Hotham Chieftain revisited in Flight Safety
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotham Chieftain revisited in Flight Safety
No doubt most of you have noticed this in your mailbox or company magazine pile.
I am still astounded to say the least, that the article again states that BOTH engines were delivering power at the time of impact, but yet it was perfectly clear from later investigations by expert engineers that one engine was shut down with the propellor feathered!!!
So much for the author who is an independent aviation writer specialising in air safety!
I am still astounded to say the least, that the article again states that BOTH engines were delivering power at the time of impact, but yet it was perfectly clear from later investigations by expert engineers that one engine was shut down with the propellor feathered!!!
So much for the author who is an independent aviation writer specialising in air safety!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ...
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bring back the old Crash Comics...
The current safety mag is a feel-good rag full of articles about trolley incidents, ATCO RSI risks, baggage-snatcher back injuries, caterers' work hazards and occasionally the odd flight-safety article.
The old mag used to have breakdowns (by state, I think it was) of what pilots can learn from - other guys' incidents and accidents. These would be padded out with occasional articles on met hazards or maintenance issues that had had caught people out. Now we get to read about the dollies breaking a nail.
I'm sure the exact individual responsible for these decisions is reading this right now
- how about a separate mag for all the ancillary safety issues?
The current safety mag is a feel-good rag full of articles about trolley incidents, ATCO RSI risks, baggage-snatcher back injuries, caterers' work hazards and occasionally the odd flight-safety article.
The old mag used to have breakdowns (by state, I think it was) of what pilots can learn from - other guys' incidents and accidents. These would be padded out with occasional articles on met hazards or maintenance issues that had had caught people out. Now we get to read about the dollies breaking a nail.
I'm sure the exact individual responsible for these decisions is reading this right now
- how about a separate mag for all the ancillary safety issues?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: victoria
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QNH 1013...........
The guy was a cowboy and regardless of the article or what config the ac was in he doesnt deserve sticking up for which is what it sounds like you are trying to do. Yes it was unfortunate their were fatalities but from all the reports he doesnt deserve sticking up for. I have heard that centre controllers would hand him off and give the next atco a warning of what they were about to get, that says it all to me. And I thought the article was well written and very independant!!!!!!!!
Keep safe. JB
The guy was a cowboy and regardless of the article or what config the ac was in he doesnt deserve sticking up for which is what it sounds like you are trying to do. Yes it was unfortunate their were fatalities but from all the reports he doesnt deserve sticking up for. I have heard that centre controllers would hand him off and give the next atco a warning of what they were about to get, that says it all to me. And I thought the article was well written and very independant!!!!!!!!
Keep safe. JB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have never met him, his wife nor am I sticking up for him.
The ATSB got their report HORRIBLY wrong, yet this "independent" writer just copied their glaring error and it became fact.
Very BAD journalism.
The ATSB got their report HORRIBLY wrong, yet this "independent" writer just copied their glaring error and it became fact.
Very BAD journalism.
The ATSB got their report HORRIBLY wrong, yet this "independent" writer just copied their glaring error and it became fact
The author of the article in Flight Safety Australia was commissioned by FSA to write an article on the editor's behalf - based upon the facts furnished to the author by ATSB sources. The author would have no cause to doubt the ATSB Findings. ATSB in turn are required to check the article for accuracy before the decision is made by FSA to publish. This protocol was strictly followed.
The author made no personal speculation - he simply used the info as presented by ATSB. If people have other views regarding the circumstances surrounding the accident investigation, they are always encouraged to write to FSA and request their opinions be added in the next issue.
QNH1013.2 you said:
So the ATSB report contains a big lie? Where are these reports from "expert engineers" about the feathered propeller?
... but yet it was perfectly clear from later investigations by expert engineers that one engine was shut down with the propellor feathered!!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another article that you may want to read on this incident.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...418910057.html
As for the posts re the aviation writer getting it wrong. This guy has been writing aviation safety articles for longer than some of us have been alive with a very high respect from the industry. I doubt that he would get it wrong now.
Re references to "the engine not operating" take a look at this article.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...04-421,00.html
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...418910057.html
As for the posts re the aviation writer getting it wrong. This guy has been writing aviation safety articles for longer than some of us have been alive with a very high respect from the industry. I doubt that he would get it wrong now.
Re references to "the engine not operating" take a look at this article.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...04-421,00.html
We did our own removal of the engine and propeller after the investigators and, based on our engineer's advice, believe that one of the engines was not going at the time of the impact.
Last edited by scrambler; 15th Jun 2007 at 23:03. Reason: added ref to second article
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wherever the work is!
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who did this investigation that found that one engine was not running at impact?
From that article it just sounds as if the companies preferred maintenance organisations LAMEs have said that... hardly independant.
Who to believe, ATSBs own experienced investigators or your run of the mill LAME...
Chances are we may never "really" know exactly what happened, or why he decided to continue into Hotham in those weather conditions, but as PIC it was his responsibility for the safety of the A/C and pax and obviously made a VERY bad call against all good judgement and advice...
And as for smashing the author for reporting the facts on an OFFICIALLY filed ATSB report, thats a little bit low now isnt it...
Turbz
From that article it just sounds as if the companies preferred maintenance organisations LAMEs have said that... hardly independant.
Who to believe, ATSBs own experienced investigators or your run of the mill LAME...
Chances are we may never "really" know exactly what happened, or why he decided to continue into Hotham in those weather conditions, but as PIC it was his responsibility for the safety of the A/C and pax and obviously made a VERY bad call against all good judgement and advice...
And as for smashing the author for reporting the facts on an OFFICIALLY filed ATSB report, thats a little bit low now isnt it...
Turbz
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned within these pages, the PIC, amongst other things had a reputation that preceeded him, tragically it caught up with him & the 2 others that happened to be seated on the same airframe. He intentionally broke the rules which where there for good reason. Many have died before this guy in similar circumstances & from their missfortunes the rule makers try to bring it to our attention and make it safer for those that try to follow in those hapful aviators footsteps. Whether the rules are adequate enough is another story for another time. I've flown into YHOT before in adverse conditions (in an A/C suitably equipped) and I was damn difficult by the book. Let's hope that once again we learn from others mistakes, but we are human & it will happen again unfortunetly. As aviators we must evaluate and simply do it better than the other guy:-)
Capt Wally :-)
Capt Wally :-)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of you guys obviously didn't catch the news articles after the aircraft wreckage was recovered and the subsequent investigation conducted by one of Australia's foremost engineering experts in addition to an engine expert builder / rebuilder. One of these guys writes most of your ops manuals and the other probably rebuilds most the piston engines in the aircraft that you fly. The engineer(s) were commissioned by the Chief Pilot of the operator for insurance purposes.
They actually visited the crash site when the snow melted and found one engine was not running at the time of impact and that the propellor was feathered. How the ATSB worked this out, I don't know. They didn't even see that one of the propellors was actually in practically perfect order?
There was a post on PPrune quite some time about this from one of our regular (helicopter) posters. It showed an in-tact propellor in several photos. He took these very early on but didn't post them as he wanted to see what the report said first.
Personally I'd like to know why the ATSB refused to modify their report to reflect this error. It seems that it was just easy to blame the crash on the pilot.
My original comments stand that the independent writer missed this issue and merely "copied" what the ATSB said in their report still stand. Bad journalism for such an experienced writer.
As for the chidren of the passengers suing the operator, just a formality to obtain insurance from the carriers liability act under which you all operate commercially.
They actually visited the crash site when the snow melted and found one engine was not running at the time of impact and that the propellor was feathered. How the ATSB worked this out, I don't know. They didn't even see that one of the propellors was actually in practically perfect order?
There was a post on PPrune quite some time about this from one of our regular (helicopter) posters. It showed an in-tact propellor in several photos. He took these very early on but didn't post them as he wanted to see what the report said first.
Personally I'd like to know why the ATSB refused to modify their report to reflect this error. It seems that it was just easy to blame the crash on the pilot.
My original comments stand that the independent writer missed this issue and merely "copied" what the ATSB said in their report still stand. Bad journalism for such an experienced writer.
As for the chidren of the passengers suing the operator, just a formality to obtain insurance from the carriers liability act under which you all operate commercially.
QNH,
So why did the engine fail, "IF" it did? Was it icing or was it something else? Why did the aircraft continue to descend towards rising terrain with an engine out (on a consistent track)? The pilot clearly broke many rules (MSA, Approach, Icing etc.) even if the engine did fail, it is still the pilot's responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight. That is, to plan for an engine failure, how did he expect to climb at 3.3 % if the engine had failed given that it was very unlikley to get visual?
So why did the engine fail, "IF" it did? Was it icing or was it something else? Why did the aircraft continue to descend towards rising terrain with an engine out (on a consistent track)? The pilot clearly broke many rules (MSA, Approach, Icing etc.) even if the engine did fail, it is still the pilot's responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight. That is, to plan for an engine failure, how did he expect to climb at 3.3 % if the engine had failed given that it was very unlikley to get visual?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wherever the work is!
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe its a conspiracy and the ATSB is trying to use this as Capt Wally mentioned, and are try to teach others to learn from his mistakes, ie his reputation for shortcutting established procedures and operating in weather conditions below the minima instead of diluting it with an engine failure and having ppl relate to the crash to that rather than the fact he should never have been in that situation in the first place!
Whatever the reason for the report remaining as originally finalized, you could imagine it would be a reasonably legitimate one, save them having to cover their butts later on, they must be confident of the findings.
Turbz
Whatever the reason for the report remaining as originally finalized, you could imagine it would be a reasonably legitimate one, save them having to cover their butts later on, they must be confident of the findings.
Turbz
Last edited by 777WakeTurbz; 17th Jun 2007 at 12:45. Reason: Misinterpreted Statement
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 777WakeTurb
Maybe the ATSB is trying to use this...
As I said, I am not up with the play on this crash, don't know the area, the personalities nor have any association with any investigative bodies. Not hard to see that this article is causing grief, as I would expect when the investigator gets it wrong. I know all about that too -been there in another circumstance a long time ago. What I am saying is this; if you believe your concerns to be valid then do something about it!!! Bleating off in here achieves nothing for you, the pilot in question, air safety in general, the families of the victims or the investigation!!! If you believe your contention to be correct and supportable by significant evidence, you have a moral obligation to see truth and justice done -for everyone involved.
Carrying on in here like a pack of pratts, launching bollox 'conspiracy theories' is beyond counter-productive.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KIWIBLUE
In an ideal world I would agree, but the first thing that comes to mind is a crash at Whyalla..............Just because the ATSB release a report does not mean t is (f)actual at all. This one was reopened.......go check it out.
I did see some pictures of the engine / prop on PPRuNE I think that showed that one engine may have been less that full power ad the prop was feathered. Now its not 100% proof, but neither is the opposite.
Either way in my personal opinion, flying there in a 100% healthy or 50% healthy plane that day, was nothing short of crazy! And this alleged alternative approach which seems to line up with the radar log is kind of damning evidence either way.
So oils aint oils they say!
SQ
In an ideal world I would agree, but the first thing that comes to mind is a crash at Whyalla..............Just because the ATSB release a report does not mean t is (f)actual at all. This one was reopened.......go check it out.
I did see some pictures of the engine / prop on PPRuNE I think that showed that one engine may have been less that full power ad the prop was feathered. Now its not 100% proof, but neither is the opposite.
Either way in my personal opinion, flying there in a 100% healthy or 50% healthy plane that day, was nothing short of crazy! And this alleged alternative approach which seems to line up with the radar log is kind of damning evidence either way.
So oils aint oils they say!
SQ
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engineer(s) were commissioned by the Chief Pilot of the operator for insurance purposes.
They actually visited the crash site when the snow melted and found one engine was not running at the time of impact and that the propellor was feathered. How the ATSB worked this out, I don't know. They didn't even see that one of the propellors was actually in practically perfect order?
QNH 1013.2: That quote from your last post sums up the problem with the engine failure theory. The Chief Pilot wants to shift the focus of the findings to mechanical failure and not on operational issues. The Chief Pilot was well aware of the procedures that the accident pilot was following and witnessed the pilot using those procedures on the earlier flight into Mt Hotham.
The statement about visiting the crash site after the snow melted is also flawed as the propellor in question was not in the as found postion by that time. I'm not sure whether you have read the final report as well as the supplemental report, which was issued after the intial allegations were raised about engine failure, but they were both very clear that the propellor blades had separated from the dome due to the impact forces. This means that the blades were not attached to the dome and could in fact be photographed in an apparent feathered position. The photo that was published on pprune was not convincing evidence of the engine having failed prior to impact. The final report also provides a lot of detail about other evidence that indicated that the engine was producing power at the time of impact.
The fact that the pilot who took the photo was an experienced helicopter pilot is irrelevant if he does not have any experience in accident investigation. As watching "CSI" does not qualify you to be a Detective neither does watching "Air Crash Investigation" qualify a person to be an air safety investigator.
At the end of the day it was an unfortunate accident that could have been avoided.
They actually visited the crash site when the snow melted and found one engine was not running at the time of impact and that the propellor was feathered. How the ATSB worked this out, I don't know. They didn't even see that one of the propellors was actually in practically perfect order?
QNH 1013.2: That quote from your last post sums up the problem with the engine failure theory. The Chief Pilot wants to shift the focus of the findings to mechanical failure and not on operational issues. The Chief Pilot was well aware of the procedures that the accident pilot was following and witnessed the pilot using those procedures on the earlier flight into Mt Hotham.
The statement about visiting the crash site after the snow melted is also flawed as the propellor in question was not in the as found postion by that time. I'm not sure whether you have read the final report as well as the supplemental report, which was issued after the intial allegations were raised about engine failure, but they were both very clear that the propellor blades had separated from the dome due to the impact forces. This means that the blades were not attached to the dome and could in fact be photographed in an apparent feathered position. The photo that was published on pprune was not convincing evidence of the engine having failed prior to impact. The final report also provides a lot of detail about other evidence that indicated that the engine was producing power at the time of impact.
The fact that the pilot who took the photo was an experienced helicopter pilot is irrelevant if he does not have any experience in accident investigation. As watching "CSI" does not qualify you to be a Detective neither does watching "Air Crash Investigation" qualify a person to be an air safety investigator.
At the end of the day it was an unfortunate accident that could have been avoided.