Virgin ATR grounded in Albury
Aviation Business: Turboprops to compete in the 100-seat-plus market?
It's a matter of numbers.
The Fokker does no doubt a sterling job on the mining runs (couple sectors a day) but wouldn't handle the 24 hour schedule of the mainline fleet.
As a mate of mine who flies them says : it's a dinosaur, guzzles fuel, breaks down if pushed. Reckons it has some nice features but is pretty gutless. As for aerodynamics, I noted the wing looks more like a turbo prop wing (no sweep and fat). Old tech.
With fuel prices heading north the future would have to be a 90-100 seat turbo prop. Numbers. Exactly why ATR got the go ahead in the first place.
It's a matter of numbers.
The Fokker does no doubt a sterling job on the mining runs (couple sectors a day) but wouldn't handle the 24 hour schedule of the mainline fleet.
As a mate of mine who flies them says : it's a dinosaur, guzzles fuel, breaks down if pushed. Reckons it has some nice features but is pretty gutless. As for aerodynamics, I noted the wing looks more like a turbo prop wing (no sweep and fat). Old tech.
With fuel prices heading north the future would have to be a 90-100 seat turbo prop. Numbers. Exactly why ATR got the go ahead in the first place.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norden
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
details please SHVC
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Cairns
Age: 39
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this a thread regarding an ATR 72 grounded in Albury???
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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/
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.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
I may be wrong on this but CAsA would never realise would they....
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does a pilot inspection identify a problem with the horizontal stabiliser and an engineering inspection does not.
(I'm taking the piss. I'm not sure what was said
)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Iraq
Age: 35
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
