Six Lima

Saw an article on TV3's Nightline News last night refering to the coroner's inquiry into the Air Adventures crash last June. Had some expert giving evidence. He basically blamed the pilot but the two points that were highlighted by the clip was the fact the pilot only had 24 hrs night experience and that the plane was carrying too much fuel ?

Is this more average reporting taking something out of context because it seems very strange to criticise anybody for carrying too much fuel, unless it's put the aircraft over-weight. I did read the accident report but don't remember anything about overloading, nor anything about the fuel loaded.

Can anyone shed any light?

Cloud Cutter

The accident probably resulted from the pilot becoming distracted from monitoring his altitude at a critical stage of the approach. The possibility of pilot incapacitation is considered unlikely, but cannot be ruled out.


Safety issues identified included:


· the desirability of adoption of TAWS equipment for smaller IFR air transport aircraft

· the need for VFR/IFR operators to have practical procedures for observing cellphone rules during flight

· the need for pilots on single-pilot IFR operations to use optimum procedures during instrument approaches

ZK-NCA Accident Report - TAIC



Sounds as though the pilot may have been using a cell phone in the final stages of the ILS. There was fog at CH but a preceeding 737 had landed a few minutes earlier. Not sure TAWS would have helped, the pilot didn't seem to be responding to visual glideslope info, would an aural warning have made much difference?

As for carrying too much fuel, haven't heard that one. Maybe they're saying the aircraft was above MLW, of course that has no bearing on the accident. To me, one of the most interesting parts of the report is the radar plot of the ILS approach. For some reason it was flown rather inaccurately and consistantly below GS.

romansandal

I heard a theory not so long ago that was intriguing. The aircraft may have been flying a non-precision approach monitoring GPS distance as opposed to DME distance, as per normal. Consequently this would have put him roughly 1mile back from the DME profile, explaining the consistently low approach.

Unfortuanately this doesn't explain why the a/c went through DA/MDA, which is the real issue.

Cloud Cutter

That would explain the consistantly low profile. It's interesting to note that a call was made from the pilots cell phone to his home commencing 1904:36 and terminating 1907:45. The last radar return from NCA was at 1907:29. It is reasonable to conclude that the phone was in use at the time of impact.

If you've ever used (or even turned on) a cell phone while monitoring an ILS you may have seen the instrument deviations it can cause (of course you can only do this VFR).

gaunty

They still just don't get it.

A Chieftain or anything =<5700 kg is NOT an "air transport" aircraft.

They are NORMAL category, private, business and recreational types. .

And RPT single pilot ops?

And if I've got he "right" accident they took the cream of their scientific community with em, doesn't matter, 7 it is still too many.

A4 gunnie

Was this aircraft GPS equipped? I think it had a pretty basic IF panel.

romansandal

Handheld GPS mounted on the dash.

piontyendforward

It is "air transport operations" in New Zealand, USA, UK etc in fact in any country other than Aussie.

Nobody else in the world has "RPT" operation what ever the hell that is.

135 ops yes
121
125
etc all Air Transport operation

Cheers

chicken6

Just saw this on the TelstraClear site

http://www.telstraclear.co.nz/newsfe...m.cfm?id=64204

Makes you wonder either what it takes to be an expert, or what it takes to be a journalist.

If the expert says you are, "...forced to fly visually" when the rad alt fails, then why are aircraft allowed to take off IFR without them installed? And how many rad alts actually have a flashing RED light? I've seen yellow, I've seen the letters DH but not red. Romansandal got it right IMHO, you're never FORCED to go visual unless you're out of fuel.

If the journalist can report this (and it's hopefully a misquote) on a very popular website and homepage for a lot of people, how do they not get sued for whatever the appropriate thing is (slander? misquoting? being a jerk?)

Hopefully just another case of bad listening from the media.

Dale Harris

Just a small correction Gaunty, our old Queenair was transport category. Last i flew it, it was under 5700 kg.

AIRCAB

This maybe a stupid question or i might have missed something, but why the hell was he on the phone while doing an ILS?

Did he have a radio failure

gaunty

SUBCHAPTER C--AIRCRAFT

=< 5700kg
PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES
>= 5700kg
PART 25—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES


and what Airworthiness Standard is required and with what you you must comply to operate them.

SUBCHAPTER G--AIR CARRIERS AND OPERATORS FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE: CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS


PART 119—CERTIFICATION: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS

PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

PART 125—CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: AIRPLANES HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 20 OR MORE PASSENGERS OR A MAXIMUM PAYLOAD CAPACITY OF 6,000 POUNDS OR MORE; AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

PART 135—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

for the full monty

Go here

You also need to have more than a passing familiarity with the history and post colonial development of aviaton in OZ and the fundamental and pivotal effect the two airline policy had in distorting the development of NON airline travel and on the tortured and terminally mangled evolution of the regulatory regime in this country.

Cloud Cutter

gaunty

Nobody is saying that a PA31 is a 'transport category aircraft' IAW FAR Part 23/25, however the report refers to 'smaller IFR air transport aircraft' which it most certainly is when conducting an IFR ATO IAW NZCAR Part 135 (as is a C172 on an IFR freight run for that matter).

As for RPT, doesn't apply in this case Regular Pubic Trasport = Scheduled ATOs. This was an Unscheduled A to B ATO (Charter). And there's no problem with single pilot scheduled IFR ATOs under 135.


AIRCAB

Not a stupid question at all - I can't figure it out, certainly no coms failure. Perhaps complacency?


As for the dodgy reporting, what an absolute load of crap. The fact that the Radar Altimeter was U/S was mentioned in the report amongst various other arbitrary instrument info. You can just tell they're fishing for a conspiracy theory 'unpluged instrument leads to death of controversial scientists'

gaunty

Cloud Cutter

I don't doubt that we may find ourselves in heated agreement in most aspects, the problem is the perception created in the public mind by the use of the words "air transport", "RPT" and perhaps even the word "airline" for a charter company in what is actually an "air taxi" environment.

I was able to get the West Aussie Coroner over here to undestand the "perception" issue in relation to use of FAR 23 v FAR25 types for Fly in Fly out operations.
Basically in the public perception if its got more than one engine (turboprop even) and maybe even more than one pilot it's the same as an "airline" operation, just a whole lot cheaper. By definition it is not possible for it to be a whole lot cheaper and get within coooee of airline standards.
Several of his major recomendations out of the case in question was that companies or organisations that required their staff to travel by air as part of their work commitments should either use "transport category" equipment and/or if that was not possible to inform their staff of the safety and performance differences between Normal and Transport category aircraft before travel.
That the aircraft in question was properly maintained, crewed, licensed and operated correctly in accordance with the operators AOC was found not to be the point in regard to the duty of care incumbent on the staffs employer.
The employer was under the impression, neither were they aware nor advised by their "consultant" that there was another and higher level of safety available to them.
Neither was whether they or their staff would or should have chosen the alternative argued in this instance.
The perception that the "regulator" had signed them off was all that was "seen" and to be OK in the absence of the other "knowledge"

Now that "knowledge" has been thoroughly and comprehensively revealed in WA at least, it will be very hard to defend the continued use of FAR23 types in this context if a company has to defend a "duty of care" case is brought against them.

The world has moved on.

Obiwan

"The only time an airplane has too much fuel on board is when it is on fire" - Sir Charles Kingsford Smith