Douglas Haywood and Ross Kelly
No, it isn’t.
But apart from the spelling and grammatical errors which my 10yo son could proof-read, the Factual Summary specifically says the F/O was type rated on the aircraft (page 13) but then the preliminary findings says he wasn’t. Of course whether or not that could be a causal factor is not explored by the report.
But what the hell is a comment like this doing in the preliminary findings:
This statement is made as a “finding” with absolutely no supporting evidence or explanation!
This defies belief in an official report. It probably indicates which direction this investigation will follow.
they do quote that the engine on fire was not positively identified by any of the crew at any time or the LAME who was working the engine controls despite a passenger telling them at once the LH engine was on fire
nor were any fire checklist procedures initiated nor the fire extinguishing handle pulled
handling problems were mentioned by the PF and he noted on startup and taxi out the Rudder control was very stiff
propeller autofeather light was U/S (defective bulb according to LAME)
the a/c was on a test flight straight after A B and C checks but with pax on board for a ''scenic'' flight who had signed indemnities for the flight
until the injured crew are able to provide their recollections of events the findings in the report are all we have as are the camera recordings - much supposition of course is on the R&N thread but on the whole the crew were very likely were trying to fly the plane and keep it going as we see full UP LH aileron in the photos along with open LH engine cowl doors top and bottom -
the flying crew were possibly mindful that the LAME (whose baby this a/c was as he works for Rovos Rail who owned it) was looking after the engines...who knows ?
i wish them speedy recovery and suggest that any further discussion of the report is made on the R&N thread perhaps?
Doug arrived home yesterday on the 64. Congratulations to Qantas management for what they have done for him and will do for Ross.
I hope everyone involved in this accident continues along the pathway to good health and it is great news that they appear to have been well supported by Qantas.
I don't know these guys from a bar of soap, but reading through this thread and most of the media articles, it appears both Doug and Ross were really top blokes. Top blokes with bucket-loads of experience.
Unfortunately, really top blokes are not immune from making bad decisions - and bad decisions don't always result in horrible accidents.
As an outsider it is disappointing that with all of their collective experience, that the following decisions were made that appear to have contributed to the loss of life.
- one of the pilots not having a type rating
- utilising the engineer to "manipulate" the engines - what a CRM nightmare this would have been when it all turned to custard
- having the pax onboard
Of course, the most likely outcome of this flight would normally have been that everyone had a time and it was a terrific success all-round.
Unfortunately, something went wrong, and the whole thing unraveled.
I know how these events are formulated - it all seems like a good idea at the time and everyone has the best of intentions - but look at the outcome.
Stay safe everyone!
I don't know these guys from a bar of soap, but reading through this thread and most of the media articles, it appears both Doug and Ross were really top blokes. Top blokes with bucket-loads of experience.
Unfortunately, really top blokes are not immune from making bad decisions - and bad decisions don't always result in horrible accidents.
As an outsider it is disappointing that with all of their collective experience, that the following decisions were made that appear to have contributed to the loss of life.
- one of the pilots not having a type rating
- utilising the engineer to "manipulate" the engines - what a CRM nightmare this would have been when it all turned to custard
- having the pax onboard
Of course, the most likely outcome of this flight would normally have been that everyone had a time and it was a terrific success all-round.
Unfortunately, something went wrong, and the whole thing unraveled.
I know how these events are formulated - it all seems like a good idea at the time and everyone has the best of intentions - but look at the outcome.
Stay safe everyone!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have known Doug for 40 years (Ross only about 30) and throughout his aviation career he has been a consummate professional. I can categorically state that he had a type endorsement. This seems to imply that the investigation might be a shambles. I suggest everyone, despite it being a rumour network, lay off the rumours and falsehoods and wait for some real facts to be released.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just asking...
Could the CRM comment in the prelim not have something to do with the fact that a ground engineer was on the flight deck of an aircraft rated for two-pilot operation and said ground engineer was allowed to stay on the flight deck, kinda operating as unqualified flight engineer, instead of being sent back to his seat (as a the pax he was) and strap in?
I apologise unreservedly if I have any of that wrong...I'm just trying to make sense out of what was going on the flight deck.
Could the CRM comment in the prelim not have something to do with the fact that a ground engineer was on the flight deck of an aircraft rated for two-pilot operation and said ground engineer was allowed to stay on the flight deck, kinda operating as unqualified flight engineer, instead of being sent back to his seat (as a the pax he was) and strap in?
I apologise unreservedly if I have any of that wrong...I'm just trying to make sense out of what was going on the flight deck.
If there was a third seat on the flight deck, there’s no reason why it can’t be used.
While there is evidence this third person was manipulating the engine controls, I have no doubt it was under the supervision and discretion of the pilot in command.
While there is evidence this third person was manipulating the engine controls, I have no doubt it was under the supervision and discretion of the pilot in command.
One of my very experienced instructors once said to me "don't make S#&T Up, but if you do, it had better work". The Sioux city crash landing worked as best as it could when they "made up stuff". The LAME operating the engines seems very unusual, did he have Flight Engineer qualifications? I guess not as I've not seen it mentioned. There is a reason it takes a full year to go from an aircraft technician to a flight engineer in the RAAF, that's because it's not as simple as pushing and pulling the power leavers.
Having said that, it's only the preliminary report and it's very easy to sit back in the 1G arm chair and throw stones.
Having said that, it's only the preliminary report and it's very easy to sit back in the 1G arm chair and throw stones.
Used properly, an Engineer can be the best auto throttle you could envisage. Especially one who ‘knows’ the engines being operated. I see that as being a very clever use of resources.
In addition to Just Relaxin’s post, a source from HARS has stated that both pilots were correctly endorsed on the aircraft type. It appears the interim report has inaccuracies.
I thought this thread was about the welfare of two highly regarded pilots. Might I suggest that those who wish to navel gaze do so on the thread on Rumours & News where you will find all manner of experts.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this thread was about the welfare of two highly regarded pilots. Might I suggest that those who wish to navel gaze do so on the thread on Rumours & News where you will find all manner of experts.
For my part, apologies...I meant no offence.
It is normal to pose questions about an accident. The welfare of the crew and don't forget the passengers and those lost on the ground goes without saying. Everyone wishes them well.
I've flown the Convair 340 and there is no provision in the AFM for a flight engineer. The 'jump' seat is an observation seat. Fortunately the GoPro camera set-up will give investigators a full portrait of the cockpit and it had sound as well.
It's a sad event however like all aviation accidents the truth is incontrovertible and must be revealed.
I've flown the Convair 340 and there is no provision in the AFM for a flight engineer. The 'jump' seat is an observation seat. Fortunately the GoPro camera set-up will give investigators a full portrait of the cockpit and it had sound as well.
It's a sad event however like all aviation accidents the truth is incontrovertible and must be revealed.
Here is the R&N thread:
Convair 340 (C-131D) ZS-BRV crash Pretoria, South Africa
Last edited by Rodney Rotorslap; 18th Aug 2018 at 08:52. Reason: added R&N url
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But that's not why I'm checking this thread. I'm more interested in how Doug, Ross, and all the folks who were onboard are doing, and hope they all recover completely.