[Peetwo]

CASA criticised over failure to act after fatal helicopter crash

In between eating chips and watching Trump impersonations on Poohtube the Gobbledock has been patrolling the MSM sites and found this snippet from the Simply Marvellous Horse Pooh;

https://www.smh.com.au/national/queensla...50oah.html



Cherry picked;

“A coroner has criticised the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for taking no action in warning pilots of manufacturing and design faults of a helicopter model after a fatal crash in central Queensland”

And;

“Mr O'Connell said despite the helicopter being considered as an experimental aircraft, CASA had taken no action following this incident”.

And;

"I will also refer the issue to CASA as to what action they consider necessary as to date there appears, from the evidence at the inquest, little which has been done by them so far”.

To be fair to CAsA, they really provide nothing of safety value to the aviation industry anyway, so it probably doesn’t matter what the Coroner recommends. However I’m sure CAsA’s bearded bullshit artist and fellow Presstitutes Steve Creepy, Head Case Hitch or the Toadfish lookalike Geoffrey Thomas will have something nonchalant, ill researched and stupid to say.

Tick Tock

P2 edit - From Coroner's report:

Coroners Act s. 46: ‘Coroners Comments’ (Recommendations)


 [36]. This incident does provide the opportunity to recommend important improvements aimed at reducing the risk to users of this particular model of Cicare`.

[37]. To my mind there appears to be a clear issue with the fitness for use of the tail rotor gearbox output bearing and rear stabiliser as they are presently manufactured. It is, indeed in my mind, certain that excessive vibration from the gearbox on its’ output side is causing the failure of the stabiliser which presents as cracks 32 around the join at the conical (or horizontal) mount section. Clearly the manufacturer should redesign the tail rotor gearbox to eliminate the movement which develops from very little use and the stabiliser component for greater practical durability through either oblique bracing struts supporting the vertical fins, high heat treatment of the tube and its welds, or perhaps heavier gauge materials 33 . None of these options are expensive nor difficult processes. The high heat treatment (termed ‘Normalisation” seems very straight forward and could be implemented almost immediately). Perhaps the component only has a certain number of hours of useful life before it should be replaced? This is beyond my expertise, but clearly there is an ongoing issue for the experts at the ATSB to monitor and CASA to determine the most suitable way to enforce 34 a safer aircraft.

[38]. Accordingly I make Recommendations in this regard but I do point out that I consider there does not need to be any wholesale change to this aircraft in its use, simply a better awareness of the tail stabiliser issue, and a practical, costeffective, solution. These types of aircraft are essential equipment for undertaking activities on large rural properties and accordingly should always be available for such. This model merely has a component issue which needs prompt addressing, not wholesale changes to the use of such helicopters.

[39]. It was apparent at this inquest that the tail stabiliser assembly developed cracking despite its re-welding so that is not a solution as the cracks then developed around the welds, some may say simply taking the path of least resistance. Accordingly it is desirable that if any metal fatigue cracking is detected in the tail stabiliser assembly that the item is only replaced. I note that the item is manufactured as a complete unit, and it is simply a “bolt-on/bolt- off” unit, so it is not overly difficult to replace 35, and only a manufacturers original equipment part (hopefully modified in future) should be used.

---

32 Sometimes not visible, but likely present due to ‘working rivets’ where fine black powder appears to bleed from rivet locations, indicating excessive friction and movement is occurring. The ATSB’s letter to owners (see exhibit D1 at page 23) diagrammatically explaining this is commendable.
33 These are merely suggestions for investigation given by an admittedly aviation layman Coroner
34 I appreciate it is an Experimental Category aircraft, and so far lesser restrictions and rules apply, but in the instance of this model Cicare` there clearly is an issue that needs prompt correcting.

---

[40]. The suspected deficiency of its design or manufacture needs to be well broadcast again 36 to users of this particular model Cicare` helicopter. Perhaps the CASA should investigate whether this particular model aircraft should be grounded until a solution found? That is for them to decide.

[41]. Due to the precise solution not yet being known I will refer the matter back to the ATSB for further investigation of this incident together with the one in WA to see what similarities present, and then solutions which are practical and cost effective. I will also refer the issue to CASA as to what action they consider necessary as to date there appears, from the evidence at the inquest, little which has been done by them so far. Accordingly I will make a Recommendation to refer the matter for further investigation and as to determine possible solutions to the ATSB, with an additional referral to CASA for any necessary regulatory action. - P2 with CASA's track record with responding to Coroner's (&/or ATSB) recommendations, I wouldn't be holding my breath Mr Coroner (see PAIN reports - HERE & HERE ). 

[42]. About twelve of these aircraft were delivered in Australia, and forty worldwide, so there are many persons presently flying with the existing deficiency and at risk of a repeat fatal accident.