Sounds like a potentially dangerous gimmick retracting flaps when very low on final rather than apply power and reheat the turbochargers. By ATSB accepting the pilot's excuses and not offering expert engineering comment to refute the pilot's reasoning, how can other pilots reading this report expect to learn from this incident.
Thanks,
Tee Emm, for a good example of how ATSB's poor report writing is failing to pass on the necessary safety messages. In the other thread on ATSB reports that is currently running, there are posters that don't believe the poor writing is having this effect.
This example shows that, not only is the poor writing failing to effectively convey safety lessons, but that messages that are
outright wrong are being conveyed.
Here is the exact wording from the report:
When they realised they were becoming low on the approach the pilot reduced flaps by 10° rather than apply power. This was done to avoid reheating the turbo chargers as they had already cooled.
Written this way, it sounds like the ATSB speaking. There is thus considerable implied authority to those words. A young pilot, transitioning to a turbocharged type, for example, may take away messages about turbocharger cooling and the validity of retracting flaps on final for this purpose.
But we know that these words were probably those of the pilot, which dramatically changes their authority. The report should have been written such that it was clear that those words were from the pilot.
How about, "
Upon realising the aircraft was low on the approach, the pilot elected to retract one stage of flap, rather than apply power. The pilot believed that applying power would adversely impact on turbocharger cooling".
Presenting the pilot's words in that "Pilot comments" section was a terrible idea and has had a lot to do with the misinterpretations that can follow. There is no good reason to present the comments from the various parties that way. As we have seen, it can result in a dramatic misrepresentation of the authority of the words.