What a passing strange report and an even queerer result.
So far sanity rules – then we have the flat statement – “the engine failed”. OK, the reason for it’s failure is of some interest; so we read on.
The pilot has run a trouble check (good man) except a mag check is not reported, but, credit where due, the pilot only had 100 feet to play with; landed and walked away. There could, I expect be some discussion about the benefit of the ‘wheels down’, but the AFM will trump that; so enough said about the pilot actions.
The LAME gets a go next; all good, no fuel contamination and………Nope, that’s it, there was no engine ‘tear down’, which indicates that (a) the fault was identified without the need of major surgery; or, (b) the engine miraculously cured itself due to being inverted in a paddock. Which leaves questions, which are non of our business unanswered; but it is reasonable to assume the damage and fault(s) were repaired, as per. So, all good.
Then we come to the strange: (i) a log of contaminated fuel samples will be kept; and, (ii) after heavy rain all aircraft fuel tanks will be tested – why is any more than routine SOP being promulgated? There was allegedly no contaminated fuel found in the incident aircraft; so why the OTT measures?
This is followed by the remarkable – why would an operator be obliged to ‘equip’ a vehicle with ‘emergency’ equipment – and “accident kit”? How many aircraft are expected to have engine failure at 100’ and land in a convenient, accessible paddock, where whoever is ‘manning’ the ‘rescue vehicle can see and hear all, leap into action and race out on an unpaid, uninsured rescue mission; park, change into the ‘Superman’ outfit, grab an extinguisher and rush in to save the bacon. Bollocks. Even if happened overhead and the blessed thing landed square in the middle of the airfield, how is our non fire proof ‘vehicle’ supposed to get close enough to a burning aircraft and deploy the untrained staff. More bollocks.
Then it gets quite bizarre – CASA ‘demand’ under Reg 301 to be involved, engine failure exploration, flight path map and a copy of the pilot ‘interview’. Now I would have thought that until the ATSB called foul, CASA would stay out of it, confidentiality and all that;
There are 53 pages of redacted ‘paper-work’ in the file - HERE -; I wonder what the CASA was so fired up about – a C 182, EFATO, is this a witch hunt for dodgy engineering or a fishing expedition to settle an old score? Who would know.
But for mine, the ‘biggy’ is how often do CASA bully and intimidate the ATSB into coughing up “all” details, under 301 and slither around the ‘confidentiality’ despite the promises. As non of this happened on the Skidmore watch, I expect nothing will be done to ‘discourage’ the enthusiastic protectors of safety. Long live the AILU.
Toot (slightly puzzled) toot?
Quote:On 22 January 2013, the pilot of a Cessna 182R aircraft registered VH-OWZ (OWZ), took off from Kununurra Airport, Western Australia on a charter flight with one passenger.
So far sanity rules – then we have the flat statement – “the engine failed”. OK, the reason for it’s failure is of some interest; so we read on.
The pilot has run a trouble check (good man) except a mag check is not reported, but, credit where due, the pilot only had 100 feet to play with; landed and walked away. There could, I expect be some discussion about the benefit of the ‘wheels down’, but the AFM will trump that; so enough said about the pilot actions.
The LAME gets a go next; all good, no fuel contamination and………Nope, that’s it, there was no engine ‘tear down’, which indicates that (a) the fault was identified without the need of major surgery; or, (b) the engine miraculously cured itself due to being inverted in a paddock. Which leaves questions, which are non of our business unanswered; but it is reasonable to assume the damage and fault(s) were repaired, as per. So, all good.
Then we come to the strange: (i) a log of contaminated fuel samples will be kept; and, (ii) after heavy rain all aircraft fuel tanks will be tested – why is any more than routine SOP being promulgated? There was allegedly no contaminated fuel found in the incident aircraft; so why the OTT measures?
This is followed by the remarkable – why would an operator be obliged to ‘equip’ a vehicle with ‘emergency’ equipment – and “accident kit”? How many aircraft are expected to have engine failure at 100’ and land in a convenient, accessible paddock, where whoever is ‘manning’ the ‘rescue vehicle can see and hear all, leap into action and race out on an unpaid, uninsured rescue mission; park, change into the ‘Superman’ outfit, grab an extinguisher and rush in to save the bacon. Bollocks. Even if happened overhead and the blessed thing landed square in the middle of the airfield, how is our non fire proof ‘vehicle’ supposed to get close enough to a burning aircraft and deploy the untrained staff. More bollocks.
Then it gets quite bizarre – CASA ‘demand’ under Reg 301 to be involved, engine failure exploration, flight path map and a copy of the pilot ‘interview’. Now I would have thought that until the ATSB called foul, CASA would stay out of it, confidentiality and all that;
Quote:Confidentiality - Subsection 60(3) Where access to restricted information is received under section 62 of the Act it is an offence for the recipient to make a record of or disclose 'restricted information'. The penalty is imprisonment.
Exceptions are mainly for the purpose of carrying out functions under the Act. [Note: 'restricted information' is information collected in the course of an investigation under the Act. It may include statements, medical information, personal information, vehicle movements, and other evidence.]
Quote:Form F32-1 - The ATSB conducts investigations solely for the purpose of enhancing transport safety. The object of an investigation is to determine the circumstances of the occurrence and to prevent similar event occurring in the future. It is not the object of an investigation to determine blame or liability. In this context, you are required to attend an interview and/or produce relevant material under section 32 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. The reason that this request is made under section 32 is to ensure that the information or material that you provide is protected as restricted information under the Act.
Quote:Form F32-1 - Section 47-Self-incrimination no excuse You cannot refuse to answer a question or produce evidence in accordance with a requirement under the Act on the ground that it might incriminate you. However, if you are an individual, information that results from the answer or evidence cannot be used against you in civil or criminal proceedings.
Quote:Form: F62-1 Authorisation under Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 - Section 62 Section 62 of the Act allows the ATSB to authorise a non-staff member to have access to information that is classified as 'restricted information' while requiring the non-staff member to adhere to confidentiality requirements of the Act. Description of restricted information which access is being given to:
There are 53 pages of redacted ‘paper-work’ in the file - HERE -; I wonder what the CASA was so fired up about – a C 182, EFATO, is this a witch hunt for dodgy engineering or a fishing expedition to settle an old score? Who would know.
But for mine, the ‘biggy’ is how often do CASA bully and intimidate the ATSB into coughing up “all” details, under 301 and slither around the ‘confidentiality’ despite the promises. As non of this happened on the Skidmore watch, I expect nothing will be done to ‘discourage’ the enthusiastic protectors of safety. Long live the AILU.
Toot (slightly puzzled) toot?