[Peetwo]

You have to laugh – no other option.

Honest answers required – how many actually read though this latest piece offered by the -  ATSB - on an RFDS Be20 which finished up in the dirt; not the hanger. The pathetic report is bad enough; but, when the English language is assaulted in support of a load of rubbish, not even billed as an attempt at comedy; it’s time to ask serious questions. We wait and wait for the ‘lessons’ and the advice; we pay for this essential safety ‘service’; hells bells, we even try not to second guess the ‘expert’ tin kickers.

Candidate for quote of the month – HERE – from the UP; close call but it has my vote.

But, for me at least; the biggest guffaw for a long time came from this trite statement:-

What's been done as a result.

As a result of this occurrence, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) intends to take steps to refresh industry and CASA officers’ knowledge of particular terms and concepts within the flight crew licencing regulations to remove any doubt that might exist as to their interpretation and applicability.

The operator has undertaken to take safety actions in the areas of pilot recruitment, training and checking, aircraft and systems, safety and quality assurance, and communications.

Perhaps Carmody can elaborate – or; better yet,  start firing people; beginning with those who write the ridiculous aberrations called ‘rules’ which we all must learn to avoid. Lead Balloon Look Left (one you owe me)  is a close QoM second with a gem in a nutshell – “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” – just the way CASA like it – depending on whether the moon is in Venus or Uranus.

FWIW – the whole thing gave me a laugh.

Toot– toot; chuckle – and one for luck - toot.

The other Aunty on this embarrassing report -

Royal Flying Doctor Service knew of potential fault in fire system that contributed to crash landing: Investigation

ABC Broken Hill
By Declan Gooch

Posted about an hour ago Tue 11 Jul 2017, 5:38pm

Photo: The Royal Flying Doctor Service plane that crash landed at Moomba in December 2016. (Supplied: Moomba Airport/ATSB)

The Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) says it is reviewing its training regime and accepts the findings of an investigation into the crash landing of an aircraft in outback South Australia.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has published its report on the incident, which happened at the gas fields town of Moomba in December.

The Broken Hill-based Beechcraft King Air B200 aeroplane was approaching the airstrip when an engine fire warning incorrectly came on.

The pilot shut down the left engine in response to the warning, following an established checklist, but forgot to feather the propeller blades — where the blades are rotated to an edge-on angle to the airflow to reduce drag.

The remaining operational engine was unable to generate enough thrust to safely land the aircraft, which hit the ground in the sand next to the airstrip and was severely damaged.

There were no injuries.

The ATSB said the RFDS had been alerted to the possibility of false fire warnings by a safety bulletin from Beechcraft in 1995.

RFDS accepts investigation findings

RFDS south-eastern section chief executive Greg Sam said the organisation accepted the findings.

"Because we train our own pilots, part of our routine training program was to equip pilots to manage with alarms, whether they be false or accurate," he said.

"Indeed we were confident that the pilot training should be such that it can manage that situation.

"Having said that, between 2003 and 2005, we had [four] reports [of false alarms] across our entire fleet, but nothing since 2005 occurred, so there was a period of some six or seven years where there had been no false alerts."

Mr Sam said there were no aircraft in the fleet that still used the fire warning system in question.

"With regard to … how we treat service bulletins and notifications, I think our safety systems now are a lot more robust in terms of how we look for these types of bulletins," he said.

Pilot's training not compliant

The ATSB found the pilot received a tailored training program by the RFDS that took into account his or her experience with a different version of the Beechcraft King Air with another operator, and advice from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

However, the ATSB said that did not cover all the elements required under safety regulations.

Mr Sam said he accepted that was the case and the RFDS would pay closer attention to pilots' past training.

"[We will look] further back into individual pilots' training history, and how does that translate to our requirements both in a practical sense … but there's also the issue of how that lines up with the requirements under regulation," he said.

But Mr Sam said that was unlikely to have contributed to the crash landing.

"The issue of feathering is very much a standard procedure, it's what's called a memory procedure … and to some degree that stands outside issues of [training].

"We don't believe the issues raised in terms of [training] would have made any difference given the circumstances that occurred for this particular event."

The pilot hesitated during the procedure for responding to an engine fire warning and forgot to feather the propeller blades, the ATSB said, because of doubt over the warning's accuracy.

The pilot has since left the RFDS, and the aeroplane has been replaced.

This bit..

 ..But Mr Sam said that was unlikely to have contributed to the crash landing.

"The issue of feathering is very much a standard procedure, it's what's called a memory procedure … and to some degree that stands outside issues of [training].


"We don't believe the issues raised in terms of [training] would have made any difference given the circumstances that occurred for this particular event."

...says it all for me. The RFDS are kindly, with tongue in cheek, allowing the ATSB to PC their way around the fact that the pilot cocked up...


MTF...P2