Where the hell did you get the number of 163 airframes from?

Try deducting about 140 or more from that number and I reckon you will get close.

There isn't a market for 163 regional turboprops in this country for all operators let alone Virgin by itself!

Google "Use of rudder on Boeing aircraft" and have a read. The IFALPA article especially.

Struggling here – so, thoughts out loud.
 

Thanks Sarcs for the info – as suspected, it just needed teasing out. Cock up was always the short price favourite; VARA would have done it all properly – just ATSB systems, as usual. Chaz has the right of it on the rest though, all fairly normal routine events.

Before I get savaged by a bunch of screaming Virgins (be still my beating heart), let me state that without any form of 'official' report to work with, I am speculating : without facts, just thinking out loud. Some of the reports and tales herein, considered at face value could be disturbing. I am not, as yet disturbed, just very curious. There is the potential here to create real headaches. I expect the ATR, ATSB and VARA troops at the coalface will do what they need to, diligently and without fear or prejudice, no doubt at all. ATSB troops have done all that and more before now; but, regrettably the shades of Pel Air linger, which creates a miasma of suspicion over any published outcome. The report on this incident needs, like Caesar's wife, to be above suspicion, without blemish and a benchmark for excellence; for everyone's sake. Lets try and keep them honest this time.

So many questions arise. It's my serious doubts over the integrity and competence of our present ATSB/CASA management ethos to allow production of a honest report and to transparently manage this domestic episode, hopefully avoiding another 'pilot error' cop out which prompts the questions. Nothing to do with VARA or it's flight crews.

So, for starters, is the split yoke story even true?? The very idea that two 'competent' pilots could manage to exert (accidentally?) enough 'diametrically opposite' force during the translation of a 'bumpy' situation, with enough 'grunt' to separate the yokes is, stand alone; (when you think about it): a terrifying thought. The notion that two of them even exercised any serious control force, let alone 114 lbs, in an 'opposite direction', while correcting a trimmed flight attitude deviation simply begs questions. Industry cannot wait for another two years just to see what the ATSB eventually makes of it all and I'd bet a beer VARA won't be waiting about. Were there two sets of hands on the controls?, if so, why?. Was the AP engaged?. Any ideas on Speed, ROD, configuration at the time? SOP's?

The turbulence about Canberra is, on rare occasions, as bad as anywhere in the known world. A known fact, operational wisdom handed down, from Father to son. Seconds may go by where the aircraft is simply not 'manoeuvrable'. A wise child will not, in the first instance overload the airframe. But rather offer short prayers to pagan gods that this all stops soon, stabilises the airframe attitude early and 'works with it' to go quietly through the lumps with light hands, tender words and an understanding of basic aerodynamics. Once reunited with terra firma, (and having recovered some cool); it is time to scream for the 'grown ups'. "Please sir, I've just given this airframe a hell of a beating, to the extent that the FA has broken a wing" (hint-hint). "Could you have a real butchers-hook at the old girl (not the FA ya pervert) and see that all is well".

Now I wonder, is there a specific briefing in the VARA port operations manual sections which clearly warns pilots of the so very real dangers which, once or maybe twice in a career, can be found on approach to Canberra. Or is there just some mind numbing CASA pacifying 'buzz words'; slightly hysterical 'guest etiquette' briefings and other associated, stultifying twaddle. Are there specific notes on how to manage a Canberra approach, when it's 'cooking'?. Notes specifying caution during certain temperature/ wind range combinations, noting the inherent stability of the weather patterns which "may" just start the pot boiling. Not knocking the crew or standards here, but forewarned and forearmed is always better.

Was the FA strapped down, long before the expectation of bumps?. Were the bumps forecast? Was the crew made aware that conditions that day were within the range of the real McCoy severe turbulence, Canberra style?, was a precautionary allowance made for just such an event (just in case)? You could reasonably expect the crew to have this sorted, so how come a busted leg?

Speculation, for example, has the damage done during turbulence event been camouflaged, i.e. by a weakened, but not busted internal part or structure, only revealing the flaw after further flight? This speaks highly of airframe design integrity, but does beg some questions. It would be prudent to examine the quality of initial reporting, the subsequent examination and Safety Management procedures.

Hindsight - Should the aircraft have been grounded, the tapes pulled and perhaps, some in depth analysis completed? On the face of it: granted with 20/20 hindsight and no hard data, the answer IMO, is Yes. Like we do for any reported seriously 'abnormal' event.

Fact - There is one savagely mauled aircraft shrouded and parked, which (in the fullness of time) could become more 'problematic' than it already is, (or needs be) if the ATSB insist on keeping to their beyond reason CASA dictated approach.

Don't know and pre-empting a report is really non of my business; but sometimes, when you get an itch you just have to scratch.

Just saying.

I'd have thought a control column link breakage would be pretty obvious. I can't see the crew not picking it up for 2 days!!! I expect the ATR requires a preflight control check like every other aircraft I've ever flown.

I've never flown the type, but my understanding is the ATR has a clutch mechanism in the elevator control run to protect against control jams. If the differential force between the two control columns exceeds about 52kg, it will decouple the two control columns and each pilot then flies their half of the elevator separately. It's not designed to be recoupled in flight...

Still scratching away.
 

Solved a couple of puzzles: the force required to spit the yokes, through the pitch coupling system is 114 pounds (52 daN).

For those with a curious mind (or not type rated) the link- HERE – takes you to an ATR-F.C.O.M. which at least provides some clarification and information on the aircraft pitch control system. Pages 253, 257, 464, 465, 468, 490, 492, 493, and for Beer Baron, page 510 are of interest.

There is also an -AD -which turned up in the search, probably worthy of a read.

Curse this curiosity thing, there must be cure; of course I blame Marcus Aurelius. That's it, now what's for lunch.

I heard the turbulence was pilot induced and the control split is what has caused the damage?

Either way, I hope the folk at Skywest keep their noses clean!

If that was the case, please note speed limits on page 702 of Kharons document, with elevators uncoupled.

The SAAB also has a split roll capability. From memory it was to allow roll control
in the event one control channel jammed. As with the ATR if both pilots elect to control the aircraft but want to go in different directions the control channels will separate and in the words of Frank Spencer "we both have contro!".

The same thing happened to a Hazelton SAAB going into Bathurst when it very nearly stalled and came close to hitting the ground. Both pilots attempted to control the aircraft with the inevitable results. From memory that incident only came to light because a high profile "ironman" pilot was sitting down the back and reported it.

so an aeroplane that breaks in 1g unaccellerated flight is causing some questions now.
GOOD!

yes it is true. 0.8 of a second is all it took in a big bit of turbulence.

now that the world is awake I'll bow out and go back to my restoration work.
....I'm never going to be a passenger on an ATR. amazingly I really do think my homebuilt is safer to fly. toodle pip guys.

Aaaaand now we can get back to the 'Professional' in Pprune.......

So does that mean you also won't fly on a SAAB? Looks like you are stuck flying in the dash 8 or Metro for all your turboprop flights to regional destinations.

Bring back the Otter!

Dash 8 has resettable elevator and aileron disconnects in flight.
Emb 120 are only ground resettable much to the embarrassment of a long ago flight west pilot

The Embraer ejet family (170/190) have the ability to split in pitch and roll

Oh dear! There will not be any aircraft left for W8 to pax in :ugh:

Whoa, big hoss.
 

It is grossly unfair and professionally offensive to criticise either this or any another 'transport' class aircraft, or the operating crews during this passage of play. Even if speculation and 'informed', professional discussion are the meat and potatoes of the Pprune forum.

The ATR series, for those who have not had the pleasure; is a mighty fine aircraft. One which has seen and survived much hard service (and some abuse), in many tough ports, world wide, often providing survivability where little was available, (read the accident reports). It was designed, built and tested by professional engineers who have their names and; in some cases, their signatures on the type certification data sheet. The aircraft has, even after being in some manner 'abused', served faithfully and flawlessly, many times over, often above the call of duty. Same –same the trusty Dash, Saab and Twotter, the peerless Metro, Shorts and Fokker variants. They all fly lots of hours, countless sectors in a wide variety of weather conditions and made many 'safe' landings in some bloody awful conditions. They stand as testament to the visible, viable engineering and pilot skills, hard won over the decades. Cheap shots and bickering; - save them for the kids footy club.

There is no data to support a crew stuff up. I, for one have no doubt that VARA fulfil, at very least, the minimum crew competency requirements and would not allow any pilot to 'captain' an aircraft who was anything else but competent and qualified, same for the FO. I wonder if SLF have any idea of what it actually takes to 'qualify' an operation; such as VARA. Hint, if it were that easy and guaranteed profitable; every one would be doing it. There is little fun in the doing of it and you do need deep pockets to even contemplate such a venture. No one sane is going to bet all that on a 'dodgy' aircraft or a 'suspect' crew. Certainly no one with a business brain; it just don't make sense. QED.

So, must we look deeper? On surface hearsay, somehow and in some way, something got busted, and claims of "Bird strike" just don't (for me at least) seem to cut it. Perhaps that explains the almost indecent haste of the ATSB and the marked lack of a preliminary report.

So, what about it Beaker?, hows about throwing the hungry, unwashed a bone to chew on. Preliminary report 'on time', that sort of stuff. (It's probably there, but the 'new' ATSB site makes things remarkably difficult to find).

Heigh Ho. Back to my knitting.

No shortage of emotion in that one.....

utter dribble

an aircraft sits in albury that will be scrapped by its owner.
the mechanics who have looked at the aircraft believe that the entire tail would have parted company with the aircraft should it have flown again.

....but you are content that as long as the paperwork was in order, as long as it was certified then that would make it all ok.

are you nuts?

the aircraft was just flown in normal operations and it broke in fairly usual turbulence.
the disconnect of the two halves of the rudder is nothing but an inconvenience to be sorted on the ground by the mechanics.
what is the bother is that the structural integrity of the tail was so badly compromised that it came close to failing in flight. because of this VARA are going to scrap the aircraft.

so what you are all saying is that because it didn't actually crash and kill a hundred or so souls ah "nothing to see folks, move along now...she'll be right"

you have little idea just how stupidly incompetent I think you people are.
it is ok to have aircraft deficient in strength in RPT operations is it?

I think I'll stick to my homebuit.
at least I can take it to Vne and flog it through turbulence without it breaking.

I'll take a professional in a "compromised" airframe over an amateur at Vne through turbs in a homebuilt anyday of the week.

Double 8 and co,

You are all entitled to you opinion, but the aircraft speaks for itself, you can compare it to the Dash and that's it. all other aircraft are for bush pilots. I'm sorry to say the ATR and Dash are the only 2 built for real airlines. ATR are winning contracts all around the world ahead of the Dash for good reason with huge backlogs. It's it built and tested in Toulouse France by the same engineers and test pilots as Airbus.EADS, which owns 50% of ATR. It flies everyday in the Himalayas, Northern Russia to the dusty deserts of Pakistan with very few faults. I have flown it myself for 10 years and love the aircraft. My ten cent is wait for the report to come out. All I can say is an aircraft that weights over 22 ton can't be flown and flung around like a beach bacon/Barbie whatever..... or metroliner :rolleyes: Get well soon to the cabin crew. As for not flying an ATR, great I'm not sure I would be too fond of your company.

I agree with W8 on the ATR, it's had a very chequered history, whilst it has good economic credentials it has had a lot of accidents and incidents due icing.

Some excerpts from a few different online sources;

Roselawn accident;

In short ATR knew there was problems with the aircraft in icing and did not promulgate this to operators.

The fix to the wing/de-ice boots did not even address half the recommendation of the investigators.

None of the other turbo-props operated in Australia have this record.

If you think the problem was fixed this is a summary of the accident flight Aero Carribean 883, November 2010;

The report available online for TransAsia Airways cargo flight 791 is worth a read as well. 2002 accident very similar circumstance to Roselawn.

The 2012 UTAir accident in Russia probably had a similar cause but the ice accumulation possibly happened prior to take-off.

One thing is absolutely clear with the ATR, that is you must identify and exit severe icing very quickly or bad things can happen. Other Turbo-props like the Dash and SAAB are susceptible to icing but only to the normal stall issues, all problems these aircraft have had is too low speed with ice. The ATR problem is not a normal stall, it is a control hinge reversal that renders the aircraft almost uncontrollable if not accounted for early on, this can happen at high speed. A big problem with high wing aircraft like the ATR is you can not see how much ice is accumulating on the upper surface of the wing and where. The consistent rate of accidents following Roselawn and possibly numerous undisclosed incidents shows that if mishandled in icing this aircraft is still very unforgiving. If you compare this to the various Dash models there are very few instances of problems in icing, different wing design, these aircraft can motor through large amounts of icing and only need to change level when speed becomes an issue. This also accounts for the big difference in accidents, the ATR-72 having 7 fatal accidents (4 icing related) vs the Dash 8 300/400 having only two (all crew related). I did not include the ATR 42 and Dash 8 100/200 but the ratio is similar, but far less due icing.

Hopefully the 500/600 series ATR have modifications that fix the problem and it never shows again.

43Inches, have you flown the ATR, any model?

w8, i thought you were bowing out? Furthermore, if you think we are incompetent, just imagine what some of us think of you.

I have not flown it, I have flown in it and probably would do so again with reputable operators.

What I have been told by those that have is that training now focuses on these events, where as pre-Roselawn it was basically all blamed on pilots. I've flown other large turbo-props and have experienced severe icing on a number of occasions. In any turbo-prop it can overcome the de-ice systems very quickly and performance loss is rapid.

What I'm pointing out here is that the aircraft does not have a great history, it requires vigilance when operating in and around icing or it can bite a lot harder than other turbo-props in this regard.

What I would say to you is that your obsession about ATRs and icing isnt healthy (not the first time you have mentioned it on these forums), especially if you have not operated one in and around icing conditions or at all for that matter. Yes, I have flown them.

I think any turbo-prop operated for prolonged periods of time in Severe Icing will 'bite hard'. Should I mention Colgan Air? There are no aircraft that I know of certified for flight into Severe Icing Conditions. Happy to be corrected.

But back to the twisted tail of doom and w8s VNE 4g pull ups.

The Colgung air Q400 was not icing related, if you watch the the FDR recreation they left the PLs at flight idle during configuration until the aircraft stalled, the reaction to the stall was what then caused the accident.

This is correct however you will encounter severe icing on occasion without it being forecast, sometimes it's easy to get out of other times it can take a while to get to a point to shed the ice.

Have a look at 'Unheeded Warning', written by an American Eagle ATR pilot.

Here you will gain an insight into global politics and the high price of grounding an aircraft.

'Unheeded Warning',
 

The article – HERE – is well worth a read, particularly for Prop jet pilots in this neck of the woods, where the freezing level is often high with plenty of moisture (and mixing) when the cloud tops are just 'out of reach'. Boser, the editor has been fair though and mentioned other nasty icing incidents which have occurred with other types. Was it a SAAB ? at Bathurst? had a nasty go with ice one dark and stormy. I believe one of the most worthy elements of any PJ type rating is a look at the certification standard which define the various types of 'icing' and the protection required for flight in those icing conditions. The 'type' of icing, for which the aircraft is certified to operate in, may surprise some.
FAA
FAA
While acknowledging the 'ice' problems, we digress. As far as anyone knows, this incident was structural and unless the chook they allegedly hit was frozen solid, still in the bag, then icing has little to do with the event being considered.

Anyone know if the ATSB have broken cover yet on this event? they are overdue.

'Unheeded obfuscation'
 

Kharon: According to the ATSB investigation number AO-2014-032 page, the Prelim report is still outstanding but the bureau still stand by their intention of putting out a final report within several months. Which would be a world record for the bureau on what is obviously a complex and very sensitive investigation: The stated good intentions of the ATSB in investigating these two, apparently related, accidents (ATSB classification) is all well and good but are they in fact contravening their obligations under Annex 13 paragraph 7.4...:confused: Or is it ICAO that are sitting on the Preliminary report?? If so the ATSB (much like the Malaysians have done) should have made a media statement stating the reason for the delay so that all interested parties are kept informed. To do nothing only further adds to the distrust the industry has with the bureau after the findings of the Senate PelAir inquiry.

Perhaps the importance of the issuance of the Prelim report is perfectly highlighted by the speculation, Chinese whispers, conspiracy theories etc already displayed in this thread. If we had the prelim report we would all be able to see where the investigation is being 'scoped' and where the good investigators on the coalface are indeed looking for the answers to how an apparently certified and proven HCRPT turbo-prop could be so critically bent that it may end up being written off. To not have any facts revealed so far does the worldwide aviation industry (& travelling public) a huge disservice and does nothing to enhance, the already dodgy, credibility of the ATSB...:=


Q/ Not to discredit the professional investigators at the bureau (I truly believe they are doing their jobs to the best of their abilities and resources available to them) but is the middle to executive management in total disarray since the PelAir debacle has been publicly revealed??

Example:Yesterday I went to the ATSB website and noticed that the weekly summaries link had been deleted and in its place was this: ATSB National Aviation Occurrence Database This probably explains why the weekly summary lists were nearly 2 months behind...:ugh: Maybe this bureau initiative will end up being extremely useful but at the moment it appears to be yet another barrier to accessing any useful safety information derived from the many, responsibly notified, incidents/accidents...:= What is more staggering is that this change to accessing the ATSB database was totally un-notified or adequately explained...:ugh: Err..WTF is going on at the ATSB?? :{

The simplest explanation is that the ATSB is doing its level best not to rock the Boat, not the CASA boat, not the Departments Boat and especially not the Ministers Boat.

Nothing must be published that reflects poorly on Regulator, Department and by implication the Minister. This includes any comment on an operator which calls into question CASA regulation and oversight of the same.

To put that another way, until the ATR incident can be blamed on pilot error or unforseen weather nothing will be reported.

By way of example. the British Government ordered a review into the horrific conditions for the British wounded in the Crimean war of 1853 - 1856. Their finding was that it was all caused by the non arrival of a shipment of hay due to weather, so no ones fault of course.

You can already see that approach in ATSB incident reporting here:


That is an example of justifying the conclusion in advance.

We are getting closer to the MARK NOW !!!
 

Once again Sarcs, another top posting !

Kharon, your research is outstanding: however I know that this one is " a so called experienced now unlucky colour of green " FO who's had a Barry Crocker.

When the Skip says:" Slow down " why not just reduce the power / raise the nose ???

MOREOVER why are you sitting in MY CHAIR I'll show you how to fly this boat !!!

j3pipercub is on the $$$ now: As in HB, an oz knows not to fly into CB - with a SIGMET CURRENT FOR TURB - at VMO without your mouthgard in.

The thing of interest is why didn't the dept release spare airframes to replace the (now flagpole/ground based unit) grounded one: or do they feel somewhat responsible for forcing VARA to this so called " experienced os " factor to be more the issue atm ???:{:{:{

We really want VARA to succeed & relieve the bush from the Qprop overpriced cancer: But gee Warren, you should of never allowed this to happen under your watch...

ACCOUNTABILITY: Do both Dept's know the meaning of this word ???

5x5.
 

Loud and clear DoC. That possible scenario was discussed. Years back, (in the day), a couple of major carriers had similar issues, some of the BA episodes come to mind. The speedy resolution was truly a benchmark in what, these days is called "Safety Management". No one got fired; but major changes were made to the 'cardboard cut out' pilot model (HR), some attitude changes were enforced (vigorously) (flight ops), some additional training modules developed (training) which cured many issues. The whole process, ably assisted by the CAA was open, honest, very quietly but very effectively executed. Defining the root cause and creating 'real' solutions has probably saved more lives than crucifixion.

Whatever happened, the outcome must not be another slam dunk, supported by another round of Senate or ICAO investigation; the last one still makes me cringe. . I read/hear (somewhere) that CASA have stepped away from 'investigation' this time and are doing this one according to Hoyle (wonder why?).

Aside: one problem with cockroaches is, the moment the lights are off they think they can sneak back to continue the feast. Old technology eh.

-2-7. REPORTING TURBULENCE IN PIREPs

a. Turbulence reports must include location, altitude, or range of altitudes, and aircraft type, and should include whether in clouds or clear air. The degree of turbulence, intensity, and duration (occasional, intermittent, and continuous) is determined by the pilot.

1. Light. Loose objects in aircraft remain at rest.

2. Moderate. Unsecured objects are dislodged. Occupants feel definite strains against seat belts and shoulder straps.

3. Severe. Occupants thrown violently against seat belts. Momentary loss of aircraft control. Unsecured objects tossed about.

4. Extreme. Aircraft is tossed violently about, impossible to control. May cause structural damage.

b. Report Clear Air Turbulence (CAT) or CHOP if used by the pilot to describe the type of turbulence.

The link – HERE – may be of some value, especially to those with a penchant for calling 'Severe wind shear' on final; but that's a story which will keep for another day. Remember the yarn about the boy who cried wolf, once too often.

Duty of care,
Would you tell us where you get this solid info from ?
You seem to be so certain about what happened...

It s already your second post against a crew member...

Kharon, would you make a report if you knew no other "low level" turboprops were following or would you minimize radio chatter as we've been trained to do?

pireps are radio chatter?

they also help forecasters for next time

MM – I only posted the 'definitions' to clarify and define turbulence in 'official' (standard if you like) jargon. As for reporting, general questions are very hard to answer, but most 'seasoned' aircrew can (mostly) tread the fine line between wasting time and giving a heads up to those who need to know. They also know why, when and how to make a Pirep which is correctly phrased, useful, informative, quickly and easily disseminated. The USA have a good 'system' which is tied to the national weather base; interesting stuff. Have a Google, there's some good info available.....

Speaking of which has anyone managed to dig out the forecasts (area and TAF) for the time/day in question? I've not had a lot of luck (admittedly, Sunday half hearted).

The info i have recieved relates more to crew competency than the aircraft which looks like a write off. What is going on at VARA? CASA won't allow any more ATR's to be added either.

CAsA did a similar thing to the then Virgin Blue back in around 2001 or thereabouts. The new kid on the block was bringing in an additional aircraft every 6 weeks or so, sometimes less, so Fort Fumble panicked and put the brakes on VB until they ramped up supporting departments manpower and supporting systems etc to handle the additional workload that is generated during a rapid growth phase. CAsA had been used to the QF/AN duo where the wheels turned relatively slowly. This new LCC thing spooked the laconic CAsA retirement village.
Could be a similar sort of concern once again. Or there could be some serious and systemic safety concerns that have the Regulator rattled? Then again maybe all of CAsA's limited supply of inspectors are off sick, on annual leave, filing paperwork and drinking coffee so they have asked VARA to slow up?

I hear that Virgin want to add more E190s to their fleet, ATR replacements?

Virgin ATR grounded in Albury
 

So, what was the result of the ATR in question? Was it written off or reinstated? Can't see a complete write off for an a/c with a perfect hull but a severely damaged tail plane.