PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011
Old 22nd Jan 2013, 11:52
  #944 (permalink)  
Sarcs
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HMHB in reference to your mentioning the Hempel inquest perhaps the ATSB could of utilised the RAN to raise the Yak??

Also relevant to the Hempel accident and from the NTSB investigator’s manual is a memo put out by the NTSB Director of the Office of Aviation Safety back in 1991, the subject being the “Implementation of Selective Criteria Policy”, here’s an extract from that memo:
A review of our investigative activity has revealed that although the overall number of accidents are down, our number of field investigations remains relatively constant. Of more significance is the finding that many of these field investigations involve types of accidents that historically and predictably have no safety impact. They very seldom result in anything other than the determination of probable cause.

Accidents that involve experimental, amateur built and aerial application aircraft fall in this category. Because the FAA is required to investigate these accidents to satisfy their obligations, we developed an agreement with them to delegate the investigations when their workload permits. This delegation process has not always been consistent in the number and types of accidents delegated nor in the quality and timeliness of the completed reports and a more uniform application of delegations is needed.

Therefore, in the future, no experimental, amateur built, or aerial application accident will be done as an NTSB field investigation unless there are unusual circumstances that the regional director feels justify the field investigation, and that action has been coordinated with either AS-1 or AS-2.

Although that sounds similar to the way the ATSB prioritise their investigations there is some very notable differences in their actual selective criteria list:
2. Selected emphasis areas:

a. Part 91 accidents with elements common to Part 121/135 operations (e.g., aircraft
typically used in Part 121/135 operations; Part 121/135 training flights, etc.).
b. All fatal general aviation accidents.*
c. Commercial passenger flight incidents with safety improvement potential.
d. Air traffic control incidents with safety improvement potential.
e. Aging aircraft.

*The Safety Board, through a letter of agreement with the FAA, delegates the investigation of all agricultural, home-built, and experimental category aircraft accidents to the FAA. However, for those cases in which the FAA does not accept a delegated accident, the Safety Board must perform the investigation.
Although I can’t imagine the ATSB ever delegating an investigation to CAsA it is apparent from the above that had the NTSB been notified of the Hempel accident and the FAA (FF) refused the delegation, then the NTSB would still be obliged to carry out the field investigation. And even if the FAA (FF) accepted the investigation delegation the NTSB still keeps an element of control or supervision over the investigation:
When an accident is delegated to the FAA, it will be the regional director's responsibility to make sure the delegated accidents meet minimum quality control and timeliness standards.
Which is very different to the Hempel investigation where the ATSB and CAsA totally wiped their hands of the matter.


Just like the CVR/FDR issue with Pel-Air the ATSB should have been obliged to salvage the wreckage. With the relevant history of prangs in the Yak (FOD jammed controls etc), I have no doubt that the NTSB would have recovered the wreck regardless of whether the investigation had been delegated to the FAA (or in the Hempel case the QPS Forensic Crash Unit)!

No as HMHB says it is going to be an interesting month and a half!

Sarcs is offline