|
Virgin ATR grounded in Albury
Interesting article by Ben Sandilands on Crikey:
Virgin Australia's leg breaker flight under double inquiry | Plane Talking Anyone know what the story is? |
padlock please
I don't think that it is advantageous to run two threads on this. Let's stick with http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...akes-vara.html
|
Story I heard on the ground at Albury is that the tail of the aircaft was badly bent in the encounter with turbulence.
|
My sources have told me that yes indeed the damage is much worse than was first thought. Of concern is how the aircraft could operate all those sectors post incident, without any damage detected?
The investigation by the ATSB and the actions of CASA yet again point to a pair of organisations that simply refuse to act in a transparent manner, but instead scramble to protect the 'big end of town'. This incident has the potential to turn into yet another complete clusterf#ck to add to the ATSB and CASA history pages. They just don't get it do they? |
VARA certainly aren't the big end of town and have been on shaky terms with our Canberra overlords for sometime now.
Not too sure what CASA could come out and immediately do - personally a bit of the ol' Tiger treatment would have been good to see, just to show that CASA weren't bullying Tiger a few years ago and they are trying to be consistent... But you're probably right, that big red virgin on the fin makes those decisions very hard to make. |
"CASA weren't bullying Tiger a few years ago"
Of course they were!!! |
You are right, the Virgin tail gets them across the line. No doubt people at CASA also have some association at Virgin.
If the tail was striped it would have been grounded quite some time ago... |
"CASA weren't bullying Tiger a few years ago" Of course they were!!! |
Is there any photos?
|
E_A, yes mate, there are some photos. However they are under lock and key due to the sensitivity of the subject. Doing my best to source one or two, if I succeed I will post them.
|
004 (welcome back BTW) you might need to have a chat to Para377 who also seems to have sources about the extent of the damage.:ok:
|
Lookyloo, thanks for the warm welcome :ok: I missed you also. I would say para377 has a different source to myself, perhaps you can make your own contact, I'm not overly interested, but thanks anyway.
|
How are CASA and the ATSB hiding things? I didn't realise they were the ones obligated to tell the press every time there was an accident or incident? Once the report is finalised, yes, but not during the initial investigation. I'd say they are probably doing their job properly behind the scenes - just because you, the pruner, doesn't know about it doesn't mean it's being handled poorly.
Which organisation handles the ATR's engineering in SYD? |
Cheers for the possible photo post.
|
It wasn't turbulence....
|
In this day and age, why is more info not forthcoming? The apparent secrecy surrounding these circumstances only serves to encourage discussion of a cover up. Methinks somebody porked it up, big time!
|
^^^One needs to be careful in this day and age. Comments on public forums could get you the sack. I too, have seen photos and it is not pretty.
|
This article has a photo of the aircraft in the hangar, but taken some distance away.
http://transform.fairfaxregional.com...h678_fcrop.jpg |
No leading edge on the horizontal in the pic...:eek:
|
i dare say that would have been removed for inspection purposes TBM.....
The issue here is very much who did the post- overstress inspection and why wasnt the tail damage picked up then. |
Look carefully at the angle of the horizontal stabiliser compared with the angle of the wing.
Unless that's to do with either the camera angle or the photo itself, then that is one seriously bent stab. You would be wondering how the engineers missed that, and how even the pilots missed this for however many days it flew. DIVOSH! |
Di_Vosh
That could be entirely due to the camera used and the angle the photo was taken on. Unless a plate camera was used with a movable lens to control perspective (highly unlikely these days) then you cannot guarantee a distortion-less photograph. |
Who is kidding who??
training wheels good catch and interesting article (& photo) from the Border Mail...:cool:
VH-FTS How are CASA and the ATSB hiding things? I didn't realise they were the ones obligated to tell the press every time there was an accident or incident? Once the report is finalised, yes, but not during the initial investigation. I'd say they are probably doing their job properly behind the scenes - just because you, the pruner, doesn't know about it doesn't mean it's being handled poorly. Both of the occurrences in this case were listed as 'accidents' and both are being investigated. History shows that anytime a serious incident/accident is notified to the ATSB they will invariably post a media release within a day, if not hours, of the occurrence. It is interesting that the BM article was released on the 08/03/14, some 11 days after the 2nd incident/accident, yet the article states: The incidents are being treated as separate. A Virgin Australia spokesman, Nathan Scholz, said there was no evidence linking the two matters. Mr Scholz said that on February 20, the Sydney-bound flight struck turbulence that led to a crew member being injured and Virgin notified the bureau. He said five days later the pilot reported a bird strike mid-flight and found damage to the outside of the aircraft upon landing to Albury. 20/02/2014 *201400786*Accident Yes - AO-2014-032* near Sydney Aerodrome* NSW* ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A* Air Transport High Capacity*Passenger* C * CTA During cruise, the aircraft encountered severe turbulence resulting in a cabin crew member receiving a serious injury. The investigation is continuing. 25/02/2014*201400985*Accident Yes - AO-2014-032* near Albury Aerodrome* NSW * ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A* Air Transport High Capacity*Passenger* D * CTR During a post flight inspection, substantial damage to the aircraft's tail assembly was detected. The investigation is continuing. {Comment: It is also passing strange that the bureau makes no mention of the PIC's notified bird strike incident} OK clear as mud so far??:rolleyes: Then we move further down the article to this bit right at the end... "...The bureau spokesman in Canberra said a preliminary report would be prepared within 30 days..." The 30 days passed on the 27th of March apparently without a prelim report being issued...:confused: However if you refer to investigation number AO-2014-032 you will see that it was last updated on the 25 March 2014. So technically speaking the bureau has come within it's promised deadline of 30 days. What is unclear is how the two occurrences were notified to the required parties (as per Annex 13 para 7.1) and whether there was a Preliminary report issued (to those parties) prior to the 30 days (as per para 7.4 of Annex 13). Oh well I'm sure it is all above board..:E However if that is the case when is the bureau going to make the Prelim report available to the rest of the world??:* |
Top post SARCS !!!
Will we see people / personal / organisations being accountable for this one ?? I can feel another Norfolk Is Westwind / 4 Corners story coming up though !! |
I hear on the grapevine that this plane maybe end up being a 'pole sitter':)
Humans make errors, we do it every day of the week. Wmk2 |
PT follow up to winged ATR...
All quiet (so far) on the MH370 western front, so..
Was it a bird, or a stuff up? The Virgin ATR questions Whatever it was that the ATR hit, it was definitely too damaged to continue to operate in the state in which it come to rest in Albury http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalk...er-610x414.jpg Julie Andrews in Sound of Music, or the ATSB in Albury? PR photo 20th Century Fox There are unresolved issues about the Virgin Australia ATR turbo-prop currently but not always hidden from view at Albury Airport following the discovery of significant damage to its airframe after it landed there on 25 February. The aircraft was also involved in a serious turbulence incidence on the a flight between Canberra and Sydney on 20 February, and in an earlier post we have described how the ATSB linked that incident to the later Albury incident in a manner which no doubt by pure coincidence rendered it invisible to public scrutiny. Among the questions awaiting answers is the extent to which, if at all, the public was exposed to risk between 20-25 February by the aircraft continuing in service. It is important to ask the question without prejudice. The ATSB could be completely mistaken in linking the two incidents and to have done so without any substantive reason whatsoever. Virgin Australia had the ATR inspected after the turbulence incidence by a contractor, who may well have correctly concluded that the aircraft was fit to fly. The pilot who thought he hit a bird on approach to Albury and made an external investigation of the turbo-prop to discovered what could be one of the more ruinous bird strikes in the history of such incidents in Australia could have been correct in his suspicions. But whatever it was that the ATR hit, it was definitely too damaged to continue to operate in the state in which it come to rest in Albury, where according to Virgin Australia: An ATR-72 is currently in Albury awaiting repairs, the aircraft is currently under ATSB control and the repairs will commence once the ATSB’s investigation is complete. Virgin Australia also said “Virgin Australia pilots conduct a pre-flight inspection of their aircraft prior to every flight”. This tells us that whatever was bent on inspection in Albury after landing wasn’t bent before take off in Sydney more than an hour earlier and infers that either a prior condition suddenly manifested itself in the airframe or was caused by hitting what must have been a very large bird with its T-tail. Finding out the truth is obviously a matter of considerable importance, and there is a sequence of events from the actions the pilots took on 20 February to respond to turbulence through to the post turbulence inspection and on to whatever event caused the airframe to deform on 25 February that all need to be fully understood. The most important matter of all might be whether the airliner flew while in an unsafe condition between 20-25 February, and if it did, what steps need to be taken to prevent this happening again. But the integrity of the post turbulence inspection process is obviously also critical to the above. Answers to these questions are needed. In a transparent and accountable air safety administrative process these issues would be explored NTSB style, at public hearings. Documents would be produced and examined. Responsible people would publicly account for their actions. In Australia such matters are settled out of sight through a process of negotiation when it comes to the wording of the final report between the safety authorities and the commercial and professional parties to an inquiry, leading to an agreed final document, although the ATSB does have the power to publish its findings over the objections of other parties. For the time being Virgin Australia isn’t proceeding with its originally intended expansion of its regional arm, which was Skywest Airlines of WA , which it purchased from Singaporean shareholders last year. A bit like the VH-NGA airframe fame that lies 47m under the ocean off Norfolk Island, the longer the VARA ATR sits in the hangar at Albury the more the intrigue, mystery, cover up theories etc will grow...:rolleyes: |
a rumour is that this airframe is so damaged that it will be scrapped.
this may be the first time in australian aviation history that a bird strike saved an aircraft full of passengers. if it had flown again ..... faaarrrkkkk. problem for virgin is that they are scheduled to put over a hundred of the design into service. look up ATR fatal accidents and just look at the number of ATR's that have crashed killing all on board. FFFFAAAARRRRKKKKK. and that is not just one dumbassed operator. those operators were from all over the world and all different cultures. I will never fly on one ever. If ever there was an aircraft that should be banned from australian skies it is the ATR. ymmv. |
That Horizontal stab is pretty bent. I would not be surprised if the aircraft was not flying straight either.
|
The hills may well be alive -
Sandilands – "Just what-the-hell is really going on?" Now, while fumes disappearing may well be no cause for great alarm; no ATSB report on the same aircraft, on the next sector, on the same day, returning to land with 'engine' issues could not be construed as insignificant. You could, quite reasonably expect an ATSB report on that part of the story; being a two day fix and all. Benefit of doubt, maybe it's buried in that tip the ATSB call a web****e. What with this incident, then Moranbah (x2), plus the Canberra and Albury events, are we starting to see a form of interesting pattern emerging? So yes, what precisely and exactly is going on. Hmmm, can I feel a Lockhart coming on? |
Kharon,
So yes, what precisely and exactly is going on. Hmmm, can I feel a Lockhart coming on? TICK TOCK |
ook up ATR fatal accidents and just look at the number of ATR's that have crashed killing all on board. FFFFAAAARRRRKKKKK. and that is not just one dumbassed operator. those operators were from all over the world and all different cultures. I will never fly on one ever. If ever there was an aircraft that should be banned from australian skies it is the ATR. |
Here tis Ferryman..welcome back!!
Kharon:
Except, the return sector started normally but ended in a return to Emerald with a 'minor engine failure' (whatever the hell that is), which was serious enough to keep the aircraft on the deck for two days. There is no ATSB follow up report on that incident that I can find available. {Note: While in the process, out of academic interest (as there seem quite a few), I compiled a list of all recorded incidents for the calendar year '14 of ATsBeaker weekly summaries, so the incident in which you refer is in red..:rolleyes:} 29/11/2013 201311663 Incident No Canberra Aerodrome ACT ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTR During take-off, the aircraft struck a bird and takeoff was rejected. 02/12/2013 201312655 Incident No Port Macquarie Aerodrome, S M 37Km NSW ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional Unknown ATR72-212A----- Unknown Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTA During descent to 9,000 ft, the ATR - GIE Avions ATR72 received a TCAS RA on an opposite direction aircraft descending from its assigned level of 10,000 ft. The ATR72 climbed to maintain separation. 08/12/2013 201312411 Incident No Canberra Aerodrome ACT ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTR Passing 1,000 ft on approach to runway 35, the aircraft struck a bird. 15/12/2013 201312198 Incident No Rockhampton Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger D CTR During the take-off run, the crew received a digital air data computer (DADC) warning and rejected the takeoff. The computer was reset and the message cleared. During the next takeoff the warning reappeared and the aircraft returned to Rockhampton. During the engineering inspection, a bee was found lodged in the pitot tube. 21/12/2013 201312681 Incident No Port Macquarie Aerodrome NSW ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger G CTAF During the landing in windy conditions, the aircraft bounced and the tail bumper struck the ground. 24/12/2013 201312732 Incident No near Brisbane Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTR During the initial climb, the crew received a flight control system warning and returned to Brisbane. 29/12/2013 201312847 Incident No abeam Bundaberg Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger E CTA During the cruise, the aircraft was struck by lightning. 30/12/2013 201312942 Incident No near Brisbane Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTA During the descent, the crew detected fumes in the cabin. An engineering inspection did not reveal the source of the fumes. 05/01/2014 201400163 Incident No Canberra Aerodrome ACT ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTR Passing 500ft on approach, the aircraft encountered windshear and sink which resulted in a GPWS TOO LOW GLIDE SLOPE. The crew conducted a missed approach. 07/01/2014 201400176 Incident No Sydney Aerodrome NSW ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTR The aircraft did not taxi in accordance with ATC instructions. 08/01/2014 201400233 Incident No Canberra Aerodrome ACT ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTA Passing 1,000 ft on visual approach on runway 35, the aircraft encountered overshoot and undershoot windshear. 10/01/2014 201400335 Incident No Brisbane Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTR The crew did not taxi in accordance with ATC instructions. 22/01/2014 201400641 Incident No Brisbane Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTR The aircraft did not taxi in accordance with ATC instructions. 23/01/2014 201401027 Incident No near Brisbane Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTA Passing 10,000 ft on climb, a cabin crew member detected air and fumes coming from under the seat. The fumes dissipated after short time and flight continued to Emerald. 23/01/2014 201400157 Incident No near Emerald Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger G CTAF During the climb, the crew detected abnormal engine indications and the aircraft returned to Emerald. Engineers replaced the No. 1 propeller valve module. 26/01/2014 201400610 Incident No Brisbane Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTR During final approach, the aircraft encountered moderate windshear and the crew conducted a missed approach. 28/01/2014 201401147 Incident No Brisbane Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTR During final approach, the aircraft struck a bird. 28/01/2014 201401130 Incident No Brisbane Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTR Incomplete coordination details were passed on an aircraft approaching the airspace boundary. 20/02/2014 201400786 Accident Yes - AO-2014-032 near Sydney Aerodrome NSW ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger C CTA During cruise, the aircraft encountered severe turbulence resulting in a cabin crew member receiving a serious injury. The investigation is continuing. 25/02/2014 201400985 Accident Yes - AO-2014-032 near Albury Aerodrome NSW ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger D CTR During a post flight inspection, substantial damage to the aircraft's tail assembly was detected. The investigation is continuing. 05/03/2014 201401150 Serious Incident Yes - AO-2014-041 Moranbah Aerodrome QLD ATR - GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR72-212A Air Transport High Capacity Passenger G CTAF The GIE Avions de Transport Regional ATR-72 landed while the safety car was on the runway. The ground staff and aircraft crew reported not hearing any radio calls. The investigation is continuing. Hmm wonder how many of the above incidents (prior to 25/02) were also related to the ill-fated VH-FVR??:rolleyes: |
Sarcs- dis you even look at the description of each 'event' in your list there? Two thirds are for completely 'normal' occurrances - ie bird/wildlife strikes and windshear. :ugh:
Good try on getting a conspiracy going. Id like to know how a PVM failure and fumes in the cockpit are related?:= |
W8, am I correct in assuming that your current steed is a wittman tailwind? It's kinda ironic that a person who flies an experimental homebuilt is having a go at a certified airliner with potentially hundreds of thousands if not millions of flying hours.
j3 |
Sarcs, Good to see VARA operating 42's out of BK :rolleyes:
|
Sarcs, Good to see VARA operating 42's out of BK |
experimental homebuilts???
you guys miss the point totally. when aeroplanes are designed the designers don't go to basics and work out how the air loads will affect the flying. air loads, gust considerations and such are built into the design and strength requirements which are typically FAR23. pilots are limited to loads and forces known as the "limit load". how do you keep an aeroplane light enough to fly well? well you only design it to be 50% stronger than the limit loads. this is known as the "ultimate strength". an aeroplane is supposed to be able to be stressed to "limit" any number of times without failure. you only expect component failure to occur if the aircraft is loaded beyond its ultimate strength. (btw I'm using Normal Category figures here, roughly) ok so how does an aeroplane flown within limits by competent pilots suffer such catastrophic failure in the empennage that VARA are going to scrap the entire airframe. something is drastically wrong here. either something has been shonkied through the certification process or the design standards aren't up to snuff or the air has more energy in it than previously thought and the design standards relating to strengths need updating. as I mentioned in my post on the truss thread I think the pilots were competent. VARA are competently operating the aircraft. ATR have designed the aircraft competently. so either I am wrong in one of the three assumptions or the design standards are in need of urgent review. aircraft components should never fail catastrophically while exposed to loads below "limit" the authorities can bury this all they like but it will not go away. VARA will end up with 163 ATR's. if all the 163 had been flown identically through identical weather to the candidate aircraft. VARA would now have all 163 parked at Albury with catastrophic damage. it is a part of the identical nature of certified aircraft. all have the same strengths and all have the same weaknesses. thankfully there is lots of parking space at Albury. :E |
I assume this issue has been reported to the Type Certificate holder ATR. It seems strange that if this aircraft has not suffered any unusual event to cause this why there is not an AD or mandatory SB to inspect the other aircraft in service?
I have seen an AD relating to a previous issue of cracking around the cockpit windows. The cracking could be related to errors made in production such as scribed markings or failing to deburr holes and edges. The DH comet problems were related to this and the square windows causing stress cracking. For anyone interested in the detail of the certification this is the TC. http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/d...3-17102012.pdf |
Part 25 for transport category, and transport load limits also apply which differ from normal or utility category part 23 certification.
Otherwise: pretty much yes. Having flown or flown on most things transport, including Tupolevs, Ilyushins, Yaks and almost all of the western stuff post 1936, I am less-than-comfy in an ATR. Or a 146 for that matter, but in either case they are only slightly more worrisome than (say) an HS748 or a SUD Caravelle. |
either something has been shonkied through the certification process or the design standards aren't up to snuff or the air has more energy in it than previously thought and the design standards relating to strengths need updating. as I mentioned in my post on the truss thread I think the pilots were competent. VARA are competently operating the aircraft. ATR have designed the aircraft competently. so either I am wrong in one of the three assumptions or the design standards are in need of urgent review. Wait for the final wrap up! You cannot arbitrarily discount some of the factors to make things fit. How the aircraft was flown needs to be considered! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.