Paul Phelan’s article in The Australian on Fri 10 Aug.
As an aviator for many years I have been a reader of Paul’s articles in various publications over the years and have met him on a number of occasions as he, unlike other aviation journalists frequents airports, aero club lounges and aviation gatherings. I have always been impressed in his efforts to bring some of the regulators habits and actions out in the open in an effort to get a better deal for the industry. As a pilot, he often writes of his first hand experiences and in an interesting and informative manner.
Having said that, I was most surprised and somewhat disappointed to read his article titled
“Crashed Shrikes were overweight” last Friday. It is not an article that I would expect from Paul, but one that might come from a non-savvy junior journalist with little or no knowledge of the subject matter.
In very basic terms I believe the article is a sensational beat up following the recent tragic accident in Victoria which killed one of the most knowledgeable Shrike engineers in Australia, if not the world.
Let’s start with the headline:
Crashed Shrikes were overweight
I don’t think so! If the article is pointed at the accident in Tasmania and the recent one it is wrong! The Tasmanian Shrike had just one pilot on board and the recent accident had two occupants – far below MTOW.
“Flying at heavier weights increases the risk of structural failure, and the deadly mix of turbulence and latent fatigue can trigger in-flight break-up.”
To my knowledge the increased AUW for the Shrike which was approved by the Australian regulator (DCA) in the late 60’s/early 70’s has not been a factor in any Shrike loss in Australia.
The subject aircraft in the recent crash I understand had quite low hours for the type (less than 5000) and had only been in Australia for a short time, which means that for most of its life has been operated at the FAA MTOW. Besides, the investigation has some way to go and to presume at this early stage that fatigue was a factor is drawing a very long bow.
“In the US, their country of origin, Shrikes are limited to a 3062kg maximum takeoff weight, but when they were imported here as used aircraft, the (then) Department of Aviation issued a "supplemental type certificate" allowing them to fly at up to 3357kg, the equivalent of three extra passengers."
True. However the STC which permitted the increase was two fold in that there was a difference in the MTOW weight for IFR and VFR operations – brought about by the need to achieve a specific climb gradient for IFR ops – which it did (I participated in some of the test flights and saw the performance first hand!). The STC was issued to an organization operated by very experienced aviation professionals and to my knowledge not only was performance tested, but also fatigue issues investigated and considered. (That, at a time when the wing issues were well known) Initially the STC was available only to that operator, but due to circumstances which are not relevant to this discussion was extended to all Shrikes in Australia.
There is no mention of the VFR/IFR differences in the article.
Quoting what Gulfstream people might say or the contents of a dated report sound fine, but there are many other factors applicable and a broad and simple investigation will reveal that there are many aircraft modified by STC or otherwise from the manufacturer’s status. All such modifications are undertaken by persons approved for the purpose and it must be assumed in such cases that the applicable issues including fatigue are considered at the time. What the manufacturer might choose to do or not do is irrelevant to the discussion.
“The Shrike remains popular with commercial operators because of the weight concession, but its pilots are now worried that the average aircraft in Australia has flown about 25,000 hours at unusually heavy weights."
Wrong Paul! The Shrike is a popular aircraft because it is a good airframe, simple to operate and maintain with normally aspirated engines with a good airfield performance and a high reliability factor. The increase in the Australian MTOW gives a good aircraft some additional flexibility and to say that the majority of the hours flown are
“at unusually heavy weights” is just pure bunkum!
Certainly there are some high time Shrikes about (many aircraft are these days) but to give the impression that the fleet average is 25,000 hours is nothing but a dramatic guess.
“…about 50 Shrike Commanders are still flying in Australia. More than half are registered to General Aviation Maintenance Pty Ltd, the operators of the crashed plane, and they are still certified to fly here at a 10 per cent heavier MTOW than the US regulator allows."
Yes, and those aircraft would have to be the best maintained Shrikes anywhere in the world for a fleet that size. Steve (RIP) was the Shrike Guru and over the past 30 years or so he has maintained Shrikes in a manner not normally seen in GA. He was also very much aware of the fatigue issues and spared no effort in conducting inspections in his fleet and often far in excess of the manufacturers recommendations or the regulators requirements.
Paul, you can do better than this and have done in the past. Are you short on work and need to take some of Steve Creedy's sensational pills to earn a quid? I for one hope that you can retain your professional standards in your future writings in supporting a struggling industry and not as you have in this article succumbed to the need to write such sensational uninformed dribble whilst seemingly taking advantage of a tragedy.
