ATSB writer gilds the lily

[Judd]

From the latest ATSB Aviation Short Investigations Bulletin about a Metro in-flight engine shut down.


Following the aircraft yaw, the flight crew actively employed their crew resource management procedures to identify and confirm the engine fault and then shut down the right engine. The use of these procedures reduced the risk of an incorrect diagnosis of the fault or activation of the incorrect engine controls during shut down.
............................................................ .....................................
Comment. Come off the grass ATSB. What a lot of superfluous padding. They simply shut down the engine. Why not say that?:ugh:

[Lead Balloon]

They simply shut down the engine. Why not say that?Utilisation of terminology lacking sufficient and adequate specificity is apt inadvertently to lead readers into misinterpreting and overlooking the contemporaneous and causally positive crew resource management procedures and concepts, which procedures and concepts resulted in a potentially safety-negative in-flight incident being comprehended then subsequently dealt with using a collaborative, respectful, non-confrontational, non-discriminatory and checklist-compliant, operations manual-compliant and legally-compliant methodology.

[PW1830]

Following engine failure the crew did what they were trained to do, followed the engine failure checklist.
Amazingly this addressed crm considerations and reduced the risk of etc etc

[Capt Fathom]

An engine blew up! The crew flew the aeroplane to their destination on the remaining one!

[john_tullamarine]

Utilisation of terminology ...

Leadie,

It is most pleasing to see that your philosophies, being both compatible and contemporaneous with recent developments in cockpit cultural norms permit a lucid requirements elicitation of those essential activities necessary to address the situation presented to this crew.

:suspect:

[BPA]

The problem with the ATSB is it's filled a large team of HF experts and not many investigators with a flying background, hence you get this in their reports.

I think the current ATSB investigators should read the old ASD's to see how reports should be written.

Hopefully with GH in charge now and given his operational background we will see some changes.

[PDR1]

One must temper this in the light of the ambient opinionage in respect to the ATSB staff, in that it is generallyt held that they would experience capability and effectiveness shortfalls in attempts to facilitate the provisionof alcoholic beverages, even when colocated with facilities where it would normally be expected that such beverages would be manufactured.

PDR

[aussie1234]

Doesn't matter what wanky language they use in the report. The first 2 words in the cockpit after the engine failure were "Oh S......"

[LeadSled]

Leadie, JohnT, PDR1,
Great posts, succinct, to the point, comprehensive and sadly, all too accurate.
Tootle pip!!

[fujii]

You must remember that ATSB reports aren't only read by the aviation industry. They are also read by non aviation people such lawyers and insurance people who may still be involved years after an event. Because of this the report must go into great detail. It may seem overly wordy but there is a reason.

[Lead Balloon]

Not aimed at you, fujii, but if that's the reason, it's a complete nonsense. The purposes of an ATSB report do not include making lawyers and insurance companies happy.

[fujii]

True but if you were unfortunate enough to end up in court, a document written by an independent agency that said you did everything correctly and written in a way a lawyer could understand would be very good to have.

[Lookleft]

An ATSB report is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. What is amazing about the statement is that it is not talking about shutting down the failed engine but actually stating that they didn't shutdown the wrong engine!:ugh:

[Lead Balloon]

Indeed, Lookleft.

Who knows what other nonsense confuses people about what ATSB reports are supposed to be about.

[601]

Utilisation of terminology lacking sufficient and adequate specificity is apt inadvertently to lead readers into misinterpreting and overlooking the contemporaneous and causally positive crew resource management procedures and concepts, which procedures and concepts resulted in a potentially safety-negative in-flight incident being comprehended then subsequently dealt with using a collaborative, respectful, non-confrontational, non-discriminatory and checklist-compliant, operations manual-compliant and legally-compliant methodology

Great posts, succinct, to the point, comprehensive and sadly, all too accurate

How about
DFDE

[Judd]

Who knows what other nonsense confuses people about what ATSB reports are supposed to be about.
Such as buggering the English language by using the word "they" or "their" to hide the gender of the pilot. That really must confuse English second language pilots reading ATSB reports:ugh:

[john_tullamarine]

... I give up !! You gotta tell us what DFDE stands for ... (If it is incredibly naughty, a PM will suffice to assuage my curiosity).

[DeRated]

Dead Foot John.........

[john_tullamarine]

Dead Foot John.........

DOH .. ! Boy, am I dumb sometimes ...

[wishiwasupthere]

How about DFDE

Maybe in a Chieftain, but not in a turbine.

'Torque, EGT, fuel flow'.

[Lookleft]

DFDE is still relevant as one of your feet is still going to have to counter the swing using the rudder pedals. It is however not used procedurally to identify which engine has failed.

[FGD135]

Following the aircraft yaw, the flight crew actively employed their crew resource management procedures to identify and confirm the engine fault and then shut down the right engine. The use of these procedures reduced the risk of an incorrect diagnosis of the fault or activation of the incorrect engine controls during shut down.

Poorly written. Written by somebody that is not a writer. Unbecoming of a report.

I would really need to see the context this passage was taken from, but it is just a little too sensationalist, and is attempting persuasion.

The touch of the dramatic makes this more like the style of writing you would find at the local DVD rental shop, when reading the back cover of a movie box.

Completely out of place for an ATSB report. ATSB reports are not what they used to be.

I would also add that what has been said is flat out wrong. The procedures employed weren't CRM procedures, but would have been, in fact, the standard procedures that all multi-engine operators train their pilots for. Those procedures existed long before the CRM concept came into being.

But why employ so many words to say that the engine failure was treated correctly? A properly written report would simply say that the faulty engine was identified and shut down in accordance with the required procedures. It would even have been permissible to have just said that "the faulty engine was shut down".

But if errors were made in the execution of the shut down, or the required procedure was deviated from, then this would justify (and require) words related to the procedure and how it should have been carried out.

"Following the aircraft yaw ...". Poor english. If a car was to slide, would you write, "following the car slide"? No, because it is poor english. Omission of the word "aircraft" is most probably the best fix in this case, assuming there was an earlier sentence reporting the yaw.

"Shut down the right engine ...". Here is another specific example of the poor wording. Does "right" in this case mean "correct", or does it mean the engine on the right hand side of the aircraft? From the context, I suspect the former, in which case this is very poor wording indeed.

When writing a report, the word "right" should NEVER be used when "correct" is the intended meaning. This is because "right" has a number of meanings. Similarly, the word "last" should never be used when "final" is available.

"... actively employed ...". The word "actively" here is redundant. The art of report writing is leave out as many words as possible. This author seems to be trying to do the opposite. This entire passage could have been written thus:

The engine was shut down.

Exactly how they shut the engine down is not relevant.

ATSB staff responsible for writing reports should be given some training in the art. We have seen a number of instances of atrocious reporting in recent years. Here are some of the PPrune threads devoted to discussions of those reports. I have commented in these threads.

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/557205-plain-english-please-atsb.html

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/472039-airbus-a330-303-vh-qpa-7-october-2008-atsb-report.html

I was particularly vocal in the case of the A330 report as the writer in that case was lavishing praise on the actions by the flight crew. Praise is not something that should be found in an ATSB report.

[dogcharlietree]

I've seen BASI reports that stated "xxx did not undertake an approved yyy course, nor was he required to". Talk about misrepresentation and implanting thoughts.
Hate the bastards. There is not one in there that is worthy enough to clean (the late and incredibly well respected) Macarthur Job's shoes. RIP.

[Lead Balloon]

Sometimes you get the implanted thought technique combined with awful sentence structure:The aircraft was not fitted, nor was it required to be, with a flight data or voice recorder.

[Centaurus]

ATSB staff responsible for writing reports should be given some training in the art

On the other hand, maybe the original draft was well written. But when it was sent to the legal branch for comment, a government lawyer "amended" the report by turning it into legalese to cover all bases.

In another era I was told to prepare a minute for the signature of an Assistant Secretary in the former DCA. His title meant he was a big wheel in the Department. I did just that, only to be coldly informed the Minute was too concise for the big wheel's liking.

I was told to re-write it; this time with more padding such as the expression "I have set in train" etc.
Pointing out to my boss the Manual of Administration (which we also used in the RAAF) stressed the importance of conciseness in letter writing, I was told that I was in the Public Service now and not in the RAAF, so be a good boy and do as you are told:(

[Dangly Bits]

Never use a big word when an infinitesimal word will do!

[601]

Maybe in a Chieftain, but not in a turbine.

DFDE

Confirmation
'Torque, EGT, fuel flow'.

But there exceptions, i.e. low power descending turns

When writing a report, the word "right" should NEVER be used when "correct" is the intended meaning. This is because "right" has a number of meanings. Similarly, the word "last" should never be used when "final" is available.:ok:

[Sunfish]

Anyone with a military background knows the difference between "repeat" and "say again".

[Lookleft]

I think the problem is that as the HF specialists require academic kudos for their work, the reports have to reflect an academic tone which results in 4 sentences to describe a simple engine shutdown. In days past the reports were written for the average man in the street. If that is still the case then they are overestimating the man in the street's IQ by a significant amount.

[MagnumPI]

If you think that the ATSB have a way with words, have a look at what RAA are doing:

https://www.raa.asn.au/safety/accident-and-defect-summaries/

It's like they are murdering the English language!