CASA Cover Up Contd
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA Cover Up Contd
In light of the fact that the previoius thread is now locked lets get to the cold hard facts about what transpired on the day in question.
The PIC must have done a very quick and poor preflight prior to departure as the flaps of a/c in question would not retract beyond 5 degs down. This was confirmed by engineers at a later stage, confirming what has previously been posted.
The PIC planned DCT GDH at A070 and climbed to an amended lowest safe 6200 (known icing conditions as FZ LVL was 7000').
The a/c also loaded with 9 pax had never been flown by said PIC ever before but he elected to operate it a MTOW in IMC near the FZ LVL.
The cause of the engine failure was due to the fact that the fuel lines were not torqued correctly following maintenance and became loose from vibration over a short time causing the engine to surge. Currently under CASA investigation.
The engine failure combined with 5 deg flap down was the reason for the a/c not maintaining altitude.
As for the instrument indications from the turn co-ordinator then I would suggest taxi checks to confirm serviceability or during departure and climb a cross-check of indications (IF YOU HAVENT FLOWN THE PLANE BEFORE). If the PIC is not happy then simply DONT DEPART!!
Any airspeed below blue line whilst asymmetric is not what you need to tell the punters as you make it sound ACCEPTABLE. Vmca due turbulence sounds like a very good way to cover ones a$$ when you where at that speed trying to maintain altitude.
I find it quite hard to believe that this rocket scientist is being hailed as a hero when you were just lucky that you did not kill yourself and 9 others. The swiss cheese may line up next time sport.
Puff you need to know the facts not the watered down BS that the PIC has written to make himself look like a hero.
Check the conditions on the day CASA and then have a rethink
The PIC must have done a very quick and poor preflight prior to departure as the flaps of a/c in question would not retract beyond 5 degs down. This was confirmed by engineers at a later stage, confirming what has previously been posted.
The PIC planned DCT GDH at A070 and climbed to an amended lowest safe 6200 (known icing conditions as FZ LVL was 7000').
The a/c also loaded with 9 pax had never been flown by said PIC ever before but he elected to operate it a MTOW in IMC near the FZ LVL.
The cause of the engine failure was due to the fact that the fuel lines were not torqued correctly following maintenance and became loose from vibration over a short time causing the engine to surge. Currently under CASA investigation.
The engine failure combined with 5 deg flap down was the reason for the a/c not maintaining altitude.
As for the instrument indications from the turn co-ordinator then I would suggest taxi checks to confirm serviceability or during departure and climb a cross-check of indications (IF YOU HAVENT FLOWN THE PLANE BEFORE). If the PIC is not happy then simply DONT DEPART!!
Any airspeed below blue line whilst asymmetric is not what you need to tell the punters as you make it sound ACCEPTABLE. Vmca due turbulence sounds like a very good way to cover ones a$$ when you where at that speed trying to maintain altitude.
I find it quite hard to believe that this rocket scientist is being hailed as a hero when you were just lucky that you did not kill yourself and 9 others. The swiss cheese may line up next time sport.
Puff you need to know the facts not the watered down BS that the PIC has written to make himself look like a hero.
Check the conditions on the day CASA and then have a rethink
