spells out the CASA concerns – the operational area approved, “the box”, was the amount of airspace allocated too restrictive? Now, to be fair we cannot blame the CASA for this; well not for all of it.  Say you were flying the display aircraft and CASA gave you an area to work within – for crowd safety reason. You look at the sketch (map or whatever) and note that you only have room to turn onto a base leg which will place you on say (for sake of a number) on a half final; it’s far too tight. So you then negotiate an alternative; minimum height, speed and distance required for a ‘stable’ approach; CASA can make an exception to allow this. It is called command discretion, or operational control. I doubt that the CASA officer issuing the ‘permit’ knows the aircraft performance requirements, probably not even type rated; part of his job is to ensure crowd safety, which requires a ‘safety area’ to be defined and enforced. If the space is too small, ultimately it is the pilots responsibility to ensure an extension, exemption, or cancel if a suitable compromise cannot be achieved. I’d bet my hat this never happened.

But, it is fairly human to simply accept the boundaries imposed, particularly CASA enforced ones.. I am starting to think the Mallard accident was, very much, a Human Factors classic. You can see the picture; dead keen to participate; delays in approval, licence and rating hassles, organisers needing to do there thing; a hundred minor details to sort out; and the subconscious anxiety. To ‘stuff it up’ by getting outside the steel rules and loosing the hard won approval and, possibly, landing in hot water with CASA would weigh on the mind. Particularly for an ‘inexperienced’, newly fledged display pilot.

I wonder if the ATSB will examine how much ‘practice’ was done to ensure that the aircraft could be operated within the approved area? Normally, with any sort of medium weight multi engine aircraft a three mile final approach leg from 1500 feet is a ‘routine’ breeze; two miles from 1000 feet is a very acceptable stroll in the park; and a one mile final from500 feet is routinely doable- student pilots do it all day long; but much less distance than that is approaching the ‘risky’ if the aircraft is not configured and stable.

This all leaves us with a mosaic, a jigsaw puzzle to fit together. One piece which must be acknowledged is the ‘fear’ of CASA reprisal and punishment for getting ‘outside’ of the black and white law as specified. Perhaps CASA would not have penalised, punished or prosecuted had the aircraft strayed from the mandated area; the option to ‘go around’ and return for a second shot was always available – as was abandoning the exercise. Why did the pilot persist is the question we need answered, the answer to that question remains in the Swan. But if we can remove even one of the ‘causal chain’ elements perhaps this accident will not be repeated.

Aye, ‘tis a pretty puzzle; I’ll leave the closing remarks to the CASA - CEO/DAS.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

C 172 Down on Middle Island - MTF

Western Times.

ABC.

C172 incident in Qld .  Update from the ABC now with one confirmed fatality.

Update 13/03/17: Embuggerance or Cowboy Ops that is the question? 

Via 'that man' at the Oz:

Queensland island joy flight went horribly wrong in seconds


The wreckage of the light plane flown by Les Woodall on Middle Island.

Charter service owner and pilot Bruce Rhoades.
[/url][url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/queensland-island-joy-flight-went-horribly-wrong-in-seconds/news-story/a85c490c4465862621ba89f08c750408#]

• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM March 13, 2017[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/0573acb566bb47c45e64e4c55a998aba/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
  

Over the seven years cattleman- turned-tourism operator Bruce Rhoades ran adventure tours out of Town of 1770 on Queensland’s central coast, he and fellow pilot Les Woodall did about 40,000 flights without a hitch — until the day their luck ran out, ­spectacularly.
The website of the business owned by Mr Rhoades, 1770 Castaway Island Adventures, asks “Are you up to the challenge? Why not experience a remote tropical island paradise where you’re left to live like a Survivor!”

Mr Rhoades and Mr Woodall, whom he employed, would fly clients, mainly foreign tourists, an eight-minute hop in light single-engine Cessnas to Middle Island, in Eurimbula National Park, landing on the beach. It could be a day trip or a camp for several nights.

On the way, Mr Rhoades freely concedes, they’d perform a few dramatic flying manoeuvres to entertain the tourists: “They are often young people … they like a little bit of an adrenaline rush.”

Mr Rhoades’ robust flying style attracted the attention of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority a few years ago when, he said, “someone got a fright” and complained. A magistrate fined Mr Rhoades for being “reckless”, but he was allowed to keep flying.

But on January 10, a fine morning, Mr Woodall, with three tourists aboard and Mr Rhoades following in the company’s other Cessna, was flying at very low altitude and the engine failed.

The experienced pilot had only seconds to react. He first banked right, apparently to try a water ditching, then banked hard left, trying to land on the beach.

The plane stalled and crashed in a twisted wreck, killing a 29- year-old British woman, critically injuring Mr Woodall and a 21-year-old Irish woman, and cracking the ankle of a 13-year-old boy whose father was in the trailing plane.

The flight, including the wail of the stall warning horn, is recorded in a video taken by a passenger and recovered by police.

Today the case comes before a hearing of the Federal Court in Brisbane, sought by the CASA to extend the ban it imposed on Mr Rhoades from operating the flights.

Mr Rhoades had vowed that he and his lawyers would “blow out of the water” CASA charges suggesting he ran a risky, cowboy ­operation.

Late on Friday, however, he passed up the chance to defend himself and his pilot in open court. Mr Rhoades said he would agree to surrender his air operator certificate. The parties are expected to inform the judge accordingly today.

Mr Rhoades stressed he had made no admissions and still denied CASA allegations. The authority declined to comment.

But it is understood CASA’s investigation will continue. If it were to find what it believes to be civil or criminal breaches, it could take further action against Mr Rhoades, including asking the Director of Public Prosecutions to lay criminal charges.

Seventeen days after the crash, CASA acting chief executive Shane Carmody wrote to Mr Rhoades to say his air operator’s certificate was suspended immediately because, as chief pilot and business owner, he had allowed flying that “contributes to or results in a serious and imminent risk to air safety”.

Mr Carmody wrote that the video showed Mr Woodall flying at 150-200 feet; risky, because if something went wrong such as engine failure, “he would have only minimal altitude, and therefore (minimal) time, to safely manage the upset”.

Mr Carmody criticised what he called “aerobatic manoeuvres”, saying the recording “includes an audible ‘squeal’ from a passenger at the beginning of the abrupt pitch inputs”. The CASA chief said Mr Woodall should have kept up his airspeed after the engine failed, not risked a stall by banking hard, and landed on water if necessary. He alleged the plane’s fuel supply might have been contaminated by debris.

Mr Woodall, who is recovering from major injuries, declined to comment but Mr Rhoades rejected all allegations.

He said the plane had been flying low for a safety inspection of the beach runway, a standard practice; that Mr Woodall’s manoeuvres were fun but not “aerobatic” or dangerous; and that there was no solid evidence of contamination.

He said experience showed water landings in high-wing light aircraft with fixed landing gear usually resulted in everyone aboard drowning. Mr Woodall’s decision to try a beach landing was well-intentioned.

“He did the turn a little bit too sharply, without allowing the nose to descend,” he said.

“He was so close to doing it right.”

Interesting that Comardy is sitting in the position of the decision maker? Will this now be SOP for all 'show cause' enforcement actions or has Carmody sacked anyone else who can make such decisions?

Next I note that NSW Deputy Coroner today handed down his findings on the tragic 2013 Dromader fire fighting accident near Ulladulla. From AAP via the Oz:

Pilot died after 'inadequate' inspection

• Jodie Stephens
  
• Australian Associated Press
  
• 4:32PM March 13, 2017
  

A waterbombing pilot fighting a NSW blaze was killed after his plane's wing broke off mid-flight as a result of cracking and corrosion that was missed during an "inadequate" inspection months earlier, an inquest has found.

David Black, 43, died when his M18 Dromader aircraft crashed in an isolated and mountainous area of the Budawang National Park, in the state's south, on October 24, 2013.

The experienced pilot was preparing to attack a bushfire when the left wing of his aircraft suddenly broke off, causing the aircraft's rapid descent, Deputy State Coroner Derek Lee wrote in his inquest findings released on Monday.

Mr Black left behind his wife of 12 years, Julie, and three young children.

"David and Julie had worked together as a team, industriously, to reach a stage in life where their business was successful, their family was nurtured and cared for, and they were simply able to enjoy life," Mr Lee wrote.

"To lose David in sudden circumstances is heart-rending."

The plane Mr Black was flying was owned by his company, Rebel Ag, which provided aerial support to the NSW Rural Fire Service.

It was tested and inspected just over two months earlier by two companies, Aviation NDT and Beal Aircraft Maintenance, but Mr Lee said the work was inadequately done.

He wrote in his findings that testing by Aviation NDT used an unauthorised method and did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Further, the plane's wings were not removed during a visual inspection by Beal Aircraft Maintenance, meaning that corrosion and cracking on one of the left wing's attachment lugs was not detected.

By the time Mr Black crashed in October, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found that cracking on the inner surface of the lug had reached a critical length of 10.4 millimetres and at least 32 secondary micro cracks were also identified.

The engineer behind the visual inspection, Donald Beal, told the inquest the manufacturer's service bulletin did not mandate removal of the wings, so he didn't see any need to remove them.

Mr Beal also said there was ambiguity about what visual inspections actually involved, Mr Lee recalled in his findings.

At the NSW Coroner's Court on Monday, Mr Lee recommended that CASA consider issuing a directive that wings be removed during inspections of M18 Dromader planes.

He also recommended they consider a different way of calculating fatigue damage, which did not just rely on flight hours but also looked at other factors that age an aircraft, such as its speed and the weight of loads that it carries.

A CASA spokesman said they would consider the recommendations carefully.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

C 172 Down on Middle Island - MTF

Western Times.

ABC.

C172 incident in Qld .  Update from the ABC now with one confirmed fatality.

Update 13/03/17: Embuggerance or Cowboy Ops that is the question? 

Via 'that man' at the Oz:

Queensland island joy flight went horribly wrong in seconds


The wreckage of the light plane flown by Les Woodall on Middle Island.

Charter service owner and pilot Bruce Rhoades.

Interesting that Comardy is sitting in the position of the decision maker? Will this now be SOP for all 'show cause' enforcement actions or has Carmody sacked anyone else who can make such decisions?

Next I note that NSW Deputy Coroner today handed down his findings on the tragic 2013 Dromader fire fighting accident near Ulladulla. From AAP via the Oz:

Pilot died after 'inadequate' inspection

• Jodie Stephens
  
• Australian Associated Press
  
• 4:32PM March 13, 2017
  

A waterbombing pilot fighting a NSW blaze was killed after his plane's wing broke off mid-flight as a result of cracking and corrosion that was missed during an "inadequate" inspection months earlier, an inquest has found.

David Black, 43, died when his M18 Dromader aircraft crashed in an isolated and mountainous area of the Budawang National Park, in the state's south, on October 24, 2013.

The experienced pilot was preparing to attack a bushfire when the left wing of his aircraft suddenly broke off, causing the aircraft's rapid descent, Deputy State Coroner Derek Lee wrote in his inquest findings released on Monday.

Mr Black left behind his wife of 12 years, Julie, and three young children.

"David and Julie had worked together as a team, industriously, to reach a stage in life where their business was successful, their family was nurtured and cared for, and they were simply able to enjoy life," Mr Lee wrote.

"To lose David in sudden circumstances is heart-rending."

The plane Mr Black was flying was owned by his company, Rebel Ag, which provided aerial support to the NSW Rural Fire Service.

It was tested and inspected just over two months earlier by two companies, Aviation NDT and Beal Aircraft Maintenance, but Mr Lee said the work was inadequately done.

He wrote in his findings that testing by Aviation NDT used an unauthorised method and did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Further, the plane's wings were not removed during a visual inspection by Beal Aircraft Maintenance, meaning that corrosion and cracking on one of the left wing's attachment lugs was not detected.

By the time Mr Black crashed in October, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found that cracking on the inner surface of the lug had reached a critical length of 10.4 millimetres and at least 32 secondary micro cracks were also identified.

The engineer behind the visual inspection, Donald Beal, told the inquest the manufacturer's service bulletin did not mandate removal of the wings, so he didn't see any need to remove them.

Mr Beal also said there was ambiguity about what visual inspections actually involved, Mr Lee recalled in his findings.

At the NSW Coroner's Court on Monday, Mr Lee recommended that CASA consider issuing a directive that wings be removed during inspections of M18 Dromader planes.

He also recommended they consider a different way of calculating fatigue damage, which did not just rely on flight hours but also looked at other factors that age an aircraft, such as its speed and the weight of loads that it carries.

A CASA spokesman said they would consider the recommendations carefully.

Update to NSW Deputy Coroner report.

Firefighting plane that crashed killing pilot had maintenance issues, inquest finds
ABC Online
 - ‎1 hour ago‎

The Sydney court heard Mr Black's plane was inspected on the 8th of August, 2013, using an alternative, less sensitive procedure that was not approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). In his report, the Coroner asked: "Was the August 2013 ...

---

Safety inspection failed to detect fatal corosion in plane's wing
dailytelegraph.com.au
 - ‎5 hours ago‎

State Coroner Derek Lee found on Monday that an inspection of the plane conducted 11 weeks prior to the crash used an unauthorised method and did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Cracking and corrosion ...

[Kharon]

Without prejudice; (or even a dog in the fight).

P2 – “Interesting that Comardy is sitting in the position of the decision maker?

It is to hoped that the position ‘decision maker’ (Hoods old job) is vacant; if so, it will one of the very best decisions Carmody ever made; if not ‘the’ best.

P2 – “Will this now be SOP for all 'show cause' enforcement actions or has Carmody sacked anyone else who can make such decisions?”

Dunno mate; but for Carmody’s sake, lets hope he is not basing his decisions on the ‘Enforcement manual’; unless of course he has signed it and now owns it as his very own. I wonder how a serious legal challenge would fare against any ‘action’ taken against a person based on that dreadful ‘McConvict’ drafted section. I reckon that would be ‘interesting’.

Seventeen days after the crash, CASA acting chief executive Shane Carmody wrote to Mr Rhoades to say his air operator’s certificate was suspended immediately because, as chief pilot and business owner, he had allowed flying that “contributes to or results in a serious and imminent risk to air safety”.

All a bit too ‘subjective’ for my taste. I’d expect most reading here have operated in ‘turbulent’ conditions, most have probably operated passenger flights in aircraft without a cockpit door; done ‘joy flights’ and ‘scenic flights’ or even back in the day, ‘commuter’ flights. How would you like a beer in the fridge for every time you’d heard a passenger ‘scream’ or similar when you hit the bumpy bits; or when you level off and come back to cruise power, or ‘crank it over a bit’ so folk can see what they came to see? It is, IMO perfectly understandable that folk are ‘nervous’ when confronted with a tiny, one engine aircraft, a stranger for a pilot and all ‘crammed’ into the small area allotted. The noises (engine and airflow) all perfectly acceptable to the ‘pilot’ heighten sensitivity, and any ‘abrupt’ change of ‘state’ increases the tension level. It is a fair bet that at least one of three passengers in a C172 just did not want to be there anyway. In defence of this pilot, it would be reasonable to argue that unless one of the passengers was an accredited pilot, capable of ‘judging’ the manner in which the flight was handled; then hearsay evidence from passengers is not only worthless, but prejudicial. If this fellah has been ‘acting the goat’; then by all means, string him up, after proof beyond reasonable is accepted by the court.  

"The flight, including the wail of the stall warning horn, is recorded in a video taken by a passenger and recovered by police."

These Qld CASA chaps do seem to like their ‘video’ evidence; the Quadrio matter is not forgotten and there may be a line of defence in those ‘images’ and recordings of ‘passengers squealing’.

Mr Carmody wrote that the video showed Mr Woodall flying at 150-200 feet; risky, because if something went wrong such as engine failure, “he would have only minimal altitude, and therefore (minimal) time, to safely manage the upset”.

Precautionary search? Seems like a very ‘safe’ precaution to landing ‘on the beach’. I would say that not to do so was certainly a risk. The procedure should be cast in stone in the company operations manual; that would be mandatory. Accepted or ‘approved’ by CASA is academic as CASA approve the Air Operators Certificate and by extension – the operations as writ. Had this fellah not done a PS and had an event on the ‘strip’ then crucifixion would be in order. Again the intent to be unsafe can be discredited, a saving of an additional five or perhaps six minutes operating costs could be avoided by ‘skipping’ the PS. So it comes back to just what is ‘unsafe’ and who is making the judgement.

Mr Carmody criticised what he called “aerobatic manoeuvres”, saying the recording “includes an audible ‘squeal’ from a passenger at the beginning of the abrupt pitch inputs”. The CASA chief said Mr Woodall should have kept up his airspeed after the engine failed, not risked a stall by banking hard, and landed on water if necessary. He alleged the plane’s fuel supply might have been contaminated by debris.

Try to define ‘aerobatic’ in this context. Provided the aircraft was not operated outside of the specified envelope, then a steep turn, or whatever is quite legal. A badly executed ‘manoeuvre’ may demonstrate a lack of skill and/or judgement; but can it be considered ‘dangerous’ without the benefit of a 'G' meter record? It is all very well to say Mr Woodall ‘should’ have done this or that after the event, indeed most pilots who have been involved in any sort of ‘event’ can recount exactly what they ‘should’ have done; and would do, if it ever happens again. I wonder if CASA ever mandated a training requirement, specific to that beach area, dedicated to establishing ‘best practice’ in the event of an engine failure, at low level on the go-around after the precautionary search? If not why not, surely that would be ‘proper’ oversight of the safety of the operations approved by CASA.

Perhaps this was a cowboy operation; perhaps not. But consider all the evidence, before pronouncing a sentence.

When we teach someone to fly – what is the noise heard during the flare and touch down? What is the purpose of that noise? Is it absolutely safe to slow the aircraft down to stall warning speed? What does the pilot have at his ready disposal to maintain the speed at which the warning occurs?

Nope, no quarrel with CASA shutting down a rogue, non at all; provided they have got all the ducks lined up and back ‘em up with proof, beyond reasonable doubt; and, perhaps adjust their thinking toward ‘prevention’ rather than prosecution.

My two bob for its worth.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Update 17/03/17: Widow condemns CASA as 'incompetent' & 'dysfunctional' -

Reference posts:

Next I note that NSW Deputy Coroner today handed down his findings on the tragic 2013 Dromader fire fighting accident near Ulladulla. From AAP via the Oz:

Pilot died after 'inadequate' inspection

• Jodie Stephens
  
• Australian Associated Press
  
• 4:32PM March 13, 2017
  

A waterbombing pilot fighting a NSW blaze was killed after his plane's wing broke off mid-flight as a result of cracking and corrosion that was missed during an "inadequate" inspection months earlier, an inquest has found.

David Black, 43, died when his M18 Dromader aircraft crashed in an isolated and mountainous area of the Budawang National Park, in the state's south, on October 24, 2013.

The experienced pilot was preparing to attack a bushfire when the left wing of his aircraft suddenly broke off, causing the aircraft's rapid descent, Deputy State Coroner Derek Lee wrote in his inquest findings released on Monday.

Mr Black left behind his wife of 12 years, Julie, and three young children.

"David and Julie had worked together as a team, industriously, to reach a stage in life where their business was successful, their family was nurtured and cared for, and they were simply able to enjoy life," Mr Lee wrote.

"To lose David in sudden circumstances is heart-rending."

The plane Mr Black was flying was owned by his company, Rebel Ag, which provided aerial support to the NSW Rural Fire Service.

It was tested and inspected just over two months earlier by two companies, Aviation NDT and Beal Aircraft Maintenance, but Mr Lee said the work was inadequately done.

He wrote in his findings that testing by Aviation NDT used an unauthorised method and did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Further, the plane's wings were not removed during a visual inspection by Beal Aircraft Maintenance, meaning that corrosion and cracking on one of the left wing's attachment lugs was not detected.

By the time Mr Black crashed in October, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found that cracking on the inner surface of the lug had reached a critical length of 10.4 millimetres and at least 32 secondary micro cracks were also identified.

The engineer behind the visual inspection, Donald Beal, told the inquest the manufacturer's service bulletin did not mandate removal of the wings, so he didn't see any need to remove them.

Mr Beal also said there was ambiguity about what visual inspections actually involved, Mr Lee recalled in his findings.

At the NSW Coroner's Court on Monday, Mr Lee recommended that CASA consider issuing a directive that wings be removed during inspections of M18 Dromader planes.

He also recommended they consider a different way of calculating fatigue damage, which did not just rely on flight hours but also looked at other factors that age an aircraft, such as its speed and the weight of loads that it carries.

A CASA spokesman said they would consider the recommendations carefully.

Update to NSW Deputy Coroner report.

Firefighting plane that crashed killing pilot had maintenance issues, inquest finds
ABC Online
 - ‎1 hour ago‎

The Sydney court heard Mr Black's plane was inspected on the 8th of August, 2013, using an alternative, less sensitive procedure that was not approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). In his report, the Coroner asked: "Was the August 2013 ...

---

Safety inspection failed to detect fatal corosion in plane's wing
dailytelegraph.com.au
 - ‎5 hours ago‎

State Coroner Derek Lee found on Monday that an inspection of the plane conducted 11 weeks prior to the crash used an unauthorised method and did not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Cracking and corrosion ...

Courtesy the Oz today:

Solo mum keeps business afloat

Julie Black has been flying solo for the past 3½ years in more ways than one.

..After the accident, Ms Black had to replace the Dromaders with Air Tractors, and find a chief pilot, as well as juggling the raising of her children. “The business is still going. It is still employing people and maintaining services to our clients,” she says.

Ms Black vowed to never put pilots in Dromaders again and has since bought four Air Tractors for spraying.

“It has been extremely hard when you are used to working with someone in a partnership for 17 years, and been able to tag-team between work life and home life,’’ she says.

“When you have lost that 50 per cent and you are now 100 per cent on your own … all our decision making was done ­together.

“Now I lie in bed and night and wonder if I have made the right ­decision and what would David have thought about whatever the issue is at hand.’’

‘Incompetent’ CASA slammed

...Ms Black said the inquest by the deputy State Coroner Derek Lee showed the crash involving a Polish-built M18 Dromader was a textbook example of the Swiss cheese theory of accidents. This theory postulates that holes develop because of human error and dysfunction, and eventually they link up to cause serious accidents.

“In this accident when you go back and you look at all the holes that were lining up over a matter of 13 years, this aircraft was doomed. Had we known that we obviously would never have flown it,” Ms Black said. “When you go back through the ATSB report you can see the holes developing right back to 2000. In just about every single one of those holes CASA is involved. How CASA originally said you could use a flawed testing system (the eddy current technique) is unbelievable. It was contrary to what both the manufacturer and the FAA had mandated as the correct testing method.”

Ms Black’s solicitor, Mark Gray-Spencer of GSG Legal, said the evidence presented to the inquest clearly showed CASA failed to identify the fact that the maintenance company, Beal Aircraft Maintenance, and its non-­destructive testing company, Aviation NDT Services, was using the wrong method to test the attachments on the Dromader wings.

“Aviation NDT used an eddy current technique to test the wing attachments which was contrary to what both the manufacturer and the FAA said should be used. Both had advised that Magnetic Particle Testing had to be used,” Mr Gray-Spencer said.
“Six weeks after the approval from CASA for the eddy current technique was sent to Neil Joiner (of Aviation NDT Services), CASA issued an airworthiness directive (AD) stating that you had to use magnetic particle testing. This was inconsistent with the eddy current technique approval. The maintenance organisation should have looked at the AD and realised their procedure was not OK.”

An AD is a legislative instrument issued under federal law.

“For 13 years, from the issuing of the AD until the accident, the wrong testing was used,” he said...

And here is Pinocchio Gobson with the totally predictable zero care, zero responsibility, "we're looking into it" bollocks statement:
   
“CASA has been looking carefully at the Coroner’s report and recommendations. There are a range of issues to be considered and CASA is working through these methodically. We appreciate issues raised by the family are important.”

- That is word-weasel bureaucratese for.. "this will be O&O'd till we can quietly shuffle the report in to the infamous CASA shelf-ware out-tray"  -  

P2 comment: Gutsy lady Ms Black! - Welcome to the ranks of the IOS...


MTF...P2

Ps "K" this may have to be moved to the 'Closing the safety loop' thread...

[Gobbledock]

Julie Black;

“In this accident when you go back and you look at all the holes that were lining up over a matter of 13 years, this aircraft was doomed. Had we known that we obviously would never have flown it,” Ms Black said. “When you go back through the ATSB report you can see the holes developing right back to 2000. In just about every single one of those holes CASA is involved".

Unfortunately CAsA will come out of this squeeky clean because CAsA are Government, and Government are untouchable, too much money, too much power, too much freedom from accountability. It happens over and over and over.....

I wish this woman well, she deserves better, but unfortunately she is up against a formidable crooked empire.

[Kharon]

A complimentary round trip ticket.

P2 – “And here is Pinocchio Gobson with the totally predictable zero care, zero responsibility, "we're looking into it" bollocks statement:
 
“CASA has been looking carefully at the Coroner’s report and recommendations. There are a range of issues to be considered and CASA is working through these methodically. We appreciate issues raised by the family are important.”

- That is word-weasel bureaucratese for.. "this will be O&O'd till we can quietly shuffle the report in to the infamous CASA shelf-ware out-tray"  -  

P2 comment: Gutsy lady Ms Black! - Welcome to the ranks of the IOS...

Welcome indeed. One of the reasons people can sit at home watching horrific stories of carnage, destruction, tragedy, fire or even aircraft accidents on the TV while eating their dinner is that it ain’t ‘personal’. Nowadays, folk rush off to ‘counselling’ after they’ve had a splinter removed from their arse and tell everyone who will listen about the trauma and how they intend the sue the council because the park bench surface was not ‘safe’. Why? Well it’s now ‘personal’. It’s the same with ‘CASA contact’; until the filthy spectre has tapped you on the shoulder; it ain’t personal. But when it does……Problem is that from the minister down, no one, except those affected ‘get it’. The vast majority of aircrew and engineers have never had the dubious pleasure of dealing with CASA other than in the routine way of medicals and such. DAME’s, Chief pilots, etc. all have had ‘the experience’ even then that’s a mixed bag: and, the 'go along to get along' syndrome has resulted in some truly awful aberrations; I digress. See Thorny’s post – HERE – for just a small part of the problem.  

P2 - “Ps "K" this may have to be moved to the 'Closing the safety loop' thread...

It probably should be mate; but you know as well as I the CASA response to coronial recommendations; they are treated as opinion. What did we examine when we did the analysis; some thirty or so cases? We selected just a few to provide a range and for all the good that hard work has done, we could have stayed in the pub; (practiced your darts).

HITCH - (Oz Flying)– “Only by the reaction to these truths can we judge the commitment of the Federal Government. However, we need to lift our chins and plod on; we have more hope of reform with the advisory group than we would have without them.”

Hitch and probably the GAAG understand the truth of it; but, what else can they do? The ‘CASA’ experts who have royally buggered the system and wasted hundreds of millions while getting paid handsomely to do so now expect ‘help’ from industry experts, who are not only doing it all ‘for love’ but taking time, resource and energy away from their own interests. Do they have to cooperate? Well I suppose they do; but its not the first time and it most certainly will not be the last time an industry advisory panel has laboured – in vain. History children, history. Not too far back – Pel_Air?, Forsyth? Ring any bells?

FWIW, I reckon the minister and CASA are taking the Mickey – again; same old tune, same old result. One may fervently hope for the best but it always most sensible to expect and prepare for the worst.

We wish Mrs Black well and any small support we can offer. The first part of this story is tragic and life changing; the second part is in the lap of the gods. Personally, I would not abandon all hope just yet, but I wouldn’t be holding my breath either.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

REX and the case of the missing prop?

Understandably there was much media coverage when a REX SAAB rocked into YSSY minus a propeller...

The ATSB investigation page:

In-flight propeller malfunction involving SAAB 340 VH-NRX, 19 km NW of Sydney Airport, NSW, on 17 March 2017
 
Investigation number: AO-2017-032
Investigation status: Active
 

• Tab - Summary
  

Summary
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is investigating an incident involving a Saab 340, registration VH-NRX, about 19 km from Sydney on 17 March 2017.

It is reported that the right propeller assembly detached in-flight during the Regional Express (REX) flight from Albury to Sydney, with 16 passengers and three crew on board. The aircraft landed safely at Sydney.

The ATSB is deploying a team of three investigators with expertise in materials failure engineering, recorded flight data analysis, and human factors.

Over the next few days, investigators will examine the aircraft, interview the flight and cabin crew, collect maintenance records and recorded flight data.

Important: The ATSB urges anyone who finds a piece of suspected aircraft debris NOT to handle it. Please call the local police or the ATSB on 1800 020 616.

More information will be made available as it comes to hand.
 
General details

Date: 17 Mar 2017
 
Investigation status: Active
 
Time: 11:49 EsuT
 
Investigation type: Occurrence Investigation
 
Location   (show map): Sydney Airport, 19 km NW
 
Occurrence type: Propeller/rotor malfunction
 
State: New South Wales
 
Occurrence category: Serious Incident
 
Report status: Pending
 
Highest injury level: None
 
Expected completion: Mar 2018 
 
Aircraft details

Aircraft manufacturer: Saab Aircraft Co.
 
Aircraft model: 340B
 
Aircraft registration: VH-NRX
 
Serial number: 340B-291
 
Operator: Regional Express
 
Type of operation: Air Transport Low Capacity
 
Sector: Turboprop
 
Damage to aircraft: Unknown
 
Departure point: Albury, NSW

Destination: Sydney, NSW 
 
 


Last update 17 March 2017

& a general media report from news.com.au (via Northern Star):

Passenger plane drops propeller over Sydney

Benedict Brook news.com.au | 17th Mar 2017 4:31 PM

Regional Express plane in emergency landing at Sydney airport  

A PLANE travelling from regional NSW to Sydney has been forced to make an emergency landing after a propeller fell off the aircraft and plunged to the ground over the city's suburbs.

The Regional Express (Rex) Saab 340 was travelling from Albury when the propeller detached from the fuselage mid-flight.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is investigating the incident and has advised anyone who finds aircraft debris to not handle it but report it to authorities.

Flight ZL768, which was approaching Kingsford Smith Airport from the north according to data from website Flightaware, landed safely at Sydney about midday. There are no reports of any injuries among the 16 passengers and three crew.

In the pan-pan call, the crew said the propeller assembly had "dislodged", Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson told AAP, while photographs of the plane on the ground showed the right propeller missing altogether. Mr Gibson said during his 20 years in the aviation industry he'd never heard of a propeller falling off a plane.

"I've never come across it ... it's very unusual," he said.

A "pan-pan" is one step away from a full mayday distress call.

The propeller detached about 19kms from Sydney airport which could mean any debris is located somewhere close to Gordon and Pymble in Sydney's north shore or the Ku-ring-gai Chase national park. However, there are some reports it could have occurred earlier in the flight, placing debris over the city's south west.



The Rex plane sans one propeller at Sydney airport. Picture Grahame Hutchison http://www.16right.com/Source:Supplied

The ATSB is deploying a team of three investigators with expertise in materials failure engineering, recorded flight data analysis, and human factors.

In a statement, the ATSB said, "Over the next few days, investigators will examine the aircraft, interview the flight and cabin crew, collect maintenance records and recorded flight data.

"The ATSB urges anyone who finds a piece of suspected aircraft debris NOT to handle it."
Rather, people should call local police or the ATSB on 1800 020 616.

And for one of the more amusing tweets, there was this from the Flightless Mallard  :

If anyone in SYD's southwest has a new lawn ornament today, call Regional Express. They're kinda looking for their missing propeller #whoops

Finally from the Oz, including the almost obligatory (nail in head) comment from Sandy... :

Propeller shears off mid-flight

12:00amEMILY RITCHIE

A Regional Express flight narrowly avoided disaster yesterday after a propeller sheared off the plane mid-flight.


Propeller drops off mid-flight

5:51pmEmily Ritchie

A Regional Express aircraft has been force to make an emergency landing at Sydney airport.

Passengers and crew aboard a Regional Express flight in NSW narrowly avoided death and disaster yesterday after a propeller was sheared off the plane mid-flight, forcing an emergency landing.

The REX airline plane SAAB 340, carrying 16 passengers and three crew members, was travelling from Sydney to Albury in the state’s south when its right hand propeller broke loose from the engine.

The pilots declared a PAN, which is one step down from a full-scale mayday, about 16km from Sydney airport at an altitude of about 6000ft.


The plane, minus a propeller at Sydney Airport after the emergency landing. Source: Twitter

“The prop has just fallen off the aircraft and standby for further instructions,” a man on the flight deck told air traffic controllers.

“REX 768 we’ve just had ... engine operations and our propeller has just shed off. We’ve got normal controls, still be able to fly, would require 1-6 right and we should be able to conduct a precautionary landing.”

The plane landed safely at its destination just after midday and no one was injured.
Byron Bailey, a former air force pilot who currently captains private jets, said it was very lucky the propeller didn’t swing inward and smash through the body of the plane.

“In the 50s, when they had all these propeller-driven airlines, there were cases of propellers flying off and chomping into the fuselage and killing people,” Mr Bailey said.

“They’re very lucky, because if a propeller came loose under power, it could be spinning at a couple of thousand revs a minute. Goodness knows what could have happened.”

The propeller has not yet been found and will be a crucial piece of evidence.

The aircraft was carrying 16 passengers and three crew. Picture: Grahame Hutchison

The Australian Transport Safety Authority and Civil Aviation Safety Authority are investigating the cause of the propellers detachment, with lines of inquiry including whether it was due to fatigue failure or inadequate maintenance.

Jason Middleton, an aviation professor at the University of NSW, also speculated if bad weather could have been a contributing factor.

“If it happened in adverse weather, that might have play a role,” said Professor Middleton. “A propeller falling off is very unusual. Unheard of in Australia, particularly in today’s world where maintenance is thorough and the requirements are well documented.”

Mr Bailey said it’s fortunate the propeller did not injure people on the ground given the flight path.

“It’s a very dangerous article. A big propeller heading earthward, particularly over populous areas, is very dangerous indeed.”

The aircraft’s manufacturer, Swedish company SAAB, has been contacted for comment.

The SAAB 340 model is popular worldwide, with Mr Bailey describing it as “perfect for low density, short routes”.

“SAAB would be very worried,” Mr Bailey said. “The 340 is well-designed and should be totally safe — it’s staggering. A propeller falling off its aircraft is a very serious matter indeed.”

---

Alexander
13 hours ago

A serious incident which will be investigated quickly but some comments are overblown. The actual risk of injury to persons on the ground from a propellor is very low. Talk of the pilots being extra skillful and not panicking is also unrealistic. The pilots are well trained to fly on one engine and don't panic, they just get on with their job. What is true is that with General Aviation in severe decline because of a regime of astonishing over regulation, by an out of control (Un)Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the ability to train home grown pilots and maintenance engineers is rapidly diminishing. Airline pilots are already on the 457 work visa list, you might soon be wondering who is flying you around Australia. GA has lost thousands of jobs for no good reason, what an extraordinary waste. Alex in the Rises.

 
And for comment from our immaculately groomed & coiffured NFI miniscule...

http://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/ch...index.aspx


  

Once again we see an example, especially in matters of aviation safety, of why it is we are called the 'Lucky Country' - TICK..TOCK goes the Oz aviation doomsday clock, the question is who will be holding the parcel when the music (& clock) stops...

 

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Understandably there was much media coverage when a REX SAAB rocked into YSSY minus a propeller...

Propeller shears off mid-flight

12:00amEMILY RITCHIE

A Regional Express flight narrowly avoided disaster yesterday after a propeller sheared off the plane mid-flight.


Propeller drops off mid-flight

5:51pmEmily Ritchie

A Regional Express aircraft has been force to make an emergency landing at Sydney airport.

Update 20/03/17: REX & the case of still missing prop -

From the AAP via the Oz:

Rex grounds planes after propeller mishap

Rex has grounded part of their Saab 340 fleet after a plane lost a propeller mid-flight last week. Picture: Grahame Hutchison

• AAP
  
• 1:15PM March 20, 2017
  
  Regional airline Rex has grounded some of its planes as an investigation continues into how a propeller fell off an aircraft as it approached Sydney Airport late last week.
  Regional Express has revealed the crew had shut down the right hand engine of the Saab 340 before the propeller assembly “was seen by the first officer to separate from its shaft” on Friday when the flight from Albury was 25 kilometres southwest of Sydney.
  
  “Rex has decided, by abundance of caution, to immediately remove from service and quarantine all propeller gear boxes and shafts of the same series as that of the incident for further inspection and testing if warranted,” Rex said in a statement on Monday.
  
  The airline is yet to confirm how many planes have been impacted. The engine was shut down on Friday following “abnormal indications”. That action “feathers” the propeller in order to reduce drag.
  
  It was at this point that the propeller assembly separated and rotated upwards and to the right of the aircraft which was carrying 16 passengers and three crew members.
  
  “The propeller was seen rotating in a horizontal position and then moving away without making contact with the aircraft,” Rex said on Monday. “Both passengers and crew reported that the flight thereafter was smooth and the landing was normal despite bad weather at Sydney with winds exceeding 35 knots.” Rex’s chief operating officer, Neville Howell, says a propeller falling off is an extremely rare event.
  
  “The only other recorded similar event was in 1991 when US carrier Comair’s aircraft also landed safely after a separation of its propeller,” he said. Rex says its propeller sheared off at the shaft and all the fittings at the main assembly were intact.
  
  Mr Howell on Monday praised the crew for showing “enormous composure and discipline under extraordinary circumstances”.
  
  The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is investigating Friday’s incident, and the search continues for the propeller, which is believed to have sheared off over the Camden area.
  Regional Express operates a fleet of more than 50 Saab 340 aircraft on about 1500 weekly flights to 58 destinations across Australia.
  
  AAP jcd/SY
  

And from Matt O'Sullivan via the SMH...

Regional Express lauds 'exceptional skills' of captain after plane loses propeller

 

• [/url]Matt O'Sullivan
  

Regional Express is removing from all of its planes propeller gear boxes and shafts of the same series as those on a Saab 340 aircraft that was forced to make an emergency landing after one of its propellers fell off in mid-flight.
The airline has also praised the actions of the [url=http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/passenger-planes-propeller-shears-off-in-midflight-forcing-emergency-landing-at-sydney-20170317-gv0i1c.html]pilots of flight ZL-768 on Friday for demonstrating "enormous composure and discipline under extraordinary circumstances".

The 34-seat Regional Express plane, carrying 16 passengers and three crew, was about 19 kilometres from Sydney Airport when its right-hand propeller flew off, leading the two pilots to declare a PAN, which is one step down from a full-scale Mayday.

In a decision it described as due to an "abundance of caution", Regional Express said the gear boxes and shafts of the same series would be immediately removed from service while it waited for air-safety investigators to "determine the root cause of the incident".

Regional Express chief operating officer Neville Howell said the separation of the propeller from the engine was an "extremely rare event", and the only other similar recorded incident occurred to a plane operated by US airline Comair in 1991.

"The crew demonstrated enormous composure and discipline under extraordinary circumstances," he said on Monday.

"The captain displayed exceptional skills in landing the aircraft so smoothly in bad weather and strong winds, so much so that the passengers did not notice anything different."

The airline said investigations over the past three days had found the propeller sheared off at the shaft, leaving intact all the fittings at the main assembly.

A propeller sheared off the Regional Express Saab 340 in mid-air on Friday.  Photo: Grahame Hutchison

The plane's first officer saw the propeller break away, and rotate upwards and to the right before moving in a horizontal direction.

Mr Howell said an audio clip of one of the first officer's conversation with air traffic control demonstrated a "calm, collected and professional manner".E



The right-hand engine, minus propeller, after the plane landed.  Photo: Supplied

Aviation watchers have said it was "incredibly lucky" the propeller did not hit the wing, fuselage or the tail, which could have been catastrophic for the aircraft and those on board. A large object falling from 6000 feet also posed a huge risk to people in the populated area below.

One passenger on flight Zl-768 said the separation of the propeller happened in a split second, and she had initially thought a bird had hit the aircraft.
The propeller has yet to be found, and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has advised anyone who finds it to leave it where it is, and contact its investigators or the police.

Finally from Oz Aviation:

Regional Express to withdraw four aircraft after loss of propeller incident
March 20, 2017 by australianaviation.com.au
Saab 340B VH-NRX on short final to Sydney’s runway 16R after losing its right hand side propeller. (Damien Aiello)

Regional Express (Rex) says it will immediately withdraw four aircraft with propeller gearboxes and shafts of the same series as that of its Saab 340B which lost a propeller during a flight to Sydney.

The incident took place on Friday, when the propeller from the right hand engine of Saab 340B VH-NRX, which was  operating flight ZL768 carrying 16 passengers and three crew en route from Albury to Sydney, separated from its shaft when the aircraft was about 20km from Sydney Airport.

The pilots landed the aircraft safely with all on board unharmed.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has opened an investigation into the incident and called on anyone who has found the missing propeller to contact either it or the police.

Rex said on Monday it had decided “by abundance of caution, to immediately remove from service and quarantine all propeller gear boxes and shafts of the same series as that of the incident for further inspection and testing if warranted”.

A spokesperson for the airline told Australian Aviation five of Rex’s 55 Saab 340 fleet would be taken out of service as part of the ongoing investigation. The figure included the aircraft involved in Friday’s incident, including VH-NRX. Of the five, two were operating with Rex’s Pel-Air subsidiary as freighters, while one was from Rex’s Sydney base and two from its Melbourne base.

“There will be some minor disruptions for 1 or 2 days,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement on Monday.

The airline said it was for the ATSB to determine the root cause of the incident through its investigation and metallurgical analysis.

“As there is an on-going investigation by the ATSB, Rex will leave it to this authority to provide any technical updates it deems appropriate,” Rex chief operating officer Neville Howell said in a statement.

“However, we wish to state categorically that all our actions and decisions will be taken in strict compliance with the instructions of the various authorities and original equipment manufacturers, and we have safety as our paramount consideration.”

VH-NRX was manufactured in 1991 and first registered in Australia in October 2004, according to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) website.

Rex also offered a few more details on what happened during the flight.

It said the pilots shut down the right hand engine in accordance with checklist procedures after they noticed “abnormal indications”.

“It was at this point that the propeller assembly was seen by the first officer to separate from its shaft,” Rex said.

“The propeller assembly was seen to rotate upwards and to the right. The propeller was seen rotating in a horizontal position and then moving away without making contact with the aircraft.

“The propeller was found to have sheared off at the shaft and all the fittings at the main assembly were intact.”

Rex said it had been in contact with the aircraft manufacturer Saab and the engine manufacturer General Electric (GE).

“This is an extremely rare event and the only other recorded similar event was in 1991 when US carrier Comair’s aircraft also landed safely after a separation of its propeller,” Howell said.

Howell also praised the captain and first officer for their handling of the incident.
“The crew demonstrated enormous composure and discipline under extraordinary circumstances, and I commend their professionalism,” Howell said.

“The captain displayed exceptional skills in landing the aircraft so smoothly in bad weather and strong winds, so much so that the passengers did not notice anything different.

“We would also like to thank the flight attendant and our staff at Sydney Airport for their assistance and support to our passengers.”

Bye the bye - Chris Grealy off the original Oz Aviation story on this incident - see HERE - asks an interesting QON:

Chris Grealy says
March 18, 2017 at 6:32 am

There was an AD out for this in 1994. Did this one slip through? “This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to General Electric Aircraft Engines (GEAE) CT7 series turboprop engines, that currently requires a one-time ultrasonic inspection of a suspect population of propeller shafts for metallurgical defects, and if necessary, replacement with a serviceable part. This amendment extends the compliance time for the required ultrasonic inspection on certain propeller shafts. This amendment is prompted by information indicating that the equipment necessary to perform the ultrasonic inspection is less available than originally assumed. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure of the propeller shaft, which can result in separation of the propeller from the propeller shaft and possible damage to the aircraft.”

 

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Chicken and Egg.

As in which came first, is an old, unresolved argument. The case of the missing propeller promises to be along similar lines. Did ‘vibration’ cause the failure or, did the failure of something cause the vibration? Either way, it will take the engineers some time to establish the root cause, forensic investigation, reverse engineering style. It is tough on ‘Rex’ and their passengers to have aircraft out of service; but excellent for the engineers as they have other comparative engines to examine; which have not experienced problems. It would be a bugger if this was a 'one-off'. I don’t know whether FADEC or similar is used, but it’s a fair bet that it is and that information will be priceless.




Time, money, expertise, probity and patience will solve the puzzle.

[Peetwo]

Chicken and Egg.

As in which came first, is an old, unresolved argument. The case of the missing propeller promises to be along similar lines. Did ‘vibration’ cause the failure or, did the failure of something cause the vibration? Either way, it will take the engineers some time to establish the root cause, forensic investigation, reverse engineering style. It is tough on ‘Rex’ and their passengers to have aircraft out of service; but excellent for the engineers as they have other comparative engines to examine; which have not experienced problems. It would be a bugger if this was a 'one-off'. I don’t know whether FADEC or similar is used, but it’s a fair bet that it is and that information will be priceless.




Time, money, expertise, probity and patience will solve the puzzle.

Update 21/03/17

Via Planetalking... :

REX broke safety rule in last Friday's lost propeller incident
How many times does an airline like REX ignore air safety rules before it is sanctioned?

Ben Sandilands

 
The propeller-less REX flight after landing at Sydney

Opinion It’s time to call ‘bulldust’ on REX’s claims about being ‘abundantly cautious’ in grounding four or five SAAB 340 propjets for inspections following the loss of a propeller off one of a similarly powered aircraft while approaching Sydney Airport last Friday.

If REX had been adhering to safety regulations it would have landed that flight from Albury to Sydney with 16 people on board at Canberra immediately after it had an initial malfunction in that engine.

Instead the crew is now known to have shut down the engine and feathered the propeller after noticing a vibration related problem while close to Canberra and electing to continue all the way to Sydney on one engine at a reduced altitude of 8000 feet until the propeller came off somewhere over the Macarthur area.

IMO it is a little bit early to condemn the flight-crew on deciding to continue past Canberra. There may have been other extenuating circumstances, beyond the pilots control, that precluded Canberra as an alternate option (e.g. WX related issues, operational performance issues etc.)

It could also be that the limited hearsay (Chinese whispers) evidence, could be factually incorrect. Therefore in the interest of trying to verify the PT (or the PT source) version of events I did a search on the flightradar24 site for last Friday's REX Flight ZL768 - click HERE.  

Now if you click on the little graph icon below the time in UTC, then hit play until the trip line reaches the TOPD (from FL170) and hit pause (time 37 minutes & 23 seconds into flight).

Now refer to the top down moving map display. You can see from this that REX ZL768 was well and truly passed Canberra, almost abeam Bowral and probably not too far off their normal TOPD when presumably the flight crew conducted a precautionary engine shutdown and descent to 8000 ft. 

The aircraft then spent approximately 5 minutes maintaining 8000 ft, till at just past 50 minutes a further descent was commenced. This was presumably about the time that the propeller parted company with the aircraft. This could be why the airspeed graphic wildly oscillates for 1 to 2 minutes until a further level off at approximately 4.500 ft.  

Therefore from the time the flight crew shutdown the RH engine till the time the prop departed the aircraft was at least 14 to 15 minutes. This timeframe would appear somewhat at odds with a part of the REX official media release yesterday - see HERE:

The following has been established over the last three days of investigations:

- Following abnormal indications on the right hand engine and in accordance with
checklist procedures, the crew shut down the engine;
- Shutting down the engine also feathers the propeller in order to reduce drag;
- It was at this point that the propeller assembly was seen by the First Officer to separate from its shaft;
- The propeller assembly was seen to rotate upwards and to the right. The
propeller was seen rotating in a horizontal position and then moving away without making contact with the aircraft;
- Both passengers and crew reported that the flight thereafter was smooth and the
landing was normal in spite of bad weather at Sydney with winds exceeding 35
knots;
- All passengers have been contacted and none required further assistance;
- The propeller was found to have sheared off at the shaft and all the fittings at the
main assembly were intact;
- The propeller has not yet been located;
- The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA) were immediately informed following the event. The ATSB has
despatched a team of investigators to Sydney and the aircraft has been
quarantined;
- Rex has also been in constant communication with the aircraft manufacturer,
Saab and the engine manufacturer, General Electric (GE). The latter has also
kept the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the United States fully
appraised of the situation and the developments.

 
However other than that slight discrepancy, the REX briefing and recorded chain of events pretty much matches the flightradar24 graphical and moving map display of the REX ZL768 incident flight.


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Chicken and Egg.

As in which came first, is an old, unresolved argument. The case of the missing propeller promises to be along similar lines. Did ‘vibration’ cause the failure or, did the failure of something cause the vibration? Either way, it will take the engineers some time to establish the root cause, forensic investigation, reverse engineering style. It is tough on ‘Rex’ and their passengers to have aircraft out of service; but excellent for the engineers as they have other comparative engines to examine; which have not experienced problems. It would be a bugger if this was a 'one-off'. I don’t know whether FADEC or similar is used, but it’s a fair bet that it is and that information will be priceless.




Time, money, expertise, probity and patience will solve the puzzle.

Update 21/03/17

Via Planetalking... :

REX broke safety rule in last Friday's lost propeller incident
How many times does an airline like REX ignore air safety rules before it is sanctioned?

Ben Sandilands

 
The propeller-less REX flight after landing at Sydney

Opinion It’s time to call ‘bulldust’ on REX’s claims about being ‘abundantly cautious’ in grounding four or five SAAB 340 propjets for inspections following the loss of a propeller off one of a similarly powered aircraft while approaching Sydney Airport last Friday.

If REX had been adhering to safety regulations it would have landed that flight from Albury to Sydney with 16 people on board at Canberra immediately after it had an initial malfunction in that engine.

Instead the crew is now known to have shut down the engine and feathered the propeller after noticing a vibration related problem while close to Canberra and electing to continue all the way to Sydney on one engine at a reduced altitude of 8000 feet until the propeller came off somewhere over the Macarthur area.

IMO it is a little bit early to condemn the flight-crew on deciding to continue past Canberra. There may have been other extenuating circumstances, beyond the pilots control, that precluded Canberra as an alternate option (e.g. WX related issues, operational performance issues etc.)

It could also be that the limited hearsay (Chinese whispers) evidence, could be factually incorrect. Therefore in the interest of trying to verify the PT (or the PT source) version of events I did a search on the flightradar24 site for last Friday's REX Flight ZL768 - click HERE.  

Now if you click on the little graph icon below the time in UTC, then hit play until the trip line reaches the TOPD (from FL170) and hit pause (time 37 minutes & 23 seconds into flight).

Now refer to the top down moving map display. You can see from this that REX ZL768 was well and truly passed Canberra, almost abeam Bowral and probably not too far off their normal TOPD when presumably the flight crew conducted a precautionary engine shutdown and descent to 8000 ft. 

The aircraft then spent approximately 5 minutes maintaining 8000 ft, till at just past 50 minutes a further descent was commenced. This was presumably about the time that the propeller parted company with the aircraft. This could be why the airspeed graphic wildly oscillates for 1 to 2 minutes until a further level off at approximately 4.500 ft.  

Therefore from the time the flight crew shutdown the RH engine till the time the prop departed the aircraft was at least 14 to 15 minutes. This timeframe would appear somewhat at odds with a part of the REX official media release yesterday - see HERE:

The following has been established over the last three days of investigations:

- Following abnormal indications on the right hand engine and in accordance with
checklist procedures, the crew shut down the engine;
- Shutting down the engine also feathers the propeller in order to reduce drag;
- It was at this point that the propeller assembly was seen by the First Officer to separate from its shaft;
- The propeller assembly was seen to rotate upwards and to the right. The
propeller was seen rotating in a horizontal position and then moving away without making contact with the aircraft;
- Both passengers and crew reported that the flight thereafter was smooth and the
landing was normal in spite of bad weather at Sydney with winds exceeding 35
knots;
- All passengers have been contacted and none required further assistance;
- The propeller was found to have sheared off at the shaft and all the fittings at the
main assembly were intact;
- The propeller has not yet been located;
- The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) and the Civil Aviation Safety
Authority (CASA) were immediately informed following the event. The ATSB has
despatched a team of investigators to Sydney and the aircraft has been
quarantined;
- Rex has also been in constant communication with the aircraft manufacturer,
Saab and the engine manufacturer, General Electric (GE). The latter has also
kept the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the United States fully
appraised of the situation and the developments.

 
However other than that slight discrepancy, the REX briefing and recorded chain of events pretty much matches the flightradar24 graphical and moving map display of the REX ZL768 incident flight.

Further update: Prop found...

Media release

Title

Missing SAAB 340 propeller located 
Date: 21 March 2017

The detached propeller from the Regional Express (REX) SAAB 340 was located by NSW Police at around noon today.

The propeller was located by NSW Police helicopter PolAir1 in an area of bushland near Revesby in Sydney’s south-west.

The ATSB is now working with NSW Police to recover the 100kg propeller assembly in preparation for examination.

Since the propeller assembly detached from the engine on a flight from Albury to Sydney on 17 March, the ATSB has been calculating its likely trajectory, using data from the aircraft’s flight data recorder. The propeller was located in an area broadly consistent with the ATSB’s calculations.

The ATSB investigation team will examine the propeller assembly to determine the contributing factors that led to its detachment from the aircraft.

ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood thanked NSW Police for their ongoing cooperation with locating and recovering the propeller.More information about this incident and the ATSB’s investigation is available on the ATSB’s website. Media contact: 1800 020 616 


Last update 21 March 2017

https://twitter.com/9NewsSyd/status/844059572016836608

MTF...P2

[MrPeaBody]

Judging by the location of the find and the Flightradar 24 flight path, they were very lucky the prop didn't go in the Georges River (or Henry Lawson Drive).

PB

[Gobbledock]

Mr Peabody;

Judging by the location of the find and the Flightradar 24 flight path, they were very lucky the prop didn't go in the Georges River (or Henry Lawson Drive).

Yes it's a good thing it didn't land in the Georges River because it would've grown an additional prop and perhaps a turbine! Anything that goes into that poisoned river grows two heads. Props included! Plus hi-vis Hoody and his Investigators would have had to wear nuclear contamination suits. And Hoody prefers Toga's.

And Hoody, stop being an emotional girlie-man and quit with your 'correcting the record' bullshit. It's no longer funny mate, it is completely queer.

[ventus45]

Gobbles, do you have the "precise" location of where the prop was found ?