Has ATSB gone totally mad?
I must say that one of my beefs with a typical ATSB statement is the over-use of the term "is consistent with".
Ex: A smoking hole was discovered in the ground which was consistent with witness reports of an aircraft in a vertical dive.
CAVOK was forecast which is consistent with a witness report there was no cloud in the area.
Shortly after take off the captain threw up all over his first officer which is consistent with witness reports that he had been pissed as a newt that night.
Ex: A smoking hole was discovered in the ground which was consistent with witness reports of an aircraft in a vertical dive.
CAVOK was forecast which is consistent with a witness report there was no cloud in the area.
Shortly after take off the captain threw up all over his first officer which is consistent with witness reports that he had been pissed as a newt that night.
In what publication does ATSB admit this?
They note the criticism (and specifically that it has been made by CASA) and then reject it
Red Jet, good pickup!! I've edited the reply.
With regards to Apron B maybe a bit more explanation might help.
We pushed back at night in heavy rain from Apron B and were left by the tug at about 70 deg to the taxiway. The FO looking through his wet side window mis identified the blue sideline lights for green centerline and began to turn directly toward the nice row of lights!! I corrected him in plenty of time before we got bogged.
So, what I'm trying to say is this, if there is only 1 row of lights be sure you carefully observe which colour they are.
Anyway I guess it was a bit of thread drift as the Dash in TSV was on the runway.
With regards to Apron B maybe a bit more explanation might help.
We pushed back at night in heavy rain from Apron B and were left by the tug at about 70 deg to the taxiway. The FO looking through his wet side window mis identified the blue sideline lights for green centerline and began to turn directly toward the nice row of lights!! I corrected him in plenty of time before we got bogged.
So, what I'm trying to say is this, if there is only 1 row of lights be sure you carefully observe which colour they are.
Anyway I guess it was a bit of thread drift as the Dash in TSV was on the runway.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stralya
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if there is only 1 row of lights be sure you carefully observe which colour they are.
Sorry if I came across as a smartarse. The small inconvenience and slight embarrassment that may arise from "loosing the plot" temporarily, bringing the aircraft to a complete stop and ask someone for help - absolutely PALES INTO INSIGNIFICANCE to the potential consequences of taxiing on with an uneasy feeling in your tummy, while hoping that you pick up something you should recognize soon.Someone just buried a 732 on its arse in a ditch over in Africa while trying to reverse taxi out of a blind spot after a wrong turn.
Anyways - back to the thread.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSB Report
Title: Analysis, Causality and Proof in Safety Investgations
Report #:AR 2007-053
Report #:AR 2007-053
IMHO, limiting line-up checklists (or 'checks below the line') to calling a maximum of two essential items would go a long way to reducing the recurring problem of crews rushing or otherwise becoming distracted at such a critical time, when attention should be outside the cockpit. Lights, strobes and transponders are hardly items requiring checklists or responses. If CASA got out of the business of approving checklists maybe the local industry could follow world's best practice and move in this direction.
If CASA got out of the business of approving checklists maybe the local industry could follow world's best practice and move in this direction.
Remember the Jetstar A320 missed approach in Melbourne.
The AFM, with which compliance is legally required. See CASR Part 21 and CAR 138, where "flight manual" means the AFM, part of the aircraft certification package.
I constantly marvel at the CASA ability to not understand the ramifications of their own legislation.
CASA have no power to direct amendment to an AFM, unless it is an Australian type certified aircraft ---- which excludes all but a handful of the aircraft on the Australian Civil Register.
Tootle pip!!
Sled del,
Typical theoretical bureaucratic mumbo jumbo. Do you honestly think that CASA would allow changes to checklists if their own regulation prevented it?
Operators make changes to checklists for good reasons. Normally, it's because the procedures created in an office somewhere in the US or Toulouse can't and don't work in every possible operating scenario of the aircraft in the world. Besides, the AFM procedures are just that: procedures. They are not multi-crew checklists. Get into the real world, Sledled.
In fact, my Boeing's AFM says:
To say that one must follow the AFM verbatim regardless is ridiculous. Have your ever heard of the term "No Technical Objection"?
It is an entirely different issue that the JQ changes were not appropriate. That should have been picked up internally.
CASA have no power to direct amendment to an AFM
Operators make changes to checklists for good reasons. Normally, it's because the procedures created in an office somewhere in the US or Toulouse can't and don't work in every possible operating scenario of the aircraft in the world. Besides, the AFM procedures are just that: procedures. They are not multi-crew checklists. Get into the real world, Sledled.
In fact, my Boeing's AFM says:
"these procedures are for guidance only in identifying acceptable operating procedures and are not to be considered mandatory or in any way construed as prohibiting an operator from developing their own equivalent procedures".
It is an entirely different issue that the JQ changes were not appropriate. That should have been picked up internally.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 1st Feb 2011 at 08:48. Reason: spelin.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To say that one must follow the AFM verbatim regardless is ridiculous. Have your ever heard of the term "No Technical Objection"?
CAR 138 Pilot to comply with requirements, etc of aircraft’s flight manual, etc
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot
in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot
in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
This Manual shall not supersede or countermand any Regulations, Orders or Instructions issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Compliance only with the terms of this Manual shall not absolve any personnel from the responsibility of abiding by such Regulations, Orders and Instructions.
You really need to carry a silk around in the flight bag these days to attempt to make sense of anything.
Brian...
...which would seem to clearly if an NTO to amend the OEM checklist had been issued.
Unless the original certification basis is Australian, then CASA does not have the power to approve the checklist, because it forms part of the aircraft certification documentation. So CASA can only 'accept' the checklist, OR an amendment to it if an OEM letter of NTO has been issued.
Perhaps you need to sort out/discriminate between CAR 138 and CAR 215(b)?
I think you'll find that if the NTO to amend a checklist is necessary to comply with CAR 215(b), then CAR 138 would be satisfied.
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe the legally qualified might like to add their 2-bob's worth here.
Good suggestion re the flight bag 'silk'...maybe an APP for iPad perhaps, now it's apparently been accepted by the FAA as an EFB?
Maybe CASA-acceptance of the iPad as an EFB will follow in about 50 or 60 years??
On second thoughts though, and from its past track record, perhaps that's going to be a bit too tight as a timeframe?
CAR 138 Pilot to comply with requirements, etc of aircraft’s flight manual, etc
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot
in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual...
(1) If a flight manual has been issued for an Australian aircraft, the pilot
in command of the aircraft must comply with a requirement, instruction, procedure or limitation concerning the operation of the aircraft that is set out in the manual...
Unless the original certification basis is Australian, then CASA does not have the power to approve the checklist, because it forms part of the aircraft certification documentation. So CASA can only 'accept' the checklist, OR an amendment to it if an OEM letter of NTO has been issued.
Perhaps you need to sort out/discriminate between CAR 138 and CAR 215(b)?
I think you'll find that if the NTO to amend a checklist is necessary to comply with CAR 215(b), then CAR 138 would be satisfied.
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe the legally qualified might like to add their 2-bob's worth here.
Good suggestion re the flight bag 'silk'...maybe an APP for iPad perhaps, now it's apparently been accepted by the FAA as an EFB?
Maybe CASA-acceptance of the iPad as an EFB will follow in about 50 or 60 years??
On second thoughts though, and from its past track record, perhaps that's going to be a bit too tight as a timeframe?
Last edited by SIUYA; 9th Mar 2011 at 08:00.
Brian A & Siuya,
You have indeed got it right.
Along with a good slice of CASA FOIs, the full ramifications of the legislative changes in mid-1998 still have not filtered through our old mate Bloggs cranium, and he is far from alone. In his defense, individual pilots should not need to know about this sort of stuff, you "should" be able to depend on CASA to get it right ---- and company manuals being "legal".
As is traditional, when CASRs 21 to 35 were put in place, the necessary transitional amendments to existing CARs were either incomplete, incorrect or non-existent.
Large slabs of the CASA AOCM make interesting reading, the many inconsistencies (not limited to CAR 138 v 215 v 232) are clear, if, and only if, you understand the significance of the 1998 changes.
The Australian arrogance shines through in the said AOCM. Of course we know better than the manufacturers. I love the bit that says words to the effect that changes should not be made to CASA approved flight check systems ( the manufacturers --- [they really mean TC holder] ) on a new type until "---- adequate experience has been gained - for example, the aircraft has been in service for 300-400 hours".
So, we are so smart that after 3-400 hours, we know better than a TC holder, whose accumulated fleet experience is in the thousands, or tens of thousands of hours, not forgetting all the development, experience and test work that formed the basis of the aircraft certification, including the AFM, in the first place.
Bloggs, my dear fellow, I know the legal requirements for processing a change to an AFM all too well.
Boeing's "no technical objection" is but a small part of the story ----- and if you understand the implication of the Australian aviation law framework, as it is, and not how you (and many others) think it is, you would understand the "nto" is not sufficient, any longer.
This is not necessarily so in other countries --- it all depends on the legal framework under which the NAA works.
In my personal opinion, as a pilot, the A320 matter was not caused by the procedural change, but non-the-less a change was made to the G/A procedure without the approval of the TC holder -- not legally possible under current Australian law.
And not very smart.
Tootle pip!!
You have indeed got it right.
Along with a good slice of CASA FOIs, the full ramifications of the legislative changes in mid-1998 still have not filtered through our old mate Bloggs cranium, and he is far from alone. In his defense, individual pilots should not need to know about this sort of stuff, you "should" be able to depend on CASA to get it right ---- and company manuals being "legal".
As is traditional, when CASRs 21 to 35 were put in place, the necessary transitional amendments to existing CARs were either incomplete, incorrect or non-existent.
Large slabs of the CASA AOCM make interesting reading, the many inconsistencies (not limited to CAR 138 v 215 v 232) are clear, if, and only if, you understand the significance of the 1998 changes.
The Australian arrogance shines through in the said AOCM. Of course we know better than the manufacturers. I love the bit that says words to the effect that changes should not be made to CASA approved flight check systems ( the manufacturers --- [they really mean TC holder] ) on a new type until "---- adequate experience has been gained - for example, the aircraft has been in service for 300-400 hours".
So, we are so smart that after 3-400 hours, we know better than a TC holder, whose accumulated fleet experience is in the thousands, or tens of thousands of hours, not forgetting all the development, experience and test work that formed the basis of the aircraft certification, including the AFM, in the first place.
Bloggs, my dear fellow, I know the legal requirements for processing a change to an AFM all too well.
Boeing's "no technical objection" is but a small part of the story ----- and if you understand the implication of the Australian aviation law framework, as it is, and not how you (and many others) think it is, you would understand the "nto" is not sufficient, any longer.
This is not necessarily so in other countries --- it all depends on the legal framework under which the NAA works.
In my personal opinion, as a pilot, the A320 matter was not caused by the procedural change, but non-the-less a change was made to the G/A procedure without the approval of the TC holder -- not legally possible under current Australian law.
And not very smart.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFM Operating procedures
Folks,
You seem to searching for roadblocks, consistent with the behaviour you so readily accuse your regulator of demonstrating.
CAR 138 says comply with the AFM. No sweat, my FAR/JAR 25 AFMs contain Operating Procedures included in accordance with Section 25-1581 et seq. I note that AC 25-1581-1 includes generic guidance about Operating Procedures (beginning on page 8):
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...C25-1581-1.pdf
which results in the Disclaimer referred to by my good friend Bloggs. It is an explicit permission to vary the "guidance" when and if appropriate.
If I was to develop my own procedures in the light of operational experience, I would be complying with the AFM and certainly not in any way interfering with the certification basis of the aircraft. The regulations recognise that there is some risk in me doing things on my own, so CAR 232 regulates my activity in that regard (as do FARs 121-141 and 121-315 in the US).
The Australian Regulator regulates the use of Australian aircraft in accordance with Australian law. What it takes to convince the regulator to approve the necessary changes is a function of the extant institutional timidity. There is no regulatory requirement for NTOs - they are merely means of transferring the risk back to the manufacturer.
And the OEM just has deeper pockets - not necessarily more or better knowledge - just ask Bloggs about MDD/Boeing and his beloved B717!
Stay Alive,
You seem to searching for roadblocks, consistent with the behaviour you so readily accuse your regulator of demonstrating.
CAR 138 says comply with the AFM. No sweat, my FAR/JAR 25 AFMs contain Operating Procedures included in accordance with Section 25-1581 et seq. I note that AC 25-1581-1 includes generic guidance about Operating Procedures (beginning on page 8):
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...C25-1581-1.pdf
which results in the Disclaimer referred to by my good friend Bloggs. It is an explicit permission to vary the "guidance" when and if appropriate.
If I was to develop my own procedures in the light of operational experience, I would be complying with the AFM and certainly not in any way interfering with the certification basis of the aircraft. The regulations recognise that there is some risk in me doing things on my own, so CAR 232 regulates my activity in that regard (as do FARs 121-141 and 121-315 in the US).
The Australian Regulator regulates the use of Australian aircraft in accordance with Australian law. What it takes to convince the regulator to approve the necessary changes is a function of the extant institutional timidity. There is no regulatory requirement for NTOs - they are merely means of transferring the risk back to the manufacturer.
And the OEM just has deeper pockets - not necessarily more or better knowledge - just ask Bloggs about MDD/Boeing and his beloved B717!
Stay Alive,
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procedures in AFM
The Airbus AFM and FCOM both contain passages similar to the one Bloggs posted above.
Airbus AFMs do not contain Standard Operating (Normal) Procedures for the Go-Around. By varying the Go-Around SOP an operator is NOT rendering invalid the certification basis for the aircraft.
It is not illegal to do what what Jetstar did. It is done by many other operators around the world frequently. The absence of process surrounding the change is another matter completely.
Mr Sandilands and others take note.
Airbus AFMs do not contain Standard Operating (Normal) Procedures for the Go-Around. By varying the Go-Around SOP an operator is NOT rendering invalid the certification basis for the aircraft.
It is not illegal to do what what Jetstar did. It is done by many other operators around the world frequently. The absence of process surrounding the change is another matter completely.
Mr Sandilands and others take note.