[Gobbledock]

Yep, let's all get moving to quickly cover our asses even while 5 bodies remain smouldering in the fragmented wreckage.....wonderful example of humans caring about other humans.

[Kharon]

The three card trick.

Messer’s Cowie and Mannix, writing in the Age are close, but no Choc Frog – yet. I wonder, will any of the plugged in journalists actually ‘do’ a story on this; a real one, of the old fashioned type. For there is one; complex, I’ll grant you. But are the repercussions for telling the tale worth going the extra distance for? I don’t believe there is a media outlet with the balls to tackle ‘the story’, certainly non of their expensive legal counsel would agree to it being done in any meaningful way. Not that ‘the story’ would be illegal or even ‘prosecutable’ in any way; it is simply that ‘the story’ will be discouraged by concerns for mortgage, school fees and bread on the table overshadowing the telling of ‘the tale’.

Now then; it may well turn out that the handling of aircraft and the accident can all be traced back to the hanger cat pissing on a wire. It may turn out that maintenance was ‘dodgy’ and the pilot incompetent; it may even turn out that the with Venus being in the seventh arc and the moon in Virgo that fate took a hand. What will not turn out is that there was any ‘liability’ or ‘responsibility’ on the part of any government agency. Yet the facts are there, the buildings are there and the ruthless exploitation of aerodrome land is there. Even the supporting data is there; freely available and easy to read. Consultation with any legal counsel for any ‘airport’ Master plan dispute, such as the Archerfield counsel, will reveal the venal truths. There is just nothing anyone can do about it; and, the gods know, the air operators have tried. All there, the case for operational safety, public safety and business protection; along with the abysmal results of righteous protest. The DoIT have no problem jacking up a million and half to mount a case; to aircraft operators, this is ‘big bucks’. But they managed to find the dough, mount a sensible safety case and put up a bloody good fight – alas…



The ‘Act’ of itself is often heard being acknowledged as unconstitutional, in the same sentence with ‘the brag’ - words to the effect that no one would be able to financially support a case to challenge it. From the ‘Act’ flow all manner of escape routes and abrogation loop holes. The development of airports is a classic, word perfect example of ‘pass the responsibility parcel’. Yet every single objection, from industry against proposed development has been based on safety. Take a look at the graphic Mr. Peabody has provided, the lines parallel to the runway cover the buildings. It is preventing this sort of cynical, protected building projects which industry has tried to espouse. There has been no resistance from the governmental agencies to this development, a cynical mind could construe the resistance to the safety case, now proven, as tacit encouragement to continue. The quest for an alternate scapegoat is now on; lets try and make sure the right ‘bunny’ is in the headlights.



Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

'K',
I've been told that CAsA have been shitting themselves of late over PelAir, Essendon and the David Black water bomber crash, and Team Voodoo and The Flyingfiend have been very very busy. Lots of panic within the bowels of Sleepy Hollow. Plenty of time spent with noses in the books, the CAsA fighting fund has been topped up and the shredders working overtime. Lots of scurrying and lots of ass covering. No wonder Wingnut wants to hire a new DAS (silly name). It's time for him to pop back under Murkys desk and whittle the days away eating cucumber sandwiches, drinking herbal tea and postulating and obsfucating. Ops normal.

Tick Tock

[P7_TOM]

Houseboat stable:19.30.

Why is it always better ‘on tap’? CASA need to be having ructions; but they won’t. The likes of Campbell (one of the too many)) need to steal off into the night: if ‘justice’ is not to be served. Hopefully the new man (yes, yes, or women – for pities sake) with the silly title will need, as a pressing element of reform, to weed out the dunks, the inutile and the venal.

No, no, it will not do... The villains sliding out the back door, still very gainfully employed, after the damage they have done? Without repercussion, or penalty to prospects, careers, reputation and bank accounts. Bollocks; the damage done is massive. CASA wants now to get all cosy – fine; but first, apology and compensation is required. Dom James has had a charmed ‘walk-in-the park’ by comparison to some of the outstanding ‘embuggerance’ victims affected by these mindless amateurs. They all await ‘real’ tangible reform.

It is CASA which needs reformation first; not the bloody silly regulations.

Enough with ‘system’. Careers shredded, money lost all on the ‘say-so’ of Wodger the purblind catamite or the unspeakable ‘friend’ of Hempell – BOLLOCKS. There are good men languishing in ‘Dole City’ because of these parasitic pretenders. They know who they are; we know who they are – enough with the dining and dancing.

IF the minister don’t know who they are and what they have done; we can (a) privately tell him; or, (b) tell the world who they are, what they have done and back it up with ‘fact’ and evidence.

Times up minister – after the budget – we go public – warts and all. Fire ‘em, and restore faith. For example giving a Campbell another job, no matter how far removed from the mainstream is not going to be let slide by. Fair warning, fire them, then prosecute them, – then get it sorted; or, we will blow the gaff, all of it, just as ICAO turn up. That is a promise…

Steam off ‘K’ – thanks. (I believe I will have another, bless you child). TAXI.

[Peetwo]

AAI & the implications of bureaucratic O&O - Part II

Re-hash courtesy of ATSB Aberration thread O&O  :

References for the previous (September 2015) BITN thread coverage of the ATSB Hotham 'near collision' Serious Incident AO-2015-108 starting from here:

Them holes are aligning

Very disturbing report that perfectly highlights all the major problems with an aviation safety system that is totally rooted beyond redemption and will remain so while the current crop of inept, self-serving, ass-covering,  aviation safety bureaucrats is allowed to continue unabated covering up potentially embarrassing serious safety issues & occurrences...



Courtesy the Oz:

Near miss for planes carrying 18 people  

• Too close for comfort. Source: TheAustralian

Yesterday in a media briefing our High Viz Chief Commissioner Greg Hood made some bollocks statements in relation to O&O'd ATSB investigations and the stalled 540 day (so far) MT Hotham near miss investigation:

Air safety bodies spoke ‘more than once’ on pilot’s near-miss
Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood briefs media on the Essendon Airport crash that killed five, including pilot Max Quartermain. Picture: Getty Images


...ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood denied the agency faced a lack of resources in investigating other incidents which do not result in deaths but which might prevent future fatalities. In the 2015 incident, Max Quartermain was at the controls of a plane heading into a ski resort at Mount Hotham when he experienced difficulties with the GPS, almost hit another aircraft and landed at the wrong end of the runway.

An investigation into the near-miss will not be finalised till May, almost two years after the accident. “It’s more a prioritisation issue,” Mr Hood said.

“We have a means of categorising the transport accidents and serious incidents that we investigate and obviously those that involve multiple fatalities or that have the ability to improve transport safety are those that we prioritise and sometimes that means that others are delayed...

On a visit to the ATSB MT Hotham 'near miss' investigation webpage - see HERE - I note that this incident is still listed as an ATSB defined 'serious incident' (versus an ICAO annex 13 defined 'serious incident'), the differentiation of which is effectively obfuscated within the 10 pages of NDs to Annex 13:

Australia requires reporting of ‘transport safety matters’, which, through definitions
and reporting requirements in the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and Transport
Safety Investigation Regulations 2003 result in matters being reported which are equivalent to those contained in the Annex 13 definition of  serious incident. The Annex 13 definition of a serious incident is used for classifying reports in the Accident Investigation Authority’s database.

  
Okay what I think the ATSB notified difference to ICAO Annex 13 on the definition of a 'serious incident' means, is that the ATSB can (read will) effectively abrogate all responsibility to investigate all 'serious incidents' under the spirit, intent and compliance of the Annex...

Therefore the ATSB practice of O&O'ing some potentially DIP sensitive 'serious incident' investigations has become a normalised SOP.

In the case of the MT Hotham 'near miss' investigation the delay can be (& probably will be) excused because the regulator CASA has conducted proactive safety risk mitigation by testing, re-testing and overseeing the proficiency checks of the incident pilot. The ATSB only need say that safety risk was being effectively mitigated.

However it is 'passing strange' that nowhere within the AO-2015-108 investigation webpage does the ATSB indicate that they have identified a 'safety issue' (i.e pilot proficiency) that they have subsequently sent to CASA to be proactively addressed. Nor is there any indication of any form of Annex 13 required 'interim report' on the 1st anniversary of the ATSB defined 'serious incident' investigation...

On the subject of 'interim reports' and Hoody's defined categorisation/prioritisation of 'accidents', I note that in recent days we have quietly, stealthily drifted past the 3rd anniversary date of an ATSB defined 'immediately reportable accident' that had the potential to be the single most worst aviation disaster in Australian aviation history - see HERE or HERE.

Dick & 'that man' in the Oz today.. :

Report ‘may have stopped crash’

12:00amEAN HIGGINS

A safety report ‘may have prevented’ tragedy that saw five die when a plane crashed into a Melbourne shopping centre.

An 18-month-old investigation into the pilot involved in February’s Essendon plane crash, which killed five people, will not be made public until June, sparking critic­ism from a former air safety chief that this year’s tragedy may have been avoided had the earlier probe been finalised.

The Australian Transport Safe­ty Bureau is only now in the process of finalising its investig­ation into a near mid-air collision in 2015 which involved pilot Max Quartermain, who died with four passengers near Melbourne’s ­Essendon airport in February.

Dick Smith, a former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, said it was “completely ­inexcusable” that the ATSB had still not completed the report of its investig­ation of the September 2015 incident at Mount Hotham.

He told The Australian that had the ATSB completed its investigation and report within a reasonable timeframe, and concluded that pilot Quartermain had engag­ed in poor airmanship endangering­ lives, he might have been grounded.

In that case, Mr Smith said, Quartermain would not have piloted­ February’s flight in which he and four American passengers died when the Beechcraft King Air crashed into a shopping centre nine seconds after it took off from Essendon airport. The ATSB, in its initial determin­ation of the Essendon disaster, could find no evidence of catas­trophic engine failure in the King Air.

• Fatal pilot probed over near-miss Chip Le Grand, PIA AKERMAN, JOHN FERGUSON
  
• Mystery clouds Essendon crash SIMONE FOX KOOB
  

Although aviation experts said this did not exclude the possibility of engine problems due to other causes, such as fuel contamination, it has turned further attention to possible pilot error.

The ATSB launched its Mount Hotham investigation after a pilot claimed that Quartermain, flying a King Air from Melbourne, had confused other pilots in his radio communications and nearly crashed into his aircraft as they both were preparing to land.

Quartermain was flying corpor­ate officials from Audi to an event at the alpine resort when, investigator­s determined, he came within 1.8km horizontally and 90m vertically of a King Air flying from Sydney, transporting passengers to the same function.

At one point, it was alleged, Quartermain radioed to say he was 10 nautical miles west of Mount Hotham, before correcting himself to say he was actually 10 nautical miles east.

Some passengers were so unnerved by the experience they ­refused to fly back to Melbourne with Quartermain, forcing the charter company to send another pilot.

In his complaint to the ATSB, the pilot of the other King Air said: “If this event did result in a mid-air collision, two aircraft would have been destroyed and 18 people would have been killed.” The ATSB report into the Mount Hotham incident has been repeatedly delayed.

An ATSB spokesman said that report was expected­ to be made public in June, and that the delay reflected a large number of fatal accidents and serious incidents over the past six months, which “required re-priorit­isation of limited investig­ator resources.”

The spokesman said the ATSB would always publicly release findings of “critical safety issues” as they were discovered rather than wait for a final report, and added, “it is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame for transport safety matters”.

That function fell to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

..."it is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame for transport safety matters”... - Nor is it the function of a supposedly ICAO Annex 13 compliant AAI to provide top-cover support for the regulator CASA and/or the ATC service provider ASA...    

Hmm...wonder how long it will be before Hoody again has a sook and makes another addition to the ATSB's BS 'correcting the bollocks' page -  TICK...TOCK indeed...


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

AAI & the implications of bureaucratic O&O - Part II

Previously:

Re-hash courtesy of ATSB Aberration thread O&O  :

References for the previous (September 2015) BITN thread coverage of the ATSB Hotham 'near collision' Serious Incident AO-2015-108 starting from here:

Them holes are aligning

Very disturbing report that perfectly highlights all the major problems with an aviation safety system that is totally rooted beyond redemption and will remain so while the current crop of inept, self-serving, ass-covering,  aviation safety bureaucrats is allowed to continue unabated covering up potentially embarrassing serious safety issues & occurrences...



Courtesy the Oz:

Near miss for planes carrying 18 people  

• Too close for comfort. Source: TheAustralian

Yesterday in a media briefing our High Viz Chief Commissioner Greg Hood made some bollocks statements in relation to O&O'd ATSB investigations and the stalled 540 day (so far) MT Hotham near miss investigation:

Air safety bodies spoke ‘more than once’ on pilot’s near-miss
Australian Transport Safety Bureau chief commissioner Greg Hood briefs media on the Essendon Airport crash that killed five, including pilot Max Quartermain. Picture: Getty Images


...ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood denied the agency faced a lack of resources in investigating other incidents which do not result in deaths but which might prevent future fatalities. In the 2015 incident, Max Quartermain was at the controls of a plane heading into a ski resort at Mount Hotham when he experienced difficulties with the GPS, almost hit another aircraft and landed at the wrong end of the runway.

An investigation into the near-miss will not be finalised till May, almost two years after the accident. “It’s more a prioritisation issue,” Mr Hood said.

“We have a means of categorising the transport accidents and serious incidents that we investigate and obviously those that involve multiple fatalities or that have the ability to improve transport safety are those that we prioritise and sometimes that means that others are delayed...

On a visit to the ATSB MT Hotham 'near miss' investigation webpage - see HERE - I note that this incident is still listed as an ATSB defined 'serious incident' (versus an ICAO annex 13 defined 'serious incident'), the differentiation of which is effectively obfuscated within the 10 pages of NDs to Annex 13:

Australia requires reporting of ‘transport safety matters’, which, through definitions
and reporting requirements in the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and Transport
Safety Investigation Regulations 2003 result in matters being reported which are equivalent to those contained in the Annex 13 definition of  serious incident. The Annex 13 definition of a serious incident is used for classifying reports in the Accident Investigation Authority’s database.

  
Okay what I think the ATSB notified difference to ICAO Annex 13 on the definition of a 'serious incident' means, is that the ATSB can (read will) effectively abrogate all responsibility to investigate all 'serious incidents' under the spirit, intent and compliance of the Annex...

Therefore the ATSB practice of O&O'ing some potentially DIP sensitive 'serious incident' investigations has become a normalised SOP.

In the case of the MT Hotham 'near miss' investigation the delay can be (& probably will be) excused because the regulator CASA has conducted proactive safety risk mitigation by testing, re-testing and overseeing the proficiency checks of the incident pilot. The ATSB only need say that safety risk was being effectively mitigated.

However it is 'passing strange' that nowhere within the AO-2015-108 investigation webpage does the ATSB indicate that they have identified a 'safety issue' (i.e pilot proficiency) that they have subsequently sent to CASA to be proactively addressed. Nor is there any indication of any form of Annex 13 required 'interim report' on the 1st anniversary of the ATSB defined 'serious incident' investigation...

On the subject of 'interim reports' and Hoody's defined categorisation/prioritisation of 'accidents', I note that in recent days we have quietly, stealthily drifted past the 3rd anniversary date of an ATSB defined 'immediately reportable accident' that had the potential to be the single most worst aviation disaster in Australian aviation history - see HERE or HERE.

Dick & 'that man' in the Oz today.. :

Report ‘may have stopped crash’

12:00amEAN HIGGINS

A safety report ‘may have prevented’ tragedy that saw five die when a plane crashed into a Melbourne shopping centre.

An 18-month-old investigation into the pilot involved in February’s Essendon plane crash, which killed five people, will not be made public until June, sparking critic­ism from a former air safety chief that this year’s tragedy may have been avoided had the earlier probe been finalised.

The Australian Transport Safe­ty Bureau is only now in the process of finalising its investig­ation into a near mid-air collision in 2015 which involved pilot Max Quartermain, who died with four passengers near Melbourne’s ­Essendon airport in February.

Dick Smith, a former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, said it was “completely ­inexcusable” that the ATSB had still not completed the report of its investig­ation of the September 2015 incident at Mount Hotham.

He told The Australian that had the ATSB completed its investigation and report within a reasonable timeframe, and concluded that pilot Quartermain had engag­ed in poor airmanship endangering­ lives, he might have been grounded.

In that case, Mr Smith said, Quartermain would not have piloted­ February’s flight in which he and four American passengers died when the Beechcraft King Air crashed into a shopping centre nine seconds after it took off from Essendon airport. The ATSB, in its initial determin­ation of the Essendon disaster, could find no evidence of catas­trophic engine failure in the King Air.

• Fatal pilot probed over near-miss Chip Le Grand, PIA AKERMAN, JOHN FERGUSON
  
• Mystery clouds Essendon crash SIMONE FOX KOOB
  

Although aviation experts said this did not exclude the possibility of engine problems due to other causes, such as fuel contamination, it has turned further attention to possible pilot error.

The ATSB launched its Mount Hotham investigation after a pilot claimed that Quartermain, flying a King Air from Melbourne, had confused other pilots in his radio communications and nearly crashed into his aircraft as they both were preparing to land.

Quartermain was flying corpor­ate officials from Audi to an event at the alpine resort when, investigator­s determined, he came within 1.8km horizontally and 90m vertically of a King Air flying from Sydney, transporting passengers to the same function.

At one point, it was alleged, Quartermain radioed to say he was 10 nautical miles west of Mount Hotham, before correcting himself to say he was actually 10 nautical miles east.

Some passengers were so unnerved by the experience they ­refused to fly back to Melbourne with Quartermain, forcing the charter company to send another pilot.

In his complaint to the ATSB, the pilot of the other King Air said: “If this event did result in a mid-air collision, two aircraft would have been destroyed and 18 people would have been killed.” The ATSB report into the Mount Hotham incident has been repeatedly delayed.

An ATSB spokesman said that report was expected­ to be made public in June, and that the delay reflected a large number of fatal accidents and serious incidents over the past six months, which “required re-priorit­isation of limited investig­ator resources.”

The spokesman said the ATSB would always publicly release findings of “critical safety issues” as they were discovered rather than wait for a final report, and added, “it is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame for transport safety matters”.

That function fell to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

..."it is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame for transport safety matters”... - Nor is it the function of a supposedly ICAO Annex 13 compliant AAI to provide top-cover support for the regulator CASA and/or the ATC service provider ASA...    

Hmm...wonder how long it will be before Hoody again has a sook and makes another addition to the ATSB's BS 'correcting the bollocks' page -  TICK...TOCK indeed...

Update: Latest developments.

By Mannix & Cowie, via the Age:

Essendon DFO plane crash: Investigators work to unravel web of companies behind doomed flight

• [/url]Liam Mannix
  
  
• [url=http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/by/Tom-Cowie-hvf7w]Tom Cowie
  

The complex corporate structure behind a plane that crashed at Essendon airport has left authorities scrambling to establish who was responsible for the doomed flight.

The opaque web has raised serious concerns about the flight's insurance coverage and the legal entity that will eventually be held to account for the February crash.
  
The DFO and the wreckage from the doomed flight. This image is taken from an ATSB report into the crash. Photo: ATSB  

At least three large law firms are preparing legal action on behalf of the victims.
Separate entities owned the plane, operated it, flew it, maintained it and chartered it.

This image shows the collision between the flight and the DFO Photo: ATSB  

Adding to the confusion, the B200 Super King Air was registered to yet another company just a week before it crashed into the Essendon DFO shopping centre.

Paul O'Brien, managing director at AVMIN, one of Australia's largest charter-flight bookers, says involving six different companies in a single flight blurred the lines of responsibility.

"Accidents will occur, but there have to be some procedures in place that ensure that if there is, you are covered insurance-wise," he says.

Mr O'Brien said many small charter companies held the minimum insurance required, which is $725,000 per passenger according to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
  
Aircraft track from Airservices Australia data. Photo: ATSB  

Another aviation source said the mandatory amount was "laughable".

The question over who was responsible for the flight is still being investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.



For unknown reasons, the cockpit voice recorder failed to capture the doomed flight Photo: ATSB  

Records show the owner of the plane VH-ZCR is Bendigo based-company BB1544. Its sole director is businessman Christopher Richards.

Dr Richards is also behind the company MyJet Aviation Services, which transferred the operation of the plane to Australia Corporate Jet Centres (ACJC) in the weeks leading up to the crash.

The operator is in charge of maintenance and airworthiness of a flight, according to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. 

Dr Richards declined to comment.

ACJC was told by CASA hours after the plane had crashed that it had been registered in its name five days earlier.

An administrative bungle over an incorrect credit card expiry date recently led to a legal fight over ACJC becoming the registered operator.

"This is the flavour of general aviation in this country, it's a hotchpotch," said aviation safety expert Neil Hansford.

It remains unclear whose air operator's certificate was being used to conduct the flight. The air operator's certificate authorises someone to fly for "hire and reward" but also carries potential liability.

ACJC has claimed Max Quartermain's company Corporate & Leisure Aviation leased the plane from MyJet and flew it under his own air operator's certificate.

Mr Quartermain's certificate was still current when the plane smashed into the shopping centre, however MyJet's authorisation had expired.

The flight itself was booked through tour-company GolfSELECT, which declined to comment last week. Golf trips to King Island and then Barnbougle Dunes in Tasmania cost $2500 per person, according to its website.

It is understood yet another company called Interair was hired to maintain the plane. The company continued to service the plane despite the administrative bungle over its registered operator.

When the families will actually get answers about what went wrong is unclear.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is behind on most of its investigations, finalising just 30 per cent of complex cases within 12 months in 2015-16 — well below the legislated requirement of 90 per cent.

Mr Hansford says the delay was related to Australia taking a lead role in the complicated MH370 investigation and the compounding effect that has had on the rest of the agency's work. 

Flight MH370 disappeared on March 8, 2014 while flying from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing.
"It was a massive task, the Americans would have had problems coping with a crash of that type," he says.

What may hasten the Essendon investigation is the involvement of US authorities like the Federal Aviation Administration, which has been brought in to help.

Lawyers are also circling what could end up developing into a multimillion-dollar lawsuit.
There is also the potential for US attorneys to become involved, after the death of high-profile Texan lawyer Russell Munsch and three other wealthy Americans in the crash.

Maurice Blackburn's aviation law expert Joseph Wheeler says the questions over who was in charge of the plane would need to be resolved to ensure someone was made liable.

One of the consequences of the crash and the subsequent administrative battle may be a streamlining of CASA's administrative processes, he says.

"The families will not be left without remedy just because of some administrative or other confusion," he says.

MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

What’s wrong with these statements?

“Investigators unravel web of companies behind doomed Essendon Airport flight”.

"The question over who was responsible for the flight is still being investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau."

Why FDS are the ATSB investigating legal responsibility, while the priority – determining the radical cause of the accident is still not known? The ‘legal’ ins and outs are CASA’s bailiwick and have sod all to do with the ATSB investigation into cause of accident. There is nothing in the ‘responsibility’ paper trail which will define or explain what occurred during the nine seconds of flight. It is understandable that ATSB would take a great deal of interest in the maintenance aspects, a very keen interest in reported ‘snags’, routine servicing and aircraft general airworthiness. But why waste ‘scarce resources’ investigating who was responsible for, who authorised and who paid for that maintenance; CASA should be able to furnish that information at the click of a mouse button. If they can’t then it is time to investigate CASA (again).

This passion for laying blame and seeking avenues to ‘prosecution’ before we even have a blind clue about the cause always clouds the accident investigation picture; there is always someone ‘in the gun’ before the dust has settled let alone the ‘cause’ is fully known. ATSB need to focus on that, not the intricate details of ‘responsibility’. That is what CASA is for, unless of course they are, once again, part of the causal chain.

Toot toot.

[P7_TOM]

The Rex Saab and the missing propeller:-HERE.

Speedy, sane and in all probability, the right answer - stressed component corrosion?. Well done ATSB, and GE.

[Peetwo]

The Rex Saab and the missing propeller:-HERE.

Preliminary report published: 13 April 2017

The occurrence

On 17 March 2017, a Saab 340B aircraft, registered VH-NRX (NRX) was being operated as RXA768 on a routine passenger flight from Albury, New South Wales (NSW) to Sydney, NSW. On board the aircraft were 16 passengers and 3 crew.

About 55 nautical miles south-west of Sydney airport, the crew noticed uncommanded engine indications and began the necessary checklists. While undertaking the checklist items, the crew experienced minor vibrations from the right engine. These vibrations worsened as the checklist progressed and became visually evident to the First Officer.

As a result the crew commenced the engine shutdown procedure. During the engine shutdown procedure, the propeller separated from the aircraft. The crew made a Pan-Pan[1] call to air traffic control, and completed the engine shutdown procedure. The aircraft landed without incident at Sydney airport.

Figure 1: The aircraft, VH-NRX, at Sydney airport after the incident

Source: Grahame Hutchison

An inspection of the aircraft by the ATSB at Sydney airport identified that the propeller shaft had fractured, leading to the separation of the propeller.
On 21 March 2017, the NSW Police Aviation Support Branch (PolAir) undertook a search operation for the separated propeller. The propeller was located in an area under dense forest about 8NM south-west of Sydney airport.

Figure 2: The propeller that had separated from VH-NRX as found by PolAir about 8NM south-west of Sydney airport
Source: ATSB

The propeller was found with the flange section of propeller shaft secured to the propeller assembly and a fracture through the propeller shaft. ATSB subsequently removed the remaining propeller shaft and integral flange section (Figure 4) for examination at its facilities in Canberra.

Propeller shaft examination

The recovered part of the propeller shaft is highlighted in figure 3. The propeller was found properly secured to the forward-facing flange by bolts and the dowel pins pictured. The examination was conducted with representatives present from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), SAAB, GE Aviation (engine manufacturer) and Regional Express (REX). Initial observations revealed cracking that appeared to run between the main shaft and the flange region. The part was sectioned in order to expose the crack’s fracture surface.

Figure 3: Propeller gearbox schematic highlighting the recovered section of the propeller shaft

Source: GE Aviation, modified by ATSB

The crack was found to be a fatigue fracture that had initiated within the propeller mounting flange, and then transitioned into the shaft section (see figure 4). The crack originated at the bore of a dowel pin near the forward face of the propeller hub flange. The dowel pin bore was corroded in parts (shown in figure 5), and corrosion pitting was found near the fracture. Further work is ongoing to ascertain whether the corrosion or other factors contributed to the fracture initiation.

Figure 4: Section of the propeller shaft showing the fatigue crack originating at the dowel hole and progressing into the shaft itself
Source: ATSB

This is the first known critical failure of this type initiating within the propeller hub flange of a GE Aviation CT7-9B engine. The same propeller gearbox (PGB) is fitted to multiple variants of the CT7 engine (5A2, 7A1, 9B, 9C, and 9C3) on SAAB 340 and EADS CASA[2] CN-235 aircraft. There is currently no maintenance requirements specified in existing maintenance manuals for routine inspection within the dowel pin bores. Any corrosion or cracking within the bore may go undetected until it progresses to the surface of the flange. Other than a visual inspection of the flange during propeller removal, inspection for surface defects (via magnetic particle inspection or dye penetrant inspection) only occurs when the PGB is disassembled for maintenance at a workshop specifically approved by the engine manufacturer.

Figure 5: Corrosion observed within the bore of the dowel pin hole

Source: ATSB

Safety advisory notice

AO-2017-032-SAN-001:

The ATSB advises that those responsible for the operation and maintenance of SAAB 340 and EADS CASA CN-235 aircraft fitted with the GE Aviation CT7 engine type variants 5A2, 7A1, 9B, 9C, and 9C3 should note the facts presented in this preliminary report with a view to addressing any risks to their own operation.

Proactive safety action taken by GE Aviation

GE Aviation is actively involved in supporting the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in this investigation. The propeller flange and all required hardware has been transported to GE Aviation laboratories in Cincinnati for further metallurgical analysis.

GE Aviation is inspecting additional PGBs from the fleet and recommends that all operators follow existing maintenance and inspection procedures. As the investigation progresses GE Aviation will release additional maintenance and inspection recommendations if they become necessary.

Proactive safety action taken by Regional Express

Regional Express has quarantined all propeller gearboxes with propeller shafts of the same series as that installed in VH-NRX.

Further investigation

The investigation is continuing and the ATSB will focus on:

• maintenance procedures associated with the PGB shaft
  
• factors that may have contributed to the fatigue fracture at the propeller mounting flange, possibly including:
  • design and manufacturing of the dowel pins, bores, and overall assembly
    
  • corrosion protection on the surface of the part
    
  • opportunities for crack detection.
    

Should any critical safety issues emerge during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately bring those issues to the attention of the relevant authorities or organisation. This will allow those authorities and organisations to consider safety action to address the safety issues. Details of such safety issues and any safety action in response will be published on the ATSB website at www.atsb.gov.au . 

Speedy, sane and in all probability, the right answer - stressed component corrosion?. Well done ATSB, and GE.

Also from the ABC:

REX propeller fell off because of broken bracket, ATSB report shows
By Kathleen Calderwood
Posted about 6 hours ago
[b]PHOTO:[/b] The propeller was found in bushland in Sydney's outer suburbs. (Supplied: ATSB)
[b]RELATED STORY:[/b] REX flight forced into emergency landing after losing propeller
[b]RELATED STORY:[/b] REX flight forced into emergency landing after losing propeller
[b]MAP: [/b]Sydney 2000
A crack in a crucial mounting bracket was the reason a propeller fell off a Regional Express plane last month, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has found.

The ATSB released their preliminary report into Flight ZL768, which was forced to make an emergency landing after the right propeller fell off mid air.

The propeller was found a few days later in bushland off the River Road in Revesby in Sydney's south-west.

The ATSB stated a crack had formed in the propeller mounting flange, where the propeller attaches to the gearbox, and moved through to the shaft.

Corrosion was found near the fracture, and the ATSB is continuing their investigations to see whether that contributed to the crack.

ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood said Regional Express quarantined all propeller gearboxes with the same series of shafts that was in the affected aircraft.

"This is the first known critical failure of this type, initiating within the propeller hub flange of the GE Aviation CT7-9B engine," Mr Hood said.

"Both the operator and the engine manufacturer have already taken proactive safety action in response to the ATSB's safety advisory notice.

"GE Aviation is conducting metallurgical analysis on the propeller flange and hardware at its laboratories in Cincinnati, USA. They are also inspecting additional propeller gearboxes and reminding all operators to follow maintenance and inspection procedures.

"GE Aviation will release additional maintenance and inspection recommendations if they become necessary."

 

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Update: Botsy via the Oz -  

The Rex Saab and the missing propeller:-HERE.

Preliminary report published: 13 April 2017

The occurrence

On 17 March 2017, a Saab 340B aircraft, registered VH-NRX (NRX) was being operated as RXA768 on a routine passenger flight from Albury, New South Wales (NSW) to Sydney, NSW. On board the aircraft were 16 passengers and 3 crew.

About 55 nautical miles south-west of Sydney airport, the crew noticed uncommanded engine indications and began the necessary checklists. While undertaking the checklist items, the crew experienced minor vibrations from the right engine. These vibrations worsened as the checklist progressed and became visually evident to the First Officer.

As a result the crew commenced the engine shutdown procedure. During the engine shutdown procedure, the propeller separated from the aircraft. The crew made a Pan-Pan[1] call to air traffic control, and completed the engine shutdown procedure. The aircraft landed without incident at Sydney airport.

Figure 1: The aircraft, VH-NRX, at Sydney airport after the incident

Source: Grahame Hutchison

An inspection of the aircraft by the ATSB at Sydney airport identified that the propeller shaft had fractured, leading to the separation of the propeller.
On 21 March 2017, the NSW Police Aviation Support Branch (PolAir) undertook a search operation for the separated propeller. The propeller was located in an area under dense forest about 8NM south-west of Sydney airport.

Figure 2: The propeller that had separated from VH-NRX as found by PolAir about 8NM south-west of Sydney airport
Source: ATSB

The propeller was found with the flange section of propeller shaft secured to the propeller assembly and a fracture through the propeller shaft. ATSB subsequently removed the remaining propeller shaft and integral flange section (Figure 4) for examination at its facilities in Canberra.

Propeller shaft examination

The recovered part of the propeller shaft is highlighted in figure 3. The propeller was found properly secured to the forward-facing flange by bolts and the dowel pins pictured. The examination was conducted with representatives present from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), SAAB, GE Aviation (engine manufacturer) and Regional Express (REX). Initial observations revealed cracking that appeared to run between the main shaft and the flange region. The part was sectioned in order to expose the crack’s fracture surface.

Figure 3: Propeller gearbox schematic highlighting the recovered section of the propeller shaft

Source: GE Aviation, modified by ATSB

The crack was found to be a fatigue fracture that had initiated within the propeller mounting flange, and then transitioned into the shaft section (see figure 4). The crack originated at the bore of a dowel pin near the forward face of the propeller hub flange. The dowel pin bore was corroded in parts (shown in figure 5), and corrosion pitting was found near the fracture. Further work is ongoing to ascertain whether the corrosion or other factors contributed to the fracture initiation.

Figure 4: Section of the propeller shaft showing the fatigue crack originating at the dowel hole and progressing into the shaft itself
Source: ATSB

This is the first known critical failure of this type initiating within the propeller hub flange of a GE Aviation CT7-9B engine. The same propeller gearbox (PGB) is fitted to multiple variants of the CT7 engine (5A2, 7A1, 9B, 9C, and 9C3) on SAAB 340 and EADS CASA[2] CN-235 aircraft. There is currently no maintenance requirements specified in existing maintenance manuals for routine inspection within the dowel pin bores. Any corrosion or cracking within the bore may go undetected until it progresses to the surface of the flange. Other than a visual inspection of the flange during propeller removal, inspection for surface defects (via magnetic particle inspection or dye penetrant inspection) only occurs when the PGB is disassembled for maintenance at a workshop specifically approved by the engine manufacturer.

Figure 5: Corrosion observed within the bore of the dowel pin hole

Source: ATSB

Safety advisory notice

AO-2017-032-SAN-001:

The ATSB advises that those responsible for the operation and maintenance of SAAB 340 and EADS CASA CN-235 aircraft fitted with the GE Aviation CT7 engine type variants 5A2, 7A1, 9B, 9C, and 9C3 should note the facts presented in this preliminary report with a view to addressing any risks to their own operation.

Proactive safety action taken by GE Aviation

GE Aviation is actively involved in supporting the Australian Transport Safety Bureau in this investigation. The propeller flange and all required hardware has been transported to GE Aviation laboratories in Cincinnati for further metallurgical analysis.

GE Aviation is inspecting additional PGBs from the fleet and recommends that all operators follow existing maintenance and inspection procedures. As the investigation progresses GE Aviation will release additional maintenance and inspection recommendations if they become necessary.

Proactive safety action taken by Regional Express

Regional Express has quarantined all propeller gearboxes with propeller shafts of the same series as that installed in VH-NRX.

Further investigation

The investigation is continuing and the ATSB will focus on:

• maintenance procedures associated with the PGB shaft
  
• factors that may have contributed to the fatigue fracture at the propeller mounting flange, possibly including:
  • design and manufacturing of the dowel pins, bores, and overall assembly
    
  • corrosion protection on the surface of the part
    
  • opportunities for crack detection.
    

Should any critical safety issues emerge during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately bring those issues to the attention of the relevant authorities or organisation. This will allow those authorities and organisations to consider safety action to address the safety issues. Details of such safety issues and any safety action in response will be published on the ATSB website at www.atsb.gov.au . 

Speedy, sane and in all probability, the right answer - stressed component corrosion?. Well done ATSB, and GE.

In response to this half-assed attempt at aviation safety journalism...

Rex fractured propeller part not in maintenance program, ATSB report says
The Australian - ‎Apr 12, 2017‎
The fatigue fracture that caused a Rex plane to lose a propeller over southwest Sydney last month “may go undetected” because inspections of the part are not included in the regular maintenance program, Australia's safety authority has revealed.

...where Creepy (MKII) Clearly scapegoats Byron Bailey and spends half the article grovelling to John Sharp... :

..Last month, The Australian reported claims by veteran pilot Byron Bailey that had the pilots not taken action to shut down the engine, the propeller would have been spinning much faster and then impacted the plane, potentially causing catastrophe. Mr Bailey is a former RAAF pilot and is now a commercial pilot who has flown more than 26,000 hours during a career spanning 45 years.

However, Rex deputy chairman John Sharp said Mr Bailey’s assertion was “emotive and completely unfounded”.

“Further, the propeller only separated when the first officer selected ‘fuel off’, which also feathers the propeller,” Mr Sharp said.

He added that Rex had exercised an “abundance of caution” and replaced the gear boxes and shafts of five aircraft which were of the same series as the separated propeller.

Mr Sharp also disputed the claim by Mr Bailey that the gearbox was a weak link in this type of engine and had been linked to the cause of the incident.

“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 as most industry professionals would be aware,” Mr Sharp said.

The ATSB report did not find that engine overheating, caused by problems within the gearbox, were linked to the loss of the propeller, as Mr Bailey had suggested...

...Botswana O'Hooligan provides IMO a comment worthy of a QOTM nomination and a choccy frog to boot...

Botswana O'Hooligan

2 days ago

There is a law called Murphy's Law and it states that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, particularly where aeroplanes are concerned. Elsewhere in this newspaper today it has been written that a 747 had a stick shaker activate when on descent. Stick shakers activate when the machine is about to stall aerodynamically, that is when the angle of attack of the airfoil approaches about 15 degrees to the airflow. Apparently, or so they say, this took place when they were no where near a critical angle of attack but the orange boxes containing the flight data recorder and the cockpit voice recorders will no doubt shed light on that.

GE probably thought that the prop mounting flange was there forever and there was no need for an inspection.

One night a fourteen feet in diameter prop on the machine in my care went into what the Poms call -auto coarse pitching- tho we call it -auto feather- among other things unprintable, for no reason at all, and the manufacturing people in the UK said in a hurt tone, "old chap this cannot happen," but about a month later in a different aeroplane the same thing happened again. The Poms were horribly upset for it just cannot happen they wailed.

Another night ex a joint called Midway island for Adak in the Aleuts, when passing through thirty thousand feet, bitching Betty told us that we were far too low and we should pull up immediately and initiated a pull up manoeuvre on long suffering "George," aka one of the auto-pilots. Since Everest is lower than that, Betty was having some kind of hissy fit.

All the above examples are simply demonstrating Murphy's Law and if anything can go wrong, it will, and that's why, even after being a professional pilot for fifty five years I am only scared of three things even in retirement, heights, women, and aeroplanes.

 


MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

Virgin Australia near bellyflop at Brisbane Airport?

Yet another issue for VA, this time at Brisbane. It feels like VA make sure they have a high level incident of some sort on quite a regular basis. But shhhhh, don't tell Il Deuce, he is too busy 'game changing' to notice. Better not tell Tid'bin'dildo either, he doesn't like negative comments about VA on UP. Isn't that right Captain?

Off the ATsB website;

Aviation safety investigations & reports
Incorrect configuration involving Avions de Transport Régional ATR72, VH-FVL, Brisbane Airport, Qld, on 2 April 2017

Investigation number: AO-2017-039
Investigation status: Active

Summary

The ATSB is investigating an incident where a Virgin Australia Airlines Avions de Transport Régional ATR72, VH-FVL, was incorrectly configured during an approach to Brisbane Airport, Queensland, on 2 April 2017.
During the visual approach, the crew received an E/GPWS TOO LOW FLAP warning and detected an incorrect flap setting. A missed approach was conducted. The investigation is continuing.
As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the flight crew and gather additional information.
A report will be released within several months.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2017-039/

I've been pretty busy so I hadn't heard much talk about it, very hush hush. A source told me the aircraft came within 150 feet of pancaking into the pavement. I can't confirm that though. Anyone else heard anything?

Jeez Hoody, you really ought to beef up the numbers of your Investigators mate, seems to me that the incidents just keep on coming!!

TICK TOCK

[P1_aka_P1]

Only been party to four scary landings. One, I owned – Mea Culpa. The rest- VA at Brisbane; one was out of control for 16 miles before ‘the arrival’. The fact that the aircraft departed within the next hour is a testament to Boeing; or, some pretty fancy footwork. Wham, Bam and little in the way of thank you Ma’am. Handing over.

[Gobbledock]

Another kick in the teeth to the victims families from the Lockhart River crash

Another day, another kick in the teeth to victims of air crashes. If it's not the shonky airline or Regulator and Government screwing you over it's the Insurer. Gotta protect the might dollar at all costs! Assholes.

Aussie Lockhart River air crash families fight for justice

Peter Michael, The Courier-Mail
May 3, 2017 12:00am

FAMILIES of the victims of one of Australia’s worst ­aviation disasters have been blocked by insurance giant QBE from long-running legal action in the United States.

Fifteen people died in the 2005 Lockhart River crash on Cape York, but relatives yesterday told The Courier-Mail how they were “shocked and appalled” by a court order to end a nine-year lawsuit in the US against part-owners of the ill-fated Cairns-based Aero Tropics airline.

Lawyers for QBE obtained an order from the Supreme Court in Queensland restraining the Lockhart River families from taking any action other than to dismiss the damages claim before the US courts.

Twelve years on from the tragedy, the father of police ­officer Sally Urquhart, who died in the May 6, 2005 crash, said families had been victims of “bully boy tactics” and “intimidation” by Australia’s biggest insurance company.

Brisbane schoolteacher Shane Urquhart said none of the families or their lawyers had been notified of the latest legal action before the court order.

“We’ve been fighting for justice for our lost loved ones for so long, and now we feel the judge and the legal system has been duped,’’ he said.

“It’s not just us, but anyone who gets on a plane in Australia needs to know the sort of bastardry one of the biggest aviation insurers in the country will use against victims of air disasters and their families,’’ he said. “None of the plaintiffs were informed. None of our lawyers contacted.’’

QBE, according to its website, provides insurance to airlines, aircraft, airports, pilots, refuellers, baggage handlers and maintenance operators.

The Aero-Tropics Metroliner turboprop plane that crashed in dense forest 10km from Iron Range Airport at Lockhart River.
Reverend Mary Eseli’s son, Fred Bowie, and sister-in-law, Mardie Bowie, were among six victims of the air crash from the tiny indigenous communities of Injinoo and Bamaga, at the tip of Cape York.

“It has been an open wound in our hearts that has never healed,’’ she said.

A QBE spokeswoman said any action should be brought in Queensland, not in Missouri, where the aircraft was stored before it was bought by the Australian owners.

“QBE has paid compensation and costs, where appropriate, in respect of the claims by relatives of the deceased passengers against the operator of the aircraft.”

Link to the article in the Poohrier Mail;

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queen...3b729c4e30

"Unsafe skies for all" TICK TOCK

[P7_TOM]

Two bob’s worth of disgust please.

Re Lockhart - Why is it; that every single fatal accident involving public transport ends up this way? The expensive official inquiry, for no return on investment. The demands for change translated into onerous rules which serve only the ‘regulators’ purpose. The obfuscation of fact. The disavowal of any or all official responsibility. Lockhart has never been honestly examined. The ATSB were muzzled, the coroner if not misled was certainly confounded, the inquiry bamboozled; all to cover the simple fact that CASA could and should have been sanctioned for allowing the situation to develop to the point of impact. This is a common thread running through each and every one of the ‘fatal’ accidents from Advance to Monarch, from Seaview to Pel-Air. It is, IMO, time it was stopped. Regulation by the cartload is simply there to provide safe prosecution of the predetermined outcome; strict liability supporting.

It is a disgraceful situation. Perhaps the Essendon event and the Senators conscience will provide a different, more enlightened result. Time will tell, but first we need a ‘proper’ report from the ATSB – before the turn of the century. But lets be clear about this, very clear. Within 9 seconds at 150 meters from a runway centre line an aircraft hit, at 150 feet, a building (for whatever reason). That building should never have been allowed to be there; someone has manipulated the rules, someone has nodded at the safety aspects and someone has authorised the many shifts in the operationally available dimensions of that runway to suit a purpose. Those people are, in part, responsible for the building being there. Either way, someone needs to be treated the way a ‘civilian’ would be who had played fast and loose with the interpretation of the ‘regulations’, to cynically suit a commercial purpose and place the lives of those shopping there in clear and present danger, advertising to encourage people to come there. (Ugh). All very slick and clever, except there are now five men to add to the list of those  who will not be celebrating their next birthday with their families at home. Shame, shame, shame.

Wow Martha - wudja look at all them tall buildings.



[img] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-3ehNrXYAEhoVS.jpg[/img]

[Peetwo]

Rossair fatal Conquest accident Renmark - RIP

Via ABC online:

Rossair grounds all flights, confirms chief pilot among three dead in Riverland crash

Updated 54 minutes ago
Wed 31 May 2017, 11:29am
Photo: Martin Scott (left) was an experience pilot and Paul Daw was retraining at the time they both died in the plane crash. (LinkedIn/Facebook)

Map: Renmark 5341

Rossair has grounded its fleet of aircraft as a precaution in response to a plane crash that killed three people in South Australia's Riverland yesterday afternoon.

Rossair chief pilot Martin Scott, 48, and two passengers — Paul Daw, 65, who was taking an induction test, and Civil Aviation Safety Authority representative Stephen Guerin, 56, — were on board the nine-seater Cessna Conquest.

The plane was travelling between Adelaide and the Riverland.

CASA said Mr Guerin was observing a check flight conducted by Rossair as part of routine safety work.

In a statement CASA said Mr Guerin had worked with the authority since 2008 as a flying operations inspector, and at times acted as a team leader — prior to that he was a pilot for a number of aviation operators.

"Mr Guerin is remembered by CASA colleagues as passionate about aviation, meticulous about safety and widely respected," the statement said.

"He was active in community service and known as a true gentleman."

Rossair staff 'in shock'

In a statement Rossair said the crash had been a devastating blow for the families involved, the company and the group's 30 employees.

"Our staff are in deep shock at our loss and our deepest sympathies are with the family members concerned," the statement said.

"This is an extremely sad event. Rossair will work with aviation authorities to determine the cause of the crash."

Photo: All Rossair flights have been grounded since the plane crash. (ABC News: Nathan Stitt)

Charter flight service Hartwig Air's manager David Blake said Mr Daw had worked as the organisation's chief pilot and was a "larger than life" character who "lived and breathed" aviation.

"Paul exuded aviation - he was a complete enthusiast," Mr Blake said.

"Paul was a very big family man and family was very important in his life.

"He never let anybody down, he was always there for people and that is I think one of the biggest epitaphs I can offer."

Mr Blake said Mr Daw was due to retire from the organisation on Friday, but had already started making other plans to continue flying with Rossair.

Mr Blake also paid tribute to Mr Guerin saying he would be dearly missed by staff at both Bruce Hartwig Flying School and Hartwig Air.

"He was our school's and our charter division's CASA representative and well known to people here, so the loss is pretty extensive," he said.



Photo: Rossair charters flights primarily in South Australia. (ABC Radio Adelaide: Spence Denny)

The wreckage was found in scrubland about four kilometres west of Renmark Airport just after nightfall.

Major Crash investigators from Adelaide arrived at the scene last night, and an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) team will arrive there this morning.

Australian Transport and Safety Bureau's Neville Blythe said early information suggested the plane did not explode on impact, and that was expected to be a big help for investigators.

"We do understand there hasn't been a post impact fire, which is very good from an investigation point of view," he said.

"It doesn't destroy evidence and that type of thing so we will be again taking our time to forensically go through everything in relation to the aircraft."

Investigators calling for crash witnesses

Mr Blythe said investigators from Adelaide and Canberra would arrive at the site late this morning or early afternoon.

The ATSB is also calling for any witnesses who were in the area about 4:00pm yesterday.
A local Anglican priest at Renmark, Paul Devenport, said he saw the plane flying over the east of Renmark moments before the crash.

"I couldn't see it totally but I could see it behind the trees, it was going quite low," he said.

"It was flying quite low and it had it's lights on."

Rossair primarily flies in South Australia and runs charter flights including for tourism ventures and mining companies.

The company has been running for 50 years and this is the first fatality it has ever had.

Photo: South Australian police block off a dirt road leading to the wreckage of the plane in the Riverland. (ABC News: Tom Fedorowytsch)

&.. via the ATSB investigation webpage:

Collision with terrain involving Cessna 441, VH-XMJ near Renmark Airport, South Australia on 30 May 2017
 
Investigation number: AO-2017-057

Investigation status: Active
 

• Tab - Summary
  
  

Summary

The ATSB is investigating a fatal aircraft accident involving a Cessna Conquest 441 aircraft, registered VH-XMJ, that occurred near Renmark Airport, South Australia on 30 May 2017.

The aircraft was reportedly conducting a training flight and collided with terrain shortly after departure from runway 25. All three occupants on board were fatally injured.

The ATSB has deployed a team of five investigators to the accident site with expertise that includes aircraft operation and maintenance.

While on site the team will be examining the site and wreckage, gathering recorded data including radio and radar, and interviewing witnesses.

The ATSB will issue a preliminary report outlining the facts of the accident within 30 days and present the findings of its investigation in the final report, due out within 12 months.
 
General details

Date: 31 May 2017
 
Investigation status: Active
 
Time: 16:17 CST
 
Investigation type: Occurrence Investigation
 
Location   (show map): Renmark Airport
 
Occurrence type: Collision with terrain
 
State: South Australia
 
Occurrence category: Accident
 
Report status: Pending
 
Highest injury level: Fatal
 
Expected completion: May 2018 
 
Aircraft details

Aircraft manufacturer: Cessna Aircraft Company
 
Aircraft model: 441
 
Aircraft registration: VH-XMJ
 
Serial number: 4410113
 
Type of operation: Flying Training
 
Damage to aircraft: Substantial
  
 


Last update 31 May 2017

MTF...P2  

[Kharon]

Casa DICTATED ‘Blue line’ fever strikes again?  I know, I know, wait for the details; but this new ‘regime’ of stupidity – V2 + 10 or a nice fat sandwich of wriggle room – all gone.  When will they realise the SIM ain’t real.

10 minutes sin bin? – OK - sounds reasonable M’lud; thank you – bow – exeunt: at a good clip. .

[Peetwo]

Casa DICTATED ‘Blue line’ fever strikes again?  I know, I know, wait for the details; but this new ‘regime’ of stupidity – V2 + 10 or a nice fat sandwich of wriggle room – all gone.  When will they realise the SIM ain’t real.

10 minutes sin bin? – OK - sounds reasonable M’lud; thank you – bow – exeunt: at a good clip. .

Update 09 June 17: Byron Bailey OP.

Today in the Oz Bailey enters the old chestnut of EFATO training/testing and Blueline fever debate :

Rossair Cessna crash stirs talk of live engine failure training

• Byron Bailey
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM June 9, 2017
  
  Having trained on jet aircraft 48 years ago, I have limited experience on non-jet aircraft, but a number of my aviation colleagues, some who have flown the Conquest, have proffered their opinion of the crash and on twin propeller aircraft engine failure training.
  
  Engine failure training on all medium and larger jet aircraft is done in simulators. The V1 (decision speed) cut can be practised at length with no danger to the pilots. A jet aircraft simply requires the pilot to keep straight with the rudder after the engine failure, maintain level wings with aileron, and climb away at V2 (takeoff safety speed) after retracting the undercarriage. Indeed all jet aircraft are required to achieve a safe climb gradient on one engine. The pilot really just needs to put in a big boot full of rudder and attending to the engine failure can be done at a safe altitude.
  
  Twin engine propeller-driven aircraft have additional problems. Unlike the one thrust lever on a jet engine, they have three levers per engine — fuel, propeller and power — and the engine has to be attended to immediately upon a failure.
  
  The propeller, if not feathered quickly after an engine failure, can produce so much drag that the aircraft may be uncontrollable. One of my colleagues pointed out that if you simulate engine failure to idle instead of setting zero thrust then the drag from the propeller can be almost uncontrollable. In a real engine failure situation, aircraft such as the King Air have auto feather of the propeller, and the Conquest has negative torque sensing and after the pilot carries out immediate action successfully can then climb away in the Conquest at blue line speed (best rate of climb).
  
  The problem I see in asymmetric training in propeller driven aircraft is that the pilot has no margin for error and needs to be almost perfect in flying technique and in performing the immediate engine shutdown drills and retracting the undercarriage. As well, these aircraft are certified to a lower performance requirement regarding climb gradient on a single engine after takeoff. The Cessna Conquest has ample power, but at lower speeds just after takeoff full power may not be able to be used if the full rudder authority is insufficient to keep straight and loss of control may result.
  
  It does not matter how experienced a pilot may be — it does not preclude you from making a mistake. Several of my colleagues have pointed out that there have been more crashes due to practice training of engine failure on takeoff than have occurred through real engine failures on takeoff.
  
  An airline operating the Conquest can use a King Air 200 simulator for emergency practice where the Civil Aviation Safety Authority approves it — without the risk associated with a real takeoff.
  
  Byron Bailey is a former RAAF pilot and B777 captain, and now flies corporate jets.

And by way of an update on the ATSB investigation 3 days ago, courtesy of cornwalllive.com:

...Meanwhile investigators have begun the work of removing the aircraft wreckage to Adelaide, including one of the bent propellers. Large sections of the fuselage have been removed from the scrubland by crane and loaded onto lorries.

The wreckage is being taken to a secure-building in Adelaide where investigators can look for possible defects, assess the damage and piece together how the aircraft came down.
A preliminary report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the possible causes of the crash is expected back with the month.



A file picture of a Rossair Cessna.

An Australian Maritime Safety Authority spokeswoman said the aircraft sent out a distress signal shortly after taking off from the aerodrome west of Adelaide about 4:15pm.

"We became aware there might be an issue shortly after take-off when a distress signal was detected," she said.

The premier of South Australia, Jay Weatherill, said the crash was "tragic news" and paid tribute to the three men.


Read more at http://www.cornwalllive.com/probe-begins...OhuLJyo.99

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Just cribbed this from the U - worth considering - only ever had it happen once but it was an 'interesting' ride home; fuselage drains blocked they told me. Aircraft do leak- anyway FWIW, thought it worth a mention.

Xeptu " I've haven't heard anymore about this event, but really havn't stopped thinking about it either from the perspective of an experienced kingair pilot. I keep coming back to the same scenario. A seemingly normal takeoff roll to VR then an overwhelming shock horror event so radical, I don't raise the gear, struggle to fly straight, brace myself for an impending crash and fire off a mayday call. Hard to imagine. A 100kg's of water in the belly bringing the cofg way beyond the aft limit at rotation would probably do it."

[Peetwo]

Ballina fatal: Possible inadvertent IMC - RIP!  

Via the ABC News online:

Pilot dead in NSW north coast air crash amid poor weather conditions
Updated yesterday at 2:13pm
[b]PHOTO:[/b] Emergency services at the scene of the crash in dense bushland near Bangalow. (ABC News: Joanne Shoebridge)
[b]MAP: [/b]Ballina 2478

A man has died after a four-seater aircraft crashed into bushland on the NSW north coast.

The 71-year-old pilot died after his Cessna Skyhawk crashed into dense bushland at Brooklet near Bangalow.

Witnesses reported seeing a grey aircraft flying very low over the Pacific Highway moments before crashing into trees around 9:00am.

+

-

[size=undefined]


©Mapbox ©OpenStreetMap Improve this map
[b]MAP:[/b] The aircraft came down at Brooklet near Bangalow, north of Ballina[/size]

The owner of the property where the plane crashed, Tracey Knowland, said she believed the pilot became disoriented in the poor weather conditions.

"I heard a tremendous whining noise, which in retrospect sounded like a kamikaze plane going down. But it only lasted a couple of seconds and then there was a huge crash sound," she said.

"[There were] very, very poor conditions in terms of visibility... low light, low cloud, it was light rain, fog.

"I imagine he became disorientated and has hit what is the highest point of our property."

'I just thought, the poor people'

Nathan Cooper was in his garden when he heard the crash.

"I heard a small plane engine go into very high revs and sounded like it was making a quick descent then it sounded like it had suddenly stopped, like it had hit the ground," he said.

Mr Cooper said it sounded horrific.

"It was pretty clear it was a plane in trouble," he said.

"It's that weird sound of a plane even if they're at a show when they do that huge dive and the engine roars, but then the very abrupt stop made it pretty obvious that it was a crash.

"I just thought, the poor people."

Combined investigation under way
Police chief inspector Nicole Bruce said it was not clear exactly what went wrong.

"At this stage the only route we have is that he was heading from Heck Field down to Ballina and I'm not sure where this is in relation to that route and why he would be over this side," she said.

"There will be a combined investigation between the Air Safety Bureau and our aviation branch."

Police said there was heavy fog at the time and debris was scattered over a large area.
Topics: death, air-and-space, ballina-2478, lismore-2480

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

What’s wrong with this picture?



Why does it graphically depict just how bad an example the CASA version of ‘safety’ really is? I wonder, does the Hi-Viz vest grant super powers, god like protection or just promote fast healing?

Tosser, and they wonder why we call ‘em names like that. There is no excuse – not one to pardon gross stupidity – that ain’t leaning on the propeller; look at the tension through the left forearm and wrist. Aye, safety at work for all.

Toot - duck me - toot