[Peetwo]

ATSB O&O investigation number...

Via the Oz today:

Skydive plane crash inquiry questions ‘loose’ pilot’s seat

• Rory Callinan
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM June 5, 2017
  

A draft investigative report into one of the nation’s worst sky­diving plane crashes struggles to definitively pinpoint the cause but considers the possibility of the pilot’s seat not being ­anchored.

The aviation safety watchdog’s probe into the 2014 crash that killed a pilot, two skydive instructors and their two pupils on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast also raises questions about how skydiving business flights do not need an air operator’s certificate — a safety system required of commercial passenger, freight and charter plane operators.

Pilot Andrew Aitken, 24, tandem­ skydiving instructors Glenn Norman and Juraj Glesk, and first-time skydiving pupils ­Rahuia Hohua, 27, and Joey King, 32, died when the single-engine Cessna crashed seconds after takeoff at Caboolture Air Field on March 22, 2014.

The Aviation Transport Safety Authority has confirmed that the public report into the crash would be released within a month, with a draft report provid­ed to the parties directly involved for response. An ATSB spokesman said the agency was finalising a review of the received submissions but would not comment until it was completed.

The Australian has learned that the draft report makes reference to other crashes where the pilot seat had moved, leading to the pilot losing control.

It also notes the locking pin holding the seat had sheared off — a scenario that has been interpreted by the skydiving plane’s owner, Paul Turner, as proof that the seat-anchoring mechanism, which had only recently been replac­ed, was not to blame.

The report is believed to look at whether an instructor would have been sitting with his back against the seat, stopping movement, but it points to images from previous flights showing instru­ctors sitting elsewhere.

Fuel problems have been ruled out, while the plane’s engin­e was still operating at the time of crash and the propeller was also rejected as being at fault.

Another focus is on how skydive business flights do not need an AOC — a system of safety checks and procedures involving such things as having an approp­riately qualified “chief pilot” overseeing flying operations, pilot training and maintenance and being subject to Civil Aviation Safety Authority audits.

Commercial skydiving flights are instead governed by CASA regulations administered by the Australian Parachutists Federation. CASA delegates its ­enforcement powers to the APF, which appoints “national offic­ers’’ to be in charge of areas such as training and aviation.

The draft report examines how the plane in the Caboolture crash was damaged six months before in an incident the owner blamed on a hard landing or steep descent. The ATSB is understood to have sent pictures of the aircraft’s doors to Cessna experts, who indicated they believed the damage to the aircraft wasn’t caused by the doors flying open in flight.

Contacted yesterday, the plane’s owner said he “did not have a lot of confidence in the ­accuracy of the report”.

He said he did not wish to comment further, given the repor­t was not finalised.

APF chairman Grahame Hill said yesterday the APF rejected claims skydiving needed an AOC because the current regul­ations “mirror an AOC’’ anyway. He said he believed CASA had a similar position.

CASA declined to comment.

---

P2 - IMO the one and only comment (so far) says it all really :

Sara

Seriously - 3 years for a draft report?   What planet does the ATSB live on?

A quick perusal of the investigation page shows that the page was revisited back on 14 Feb 2017 but there has been no further update on the investigation process since 30 June last year - see HERE.

Here is the now familiar litany of excuses for the O&O of this investigation -

Updated: 30 June 2016

Quality assurance and management review of the draft investigation report is in progress prior to being forwarded to the ATSB Commission for approval for release to directly involved parties (DIP).

The draft investigation report is now anticipated for release to DIPs for comment on the factual accuracy of the report in July 2016. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated to be released to the public in September 2016.



Updated: 1 March 2016

The additional investigative work reported in our 19 October 2015 update has been completed. Quality assurance of the investigation and draft report is being finalised before ATSB Commission approval of the report for release to directly involved parties (DIP).

The draft investigation report is now anticipated for release to DIPs for comment by mid‑April 2016. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period on the factual accuracy of the draft report will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated to be released to the public in June 2016.



Updated: 19 October 2015


Completion of the draft investigation report has been delayed to allow for additional investigative work and by competing team member priorities and workload. It is now anticipated for release to directly involved parties (DIP) for comment in December 2015. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period on the factual accuracy of the draft report will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated to be released to the public in February 2016.



Updated: 25 August 2015

Completion of the draft investigation report has been delayed by competing priorities and workload, and is now anticipated for release to directly involved parties (DIP) for comment in October 2015. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period on the factual accuracy of the draft report will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated to be released to the public in December 2015.



Update: 14 May 2015

Completion of the draft report has been delayed by team member competing priorities on other investigations and is now anticipated for release to directly involved parties (DIP’s) for comment by the end of June 2015. Feedback from those parties over the 28-day DIP period on the factual accuracy of the draft report will be considered for inclusion in the final report, which is anticipated for release to the public in August 2015.

Beaker MKI/Beaker MKII (Hoody) were probably too busy providing top-cover expertise for the Malaysians and for the nearly 8 year (re-)investigation saga of the PelAir cover-up...


MTF...P2