PPRuNe Forums


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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st Mar 2017, 02:27   #121 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 408
Quote:
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   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 03:24   #122 (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   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 03:41   #123 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 159
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   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:17   #124 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 35
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   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:21   #125 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 372
Quote:
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   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:33   #126 (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   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:56   #127 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1,779
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.
Quote:
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   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:57   #128 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEQ
Age: 48
Posts: 438
Well I hope for their sake Sandilands and Crikey have gotten their facts right, because if he had accused me of recklessly endangering pax on false allegations, it is a toss up whether I would be reaching for a club or a phone to call my solicitor.

Even if the allegation were true - that the fault was identified earlier in the flight and the engine shut down near Canberra, I find it difficult to understand how a pilot could have foreseen the danger of a feathered prop flying off the aircraft. It is a very rare occurrence to start with and in all instances of which I am aware, it has happened whilst a prop was being powered.

The whole piece reads like someone has an axe to grind and I'm afraid that whatever the outcome of the investigation, Sandilands has slid down the dungheap of journalism and joined the baggage handler in my estimation.
spinex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:58   #129 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Hamilton View Post
Really looks like the PIC - " Stuffed Up Here" Just get it down. It could of had some sort of airfram damage. Just get it down soonest !!
where is the evidence that YSCB was closest at time of problem? Where is there any evidence of stuff up other than... well what?

Seems like all speculation and innuendo at the moment which is not only unhelpful and unfair but potentially libelous.

If you want to go out publicly and lay blame and criticism you need to provide evidence. How do you know what happened and where? And how do you know what the decision process for landing at YSSY was? Were you on the flight deck?

Sorry - that smacks of armchair expert to me but feel free to back up with more evidence than hearsay and rumour.
jonkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:58   #130 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Search me - I only just got out of bed ....
Age: 72
Posts: 387
Media releases: 21 March 2017 - Missing SAAB 340 propeller located
FullOppositeRudder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 04:59   #131 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 97
Well look what we have here:



Found near Revesby Heights - almost 30km from Camden
logansi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 05:04   #132 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonkster View Post
where is the evidence that YSCB was closest at time of problem? Where is there any evidence of stuff up other than... well what?

Seems like all speculation and innuendo at the moment which is not only unhelpful and unfair but potentially libelous.

If you want to go out publicly and lay blame and criticism you need to provide evidence. How do you know what happened and where? And how do you know what the decision process for landing at YSSY was? Were you on the flight deck?

Sorry - that smacks of armchair expert to me but feel free to back up with more evidence than hearsay and rumour.

Time will tell !!
Tim Hamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 05:08   #133 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 230
Ben has now retracted and apologised, and so he should. That was a pretty poor effort.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 05:13   #134 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 574
Time will tell....

3 years is the going rate isn't it?
ozbiggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 05:15   #135 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard View Post
Ben has now retracted and apologised, and so he should. That was a pretty poor effort.
Where is this ?
Tim Hamilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 05:18   #136 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Hamilton View Post
Time will tell !!
It has.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Sandilands tweet;
#lostprop The information relied upon in the earlier post was incorrect. Apologies to #REX and their pilots
The crew and company got unfairly slandered, without evidence by armchair 'aviation experts' who gleefully want to have a free shot and act all morally upright and 'in the know' when they know little at all.

source: https://twitter.com/@PlaneTalking
jonkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 05:19   #137 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Hamilton View Post
Where is this ?
https://twitter.com/PlaneTalking?ref...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Absolutely disgusting he should also ensure that media (such as CH.7) whom reported his claims as fact immediately apologies. I personally know of a Captain in the US who took his own life after getting 'trial by media' after a commercial incident in 2014.
logansi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 05:22   #138 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: at the airport
Posts: 13
I hope you have a good solicitor Ben Sandilands, maybe then you will learn to keep pen from paper until you know some actual facts. Which you clearly don't at all.
propsmear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 05:22   #139 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SEQ
Age: 48
Posts: 438
Ha ha, went back to screenshot the offending article to find a new headline and buried well down the piece, a paragraph containing a retraction and apology - seems BS was fed some of the same by parties supposedly in the know and went off half-cocked. New text;

"An earlier post on this topic (for which the comments have been preserved) contained some incorrect information published in good faith. To be blunt, this reporter is unhappy with this situation, particularly given some of the sources.
It has now been established that the flight last Friday from Albury to Sydney was well past Canberra Airport when the pilots shut down the right hand engine and feathered its propeller, shortly before it separated and fell away, fortunately missing any control critical surface of the SAAB 340, which could have caused an crash likely to kill all 16 people on board. That propeller hasn’t been found. My apologies to REX and their pilots for doubting the judgments that led to a continuation of the flight when it was incorrectly described as having first encountered engine problems near Canberra."


Oh and BS, try and keep up would you, the propeller has been found.

Last edited by spinex; 21st Mar 2017 at 05:42. Reason: Grammar
spinex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 05:28   #140 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 230
Interesting that right now, the article headline is still 'REX Broke Safety Rule In Last Friday's Lost Propeller Incident'.
Ben need to fix this up and then go and have a good hard look at himself.
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:05.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1