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

Rex incident YSSY

Old 20th Mar 2017, 11:53
  #101 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,527
1964 Ansett ANA DC6B VH INA lost prop from RH inner due fatigue fracture after take off Essendon then engine itself fell off. Landed safe

A bit more to it than that. One story record is here.

Keith Hants ... lovely bloke. Gone now a few years ....
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2017, 13:33
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 44
Posts: 783
Interesting prop de-ice brush block and its brushes!!
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2017, 14:51
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,053
I'm surprised such a thin shaft can swing a 300kg prop with 1000+ horse power swinging it. Coming from the helicopter world, a sheared shaft like that for us would result in a very different outcome.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2017, 20:45
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine View Post
1964 Ansett ANA DC6B VH INA lost prop from RH inner due fatigue fracture after take off Essendon then engine itself fell off. Landed safe

A bit more to it than that. One story record is here.

Keith Hants ... lovely bloke. Gone now a few years ....
From the Air Hostess:
One lady started to cry rather loudly, but her husband gave her a quick backhander and she was then content to just whimper quietly for the next hour.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2017, 23:16
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
WHY DIDN'T HE LAND SOONER ???

This is Ben's article on Plane talking -

REX broke safety rule in last Friday's lost propeller incident
How many times does an airline like REX ignore air safety rules before it is sanctioned?

Ben Sandilands
Editor of Plane Talking
Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to LinkedInShare to Google+

The propeller-less REX flight after landing at Sydney
Opinion It’s time to call ‘bulldust’ on REX’s claims about being ‘abundantly cautious’ in grounding four or five SAAB 340 propjets for inspections following the loss of a propeller off one of a similarly powered aircraft while approaching Sydney Airport last Friday.

If REX had been adhering to safety regulations it would have landed that flight from Albury to Sydney with 16 people on board at Canberra immediately after it had an initial malfunction in that engine.
Instead the crew is now known to have shut down the engine and feathered the propeller after noticing a vibration related problem while close to Canberra and electing to continue all the way to Sydney on one engine at a reduced altitude of 8000 feet until the propeller came off somewhere over the Macarthur area.

This is contrary to the rules. The relevant regulation is found here.
Relying on the discretionary provisions of the regulation in relation to Canberra Airport would be an exercise in implausibility not to mention stupidity that has already captured the attention of the safety regulator CASA and the safety investigator the ATSB.

Had this happened in the US or most other first world countries when it comes to the enforcement of aviation safety regulations, REX would have been sanctioned, audited, and even had its equivalent of an air operator certificate put at risk of suspension or the imposition of special conditions.
It is against Australian, and worldwide air safety regulations, to fly an aircraft on a remaining operating single engine past the nearest available airport (if useable) to a more distant airport.

In the case of the REX flight from Albury the duration of flight past Canberra Airport to Sydney would have been in the order of 40 minutes or so. The opportunities for an emergency landing on one remaining engine had a further crisis eventuated are limited, but would have included Goulburn, at least one private strip at Gundaroo, and the sometimes busy general aviation airport at Camden, which is near where it is estimated the feathered propeller, which has has yet to be found, fell off.
REX has left itself open to suggestions that it broke the rules to gamble on nothing else going wrong in order to make a near to on-time arrival at Sydney Airport.

The ATSB is reported as saying that it is ‘very interested’ in the reason for the decision of the pilot in command to have continued past Canberra with a dead engine.
CASA is also known to have expressed concerns about the nature of this incident.

This is a major change of attitude on the part of the safety investigator, the ATSB, and the safety regulator, CASA, since an incident with some similarities occurred on a REX SAAB 340 service between Wagga Wagga and Sydney in November 2007.
That flight experienced an engine shut down shortly after taking off for Sydney and was also within close range of Canberra Airport when the crew in consultation with REX operations, continued to fly all the way to the intended destination on one engine.

After the 2007 incident REX said the pilot elected not to land at Canberra because of poor weather on the approach to that airport at the time. The ATSB even made excuses for REX on that occasion, but never coherently defended the willful breaking of a vital safety regulation nor answered the obvious questions as to why Goulburn, Griffith, Corowa or similar available airports weren’t used.

The ATSB investigation into this latest REX incident is in its early days. The close up photos of the break point between the missing propeller and the engine appear to indicate some sort of structural failure induced by stresses that may or may not have been affecting the assemblage even prior to the vibrations that caused it to be shut down while near Canberra. Whether the causes include structural as well as maintenance related factors remains to be determined.

But there is no reason why a diligent Minister or the safety regulator itself should not initiate action to deal promptly with the prima facie case of a considered violation or disregard of the most fundamental of air safety practices involving twin engined airliners.

There is a question of imminent risk to public safety if a requirement as basic to flight safety as this is treated in such an apparently cavalier manner.
If it was good enough to ground Tiger Airways in 2011 for its outrageous indifference to Australian air safety rules then surely some timely intervention in the oversight or conduct of REX flights is required without further delay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Comment - Not Good Enough Rex !!
Sure this will be another CASA whitewash

Last edited by Tim Hamilton; 20th Mar 2017 at 23:29.
Tim Hamilton is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2017, 23:29
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Seems Ben is continuing with his bagging of the Rex group ala Pelair debacle.
From my reading the pilot shut the engine down and feathered about 20 mins from Sydney.
Any others know more about this?
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2017, 23:32
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,049
really, 8000 ft above camden, and he thinks they should have gone somewhere closer? YSBK YSCN? YSSY is pretty much the clostest strip with the required emergency services, and im sure would be pretty close to gliding distance from there.
and if the crew had followed the Aviate Navigate then communicate bit, then im sure they would have done a control check, and deamed the aircraft safe to fly to YSSY.
Ultralights is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2017, 23:39
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 145
Ben Sandilands wants every airline other than qantas to be shutdown. Continued flight on one engine criteria includes a pilots familiarity with an airport.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2017, 23:48
  #109 (permalink)  
601
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 1,015
REX broke safety rule in last Friday's lost propeller incident
Maybe BS should read and digest Civil Aviation Order 20.6.3.1 and 3.2.

What would have happened if Sully tried tor the nearest airport?
601 is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 00:12
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
I usually have a lot of respect for Ben, but he's lost the plot here.

The nearest airport is not necessarily the best one.

Canberra has challenges due to its high density altitude and terrain very close to the airport, making a go around on one engine challenging to say the least.

He's also suggesting Camden or a private strip. Either would be unacceptable for a number of reasons. High numbers of GA aircraft at one, zero emergency services at another.

A crew has to balance all of these competing priorities before making a judgement call as to what is the best solution to the problem given all of the facts.

If the aircraft were on fire, possibly a different story. It wasn't. It was on one engine and by all accounts flying ok and in control. Once the prop fell off there was nothing to be gained in rushing an approach into an unfamiliar airfield with compromised terrain or support issues.

In my personal opinion the crew made the absolutely correct call.

Ben. Pull your head in. You're not qualified to make the comment you have.
IsDon is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 00:21
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,898
So Ben's trying to tell us they feathered the prop close to Canberra, and then flew 40 minutes to Sydney, and the prop fell off 19Km SW of Sydney? Bollox I'd say.
megan is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 02:07
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
[QUOTE=IsDon;9713166]I usually have a lot of respect for Ben, but he's lost the plot here.

The nearest airport is not necessarily the best one.

Canberra has challenges due to its high density altitude and terrain very close to the airport, making a go around on one engine challenging to say the least.

He's also suggesting Camden or a private strip. Either would be unacceptable for a number of reasons. High numbers of GA aircraft at one, zero emergency services at another.

A crew has to balance all of these competing priorities before making a judgement call as to what is the best solution to the problem given all of the facts.

If the aircraft were on fire, possibly a different story. It wasn't. It was on one engine and by all accounts flying ok and in control. Once the prop fell off there was nothing to be gained in rushing an approach into an unfamiliar airfield with compromised terrain or support issues.

In my personal opinion the crew made the absolutely correct call.

Ben. Pull your head in. You're not qualified to make the comment you have.

It is likely, from Bens informed piece. The PIC made the WRONG CALL !In line with CASA Regs
Tim Hamilton is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 02:23
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
It is likely, from Bens informed piece. The PIC made the WRONG CALL !In line with CASA Regs
Tim Hamilton is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 02:27
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by Tim Hamilton View Post
It is likely, from Bens informed piece. The PIC made the WRONG CALL !In line with CASA Regs
There are two people wrong.

You and Ben.
IsDon is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 03:24
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 39
Can anyone provide evidence/reference the engine was shut down closer to Canberra? This hasn't been mentioned anywhere else.

Regardless of the location, the Orders are quite clear. Ben even provided a link in his article, you'd think he would have read it first. The Order says ' The PIC...may proceed to an aerodrome of his or her selection instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome if...' and goes on to list a number of considerations. You might disagree with the selection (Tim and Ben obviously do) but the ONLY person charged with the responsibility of this decision is the PIC, and the regs clearly allow him to exercise such discretion.

To categorically state that safety regulations have been contravened, because the PIC made a decision which the regs allow him to make, is simply incorrect.
anonymouspilot is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 03:41
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 196
Regardless of the location, the Orders are quite clear. Ben even provided a link in his article, you'd think he would have read it first. The Order says ' The PIC...may proceed to an aerodrome of his or her selection instead of the nearest suitable aerodrome if...' and goes on to list a number of considerations. You might disagree with the selection (Tim and Ben obviously do) but the ONLY person charged with the responsibility of this decision is the PIC, and the regs clearly allow him to exercise such discretion.

To categorically state that safety regulations have been contravened, because the PIC made a decision which the regs allow him to make, is simply incorrect.



Spot on. Ben seems to have dropped the ball on this one.
IFEZ is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:17
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 40
Where did Ben get his information about the aircraft flying past Canberra at 8000ft on one engine?

As far as I know the aircraft was at F170 until well past Goulburn and then started a normal descent at about 60nm sydney. Usual TOD from that level..

There's been no indication that trouble was encountered until shortly before the prop came off (which happened at around glenfield). This means the only 'closer' AD would have been YSBK... but the aircraft would of needed 25 miles of vectoring on one engine to get down on an unfamiliar approach through the Bankstown training zone.

Nice one crikey.
WhisprSYD is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:21
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 495
Originally Posted by WhisprSYD View Post
Where did Ben get his information about the aircraft flying past Canberra at 8000ft on one engine?

As far as I know the aircraft was at F170 until well past Goulburn and then started a normal descent at about 60nm sydney. Usual TOD from that level..

There's been no indication that trouble was encountered until shortly before the prop came off (which happened at around glenfield). This means the only 'closer' AD would have been YSBK... but the aircraft would of needed 25 miles of vectoring on one engine to get down on an unfamiliar approach through the Bankstown training zone.

Nice one crikey.
And that is the facts as I read them also. Why is Hamilton coming on here trying to slander the operating crew and the operator is the question in my mind.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:33
  #119 (permalink)  
BPA
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 618
7 news are reporting that Polair have found the prop near The River Rd in Revesby.
BPA is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:56
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,898
Plotted the descent point and is 60NM in round figures from Mascot (as quoted by WhisprSYD) ie Canberra was 76NM behind and Goulburn 36. Cruise speed unchanged to TOD. Tracked overhead SYD for a left downwind landing to the south.
the aircraft would of needed 25 miles of vectoring on one engine to get down on an unfamiliar approach through the Bankstown training zone
As it was, from overhead SYD to touch down consumed 15 minutes. Details from flightaware.
megan 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.