Thanks Sarcs for the info – as suspected, it just needed teasing out. Cock up was always the short price favourite; VARA would have done it all properly – just ATSB systems, as usual. Chaz has the right of it on the rest though, all fairly normal routine events.
Chadzat "Two thirds are for completely 'normal' occurrences – i.e. bird/wildlife strikes and wind-shear.
M12 # 90 –"As best as I understood it (and yes this is a rumour) somehow the crew separated the control columns in flight (this can be done in case of an elevator control cable jam, but does require about 170 lbs of pull force)"
Somewhere in this, the aircraft was subjected to approximately 3.5G of force, causing significant stress and twisting forces to the vertical stabiliser. Believe the aircraft continued to operate for an additional 2 days. Understand the aircraft is likely to require a new tail.
S. Pete # 103 – "The inference earlier in the thread is that the controls were inadvertently split by the two pilots and that during the ensuing mayhem large and opposite elevator inputs caused severe torsional forces on the tail".
Before I get savaged by a bunch of screaming Virgins (be still my beating heart), let me state that without any form of 'official' report to work with, I am speculating : without facts, just thinking out loud. Some of the reports and tales herein, considered at face value could be disturbing. I am not, as yet disturbed, just very curious. There is the potential here to create real headaches. I expect the ATR, ATSB and VARA troops at the coalface will do what they need to, diligently and without fear or prejudice, no doubt at all. ATSB troops have done all that and more before now; but, regrettably the shades of Pel Air linger, which creates a miasma of suspicion over any published outcome. The report on this incident needs, like Caesar's wife, to be above suspicion, without blemish and a benchmark for excellence; for everyone's sake. Lets try and keep them honest this time.
So many questions arise. It's my serious doubts over the integrity and competence of our present ATSB/CASA management ethos to allow production of a honest report and to transparently manage this domestic episode, hopefully avoiding another 'pilot error' cop out which prompts the questions. Nothing to do with VARA or it's flight crews.
So, for starters, is the split yoke story even true?? The very idea that two 'competent' pilots could manage to exert (accidentally?) enough 'diametrically opposite' force during the translation of a 'bumpy' situation, with enough 'grunt' to separate the yokes is, stand alone; (when you think about it): a terrifying thought. The notion that two of them even exercised any serious control force, let alone 114 lbs, in an 'opposite direction', while correcting a trimmed flight attitude deviation simply begs questions. Industry cannot wait for another two years just to see what the ATSB eventually makes of it all and I'd bet a beer VARA won't be waiting about. Were there two sets of hands on the controls?, if so, why?. Was the AP engaged?. Any ideas on Speed, ROD, configuration at the time? SOP's?
The turbulence about Canberra is, on rare occasions, as bad as anywhere in the known world. A known fact, operational wisdom handed down, from Father to son. Seconds may go by where the aircraft is simply not 'manoeuvrable'. A wise child will not, in the first instance overload the airframe. But rather offer short prayers to pagan gods that this all stops soon, stabilises the airframe attitude early and 'works with it' to go quietly through the lumps with light hands, tender words and an understanding of basic aerodynamics. Once reunited with terra firma, (and having recovered some cool); it is time to scream for the 'grown ups'. "Please sir, I've just given this airframe a hell of a beating, to the extent that the FA has broken a wing" (hint-hint). "Could you have a real butchers-hook at the old girl (not the FA ya pervert) and see that all is well".
Now I wonder, is there a specific briefing in the VARA port operations manual sections which clearly warns pilots of the so very real dangers which, once or maybe twice in a career, can be found on approach to Canberra. Or is there just some mind numbing CASA pacifying 'buzz words'; slightly hysterical 'guest etiquette' briefings and other associated, stultifying twaddle. Are there specific notes on how to manage a Canberra approach, when it's 'cooking'?. Notes specifying caution during certain temperature/ wind range combinations, noting the inherent stability of the weather patterns which "may" just start the pot boiling. Not knocking the crew or standards here, but forewarned and forearmed is always better.
Was the FA strapped down, long before the expectation of bumps?. Were the bumps forecast? Was the crew made aware that conditions that day were within the range of the real McCoy severe turbulence, Canberra style?, was a precautionary allowance made for just such an event (just in case)? You could reasonably expect the crew to have this sorted, so how come a busted leg?
Speculation, for example, has the damage done during turbulence event been camouflaged, i.e. by a weakened, but not busted internal part or structure, only revealing the flaw after further flight? This speaks highly of airframe design integrity, but does beg some questions. It would be prudent to examine the quality of initial reporting, the subsequent examination and Safety Management procedures.
Hindsight - Should the aircraft have been grounded, the tapes pulled and perhaps, some in depth analysis completed? On the face of it: granted with 20/20 hindsight and no hard data, the answer IMO, is Yes. Like we do for any reported seriously 'abnormal' event.
Fact - There is one savagely mauled aircraft shrouded and parked, which (in the fullness of time) could become more 'problematic' than it already is, (or needs be) if the ATSB insist on keeping to their beyond reason CASA dictated approach.
Don't know and pre-empting a report is really non of my business; but sometimes, when you get an itch you just have to scratch.
Just saying.