Accidents - Overseas
If; and I do say IF, the aircraft was shaking so badly that it (allegedly) threw a hydraulic pump (vibrating so badly as to sheer the studs or loosen the nuts) then the very least of the problems would be a marginally ‘overweight’ landing at Learmonth. Honestly; we have to question, yet again, who was actually in command. The loss of a hydraulic pump – due to vibration – would, I hope, be noticed by the Airbus ‘electronic’ control (hint).

But, as they say in the classics – you were not in the saddle, holding the reins. I expect we’ll have to wait the mandatory three years for the ATSB to get off it’s collective; provided the politics of safety don’t get ruffled – again.

You’ve all heard the one about a King who’s son wanted a cowboy outfit for Christmas – and the king bought him a low cost carrier.
Reply
LCC & the inevitable (or not) big bang??

Via the other Aunty's Triple J hack... Wink :

Quote:[Image: 8653634-16x9-large.jpg?v=2][Image: 8653634-16x9-large.jpg?v=2]
The cost of budget: Is it safe to fly cheap?

Posted Mon 26 Jun 2017, 7:43pm
Updated Mon 26 Jun 2017, 8:01pm

It all works perfectly until it doesn't. Everything is fine until it's not. Plane flights are routine until the cabins starts shaking like a washing machine. That's when you start to pay attention.

The captain comes on: "Our survival depends on you cooperating".

On Sunday, passengers on board an AirAsia X flight from Perth to Kuala Lumpur heard a loud bang and then felt the plane begin to shudder. It shuddered all the way back to Perth - one-and-a-half hours. According to some, the captain urged passengers to "say a prayer".

[Image: 8650194-16x9-large.jpg?v=2]
Damos Stevens said the flight was 'nerve-wracking'.

They got home safely, many of them exhausted from shock, and walked out past passengers lining up to get on other scheduled Air Asia flights. The terror of the experience didn't seem to be contagious. At least one passenger of another flight on the same airline thought their misfortune actually made his flight safer: the chances of it happening again so quickly would be rare.

That's not quite logical (it would make sense to more concerned about your flight), but then what is logical about our risk assessment of cheap travel?

Can we really expect tickets to be so cheap, and get cheaper, and flying to remain safe?
The bigger question: are we ignoring the real cost of flying budget?

The stats show flying is safer than ever, yet aviation experts have been warning for years of declining maintenance standards, as carriers look to cut costs.

They point to a series of near misses and say a major crash is inevitable.

Everything is fine until it's not. That's the lesson of Professor Michael Quinlan at UNSW's School of Management - a lead investigator into the Beaconsfield mine collapse.

"Normally with these things it takes about three disasters before any action happens," he told Hack.

"This will happen with aviation outsourcing and maintenance."

"When a number of planes drop out of sky - that action will happen."

"What we're getting is near misses."

What do the stats show?

Air travel has become cheaper and safer. The rate of accidents has been falling since about 1980, and continued to fall even as low-cost airlines took off. Despite terrorism or MH370-type mysteries, going by air is safer than going by bus.

According to the International Air Transport Association's 2009 data, a person could fly every day for 3,859 years without being involved in an accident.

There's also no clear relationship between ticket price and safety. The safest airlines tend to be the more expensive carriers, but many low-cost airlines have excellent safety records.

A few airlines tend to pop up across all the safety rankings: Qantas, Air New Zealand, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, Etihad, EVA Air, KLM, Japan Airlines, Lufthansa.

Germany's Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre (JACDEC) recently published a list of the world's safest airlines. Some low-cost airlines did better than some 'legacy' national carriers: EasyJet was 28th, AirAsia was 29th, RyanAir was 34th. Air France was 42nd.

There are also lots of carriers with bad safety records, including many that have been banned from Europe. It's a good idea to keep an eye on these. They include about 60 carriers from Indonesia as well as many from Angola, Congo, Gabon, Nepal and Sudan. The issue here isn't low-cost airlines versus 'legacy' national carriers - it's the competency of the national regulator.

For example, our Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is unlikely to approve a Gira Globo Angolan airlines route from Luanda to Perth.

ATSB has five ongoing investigations of incidents involving AirAsia (including the one from Sunday), which may sound like a lot, and has been widely reported, but it also has four ongoing investigations of incidents involving Qantas (and several more involving QantasLink).

So what's the problem?

Fewer crashes doesn't necessarily mean safety standards have improved - it could mean the planes are just getting better and more reliable.

This issue was raised in a 2015 report on the trend of Australian airlines outsourcing their maintenance overseas. Over the last decade, Australian carriers have had to cut costs to compete with the arrival of foreign carriers, including the Malaysia-based AirAsia. Chances are your next flight will be on a plane that's been serviced in Singapore, the Philippines or Hong Kong.

The report's authors included Professor Quinlan as well as Sarah Gregson, also with UNSW's business school, who told Hack there was a degree of crash-fatalism among the Australian aircraft maintenance engineers she surveyed in 2012-13.

"Quite a few said phrases like 'when the big one happens'," she said.

"'When one hits the deck'."

They think it's only a matter of time."

Dr Gregson said there was a significant recurring theme of concern that safety was being compromised in order to cut costs.

One worker wrote:

"The safety of Australian airlines is being driven by accountants with no idea of aviation safety".

Another said:

"The only way the accountants begin to start training and spending money back on the frontline is when one hits the deck. Let's hope none of us sign out that one."

An engineer wrote:

"If the public and the government are willing to accept $70 one way fares on a $3 million aircraft then they must also accept that aircraft maintenance will be done on a similar cost structure."

'There are worrying trends'

In the past, industry executives have dismissed these kinds of concerns as "playing the safety card as a tool of industrial relations". As they point out, outsourcing maintenance hasn't changed the most important stat: the rate of accidents keeps going down.

But the problem with this, as Professor Quinlan points out, is that a single aviation accident can cost hundreds of lives. It only needs to go wrong once.

The AirAsia plane that crashed into the Java Sea in 2014, killing all on board, made 78 trips between Perth and Bali with a mechanical fault in the 12 months leading up to the tragedy.

Steven Re, trustee of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, a union representing aircraft maintenance engineers, told Hack "there's a limit to how far you can reduce airfares until you start eating into the safety barrier.

" You get what you pay for."

Sarah Gregson said the outsourcing of maintenance had made it hard for the Australian regulator to ensure a minimum standard. It had shifted the burden of regulatory oversight from the regulator to the airline, which also wants to save money.

"Because of national borders we don't necessarily have the regulatory oversight to look and tell what goes on in some operations," Dr Gregson said.

"No doubt the production quality of planes has improved - but there's an overconfidence there'll never be mechanical failures in planes with such high quality."

"There are worrying trends."

We don't know if these broader concerns relate to the Air Asia X flight, because we don't know what went wrong, or the chain of events that led up to what went wrong. It could be a maintenance issue, or pilot error, or freak accident. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has begun investigating and will report back within "several months".

Whatever the outcome, it would be a mistake to focus on one airline, as the trends of cost-cutting happen across the whole industry.

AirAsia X said it was investigating the cause "together with our engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce" and was cooperating with aviation authorities.

"We would like to stress that AirAsia Group has always strictly followed the maintenance programme prescribed by our manufacturers," the company said.

"We have also complied with all regulations and requirements as set forth by every country where the airline operates, including Australia."

The ATSB has the power to make a recommendation to CASA, which enforces the regulations and decides which airlines can operate in Australia. A CASA spokesman said there was no correlation between lower safety and lower cost as the same rules applied to all carriers.

Professor Quinlan said if the Sunday incident is traced back to a maintenance issue, it should trigger a rigorous audit from CASA.

"It's just a matter of time until planes fall out of the sky," he said.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
These from Twitter.


.jpg   Flight.jpg (Size: 15.92 KB / Downloads: 53) ‏ @flightorg

Re Sunday's #AirAsia #Airbus A330-300 (registration 9M-XXE) Flight D7237 incident, attached are two photos showing damage.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=353]

[Image: attachment.php?aid=354]


.jpg   Blade-1.jpg (Size: 109.35 KB / Downloads: 51)
.jpg   Blade-2.jpg (Size: 91 KB / Downloads: 52)
Reply
OUCH!! that won't buff out!
Reply
Hoodoo voodoo on Air Asia X - Confused

For the wrong reasons AAX is in the news again, via news.com.au:

Quote:
AirAsia flight turned back to Australia after suspected bird strike



July 4, 20176:10am

[Image: 3b3c20a2fd66044fa78ea14fe509c3a9]
An AirAsia X flight from the Gold Coast was forced to divert to Brisbane on its way to Malaysia. Picture: Facebook/Calvin Boon

Staff writers News Corp Australia Network

AN AIRASIA X flight bound for Malaysia has been forced to land in Brisbane after a suspected bird strike, with terrified passengers saying they saw sparks coming from the engine.

Flight D7207 took off from the Gold Coast, bound for Kuala Lumpur, at 10.20pm last night but landed in Brisbane at 11.33pm following a mid-air emergency. The 345 passengers and 14 crew on board were not injured.

Passenger Tim Joga, 31, told Fairfax Media the aircraft began vibrating just minutes after takeoff.

“The plane started shuddering then there were a couple of loud bangs and a lot of light,” he said.

Newlywed Malissa Siaea, making her way to Thailand with her husband, said the plane was “making funny noises when we were getting ready for takeoff”.

“About 20 minutes into the flight fire sparked out of the right-side engine,” she told Fairfax Media. “Then the plane swooped a little bit and started shaking badly.”

She said a number of passengers didn’t even know there was a problem until a man yelled out: “What the heck is happening?”

Another passenger, Calvin Boon, posted a video of the plane after it landed safely at Brisbane Airport. He thanked the AirAsia X flight captain and crew for their handling of the incident.

Quote:Air Asia X #D7207 Gold Coast-Kuala Lumpur (A330 9M-XXT) diverted to Brisbane at 1310UT today with engine trouble: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/kl-bound-airasia-x-flight-diverted-to-brisbane-after-engine-problems-mid-fl …pic.twitter.com/TBzpfeTWhh
[Image: DD0_h6QXUAAp9Dp.jpg]
[Image: DD0_h6DWAAcQGgd.jpg]
3

The budget airline blamed a “suspected bird strike” for the mid-air emergency.

“AirAsia X Flight D7 207 bound for Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia was diverted after experiencing a suspected bird strike to its starboard engine,” the embattled airline said in a statement. “Two bird remains were found on the runway.”

AirAsia X CEO Benyamin Ismail said all passengers would be flown to Kuala Lumpur as soon as possible.

“We are following all regulatory guidelines to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our guests,” he said in the statement.

“We would like to commend our pilot and crew members for their professionalism and swift action to reassure passengers who were on board flight D7 207 and to land the aircraft safely in Brisbane airport.”

Mr Joga said he heard about “four or five bangs” before seeing flames shooting out from the engine. “I could see an orange light coming from the windows,” he said.

It comes less than a week after the pilot of a stricken AirAsia X plane told passengers to “say a prayer” after an engine issue forced the A330 to return to Perth.

Passengers on Flight D7237, en route to Kuala Lumpur, told how they heard a bang and looked out the window to see the left engine vibrating violently under the wing.

The aircraft started shuddering and a strong engine smell wafted through the cabin for a couple of minutes before the pilot went back to Perth Airport.

With terrified passengers in the “brace position”, the aircraft landed safely at 10am, three hours after it had initially departed.

The incident is being investigated.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Are we being targeted by ‘the birds’? Does there seem to be an increase in strikes; or am I just ‘droning’ on.





Toot – Shhh – toot.
Reply
(07-04-2017, 08:44 AM)kharon Wrote: Are we being targeted by ‘the birds’? Does there seem to be an increase in strikes; or am I just ‘droning’ on.





Toot – Shhh – toot.

Follow up - Rolleyes

Via the other Aunty... Wink :
Quote:Bird strikes: Two flights from Queensland grounded after impact by birds
By Melanie Vujkovic
Updated Tue at 6:58pmTue 4 Jul 2017, 6:58pm

Video: Bird strike grounds two planes in 24 hours (ABC News)

A Virgin Australia plane bound for Proserpine has become the second Queensland flight in 24 hours to be turned around due to a suspected bird strike.

Virgin Australia confirmed flight VA1117 from Brisbane was struck by a bird on Tuesday afternoon, shortly after take-off.

It comes after an AirAsia X plane made an emergency landing at Brisbane Airport late Monday night, with the airline also blaming a bird strike for damaging the engine.

In a statement, a Virgin Australia spokesperson said the pilot decided to return the plane to Brisbane Airport as a precautionary measure.

"In line with standard operating procedures, the aircraft has been reviewed by engineers," he said.

Video: AirAsia flight lands in Brisbane after bird strike (ABC News)

It is understood the bird did not make contact with the engine, but may have hit the windscreen.

Passengers were placed onto another service and the aircraft has been cleared for service.

The AirAsia X incident happened shortly after the Kuala Lumpur-bound flight took off from the Gold Coast about 10:20pm.

"Two bird remains were found on the runway," the airline said in a statement.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it was investigating the AirAsia X plane's engine failure, but was not investigating the landing of the Virgin Australia flight.
A report released by the ATSB in February this year found the level of bird strikes in high capacity operations have increased dramatically in 2014-15.

The largest increases were found in Cairns, Canberra, Darwin Sydney and the Gold Coast.
Strategic Aviation Solutions chairman Neil Hansford, who consults with commercial airlines and airports, said the explanation from AirAsia X was suspicious, especially when airports spend large amounts of money to keep birds away from the air strip.

Many passengers recalled the plane vibrating more than normal before the take-off.

"When it tried to take off, the engine rattled a lot. It rattled more than usual. And I was sitting with Eric and we were like, something's wrong," passenger Calvin Boon said.

Phil Shaw from Avisure, the company contracted to keep birds away from Gold Coast Airport, said remnants of a bird had been found on the runway.

"There [are] remnants found on the runway, from the evidence so far it would suggest it is very likely to be a bird strike of some sort."

[Image: 8676900-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: ChooHooi Lim, Mr Boon, Sam Boon, Jack Tan, Jin Kwang Ow Yong (from LtR) were on their way home after competing in a marathon. (ABC News: Melanie Vujkovic)

Dear Minister Chester - TICK..TICK..TICK..TICK... Big Grin



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Scarecrows and bird-pooh.

I wondered, who pays for the services of the airport scarecrows? The reason being that ‘the expense’ of this operational necessity is often mentioned in despatches.

ABC [Phil Shaw] from Avisure, the company contracted to keep birds away from Gold Coast Airport, said remnants of a bird had been found on the runway.”

Seems as though the operators of Coolangatta airport do; in this instance;

“A report released by the ATSB in February this year found the level of bird strikes in high capacity operations have increased dramatically in 2014-15.The largest increases were found in Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, Sydney and the Gold Coast.”

A suspicious mind, one used to the venal thinking and profit driven motivation of the modern aerodrome operator may entertain thoughts of minimum service to minimum costs. It is not enough that operators must pay for use of the airport but now must bear the costs of turn back, engine and airframe repairs – dodging drones and birds – all part of the cost imposed SOP.

"Strategic Aviation Solutions chairman Neil Hansford, who consults with commercial airlines and airports, said the explanation from AirAsia X was suspicious, especially when airports spend large amounts of money to keep birds away from the air strip."

On the other hand, I can agree that the Air Asia alleged ‘strike’ is bloody suspicious; just don’t believe the birds done it, or that the ‘large ‘amount being spent’ is for a full service option.

The carefully constructed barriers around passenger safety are not crumbling, so much as being slowly eroded away; dollar saved here, penny pinched there; all very clever until someone else discovers that whilst safety is expensive – accidents cost a shed load more.

No matter; I’m sure Darren 6D has a solution for us – probably want to use drones to scare off the birds – which ain’t such a bad idea; when you think about it. Mind you, being so PC and all, he’d probably invite the anorak’s to bring their drones and ‘assist’.

Toot toot.
Reply
(07-07-2017, 06:45 AM)kharon Wrote: Scarecrows and bird-pooh.

I wondered, who pays for the services of the airport scarecrows? The reason being that ‘the expense’ of this operational necessity is often mentioned in despatches.

ABC [Phil Shaw] from Avisure, the company contracted to keep birds away from Gold Coast Airport, said remnants of a bird had been found on the runway.”

Seems as though the operators of Coolangatta airport do; in this instance;

“A report released by the ATSB in February this year found the level of bird strikes in high capacity operations have increased dramatically in 2014-15.The largest increases were found in Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, Sydney and the Gold Coast.”

A suspicious mind, one used to the venal thinking and profit driven motivation of the modern aerodrome operator may entertain thoughts of minimum service to minimum costs. It is not enough that operators must pay for use of the airport but now must bear the costs of turn back, engine and airframe repairs – dodging drones and birds – all part of the cost imposed SOP.

"Strategic Aviation Solutions chairman Neil Hansford, who consults with commercial airlines and airports, said the explanation from AirAsia X was suspicious, especially when airports spend large amounts of money to keep birds away from the air strip."

On the other hand, I can agree that the Air Asia alleged ‘strike’ is bloody suspicious; just don’t believe the birds done it, or that the ‘large ‘amount being spent’ is for a full service option.

The carefully constructed barriers around passenger safety are not crumbling, so much as being slowly eroded away; dollar saved here, penny pinched there; all very clever until someone else discovers that whilst safety is expensive – accidents cost a shed load more.

No matter; I’m sure Darren 6D has a solution for us – probably want to use drones to scare off the birds – which ain’t such a bad idea; when you think about it. Mind you, being so PC and all, he’d probably invite the anorak’s to bring their drones and ‘assist’.

Toot toot.

Excellent OBS & post "K"... Wink  

Very much related with several references to birds and birdstrikes it was with some amusement I read the following well written article by Joanne McCarthy, courtesy the Newcastle Herald: 

Quote:Travel is a wondrous thing, until you're stuck in an airport
Joanne McCarthy
30 Jun 2017, 3 p.m.

Only a toddler knows how to deal with plane delays.
[Image: r56_0_1547_1193_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg]

THE toddler walked past as toddlers do - dragging her feet, bored, trailing a little bag.
Her mum and dad were slightly ahead with what looked like the toddler’s older sister. They were walking slowly, also trailing bags.

Everyone was trailing bags that night a few weeks ago, or sitting beside bags, or on bags, or dozing with their heads on bags, because we were all stuck in an airport and most of the departure boards carried one depressing word - “Delayed.”

Everyone was trailing bags that night a few weeks ago, or sitting beside bags, or on bags, or dozing with their heads on bags, because we were all stuck in an airport and most of the departure boards carried one depressing word - “Delayed.”

The message beside my flight was slightly different. It said “Delayed for 79 minutes but probably for heaps longer”, or something like that. I started taking notes during those hours of sitting around but I lost them, or ate them, or made paper planes out of boredom with them because I can’t find them anymore, so the exact detail comes from memory. But I remember the toddler.

She first came to my attention while doing the circuit. She and her little family walked slowly past the cafes and food outlets with their cold, dry $13 sandwiches in crinkly plastic, or their giant fizzy confections for $12, or coffees – good, mind you – that set you back $7 or so.

They walked slowly past the shops with the koala souvenirs, Australian flag t-shirts and ugg boots. They walked past the toilets and the luxury cosmetics shops where the beautiful assistants leant languidly and elegantly against the shiny counters, because customers were thin on the ground.

People like me who’d already walked the circuit of the airport’s shops about 20 times, and checked out all the books and magazines in the newsagents, and tried on a few lipsticks, had settled with our bags by then. All except the people with kids who kept circling as a way to hold off tantrums.

So the toddler went past.

Her father trailed his carry-on bag with its little wheels slightly ahead of her.
As I watched from a stool at a cafe the toddler - bored and possibly tired - decided she’d hitch a ride on her dad’s bag but he didn’t know.

She started to climb, he lost his grip, and toddler and bag fell down with a thump.
It took the toddler a second or two to respond but when she did it was wonderful.

She was tired and bored and three or four years of age and she’d just had a shock and a bump. The wail went up and even the sound from the overhead advertising big screen that had been droning on about “Travel to Tahiti” for hours was suddenly drowned out by a toddler’s outraged howls.

And because I related to her tired, bored, I’m-stuck-here-in-an-airport-and-this-is-so-unfair-because-I-just-want-to-get-home mood, I shared her pain. If I could have got away with it I would have rolled around on the floor and thrown my arms around dramatically, too, out of the sheer injustice of having to wait for a plane to fly.
But I didn’t. I was wearing a frock.

Look at any travel brochures or advertisements and everything’s glossy and gorgeous. People are smiling. Every destination looks fantastic. Every experience is photographable.
And it’s true up to a point. I love travelling. I love the thrill of arriving at any place that’s a long way from where I live and a lot different. When the plane door opens and you get the first whiff of a new country, or the first feel of its weather even before you step off the plane, it’s exciting.

And then there’s the reality of travel – the queues, the cost, the petty bureaucratic hassles, the delays and cancellations. But we keep doing it.

I love travel stories. This week a story popped up from China about the elderly passenger who tossed coins into her plane engine for “good luck”. True.

The airline even put out a statement to confirm the woman, 80, was seen tossing coins into the engine of the Airbus 320 before her flight from Pudong to Guangzhou to “wish a safe flight”.

Everyone had to get off. The engine was inspected. It took hours and hours. The airline helpfully stated that the woman had no known mental incapacity. She just hadn’t flown before and thought a positive gesture was called for. 

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau sends me regular bulletins about all the plane crashes and near misses it’s investigated in the previous few months.

On Thursday it sent me a report about the flight from America to Sydney in October that experienced abnormal vibration and noise above the left wing after take-off, and what the crew and airline did in response.

It wasn’t until the plane touched down in Sydney that the source of the trouble – a birdstrike that “sheared a landing gear door strut resulting in the door not closing” – caused “turbulent airflow and in‑cabin vibration”. Good to know.

The ATSB seems to leave its regular reports about birdstrikes at Australian airports until I’m just about to get on a plane to fly a long way away.

Between 2006 and 2015 there were 16,069 birdstrikes reported to the ATSB, most involving bigger passenger jets. And just so that you know, both the number and rate of birdstrikes per 10,000 movements of bigger capacity jets “have increased markedly in the past two years”, with Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, the Gold Coast and Sydney recording the biggest increases.

But have a nice trip anyway. And don’t read the book Sully, or watch the movie of the same name about the birdstrikes that put a passenger jet into New York’s Hudson River.

We eventually got onto the plane that night a few weeks ago, after Sydney airport was hit by a thunderstorm that knocked out a lot of its systems. We flew thousands of metres above the ground and safely down again and thought nothing of it, despite how wondrous that really is. 

Choccy frog Joanne - Wink


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
CASA & their MULLs - Safety Risk mitigation Aussie Style

mull(s) definition:
Quote:mull (third-person singular simple present mulls, present participle mulling, simple past and past participle mulled)
  1. To work (over) mentally; to cogitate; to ruminate; usually with over.  [quotations ▼] to mull a thought or a problemhe paused to mull over his various options before making a decision
    • 1912, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Tarzan of the Apes, Chapter 5 It was the germ of a thought, which, however, was destined to mull around in his conscious and subconscious mind until it resulted in magnificent achievement.
  2. To powder; to pulverize.
  3. To chop marijuana so that it becomes a smokable form.
  4. To heat and spice something, such as wine.
  5. To join two or more individual windows at mullions.
  6. To dull or stupefy.

Reference:
(04-20-2017, 12:02 PM)Peetwo Wrote:
(04-14-2017, 09:08 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Much media coverage on Qantas B747-400 stick shaker incident/

Via ABC  
Quote:ATSB investigating Qantas 'turbulence' that left 15 injured


Qantas passengers recall scenes from 'stick shaker' incident
 

 
Quote:
15 injured on Qantas flight
[Image: e101c485a7a2ff376c52337f6aa4a104]8:12pmEmily Ritchie

The ATSB is investigating after a rare “stick shaker” warning activated during a flight from Melbourne.

(04-14-2017, 10:38 PM)P7_TOM Wrote: Idiot media may ask Google; or, as Confucius says – “engage brain before opening mouth”.

Stick shaker information - 675,000 results in 0.38 seconds.

Wing stall – 3,120,000 results in 0.47 seconds.

Wake Turbulence – 1,730,000 results in 0.50 seconds.

Dumb as a hammer - 12,100,00 results in 0.27 seconds.

Journalists in the world – 82,400,000 results in 0.54 seconds.

Do the maths…82::12 = %? dumb, lazy journalists.

15 out of a potential 400 hurt, in seven seconds – a bloody miracle.

Well done Big Q crew; good catch, nice recovery. Bravo.

A’yup, it’s a numbers game alright.

A380 wake turbulence - hmm maybe related.. Huh


There seems to be a growing trend of A380 wake turbulence incidents, via the Oz today:

Quote:Learjet flipped over Oman ‘in wake turbulence of Sydney-bound Airbus’

[Image: 964ab3419b2aab5a61905592ec30732f?width=650]The Bombardier Challenger 650 business jet at an aviation exhibition. Picture: AFP.

Take note of how many months since the suspected wake turbulence event of the Qantas 747 inbound to Honkers, couple that with direct evidence that the wake turbulence of an A380 flipped and nearly spun out of control a Bombardier Challenger - now read the following and consider just out of touch with real world aviation safety issues our big R regulator CASA is: 
Quote:CASA mulls extra safety measures as wake turbulence on rise
[Image: 5dc327da595dfd837d1d3af253cbe916?width=650]CASA says Australia already has a range of wake turbulence measures in place.
  • Annabel Hepworth
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM July 7, 2017
    [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Australia’s aviation safety watchdog is considering issuing extra advice on dangerous wake turbulence amid fresh warnings the phenomenon is on the rise as air traffic grows.

The Australian has confirmed that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority is looking at issuing ­advice after the European Aviation Safety Agency published safety information on mitigating the dangers of midair wake vortex encounters.

A CASA spokesman said that Australia already had a range of wake turbulence measures in place but added: “Beyond the ­existing measures, CASA will consider similar advisory advice with the additional information contained in the EASA guidance.”

Earlier this year there were concerns wake turbulence was possibly implicated in the April “stick shaker” stall alert on a ­Qantas Boeing 747 flight from Melbourne to Hong Kong and in the dramatic roll of a Learjet over Oman in January.

The Learjet, a Bombardier Challenger 64, was written off by insurers after a midair roll and 10,000-feet drop after it passed under an Airbus A380 going in the opposite direction.

While there are reports that the European move was not spurred directly by that incident, the advice is aimed at pilots and air traffic controllers.

“With the increase of the overall volume of air traffic and enhanced navigation precision, wake turbulence encounters in the en-route phase of flight above 10,000 feet ... have progressively become more frequent in the last few years,” the EASA bulletin says. It warns that minimum separation criteria “will not completely prevent wake encounters from occurring”.

As well as causing the aircraft to roll, wake turbulence can cause vertical acceleration and significant altitude changes.

“The greatest danger is typically the induced roll that can lead to a loss of control and possible injuries to cabin crew and passengers,” the bulletin says.

CASA’s spokesman said that for departure and arrival here, air traffic control applies specific time or distance spacing between aircraft of different weight categories based on the International Civil Aviation Organisation standards.

Also in line with ICAO recommendations, Australian air traffic control “applies extra time and distance spacing between Airbus A380 aircraft and aircraft that follow behind”.

“Beyond ICAO standards and recommended practices, Australian ATC applies extra distance spacing between aircraft in the en-route environment to account for wake turbulence,” the CASA spokesman said.

“The distance spacing required in Australia for the en-route environment is generally the same and in some cases greater than is ­required in similar circumstances in the airspace over the United States or the United Kingdom.”

Australia requires pilots of planes in the heavy wake turbulence category or the Airbus A380 to add the designation “heavy” or “super” after their aircraft call sign in initial radio communication with air traffic control.

A spokeswoman for Airservices Australia said the rules were under constant review.

“Safety is Airservices number one priority, and we consistently review the rule set used by our controllers which includes procedures on wake turbulence,” the spokeswoman said.

“It is Australian practice, to provide air traffic advice when aircraft are passing with the minimum vertical standard. Our controllers will accommodate offsets if requested.”

In Oceanic airspace, pilots are able to strategically offset horizontally from their route for up to two nautical miles without seeking permission.

“Airservices will continue to follow and work under the direction of the International Civil ­Aviation Organisation and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.”

The new EASA bulletin gives advice to pilots, including a warning that disconnecting autopilot in the case of a wake encounter “can complicate the scenario” and the autopilot will “in most cases, facilitate the recovery”.
Drones/CVD Pilots/Broken tail ATRs/Min fuel fog landings etc...etc
MULL(s) new CASA definition: "Nothing to see here - yet!" Dodgy
MTF...P2
Reply
A sad day.

If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes;
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.

Link 1.

Link 2.


[Image: 38b6eb3ad11e32c1dcb20d0feddabe46]
Reply
MH17 3rd Anniversary.

Speaking of sad days... Undecided

Quote:Australia says those behind MH17 shooting down may be tried in absentia

July 17, 2017 by australianaviation.com.au Leave a Comment

[Image: B777-2H6ER_9M-MRD_YSSY_20DEC2011_DAMIEN-...b-crop.jpg]A file image of Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER 9M-MRD. (Damien Aiello)

Foreign minister Julie Bishop says those behind the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 may have to be tried in absentia as the Australian Government reaffirms its commitment to using every legal avenue to bring those responsible to justice.

On July 17 2014, a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER, 9M-MRD, operating a scheduled flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur and carrying 283 passengers and 15 crew members – including 38 Australian citizens or permanent residents – was shot down over eastern Ukraine. There were no survivors.

Amateur video footage showed the aircraft exploding on impact with the ground, and the charred remains of recognisable aircraft components strewn across a fairly wide semi-rural area.

A report from the Dutch Safety Board published in 2015 found the Malaysia Airlines jet was shot down by a Russian-made Buk surface-to-air missile that was launched in a 320 sq km area in eastern Ukraine.

In 2014, Australia sponsored a United Nations Security Council resolution that expressed condemnation of the shooting down of the aircraft and set up an independent international investigation. It was unanimously backed by all 15 members of the Council, including Russia.

And in July 2017, it was announced the five countries jointly investigating the crash – Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, Ukraine and the Netherlands – had chosen the Dutch courts to prosecute those suspected to be responsible for the downing of the aircraft.

The move followed Russian efforts to block the establishment of an international court to bring those behind the shooting down of MH17 to justice.

Bishop told the ABC Insiders program on Sunday she was “confident that we are doing all we can to bring those responsible to account”.

“We have now confirmed that we will back a Dutch national prosecution which will be an independent and fair and transparent prosecution,” Bishop said.

“And we will work as hard as we can to support the Dutch and Ukraine because I’ve entered into a treaty with the Netherlands so that the full criminal jurisdiction of Ukraine has been transferred to the Netherlands.

“It may be that there will have be to a trial in absentia.”

Bishop urged Russia, which has consistently denied being involved in the shooting down of the aircraft, to abide by the Security Council resolution from 2014 that called on all nations to cooperate to ensure those responsible were brought to justice.

“There have been reports that some of the witnesses have been detained in Russia. Well, I certainly urge Russia to comply with the Security Council resolution and do all it can to help bring these people to account,” Bishop said.

A memorial located near Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport will be unveiled on Monday (European time) to remember the 298 people who died. Many of the victim’s relatives were expected to attend.
MTF...P2  Angel
Reply

M'lud, the Foreign Minister, does seem to be just a tad inconsistent regarding the handling of these very grave matters M'lud.

On the one hand M'lud, the Minister tells the court that those responsible for the unlawful death of 38 Australian citizens or permanent residents on MH-17 should be brought to justice ("we are doing all we can to bring those responsible to account”) but on the other hand, we hear not so much as a peep out of her M'lud, about bringing those responsible for the unlawful death of 7 Australian citizens or permanent residents on MH-370 to justice.

Passing strange M'lud.

M'lud, it beggars the mind M'lud, but quite obviouly M'lud, the Minister must logically have some "threshold" for justice in her own mind, M'lud.

It must obviously lie between 7 and 38 M'lud.  

Is it going into double figures (10), or a dozen (12), perhaps two dozen (24), perhaps at a stretch three dozen (36) ?

The threshold must be in there somewhere, in the "fog" of diplomacy perhaps, M'lud, but I am sure you will agree with me M'lud, that there is definately no threshold of any kind, other than ONE, in the "crystal clarity" of the law, M'lud.

Perhaps I may prevail upon M'lud, to direct the Minister, to specify what "her threshold for justice" is, and why, so that we may then deal with this most uncooperative of witnesses in an appropriate manner.  In this regard M'lud, I am sure that M'lud recalls, that the Nuremberg Trials, post World War Two, clearly established some relevat principles in International Law, M'lud, that may, have some significant bearing, on these, most grave of matters, M'lud.

Rumpole and the Official Secret
Quotes



.jpg   Rumpole_of_the_Bailey.jpg (Size: 21.14 KB / Downloads: 130)
Reply
Recent OS Jet airliner occurrences of interest & intrigue - Confused Sad Big Grin

From the Times, via the Oz... Wink :
Quote:Cricket ball-sized hail strikes plane
[Image: 76eab03eec14125aed08d3edbe74c5e0?width=650]
This AtlasGlobal-operated Airbus A320 plane safely landed after the aircraft was hit by huge hailstones, smashing the aircraft’s windscreen. Picture: Oleg Lungul/Facebook
  • HANNAH LUCINDA SMITH

  • The Times

  • 4:26PM August 1, 2017

A pilot has been decorated for landing a passenger jet safely during a storm in Istanbul despite giant hailstones having smashed the aircraft’s windscreen.

Pieces of ice the size of cricket balls cracked the cockpit windshield of Captain Alexander Akopov’s Airbus A320 jet as he brought it in to land at Ataturk airport in the city on Thursday evening, with 127 passengers and crew on board.

[Image: 8d59c9017a902ee9afe7c21a12492d07?width=650]
The badly damaged AtlasGlobal-operated Airbus A320 after landing. Picture: Oleg Lungul/Facebook

A photograph taken shortly after the aircraft landed shows its nose caved in and the windows so damaged that it would have been almost impossible to see through them. Its autopilot mechanism was also knocked out.

Voice recordings from the airport’s ground control station picked up staff’s fears that Captain Akopov, a Ukrainian, who works for the Turkish airline Atlasglobal, would not be able to land the jet safely.
A voice on the ground could be heard saying: “He won’t do it, he won’t do it.”

Applause broke out at Ataturk airport, which had been shut as the storm hit, as Captain Akopov landed the passenger jet safely.

He has been awarded the Ukrainian Order of Courage by President Poroshenko, who called the pilot personally to congratulate him.

“It was hard but the main thing is that people are alive,” Captain Akopov said.

“I have been flying for 30 years. Well, did you see the plane landing? Was it OK? The passengers are alive. It is normal. This is our professional reliability.”

[Image: e3ca66c6e88894e868abedd117a4abd7?width=1024]
[/url]Captain Alexander Akopov who safely landed the plane.

He was flying the aircraft from northern Cyprus to Istanbul but its systems had not picked up the freak storm, which came in the middle of a baking hot day.

Under blackened skies, Istanbul was battered for 20 minutes by huge gusts of wind, driving rain and the massive hailstones.

Windows across the city were smashed and at least ten people were injured. There was also severe flash-flooding, with several roads and Metro lines becoming submerged in the downpour.

[Image: rxksofPP_yeaXn7c.jpg]

The freak weather was the result of a supercell storm, an extremely rare but dangerous condition where the storm cloud rotates upwards. Supercell storms are most common in the central United States.

Images posted on social media shortly after the storm blew over show passengers on one of Istanbul’s ferrys putting on lifejackets as they are tossed about on the Bosphorus and lightning streaking horizontally across the sky.

Cranes were toppled at the Haydarpasa port on the Asian shores of the city and uprooted trees were strewn across roads.

& via the UK Daily Mail - OOPs! Blush

Quote:Pilots suspended after their aircraft nearly ran out of fuel because they'd forgotten to bring up the landing gear
  • The Airbus A320, with 99 on board, took off last Saturday from Kolkata 

  • But with the wheels affecting the aerodynamics it burned excessive fuel

  • They reportedly only realised the gear was already down when they diverted 


By Ted Thornhill for MailOnline

Two Air India pilots have been grounded after their aircraft nearly ran out of fuel - because they’d forgotten to retract the landing gear.

The Airbus A320, with 99 passengers on board, took off last Saturday from Kolkata, bound for Mumbai, but with the wheels affecting the aerodynamics it burned excessive quantities of fuel.

It wasn’t able to climb above 24,000 feet nor accelerate beyond 265mph, when it should have been able to cruise at 35,000 to 37,000 feet and reach 520mph.


[Image: 42C6935C00000578-4739838-image-a-8_1501252705524.jpg]

+

Two Air India pilots have been grounded after their aircraft nearly ran out of fuel - because they’d forgotten to retract the landing gear (file image)

The two pilots were oblivious to the landing wheels being down and diverted to Nagpur when the fuel ran low, it was reported.

It was when they tried to lower the landing gear as they prepared to land that they realised it was already down, a source told 
The Times of India.
[size=undefined]
A spokesman for Air India told the paper that the two female pilots have been suspended.

He said: ‘The pilots were de-rostered (taken off flying duty) after the incident was reported.’

A serving long-haul airline captain told MailOnline Travel that he was surprised the pilots hadn't noticed the landing gear being down, if that was indeed the issue.

He said: 'I would say it is pretty staggering that the pilots - and cabin crew - wouldn't notice the huge difference in noise levels with the gear left down.

'It is also strange that they had such a lack of performance caused by the drag but took so long to analyse what was going on.

'And "Gear...Up" is on the after take-off checklist, which should also have been done.

'I would suspect some sort of human factor involved in this incident - where the crew working well together? Were they distracted by something else? Were they fatigued?' 

Air freight pilot and aerial photographer 
[url=https://jpcvanheijst.com/]Christiaan van Heijst commented: 'It happens every now and then that pilots need a lower altitude and slower speed than usual. This can happen because of various reasons, for example turbulence, pressurisation problems or other technical issues that require the aircraft to fly lower.

[Image: 42C6A20A00000578-4739838-image-a-16_1501252927799.jpg]

+2

The Airbus A320, with 99 passengers on board, took off last Saturday from Kolkata, bound for Mumbai, but with the wheels affecting the aerodynamics it burned excessive quantities of fuel (file image)

'Air Traffic Control will always try to accommodate pilots in those requests and has no reason to ask for the reason why. When pilots need a lower altitude they have a good reason to do so.

'Why this particular aircraft flew with the gear down for a long period of time is something I don't know and dare not to speculate about since I was not there and do not know what kind of possibly complex situation these pilots were facing.

'I'm looking forward to the final investigation report to learn about any additional factors that contributed to that decision of the pilots and maybe can learn from it myself as well.'

Issues with the landing gear usually revolve around lowering them.

For example, in February 2016 a 
Boeing 727 touched down on its nose without any functioning landing gear.

The Asia Pacific Airlines plane pulled off the risky landing at Guam International Airport without injuring the three crew members who were on board during the 'training flight'.

Just 20 minutes before the plane was due to land, airport control received an alert that a developing situation could affect the aircraft's safe landing.

The plane flew an hour over schedule and released fuel to make the aircraft lighter before the landing, airport spokeswoman Rolenda Faasuamalie told the Pacific Daily News at the time. 

It then practiced a landing, technically known as a 'touch-and-go' maneuver, before successfully touching down.  
[/size]

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
Air Canada A320 less than 60ft from disaster - Confused

From the AP, via the Oz: ‘He’s on the taxiway’

Quote:Air Canada pilots mistake taxiway for runway at San Francisco International airport
[Image: afa9fc515e450f4ded4357bfd3a30a34?width=650]
Air Canada flight 759 (ACA 759) attempts to land at the San Francisco International Airport flying just above a United Airlines flight waiting on the taxiway on July 7.
  • AP
  • 11:25AM August 3, 2017
Newly released data and photos show how shockingly low an Air Canada jet was when it pulled up to avoid crashing into planes waiting on a San Francisco International Airport taxiway last month.

The Air Canada pilots mistook the taxiway for the runway next to it and flew their jet to just 59 feet (18 meters) above ground before pulling up to attempt another landing, according to National Transportation Safety Board information released today.

That’s barely taller than the four planes that were on the taxiway when the incident occurred late at night on July 7.

Pilots in a United Airlines plane alerted air traffic controllers about the off- course jet, while the crew of a Philippine Airlines jet behind it switched on their plane’s landing lights in an apparent last-ditch danger signal to Air Canada.

[Image: ef1683e0a5924766a54076f75da5e11c?width=650]A map of the runway created from Harris Symphony OpsVue radar track data analysis. With a transmission to air traffic control from a United Airlines airplane on the taxiway below.


NTSB investigators said they have not determined probable cause for the incident that came within a few feet of becoming one of the worst disasters in aviation history.

“It was close, much too close,” said John Cox, a safety consultant and retired airline pilot.

The investigators said that as the Air Canada jet approached the taxiway just before midnight after a flight from Toronto, it was so far off course that it did not appear on a radar system used to prevent runway collisions. Those systems were not designed to spot planes that are lined up to land on a taxiway — a rare occurrence, especially for airline pilots. But the Federal Aviation Administration is working on modifications so they can, agency spokesman Ian Gregor said.

Both pilots of the Air Canada Airbus A320 jet were very experienced. The captain, who was flying the plane, had more than 20,000 hours of flying time, and the co-pilot had about 10,000 hours.

The pilots told investigators “that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway but that something did not look right to them,” the NTSB said.

Investigators could not hear what the Air Canada captain and co-pilot said to each other during the aborted landing because their conversation was recorded over when the plane made other flights, starting with a San Francisco-to- Montreal trip the next morning. Recorders are required to capture only the last two hours of a plane’s flying time.


Peter Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for Air Canada, declined to comment, citing the ongoing investigation.
AP
 
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
ScairAsia the reoccurrence Kings of Oz - Confused

Via the Oz:
Quote:AirAsia apologises after mid-air emergency from Perth to Bali

Mid-air emergency on AirAsia flight to Bali0:55
[Image: 5deadbbeb2e17768b9a40ea03d56d062]
Passengers have spoken of a terrifying mid-air emergency on an AirAsia flight between Perth and Bali.
  • October 16th 2017
  • 14 hours ago
[Image: 13c0562fe9d492817e4a13766f9027df?width=650]Stills from inside the cabin of AirAsia Flight QZ535. Pictures: Nine News
  • AAP
  • 9:04AM October 16, 2017
AirAsia has apologised after a terrifying mid-air emergency forced the pilot to turn back a flight from Perth to Bali yesterday.

Flight QZ535 reportedly plummeted 20,000 feet 25 minutes into the flight from Perth on Sunday when a technical issue caused the cabin to lose pressure.

Passengers said they didn’t know what was happening because most of the plane’s onboard announcements weren’t in English.

“The panic was escalated because of the behaviour of staff who were screaming, looked tearful and shocked,” Clare Askew told reporters at Perth airport. “Now, I get it, but we looked to them for reassurance and we didn’t get any, we were more worried because of how panicked they were.”

The flight returned safely to Perth and passengers were rescheduled. The airline issued a statement apologising.

“The safety of our guests is our utmost priority,” the airline said in a statement. “AirAsia Indonesia apologises for any inconvenience caused.”

AirAsia has had several incidents this year. In July, one of its flights was forced to make an emergency landing in Brisbane after a birdstrike.

Just a week earlier, another AirAsia plane made an emergency landing at Perth Airport after an engine malfunctioned 90 minutes into its flight to Kuala Lumpur.
AAP

[Image: 4a7a6ca9f29d218af9a49872b2e53ee5?width=650]A couple aboard the AirAsia Flight QZ535 to Bali. Picture: Nine News

& via IBTimes:

Quote:'We were saying goodbye to each other': AirAsia passengers recall terror of plane plunging 20,000ft

The plane plunged shortly after take off.
[Image: brendan-cole.jpg?w=54&h=54&l=50&t=40]
By Brendan Cole
Updated October 16, 2017 09:55 BST

[Image: airasia.jpg?w=400]The AirAsia plane plunged 20,000 ft soon after takeoffREUTERS/File image

Passengers spoke of their terror at the moment when the plane they were on plunged 20,000 feet just after take-off. The AirAsia flight was less than half an hour into its journey to Bali from Perth when it suddenly lost cabin pressure on Sunday 15 October.

Those on board Flight QZ535 adopted the brace position as the plane lost altitude, and oxygen masks dropped from the ceiling. One passenger, Leah, told Australia's Nine News how everyone started to panic and that "nobody told us what was going on".

"I actually picked up my phone and sent a text message to my family, just hoping that they would get it," she said. "We were all pretty much saying goodbye to each other. It was really upsetting."

Passenger Mark Bailey told Seven Network: "Hostesses started screaming: 'Emergency, emergency.' They just went hysterical."

"The panic was escalated because of the behaviour of staff who were screaming, looked tearful and shocked," Clare Askew told reporters at Perth airport. "Now, I get it, but we looked to them for reassurance and we didn't get any, we were more worried because of how panicked they were."

Passenger Norman Pearce told Seven the flight crew said: "Emergency. Crash positions and that was it. Nothing for about five minutes and then the oxygen fell down."

The budget Indonesian airline said in a statement the pilot turned back "following a technical issue to ensure the safety of passengers."

"We commend our pilots for landing the aircraft safely and complying with standard operating procedure," AirAsia Group head of safety Captain Ling Liong Tien said.

"We are fully committed to the safety of our guests and crew and we will continue to ensure that we adhere to the highest safety standards," he added.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau, an accident investigator, said it was investigating the airliner's depressurization at 34,000 feet (10,363 meters).

The plane rapidly descended to around 10,000 feet (3,048 meters), an altitude to which cabins are pressurized and at which oxygen masks are no longer needed.

Data from FlightRadar, a website which tracks flights globally using GPS, shows the plane descended 23,800 feet (7,250 meters) in the space of nine minutes.

Perth Airport said in a statement that emergency services were on hand when the plane landed 78 minutes after it took off.

The airline has seen a number of incidents in recent months. A Malaysia-based AirAsia X flight from Perth to Kuala Lumpur turned back in June after one of the Airbus 330's engines failed. An aircrew member was criticized for suggesting that passengers pray. A week after this incident, one of its planes had to divert to Brisbane after a suspected bird strike.

In December 2014, an AirAsia flight from the Indonesian city of Surabaya to Singapore plunged into the Java Sea, killing all 162 passengers and crew on board.
 

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Pegasus in the lap of the Gods - Rolleyes

Via the Oz:

Quote:Plane skids off runway and stops on slope metres from sea in Turkey
[Image: 8be951063e89ba1fe4736ca49f352472?width=650]

The Pegasus Airlines Boeing 737 is seen struck in mud on an embankment, a day after skidding off the airstrip at Trabzon airport on the Black Sea. Picture: AFP

The Australian 9:27PM January 14, 2018

[Image: jacquelin_magnay.png] JACQUELIN MAGNAY

Terrified passengers remain haunted by a close call on Saturday night when Pegasus flight 8622 careered off the runway at Trabzon airport in Turkey and landed nose down a cliff face just metres from the sea.

Pictures taken in daylight have revealed the extent of significant damage to the Boeing 737, which had left Ankara and landed in Trabzon at 11.25pm in rainy conditions with 168 passengers and crew.

Passengers scrambled out the rear and over-wing emergency exits and clambered back up the cliff. Airline officials said no passengers or crew were seriously injured.

The plane failed to slow along the runway and it skidded onto the adjacent grassed areas and plummeted down the nearby muddy slope at a steep angle. Such was the impact, one of the engines was ripped from the plane and landed in the Black Sea below. Traumatised passengers described the heart-stopping event, saying it was a miracle they escaped serious injury or death.





Yuksel Gordu, a passenger, told the news agency Anadolu passengers were terrified.

“It’s a miracle we escaped,” he said. “We could have burned, exploded, flown into the sea.

“Thank God for this, I feel like I’m going crazy when I think about it.” Another passenger said the delay in opening the rear door created panic inside the plane.

“There was a smell of fuel inside so we all thought the plane might explode, but thankfully it did not happen,” he said.

Fatma Gördü, said the plane was shaking as it landed on the tarmac.

“We tilted to the side, the front was down while the plane’s rear was up. There was panic. People shouting, screaming,” she told Anadolu.

Pegasus Airlines said in a statement Flight PC 8622 “had a runway excursion incident during landing”.

Is it just me but you gotta wonder about the rationality of building a runway on the edge of cliff?? Guess it's no worse than building a DFO within the ICAO prescribed runway safety dimensions, ala Essendon Airport: http://www.auntypru.com/forum/showthread...43#pid6743

&..





+






MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
ScareAsia the normalised deficient airline of Australasia? [Image: confused.gif]

Via the ATSB website:

Quote:What happened

On the evening of 19 February 2016, an Airbus A320 aircraft, registered PK-AXY and operated by PT Indonesia AirAsia was on a scheduled passenger service from Denpasar, Indonesia to Perth, Australia. During cruise, the captain’s flight management and guidance computer (FMGC1) failed. Due to the failure, the flight crew elected to use the first officer’s duplicate systems. For the aircraft’s arrival in Perth there was moderate to severe turbulence forecast below 3,000 ft with reports of windshear. The crew commenced an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 21.

During the approach, the flight crew made a number of flight mode changes and autopilot selections, normal for an ILS approach with all aircraft operating systems available. However, some of those flight modes and autopilot selections relied on data from the failed FMGC1 and the autothrust system commanded increased engine thrust. The crew did not expect this engine response and elected to conduct a go-around. With an increasing crosswind on runway 21, the crew accepted a change of runway, to conduct a non-precision instrument approach to runway 06.

With the time available, the first officer programmed the new approach into his FMGC and conducted the approach briefing. During this period, the captain hand flew the aircraft and manually controlled the thrust. During the approach to runway 06, the crew descended the aircraft earlier than normal, but believed that they were on the correct flight path profile.

While descending, both flight crew became concerned that they could not visually identify the runway, and focused their attention outside the aircraft. At about that time, the approach controller received a “below minimum safe altitude” warning for the aircraft. The controller alerted the crew of their low altitude and instructed them to conduct a go-around. The crew then conducted another approach to runway 06 and landed.

What the ATSB found

The ATSB identified that the flight crew were unsuccessful in resolving the failure of the FMGC and had a limited understanding of how the failure affected the aircraft’s automation during the ILS approach. This resulted in the unexpected increase in engine thrust, which prompted a go-around.

The flight crew had a significant increase in workload due to the unresolved system failures, the conduct of a go-around and subsequent runway change. This, combined with the crew’s unfamiliarity and preparation for the runway 06 instrument approach, meant they did not effectively manage the descent during that approach.

The flight crew’s focus of attention outside the aircraft distracted them during a critical stage of flight. The crew did not detect that they had descended the aircraft below the specified segment minimum safe altitude.

The flight crew commenced their descent for the second runway 06 instrument approach later than normal, initially necessitating an increased rate of descent and at 300 ft the engine thrust reduced briefly to idle.

Safety message

Handling of approach to land is one of the ATSB’s SafetyWatch priorities. Unexpected events during the approach and landing can substantially increase what is often a high workload period. Adherence to standard operating procedures and correctly monitoring the aircraft and approach parameters provides assurance that the instrument approach can be safely completed. A go-around should be immediately carried out if the approach becomes unstable or the landing runway cannot be identified from the minimum descent altitude or missed approach point.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773855/ao..._final.pdf


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSmYiuwJTS8MoCL8XVUQ97...DBe8FDtWLk]
AAI & the implications of bureaucratic O&O - Part II


And from HVH:

ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood said that the approach to land is one of the most critical phases of flight, and stressed the importance of flight crews understanding their aircraft systems and adhering to cockpit control, monitoring and communication procedures to ensure a stabilised approach during the approach and landing phases of flight.

“The approach and landing phases of flight are amongst the highest of workload for flight crews, and domestically and internationally where we see the highest accident rate” Mr Hood said. “It’s a complex operation at the best of times, but when something unexpected occurs such as a failure of an aircraft system in-flight, it can add substantially to flight crews’ workload. It is critical that flight crew fully understand their aircraft systems and how they will respond in a degraded mode, and adhere to cockpit protocols and procedures to ensure a stabilised approach resulting in a safe landing. In this case, there was considerable added complexity for the flight crew as a result of adverse weather, and an air traffic control change to a runway without a precision approach.”

“The ATSB urges all flight crew to ensure that they understand their aircraft systems, and how the aircraft will respond in a degraded mode, and to adhere to cockpit protocols and procedures to ensure a safe approach and landing. If there’s any doubt or confusion, or if the stable approach criteria is not being met, communicate it, and never hesitate to conduct a go-around.”

WTD? - HVH now a Guru on Airline CRM & Human factors Dodgy

Also a summary from Annabel, via the Oz:

Perth airport told ‘distracted’ air crew to go around

[Image: 41be89ca33cdc72bc9f5a19774460e9d?width=650]
An Air Asia A320 was sent around for a second go after approaching too low.

The Australian 12:00AM January 17, 2018


[Image: annabel_hepworth.png]

ANNABEL HEPWORTH
Aviation Editor Sydney
@HepworthAnnabel

Australia’s aviation safety investigator has urged flight crews and airlines to pay extra attention to the risks of runway approaches after it said an Indonesia AirAsia flight crew was “distracted” during a critical stage of a flight into Perth.

In its report into the “serious” incident in February 2016, where the Indonesia AirAsia Airbus A320 flew too low on approach to Perth, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found the flight crew “did not detect that they had ­descended the aircraft below the specified segment minimum safe altitude”.

The radar at air traffic control showed a “minimum safe altitude warning” and the controller told the crew: “Go round, you are low, low altitude alert, go round.” The crew then did another approach to the runway and landed safely.

In a statement, ATSB chief commissioner Greg Hood urged all flight crew “to ensure that they understand their aircraft systems, and how the aircraft will respond in a degraded mode, and to adhere to cockpit protocols and procedures”.

According to the ATSB report, as the plane was cruising from Denpasar on the holiday island of Bali and was just over an hour from Perth, it became apparent the captain’s flight management and guidance computer had failed.

The crew decided to use the first officer’s duplicate systems and started an approach to Perth’s main runway, but relied on data from the failed computer.

The crew was “unsuccessful” in resolving the failure of the computer and had a “limited understanding” of how the failure affected the aircraft’s automation during the approach, the ATSB found.

This led to an unexpected increase in engine thrust, prompting a go-around.

After this, because of an increasing crosswind, the crew was told to change runway for a non-precision instrument approach. While descending, crew members were concerned they could not see the runway and focused their attention outside the plane. About then, the controller got the altitude warning.

The ATSB found the flight crew had a “significant increase” in workload because of the unresolved system failures, go-around and runway change. Combined with the crew’s “unfamiliarity and preparation” for the instrument approach to the different runway, this “meant they did not effectively manage the descent during that approach”.

AirAsia Indonesia said in a statement yesterday that it had taken action.

This included an internal investigation and briefing of all ­pilots on its findings and the ATSB findings, and reviewing recovery procedures. As well, there were additional classroom sessions on aircraft technical review and the incident had been incorporated as a subject of the “special orientation training” in the simulator syllabus.

“AirAsia Indonesia reiterates that strict maintenance schedules and robust management systems are in place to monitor and prevent similar incidents from reoccurring,” the statement said.



Q/ Have ScairAsia managed to capture CASA?  Undecided
I guess in hindsight it was no worse than this other A320 approach incident... Huh


Distracted Jetstar pilots forgot to deploy landing gear, ATSB finds
April 20, 2012 by australianaviation.com.au
[Image: WEB-JETSTAR_A321_VH-VWW_DARWIN_31MAY09_A...00x181.jpg]A file image of A321 VH-VWW. (Andy McWatters)

A Jetstar Airbus A321 was forced to abort landing in Singapore in 2010 after both the crew forgot to extend the landing gear in time, according to an ATSB report.

The report said the captain was distracted by his mobile phone during the aircraft’s descent while the first officer was likely suffering from fatigue.

Jetstar said it had made several training changes as a result of the May 27 2010 episode, including requiring pilots to turn off their mobile phones as part of pre-flight checks. The airline also doubled to 1000ft the altitude at which pilots must finish their pre-landing checks.
Flight JQ57 landed safety on the second attempt, and Jetstar claims the incident had not posed a serious safety risk. Still, the ATSB narrative makes for some interesting reading.

According to the report, the first officer, who was the pilot flying the A321, VH-VWW,  during the aborted landing, had gotten less than six hours sleep the night before in Darwin and began feeling tired as the flight approached Singapore around 6:30pm.  The report said the first officer disengaged the autopilot during approach to Singapore’s Changi Airport “in order to hand-fly the aircraft and ‘wake [himself] up’.”

As the flight approached 2000ft, the crew heard a series of incoming text messages arrive on the captain’s mobile phone, which he’d forgotten to switch off. Around the same time, the first officer twice asked the captain to set a missed approach altitude into the flight control unit. Not receiving a response, he looked over to find the captain “preoccupied with his mobile phone” and set the missed approach altitude himself.

The captain told investigators that he was attempting to unlock and switch off his mobile phone at the time and did not hear the first officer’s requests.

As the flight descended below 1000ft the first officer reported feeling that “something was not quite right” but couldn’t identify what it was. The captain told investigators that he noticed the landing gear had not been lowered and that the flaps had not been set for landing but did not say anything.

At 720ft, a Master Warning and continuous triple chime alerted the pilots that the landing gear had not been extended. The captain told investigators that he “instinctively” lowered the landing gear and deployed the flaps after the warning chime went off, though the report said it took 4.5 seconds until the landing gear was selected down and more than 11 seconds before the flaps were selected. The first officer, meanwhile, reported that he was “confused” by the captain’s actions as he was preparing to conduct a go-around.

A few seconds later, another alarm went off warning that the aircraft had descended below 500ft with the landing gear still not secured in the down position, at which point the crew aborted the landing and commenced a go-around. Both pilots told investigators that they believed they had initiated the go-around at an altitude of just under 800ft, though the investigation found that it had in fact commenced at 392ft.

“The investigation identified several events on the flightdeck during the approach that distracted the crew to the point where their situation awareness was lost,” the ATSB concluded. “Decision making was affected and inter-crew communication degraded. In addition, it was established that the first officer’s performance was probably adversely affected by fatigue.”

But the investigation did not identify any “organisational or systemic issues” and said the crew had been given adequate rest time prior to the flight.



..."Decision making was affected and inter-crew communication degraded. In addition, it was established that the first officer’s performance was probably adversely affected by fatigue.”

But the investigation did not identify any “organisational or systemic issues” and said the crew had been given adequate rest time prior to the flight...

Q/ Wonder if fatigue was examined in the ScairAsia occurrence?

ANS/ Yes it was apparently - "...The flight crew reported feeling alert during the approaches. The ATSB reviewed their flight and duty times and 72-hour history prior to the occurrence, and found no evidence that they were likely to be affected by fatigue at the time of the incident..." 

Hmm...gotta wonder though about the veracity of that statement, especially after the systemic failures of CASA and the ATSB to properly attribute fatigue as a significant causal/contributing factor in the VH-NGA ditching?

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
Who’s on first, What’s on second,

During cruise, the captain’s flight management and guidance computer (FMGC1) failed. Due to the failure, the flight crew elected to use the first officer’s duplicate systems.

During the approach, the flight crew made a number of flight mode changes and autopilot selections, normal for an ILS approach with all aircraft operating systems available. However, some of those flight modes and autopilot selections relied on data from the failed FMGC1 and the auto-thrust system commanded increased engine thrust.

Maybe I’m just getting old and grumpy – but it seems ‘passing strange’ to me that no one dragged out the books and checklist for the approach using FMGC 2. There must be a ‘set up’ guide somewhere in the ‘manual’. Plenty of time in the cruise to have a Bo-Peep at the checklist and a discussion. Seems odd that neither crew member remembered there was a configuration set up for using #2 system and it was different. Two aborted approaches, the second needed the ATCO to warn ‘below minimum safe’.

Two major anomalies, potentially lethal, totally avoidable. You have to start wondering how well these crews are trained and question the almost total reliance on automation. Perhaps the new guru can explain that away when one of these flights ploughs through a DFO or lobs on a freeway – near you. Not good is it.

Toot toot.
Reply
[Image: 3C6EA37B00000578-4153586-Called_it_In_19...779898.jpg]

vs

[Image: star-wars-the-last-jedi-spoiler-is-yoda-...894314.jpg] P2 comment - Funny how P7 never seems to age [Image: huh.gif]


Old & grumpy; or senescent & wise - Big Grin


I don't know "K" maybe it is just our bureaucratically and politically blinkered world of aviation safety Dunceunda? - 'Cause it would seem that the international pilot fraternity is singing from the same hymn sheet.

Courtesy of Karlene Petitt [Image: wink.gif] :


Thursday, January 18, 2018

Headline from Europe:

"Plane skids off Turkish runway 

on Black Sea coast"
[size=undefined]


[Image: 2018-01%2B%2B401.jpg]
News Europe

[/size]

Nobody Died. This Time.


A captain who has a passion for aviation safety, sent me the following email related to the above incident: 


"A Pegasus Boeing 737-800 veered off the runway after landing on runway 11 at Trabzon Airport (Turkey) and became stuck in the mud on the edge of a cliff 


Many friends flew for this airline, and they make pilots pay to fly for them. Pilots buy a block of 500 hours for about $40,000 on top of the self-sponsored type rating, also at a cost of $40,000. Friends there have told me the cockpit gradient is extremely steep, there is practically no manual flight above 400 feet. Little to no SOPs (standard operating procedures) discipline and certainly zero CRM (crew resource management). 


They have been involved in many similar incidents already."


[Image: turkey%2Bpic%2B1.jpg]

Why no Manual Flight?


I'm learning many airlines worldwide do not allow manual flight. Why? Perhaps this snippet from another flight operations manual explains perceptions: 

[Image: FlightOpsStatement.png]

Statement from above: 


“There is no safety case to justify turning off the A/P and AFDS in a Boeing 737-800 Series Aircraft engaged in commercial transport operations – doing so increases the chance of an undesired aircraft state.”

This is an interesting mandate, however not isolated. It has become apparent that many airlines do not believe their pilots can manually fly the aircraft safely, therefore prohibiting it. However, there no reason manual flight in any Boeing (or Airbus) would cause an unexpected aircraft state. I have observed manual flight approaches into the most challenging airports in Alaska while sitting in the flightdeck of a Boeing 737, and observed beautiful approaches and arrivals on many A330's from altitude to landing. 

Why the Fear of Some Airlines?
What happened in this accident?

What if the pilots were not properly trained for the unexpected? What if they were not trained for manual flight? Should we always blame the pilot if they are not given the tools? What if the culture prohibits reporting safety issues? Human error happens, but how is it addressed? Safety Management Systems (SMS) are designed to identify errors and create change in order to mitigate risk, but is SMS lip service only?


What if the regulators know the problem

and don't do anything to enforce compliance?

What if Airlines know the problem 

and mandate automation usage 

to avoid training? 


What happens if the automation breaks 
or the unexpected happens?


[Image: 2018-01%2B4608.jpg]



As many of you know I am working on my PhD and collecting data to identify the relationships between safety culture, pilot training, aircraft understanding, aviation passion, and the impact on automation usage, in order to identify the root cause of performance issues, beyond pilot error. 


If we don't identify the source of the problem, 

then nothing will ever change.


I'm asking everyone to please share the link:





Tuesday January 9th survey monkey said there were 2397 completed surveys. I then wrote a post and asked everyone who took it, if they would share it with just one more qualified pilot (airline, charter or corporate) they knew. I asked people who cared about aviation to share with qualified pilots they knew. The support was incredible!

I'm utilizing snowball sampling, meaning I'm asking qualified pilots to take it and then share it with their colleagues and friends who qualify, and ask those pilots to share it with their colleagues and so on. What happened from that January 9th post, was that the snowball began gaining momentum. Pilots worldwide continued to take it, share it, and posted it on their sites. People who didn't qualify, shared it with those who did. 

This morning 
Survey Number is 3127!


What this says, is that the pilots care about their industry. They care about the future of aviation. They care about passengers' safety. It means that passengers want the best, every time they step on a plane. These numbers show the world is that we do care about the trajectory of where our aviation industry is headed. 

Everyone who participates is making a difference!


PILOTS WORLDWIDE UNITE
WITH A VOICE!

I will be gathering data until mid March,
when my B777 training is complete. 
Can we double those numbers?

Let's Keep This Going!

I cannot thank you all for your help with this. 
Thank you for helping me
 to gain as many surveys as possible!

Let's keep this snowball rolling
And double those numbers!


[Image: download%2B%25281%2529.jpeg]


What will the Numbers be Next Week?


Please send the link PetittAviationResearch 

to all the commercial pilots you know! 


Thank YOU! 


MTF...P2 [Image: tongue.gif]

Ps You can also access KP's pilot survey here: #38 or https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PetittResearch
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)