Hotham Chieftain revisited in Flight Safety
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I question if you actually read the reports and engineering evaluations yourself? I didn't mention that the engine expert said that the engine wasn't running when the crash occurred. How does he know this? Years of experience my friend. Oil in oil filters, impact forces, etc, etc.
So the Chief Pilot engages a suitably qualified expert engineer to investigate further and all of a sudden it becomes a shift of blame to mechanical issues? Your comments make a mockery of the good name of the engineers that were contracted to perform this analysis
I'm not suggesting that pictures posted on PPrune should be used as any form of evidence, however experienced the pilot that took them. The fact that the propellor was barely damaged was evidence enough. Channel 9 ran the full story, complete with engineer testimonials. Perhaps I can also put you in touch with the engineer, who mind you, also has well over 10,000 hours as an ATPL...
So the Chief Pilot engages a suitably qualified expert engineer to investigate further and all of a sudden it becomes a shift of blame to mechanical issues? Your comments make a mockery of the good name of the engineers that were contracted to perform this analysis
I'm not suggesting that pictures posted on PPrune should be used as any form of evidence, however experienced the pilot that took them. The fact that the propellor was barely damaged was evidence enough. Channel 9 ran the full story, complete with engineer testimonials. Perhaps I can also put you in touch with the engineer, who mind you, also has well over 10,000 hours as an ATPL...
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I question if you actually read the reports and engineering evaluations yourself? I didn't mention that the engine expert said that the engine wasn't running when the crash occurred.
Which reports? I read the ATSB final report and the supplemental report that was released after all engine failure theory started to surface.
So the Chief Pilot engages a suitably qualified expert engineer to investigate further and all of a sudden it becomes a shift of blame to mechanical issues? Your comments make a mockery of the good name of the engineers that were contracted to perform this analysis
After the final report is issued the "expert" is engaged. Your comments make a mockery of the qualifications and experience of the 5 investigators that put the Hotham report together. They were at least independent which can't be said for the expert engaged by the Chief Pilot. One would have to assume he was paid for his services.
Channel 9 ran the full story, complete with engineer testimonials.
Hardly evidence of credible journalism, just watch The Chaser and Media Watch.
As has been stated previously the real issue is not one of whether the engine was producing power or not; its about the PIC making poor decisions and flying in a manner that was always going to lead to tragedy.
I have a lot of sympathy for the CP as this tragedy affects them on many levels.
Which reports? I read the ATSB final report and the supplemental report that was released after all engine failure theory started to surface.
So the Chief Pilot engages a suitably qualified expert engineer to investigate further and all of a sudden it becomes a shift of blame to mechanical issues? Your comments make a mockery of the good name of the engineers that were contracted to perform this analysis
After the final report is issued the "expert" is engaged. Your comments make a mockery of the qualifications and experience of the 5 investigators that put the Hotham report together. They were at least independent which can't be said for the expert engaged by the Chief Pilot. One would have to assume he was paid for his services.
Channel 9 ran the full story, complete with engineer testimonials.
Hardly evidence of credible journalism, just watch The Chaser and Media Watch.
As has been stated previously the real issue is not one of whether the engine was producing power or not; its about the PIC making poor decisions and flying in a manner that was always going to lead to tragedy.
I have a lot of sympathy for the CP as this tragedy affects them on many levels.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am perplexed as to your opinion of how when an expert is paid for his analysis, that makes him "bought" by the engager?
It's called professional integrity mate... there's not much of it left these days by the sounds of it.
A true expert with a valued reputation can't be "bought" by anyone.
There are many other times where the ATSB has made questionable findings and I often read about them in the media and pprune for starters.
If you want, I can put you in touch with the expert engineer and you can both thrash out your theories. I know who will win with experience.
It's called professional integrity mate... there's not much of it left these days by the sounds of it.
A true expert with a valued reputation can't be "bought" by anyone.
There are many other times where the ATSB has made questionable findings and I often read about them in the media and pprune for starters.
If you want, I can put you in touch with the expert engineer and you can both thrash out your theories. I know who will win with experience.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QNH1013.2- I have no need or desire to be put in touch with your expert as I know he is wrong. Coronials are stacked with plenty of "experts" who want to push a particular view point, I can point you in the direction of the Silk Air enquiry as an example.
I'm not sure which particular ATSB findings you think are questionable but you obviously feel that with Hotham they got it wrong despite having expert engineers with an investigation background doing the investigating.
As a final note, if their was any credibility to your theories then the Victorian Coroner would have had an open enquiry. To date there hasn't been one and that is probably because the Coroner has accepted the findings of the two ATSB reports on the subject.
Cheers
I'm not sure which particular ATSB findings you think are questionable but you obviously feel that with Hotham they got it wrong despite having expert engineers with an investigation background doing the investigating.
As a final note, if their was any credibility to your theories then the Victorian Coroner would have had an open enquiry. To date there hasn't been one and that is probably because the Coroner has accepted the findings of the two ATSB reports on the subject.
Cheers
QNH1013.2, when are you going to get it that the PIC shouldn't have been up there to even have a problem with his engine. Where he should have been, and if he did he would still be arguing the point with us, was on the deck at WGT arranging transport to get on the shuttle up the hill with the rest of the punters.
It isn't a CFIT, it isn't an engine failure, it is just plain poor judgement. And that we can all learn from it. Rules are often written in blood, this guy just added a couple of pints to the chapter on NPRs, alternates and minima.
It isn't a CFIT, it isn't an engine failure, it is just plain poor judgement. And that we can all learn from it. Rules are often written in blood, this guy just added a couple of pints to the chapter on NPRs, alternates and minima.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This really gives me the s*^#s. Porch Monkey is absolutely correct the aircraft should NEVER have departed. Those of you with experience, know that pilots often have their own procedures for getting into places in bad wx. They include stupid practises like flying DOWN the missed approach path of an NPA and let downs over radio station aerials with home drawn plates, and canyon flying in low cloud and minimum viz. They run the gauntlet and continue this practise until they either get a really big fright or kill themselves. In the case in question the pilot diverted from FP track to enter into a snow blizzard in an aircraft not equipped for such, to a destination which was REPORTED by an approved met observer, to be way way below minimums.The flight had NO chance of reaching its destination in the prevailing conditions. IMHO it was a flight that should never have been, and it culminated in the death of innocent people. IF and I repeat IF an engine stopped it may well have been due to ice/snow induction blockages. There is no excuse for stupidity.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This aircraft hit the trees, and the right wing, engine and propellor seperated from the fuse early in the accident sequence. How anyone with any credibility can look at photographs and say there is any evidence that the r/h engine was not producing power - is beyond me. Fair enough if it had been flown level into the side of a treeless hill - but not the case here.
So I would discount any "evidence" that the damage to the propellor blades and hub are proof that the engine failed.
In fact even the expert does not say the engine was not delivering power. He says the propellor was not rotating under power at the time of impact. I think this is probably right - because at the moment of impact (to the propellor) it had already been seperated from the engine and/or the engine from the wing and/or the wing from the fuse.
IMHO
Di
So I would discount any "evidence" that the damage to the propellor blades and hub are proof that the engine failed.
In fact even the expert does not say the engine was not delivering power. He says the propellor was not rotating under power at the time of impact. I think this is probably right - because at the moment of impact (to the propellor) it had already been seperated from the engine and/or the engine from the wing and/or the wing from the fuse.
IMHO
Di
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Right
Just wondering whether RL Aviation are still in business?
Interesting to read this on their website;
"R..... and L.... L.. are RL Aviation. They are a motivated partnership dedicated to providing a safe, high-quality aviation service. They combine meticulous attitude safety procedures with the best of equipment."
Yeah Right.
Interesting to read this on their website;
"R..... and L.... L.. are RL Aviation. They are a motivated partnership dedicated to providing a safe, high-quality aviation service. They combine meticulous attitude safety procedures with the best of equipment."
Yeah Right.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day it was an unfortunate accident that could have been avoided.
Yep agree one thousand percent. We can chew the fat on here for ages but the fact remains that lives were lost. And good folks too. Breaks my heart. Let it go guys. Let it go.
Yep agree one thousand percent. We can chew the fat on here for ages but the fact remains that lives were lost. And good folks too. Breaks my heart. Let it go guys. Let it go.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Let it go"
Well, there's little choice now mate.
The Lockhart River accident was grossly tragic too, for the same reasons, really.
Do we stop acknowledging facts just because people have made wrong decisions/excersised poor airmanship and lost their lives?
We would be even more naive than what these accidents are tragic to do so.
520.
The Lockhart River accident was grossly tragic too, for the same reasons, really.
Do we stop acknowledging facts just because people have made wrong decisions/excersised poor airmanship and lost their lives?
We would be even more naive than what these accidents are tragic to do so.
520.
