Skippers incident at Jundee
Thread Starter
Skippers incident at Jundee
..........
Incident prompts call for simulator training
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer | July 10, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE Australian Transport Safety Bureau has called on the air safety regulator to make it compulsory for Australian operators to undertake simulator training if facilities are available.
The bureau raised the issue this week in relation to an incident involving an Embraer EMB-120ER that came close to crashing in remote Western Australia in June 2007.
It was carrying 28 passengers and three crew at the time.
The Skippers Aviation plane was on final approach to Jundee Airstrip when it began drifting left of the runway centreline, and a move by the crew to initiate a go-around produced an aggressive roll and yaw to the left.
An ATSB report released on Wednesday said the crew had difficulty controlling the plane, did not immediately complete the go-around procedure and did not regain normal control of the aircraft until the landing gear was retracted about three minutes later.
"The co-pilot, who was the handling pilot, felt that he could not control the aircraft and asked the pilot in command to assist him on the controls," the report said. "That situation, along with the aircraft's proximity to the ground, appeared to have distracted the crew to the extent that they did not complete all the essential go-around procedures.
"As a result, the landing gear and flaps were not configured correctly until much later in the go-around sequence.
"The recorded performance of the aircraft during the go-around indicated that the avoidance of a collision with terrain was fortuitous, with the altitude of the aircraft decreasing to 50ft AGL (above ground level) at its lowest point."
The crew, who continued to Wiluna and conducted a single-engine landing, had seen engine warnings during the go-around. A subsequent probe found the left engine had stopped because it was starved of fuel and the left tank was empty, despite fuel gauge readings indicating the presence of fuel. An examination found the outboard "capacitance probe" in the tank had failed.
The ATSB focused on fuel quantity management and aircraft handling and found unclear regulatory guidance about measuring fuel loads before flight and inconsistent practices by the operator in measuring and logging fuel quantity were both safety issues.
Among other fuel safety factors, the aircraft was not equipped with a warning system for low fuel level and this was not required by the certification standards to which the aircraft was built.
In terms of aircraft handling, a lack of simulator training meant the training the flight crew had undergone did not adequately prepare them for the event.
This was due to the fact there was no EMB-120 flight simulator training facility in Australia, but the bureau also noted there was no regulator requirement for simulator training in Australia.
The report noted the operator had since changed its fuel quantity management procedures to include a dripless stick reading each day that is recorded in the flight log. Other new procedures included recording auxiliary power unit fuel burn and required an aircraft to be rendered unserviceable if the dripless stick readings differed from fuel gauge readings by more than 3 per cent.
A simulator for the EMB-120s had also opened in Melbourne in April this year, and the operator had started using this for flight crew training.
The ATSB said these moves appeared to adequately address the operator safety issues. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority had also reviewed the operator and issued a Civil Aviation Regulation on fule measurement.
It had also told the bureau that it intended to amend Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 234 to increase oversight of fuel cross-checking processes, but the ATSB said it was concerned that the amendment had still not been released.
"In addition to the occurrence involving VH-XUE, the ATSB is aware of two other occurrences involving Australian-registered aircraft since January 2005 involving engine loss due to fuel starvation in turboprop aircraft with a maximum take-off weight above 5700kg," it said. "In each case, the practices used by the flight crew to establish fuel quantity did not detect erroneous fuel indications."
The ATSB acknowledged that CASA had moved to facilitate the increased use of simulators. "However, the ATSB remains concerned that there is no regulatory requirement for simulator training when a suitable simulator in Australia (is available)," it said. It recommended CASA address the issue.
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer | July 10, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE Australian Transport Safety Bureau has called on the air safety regulator to make it compulsory for Australian operators to undertake simulator training if facilities are available.
The bureau raised the issue this week in relation to an incident involving an Embraer EMB-120ER that came close to crashing in remote Western Australia in June 2007.
It was carrying 28 passengers and three crew at the time.
The Skippers Aviation plane was on final approach to Jundee Airstrip when it began drifting left of the runway centreline, and a move by the crew to initiate a go-around produced an aggressive roll and yaw to the left.
An ATSB report released on Wednesday said the crew had difficulty controlling the plane, did not immediately complete the go-around procedure and did not regain normal control of the aircraft until the landing gear was retracted about three minutes later.
"The co-pilot, who was the handling pilot, felt that he could not control the aircraft and asked the pilot in command to assist him on the controls," the report said. "That situation, along with the aircraft's proximity to the ground, appeared to have distracted the crew to the extent that they did not complete all the essential go-around procedures.
"As a result, the landing gear and flaps were not configured correctly until much later in the go-around sequence.
"The recorded performance of the aircraft during the go-around indicated that the avoidance of a collision with terrain was fortuitous, with the altitude of the aircraft decreasing to 50ft AGL (above ground level) at its lowest point."
The crew, who continued to Wiluna and conducted a single-engine landing, had seen engine warnings during the go-around. A subsequent probe found the left engine had stopped because it was starved of fuel and the left tank was empty, despite fuel gauge readings indicating the presence of fuel. An examination found the outboard "capacitance probe" in the tank had failed.
The ATSB focused on fuel quantity management and aircraft handling and found unclear regulatory guidance about measuring fuel loads before flight and inconsistent practices by the operator in measuring and logging fuel quantity were both safety issues.
Among other fuel safety factors, the aircraft was not equipped with a warning system for low fuel level and this was not required by the certification standards to which the aircraft was built.
In terms of aircraft handling, a lack of simulator training meant the training the flight crew had undergone did not adequately prepare them for the event.
This was due to the fact there was no EMB-120 flight simulator training facility in Australia, but the bureau also noted there was no regulator requirement for simulator training in Australia.
The report noted the operator had since changed its fuel quantity management procedures to include a dripless stick reading each day that is recorded in the flight log. Other new procedures included recording auxiliary power unit fuel burn and required an aircraft to be rendered unserviceable if the dripless stick readings differed from fuel gauge readings by more than 3 per cent.
A simulator for the EMB-120s had also opened in Melbourne in April this year, and the operator had started using this for flight crew training.
The ATSB said these moves appeared to adequately address the operator safety issues. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority had also reviewed the operator and issued a Civil Aviation Regulation on fule measurement.
It had also told the bureau that it intended to amend Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 234 to increase oversight of fuel cross-checking processes, but the ATSB said it was concerned that the amendment had still not been released.
"In addition to the occurrence involving VH-XUE, the ATSB is aware of two other occurrences involving Australian-registered aircraft since January 2005 involving engine loss due to fuel starvation in turboprop aircraft with a maximum take-off weight above 5700kg," it said. "In each case, the practices used by the flight crew to establish fuel quantity did not detect erroneous fuel indications."
The ATSB acknowledged that CASA had moved to facilitate the increased use of simulators. "However, the ATSB remains concerned that there is no regulatory requirement for simulator training when a suitable simulator in Australia (is available)," it said. It recommended CASA address the issue.
Last edited by topend3; 16th Jul 2009 at 14:34.
I see Steve Creedy's using smilies in his articles now...
Arh, good, they're gone...
Arh, good, they're gone...
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 18th Jul 2009 at 02:39. Reason: Updating Steve's Smileys...
Join Date: May 2007
Location: nt
Age: 43
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard a rumuor just after the incident that the landing was simulated on a sim in the states, numerous tries each one ended up with the aircraft in the ditch. I think the crew pulled off one fine effort to keep it in the air after the engine failed, did not auto feather because power levers were pulled back for landing with a rudder system that some pilots have called too small.
Engineers do not do fuel qty on dailys, as fuel is usually added on line after daily
Engineers do not do fuel qty on dailys, as fuel is usually added on line after daily
