Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Virgin ATR grounded in Albury

Old 16th May 2014, 21:26
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: BBN
Posts: 163
As others have said the Fokkor is old, guzzles fuel etc, the ATR is cheap to run but is also cheaply built, the money they save in running cost goes directly back to repair, maintenence as often one is always U/S.
SHVC is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 21:55
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norden
Posts: 131
"the ATR is cheap to run but is also cheaply built, the money they save in running cost goes directly back to repair, maintenence as often one is always U/S."

details please SHVC
no-hoper is offline  
Old 16th May 2014, 23:03
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Enzed
Posts: 2,181
Aren't ATR planning to build a 90 seat turbo prop aircraft?
27/09 is offline  
Old 17th May 2014, 04:04
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Cairns
Age: 34
Posts: 7
Hey 27/09 .... How quickly you forget

Quote:
Can anyone answer the following:

1/ How long I can be in the VARA hold file before I have to re-interview? I believe it's 2 years for Virgin Mainline but not sure about VARA, any thoughts?

2/ Any one able to shed some light on when things might get moving again on the recruitment/hiring front?

Thanks for any info.

Skiddy

I thought this discussion was about an ATR with some scratch marks on it? Talk about thread drift.
Skiddymark is offline  
Old 17th May 2014, 05:54
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Straya
Posts: 38
Isn't this a thread regarding an ATR 72 grounded in Albury???
Bellcrank 74 is offline  
Old 20th May 2014, 11:08
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 350
Isn't this a thread regarding an ATR 72 grounded in Albury???
Yes, and from what i have heard she is rooted - apparently that photo isn't an optical illusion - the empennage is twisted and cracked.
Pimp Daddy is offline  
Old 20th May 2014, 12:04
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Well there is no way that damage was caused by a 'bird strike' as per the ATSB, so either there was another incident during the YMAY flight or heads will roll somewhere for ever letting it leave the ground. It's all leading towards the CB turbulence event to me, so how was this not noticed?
Hempy is offline  
Old 20th May 2014, 13:08
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 270
I'm not so sure that the ATSB has the ability to properly investigate this one, based on their record over the past 5 years.
Interesting as the below accident just happened to be on TV tonight, great timing. The show was a bit overdone in its dramatisation in some parts but the basics of this accident was there. A more analytical and succinct account obviously can be found within the NTSB report. I read this some years ago, and it is worth a look for those of you who are interested in this field;

http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2004/AAR0404.pdf

Yeah I know, different a/c type in the attached report, different circumstances, different root cause and contributing factors, but in the AA accident the F/O's inputs sealed their fate and caused the destruction of a perfectly good aircraft. And it took some NASA scientists to do the calculations on what level of wake turbulence it would have taken to bring the a/c down. Even a very capable NTSB needed some additional help, so god help us if the VARA incident is too complex because the ATSB will fold like a cheap deck of cards.

It's also too early to know what the VARA investigation will produce, however I am pretty sure that crew input, training and culture will be right under the microscope. I find it difficult to believe that some form of turbulence alone could have produced the level of airframe damage we are being lead to believe. That's not to say that turbulence wasn't a factor, I just doubt that it was the only factor. It takes a hell of a lot of force to twist a frame.
The bigger issue at stake here is when did the aircraft actually get damaged? When was the damage noticed and how many sectors were flown before it was discovered? There are some very unsettling issues to be examined in this incident.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 01:31
  #109 (permalink)  
markis10 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 04:29
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Replace the tail!!!

Bloody hell.
Kiwiconehead is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 06:50
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 369
Replace the vertical stab as well...I wonder what the lower vertical stab attach points are like with all the torsion events that happened....
fruitloop is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 09:55
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 270
Well there's the answer - 13 sectors flown with a horrifically damaged aircraft. This is a disgrace. How the hell can you fly 13 sectors with that level of damage without it being detected? As for Virgins response of the event being 'isolated', well maybe the nature and depth of this damage is an 'isolated' outcome, but what of all the contributing factors, are they isolated? Very unlikely. Something has gone very very wrong in VA's system of oversight and assurance. One wonders whether VA's former strategy of one aircraft type is better suited to their actual capability, rather than a mixture of 737's, ATR's, A330's, Embraers, 777's........
Heads simply must roll over this, and I can't see why Borghetti's shouldn't be included? I hope you haven't forgotten who the accountable person is in your organisation John?

And finally, I know, a silly question but CASA you truly are asleep at the yoke, are you not??? This incident should hopefully open a lot of eyes by receiving the due attention it deserves. And not to be left off the list of VA woes;

http://m.smh.com.au/travel/travel-in...810-2roct.html

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...t-in-moranbah/

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...g-interesting/

Last edited by Paragraph377; 10th Jun 2014 at 10:22.
Paragraph377 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 10:01
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,156
Remind me if I ever fly Virgin, to check that the wings, tail and rudder are roughly orthogonal. Oh, and Symmetrical!...
Sunfish is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 10:07
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,131
in all fairness to VARA, it is reported to me (reported??? gossiped probably) the maint techs followed the ATR maint schedules. it is just possible that there is some optimism in some of the ATR info regarding performance and maint.
I may be wrong on this but CAsA would never realise would they....
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 10:30
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bottom of the Harbour
Posts: 253
The aircraft manufacturer’s job card for a turbulence inspection specified a general visual inspection of the fuselage, stabilisers and wings with more detailed inspections if any anomalies were found.
How does a pilot inspection identify a problem with the horizontal stabiliser and an engineering inspection does not. The QAR also confirmed a 3.3g load with control disconnect which was outside the aircraft limits for weight! Does that not warrant a further investigation beyond the 'turbulence inspection'.

It appears the initial defect entry(control disconnect) may have been understated and it was only after further queries by engineering that they mentioned moderate turbulence.

I am sorry, but scratching at the surface of this reveals some fundamental errors by ground and air crew.
KABOY is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 10:37
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 66
Posts: 1,131
How does a pilot inspection identify a problem with the horizontal stabiliser and an engineering inspection does not.
hmmm I'm sure that hole wasn't there before....

(I'm taking the piss. I'm not sure what was said )
dubbleyew eight is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 13:31
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Heads simply must roll over this, and I can't see why Borghetti's shouldn't be included? I hope you haven't forgotten who the accountable person is in your organisation John?
So what about the group who got themselves in a situations where the the damage occurred and failed identify this to other parties? This was not a great display of team work:

Flight control occurrence

The captain believed he indicated his intention to take over control and while the first officer could not recall it being verbalised he was aware of the captain’s actions. The first officer recalled that he took his hands off the controls, releasing touch control steering in the process. Shortly after, concerned about a high nose-up attitude, the first officer put his hands back on the controls. To both crew members, what happened next was unexpected and unclear. Suddenly, the crew felt high positive g, the controls felt different and spongy, and cockpit warnings activated.

...

Initial examination

The airspeed increased again and then both the first officer and captain pulled on the control column. Shortly after, when the vertical load factor was increasing through 1.8 g, the first officer began to push the control column. The differential force on the control column that resulted from the captain and first officer applying an opposing force exceeded the differential force required to generate a pitch disconnect. Each pilot was then controlling the elevator on their side of the aircraft in opposite directions for a brief period before the first officer released his control column.
Now there is a situation where they are putting a load on the elevators in a twisting motion, that would of been opposing the ailerons to keep steady flight and something has got to give.

The crew advised the engineers that they weren’t sure what had happened but that the pitch controls had disconnected, with a possible overspeed. From the onboard equipment, the engineers were able to establish that there had not been an overspeed but a vertical load factor of 3.34 g was recorded that exceeded the acceptable limit for the aircraft weight. One of the engineers took the opportunity to conduct a preliminary walk-around visual inspection and did not observe any aircraft damage. The flight crew entered the pitch disconnect in the aircraft’s technical log and, after a request from the engineers for more information, added that the aircraft had sustained moderate turbulence.
Now if the engineers were actually told by the pilots that they were operating the two sections of the elevators in an opposite manner during the event, as opposed to simply turbulence causing the issue, do you think the engineers would of taking a different approach to their work? Would this of not meant the engeneers would realise they are no longer dealing with simply an turbulence inspection, but rather need to look at damage related to a different set of stress point? It is possible that there was internal damage at this time which didn't manifest itself till after further flights. Why are you jumping to calling for the head of one man who was the least responsible, when it really looks like it is a lesson for different groups including the pilots, engineers and ATR?
Phalanger is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 20:31
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 30
Posts: 150
Whilst the cause of damage to the empennage was pilot "error", the reason for the aircraft flying with the damage was a maintenance error.
An inspection by torch light perhaps wasn't an ideal method for checking for external damage.
All maintainers should have empathy with the LAME who carried out the first inspection.
No Hoper is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2014, 20:45
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 547
Yes, if the maintenance engineer was left to inspect with a torch casa and Atsb should be looking at why and the human factors involved. Wasn't the 1-11 window blowout investigation one of the first to understand human factors. Job done in the middle of night poor ground equipment etc. All good James Reason stuff. Although beaker has been reported as beyond reason
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2014, 00:31
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sunshine Coast Australia
Age: 46
Posts: 11
Double standards.

Seems obvious to me who the ATSB are trying to pin the blame for this on, both engineers still suspended from duty, but both pilots back flying again, unbeleivable! They had to be told to go back to the A/C and put an entry in the tech log, even after a 3g load, a pitch disconnect and a broken leg. And as for the turbulance report, BS if you ask me. An over reaction to correcting a possible overspeed more like. There is more than one failure going on here, but appears the crew flying it are not one of them.
skiinoz is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.