ATSB Report Sydney Floatplane
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATSB Report Sydney Floatplane
ATSB Report into the January Seaplane accident
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=719
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=719
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sometimes here usual out there!
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am so disappointed in the ATSB in this one, how wrong can they get it....
One question..
If the wind is 010 at 20 kts and you take off at 350 how do you get a cross wind of 19 to 24 knots!!!!
mmmm so the wind comes from the right and increases in strenght.
Also since when does a cross wind roll an aircraft which is already airborne. Using this logic aircraft could only fly into wind. Isn't it true that cross winds causes directional control problems whilst in contact with the ground, once off the ground the aircraft can weather cock into wind.
mmmmmmmmmmm If the pilot was trying to roll the aircraft to the right to stop the left roll, wouldn't that indicate the ailerons and rudder were trying to turn the aircraft to the right.
So wouldn't it be logical that when the uncommanded roll to the left started for the secound time the aircraft was actualling into wind with no crosswind component??? Opp I used that logical word!
Couldn't it be possible that he just got caught out be a freak "mountain wave" and a true accident happened??
Over ten paragraphs on Life Jackets, in short they want float plane operators to wear life jackets during take offs and landings over water. What a one sided coin. Maybe make ALL aircraft departing over water should make passgengers and crew wear lifejackets. All departures over swamp lands to wear Boots, all departures over the Cross to carry condoms.
Anyone stopped to think that making passengers wear lifejackets is a crazy thought, imagine how many false inflations there would be, extra wear and tear on equipment, then when they really do need them theyare u/s, unneccessary fear instilled on passengers that are supposed to be having a good time.
I think when jets require passengers to don lifejackets during a departure or arrival over water then we can put it into floatplanes
More important than life jackets is Egress training!!! If you can't get out that is your first and biggest problem. over 90% of fatalities concerned with accidents on water has nothing to do with lifejackets. Go figure.
ATSB should pull their socks up. Is this the only time that they have gotten it so wrong. Please post other times when they have.
Just my two cents worth
One question..
If the wind is 010 at 20 kts and you take off at 350 how do you get a cross wind of 19 to 24 knots!!!!
mmmm so the wind comes from the right and increases in strenght.
Also since when does a cross wind roll an aircraft which is already airborne. Using this logic aircraft could only fly into wind. Isn't it true that cross winds causes directional control problems whilst in contact with the ground, once off the ground the aircraft can weather cock into wind.
mmmmmmmmmmm If the pilot was trying to roll the aircraft to the right to stop the left roll, wouldn't that indicate the ailerons and rudder were trying to turn the aircraft to the right.
So wouldn't it be logical that when the uncommanded roll to the left started for the secound time the aircraft was actualling into wind with no crosswind component??? Opp I used that logical word!
Couldn't it be possible that he just got caught out be a freak "mountain wave" and a true accident happened??
Over ten paragraphs on Life Jackets, in short they want float plane operators to wear life jackets during take offs and landings over water. What a one sided coin. Maybe make ALL aircraft departing over water should make passgengers and crew wear lifejackets. All departures over swamp lands to wear Boots, all departures over the Cross to carry condoms.
Anyone stopped to think that making passengers wear lifejackets is a crazy thought, imagine how many false inflations there would be, extra wear and tear on equipment, then when they really do need them theyare u/s, unneccessary fear instilled on passengers that are supposed to be having a good time.
I think when jets require passengers to don lifejackets during a departure or arrival over water then we can put it into floatplanes
More important than life jackets is Egress training!!! If you can't get out that is your first and biggest problem. over 90% of fatalities concerned with accidents on water has nothing to do with lifejackets. Go figure.
ATSB should pull their socks up. Is this the only time that they have gotten it so wrong. Please post other times when they have.
Just my two cents worth
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the wind is 010 at 20 kts and you take off at 350 how do you get a cross wind of 19 to 24 knots!!!!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi TurboOtter,
before you put your two cents in have a look at the report again.
The pilot reported that the wind was about 20 knots (no measurement taken - just an educated response). The report goes on to say that the BoM report indicated:
This is taken from data recorders that sample and record the wind direction and speed.
If the ATSB used 045 as the NE heading then I have no problems with the crosswind that they reported.
Tinkicka
before you put your two cents in have a look at the report again.
The pilot reported that the wind was about 20 knots (no measurement taken - just an educated response). The report goes on to say that the BoM report indicated:
A Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) report of the weather in Sydney Harbour at the time of the accident, showed that the prevailing wind around the time of the accident was from the north-east, averaging 26 to 29 kts, with gusts reaching 37 kts.
If the ATSB used 045 as the NE heading then I have no problems with the crosswind that they reported.
Tinkicka
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: perth
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tin Kicker,
you are absolutely correct. Turbo Otter, you are incorrect, read the report again. If you take off on a heading of 350 and the wind is from the north east gusting to 37 kts, what do you think is going to happen.
The report also clearly states it was a combination of mechanical turbulence or windshear or a combination of both.
It also quite clearly states that is will be a CASA requirement to wear life jackets under the proposed regs. Go to the Canadian accident website and look up their study on floatplane accidents. You will see that survivors who dont have a life jacket on have a increase probability of drowning once they have escaped the aircraft.
Read the report before you slag off the ATSB
you are absolutely correct. Turbo Otter, you are incorrect, read the report again. If you take off on a heading of 350 and the wind is from the north east gusting to 37 kts, what do you think is going to happen.
The report also clearly states it was a combination of mechanical turbulence or windshear or a combination of both.
It also quite clearly states that is will be a CASA requirement to wear life jackets under the proposed regs. Go to the Canadian accident website and look up their study on floatplane accidents. You will see that survivors who dont have a life jacket on have a increase probability of drowning once they have escaped the aircraft.
Read the report before you slag off the ATSB
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slingload you've got it wrong.
ATSB has become an educational organisation. They seem to think that is their role not reporting facts. Not wearing lifejackets in this case had nothing to do with survivability in this case. The floatplane was still floating as most float equipped aircraft do when inverted. The issue is getting out of the aircraft unimpeded. With wearing a fully donned lifejacket as ATSB was trying to push, the chances of doing so are very much reduced. The Canadian report actually supports this if you analyse it carefully and take other factors such a hypothermia into account in cold canadian waters. In the case of the tassy accident that initially set the ATSB agenda, the plane was going to sink before it left the dock and the pilot did not instruct the pax to put their l/j on when it was obvious the plane was sinking. No mention of that 'fact' in the ATSB report. The simple view that to prevent a drowning you need to be wearing a lifejacket, while on the surface seems logical to the lay person, it ain't that simple.
ATSB has become an educational organisation. They seem to think that is their role not reporting facts. Not wearing lifejackets in this case had nothing to do with survivability in this case. The floatplane was still floating as most float equipped aircraft do when inverted. The issue is getting out of the aircraft unimpeded. With wearing a fully donned lifejacket as ATSB was trying to push, the chances of doing so are very much reduced. The Canadian report actually supports this if you analyse it carefully and take other factors such a hypothermia into account in cold canadian waters. In the case of the tassy accident that initially set the ATSB agenda, the plane was going to sink before it left the dock and the pilot did not instruct the pax to put their l/j on when it was obvious the plane was sinking. No mention of that 'fact' in the ATSB report. The simple view that to prevent a drowning you need to be wearing a lifejacket, while on the surface seems logical to the lay person, it ain't that simple.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sometimes here usual out there!
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report said "showed that the prevailing wind around the time of the accident "
These are from locations in Sydney harbour ie Fort Denison and the Heads etc... Not Rose Bay.
The weather on the day was up and down, The pilot has well over 400 Hours on float, I think he can tell the difference between 20 knots and 37 Knots.
He said the wind was 20, maybe he could be out a little but not 17 Knots!
Remember as pilots we are authorised weather observers.
Maybe you guys are right, (doubt it) but then go back to my other problem, after you are airborne what does crosswind have anything to do with it?
Yes wind can put you in a roll, but that is not crosswind.
But all that aside, What would wearing life jackets have done for the passengers of this and other seaplane accidents but possibly hinder their egress? Thanks bilbert, that's my biggest concern here, the ATSB are now trying to change a regulation that will affect all of us.
I think I'll go bang my head against a wall for a while, easier than trying to give some people a heads up.
These are from locations in Sydney harbour ie Fort Denison and the Heads etc... Not Rose Bay.
The weather on the day was up and down, The pilot has well over 400 Hours on float, I think he can tell the difference between 20 knots and 37 Knots.
He said the wind was 20, maybe he could be out a little but not 17 Knots!
Remember as pilots we are authorised weather observers.
Maybe you guys are right, (doubt it) but then go back to my other problem, after you are airborne what does crosswind have anything to do with it?
Yes wind can put you in a roll, but that is not crosswind.
But all that aside, What would wearing life jackets have done for the passengers of this and other seaplane accidents but possibly hinder their egress? Thanks bilbert, that's my biggest concern here, the ATSB are now trying to change a regulation that will affect all of us.
I think I'll go bang my head against a wall for a while, easier than trying to give some people a heads up.
