Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Accidents - Domestic
Point of order M’lud.

“My son kept telling me he saw a falling plane,” she said.

If the wretched, ignored child could ‘see’ an aircraft ‘falling’ – perhaps it was not in cloud –

Did anyone see or hear the total flight time mentioned anywhere? Can’t seem to find it -

The lady speaking to the media on behalf of ATSB seemed like a practical sort; we must hope that she leaves no stone unturned to discover what happened here.

Toot - toot.
Reply
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.
Reply
(07-07-2017, 07:39 PM)kharon Wrote: 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 - Blush

Quote: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
[Image: 8698574-3x2-340x227.png]
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.

Quote:"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... Rolleyes


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
VH-YTM prelim report released - Angel  

Via the ATSB website:
Quote:Preliminary report:
At about 0800 Central Standard Time[1] on 28 June 2017, a SOCATA TB-10 aircraft, registered VH-YTM (YTM), departed Murray Bridge Airport for Mount Gambier Airport, South Australia.

Position and altitude information obtained from OzRunways[2] showed that the aircraft’s inbound path (Figure 1) from Murray Bridge was straight and at an altitude of about 4,500 ft. At about 42 km north-north-west of Mount Gambier Airport, the altitude decreased and there was a significant deviation from the direct route. Several manoeuvres were then made at low altitude in the vicinity of the airport, including a possible attempted landing on runway 36. After a series of low level turns, the aircraft landed on runway 29 at about 1008.

Figure 1: Approach path of VH-YTM showing the initial deviations from the direct flight path on the left, and the series of low level turns prior to landing on runway 29 on the right
[Image: ao2017069_figure-1.jpg?width=463]
Source: Google Earth and OzRunways, annotated by ATSB

The pilot then refuelled the aircraft and boarded two passengers, to conduct a flight to Adelaide arranged by the charity Angel Flight Australia.[3] The flight was to be conducted as a private flight under visual flight rules (VFR).

Witnesses in the vicinity of Mount Gambier Airport reported fog in the area at the time of landing and take-off. Similarly, CCTV footage showed the fog and reduced visibility conditions at the airport at the time of landing and take-off.

OzRunways data (Figure 2) and CCTV footage showed the aircraft took off from runway 24 at about 1020. Just after take-off, YTM veered to the left of the runway, at an altitude of approximately 300 ft above mean sea level (AMSL). The aircraft reached a maximum altitude of about 500 ft, 45 seconds after take-off. The last recorded information, about 65 seconds after take-off, showed the aircraft at an altitude of 400 ft.

A number of witnesses heard a loud bang, consistent with the aircraft’s impact with terrain.

Figure 2: Flight path of VH-YTM after departing runway 24 at Mount Gambier Airport, where each vertical line represents 5 seconds, and an indication of the wreckage location
[Image: figure-2.jpg?width=670&height=447.2292191435768]
Source: Google Earth and OzRunways, annotated by ATSB

Transmissions from the pilot of YTM on approach and take-off were recorded on the common traffic advisory frequency for Mount Gambier Airport. However, no emergency call was recorded. The aircraft was not equipped with a flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder, nor was it required.

Minutes after impact the aircraft was found by witnesses passing the accident site, and emergency services responded to the scene shortly thereafter. The aircraft wreckage was located 212 m south of the last recorded position, just over 2 km from the departure runway (Figure 2). The pilot and two passengers were fatally injured and the aircraft destroyed.

On-site examination of the wreckage and surrounding ground markings (Figure 3) indicated that the aircraft impacted terrain at approximately 30° from vertical, in an inverted attitude. The engine and propeller were located at the initial impact point. The fuselage and remainder of the aircraft had detached from the engine at the firewall, and came to rest in an upright position about 10 m beyond the engine, with the tail and wings attached. The wings had sustained significant impact damage to the leading edge. A strong smell and presence of fuel was evident at the accident site, however there was no evidence of fire. The aircraft did not have an emergency locator transmitter fitted, nor was it required. A portable locator beacon was found in the cockpit, but had not been activated.

Figure 3: Accident site looking north-west, showing the engine and propeller location alongside the left and right wing impact marks, about 10 m from the main wreckage, which is upright and facing in a north-north-easterly direction

[Image: figure-3.jpg?width=670&height=221.4406779661017]
Source: ATSB
Several components and documentation were removed from the accident site for further examination by the ATSB.

The investigation is continuing and will include examination of the following:
  • recovered components and available electronic data
  • aircraft maintenance documentation
  • weather conditions
  • pilot qualifications and experience
  • coordination and planning of the charity flight
  • the use of private flights for the transfer of passengers for non-emergency medical reasons
  • similar occurrences.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
When I saw the accident report, I was surprised.  The flight path shown in the report doesn't quite match the one in post #182, 185, and 194 - there's more to it than what's in the report.  If you look at that flight path, they take off from the runway, make a huge right turn to the town south of the airport, then head back towards the airport, whereas the ATSB path has them taking off then crashing almost immediately.

This is the image of the FR24 flightpath from the day of the accident..
[Image: qWMX8yy.jpg]

And this is the image of the ATSB flightpath from the report..
[Image: QUyo4lk.jpg]

As they say in the ads.....compare the pair..

Spot On Mr PB,-  agreed.  -("K").
Reply
730 report tonight: - Confused

Quote:Father demands aviation regulator CASA 'get off its butt' after second fatal Angel Flight crash

7.30
By Angelique Donnellan

Tue 25 Jul 2017, 10:10pm         
r videos
Video: Father demands safety be improved after second fatal Angel Flight crash (7.30)

A man left devastated after his wife and daughter were killed in an Angel Flight crash in 2011 is demanding safety be improved after a second fatal Angel Flight accident last month.

Key points:
  • Angel Flight co-ordinates free flights for country patients for non-emergency medical treatment
  • Two fatal crashes involving Angel Flight journeys in the last 6 years
  • Charity's flights not covered by CASA's commercial regulations because they are private
  • Father of girl killed in an Angel Flight crash calls for consistent regulation of charity flights
Len Twigg said the latest crash had brought back horrible memories of when his wife Julie and 15-year-old daughter Jacinda died six years ago.

Jacinda Twigg was being treated for juvenile arthritis in Melbourne but on a return Angel Flight to Nhill, in country Victoria, the plane came down.

Pilot Don Kernot also died.

An investigation found low cloud, rain and fading light made the pilot disorientated and lose control.

"I was diagnosed with PTSD pretty early on, severe depression," Mr Twigg told 7.30.

"I can understand why some people would choose not to be here anymore, how they couldn't deal with it, but I've got three other beautiful kids and I wouldn't do that to them."
[Image: 8723794-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Jacinda and Julie Twigg in Melbourne just before they boarded the doomed Angel Flight in 2011 (Supplied: Len Twigg)

Mr Twigg could not believe it when he heard that another Angel Flight had crashed in South Australia's south-east last month.

Emily Redding, 16, her 43-year-old mother Tracy and volunteer pilot Grant Gilbert all died.

Emily had anorexia and was using Angel Flight to get to a medical appointment in Adelaide.

"It certainly rekindled everything," Mr Twigg said.

"Then I saw the photos and I saw the photo of the mum and the daughter and the first thing I thought of was, 'Oh, my God, she's a redhead too.' How can that be possible?"
"[It] shouldn't happen once. It certainly shouldn't happen twice."

A preliminary investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has found the plane crashed just over a minute after take-off and hit the ground almost vertically.
'CASA needs to get off its butt'

[Image: 8723790-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Jacinda and Julie Twigg died when their Angel Flight crashed near Horsham in 2011. (ABC News)

Angel Flight is a much loved service for regional communities and last year organised more than 3,000 flights for free to city medical appointments.

But it is not an aviation organisation which means journeys are taken as private flights.
The charity merely organises the trips by connecting patients with pilots who volunteer their time and their planes. Different safety standards apply when compared with commercial passenger flights.

Mr Twigg said the charity flight sector needed to be regulated.

"Angel Flight, it's a fantastic organisation, don't get me wrong, it is the best organisation and they do so much for so many people," he said.

"But how can they not be responsible for this?

Quote:"CASA (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) needs to seriously get off its butt and do something. There has to be stricter guidelines.

"Angel Flight cannot just sign someone up just because they put their hand up and they've got an aeroplane and they're prepared to pay the fuel and volunteer their time; they have to be scrutineered."

Angel Flight declined an interview but said responsibility for its volunteer pilots rested with CASA.

Angel Flight chief executive officer Marjorie Pagani stated the charity, in facilitating private flights by volunteers, "relies wholly upon CASA's licensing, checking and training role, and the authorisations it issues to pilots".

In 2014 CASA tried to change the way charity flights operate. It proposed they become more directly responsible for pilots, their training and proficiency.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the proposal was shelved in the face of opposition, including from Angel Flight, which said the changes would be too costly.

"We had in excess of 60-odd submissions to the discussion and overwhelmingly they were against any change," he told 7.30.

But he concedes the latest accident has forced a rethink.

"We don't have the accident investigation report in front of us, that has collected all the data from that accident, done the analysis, looked at all the causal factors," he said.

"When we've all got that, if someone can look at that and say, 'CASA you're at fault', then OK, that'll be a fair discussion to have."

'I got $40,000. That's all my wife and daughter were worth'

[Image: 8723798-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Len Twigg (centre), with his other children Jess (left), and Michael Twigg (right). (ABC News: Angelique Donnellan)

Mr Twigg pursued compensation over his wife and daughter's deaths but said the legal battle caused him more trauma.

As the flight was classed as a private journey, the only claim Mr Twigg could pursue was through the pilot's insurer.

"The insurance policy was worded that if you survived the accident you had a claim, if you were struck by a piece of the aeroplane at the accident site you had a claim, but as a third party there was nothing," he said.

Quote:"In the end I got $40,000. That's all my wife and daughter were worth."

He offered this advice to the family left devastated by the latest Angel Flight crash.
"First thing to do, get in touch with a lawyer and caveat everything of the pilots, everything he owns, so it can't be sold," he said.

"If someone had said that to me I would have said, 'don't be stupid, why would I want to do that?'

"Do it. You can't not think of yourself, you have to think of you, your family, your kids and the future."


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
A Bilious Confection.

It is not very often that an urge to defend CASA surfaces; quite rare in fact, novel even, however. The story above, from the ABC smacks of the gutter press and unfairly criticises CASA. Gods know, there is plenty of ammunition, targets and scope for pot shots at CASA but I fail, utterly, to see what CASA could have done more to prevent either accident.

VFR into IMC, engine failures, carburettor ice, loud cloud and high ground and the rest of the long list of potential killers and a pilots response to same are totally and completely, beyond, their control.  The standards CASA set for the various grades of pilot qualification are within the boundaries of international standards, the medical condition set for pilots are definitely wrong but they err on the side of caution, the maintenance of aircraft and the requirements for flight all reflect the same cautious approach. In short; CASA have made rules which are designed to prevent, as far as possible, any accident or incident. These rules govern all aircraft operations, Angel Flight and their volunteer pilots included.  

The AF pilots operate under Private Pilot Licence regime; the Australian standard is comparable to the rest of the worlds. In my experience, our PPL holders fly for the sake of it, they enjoy flying and have enthusiasm for learning more and gathering experience. Compare the PPL to motor vehicle licences. Not everyone needs to hold a heavy vehicle licence and drive for a living but almost every adult has a driving licence; this does not mean they are incapable of driving a big rig – just simply means they have no need to. Same as PPL, nothing to say they could not fly a Jumbo, given opportunity and training.

Taking a slap at CASA, the quality of our PPL’s, Angel Flight or even the system on either accident is unreasonable, especially so when the cause of the accident has not been determined.

I will however take a shot at the erstwhile Mr Twigg – if he feels that he is due more compensation then he is free to argue his case in the courts. No easy task I’ll grant you, but that is the system – Karen Casey challenged it and proved, categorically just how pathetic and venal the compensation system for victims of air accident is. But attacking CASA, Angel Flight or the pilots in this manner is not the way to acquire the funds or support Twigg seems to feel he is entitled to. Emotive appeals of this nature, through the media for more money leave me stone cold. Others seek to prevent accidents reoccurring, others seek to define the reasons  for accident, many grieve, many are left behind to wonder. But none that I know of have turned an interview into a ‘poor me – give me more money’ opportunity; yet they all suffer. From Lockhart to Canley Vale; not one single poor soul who has lost a loved one has made such a naked appeal. The system is flawed, we all know that, changing it a long, weary battle; one may either help or get off the paddock – but whining from the side-lines – is for spectators who live vicariously through the efforts of others, then go home.

Toot - toot.
Reply
"A Bilious Confection."

"K" I wholeheartedly agree. The person winging about his lack of compensation loses sight of why his loved ones were on an Angel Flight in the first place.
A little trawl though Google reveals that Angel Flight and its associates in the USA is a huge organisation completing many more missions per year than Australia could dream of, all under the same formula.

The difference I note is that almost 80% of US private pilots hold instrument ratings, compared with about 20% in Australia, now why would this be??

Does holding an instrument qualification go a long way to mitigating a lot of these VFR into IFR accidents?

The lack of instrument qualification in Australia wouldn't be because of our inane regulations and ridiculous "recency" requirements which make it so expensive to obtain that qualification and maintain it that many of our PPL brethren simply forgo that skill as too onerous and costly? We do, after all, have the most benign weather in the world so why bother?

Tens of Thousands of Angel Flight missions completed in the USA, one accident that I can find, against Australia two.

But hang on Australia is the safest country in the world isn't it? or is it just the most expensive? you choose.

The sad thing is this sort of emotional clap trap, sensationally promoted by the ABC could so easily provoke a knee jerk reaction from our dumb ass regulator and the whole concept of Angel Flight regulated out of existence.

If that was to occur it would be interesting to see the Stats on the number of road kill caused, or the number of people
who's health and wellbeing was compromised by the inability to attend timely access to specialist treatment.

Angel Flight is a true Charity, unlike those corporations masquerading as charities that snorkel up vast amounts of taxpayer dollars and bid for commercial contracts with the advantage over commercial operators of paying no tax, not even GST. It would be very sad to see Care Flight become commercialised.
Reply
Full report here, and watch the video of the story..

Quote:Pilot and trainee fighting for life after light plane crash in Melbourne

A pilot and learner pilot are in a critical condition after the light plane they were flying crashed during a training session in Melbourne.

Crews were called to Pound Road in Clyde North just after 10.30am after witnesses reported seeing smoke come from the plane.

Witnesses said it appeared the pilot was looking for a place to land, before signalling a mayday call and crashing into a paddock.

Firefighters had to cut the pair out of the wreckage, with one of the men, aged in his 20s, trapped for hours. He was eventually freed, suffering serious neck, chest and back injuries, and was flown to The Alfred Hospital.

The other man was airlifted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital in a critical condition.

Both men remain in a critical condition this evening.

The Bristol [sic] single-engine aircraft was operated out of Moorabbin by Learn to Fly Melbourne.

One thing I noted from the video was "their full report into what caused the crash could take six months"....but I guess we're talking RA-Aus, and not the ATSB, given the ATSB will only get involved if there are fatalities.

EDIT: Sadly, the young (19 yo) student pilot passed away yesterday afternoon.
Reply
....and this..

Quote:Two Qantas flights return to Sydney after engineering issues

TWO international Qantas flights have been forced to turn back to Sydney due to “engineering issues”.
Reports suggest the Qantas flight A380 QF7 was dumping fuel off the coast.
It departed Sydney for Dallas/Fort worth about 1.40pm.
There are also reports Qantas flight QF63, from Sydney to Johannesburg, has also returned to Sydney.
The QF63 flight landed safely back at the gate at Sydney just before 3.30pm and the QF7 flight was dumping fuel for about 35 minutes. The QF7 flight was circling out in the Tasman Sea east of Wollongong but has now landed at Sydney airport.
Footage of the Qantas jet dumping fuel above Sydney was sent to news.com.au.

The QF63 flight had a crack in the windshield. QF63 passenger Jackson Reynolds said on Twitter there was an issue with the heating mechanism, which caused the crack.
A Qantas customers are also complaining on Twitter about another flight, QF23, which maintenance crews have been fixing for five hours. The issue with that aircraft is unknown.
Qantas said in a statement flight QF7 was also suffering from a mechanical issue.

“The flaps on the aircraft (which are attached to the wing) are unable to retract which means the aircraft can’t fly efficiently," the statement said.
“As the Dallas flight is our longest on the network, the captain made the decision to return to Sydney.
“The aircraft – an Airbus A380 – is expected to land at around 4pm Sydney time where it will be inspected by engineers.
“A second flight, Qantas flight QF63 from Johannesburg to Sydney also needed to return to Sydney due to an engineering issue.
“This aircraft has landed safely. It is a Boeing 747-400 and has an unrelated issue to the QF7.
“Our operational teams are working through accommodating passengers or offering them transport home before replacement services are organised.”

The latest incident comes after a Qantas flight was forced to land in June after it was dumping fuel at sea.
A Melbourne woman on the Los Angeles-bound flight QF93, which diverted to Sydney said the crew made the decision to turn around.
Jessica McCallum, 29, praised Qantas crew for their handling of the situation, after an emergency light came on in the cockpit of the A380 about an hour into the flight.
“A staff member came over toward our row and asked the people in front if they would mind if they had a look at the engine outside the window,” she told news.com.au while still sitting in her seat on the tarmac at Sydney Airport.
“He then rushed off and we didn’t hear anything for a while.
“We were then told about the oil leak affecting the second engine on the left side.
“We were told we would divert to Sydney and land in 25 minutes.
“We were circling around for ages until the pilot could get the centre of gravity of the plane level just so we could land safely.”
In December 2014 a Qantas flight made an emergency landing in Perth after the plane’s air conditioning failed.
It was put into an emergency descent while travelling at some 39,000 feet, eventually levelling out at about 10,000 feet, in order to maintain internal air pressure.
Reply
Angel Flight oversight to be reviewed - Angel

By Meredith Booth via the Oz:

Quote:
Quote:[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5WL0nDdi1OX8Jf2HOsh5...6lTARtktlQ]


CASA to re-examine charity flight standard

The Australian 8h ago

Two fatal Angel Flights in six years have prompted Australia’s civil aviation safety regulator to re-examine standards for community service flight providers.

The review was prompted by the June 28 crash of an Angel Flight near Mount Gambier airport that killed private pilot Grant Gilbert, 78 and his passengers Emily Redding, 16, and her mother Tracy Redding, 43 who were on their way to a medical appointment in Adelaide.

It was the second doomed Angel Flight, after experienced volunteer pilot Don Kernot and passengers Julie and Jacinda Twigg, died in August 2011 when their plane crashed in country Victoria on a return flight from Melbourne to Nhill.

Jacinda, 15, was being treated for juvenile arthritis in Melbourne and was returning to her home near Nhill, when the plane came down in poor weather.

Angel Flight Australia is a charity that co-ordinates non-emergency flights to help rural Australians to access city medical services, providing almost 22,000 flights since 2003.

Prompted by the 2011 crash, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority toughened regulations for the sector in 2014, saying the status quo, where any aircraft could be used by any privately licensed pilot, was not “sound safety regulation”. Although it pushed for the charity to self-regulate — including overseeing pilot training, regular pilot checks and aircraft approvals — strong resistance from Angel Flight and its regional supporters prompted any proposed changes to be shelved.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said the discussion was now being revisited. “CASA is looking at the safety issues relating to community service flights in the wake of the tragic accident at Mount Gambier,” he said. “However, given the (Air Transport Safety Bureau’s) full analysis will not be available for some months, it is too early to comment on the accident itself or any factors that may have caused the accident.

“As a prudent regulator, CASA always reviews safety issues following serious accidents.”

Angel Flight chief executive Marjorie Pagani said the charity already sought stronger-than-­required CASA standards for its volunteer pilots, including at least 250 hours in command experience. Any changes to regulations on community service flights was the responsibility of CASA.

“We’re happy to co-operate with CASA and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau,” Ms ­Pagani said. “We have 3200 registered pilots; five to six times more than CASA requires for private pilots in a private flight, all documents are checked including current insurance and $10m public liability. We cant do anything but rely on CASA’s standards.’’

The Nhill pilot, Mr Kernot, had 6000 hours in command and Mr Gilbert had “well in excess” of 250 hours.

Ms Pagani said the Mr Gambier crash had not damaged Angel Flight’s reputation. “The support that we had from people in the community, from the passengers from pilots has been nothing short of amazing. The general tenor is this is a tragedy, but please don’t stop,’’ she said.

ATSB’s full report on the Mount Gambier crash is expected by the middle of next year.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Worth a read.
"Generating Revenue from Commercial Development On or Adjacent to Airports"
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24863/genera...o-airports

https://www.nap.edu/download/24863?utm_s...1cbc5ebe93
Reply
ATSB release Jetstar tail strike incident report - Rolleyes

Via the ATSB: AO-2016-046

Quote:What happened

On 11 May 2016, an Airbus A320-232, registered VH-VGF (VGF) and operated by Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd was taking off on runway 27 at Melbourne Airport, Victoria. The flight crew consisted of a training captain in the left seat, a cadet pilot in the right seat and a safety pilot, who was also the first officer, in the jump-seat. This was the cadet pilot’s first takeoff as pilot flying. During rotation, the tail of the aircraft contacted the runway surface.

After takeoff, the cadet pilot realised that the pitch rate during rotation was higher than normal and discussed this with the captain. During the climb, the cabin crew discussed hearing an unusual noise during the takeoff rotation with the captain. Due to the higher than normal rotation rate and the noise heard by the cabin crew, the captain elected to stop the climb and return to Melbourne. The first officer swapped seats with the cadet pilot and the aircraft landed uneventfully on runway 27.

What the ATSB found

The ATSB found that during rotation, the cadet pilot applied a larger than normal sidestick pitch input resulting in a higher than normal pitch rate. The tail of the aircraft contacted the runway surface resulting in damage to the auxiliary power unit (APU) diverter and APU drain mast. While airborne, the crew did not specifically advise air traffic control (ATC) of the possibility that a tail strike had occurred during takeoff.

What's been done as a result

The cadet pilot undertook additional training and assessment before returning to flight duties. Soon after the event, the operator circulated a newsletter to their A320 flight crew highlighting the need to inform ATC of a suspected tail strike or any potential failure resulting in damage/debris.

Safety message

Good communication from the cabin crew alerted the flight crew that a tail strike may have occurred. The climb was stopped and a timely decision to return to Melbourne was taken which minimised the potential risk from damage caused by a tail strike.
It is important to notify ATC of a possible tail strike as soon as operationally suitable. When a potential tail strike has been reported, ATC restricts operations on the affected runway and arranges that a runway inspection is carried out to identify any runway damage or aircraft debris
& from News.com.au:
Quote:Jetstar plane tail hits runway on cadet pilot’s first takeoff

A JETSTAR flight carrying 134 people from Melbourne to Hobart was forced to turn around after the cadet’s first takeoff went horribly wrong.
[Image: lauren-mcmah.png]
Lauren McMah

September 4, 2017 2:49pm
[Image: dfcd52442d8f526f217fc594293bf11e]
A Jetstar flight from Melbourne to Hobart was forced to turn around after the plane’s tail struck the runway. (File image). Picture: Brad Hunter

A JETSTAR flight with 134 people on board had to turn back to Melbourne after the plane’s tail hit the runway during the learner pilot’s first takeoff.

The Hobart-bound A320 took off from Melbourne Airport on May 11 last year but was forced to return to the runway after the tail strike and when cabin crew heard unusual noises during the plane’s climb, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said in a report handed down today.

The bureau found good communication among the cabin crew and flight crew meant the flight could return quickly and without risk of damage.

But the flight crew did not tell air traffic control about the tail strike as it should have, the report said.

In its investigation into the incident, the ATSB found the 2.49pm flight took off from runway 27 with a cadet pilot, a training captain and safety pilot in the cockpit.

[Image: 7e120f5225610dbcc0e96a9d6894576c]
There was some damage to the tail of the A320. Picture: Australian Transport Safety Bureau

The cadet pilot had a commercial pilot license and had completed all Civil Aviation Safety Authority training to be qualified to fly an A320. It was their first takeoff as pilot flying.

While the plane was climbing, the cadet pilot and the captain discussed how the pitch rate was higher than normal. This high pitch rate resulted in a high rotation rate during takeoff, which caused the aircraft’s tail to hit the runway, the ATSB said.

“Later, during the climb, the cabin crew alerted the captain to unusual noises during rotation,” the report said.

“As a result, the captain elected to stop the climb and return to Melbourne. The first officer also swapped seats with the cadet pilot.”

The plane landed without incident at 3.23pm and some damage consistent with a tail strike was found.

The cadet pilot undertook additional training and assessment before returning to flight duties.

[Image: d1914b6388964a269785b319ddca64e8]
Damage to aircraft tail section (circled). Picture: Australian Transport Safety Bureau

ATSB said while the plane’s crew handled the situation well, the potential tail strike “was not adequately communicated to Melbourne air traffic control”.

“This delayed checking the runway for aircraft debris,” the bureau said.

In a statement to news.com.au, a Jetstar spokesman said: “The experienced captain and trainer pilot handled this extremely well and with the help of cabin crew ensured the aircraft returned to Melbourne Airport without further incident.

“The pilot involved was taken off flying duties while he underwent additional simulator training and assessments and after successfully passing this training returned to flying and has operated since without further incident.

“There was no structural damage to the aircraft and it returned to service shortly after.
“We use incidents to further improve the safety of our operation and soon after the event, we reminded our pilots of the importance of alerting air traffic control of a potential tail strike.”


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
There are far too many tail strike incidents happening regularly all over the world, some serious. Something is fundamentally wrong, deep down, which needs to be identified, and fixed.

In the mean time, perhaps we should be putting Tiger Moth skids back on jets, with a sensor, to alert the crew when they have been used, along with an automated immediate acars message with a special code, which the ground network immediately decodes, and flashes it up in red on the airline's maintenance monitoring system. Moreover, the delay (with 90 second runway operations these days) in advising ATC, and indeed possibly not advising them at all, could result in catastrophy one day, if there is debris.

So, the ACARS ground processing system should simultaneously direct the unique (to be assigned) tailstrike message to the control tower (which would obviously need to be "plugged into the system") so that the safety of following aircraft, either landing or taking off, is not compromised, by possible unknown debris. An even better idea, would be to build it into the Mode S message stream as well.
Reply
Sounds de jour. - Groan, ‘thunk’ (report hits bin).

Radical thoughts there “V”. Probably good solid sense and ‘do-able’ but whenever I read that sort of suggestion the ‘history’ channel lights up; the episode that immediately comes to mind is one from back in the earlies, when ‘commercial’ air transport was developing in the USA. There was a helluva battle between the pilots and the operators to get ‘nav lights’ fitted; it got serious, took a long while and (from memory) took government interference to make it happen. The battle lines between what aircrew believe they need and what management is prepared to pay for is an ancient game. Take the fatigue rules for example; or the OTP pressures, fuel uplift pressures etc.  A long winded way of saying good idea on its way to the archives.

Tail strikes do happen, there are some very good analysis available as to ‘why’. The offering from ‘Sky Library’ is technical enough for general use and provides a sound base for avoidance training; there are better, more detailed, technical volumes available, but for one to understand ‘what’ is involved at a base level the SL version is a good as any. Pity the ATSB investigators have not read it.  

What we have from the ATSB is a highly ‘judgemental’ report, singing the praises of the cabin and flight deck crew, particularly their ‘communications’ skills. Which is a load of subjective, feel-good bollocks. What we don’t have from ATSB is detailed analysis of ‘why’ the strike occurred:-

“The ATSB found that during rotation, the cadet pilot applied a larger than normal side-stick pitch input resulting in a higher than normal pitch rate.”

No! - Really? - Hoodathunkit.  A ‘cadet’ over pitching the airframe. I could swallow a newly minted, but fully qualified FO banging the airframe about – with some of the ‘standard’ reasons for that occurring explained, it becomes acceptable. But WTD is a ‘cadet’ doing out of the sim centre operating a live revenue flight?  It the cadet’ was qualified then why not call it the FO (even under supervision). Why could the PIC not put a steadying hand on the side-stick to prevent the over pitch – we’ve all done it – the nose rears up and the steadying hand acting as a buffer to prevent enthusiasm turning to disaster. You would not consider doing this with a qualified, clear to line operations FO, but with a ‘cadet’ – you’d be watching like a hawk on a mouse. (Oh, it was an Airbus, then things are different; no matter). Unless of course, the use of the word ‘cadet’ is misleading in this instance; even so, ATSB should have qualified the definition, to avoid confusion and perhaps mentioned the Airbus control system.  

The ‘safety message’ is valueless, vague, judgemental and avoids the real issues; or, as TOM would say – ‘ducking useless, of neither practical nor intrinsic value, except to the spin doctors telling the public just how safe they all are’.

Toot – toot.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)