2006 Willowbank 206 crash

[puff]

Hey Guys,

Subject was debated quite a bit at the time - take some time to read the coronors report which brings up some very good points IMHO in relation to regulation of the parachute industry

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Willowbank20081124.pdf

[Jabawocky]

Certainly interesting......

And this bit
The evidence in this case shows that customers of the Brisbane Skydiving Centre were charged a single fee for a tandem parachute jump. The fee included temporary membership of the APF, the provision of parachuting equipment, a pre-flight briefing from a parachuting instructor, the services of a tandem master and carriage in an aircraft to reach the jump height.
I have no doubt that part of the fee paid by tandem jumpers is for the air carriage to the jump height - this is why they are charged more if they jump from higher. Accordingly I am of the view a court could conclude tandem jumpers are passengers carried for reward and CASA has misinterpreted the legislation when determining such activities can be carried on without an AOC.

So is it commercial or not? :hmm:

J

[VH-XXX]

Doh, you beat me to that paragraph by 20 mins. How about this one - it goes with yours.


"I am of the view the decision of CASA not to require commercial parachuting operators to hold an AOC is connected with the deaths investigated by this inquest. "

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

commenced operating at Aratula on the Darling Downs in 1982

One would hope the rest of the report is more factual than that statement!

I am sure that Alan Cunningham would not consider Aratula to be on the Darling Downs!

Apparently, in 2006 and 2008 amendments were made to the CASA Day (VFR) syllabus – aeroplanes that have resulted in partial EFATO training being included in student training. This raises the question of such training for pilots licensed before that time.

Is this true? Has it been possible to go through PPL and CPL training and NOT get a thorough workout on EFATO?

That is not how I remember it!

Dr :8

[flog]

Slight thread drift but in reply to the Dr...

Our CFI/ATO back in the 90's was notorious in PPL and CPL exams for the following - if a spoken-out-loud EFATO action checklist ("if I have an engine failure before taking off...if after takeoff...reduce power, land straight ahead, etc.) was not heard while sitting at the threshold or holding point he would pull the mixture on the pilot during the takeoff roll (early and at a safe distance). Scared the shizen out of those caught not being EFATO aware.

[VH-XXX]

Watch this space I guess............

Conclusions
A court could conclude the occupants of the incident aircraft, other than the pilot and the tandem masters, were passengers who were to be carried for reward from the airstrip to the jump site. Accordingly, I consider CASA misapplied the provisions of the CAA s27 and CAR206 when it concluded that the Brisbane Skydiving Centre and other similar operators could offer tandem jumps to members of the public without holding an AOC.

[Diatryma]

The relevant legislation requires a contract for carriage of the passenger "...between a place in Queensland and another place in Queensland." Section 4(1) of Queenslands Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1964

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cala1964327.txt/cgi-bin/download.cgi/download/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cala1964327.txt

Surely if the contract is to carry a passenger from Willowbank and let them jump out of the aircraft at "jump height" before the aircraft then lands back at Willowbank - is not such a contract for carriage???

What is the postcode of "Jump Height" anyway?

Di :E

[Lasiorhinus]

Skydiving ops requiring an AOC?

About bloody time!:ok:


An airstrip in Queensland is certainly "a place in Queensland".

Is 14,000 feet above that same airstrip "a place in Queensland"? Airspace comes under Federal jurisdiction, not State.

[RadioSaigon]

About bloody time!http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Hear, hear!!! CPL's in the drivers seat, paid what's more! The end of this particular gravy-train (for the operators) is well overdue, as is the closing of this especially glaring gap in the regulations.

Bring it on!!!

[flog]

It's covered under the Warbird ops in a similar (but different) way.

262AM states you can carry paying public (with a CPL of course) on an adventure operation as long as the operation takes-off and lands at the same aerodrome.

Without an AOC.

[Jabawocky]

EFATO training was still in vogue when I learnt....albeit in a different century to the Dr :}

And I do mentally review it every takeoff and sometimes out loud....just for good measure!

In fact when I first learned to fly the subliminal message left me thinking most engines fail every 50 hours....... or so it seemed!:uhoh:

J

PS as for geography I wondered that too........but figured he must be better educated than me given his position, but it seems I may be wrong!:}

[PyroTek]

My instructors tend to pull the throttle at about 200-300 ft to see how I react, then when they say "OK" then I can push it back in and keep climbing.
They get antsy at me if i forget the pre-takeoff briefing... rightly so.

[A37575]

My instructors tend to pull the throttle at about 200-300 ft to see how I react, then when they say "OK" then I can push it back in and keep climbing

A dangerous technique and proves nothing. By closing the throttle at 200 feet hardly has the student lowered the nose when he has to go around again. If the engine fails to pick up when the throttle is opened again then there is no time for the instructor to recover the situation in terms of field selection. What sort of weird instruction is that?

Far better to wait until a higher more suitable altitude where there is sufficient time for not only the student to select a suitable forced landing field but also to conduct essential safety checks depending on the aircraft type. It also gives the instructor sufficient time to evaluate the students actions so that a meaningful assessment of his skills can be made. And it also gives a fighting chance of regaining power if the engine fails to pick up during throttle opening. Throttle linkages have been known to break with jerky or rough handling by the instructor or student - especially when rapidly closing or opening the throttle as in simulated engine failure. Good threat and error management would dictate a safe altitude before closing a throttle in a single engine aircraft to simulate engine failure.

Think about this one on a similar subject:
It is common for some instructors to cut the mixture control in a twin to simulate engine failure after take off. They claim this is more realistic than using a closed throttle. They conveniently disregard the risk involved with a mixture cut that the engine may not restart and thus the pilot is left with a windmilling prop at low airspeed and altitude.

Yet, ask anyone why not cut the mixture on a single engine aircraft (rather than the throttle closure) to simulate an engine failure after take off?

Their answer would be unprintable, but generally it would be obvious there is a perceived danger of the engine not starting when mixture was re-introduced. Yet pilots are still happy to risk a failed start on a twin following a mixture cut simulated engine failure. Strange logic?

[av8trflying]

I have yet to hear of a twin instructor pull the mixture to simulate an engine failure.

It is downright dangerous and the reasons why have been known for decades.

Every twin i have flown also states in the flight manual not to do it.

If someone is telling you to do this, walk away.:ugh:

[DanArcher]

twin instructor pulled the mixture to simulate an engine failure.
have flown with 2 different schools, 3 different instructors & 1 ato that pulls mixture to simulate an engine failure... although none of them would use the mixture below 1000` agl

[Angle of Attack]

I disagree regarding no one uses mixture etc for a single engine aircraft, I regulary turned off the fuel valve discretely thus delaying the failure by 10 secs or so to give the students a real unexpected failure. Don't get me wrong never EFATO though lol, always at a high altitude. EFATO always the throttle and at least have 400ft or so otherwise cant really do much else but push the nose down then add power. Regarding mixture use for engine failures I beg to differ although my GA days were in mid to late 90's I never heard of anyone using a throttle for engine failures, has it changed now that the throttle is always used? I cant see a difference personally, whether its throttle or mixture, yes a throttle linkage could break, so could a mixture linkage? the props turning spark plugs firing as soon as you re-introduce fuel by mixture it fires, the chance of it not firing are the same as if you used the throttle. Fully feathered landings are way more dangerous, in those cases you dont have the engine full stop. Anyway I dont have an opinion either way whats more correct just wondering if its true that no one uses mixture anymore?

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Isn't it a known fact that there are more fatalities from this 'sort' of training than actual engine failures?
I think you will find there is more to training accidents in twins than closing the mixture. Quite often it involves risks being taken at low level (that could be simulated at higher altitudes), not setting correct zero thrust settings, instructor failure to promptly correct student errors just to name a few. Check the CAAP on Multi-Engine training for more info.
Granted, for either single or twins, mixture cuts are unaccceptable at low level, but if you are worried about the engine not starting when fuel is reintroduced, there are bigger issues at play.
Seneca 1 Manual Operating Tip 15:
Experience has shown that the training advantage gained by pulling a mixture control or turning off the fuel to simulate engine failure at low altitude is not worth the risk assumed. Therefore, it is recommended that instead of using either of these procedures to simulate loss of power at low altitude, the throttle be retarded slowly to idle position.

AV8tr and OS, at higher altitude, there is no issue.

A37575,
Archerfield procedures where Pyro trains (not my AD) have a "Code 1" request where you can simulate EFATO as long as recovery is made with enough room before the airfield fence (essentially). I'm sure you can do this with 1400m on the main runway. The idea of a practise EFATO with my students is to have a suitable area available and see if the student can exercise the judgement and actions necessary to make the selected zone (or another suitable one if they so choose) under a pressure situation. In my view there is definitely benefit to be gained from this exercise. If your throttle is at risk of breaking from being advanced and retarded I think you need to find a new LAME. Can you qoute the source?
It is common for some instructors
Bit of an oxymoron but agree with your logic on this one....not with mixture at low level.

[Van Gough]

It is a sad state of affairs that people had to be killed before anything is to be done about the lack of regulation at commercial DZs.

I always found it incredible that the operators advertise tandem jumps with scenic views etc yet they are not required to have an AOC & Chief Pilot. Everything about some of these places is the very definition of a commercial operation. The flight to height is a charter in every sense of the word and should be regulated as such.

An absolute failure on CASA's behalf (in my opinion) :ugh:

[HarveyGee]

Full marks to the Coroner for a lucid interpretation. That about puts the lid on it, for me. CASA now has no choice but to require AOCs for skydive, or risk being sued for millions if there is a future accident, which sadly will almost inevitably occur. Priority number one for the new bloke, I'd say.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I think the mixture has been used to simulate engine failure on every MECIR I have ever done! But then I have only ever flown with highly experienced ME Instructors. Can't say it has ever caused me any concern.

How do you realistically test whether someone verifies which engine has failed if that throttle is already pulled back?

EFATO
1) Identify - dead leg, dead engine
2) Verify - yes, I am right cause that throttle is already closed
3) Feather - same side as the already closed throttle

If anyone ever turned the fuel off on me - I would belt them with something and tell them, "don't f*cking touch that" - then land at the nearest aerodrome and tell them to get the f*ck out of my aeroplane!

Dr :8

[squawk6969]

I suppose you would never have that problem Dr in the Bo! Sorry Wally2

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

What the f*ck? Squarky?? Is that you? Where you bin, mate? I heard you were dead!

I suppose you would never have that problem Dr in the Bo!

Nope, anyone trying to turn the fuel off in the Bo from the RH front seat is gonna have to get quite personal with me, and unless you have two X chromosomes and a generous supply of oestradiol is gonna get you a good whack with the fire extinguisher!

Dr :8

[Angle of Attack]

Whats the differnce between turning the fuel off and cutting the mixture? honestly? Both achieve the same damn consequence. Its moving a valve which limits the AVGAS getting to the engine. Im not looking for an argument but pointing out a plain simple statement. Turning the fuel valve off in flight is absolutely as safe as pulling mixture period.

Edit- of course not at low level if anyone was gonna have a go at me about that. its high level thing. common sense common sense

[300Series]

In every one of my ME training flights and on every assymetric i did on my CIR initial and renewals all engine failures were by the instructor/ATO using the mixture control. Usually the aircraft folder of a piece of paper or something handy was used to cover the mixture controls so I couldnt get a peek at which donk was going to die. Even the practice failures after takeoff were done with mixture.

Angle of Attack as part of my initial multi engine training i had to do a practice engine failure just before decision speed, just after the nose had come off the ground and a fully feathered landing.

Both the last 2 made me quite nervous. Both the fully feathered landing and engine failure before decision speed were briefed considerably before we left terra firma and they were done within strict guidelines. I can't remember what they were now.

300

[Chimbu chuckles]

In what aircraft?

[300Series]

fully feathered landing and engine failure on rotation in a duchess. but every other engine failure in all the twins ive flown have been done using the mixture.

P68, B76, B58, C310

300

[bushy]

I cannot believe that a pilot can get a CPL and 400 hours without ever having some EFATO training and practise.
Surely there must be some mistake here. If this is the case then his training is incomplete.
Also, I was in twin engined aircraft many many times when an engine was shut down by using the mixture control for practice and/or testing. Sometimes in the LHS and sometimes in the RHS. On takeoff the shutdown occurred "not below 50 feet,with gear up, not below VMCA plus ten" and was briefed as such at the beginning of the flight. Sometimes it occurred below your decision speed, in which case you stopped.
And the flight would generally conclude with an instrument approach (usually ILS) during which an engine failure would be simulated with the mixture control. An assymetric go around would be required at the minima.
Twin endorsements required a feathered landing.
I'm glad we did those things, because then I knew I could handle such things. And all my blokes (and girls) did too.

[bushy]

The Coroner has commented on CASA's interpretation of the act in such a way that they ruled flights for tandem jumping wre private operations.
Charter operators have been shut down for operating in the same way as most tandem jump aircraft operators do, because CASA said it was RPT.
1. They advertise their services, and particular flights and places in the media.
2. The flights are scheduled for a particular time.
3. Passengers (the coroner has said they are passengers) pay only for their own transport. They do not charter the whole aircraft.
4.The flights are from fixed places to fixed places.(terminals?)
This makes the operation RPT.
For a long time there has been doubt about the way CASA categorises operations but no one has had the legal muscle to challenge this. The ambiguity about this has caused operators to go out of business, or have their AOC withdrawn. What are "fixed terminals??
What are "scheduled flights" ( a court decided that a "scheduled flight" is any flight that is arranged to depart at a particular time.) Looks like they are all scheduled flights.
The whole thing should be re written to eliminate the ambiguity and get some consistency in it's interpretation. It should be simplified and made more precise and definite.
We should all re read the Phelan papers.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Is this yet another area of training where the standard has been dropped to the lowest common denominator?

Dr :8

[av8trflying]

http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2004/aug/36-37.pdf

[Unhinged]

Whats the differnce between turning the fuel off and cutting the mixture?

If you turn the fuel off it takes a finite amount of time for the fuel in the lines to be used up and the engine to stop, and when you turn it back on again there will be another delay before the engine restarts as fuel is pumped back into the carburettor (or fuel injection plumbing)

If you cut the mixture the engine will stop producing power immediately, and when you put the mixture back to rich the engine will start producing power immediately.

Big difference.

Usually the aircraft folder of a piece of paper or something handy was used to cover

I do this for two reasons: First to help the student focus on the aircraft performance for their decisions, not on the position of the levers. Second, to signal that this is an intentional failure, and power will be available immediately if needed.

I use throttle for the initial engine failure practice, Vmca demo (although there are those who say we shouldn't be doing that either), and low level engine failures. I do not initiate any engine failures below 300 ft AGL - ever - and usually use a higher minimum height depending on the situation.

I use mixture for all other engine failures because the restoration of power is immediate, and the engine manufacturers' published data says it's less stressful for the engine than the pumping stresses which happen when you close the throttle.

But then I learnt my META from the same bloke that the Dr refers to. And he's bloody good.

If my closing the mixture is a problem for anyone, then I'm very happy if we don't fly together.

[bushy]

AV8R
It's interesting that CASA say this is dangerous. They used to do it themselves every time an FOI tested someone for an instrument rating renewal.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Im not looking for an argument but pointing out a plain simple statement. Turning the fuel valve off in flight is absolutely as safe as pulling mixture period.

This is not trying to **** stir, but I know of a number of Partenavia operators who don't want the fuel taps manipulated due to wear and possibility of failure (even x-feed checks during taxiing. They say 100 hrly cx were sufficient). Any LAMEs care to comment??

[the wizard of auz]

There is no regulation requiring students or instructors to demonstrate a feathered approach and landing, either on initial twin or endorsement training on type. Unless the specific aircraft type is known to exhibit unusual handling characteristics
with a propeller feathered (such as marked yaw at the flare), there is no point in taking unnecessary risks by deliberately
feathering a propeller for landing when the safest option is to throttle back to zero thrust.

quite interesting.

[RadioSaigon]

...I know of a number of Partenavia operators who don't want the fuel taps manipulated due to wear and possibility of failure (even x-feed checks during taxiing...

Wow! That's scary. Did they (the operators) never consider getting the valves they're so concerned for checked or replaced???

Personally, I always check the x-feeds as a part of my daily run-up... I want to be certain that:
they work, and
the fuel available is accessible, should I need it!Should be a routine part of a twin pilots' checks IMO. Operators mandating these checks not be completed need their arses booted. If it's such a concern in the P-68, surely there are SB's or AD's out that address the issue? With it being a 'known' issue, what is CASA's position on these U/S x-feeds???

[bushy]

It is a good idea to study the fuel system in p68's as it does have a couple of tricks.
The fuel selectors have sometimes been known to seize up so they cannot be moved. It is worth checking these regularly. But I was always wary if making changes to fuel selectors immediately before takeoff.
One operator I knew took his family for a trip in his P68 and when he got to his destination he selected the fuel selectors to "crossfeed-engine off" . He then had the aircraft refuelled to full tanks and went off for the night, thinking he had turned the fuel off.
But the aircraft was parked on sloping ground and when he came out in the morning he found it almost balancing on one mainwheel, with fuel dribbling out of the fuel tank vent on the downhill side, and not much fuel in the uphill tanks.
Most embarassing, and he also had to pay a hefty call out fee for the refueller.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Personally, I always check the x-feeds as a part of my daily run-up...

Good idea but be careful. I have seen many students (not saying you) do this and forget to switch back to mains for t/o.:eek:
My line up cx always include fuel selector position as a follow on to the pre t/o cx.
One of those who advocated leaving the selectors on was Humph Maltman (RIP) and I'm sure many will agree he knew his stuff.

I've seen two instances of x-feeding and overflowing in the party-van. As the weight reduces from the upward wing, everything just gets worse....